From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Wed Jun  1 00:16:33 2005
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 17:16:33 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Deepthroat confirmed
Message-ID: <003401c5663f$2db5a920$0200a8c0@Nano>

Washington Post Confirms Felt Was 'Deep Throat'
Woodward, Bernstein and Bradlee Reveal Former FBI Official as Secret Watergate Source
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/31/AR2005053100655.html

(and no, I don't want to hear any cracks about the subjectline!)  : )

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/20050531/8130c1d6/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Wed Jun  1 02:38:42 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 19:38:42 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Euphamism and reality.
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0505311620488822d1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200505312301.j4VN1DR30391@tick.javien.com>
	<8d71341e0505311620488822d1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A0F99BBD-CD37-47FA-ABB7-4C67DDA16745@mac.com>

It was not a reasonable usage when you include the context and  
recognize the usage prejudices the mind toward seeing abortion as  
murder.   Stand alone definitions are not sufficient to conclude  
whether a given usage was reasonable in its context.   And of course  
abortion itself wan]s not remotely the subject at hand so deeper sins  
against context were present.

Such "discussions" leave me tired.

- samantha

On May 31, 2005, at 4:20 PM, Russell Wallace wrote:

> On 6/1/05, John-C-Wright at sff.net <John-C-Wright at sff.net> wrote:
>
>> Please note that no one in this discussion misunderstood to which  
>> unborn human
>> entity my word referred. There was no misunderstanding: I violated  
>> a political
>> taboo common to a certain stance that I do not share. The pretense  
>> is that all
>> "intelligent" right-thinking men speak the same way using the same  
>> euphamisms on
>> the approved topics. My apologies if I offend, but I am not a  
>> conformist to
>> these particular doctrines, speech codes, habits, or taboos, and  
>> it would be
>> wrong for me to talk as if I were.
>>
>
> While I happen to be on the pro-choice side of the abortion issue,
> John has a point here. There's enough slack in the definitions of the
> words involved that neither usage can be struck out on technical
> grounds. John chooses words that reflect the way he sees things, just
> as his opponents in the debate choose words that reflect theirs. He
> does not demand other people modify their language to match his views;
> he is perfectly entitled to refuse to modify his to match theirs.
>
> - Russell
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From dirk at neopax.com  Wed Jun  1 03:20:25 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 04:20:25 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Euphamism and reality.
In-Reply-To: <A0F99BBD-CD37-47FA-ABB7-4C67DDA16745@mac.com>
References: <200505312301.j4VN1DR30391@tick.javien.com>	<8d71341e0505311620488822d1@mail.gmail.com>
	<A0F99BBD-CD37-47FA-ABB7-4C67DDA16745@mac.com>
Message-ID: <429D2979.8070502@neopax.com>

Samantha Atkins wrote:

> It was not a reasonable usage when you include the context and  
> recognize the usage prejudices the mind toward seeing abortion as  
> murder.   

Since when is calling abortion murder a 'prejudice'?
It seems like most people have made a judgement on the matter, not a 
pre-judgement.
Unless, of course, you would not correct me if I said you had a 
prejudice against mass shootings of people into ditches as part of a 
law'n'order campaign.
'Prejudice' assumes that the person against whom the charge is made has 
not examined the facts and that when they do they must inevitably come 
to the same conclusion as you on emotive issues.
It ain't so.

-- 
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: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.3.2 - Release Date: 31/05/2005



From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jun  1 04:09:01 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 21:09:01 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen assurance
In-Reply-To: <20050531185250.42631.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200506010409.j5149AR08250@tick.javien.com>


I believe in cryonics.  But I need some kind of 
guarantee, just some well-meaning assurance.  That 
some joker won't take my severed frozen head and 
put it face down in Ted Williams' lap.

spike





From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Wed Jun  1 04:12:33 2005
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 05:12:33 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen assurance
In-Reply-To: <200506010409.j5149AR08250@tick.javien.com>
References: <20050531185250.42631.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<200506010409.j5149AR08250@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e050531211255a3435@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/1/05, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> I believe in cryonics.  But I need some kind of
> guarantee, just some well-meaning assurance.  That
> some joker won't take my severed frozen head and
> put it face down in Ted Williams' lap.

Why do you need a guarantee? You surely know that no such thing can be
had; but given the certainty of death without cryonics, why do you
need a guarantee versus trying your chances with it?

- Russell


From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jun  1 04:21:03 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 21:21:03 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen assurance
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e050531211255a3435@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200506010421.j514L6R09860@tick.javien.com>

> 
> On 6/1/05, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > I believe in cryonics.  But I need some kind of
> > guarantee, just some well-meaning assurance.  That
> > some joker won't take my severed frozen head and
> > put it face down in Ted Williams' lap.
> 
> Why do you need a guarantee? You surely know that no such thing can be
> had; but given the certainty of death without cryonics, why do you
> need a guarantee versus trying your chances with it?
> 
> - Russell

In other words, lighten up friends.  Remember when we used to
toss around light hearted gags on extropy chat, mixed with
the more serious stuff.  Check the archives.  It's summer! 
Take Cyndi Lauper's Girls Just Wanna Have Fun and do a 
replace-all of Girls with Extropians.  {8-]

spike






From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jun  1 04:24:43 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 21:24:43 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] numb3rs
In-Reply-To: <200506010421.j514L6R09860@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <200506010424.j514OjR10303@tick.javien.com>



Someone from work that knows I am a math geek told me
about a TV program called Numb3rs.  Its about a fellow
math geek that solves crimes using math.  Kewalllll!

Anyone here seen that?  How is it?  

spike





From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Wed Jun  1 04:48:41 2005
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 21:48:41 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen assurance
References: <200506010421.j514L6R09860@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <00c501c56665$32c1aa10$0200a8c0@Nano>

Good thing you said that Spike, I was about ready to write a novel length response for you. : )


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
My New Project: Microscope Jewelry
http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm
Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com
"Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future."

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: spike 
  To: 'Russell Wallace' ; 'ExI chat list' 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 9:21 PM
  Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] frozen assurance


  > 
  > On 6/1/05, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
  > >
  > > I believe in cryonics.  But I need some kind of
  > > guarantee, just some well-meaning assurance.  That
  > > some joker won't take my severed frozen head and
  > > put it face down in Ted Williams' lap.
  > 
  > Why do you need a guarantee? You surely know that no such thing can be
  > had; but given the certainty of death without cryonics, why do you
  > need a guarantee versus trying your chances with it?
  > 
  > - Russell

  In other words, lighten up friends.  Remember when we used to
  toss around light hearted gags on extropy chat, mixed with
  the more serious stuff.  Check the archives.  It's summer! 
  Take Cyndi Lauper's Girls Just Wanna Have Fun and do a 
  replace-all of Girls with Extropians.  {8-]

  spike




  _______________________________________________
  extropy-chat mailing list
  extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
  http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050531/d832f5f3/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jun  1 05:02:13 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 22:02:13 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen assurance
In-Reply-To: <00c501c56665$32c1aa10$0200a8c0@Nano>
Message-ID: <200506010502.j5152HR14721@tick.javien.com>

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Gina Miller
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 9:49 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] frozen assurance

 

Good thing you said that Spike, I was about ready to write a novel length
response for you. : )

 

 

 

 

I don't mind a novel length response Gina, especially from one who

looks more Cyndi Lauper-like than any other extropian.  {8-](That's a
complement:

I am a big fan of both Lauper and Nanogirl.)  

 

spike

 

 

 



In other words, lighten up friends... 
Take Cyndi Lauper's Girls Just Wanna Have Fun and do a 
replace-all of Girls with Extropians.  {8-]

spike



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050531/0e28e8db/attachment.html>

From brian at posthuman.com  Wed Jun  1 05:06:52 2005
From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins)
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 00:06:52 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] numb3rs
In-Reply-To: <200506010424.j514OjR10303@tick.javien.com>
References: <200506010424.j514OjR10303@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <429D426C.9090303@posthuman.com>

We watched the whole run of eps (you missed it by now, bittorrent is 
your friend). It's passable...
-- 
Brian Atkins
Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
http://www.singinst.org/


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  1 06:23:36 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 23:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen assurance
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050601062336.85883.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com>


--- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> I believe in cryonics.  But I need some kind of 
> guarantee, just some well-meaning assurance.  That 
> some joker won't take my severed frozen head and 
> put it face down in Ted Williams' lap.
> 

     Spike. If I took this post from you seriously
(which I don't) I would say this: Knowing what I know
of Alcor's procedures I would say that assuming that
Ted Williams picked the option where he got to keep
his lap, he would be upside down, therefore your head,
if it somehow got into his tank, would be on the floor
next to his own head (less distrubing visually). 

      Unless of course the good folks at Alcor took
the time and effort to velcro your head into Mr.
Williams lap. In which case, you have somehow made
such egregious foes at Alcor then I would recommend
that you hold off and wait for the new kids (the guys
that get mice to go into suspended animation using
room temperature H2S) to come out with a start up and
sign on with 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 bchjg at nus.edu.sg  Wed Jun  1 06:44:50 2005
From: bchjg at nus.edu.sg (Jan Gruber)
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 14:44:50 +0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] self replicating machine ....
Message-ID: <05C5081466660B4A94F371F5D48B59E777D55D@MBOX02.stf.nus.edu.sg>

 
Engineers create robot that can "build almost anything" ( should rather be: Engineers speculate about robot ....):
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/default.stm#
 
I thought this bit of BBC tech news might be of interest - not sure how the electronic components are supposed to be replicated though. I seem to remember that this was discussed here some time ago - anybody know what is the state of the art with this ?
 
All the best,
 
Jan Gruber
 
 
 

	 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 4030 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050601/4fca85b2/attachment.bin>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Jun  1 16:19:11 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 11:19:11 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] [fwd] Another path to stem cells?
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050601111821.01d1a4b8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

Robert J. Bradbury posts on another list:

New Scientist is reporting [1] that work from Yuri Verlinsky
in Chicago may have an alternate method for producing ESC
(aka "stembrids") using existing stem cell lines that have
been enucleated followed by the implantation of donor nuclei.
The idea being that the biochemical environment of the prior
stem cells reprograms the gene expression of the nuclei so
the stembrid becomes totipotent.

If this turns out to be real then it means the whole ball of
wax may be up for grabs.  I.e. once we lay our hands on the molecules
that determine the state of the nucleus then it could be possible
to revert the DNA of any nucleus to a stem cell state.  (The
eggs or stem cell lines will probably become non-essential
components of the process.)

It is worth noting two things.  First, that there is some controversy
surrounding the Verlinsky claims and that more work needs to be done to
put the frosting on the cake.  Second is that if it becomes possible
to revert many cells to a stem cell "state" then it will become
more important than ever to determine the condition of the genome
(in terms of accumulated mutations) within those cells.  They have
not had to pass through the development "strainer" for robust
genomes and therefore one does not know what latent mutations
they may have which would impact the development of specific
tissue types.

Robert

1. Double triumph in stem cell quest, New Scientist (25 May 2005)
    Michael Le Page, Rowan Hooper
    http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18625014.100&print=true




From sjatkins at mac.com  Wed Jun  1 17:15:27 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 10:15:27 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Euphamism and reality.
In-Reply-To: <429D2979.8070502@neopax.com>
References: <200505312301.j4VN1DR30391@tick.javien.com>
	<8d71341e0505311620488822d1@mail.gmail.com>
	<A0F99BBD-CD37-47FA-ABB7-4C67DDA16745@mac.com>
	<429D2979.8070502@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <8257C7CA-2ACB-486D-9ED9-1DFAD3814777@mac.com>

Read it again.  You missed the point and I have no patience today for  
nitpicking nonsense.  Being up too late with a dying friend tends to  
change your perspective of what is worth your energy.

On May 31, 2005, at 8:20 PM, Dirk Bruere wrote:

> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>
>> It was not a reasonable usage when you include the context and   
>> recognize the usage prejudices the mind toward seeing abortion as   
>> murder.
>>
>
> Since when is calling abortion murder a 'prejudice'?
> It seems like most people have made a judgement on the matter, not  
> a pre-judgement.
> Unless, of course, you would not correct me if I said you had a  
> prejudice against mass shootings of people into ditches as part of  
> a law'n'order campaign.
> 'Prejudice' assumes that the person against whom the charge is made  
> has not examined the facts and that when they do they must  
> inevitably come to the same conclusion as you on emotive issues.
> It ain't so.
>
> -- 
> 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: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.3.2 - Release Date: 31/05/2005
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  1 18:29:42 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 11:29:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen assurance
In-Reply-To: <200506010502.j5152HR14721@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050601182942.50818.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Gina
> Miller
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 9:49 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] frozen assurance
> 
>  
> 
> Good thing you said that Spike, I was about ready to write a novel
> length response for you. : )
> > 
> I don't mind a novel length response Gina, especially from one who
> looks more Cyndi Lauper-like than any other extropian.  {8-](That's a
> complement:
> I am a big fan of both Lauper and Nanogirl.) 

Does spike want his frozen head left in Nanogirls lap???

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 davidmc at gmail.com  Wed Jun  1 18:30:46 2005
From: davidmc at gmail.com (David McFadzean)
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 12:30:46 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] "BEST OF LIST": Editors Needed for ExI
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050528110301.02d55638@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050528110301.02d55638@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <c934387b05060111302c4df515@mail.gmail.com>

On 5/28/05, Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:

>  Thanks to ExI's Board member David McFadzean who will be the key person
> behind this sorely needed and highly worthwhile compilation of posts
> outlining the history of ideas that formed transhumanism.  Greg Burch, ExI's
> VP, will be performing the final editing, but we are looking for someone to
> work with us in the initial stages.

If anyone has extropians mailing list archives dating before July
1996, please contact me.

Thx!
David


From Johnius at Genius.UCSD.edu  Wed Jun  1 20:30:44 2005
From: Johnius at Genius.UCSD.edu (Johnius)
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 13:30:44 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Vernor Vinge sighting
Message-ID: <429E1AF4.47B7A0F9@Genius.UCSD.edu>

Hi all,

  Vernor Vinge gave a 1 hour lecture last weekend at the
San Diego Mensa Regional Gathering.  The talk was a fairly
standard one based on Moore's Law, covering various future
scenarios:

1. Technology increases to the point of self-destruction,
  whereupon we return to the stone age (assuming we survive),
  either to stay there or to repeat the cycle.

2. Technology reaches a natural (or legally imposed) hardware
  limit, so future advancements can only be made in software
  (giving us the opportunity to perform software archeology,
  and to redesign code to finally get it right, etc.)

3. Technology increases without limit, with the watershed 
  event of AI devices becoming more intelligent than us ...
  in which case we can only guess at what they'll do.

  These topics have all been covered before, here and elsewhere,
in great depth, while his talk was geared for intelligent 
laypeople, so the above summary will suffice.

  During the Questions/Answers portion, I had to ask him about
a scenario he left out:

4. Humans use the superior technology to enhance themselves, 
  thus joining the Cybernetic Revolution themselves.

  Vinge surprised me with what seemed to be a rather pessimistic
answer.  He said I was talking about IA (intelligence amplification),
rather than AI, and that different people would be enhanced in 
different ways, making us unequal, with devastating consequences
in a competitive environment ... we wouldn't be able to trust anyone
but ourselves (I suppose "every man for himself").  Unless I 
misunderstood him, I think this is what he was projecting. 

  Needless to say, I felt rather unsatisfied with his answer.
He seemed casually to dismiss the entire idea of transhumanism,
and to desire relative human egalitarianism.  
  One audience member commented that perhaps the superior AIs
would take us on as pets to be well-cared for.  It seemed to me
that Vinge liked or at least was amused by the idea...

FWIW, John McP


From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Wed Jun  1 20:38:05 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 16:38:05 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: A Framework for Humane
	Globalism/Capitalism/Politics
Message-ID: <160750-2200563120385750@M2W126.mail2web.com>

I am responding to Max's listed reading suggestions I have had time to look
over.  What a collection of ideas from the perspectives of economists,
entrepreneurs, and also on governing, reporting and social responsibility.
A few quick thoughts below: 

1.  New Kind of Entitlement 

** ?De Soto notes that around 90 percent of the population of developing
countries operates outside the formal economy.?

**This is really good.  A few months ago I posted a query regarding
democracy + capitalism (not the bad capitalism folks love to hate, but the
meaning of finance, investment and profit), by which I was looking for
ideas about global commerce and trade and if much of the material I had
been ready by futurists was actually on target or merely a futurist?s
pipedream for bringing poor countries, the developing countries, into the
global arena in order to bring better circumstances to their citizens.  De
Soto would be very worthwhile reading in this regard.
 
2.  The World Bank?s Innovation Market   

**Interesting project - Innovation Marketplace to combat global poverty. 
The 2000 Marketplace judges distributed $5 million across 43 grants,
ranging from $29,000 to $380,000.  
 
3.  Value Shift: Why Companies Must Merge Social and Financial Imperatives
to Achieve 

**I wonder how many corporate executives and their mangers have bought this
book and are following its principles.  It is true, as the book suggests
that corporations have become anthropomorphized ? they have to respond to
characteristics of ethics, just as a person should.  If the truth be told,
businesses do want to please as long as it does not take too much of a bite
out of their pocketbooks.  People are the same as well, by and large. 
Altruism comes in many shapes and sizes.
 
 
4.  Fields of Online Dreams   

**Fabulous!  I like the implications of this type of real-life event.  
 
 
5.  The Great Leap: Driving Innovation From the Base of the Pyramid   

** Economists/businesspeople have a talent.  It would be a strange turn of
events if their talents could be applied to ?transform the poorer economies
while enabling companies from developed countries to continue generating
shareholder value.?
 
 
6.  How To Change the World: Lessons for Entrepreneurs from Activists   

**Scenario planning, whether it be in backcasting, incasting, wheels, or
any other method we strategist use, helps people understand what the
consequences of actions could potentially be, based on future scenarios. 
For transhumanism, this is the method that I use because it offers best
possible futures based on variables that offer different perspectives and
which parameters can be changed showing what could happen ?if?.
 
 
7.  How To Change The World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas

** ?This is a wonderfully hopeful and enlightening book. The stories of
these social entrepreneurs will inspire and encourage many people who seek
to build a better world.? -Nelson Mandela
 
8.	Social Capitalists: The top 20 groups that are changing the world

**These organizations are focused on performing a specific task for
humanity.  Very impressive.  As an aside thought - Extropy Institute has
been focused on introducing transhumanism to the world, which has been a
big project.  While transhumanist have been reshaping reality to make the
world a better place, it seems small as far as human needs when considering
the milestones of these organizations that accomplish so much.  
 

In Defense of Globalization

**Much of the preconditioned landscape that Bhagwati faced with giving
globalization a ?face? has been the negativity of the word the past two
decades, and more just the past 5 years.  Globalization had once been a
positive, inspiring world.  


The New Pluralism

** Another great suggestion.  ?Much of recent political theory has been
aimed at how to acknowledge and recognize, rather than deny, the diversity
inherent in contemporary life.?  I do think politics is best when applied
to a specific issue and approached from varied points of views to determine
best possible future.

Thanks!

Natasha




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




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Jun  1 20:42:25 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 15:42:25 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] the terrifying superscience of the year 2,000!
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050601154205.01d92be8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

http://www.ufopop.org/fullimage.php?cid=1950/Superman128.jpg




From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  1 21:16:18 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 14:16:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] the terrifying superscience of the year 2,000!
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050601154205.01d92be8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050601211618.7086.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>



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

>
http://www.ufopop.org/fullimage.php?cid=1950/Superman128.jpg


Hey. How did those guys get a hold of a slinky gun?
That's classified top secret by the U.S. government.
;)


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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  1 22:16:27 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 15:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] [MATH+BIO] Spanish scientists use math to kill
	cancer cells
Message-ID: <20050601221627.89224.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com>

      Apparently the Spanish have used math to model
cancer cell growth and neutrophile responses. They
used their predictions to direct immunotherapy using
GM-CSF a growth factor for a type of white blood cell
called a neutrophile. While this is hardly the "magic
bullet", it did cure a person with terminal liver
cancer (hepatocarcinoma).  




layperson's description
http://www.euroresidentes.com/Blogs/2005/05/spanish-scientists-use-maths-to-cure.htm

Technical papers
http://www.biophysj.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/5/2948

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PRLTAO000092000023238101000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

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 mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  2 01:18:17 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 18:18:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] the terrifying superscience of the year 2,000!
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050601154205.01d92be8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050602011817.74249.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Ah, I understand now: he is the man of steel. The helical yellow band
is clearly, therefore, a material stronger than steel, either kevlar,
or perhaps buckyfiber, which is deployed by a motorized vortex
generator to wrap around the man of steel and bind him like a lariat,
helpless.... mwahahahahaha..... now where is my DAMN aircar, the script
quite clearly calls for an aircar in the year 2000, I'm calling my
agent, dammit!!!

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

> http://www.ufopop.org/fullimage.php?cid=1950/Superman128.jpg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Jun  2 04:51:41 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 21:51:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] LUDDISM: Help keep 'neo-luddism' wikipage up
In-Reply-To: <20050602011817.74249.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050602045141.39053.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-luddism

I've been doing a lot of work trying to get the wikipedia page on
neo-luddism set up amidst lots of left-wing sabotage and vandalism.
Please check it out and keep an eye on the history of the page, help
maintain the documented info there, and contribute other info you may
be aware of. Thanks.... my edits are under the user name "mlorrey".

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! 
Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html 



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  2 07:37:46 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 00:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] [fwd] Another path to stem cells?
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050601111821.01d1a4b8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050602073746.19648.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> Robert J. Bradbury posts on another list:
> If this turns out to be real then it means the whole
> ball of
> wax may be up for grabs.  I.e. once we lay our hands
> on the molecules
> that determine the state of the nucleus then it
> could be possible
> to revert the DNA of any nucleus to a stem cell
> state.  (The
> eggs or stem cell lines will probably become
> non-essential
> components of the process.)

This approach will run into a problem. From molecular
studies of mouse development, we know that part of the
genetic program of cell differentiation as the mouse
embryo develops involves methylation of various genes
to silence them as the cell starts to specialize into
a particular tissue. In other words, the cells
"permanently" shut off a large number of genes after
they have done their job in development. 

The whole point of using an oocyte in the cloning
process is that the egg contains enzymes that
demethylate all of the genes during the zygote stage,
effectively "rebooting" the genetic program and making
all genes available for transcription once again. The
egg cell is like the reset button of the genetic
operating system. If you try to do a nuclear transfer
into an ES cell, the DNA would not be able to fully
reset and this theoretically would limit these cells
to some form of pluripotency instead of totipotency.

This was a quick and dirty explanation. See the
following link for a more thorough review:

http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/content/abstract/113/1/11



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 natasha at natasha.cc  Thu Jun  2 13:05:32 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 08:05:32 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] LUDDISM: Help keep 'neo-luddism' wikipage up
In-Reply-To: <20050602045141.39053.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050602011817.74249.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<20050602045141.39053.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050602080524.026c6628@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

Thanks Mike - will do.

Natasha

At 11:51 PM 6/1/2005, you wrote:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-luddism
>
>I've been doing a lot of work trying to get the wikipedia page on
>neo-luddism set up amidst lots of left-wing sabotage and vandalism.
>Please check it out and keep an eye on the history of the page, help
>maintain the documented info there, and contribute other info you may
>be aware of. Thanks.... my edits are under the user name "mlorrey".
>
>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!
>Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out!
>http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
[_______________________________________________
President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org
[_____________________________________________________
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz

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/20050602/fe7d3506/attachment.html>

From pgptag at gmail.com  Thu Jun  2 14:59:35 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 16:59:35 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Spanish scientists cure terminal liver cancer
Message-ID: <470a3c5205060207597737ddd6@mail.gmail.com>

Spain Herald <http://www.spainherald.com/2005-05-31news.html>: Spanish 
researchers led by professor Antonio Bru, of the applied mathematics 
department at the Complutense university in Madrid, succeeded in curing a 
patient in the terminal phase of liver cancer through strengthening the 
patient's immune system. Bru stated that this form of therapy "opens very 
hopeful horizons" against all kinds of solid tumors within a short time, as 
according to his theory they all have a common pattern. The therapy, 
published today in the Journal of Clinical Research, is the result of twelve 
years of research. A mathematical solution to liver cancer was considered, 
equations were analyzed, and experiments on animals were performed. In 1998 
a new theory was proposed, according to which solid tumors develop according 
to a mathematical equation, said the Complutense. Therapy was applied to a 
terminal patient, given two months to live, with liver cancer, hepatitis C, 
and cirrhosis. The treatment consisted of bone marrow stimulation and the 
generation of large amounts of neutrophiles, a kind of leucocyte that 
impedes tumor development. According to the Complutense, the liver cancer 
remitted and the patient was able to return to work as a high school teacher 
within months, suffering only mild side effects. Besides Bru, Sonia Albertos 
of the San Carlos clinical hospital and Fernando Garcia-Hoz of the Ramon y 
Cajal hospital in Madrid participated in the research. The treatment took 
place at the Clinica de Valle in Madrid.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050602/5e73c8a6/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Jun  2 16:17:21 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 11:17:21 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] [fwd] Another path to stem cells?
In-Reply-To: <20050602073746.19648.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050601111821.01d1a4b8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050602073746.19648.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050602111533.01ed2c70@pop-server.satx.rr.com>


>[Robert J. Bradbury responds:]

 > This was a quick and dirty explanation. See the
 > following link for a more thorough review:
 >
 > http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/content/abstract/113/1/11

This is a rather old article (2000).

More up to date is:
DNA demethylation is necessary for the epigenetic reprogramming of
somatic cell nuclei.  Simonsson S, Gurdon J.
Nat Cell Biol 2004 Oct;6(10):984-90
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15448701

[Damien:]
I'd assumed that the stembrid method would do the
demethylation, among other necessary things.

[Robert:]
Yes, obviously a "reset" has to occur.  The question is how
that may be accomplished?  Obviously if the oocytes or eggs
have the proper demethylase(s) turned on then it should not
be too difficiult to either turn them on in non-eggs/oocytes
or if that proves difficult to add them (heck if one can
inject a nucleus then injecting a bunch of purified proteins
in addition can't be *that* difficult).   And it isn't as if
we don't have the whole human genome and don't know *what*
the demethylase enzymes/complexes *are* (start with MBD1/2/3/4).
They also appear to be involved in histone deacetylation
[though I do not claim to be an expert in this area].

I would imagine that a "clever" way to work around the whole
"an embryo is life" problem is to use the reset proteins from
other species.  I would expect these have to be highly conserved
during evolution.  Mess with this function and you probably
break eukaryotic reproduction.

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

Damien Broderick 




From bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com  Thu Jun  2 17:14:41 2005
From: bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com (Bryan Moss)
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 18:14:41 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] LUDDISM: Help keep 'neo-luddism' wikipage up
In-Reply-To: <20050602045141.39053.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050602045141.39053.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <429F3E81.5070603@dsl.pipex.com>

Do we have our own wiki?  I've been thinking lately it would be nice to 
have a database of our opponents so that, if you're replying to an 
article or engaging in a debate, you can just type in the names of the 
people and organisations involved and get all the information you need.  
If it was kept private (or parts of it were, at least) we could even 
scan/OCR relevant books and articles.

BM


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  2 17:23:43 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 10:23:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] LUDDISM: Help keep 'neo-luddism' wikipage up
In-Reply-To: <429F3E81.5070603@dsl.pipex.com>
Message-ID: <20050602172343.37829.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

The closest I think is Neal Stephenson's Metaweb.com, but that is
focused mostly on his fiction, though I've taken advantage of the
opportunity to write articles on transhumanist, ancap, and libertarian
ideas that he includes in his books. There is currently an effort
underway to really annotate The Diamond Age well. I've been working on
Snow Crash and Cryptonomicon as well as his Baroque Cycle books.

--- Bryan Moss <bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com> wrote:

> Do we have our own wiki?  I've been thinking lately it would be nice
> to 
> have a database of our opponents so that, if you're replying to an 
> article or engaging in a debate, you can just type in the names of
> the 
> people and organisations involved and get all the information you
> need.  
> If it was kept private (or parts of it were, at least) we could even 
> scan/OCR relevant books and articles.
> 
> BM
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Jun  2 17:26:25 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 10:26:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] LUDDISM: Neat article on N.A. reforestation...
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050602080524.026c6628@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050602172625.87311.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

There is a neat article here by our friend Peter Huber on how north
american reforestation has occured, why, and how the greens try to hide
the fact:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_latimes-how_nongreen_cities.htm

How Non-Green Cities Are Rebuilding the American Forests 
Wednesday, December 29, 1999

Anti-sprawl activists hide the resurgence of the continent's woodlands.


By PETER HUBER, MARK MILLS

For the United States as a whole, wealth and city overtook poverty and
country some time around 1920. Until then, the effects of immigration,
increasing life span and rising demand for food outweighed the effects
of rising agricultural productivity and declining fertility. As a
result, forests contracted. 

Around 1920, however, the balance shifted, and forests began to expand
once again.The upshot has been a truly remarkable, if little noted,
environmental reversal: the steadyreforestation of the North American
continent. 

When Europeans first arrived--after millenniums of deforestation by
fire, promoted by

American Indians--the area now represented by the lower 48 United
States had about 950 million acres of forest. That area shrank steadily
until about 1920, to a low of 600 million acres. It has been rising
ever since. Just how fast is hard to pin down; the continent is large,
most of the land is privately owned and definitional debates rage. Yet
all analyses show more, not less, forest land in the U.S. And all agree
that about 80 million more acres of cropland were harvested 60 years
ago than are harvested today. Most of this land is on its way to being
reforested too. At least 10 million acres have been reforested since
1987 alone. Thus, for the first time in history, a Western nation has
halted and is now rapidly reversing the decline of its woodlands.

Why do so many of us believe just the opposite? We've been spun.

Green activists and their political friends publicize only half of the
environmental ledger and play a shell game with definitions. They're
engaged in a great, green fraud. The anti-sprawl activists often count
as developed land about 90 million acres of farmsteads, field
windbreaks, barren land and marshland. This rural land has nothing to
do with any reasonable definition of urban sprawl or even of
development. Yet the activists need these 90 million acres because, if
they admitted that cities and their suburbs covered only a tiny 3% of
the continental U.S., who could take their fear of sprawl seriously?
That extra 90 million acres makes it seem as if the sprawling cities
cover 150 million acres, more than double the real number. This begins
to sound like quite a lot, though it is still only 8% of the 48
contiguous states.

"The city" itself is all the more kind to the environment because it
has so completely rejected the policies that the green establishment
holds dearest. It shuns renewables. The city isn't animal or vegetable;
it's mineral. Start with construction. The city certainly favors
nonrenewable resources here, and about that, at least, the green
establishment remains silent, as it should. The U.S. now harvests about
240 million tons of wood each year, almost all of it for construction.
The city, however, prefers to build with the three-dimensional
resources, steel and concrete. Those materials can hold up a
skyscraper; renewable wood can't.

The way we build things now, a comparatively tiny area of land
yields--from far beneath its surface--all the mineral resources that it
takes to build a city. You can't get any greener than that. The energy
picture looks much the same. There's no way the city could ever adopt
the green establishment's "renewable" path to energy. Live on a
good-size spread in the country and harvest it aggressively, and you
can plausibly imagine living off the renewable sources of energy the
greens so strongly favor. Live in the city, and you can't, not on your
own acres. You have no acres. Nevertheless, you have tremendous energy
efficiency when your energy comes from an oil well and refinery and
gets delivered by tanker. The supplies are highly concentrated to begin
with, and it takes relatively little energy to deliver them to a highly
concentrated point of use, like a city.

Cities have become environment-friendly by rejecting the greens' food
policies too--the policies that emphasize organic farming, free of
bioengineered seeds, man-made fertilizers and pesticides. When food is
grown or raised in the agricultural counterpart to the oil well--the
mammoth factory farm, outfitted with every high-tech innovation--it
takes relatively little land to produce it in the first place, and it
takes little additional energy to deliver it to the tightly packed
city. The city is green not only because its residents occupy little
land, but because its non-green sources of building materials, fuel and
food--and their delivery systems--can be frugal with land too.

By building the city up out of nonrenewable resources, by heating and
lighting it with nonrenewable fuels and by feeding it with non-organic
foods preserved with chemicals or plastic packaging, the city returns
acre upon acre of land in the country to wilderness, the greenest
accomplishment of all. Nature has enormous power to cleanse and
restore; freeing up 95 million acres to be reclaimed by watershed and
forest has surely done more to clean water and protect birds than the
curtailing of pesticides ever achieved.

- - - Peter Huber Is the Author of "Hard Green" From Basic Books and a
Fellow of the Manhattan Institute. Mark Mills Is a Senior Fellow of the
Competitive Enterprise Institute. This Piece Is Adapted From an Article
in City Journal Magazine

?1999 The Los Angeles Times



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! 
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html


From davidmc at gmail.com  Thu Jun  2 17:34:21 2005
From: davidmc at gmail.com (David McFadzean)
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 11:34:21 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] LUDDISM: Help keep 'neo-luddism' wikipage up
In-Reply-To: <429F3E81.5070603@dsl.pipex.com>
References: <20050602045141.39053.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<429F3E81.5070603@dsl.pipex.com>
Message-ID: <c934387b05060210345afec333@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/2/05, Bryan Moss <bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> Do we have our own wiki?  

No, but I will discuss the idea with the other directors.

David


From pharos at gmail.com  Thu Jun  2 18:12:22 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 19:12:22 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] LUDDISM: Neat article on N.A. reforestation...
In-Reply-To: <20050602172625.87311.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050602080524.026c6628@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<20050602172625.87311.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0506021112133b9ba@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/2/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> There is a neat article here by our friend Peter Huber on how north
> american reforestation has occured, why, and how the greens try to hide
> the fact:
> http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_latimes-how_nongreen_cities.htm
> 

The big concern of 'the greens' nowadays is tropical rain forest deforestation.

See: Global Deforestation
<http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/deforest/deforest.html>

Quote:
"Historical trends:

Until quite recently, most of the deforestation occurred in Europe,
North Africa, and the Middle East. By the beginning of this century,
these regions had been mostly converted from the original cover. Now,
deforestation in these regions has stabilized and regrowth is
occurring (though second growth forests have quite different
character, see below). In the last few decades, the vast majority of
deforestation has occurred in the tropics - and the pace still
accelerates. The removal of tropical forests in Latin America is
proceeding at a pace of about 2% per year. In Africa, the pace is
about 0.8% per year and in Asia it is 2% per year.

The USA has already experienced its wave of deforestation, with the
exception of small areas in the west and Alaska.  Our old growth
forests were mostly harvested by 1920, particularly in the East. 
Pacific Northwest forests and UP Michigan forests were heavily cut
after 1920 until quite recently, and harvest of old growth continues
today in Southeast Alaska.  Interestingly, deforestation rates at
their peak in the Midwest were ~2% annually, about the rates now seen
in Amazonia.  At that rate, how much of existing forest will remain in
70 years?  Just one-fourth.  However, much forest re-growth has
occurred in the eastern USA during the 20th Century, although these
second-growth forests differ in structure and composition from their
predecessors."

BillK


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  2 18:36:55 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 11:36:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] LUDDISM: Neat article on N.A. reforestation...
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0506021112133b9ba@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050602183655.98121.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> On 6/2/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > There is a neat article here by our friend Peter Huber on how north
> > american reforestation has occured, why, and how the greens try to
> hide
> > the fact:
> >
>
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_latimes-how_nongreen_cities.htm
> > 
> 
> The big concern of 'the greens' nowadays is tropical rain forest
> deforestation.
> "In the last few decades, the vast majority of
> deforestation has occurred in the tropics - and the pace still
> accelerates. The removal of tropical forests in Latin America is
> proceeding at a pace of about 2% per year. In Africa, the pace is
> about 0.8% per year and in Asia it is 2% per year.
> snip...
>  Interestingly, deforestation rates at
> their peak in the Midwest were ~2% annually, about the rates now seen
> in Amazonia.  At that rate, how much of existing forest will remain
> in
> 70 years?  Just one-fourth.  However, much forest re-growth has
> occurred in the eastern USA during the 20th Century, although these
> second-growth forests differ in structure and composition from their
> predecessors."

The problem with this "structure and composition" nonsense is what it
leaves out: that eastern forests now boast more wildlife, more
diversity of species, than the previous near-monocultures that existed
in so many areas, particularly the great pine barrens, before the
agricultural trends here cleared so much out. There are now more deer
and moose in the wild in NH than there were before the advent of
europeans here, as one example. Walking in my backyard I can see 6-12
species of wild grown trees, any number of plants, plus frogs and
salamanders in the shallow forest pools. A large moose walked past my
driveway a few days before I got home from Florida. Bear are occasional
pedestrians in the neighborhood, along with a few species of fox,
squirrels, grouse, turkeys, owls, mice, porcupines, otters, pine
martens and fisher cats getting in the mix. Coyotes are a road problem
and wolves are reported occasionally.

Torpical forest regrows much quicker than temperate forests (look at
any pacific island that was once a US military base), generally twice
as quick. This means you need twice the rate of deforestation to reach
the same amount of cumulative deforestation. So, sorry, the numbers
just aren't there.

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 John-C-Wright at sff.net  Thu Jun  2 19:35:18 2005
From: John-C-Wright at sff.net (John-C-Wright at sff.net)
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 14:35:18 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Euphamism and misspellings.
Message-ID: <200506021935.j52JZKR20191@tick.javien.com>

Mr. Broderick writes: "It's petty of me, I suppose, but I think if you're going
to (sic) someone for a typo you might try getting your own subject line and
in-text spelling of "euphemism" right.

It is not petty at all, my good sir: a man who makes as many mistakes as I do
welcomes any and all corrections. (I was (sic)ing Mr. Paatsch because I thought
he meant I was being was provocative, not pejorative.)

JCW 






From jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Thu Jun  2 22:57:53 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 18:57:53 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Life Extension on "Prime Time Live" tonight
Message-ID: <429F8EF1.40908@humanenhancement.com>

 From http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/

 > On Thursday, June 2 at 10 p.m. ET:
 >
 > Getting the edge: "Primetime Live" explores surprising "shortcuts" 
that some are
 > taking in the eternal quest for health, success and pleasure.

And from the folks who bring you the drug Protandim (they're saying 
"Featured on Primetime Live" on their website):

 > The revolutionary anti-aging product, Protandim, will be featured
 > tonight on ABC News? PrimeTime Live.
 >
 > 10 PM (East Coast and West Coast)
 > 9 PM (Central and Mountain)
 >
 > Tune in to learn more about how to defend yourself against aging.

I've never heard of Protandim myself, but the show seems like it's going 
to be covering a broader variety of anti-aging techniques, albeit 
somewhat sceptically.

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 5/29/05)


From jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Thu Jun  2 23:08:35 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 19:08:35 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] New Email List: TransTelevision
Message-ID: <429F9173.40006@humanenhancement.com>

The sharper observers among you will have noticed that I cc'd my 
heads-up about tonight's Prime Time Live segment on life extension to a 
new email list, called TransTelevision at yahoogroups.com.

It's something I've set up to allow us to share those kinds of 
announcements, letting each other know when television shows of 
potential interest to the >H community are coming up. From the 
description on Yahoogroups:

"A place to receive timely alerts regarding television programs that are 
or could be of interest to the Transhumanist community. This will 
include mostly science-oriented programming related to biotechnology, 
artificial intelligence, space exploration, etc. but could also include 
certain science fiction programming and other fare as well."

It's moderated to avoid spam, and I'll be looking to appoint some other 
moderators if it seems to be popular.

You can sign up here if you have a (free) Yahoogroups account:

http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/TransTelevision/

or send an email to:

TransTelevision-subscribe at yahoogroups.com

Enjoy!

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 5/29/05)



From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Thu Jun  2 23:57:53 2005
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 18:57:53 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] The future of pizza delivery?
Message-ID: <000901c567ce$e4b617f0$0100a8c0@kevin>


Have any of you seen this?
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/pizzacall 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050602/38a79328/attachment.html>

From reason at longevitymeme.org  Fri Jun  3 00:10:26 2005
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason .)
Date: Thu,  2 Jun 2005 19:10:26 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Life Extension on "Prime Time Live" tonight
Message-ID: <200506021910.AA470614174@longevitymeme.org>


---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Joseph Bloch <jbloch at humanenhancement.com>

>
>And from the folks who bring you the drug Protandim (they're saying 
>"Featured on Primetime Live" on their website):

Ah, Protandim; read these before buying anything Lifeline has to sell:

http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000412.php
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=69&t=2082&hl=protandim&s=

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme
 
             


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Fri Jun  3 00:15:39 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 17:15:39 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Asperger kid
Message-ID: <429FA12B.1070806@mindspring.com>

[Yesterday there was a great article about Lewis Schofield, 9, in the
paper. He has Asperger Syndrome, ADD, obsessive-compulsive disorder,
oppositional defiance disorder, severe allergies, asthma and learning
disabilities. His website is interesting! Check it out, and since he has
no friends, why not email him? I've copied one of his stories below. -
Kelly]

http://www.thisislewis.net

How old are you?
    
On my 6th birthday, the bus driver who took my mom and me to the
daycare centre, asked me how old I was that day.  
    
"Today, I'm 3, 5, 7, 10, 16, 18, 25, 32 and 48," I answered.  He
scrunched up his face at me, surprised at my answer.
    
"But Lewis," he said with a smile on his face, "I thought today was your
birthday. Aren't you turning 6 today?" I jumped for a minute. I didn't
realize the bus driver meant how old was my body.  I thought he meant
how old was I -- Lewis -- on the day that just happened to be my
birthday.
    
"Well,yes, today my body is 6," I answered, "but the rest of me is 3, 5,
7, 10, 16, 18, 25, 32 and 48."
    
"How can you be all those ages at once if your body is only 6?" he
asked.
    
I took a moment to get the words just right in my head and then said,
"You see, I have many abilities but they aren't all at the same level. 
So today, I'm 3, 5, 7, 10, 16, 18, 25, 32 and 48.  And my body is 6."

? Lewis 2001



-- 
"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 jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Fri Jun  3 00:47:56 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 20:47:56 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Life Extension on "Prime Time Live" tonight
In-Reply-To: <200506021910.AA470614174@longevitymeme.org>
References: <200506021910.AA470614174@longevitymeme.org>
Message-ID: <429FA8BC.10404@humanenhancement.com>

As I said, I don't really care about that particular drug one way or the 
other. Just thought folks might be interested in a mainstream media 
program that seems like it's covering life extension...

Joseph

Reason . wrote:

>---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
>From: Joseph Bloch <jbloch at humanenhancement.com>
>
>  
>
>>And from the folks who bring you the drug Protandim (they're saying 
>>"Featured on Primetime Live" on their website):
>>    
>>
>
>Ah, Protandim; read these before buying anything Lifeline has to sell:
>
>http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000412.php
>http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=69&t=2082&hl=protandim&s=
>
>Reason
>Founder, Longevity Meme
> 
>             
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>
>  
>


From pgptag at gmail.com  Fri Jun  3 05:15:18 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 07:15:18 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fighting Cancer with Math
Message-ID: <470a3c52050602221542e891f5@mail.gmail.com>

Now this has made it to
Slashdot<http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/31/2240240>
:* A group of scientists have developed a mathematical method to fight 
certain forms of
cancer<http://www.euroresidentes.com/Blogs/2005/05/spanish-scientists-use-maths-to-cure.htm>.
The study has taken the team several years, but the first trial on a human 
has been successful. You can read the actual
paper<http://www.biophysj.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/5/2948>.
It looks like a huge advancement in science, because there's a possibility 
to extrapolate the method to other types of cancer"* From the article: *"The 
researchers have evidence to show that all tumors grow in the same way, 
irrespective of the tissue or species in which they develop. In a previous 
paper, these researchers reported that tumor growth, rather than being 
exponential as commonly believed, is a much slower "linear" process similar 
to the growth of certain crystals and other natural phenomena.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050603/5826d6ba/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Jun  3 05:26:21 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 22:26:21 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] LUDDISM: Neat article on N.A. reforestation...
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0506021112133b9ba@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200506030526.j535QUR17300@tick.javien.com>


> ...BillK
...
> 
> The USA has already experienced its wave of deforestation, with the
> exception of small areas in the west and Alaska...
> 
> BillK

This is what convinced me that the Kyoto agreement was not
really about reducing greenhouse gases: it didn't take into
account reforestation.  It focused only on CO2 *production*,
not CO2 reduction by growing wood and leaves.  

Anecdote: in 1844 a number of William Miller's followers
gathered on his farm on Ascension Rock in upstate New York
to await the expected apocalypse.  Paintings made by the 
disappointed apocalypsers show farmland in all directions.  
If you go there now, all you see is really big forest, really 
dense, huge trunks, too jungley to walk in.  All that was
farmland 1.5 centuries ago, but the economic breakeven
line moved steadily south.  It might be an interesting 
exercise to estimate the *net* CO2 production by nation.  It
might turn out that the developing nations are the greenhouse
bad guys, and the US and Europe are green in comparison.

But it must wait.  I hafta go play amateur cowboy this weekend.  

spike   






From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Jun  3 07:47:21 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 00:47:21 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fighting Cancer with Math
In-Reply-To: <470a3c52050602221542e891f5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <470a3c52050602221542e891f5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B0C1FAE0-E0ED-4ED1-BA6B-66196730F5F0@mac.com>

What the heck is "a mathematical formula to strengthen the immune  
system"?  This is a  peculiar phrase.   The snippet "the evolution of  
solid tumors depends on a mathematical equation" isn't a lot  
better.   Was this article translated from another language?  Does  
anyone have a fish I can stick in my ear?

To think I gave up on a career as a mathematician before realizing  
the full power of mere equations to heal the terminally ill!

The underlying story is no doubt interesting stuff but it got a bit  
garbled along the way.

- s

On Jun 2, 2005, at 10:15 PM, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:

> Now this has made it to Slashdot: A group of scientists have  
> developed a mathematical method to fight certain forms of cancer.  
> The study has taken the team several years, but the first trial on  
> a human has been successful. You can read the actual paper. It  
> looks like a huge advancement in science, because there's a  
> possibility to extrapolate the method to other types of cancer"  
> From the article: "The researchers have evidence to show that all  
> tumors grow in the same way, irrespective of the tissue or species  
> in which they develop. In a previous paper, these researchers  
> reported that tumor growth, rather than being exponential as  
> commonly believed, is a much slower "linear" process similar to the  
> growth of certain crystals and other natural phenomena.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20050603/6dddb18c/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Fri Jun  3 07:57:11 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 08:57:11 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] The future of pizza delivery?
In-Reply-To: <000901c567ce$e4b617f0$0100a8c0@kevin>
References: <000901c567ce$e4b617f0$0100a8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <ee50357e05060300572fcc22b6@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/3/05, kevinfreels.com wrote:
>   
> Have any of you seen this? 
> http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/pizzacall  
>

This has been going around on the Internet for a while. 
Mike Lorrey posted the text to Extropy-chat Jan 04, 2004.

I think the Flash application comes from the ACLU site (anti-Bush site).
<http://www.aclu.org/pizza/>
It was mentioned in the Boing Boing blog July 26, 2004.

Quote from ACLU:
"The government and corporations are aggressively collecting
information about your personal life and your habits. They want to
track your purchases, your medical records, and even your
relationships. The Bush Administration's policies, coupled with
invasive new technologies, could eliminate your right to privacy
completely. Please help us protect our privacy rights and prevent the
Total Surveillance Society."

BillK


From scerir at libero.it  Fri Jun  3 08:38:01 2005
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 10:38:01 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fighting Cancer with Math
References: <470a3c52050602221542e891f5@mail.gmail.com>
	<B0C1FAE0-E0ED-4ED1-BA6B-66196730F5F0@mac.com>
Message-ID: <002d01c56817$8dd85a30$6ec21b97@administxl09yj>

Samantha Atkins
> Was this article translated from another language?

full paper here (I did not read it)
http://www.aecientificos.es/empresas/aecientificos/documentos/BiophysicalJou
rnal.pdf

as far as I know Volterra-Lotka integrodifferential
equations can - in principle - provide the general
behaviour. At least they can provide the best
*timing* for treatments, rays, chemio, etc.




From pgptag at gmail.com  Fri Jun  3 13:50:26 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 15:50:26 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fighting Cancer with Math
In-Reply-To: <002d01c56817$8dd85a30$6ec21b97@administxl09yj>
References: <470a3c52050602221542e891f5@mail.gmail.com>
	<B0C1FAE0-E0ED-4ED1-BA6B-66196730F5F0@mac.com>
	<002d01c56817$8dd85a30$6ec21b97@administxl09yj>
Message-ID: <470a3c52050603065046ed98ce@mail.gmail.com>

This is also my understanding: timing drug release and othet
intervention of the basis of a mathematical model of the (supposedly
universal) dynamic law of the evolution of tumors. I found this very
interesting because I had often thought similar things.
In passing: I am sure *many* have thought similar things at some or
some other moment, but this does not decrease the unique merit of the
one guy (Prof. Bru) who decided to dedicate a large chunk of his life
to developing the idea.
Will it work? Only time and experiment will tell. But the idea is interesting.
G.

On 6/3/05, scerir <scerir at libero.it> wrote:
> Samantha Atkins
> > Was this article translated from another language?
> 
> full paper here (I did not read it)
> http://www.aecientificos.es/empresas/aecientificos/documentos/BiophysicalJou
> rnal.pdf
> 
> as far as I know Volterra-Lotka integrodifferential
> equations can - in principle - provide the general
> behaviour. At least they can provide the best
> *timing* for treatments, rays, chemio, etc.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jun  3 13:53:49 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 06:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fighting Cancer with Math
In-Reply-To: <002d01c56817$8dd85a30$6ec21b97@administxl09yj>
Message-ID: <20050603135349.18219.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- scerir <scerir at libero.it> wrote:

> Samantha Atkins
> > Was this article translated from another language?
> 
> full paper here (I did not read it)
>
http://www.aecientificos.es/empresas/aecientificos/documentos/BiophysicalJou
> rnal.pdf
> 
> as far as I know Volterra-Lotka integrodifferential
> equations can - in principle - provide the general
> behaviour. At least they can provide the best
> *timing* for treatments, rays, chemio, etc.

One of the problems with chemo and radiation therapies is that  they
are more toxic to the patient than the tumor is, often, so it is
frequently just a race to kill the tumor before the patient dies from
the treatment. A better treatment protocol would improve the odds.

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! 
Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/


From hemm at openlink.com.br  Fri Jun  3 14:37:09 2005
From: hemm at openlink.com.br (Henrique Moraes Machado)
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 11:37:09 -0300
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Asperger kid
References: <429FA12B.1070806@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <164b01c56849$b918d1c0$fe00a8c0@HEMM>

Funny kid. The french class story is priceless.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Terry W. Colvin" <fortean1 at mindspring.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>; <skeptic at listproc.hcf.jhu.edu>; "Down Syndrome" <DOWN-SYN at LISTSERV.NODAK.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 9:15 PM
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Asperger kid


[Yesterday there was a great article about Lewis Schofield, 9, in the
paper. He has Asperger Syndrome, ADD, obsessive-compulsive disorder,
oppositional defiance disorder, severe allergies, asthma and learning
disabilities. His website is interesting! Check it out, and since he has
no friends, why not email him? I've copied one of his stories below. -
Kelly]

http://www.thisislewis.net

How old are you?
(...)


From John-C-Wright at sff.net  Fri Jun  3 16:31:39 2005
From: John-C-Wright at sff.net (John-C-Wright at sff.net)
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 11:31:39 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public! Film at
	eleven.
Message-ID: <200506031631.j53GVjR32096@tick.javien.com>

Or perhaps not so famous; or perhaps a polite difference of opinion rather than
an act of public self destruction. 

Mr. Beauregard is alarmed that my manners have been displayed with less than
grace in public. Allow me to reassure him that the result is not so terrifying
as he fears. 

It seemed to me as if I were making a logical argument, followed with what I
admit was a heated rhetorical flourish. Let us glance at the argument one last
time, and then at the flourish.

The argument, as it stands, is unexceptional. The first axiom is that parents
have a duty to care for their children, which means, to protect and love them,
and safeguard their health. As far as I can tell, no one disputes this axiom. 

The second axiom is that to will the result implies to will the means necessary
for that result. This axiom is based on the nature of cause and effect. A duty
to produce a given effect, logically implies a duty to effectuate the cause
leading to the effect.

Children pass through a foetal stage of development in the womb. The health of
the child at a later stage is dependent on the health at the foetal stage. 

If the foetus is safeguarded by proper prenatal care, a healthy child might be
born. If the foetus is aborted, a healthy child cannot be born: indeed, the
preventing of the birth of a healthy child is the sole purpose of an abortion.
Again, as far as I can tell, no one disputes this.

Prenatal care is logically implied from the duty to care for the child. This is
a direct deduction from my first two axioms. Prenatal care and abortion are
mutually exclusive. One cannot kill the foetus and bear a healthy child. Indeed,
the child after abortion is as unhealthy as it is possible to be: namely, dead. 

Therefore the duty to safeguard the health of the child logically excludes the
option of aborting the child. QED. 

I can see how this argument might provoke honest disagreement; I do not see how
one can honestly conclude the author of it is suffering a mental breakdown. 

To dispute the argument, one must either dispute the common notions on which it
is based, or detect an error in the reasoning. Merely insisting on one term as
opposed to another in the chain of logic does not affect the outcome. It does
not matter whether you call the child a ?product of conception? or ?foetus? or
?a mass of cells? or a ?banana.? One can substitute x and y values for the terms
in the equation, but if the values point to the same object in reality, the
outcome of the equation is the same. 

Now it is with some embarrassment I turn to my heated rhetoric. Obviously not
everyone who supports aborticide gets a sick thrill from it. Some are reptilian
in their callousness, some are sincere and innocent. So the comment was
impolite, and, what is much worse, illogical. To bring up the motives of the
opposition in a debate is argumentum ad Hominem. Ad Hominem is an informal
logical error. I confess. 

In case the point of my little story was not clear, let me emphasize it. I was
not an antiabortionist at the time a doctor approached me and tried to persuade
me to extinguish my son (or, if your ears are too delicate to hear things called
by the right names, let us call him the mass of cells having the potential to be
my son). What the doctor was asking me to extinguish, in effect, were all those
golden days in which I now rejoice. Had I heeded his counsel, those days would
have been lost to me. 

All my joy would have been lost.

And I never would have known the degree of the loss. My son?s first footstep,
his first word, or for that matter his last word, or any grandchildren I might
otherwise enjoy, would have also been aborted from my life. 

Now, just to make this clear, let me repeat that I would have lost all those
things from my life whether or not my son was a human being or was a person or
was a foetus at the time the abortion was contemplated. Obviously, had he been
extinguished at an early stage of development, all the later stages, including
the rest of his life, would have also been extinguished. The loss to me would
have been the same, no matter at what stage, early or late, the extinction took
place.  

So even if it is outrageous for me to impute a sick motive to those who promote
aborticide, I nonetheless submit to your candid judgment that there is a sick
atmosphere to the argument, in that it degrades the seriousness (the sacredness,
if you will) with which we cherish human life, born and unborn. 

The other point of my little story is that my wife is a heroine: but the
pro-abortion argument spits at her sacrifice and bravery. Mothers facing birth
are as soldiers facing battle or sailors facing a storm at sea: it is a labor
which will call upon her deepest reserves of courage and fortitude, perhaps at
the cost of her life. To tell mothers that this sacrifice is being made for a
non-person, and to tell her it is a reasonable alternative to sacrifice her
child to her own self-interest, robs the labor of any honor. Birth labor is now
merely pain suffered for the sake of a non-person, which is as much to say, for
no real reason. 

There is also something ghoulish about the whole topic.

You see, I sometimes wonder what they do with the bodies. I am not talking about
abortion in the first week to ten days: I mean abortions in the seventh or ninth
month of pregnancy. I mean the fully developed babies whose only crime is that
they are not yet out of the womb. 

Where do they heap up the bodies? 

Are they in a pile somewhere, with little blue arms and legs sticking up at odd
angles, tiny fingers and toes motionless, toothless mouths and eye sockets
swarming with maggots? Do they inter them in a graveyard? (I assume they do not
inter them: the ACLU sued to prevent the burial of aborted children in at least
one jurisdiction.) I assume the bodies are disposed of as medical waste, put in
little plastic bags, and dumped in a landfill. 

Now, logically, if we accept the premise of the abortion argument, that these
are not the bodies of persons, not the bodies of human beings, then there can be
no moral objection to disposing of them as we would any other livestock. If
humanity or personhood is a characteristic acquired after birth, then anyone
deprived of life before birth has no claim on that status, even if he is
otherwise fully developed, and his corpse need not be treated with the
melancholy respect we normally bestow upon the beloved departed. 

Theoretically, there should be no moral objection to grinding them up and
serving them as Soylent Green.  

Now then, reasonable people can disagree on this point. The argument on either
side is not so certain as to compel universal consent. 

And to soothe Mr. Beauregard's fret, let me hasten to add that reasonable people
can even buy and read books by eccentric authors, no matter how distasteful the
author's opinion is on unrelated topics, provided he can still tell an
entertaining tale. 

My disagreements here are with ideas, not with people. My goal should be to
disagree without being disagreeable. 

JCW




From scerir at libero.it  Fri Jun  3 16:56:56 2005
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 18:56:56 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fighting Cancer with Math
References: <470a3c52050602221542e891f5@mail.gmail.com><B0C1FAE0-E0ED-4ED1-BA6B-66196730F5F0@mac.com><002d01c56817$8dd85a30$6ec21b97@administxl09yj>
	<470a3c52050603065046ed98ce@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <001f01c5685d$406eaf10$adb81b97@administxl09yj>

Giu1i0:
> This is also my understanding: timing drug release and othet
> intervention of the basis of a mathematical model of the (supposedly
> universal) dynamic law of the evolution of tumors.

Mike:
> One of the problems with chemo and radiation therapies is that  they
> are more toxic to the patient than the tumor is, often, so it is
> frequently just a race to kill the tumor before the patient dies from
> the treatment. A better treatment protocol would improve the odds.
 
Yes (to both).
Give a look:
http://mct.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/2/9/919




From mike99 at lascruces.com  Fri Jun  3 17:14:08 2005
From: mike99 at lascruces.com (mike99)
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 11:14:08 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: LUDDISM: Help keep 'neo-luddism' wikipage up
Message-ID: <DAEGJDAIEMCEKLOPODAKMEHBEOAA.mike99@lascruces.com>

I've added a bit to the Right-wing Neo-Luddism section concerning the
Discovery Institute.


Regards,

Michael LaTorra

mike99 at lascruces.com
mlatorra at nmsu.edu

"For any man to abdicate an interest in science is to walk with open eyes
towards slavery."
-- Jacob Bronowski

"Experiences only look special from the inside of the system."
-- Eugen Leitl

Member:
Board of Directors, World Transhumanist Association: www.transhumanism.org
Board of Directors, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies:
http://ieet.org/
Extropy Institute: www.extropy.org
Alcor Life Extension Foundation: www.alcor.org
Society for Universal Immortalism: www.universalimmortalism.org
President, Zen Center of Las Cruces: www.zencenteroflascruces.org




From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Jun  3 17:22:30 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 10:22:30 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public! Film
	at	eleven.
In-Reply-To: <200506031631.j53GVjR32096@tick.javien.com>
References: <200506031631.j53GVjR32096@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <AA34FF5A-9097-41C4-BBEC-17CB98A709B6@mac.com>

A fetus is not a child until it is granted that status by the woman  
carrying it.  Otherwise women are subject to unbidden duties by any  
failure in contraceptive viability (if available) or any lapse in  
attentiveness to such protections.    Where do you get the jump that  
it is a duty to have children?

The entire notion of when a set of cells becomes a human child with  
all the rights and duties attending thereto is hotly debated.  Is a  
blastocyst a "child"?   Are the sperm and egg before union somehow a  
"child"?  Does it take a sperm and an egg?  If we take an unfertilzed  
egg and replace its nucleus with the nucleus from an adult cell from  
say the adult's finger is the result also a "child"?

Your anecdote makes your attachment to the argument understandable  
but it does not give you the means to claim that you have proven  
abortion is murder or that every pregnant woman has the duty despite  
all her needs and wishes to carry to term.

- samantha

On Jun 3, 2005, at 9:31 AM, John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote:

> Or perhaps not so famous; or perhaps a polite difference of opinion  
> rather than
> an act of public self destruction.
>
> Mr. Beauregard is alarmed that my manners have been displayed with  
> less than
> grace in public. Allow me to reassure him that the result is not so  
> terrifying
> as he fears.
>
> It seemed to me as if I were making a logical argument, followed  
> with what I
> admit was a heated rhetorical flourish. Let us glance at the  
> argument one last
> time, and then at the flourish.
>
> The argument, as it stands, is unexceptional. The first axiom is  
> that parents
> have a duty to care for their children, which means, to protect and  
> love them,
> and safeguard their health. As far as I can tell, no one disputes  
> this axiom.
>
> The second axiom is that to will the result implies to will the  
> means necessary
> for that result. This axiom is based on the nature of cause and  
> effect. A duty
> to produce a given effect, logically implies a duty to effectuate  
> the cause
> leading to the effect.
>
> Children pass through a foetal stage of development in the womb.  
> The health of
> the child at a later stage is dependent on the health at the foetal  
> stage.
>
> If the foetus is safeguarded by proper prenatal care, a healthy  
> child might be
> born. If the foetus is aborted, a healthy child cannot be born:  
> indeed, the
> preventing of the birth of a healthy child is the sole purpose of  
> an abortion.
> Again, as far as I can tell, no one disputes this.
>
> Prenatal care is logically implied from the duty to care for the  
> child. This is
> a direct deduction from my first two axioms. Prenatal care and  
> abortion are
> mutually exclusive. One cannot kill the foetus and bear a healthy  
> child. Indeed,
> the child after abortion is as unhealthy as it is possible to be:  
> namely, dead.
>
> Therefore the duty to safeguard the health of the child logically  
> excludes the
> option of aborting the child. QED.
>
> I can see how this argument might provoke honest disagreement; I do  
> not see how
> one can honestly conclude the author of it is suffering a mental  
> breakdown.
>
> To dispute the argument, one must either dispute the common notions  
> on which it
> is based, or detect an error in the reasoning. Merely insisting on  
> one term as
> opposed to another in the chain of logic does not affect the  
> outcome. It does
> not matter whether you call the child a ?product of conception? or  
> ?foetus? or
> ?a mass of cells? or a ?banana.? One can substitute x and y values  
> for the terms
> in the equation, but if the values point to the same object in  
> reality, the
> outcome of the equation is the same.
>
> Now it is with some embarrassment I turn to my heated rhetoric.  
> Obviously not
> everyone who supports aborticide gets a sick thrill from it. Some  
> are reptilian
> in their callousness, some are sincere and innocent. So the comment  
> was
> impolite, and, what is much worse, illogical. To bring up the  
> motives of the
> opposition in a debate is argumentum ad Hominem. Ad Hominem is an  
> informal
> logical error. I confess.
>
> In case the point of my little story was not clear, let me  
> emphasize it. I was
> not an antiabortionist at the time a doctor approached me and tried  
> to persuade
> me to extinguish my son (or, if your ears are too delicate to hear  
> things called
> by the right names, let us call him the mass of cells having the  
> potential to be
> my son). What the doctor was asking me to extinguish, in effect,  
> were all those
> golden days in which I now rejoice. Had I heeded his counsel, those  
> days would
> have been lost to me.
>
> All my joy would have been lost.
>
> And I never would have known the degree of the loss. My son?s first  
> footstep,
> his first word, or for that matter his last word, or any  
> grandchildren I might
> otherwise enjoy, would have also been aborted from my life.
>
> Now, just to make this clear, let me repeat that I would have lost  
> all those
> things from my life whether or not my son was a human being or was  
> a person or
> was a foetus at the time the abortion was contemplated. Obviously,  
> had he been
> extinguished at an early stage of development, all the later  
> stages, including
> the rest of his life, would have also been extinguished. The loss  
> to me would
> have been the same, no matter at what stage, early or late, the  
> extinction took
> place.
>
> So even if it is outrageous for me to impute a sick motive to those  
> who promote
> aborticide, I nonetheless submit to your candid judgment that there  
> is a sick
> atmosphere to the argument, in that it degrades the seriousness  
> (the sacredness,
> if you will) with which we cherish human life, born and unborn.
>
> The other point of my little story is that my wife is a heroine:  
> but the
> pro-abortion argument spits at her sacrifice and bravery. Mothers  
> facing birth
> are as soldiers facing battle or sailors facing a storm at sea: it  
> is a labor
> which will call upon her deepest reserves of courage and fortitude,  
> perhaps at
> the cost of her life. To tell mothers that this sacrifice is being  
> made for a
> non-person, and to tell her it is a reasonable alternative to  
> sacrifice her
> child to her own self-interest, robs the labor of any honor. Birth  
> labor is now
> merely pain suffered for the sake of a non-person, which is as much  
> to say, for
> no real reason.
>
> There is also something ghoulish about the whole topic.
>
> You see, I sometimes wonder what they do with the bodies. I am not  
> talking about
> abortion in the first week to ten days: I mean abortions in the  
> seventh or ninth
> month of pregnancy. I mean the fully developed babies whose only  
> crime is that
> they are not yet out of the womb.
>
> Where do they heap up the bodies?
>
> Are they in a pile somewhere, with little blue arms and legs  
> sticking up at odd
> angles, tiny fingers and toes motionless, toothless mouths and eye  
> sockets
> swarming with maggots? Do they inter them in a graveyard? (I assume  
> they do not
> inter them: the ACLU sued to prevent the burial of aborted children  
> in at least
> one jurisdiction.) I assume the bodies are disposed of as medical  
> waste, put in
> little plastic bags, and dumped in a landfill.
>
> Now, logically, if we accept the premise of the abortion argument,  
> that these
> are not the bodies of persons, not the bodies of human beings, then  
> there can be
> no moral objection to disposing of them as we would any other  
> livestock. If
> humanity or personhood is a characteristic acquired after birth,  
> then anyone
> deprived of life before birth has no claim on that status, even if  
> he is
> otherwise fully developed, and his corpse need not be treated with the
> melancholy respect we normally bestow upon the beloved departed.
>
> Theoretically, there should be no moral objection to grinding them  
> up and
> serving them as Soylent Green.
>
> Now then, reasonable people can disagree on this point. The  
> argument on either
> side is not so certain as to compel universal consent.
>
> And to soothe Mr. Beauregard's fret, let me hasten to add that  
> reasonable people
> can even buy and read books by eccentric authors, no matter how  
> distasteful the
> author's opinion is on unrelated topics, provided he can still tell an
> entertaining tale.
>
> My disagreements here are with ideas, not with people. My goal  
> should be to
> disagree without being disagreeable.
>
> JCW
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From mike99 at lascruces.com  Fri Jun  3 17:24:10 2005
From: mike99 at lascruces.com (mike99)
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 11:24:10 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Another place to opine
Message-ID: <DAEGJDAIEMCEKLOPODAKAEHCEOAA.mike99@lascruces.com>

While googling to find material for adding to the wiki on bioluddism, I
discovered a new (at least to me) right-wing site that mentions
transhumanism: http://right-mind.us/archive/2005/03/12/2439.aspx

Here is the text I found there, and the posted comments; you may want to add
your own:
...........................


Transhumanism

There is a lot of discussion online as of late about the concept of
Transhumanism.

No, transhumanism won't be added to the alphabet soup of BGLTSA.

Rather, transhumanism deals with using biotechnology, genetic engineering,
stem cell, cloning, molecular nanotechnology, superintelligence, virtual
reality, augmented reality, etc., to move mankind beyond current limits.
This is kind of a souped-up Darwinism, where we can even splice genetic
materials of other things (plants, animals, etc) into human DNA to create
the cross-breeding we need.

There's a website devoted to all things transhuman:
http://transhumanism.org/

Thoughts? Is this a lawful and positive use of technology?
posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 9:57 AM
Comments

    *
      # It depends, but much of it is perverse in the extreme
      Christopher Witmer
      Posted @ 3/12/2005 10:18 AM
      I won't give a simplistic response along the lines of, "If God had
wanted us to fly He would have given us wings," but obviously there is
tremendous potential for worse than the worst that Aldous Huxley envisioned
in Brave New World.

    * The desire to be something other than human is sinful. The desire to
use various means to become a better human is not, in and of itself, sinful.
      # re: Transhumanism
      Konty
      Posted @ 3/14/2005 8:17 AM

      I agree with Christopher that the pros and cons of this are very
complex.
      The Founders gave us this plural system for dealing wiith uncertainty
like this, so as long as the process is deliberative and transparent I think
we can deal with it. As soon as we stop debating it, and as soon as the
science becomes secretive, we are in trouble.


.......................


Regards,

Michael LaTorra

mike99 at lascruces.com
mlatorra at nmsu.edu

"For any man to abdicate an interest in science is to walk with open eyes
towards slavery."
-- Jacob Bronowski

"Experiences only look special from the inside of the system."
-- Eugen Leitl

Member:
Board of Directors, World Transhumanist Association: www.transhumanism.org
Board of Directors, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies:
http://ieet.org/
Extropy Institute: www.extropy.org
Alcor Life Extension Foundation: www.alcor.org
Society for Universal Immortalism: www.universalimmortalism.org
President, Zen Center of Las Cruces: www.zencenteroflascruces.org




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jun  3 18:08:52 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 11:08:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public! Film at
	eleven.
In-Reply-To: <AA34FF5A-9097-41C4-BBEC-17CB98A709B6@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050603180852.2804.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> A fetus is not a child until it is granted that status by the woman  
> carrying it. 

Wow, women have the power of life and death over the most helpless in
their care. I realized that some women see themselves as God, or gods
gift to men, while others thing that god is a woman, but I had no idea
that all women were so empowered... there is thus obviously no legal
basis to prosecute women who kill their babies in post-partum
depression...

> Otherwise women are subject to unbidden duties by any  
> failure in contraceptive viability (if available) or any lapse in  
> attentiveness to such protections.    Where do you get the jump that 
> it is a duty to have children?

What about that social contract you ladies are always yakking about?

> 
> The entire notion of when a set of cells becomes a human child with  
> all the rights and duties attending thereto is hotly debated.  Is a  
> blastocyst a "child"?   Are the sperm and egg before union somehow a 
> "child"?  Does it take a sperm and an egg?  If we take an unfertilzed
> egg and replace its nucleus with the nucleus from an adult cell from 
> say the adult's finger is the result also a "child"?

Is a seven month old fetus a blastocyst? Is a nine month fetus a 'clump
of cells'? Stop yammering hyperbole and stick to the topic.



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  Fri Jun  3 18:59:22 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 19:59:22 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public! Film	at
	eleven.
In-Reply-To: <AA34FF5A-9097-41C4-BBEC-17CB98A709B6@mac.com>
References: <200506031631.j53GVjR32096@tick.javien.com>
	<AA34FF5A-9097-41C4-BBEC-17CB98A709B6@mac.com>
Message-ID: <42A0A88A.8030205@neopax.com>

Samantha Atkins wrote:

> A fetus is not a child until it is granted that status by the woman  
> carrying it.  Otherwise women are subject to unbidden duties by any  
> failure in contraceptive viability (if available) or any lapse in  
> attentiveness to such protections.    Where do you get the jump that  
> it is a duty to have children?
>
> The entire notion of when a set of cells becomes a human child with  
> all the rights and duties attending thereto is hotly debated.  Is a  
> blastocyst a "child"?   Are the sperm and egg before union somehow a  
> "child"?  Does it take a sperm and an egg?  If we take an unfertilzed  
> egg and replace its nucleus with the nucleus from an adult cell from  
> say the adult's finger is the result also a "child"?
>
In the end it simply comes down to arbitrary definitions.
You choose your axioms and fight your fight.
It's not a question of 'reason' or 'science'.
Different people make different choices and there is no way of proving 
any kind of right or 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: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.5.2 - Release Date: 03/06/2005



From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sat Jun  4 01:22:17 2005
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 21:22:17 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public! Film at
	eleven.
In-Reply-To: <200506031631.j53GVjR32096@tick.javien.com>
References: <200506031631.j53GVjR32096@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc6050603182252e576be@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/3/05, John-C-Wright at sff.net <John-C-Wright at sff.net> wrote:
> 
> The argument, as it stands, is unexceptional. The first axiom is that parents
> have a duty to care for their children, which means, to protect and love them,
> and safeguard their health. As far as I can tell, no one disputes this axiom.
> 
> The second axiom is that to will the result implies to will the means necessary
> for that result. This axiom is based on the nature of cause and effect. A duty
> to produce a given effect, logically implies a duty to effectuate the cause
> leading to the effect.
> 
> Children pass through a foetal stage of development in the womb. The health of
> the child at a later stage is dependent on the health at the foetal stage.
> 
> If the foetus is safeguarded by proper prenatal care, a healthy child might be
> born. If the foetus is aborted, a healthy child cannot be born: indeed, the
> preventing of the birth of a healthy child is the sole purpose of an abortion.
> Again, as far as I can tell, no one disputes this.
> 
> Prenatal care is logically implied from the duty to care for the child. This is
> a direct deduction from my first two axioms. Prenatal care and abortion are
> mutually exclusive. One cannot kill the foetus and bear a healthy child. Indeed,
> the child after abortion is as unhealthy as it is possible to be: namely, dead.
> 
> Therefore the duty to safeguard the health of the child logically excludes the
> option of aborting the child. QED.

### It is always a pleasure to dissect a thoughtful argument from such
a seasoned rhetorician, especially if, as in this case, I may have
found a minor glitch.

Let's start by reasoning through analogy, so as to approach the
subject in a less inflammatory situation. Consider the duties a
prospective parent may have before conception. After all, it is known
that in many cases the outcome of a pregnancy may be influenced by the
behavior of parents even before they meet for the first time. Intake
of genotoxic substances may damage the germline enough to cause
mutations, but not yet sufficiently to sterilize. Certain incurable
infections, such as herpes, or hepatitis B, once acquired, may have a
deleterious impact on the fetus many years hence. Other infections,
such as syphilis, may be eradicated to save the child from grotesque
malformations.

There are acts of commision and acts of commision with grave impact on
the future child, should one be born, many years later. Given the duty
of caring for children, which I hold to be self-evident, is it
incumbent on *every* man and woman to act in accordance with this
duty?

No, of course not - those who do not intend to have children do not
need to avoid genotoxic influences, and hepatitis B. The duty of
caring pertains only towards actual children, not might-have-beens,
not towards the children a nun or a priest might have had, had they
chosen a different vocation. I hope you will agree with me on this
point.

Now, back to the situation you have considered: I would claim that
there is no material difference between the above issue,
pre-conception duties, and the issue you discuss, post-conception,
pre-natal duties. While some may disagree, asserting ensoulment at the
time of sperm's penetration through the zona pellucida (or maybe at
formation of the pre-nuclei, or maybe their fusion.... proponents of
this idea tend to be quite sketchy here), I will take the liberty of
simply ignoring them, since I don't believe in the existence of souls,
and differences of a spiritual nature are of no interest to me.

So, the situation does not materially change once two cells fuse to
form a zygote - the child is still a thing of the future. A duty to
care exists for consequential reasons, so as to eliminate unwished-for
experiences in actual humans - we need to care for children only
because without care they would suffer and die prematurely, something
most humans intensely dislike. But without the capacity to suffer and
anticipate death, a zygote cannot be by itself the focus of duties so
defined.

Therefore, in general a parent may be held responsible for failing to
fulfill his/her (pre-, per- or post-conception) duties only if the
child is actually formed. Should the new organism die naturally before
birth, as happens with about 85% of conceptuses, no duties have been
breached by the parent, no woman may be prosecuted for having
hepatitis B. Should the embryo be destroyed by an intentional action,
again, no duties have been breached, since the victimized person never
existed at all.

Can I say, QED?

Rafal


From sjatkins at mac.com  Sat Jun  4 01:37:34 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 18:37:34 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public! Film at
	eleven.
In-Reply-To: <20050603180852.2804.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050603180852.2804.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <49F57B65-E80A-438D-9FC2-FABB35881BF9@mac.com>


On Jun 3, 2005, at 11:08 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
>
> --- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>> A fetus is not a child until it is granted that status by the woman
>> carrying it.
>>
>
> Wow, women have the power of life and death over the most helpless in
> their care. I realized that some women see themselves as God, or gods
> gift to men, while others thing that god is a woman, but I had no idea
> that all women were so empowered... there is thus obviously no legal
> basis to prosecute women who kill their babies in post-partum
> depression...
>

Buzz off troll.




From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Sat Jun  4 06:54:25 2005
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 07:54:25 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public! Film at
	eleven.
In-Reply-To: <49F57B65-E80A-438D-9FC2-FABB35881BF9@mac.com>
References: <20050603180852.2804.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<49F57B65-E80A-438D-9FC2-FABB35881BF9@mac.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0506032354334d6f15@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/4/05, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> 
> Buzz off troll.

Well, I've cut you slack for reasons you've communicated to me in
private thereby leaving me feeling I need to lay off while out of
decency refraining from either arguing with you or telling anyone why
I'm not arguing with you. But sod this for a lark; there are limits.
My political views on the matter of abortion happen to be closer to
yours than Mike's, but what of it? No, I will not buzz off. No, I will
not sit back and be quiet while you imply that anyone whose views
differ from yours is a troll. If you want to bow out of political
debate for the moment, fine; I will do likewise. But yours is _not_
the norm compared to which anyone else is a deviant.

- Russell


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sat Jun  4 07:16:39 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 17:16:39 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public! Film
	ateleven.
References: <20050603180852.2804.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com><49F57B65-E80A-438D-9FC2-FABB35881BF9@mac.com>
	<8d71341e0506032354334d6f15@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <010301c568d5$5a155f40$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

> On 6/4/05, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Buzz off troll.
> 
> Well, I've cut you slack for reasons you've communicated to me in
> private thereby leaving me feeling I need to lay off while out of
> decency refraining from either arguing with you or telling anyone why
> I'm not arguing with you. But sod this for a lark; there are limits.
> My political views on the matter of abortion happen to be closer to
> yours than Mike's, but what of it? No, I will not buzz off. No, I will
> not sit back and be quiet while you imply that anyone whose views
> differ from yours is a troll. 

Russell, I think *you* have drawn an inference that Samantha did not
imply. 

I do not think she was saying "Buzz of troll" to anyone other than
Mike and even then only in relation to one particular post he made.

I like Mike. I respect Mike including respecting his concerns for 
the issues of abortion.  But sometimes Mike *does* behave like a
troll in that he seems to be deliberately inflamatory in order to get a 
response and perhaps to ensure that he can join the conversation. 

Personally, I don't think Samantha was out of line in saying what she
said on this occassion. But that's just my opinion and I am not a list
moderator.  Mike needs a firm hand on occassion and he would not
I suspect respect anything less :-)

BTW: I have been meaning to reply to John C Wright at some stage
but it just hasn't gotten to be a priority yet. 

Brett  Paatsch



From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Sat Jun  4 07:29:42 2005
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 08:29:42 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public! Film
	ateleven.
In-Reply-To: <010301c568d5$5a155f40$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
References: <20050603180852.2804.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<49F57B65-E80A-438D-9FC2-FABB35881BF9@mac.com>
	<8d71341e0506032354334d6f15@mail.gmail.com>
	<010301c568d5$5a155f40$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <8d71341e05060400292bc24bee@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/4/05, Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Russell, I think *you* have drawn an inference that Samantha did not
> imply.

No, I think I have drawn one that she did imply.

> I do not think she was saying "Buzz of troll" to anyone other than
> Mike and even then only in relation to one particular post he made.

I think exactly the same thing. That's why I reacted.

> I like Mike. I respect Mike including respecting his concerns for
> the issues of abortion.  But sometimes Mike *does* behave like a
> troll in that he seems to be deliberately inflamatory in order to get a
> response and perhaps to ensure that he can join the conversation.

Inflammatory? No, hit the brakes on that. People go around saying
"it's just a clump of cells, terminate it, there is no moral value
there." Do you call that inflammatory?

No? Didn't think so. (As it happens, I don't either.)

Someone comes along and states the reverse view and gets called
inflammatory, and a troll? Bugger that for a lark. If you want to
debate, debate. (Or don't; enough electrons have been spilled on this
already.) But as far as I'm concerned, you don't get to assume your
view is normative and anyone who disagrees is a troll.

"First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak out because I
wasn't a Communist."

> Personally, I don't think Samantha was out of line in saying what she
> said on this occassion. But that's just my opinion and I am not a list
> moderator.  Mike needs a firm hand on occassion and he would not
> I suspect respect anything less :-)

I'm not a list moderator either. I'm merely saying what I believe to be right.

- Russell


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sat Jun  4 08:40:14 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 18:40:14 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Euphamism and misspellings.
References: <200506021935.j52JZKR20191@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <017301c568e1$07014060$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

John C Wright wrote:

> Mr. Broderick writes: "It's petty of me, I suppose, but I think
> if you're going to (sic) someone for a typo you might try getting
> your own subject line and in-text spelling of "euphemism" right.
> 
> It is not petty at all, my good sir: a man who makes as many
> mistakes as I do welcomes any and all corrections. (I was 
> (sic)ing Mr. Paatsch because I thought he meant I was being
> was provocative, not pejorative.)

The use of pejorative terms in an ethical discussion is also
provocative, it is not however provocative in a good way,
its provocative like poking your finger in the other persons
eye is provocative. Its not thought provoking or 'light shedding'
but it is heat provoking to use the word child in such a way that 
an early stage embryo falls into the same class as a one year
old infant. 

An honest joint exploration of the moral weighting of human
entities at different stages of development can be carried out
without pejorative terms being used. I am a human entity, so 
is a human sperm cell, so is a human cancer cell.  

If anyone was genuinely mislead by my miss spelling I apologise
but I give forewarning I will make typing and misspelling errors again
as I do not regard these things as particularly important in comparison
with the conveying of the underlying ideas themselves. 

Good writing tends to be good writing, in my opinion, when it is
effective writing. Time spent checking for typos is not always time
well spent. 

Brett Paatsch



From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Sat Jun  4 09:12:35 2005
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 10:12:35 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Euphamism and misspellings.
In-Reply-To: <017301c568e1$07014060$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
References: <200506021935.j52JZKR20191@tick.javien.com>
	<017301c568e1$07014060$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <8d71341e050604021275feb036@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/4/05, Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> The use of pejorative terms in an ethical discussion is also
> provocative, it is not however provocative in a good way,
> its provocative like poking your finger in the other persons
> eye is provocative. Its not thought provoking or 'light shedding'
> but it is heat provoking to use the word child in such a way that
> an early stage embryo falls into the same class as a one year
> old infant.

And your use of phrases like 'clump of cells' to refer to an early
stage embryo isn't provocative? Give me a break. Argue your position
if you must (not that anything will or can be said on the topic of
abortion that hasn't been said a million times already, so rehashing
it on this list is a waste of bandwidth), but don't insult everyone's
intelligence by pretending you're somehow being more rational than
your opponents.

- Russell


From sjatkins at mac.com  Sat Jun  4 09:50:13 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 02:50:13 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public! Film at
	eleven.
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0506032354334d6f15@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050603180852.2804.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<49F57B65-E80A-438D-9FC2-FABB35881BF9@mac.com>
	<8d71341e0506032354334d6f15@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9C668894-CCD9-49A0-8AE8-29E4C45415FF@mac.com>

I was writing in response to deliberately provocative prose from Mike  
Lorrey.  Exactly how does my not mincing words in response concern  
you?  I do not know why you are reading such bizarre interpretations  
into a very straight forward response.  I never claimed any such  
thing.  I find it much more odd that you would claim it of me than  
that I would respond to trolling as I did.

- s

On Jun 3, 2005, at 11:54 PM, Russell Wallace wrote:

> On 6/4/05, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Buzz off troll.
>>
>
> Well, I've cut you slack for reasons you've communicated to me in
> private thereby leaving me feeling I need to lay off while out of
> decency refraining from either arguing with you or telling anyone why
> I'm not arguing with you. But sod this for a lark; there are limits.
> My political views on the matter of abortion happen to be closer to
> yours than Mike's, but what of it? No, I will not buzz off. No, I will
> not sit back and be quiet while you imply that anyone whose views
> differ from yours is a troll. If you want to bow out of political
> debate for the moment, fine; I will do likewise. But yours is _not_
> the norm compared to which anyone else is a deviant.
>
> - Russell
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sat Jun  4 09:53:55 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 19:53:55 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Euphamism and reality. 
References: <200505312301.j4VN1DR30391@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <019a01c568eb$520af420$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

John C Wright wrote:

> Brett Paatsch writes: "I'd certainly object to the use of the
> word "child" if it was intended as a non perjorative term to
> describe the whole class of living human entities from 
> fertilization to just before birth nine months later. Such
> a single classification could not be more biased or more
> misleading."
> 
> He also calls the use of the term child "perjorative" (sic)
> which means: "having negative connotations; especially
> tending to disparage or belittle."

To call an embryo a child is to beg the important ethical
question of what status that human entity ought have by
presuming to answer it in the formation of the question. 

That is why I see it as biased or misleading to use the
term child. 

> In this case, in other words, he is claiming that my 
> calling an unborn human entity a child is an insult, a
> disparagement, to the child. This is a mildly puzzling use
> of the term. As if to be a "child" were a lower dignity
> than to be an "entity"? 

The point is that entity isn't value ladden by prior usage.
I am not trying to strip the dignity away from anything.

I found your recourse to a dictionary to justify your use
of the word to be disingenuous and potentially deceitful
given that Samantha and Damien had already objected 
to the term. You seemed to be trying to use your skill
with words to steal a position and stack a debate rather
than to make your case on its merit.

A general dictionary definition of the word child is the
wrong tool to establish the meaning of the word child
as you intended to stretch it and you ought to have
damn well known it. If you thought you were the 
average mug American that needed to consult a
dictionary to determine the meaning of the word child
you would not be sending a post to this list headed
"Famous author self destructs in public".
 
> As I said, I have not the patience to debate the point. 

Let me be very clear on this point. I don't regard you
as someone who I or anyone else here has an obligation
to humor or to be deferential to. I had never heard
of  John C Wright until Damien posted to this list to
say that he had found God. 

So far I am not greatly impressed with what I have
seen of John C Wright who claims to have been visited
by "the Holy Paraclete (sic)" and thinks that morality can
be objectively grounded in a world view that includes a 
the christian God, (when I asked you to give your 
explanation of the problem of evil you declined saying
that that had been addressed by others more capable 
than you - you dodged the hard personal question), so
in short I don't care about trying your patience. On the
contrary you will have to be on your very best behavior
for me to feel that I am not wasting my time talking to
you, or worse, that I might be giving a close minded 
rhetorican and professional pest the tools to spread the
next generation of bullshit to the faithful.

>With all due resect, his argument is that a certain term,
> used commonly enough by enough people that at
> least one standard, commonly used dictionary (Merriam
> Webster) lists it, not as an obscure or archaic meaning, 
> but as the primary meaning. 

Bollocks. Thats not my argument, you are trying to put
words into my mouth. 

If you believe in God you might do well to be careful
of the prohibitions and consequence of bearing false
witness.  
 
> Please note that no one in this discussion misunderstood
> to which unborn human entity my word referred.

You are guessing that no one misunderstood it. Whether
readers did or not you cannot know. What is clear is
that you persisted with a term that others found
objectionable. You chose propaganda instead of 
communication. 

>There was no misunderstanding: I violated a political
> taboo common to a certain stance that I do not share.

> The pretense is that all "intelligent" right-thinking men 
> speak the same way using the same euphamisms on
> the approved topics.

I thought your pretense, even deceit, was to presume to
set the record straight whilst embedding the crookedness
within it at a subtler level. 

> My apologies if I offend, 

You apologise and pretend to be courteous and deferential
frequently. Frankly, I for one, do not trust that you are
sincere. I will give you another chance. I am doing that by
writing to you rather than ignoring you. 

> but I am not a conformist to these particular doctrines, 
> speech codes, habits, or taboos, and it would be wrong for
> me to talk as if I were.

Just so you know. I will decide when I think you are sincere
and I will decide when I think you are wrong.  And if you 
believe in God and the Devil you may imagine that they will
form their own views as well. 

Brett Paatsch



From sjatkins at mac.com  Sat Jun  4 09:57:11 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 02:57:11 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public! Film
	ateleven.
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e05060400292bc24bee@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050603180852.2804.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<49F57B65-E80A-438D-9FC2-FABB35881BF9@mac.com>
	<8d71341e0506032354334d6f15@mail.gmail.com>
	<010301c568d5$5a155f40$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<8d71341e05060400292bc24bee@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0E1E225A-F062-484F-9ECF-BBC30FA2BD98@mac.com>


On Jun 4, 2005, at 12:29 AM, Russell Wallace wrote:

> On 6/4/05, Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>> Russell, I think *you* have drawn an inference that Samantha did not
>> imply.
>>
>
> No, I think I have drawn one that she did imply.

I am right here.  You were off base on this one.

>
>
>> I do not think she was saying "Buzz of troll" to anyone other than
>> Mike and even then only in relation to one particular post he made.
>>
>
> I think exactly the same thing. That's why I reacted.
>

You didi not find his remarks inflammatory and unnecessarily so to  
simply express a difference of opinion on abortion?

>
>> I like Mike. I respect Mike including respecting his concerns for
>> the issues of abortion.  But sometimes Mike *does* behave like a
>> troll in that he seems to be deliberately inflamatory in order to  
>> get a
>> response and perhaps to ensure that he can join the conversation.
>>
>
> Inflammatory? No, hit the brakes on that. People go around saying
> "it's just a clump of cells, terminate it, there is no moral value
> there." Do you call that inflammatory?
>

I call that an opinion.  I don't consider baiting women in general as  
Mike did to be an opinion on the topic at hand.

> No? Didn't think so. (As it happens, I don't either.)
>
> Someone comes along and states the reverse view and gets called
> inflammatory, and a troll? Bugger that for a lark.

That wasn't what happened.  Read it again from a slightly different  
perspective and see if you get what I did.

- samantha



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sat Jun  4 10:08:25 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 20:08:25 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Euphamism and misspellings.
References: <200506021935.j52JZKR20191@tick.javien.com><017301c568e1$07014060$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<8d71341e050604021275feb036@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01b701c568ed$5900ce10$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

Russell Wallace wrote:

> On 6/4/05, Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> The use of pejorative terms in an ethical discussion is also
>> provocative, it is not however provocative in a good way,
>> its provocative like poking your finger in the other persons
>> eye is provocative. Its not thought provoking or 'light shedding'
>> but it is heat provoking to use the word child in such a way that
>> an early stage embryo falls into the same class as a one year
>> old infant.
> 
> And your use of phrases like 'clump of cells' to refer to an early
> stage embryo isn't provocative? 

Fools can find anything provocative. I am not saying you are a fool
I'm still working that out. 

There are certain contexts in which to describe some early stage 
embryos as a clump of cells is just plain accurate.

But you don't have to take my word for it you can look for yourself.
I don't refer you to a dictionary I refer you to a web site that shows
what different stages of human embryos look like. 

The Carnegie Collection is a tool used by developmental biologists.

http://virtualhumanembryo.lsuhsc.edu/HEIRLOOM/Stages/HEP_StagesFS.htm

> Give me a break.

I'd rather give you an education but I don't have much time so I'll
just give you the link and ask you if you think that it is misleading to
call early stage embryos "clumps of cells". 

> Argue your position
> if you must (not that anything will or can be said on the topic of
> abortion that hasn't been said a million times already, so rehashing
> it on this list is a waste of bandwidth),

You know that for a fact do you?

> ... but don't insult everyone's
> intelligence by pretending you're somehow being more rational than
> your opponents.

What sort of intelligence *gets* insulted? That's a rhetorical question.

Seriously what is missing in this discussion about early stage embryos
is something that does not need to be in the age of the internet. Its 
possible for you or I or anyone to take a look at what human entities
at different stages look like for ourselves. 

Brett Paatsch



From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Sat Jun  4 10:09:15 2005
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 11:09:15 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public! Film
	ateleven.
In-Reply-To: <0E1E225A-F062-484F-9ECF-BBC30FA2BD98@mac.com>
References: <20050603180852.2804.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<49F57B65-E80A-438D-9FC2-FABB35881BF9@mac.com>
	<8d71341e0506032354334d6f15@mail.gmail.com>
	<010301c568d5$5a155f40$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<8d71341e05060400292bc24bee@mail.gmail.com>
	<0E1E225A-F062-484F-9ECF-BBC30FA2BD98@mac.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e05060403094a776333@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/4/05, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> You didi not find his remarks inflammatory and unnecessarily so to
> simply express a difference of opinion on abortion?

And again comes the yapping of the jackals - of course your remarks
and those of others during the debate have been equally inflammatory,
but equally of course you wouldn't have dreamed of responding as you
did if the numerical odds in the debate were against you rather than
in your favor. Perceivest thou the beam in thine own eye (everyone
thus involved, not just Samantha). Now I'm done with this.

- Russell


From neptune at superlink.net  Sat Jun  4 12:48:02 2005
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 08:48:02 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sub-Orbital Space Tourism Survey
Message-ID: <003f01c56903$a61c0640$e2893cd1@pavilion>

From: "J. Fox" fox at nevadalink.com
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 9:34 PM
Subject: Sub-Orbital Space Tourism Survey


I am conducting a survey on Sub-Orbital Space Tourism for a graduate
project.  I invite all on the list to to participate by downloading the
survey, filling the survey out, and mailing the completed survey to me.

Please Note:  Deadline for the completed survey is June 30, 2005 for the
USA, and July 15 for surveys sent from outside the USA.

Thank you for your time and contributions.

The link to the survey (PDF format 36k):

http://web1.greatbasin.net/~dayton-nevada/Questionaire.pdf



From charlie at stross.org.uk  Sat Jun  4 19:33:14 2005
From: charlie at stross.org.uk (Charlie Stross)
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 20:33:14 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public! Film
	ateleven.
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e05060403094a776333@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050603180852.2804.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<49F57B65-E80A-438D-9FC2-FABB35881BF9@mac.com>
	<8d71341e0506032354334d6f15@mail.gmail.com>
	<010301c568d5$5a155f40$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<8d71341e05060400292bc24bee@mail.gmail.com>
	<0E1E225A-F062-484F-9ECF-BBC30FA2BD98@mac.com>
	<8d71341e05060403094a776333@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8412bb14d33cebcad872a2076969e026@stross.org.uk>


[ Just back from long meandering detour ... note different email 
address ]

On 4 Jun 2005, at 11:09, Russell Wallace wrote:

> On 6/4/05, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>> You didi not find his remarks inflammatory and unnecessarily so to
>> simply express a difference of opinion on abortion?
>
> And again comes the yapping of the jackals - of course your remarks
> and those of others during the debate have been equally inflammatory,
> but equally of course you wouldn't have dreamed of responding as you
> did if the numerical odds in the debate were against you rather than
> in your favor. Perceivest thou the beam in thine own eye (everyone
> thus involved, not just Samantha). Now I'm done with this.

It seems to me that the reason abortion is such a hot-button topic -- 
at least in the USA -- is that it is almost invariably introduced as a 
stalking-horse for other social agendas that are never explicitly 
dragged kicking and screaming under the spotlight.

It then becomes impossible to express an opinion on the subject of 
abortion per se without a whole slew of additional philosophical and 
social attitudes being attributed to one.

Furthermore, the presence of these off-stage agendas results in any 
attempt to discuss the matter on the net rapidly descending into a 
dogmatic quagmire because those people who *do* take a position on the 
basis of some other agenda promptly assume that any expression of an 
opinion on the matter of abortion is a place holder for an opinion on 
the rest of their weltanschauung. The debate promptly flies off into 
the stratosphere of ideology, completely losing track of the facts on 
the ground.

And for me, the key fact in the whole matter is our attitude to 
biological determinism. The human species as currently constituted has 
a reward-positive behaviour (sex) that can result in pregnancy. The 
whole thrust of human history demonstrates that we *can't* stop people 
having illicit sex, short of physical mutilation. Sex on its own 
wouldn't be the problem if it wasn't for the complicating factor that 
conception is an involuntary semi-random process associated with sex.

Can we maybe agree, as extropians one and all, that in an ideal world 
involuntary and/or unwanted conception wouldn't occur, and that as 
extropians are dedicated to the improvement of the human condition, 
figuring out how to make conception a process under voluntary control 
-- preferably wired into our neurohormonal axis by way of gene-line 
engineering -- would do more to alleviate human suffering than any 
amount of on-going gaseous blathering over whether humanity cuts in 
when the foetus reaches 10^5 cells or 10^8?


-- Charlie (irritated) Stross

PS: This really *isn't* the most pleasant thing to see first thing 
after diving back into the list after a few months away.



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sat Jun  4 20:31:08 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 13:31:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] self replicating machine ....
In-Reply-To: <05C5081466660B4A94F371F5D48B59E777D55D@MBOX02.stf.nus.edu.sg>
Message-ID: <20050604203108.70821.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Jan Gruber <bchjg at nus.edu.sg> wrote:
> I thought this bit of BBC tech news might be of interest - not sure
> how the electronic components are supposed to be replicated though. I
> seem to remember that this was discussed here some time ago - anybody
> know what is the state of the art with this ?

The electronic components - specifically, the microprocessors - are
indeed the stumbling points.  Simple mechanics can self-replicate, if
guided appropriately, but so far no one has been able to make the
information carrying bits - again, the microprocessors -
self-replicate.  Perhaps this could be done if the machine was made
with large-scale, relatively slow processors that could be built with,
say, welding rods laying down circuit traces instead of lithography of
any sort, but so far no one has done such.  (Besides, there are
arguments about what constitutes the "raw materials" that any
self-replicator would have to consume.  One obviously can't build a
metal arm without metal to work with, and perhaps one could argue for
having a non-replicating smelting plant to refine metal from ore so the
self-rep-ers wouldn't have to replicate said plant just to reproduce
themselves, with more plants perhaps being constructed after many
generations of self-rep-ers to increase the overall population growth
rate.  Some are extending this to claim that microprocessors also count
as "raw materials" for the usual things this kind of machine would be
useful for, ignoring the fact that an advanced microprocessor fab is
much much harder to build than a simple smelting plant.)


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sat Jun  4 21:43:34 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 14:43:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] The future of pizza delivery?
In-Reply-To: <000901c567ce$e4b617f0$0100a8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <20050604214334.85469.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "kevinfreels.com" <kevin at kevinfreels.com> wrote:
> Have any of you seen this?
> http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/pizzacall

Problem: economics.  Businesses are ultimately all about satisfying
the customer to make a profit; intrusively anti-consumer behavior
tends to take out the business (as the RIAA and MPAA are finding out
the hard way).  Casual knowledge of a customer's travel and retail
purchases, for example, would not appreciably help a pizza delivery
service but would turn customers off so much that it'd be uneconomic
to have their agents have access to that info.  Health insurance
agencies that pressure food providers into compliance would find their
insured base going to food providers to small to be worth pressuring -
or just switching agencies if possible - and the food providers that
might cave in would find themselves losing business to their
unpressured competition.  (Not that this drive towards small business
instead of large national chains would necessarily be a bad thing in
all cases.)  And so forth.

They might well have a database of the customer's addresses and phone
numbers.  But most such places one already do that to streamline future
repeat business - storing information that the customer provided
directly.


From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Sat Jun  4 21:56:22 2005
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 22:56:22 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Euphamism and misspellings.
In-Reply-To: <01b701c568ed$5900ce10$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
References: <200506021935.j52JZKR20191@tick.javien.com>
	<017301c568e1$07014060$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<8d71341e050604021275feb036@mail.gmail.com>
	<01b701c568ed$5900ce10$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <8d71341e05060414567d726f4b@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/4/05, Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Russell Wallace wrote:
> 
> > Argue your position
> > if you must (not that anything will or can be said on the topic of
> > abortion that hasn't been said a million times already, so rehashing
> > it on this list is a waste of bandwidth),
> 
> You know that for a fact do you?

Yep.

Let me take a show of hands: is there anyone here who seriously thinks
there's the slightest possibility that debating abortion on this list
could be anything other than a waste of bandwidth?

- Russell


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Sat Jun  4 22:23:17 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2005 15:23:17 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Gunning for trouble
Message-ID: <42A229D5.1070106@mindspring.com>

[The police chief should go to jail, too.  -Terry]


http://wetrack.it/xposed/a/47/e/243

Grandpa Has 500 Guns

Xposed, May 2005
By AP Staff

RIDGEFIELD, N.J.
A day after police escorted a disoriented elderly woman to her home, they
returned with a search warrant and found a massive cache of weapons and
gunpowder.

Nearly 500 guns, including AK-47s and high-powered rifles, 500 pounds of
gunpowder and 100,000 rounds of ammunition were taken Wednesday from the
home of Elizabeth and Sherwin Raymond, both 82.

Sherwin Raymond, a former physician and known gun enthusiast, has twice
spent time in prison: in the early 1970s for performing illegal abortions
and later that decade for selling silencer-equipped submachine guns.
Convicted felons are not permitted to own guns.

"People knew he was a (gun) collector, but no one suspected the magnitude of
what was found," police Chief John Bogovich told The Record of Bergen County
for Thursday's newspapers. "This will be a monumental task to inventory."

Police said they sought the warrant after bringing Elizabeth Raymond back to
her home on Memorial Day and seeing the windows and doors open.

Police suspect many of weapons might have been bought at gun shows. Federal
authorities are expected to investigate where they were purchased and
whether they had ever been used in crimes.

Sherwin Raymond was charged with creating a hazardous condition and his bail
was set at $25,000. Police guarded him Wednesday at a Hackensack hospital
while he received dialysis treatment. His wife, who was not charged, was
taken to a nearby hospital so she did not have to be alone.



-- 
"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 sjatkins at mac.com  Sat Jun  4 22:41:24 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 15:41:24 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public! Film
	ateleven.
In-Reply-To: <8412bb14d33cebcad872a2076969e026@stross.org.uk>
References: <20050603180852.2804.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<49F57B65-E80A-438D-9FC2-FABB35881BF9@mac.com>
	<8d71341e0506032354334d6f15@mail.gmail.com>
	<010301c568d5$5a155f40$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<8d71341e05060400292bc24bee@mail.gmail.com>
	<0E1E225A-F062-484F-9ECF-BBC30FA2BD98@mac.com>
	<8d71341e05060403094a776333@mail.gmail.com>
	<8412bb14d33cebcad872a2076969e026@stross.org.uk>
Message-ID: <6A54B683-95F0-4FF1-9323-AFA090EB998D@mac.com>


On Jun 4, 2005, at 12:33 PM, Charlie Stross wrote:
> It seems to me that the reason abortion is such a hot-button topic  
> -- at least in the USA -- is that it is almost invariably  
> introduced as a stalking-horse for other social agendas that are  
> never explicitly dragged kicking and screaming under the spotlight.
> It then becomes impossible to express an opinion on the subject of  
> abortion per se without a whole slew of additional philosophical  
> and social attitudes being attributed to one.
>

Yep.  I keep experiencing people attributing all sorts of things to  
me given my stand on the subject of abortion.  I am amazed and often  
blind-sided by this so you are doubtless right.

>
> Can we maybe agree, as extropians one and all, that in an ideal  
> world involuntary and/or unwanted conception wouldn't occur, and  
> that as extropians are dedicated to the improvement of the human  
> condition, figuring out how to make conception a process under  
> voluntary control -- preferably wired into our neurohormonal axis  
> by way of gene-line engineering -- would do more to alleviate human  
> suffering than any amount of on-going gaseous blathering over  
> whether humanity cuts in when the foetus reaches 10^5 cells or 10^8?


Sounds good to me.  Of course the rub is in the question of what is  
allowable to simulate or correct toward the ideal goal state in the  
meantime.    I think you can work backward from the goal of total  
control over when a pregnancy occurs to it being permissible to end  
an unwanted pregnancy that escaped one's currently imperfect  
control.  Others of course disagree.

- samantha



From fauxever at sprynet.com  Sat Jun  4 23:11:48 2005
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 16:11:48 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public!
	Filmateleven.
References: <20050603180852.2804.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com><49F57B65-E80A-438D-9FC2-FABB35881BF9@mac.com><8d71341e0506032354334d6f15@mail.gmail.com><010301c568d5$5a155f40$6e2a2dcb@homepc><8d71341e05060400292bc24bee@mail.gmail.com><0E1E225A-F062-484F-9ECF-BBC30FA2BD98@mac.com><8d71341e05060403094a776333@mail.gmail.com><8412bb14d33cebcad872a2076969e026@stross.org.uk>
	<6A54B683-95F0-4FF1-9323-AFA090EB998D@mac.com>
Message-ID: <00a801c5695a$c9735880$6600a8c0@brainiac>

From: "Samantha Atkins" <sjatkins at mac.com>

> Yep.  I keep experiencing people attributing all sorts of things to  me 
> given my stand on the subject of abortion.  I am amazed and often 
> blind-sided by this so you are doubtless right.

I have had the same experience, yup.

> Sounds good to me.  Of course the rub is in the question of what is 
> allowable to simulate or correct toward the ideal goal state in the 
> meantime.    I think you can work backward from the goal of total  control 
> over when a pregnancy occurs to it being permissible to end  an unwanted 
> pregnancy that escaped one's currently imperfect  control.  Others of 
> course disagree.

My grandmother - who got married in 1915 in Russia, at the dawn of that 
revolution ... and who had given birth to two children by the time she 
settled in White-Russian-China in the early 1920s, got pregnant accidentally 
when she was in her early 40s and things were getting ugly in China - that 
was in 1939.  She did not philosophize about it much - she did what she 
thought she needed to do to keep herself and her family safe and "packable" 
(as the White Russians often needed to suddenly move from one 
hot-and-dangerous area - to another less dangerous area ... until they 
eventually got to the promised land of the USA, which sometimes took years, 
if not decades).  I am not 100% certain what my grandmother did - but she 
either took something or did something to herself to cause an abortion (or 
both?) - and I always thought it was very brave or her.  She never talked 
about it (I overheard things here and there), and she definitely never 
played "victim."  Even in light of some danger to her own life, it was just 
a practical thing she felt she needed to do - to get some back some control 
she needed in the out-of-control world of the immigrant-in-a-strange-land.

I am constantly amazed - looking back - at how strong some of the women with 
whom I grew up were.  And they cooked like you wouldn't believe, to boot.

And I think my grandmother would have tried to eat Mike Lorrey alive, if she 
got the chance.

Olga
 




From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sat Jun  4 23:17:23 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 09:17:23 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Euphamism and misspellings.
References: <200506021935.j52JZKR20191@tick.javien.com><017301c568e1$07014060$6e2a2dcb@homepc><8d71341e050604021275feb036@mail.gmail.com><01b701c568ed$5900ce10$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<8d71341e05060414567d726f4b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <025f01c5695b$90934c40$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

Russell Wallace wrote:

> On 6/4/05, Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> Russell Wallace wrote:
>> 
>> > Argue your position
>> > if you must (not that anything will or can be said on the topic of
>> > abortion that hasn't been said a million times already, so rehashing
>> > it on this list is a waste of bandwidth),
>> 
>> You know that for a fact do you?
> 
> Yep.
> 
> Let me take a show of hands: is there anyone here who seriously thinks
> there's the slightest possibility that debating abortion on this list
> could be anything other than a waste of bandwidth?

Russell, did you look at the link to the Virtual Human Embryo site? 

Brett Paatsch



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Jun  5 00:06:57 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 10:06:57 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public!
	Filmateleven.
References: <20050603180852.2804.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com><49F57B65-E80A-438D-9FC2-FABB35881BF9@mac.com><8d71341e0506032354334d6f15@mail.gmail.com><010301c568d5$5a155f40$6e2a2dcb@homepc><8d71341e05060400292bc24bee@mail.gmail.com><0E1E225A-F062-484F-9ECF-BBC30FA2BD98@mac.com><8d71341e05060403094a776333@mail.gmail.com>
	<8412bb14d33cebcad872a2076969e026@stross.org.uk>
Message-ID: <029201c56962$7d6500d0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

Charlie Stross wrote:

> Can we maybe agree, as extropians one and all, that in an ideal
> world involuntary and/or unwanted conception wouldn't occur,
> and that as extropians are dedicated to the improvement of the
> human condition, figuring out how to make conception a process
> under voluntary control -- preferably wired into our neurohormonal
> axis by way of gene-line engineering -- would do more to alleviate
> human suffering than any amount of on-going gaseous blathering 
> over whether humanity cuts in when the foetus reaches 10^5 cells
> or 10^8?

I can't agree with that. 

First, not everyone that posts to the ExI chat list is an extropian.
Arguably no one is. 

Two, "figuring out how to make conception a process under
voluntary control" was achieved ages ago. Don't have sex - unless
your willing get pregnant - thats seems to be the catholic position
on it, and with a few exceptions I'd have to grant them that that
would work if everyone did it.

To get gene-line engineering working as a solution as you suggest
it doesn't just have to be technologically practical it has to be 
politically practical. Guess what the catholics and others who prefer
their solution to the one you propose would vote against your solution
in large numbers even if you could get a political party to put it on the
agenda. 

Three, when humanity cuts in, as you put it, is not a trivial question.
Its an important one. And discussions about it that develop the
thinking of people involved in them are discussions worth having. 

When Galileo looked through a telescope and saw Jupiter and its
moons he was seeing what was there. If the Pope had been willing
to look through the telescope the Pope too would have seen what
was there. Perhaps the Pope would have questioned whether he
could trust this new fangled piece of technology or not but at least
his taking a look would have progressed his thinking a long a bit.
Perhaps he could have had another telescope built. Perhaps his
eminence could have gotten the telescope deconstructed and
reassembled. 

The situation with respect to discovering the truth about the 
development of humans is comparable. It is possible for people 
to look through a microscope and see for themselves how much
structure and organisation is involved in human entities at various
stages from sperm and egg to early stage embryos which appear
prior to the formation of tissues as clumps of cells. When tissues
start to form they are tissues as well as cells. This stuff can be seen
with ones own eyes. Religious people can see it if they are willing
to look at it. In the age of the internet we are able to make it more
accessible to people to see this stuff in silico for themselves. But 
we cannot make them look. Perhaps like that Pope all they want
to do is presume that they know the answer.  

It is unfortunate that it is not easier to change the minds of people
who votes matter but it never has been easy and it never has been
particularly pleasant.

I am willing to tolerate your not finding you first look at the extropy
list after a few months to be less than pleasant if it means that people
like John C Wright and Russell Wallace will look through the damn
microscope and see what it is that is the actual substance of the 
matter.   

http://virtualhumanembryo.lsuhsc.edu/HEIRLOOM/Stages/HEP_StagesFS.htm

The purpose here is too enlighten with a view to persuasion with a
view to improving the human condition. It is not likely to be possible
to do that without the people involved understanding what the human
condition at the various stages of human development is. 

Brett Paatsch
  












From dgc at cox.net  Sun Jun  5 00:21:43 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2005 20:21:43 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] self replicating machine ....
In-Reply-To: <20050604203108.70821.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050604203108.70821.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42A24597.5090100@cox.net>

Adrian Tymes wrote:

>--- Jan Gruber <bchjg at nus.edu.sg> wrote:
>  
>
>>I thought this bit of BBC tech news might be of interest - not sure
>>how the electronic components are supposed to be replicated though. I
>>seem to remember that this was discussed here some time ago - anybody
>>know what is the state of the art with this ?
>>    
>>
>
>The electronic components - specifically, the microprocessors - are
>indeed the stumbling points.  Simple mechanics can self-replicate, if
>guided appropriately, but so far no one has been able to make the
>information carrying bits - again, the microprocessors -
>self-replicate. 
>
Adrian pointed out that the real issue is the definition of "raw material."

It is now theoretically possible to build a complex electronic circuit using
using an ink jet printer. I do not know if you can build the circuitry 
needed by an
ink jet printer using an ink jet printer, but my gut feeling is that you 
can.

Today even the most trivial process control microprocessor is massively more
capable than it needs to be for most simple processes. We need to perform
a gedankenexperiment: What is the minimal circuit that can control an 
ink jet printer,
and what is the biggest circuit that an ink jet printer can print? If 
these numbers are
reasonably close, it should be possible for an ink jet printer to 
replicate its circuitry, and
to replicate the circuitry for the rest of a self-replicating system 
that includes an
ink jet printer.

For this exersize, we must consider the paper (or other substrate) and 
the rather exotic inks
as raw materials. At the system level, a small production plant for the 
paper and a small production
plant for each of the inks is likely to be a whole lot easier to build 
than even the smallest conceivable
infrastructure based on silicon wafers.

The only problem here is the ink jet print head. The use of an ink jet 
to print a dense circuit depends
critically on the precision of the print head, and today's print heads 
are lithographic. An ink jet printer
has a resolution of 600dpi (about 100micrometer) or better. If we relax 
the resolution, we lose circuit
density. My gut feeling is that a printer using non-lithographic, purely 
mechanical techniques, can
achieve a precision of at best 100 micrometer. This is an areal density 
of one percent of the density
achieved by an ink jet printer.

But let;'s go for it.
Assume a mechanical plotter with 100micrometer resolution.
Assume a substrate (page)  with a 32cm.32cm printable size
Assume a 1-bit-per pixel ROM technology: we can store and replicate 
10Mb/page.
If a transistor plus routing overhead cost 10 pixels, we have 1 million 
transistors per page.

Note that this technology is incredibly SLOW by comparison with modern 
semiconductors.
who cares? It is fast enough to control a self-replicator. Recall that 
computers in 1980
had 1Mhz clocks. A system with a 100micrometer resolution should be able 
to operate
with a 1Mhz clock.

Let's arbitrarily assume that the self-replicator can be described in 
100MB=800Mb. This is
80 pages of plotting. Further assume that the electronics can be 
instantiated in an additional
80 pages of electronic circuitry. This is roughly equivalent to two 
reams of office-quality paper,
or about 1Kg to store the information and electronics.

I think I need to write a paper on this subject instead of an e-mail. 
Can someone point me to
references?




From fauxever at sprynet.com  Sun Jun  5 01:04:32 2005
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 18:04:32 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fly Me to the Moon
Message-ID: <000f01c5696a$88df42b0$6600a8c0@brainiac>

Dubbed "Herakles," the system would use an ion beam produced from xenon gas 
to propel the craft to speeds of 200,000 mph, 10 times faster than the top 
speed of the space shuttle. :

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002299705_ion04.html




From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Sun Jun  5 01:46:54 2005
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 02:46:54 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Euphamism and misspellings.
In-Reply-To: <025f01c5695b$90934c40$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
References: <200506021935.j52JZKR20191@tick.javien.com>
	<017301c568e1$07014060$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<8d71341e050604021275feb036@mail.gmail.com>
	<01b701c568ed$5900ce10$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<8d71341e05060414567d726f4b@mail.gmail.com>
	<025f01c5695b$90934c40$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <8d71341e05060418463719f783@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/5/05, Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Russell, did you look at the link to the Virtual Human Embryo site?

No, you're missing the point - my opinion on that topic happens to be
the same as yours. I do not have to personally subscribe to the
minority view to object to a state of affairs where holders of the
majority view do not see themselves obliged to observe civilized
standards of discourse.

- Russell


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Jun  5 02:23:42 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 12:23:42 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Euphamism and misspellings.
References: <200506021935.j52JZKR20191@tick.javien.com>
	<017301c568e1$07014060$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<8d71341e050604021275feb036@mail.gmail.com>
	<01b701c568ed$5900ce10$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<8d71341e05060414567d726f4b@mail.gmail.com>
	<025f01c5695b$90934c40$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<8d71341e05060418463719f783@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <02d501c56975$978bd160$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

Russell Wallace wrote:

> On 6/5/05, Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > Russell, did you look at the link to the Virtual Human Embryo site?
> 
> No, you're missing the point - my opinion on that topic happens to be
> the same as yours. I do not have to personally subscribe to the
> minority view to object to a state of affairs where holders of the
> majority view do not see themselves obliged to observe civilized
> standards of discourse.

I did not missing your point. I understand that you want to defend
the right of what you regard as the minority view to a fair hearing
in this forum. That is laudible in so far as it goes but it does not
go far enough. 

This forum is not the ultimate forum. The ultimate forum is the world.
The minority view expressed by christians like John C Wright is not
the minority view in that larger forum. When John C Wright comes
into this forum he comes in of his own free will and he leaves of his
own free will perhaps even probably with a better understanding of 
how others with different views to his own think. If he is here in 
operating in good faith as a truth seeker he may be persuaded by
arguments and the good faith of others but if he is here to test only
his skills in rhetoric and to acquire a better understanding of the 
enemy so as to counter them in the larger forum then your laudible
defense of his rights here may have consequences counter to the
principle that you are standing for in that larger forum of the world
in which policy is discussed and formulated in parliaments where
those with faith based world views vastly outnumber those without.

I know from person experience that those with faith based world
views in the parliaments and congress do not constrain themselves
either to the standards of civilized discourse or indeed to the laws
of the land if they can escape them in the pursuit of what they 
regard as the higher purpose as they see it.

You say that your view is the same as mine. You do not know 
my view well enough to say that unless you are willing to look
at the evidence that I show you and to see the basis upon which
my view is formed. You objected that nothing further could be
gained by a discussion of abortion and that to discuss it here 
was a waste of electrons and of bandwidth. We have plenty
of electrons and plenty of bandwidth. What we are short on 
are tools to pursuade those who are open to being persuaded.

I ask you again, this is not a loaded or leading question, did
you look at the Virtual Human Embryo site? If so do you think
that it is misleading to say that at some stages the early human 
entity is a cluster of cells AND that therefore it is misleading
to use the word child as a catchall term to include everything
from a fertilized egg to a human infant of a couple of years of
age a child? 

John C Wright whether he knows it or not, or whether you
know it or not is actively working to remove some distinctions
between classes of entities that are necessary to begin to have
an intelligent and honest debate about morality. A distinction
between person and non person is necessary to be made not
so that non persons be stripped of dignity but so that the hard
won gains of rights for persons are not frittered away. The 
distinction between child and non child also serves as a basis
to allow the rights of the child to be upheld. It is not there to
deny rights to the class of non child. Adult humans are non
childs too. But a person that conflates the class child with
non child simply to reposition the ethical discourse onto a
basis more supportive to their rhetoric is either doing so 
out of ignorance or doing so out of bad faith.

You cannot know which of those bases John C Wright is
operating from simply because he packages his discourse
couteously. 

Brett Paatsch



From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Sun Jun  5 02:48:38 2005
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 03:48:38 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Euphamism and misspellings.
In-Reply-To: <02d501c56975$978bd160$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
References: <200506021935.j52JZKR20191@tick.javien.com>
	<017301c568e1$07014060$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<8d71341e050604021275feb036@mail.gmail.com>
	<01b701c568ed$5900ce10$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<8d71341e05060414567d726f4b@mail.gmail.com>
	<025f01c5695b$90934c40$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<8d71341e05060418463719f783@mail.gmail.com>
	<02d501c56975$978bd160$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <8d71341e05060419482308ce23@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/5/05, Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> I ask you again, this is not a loaded or leading question, did
> you look at the Virtual Human Embryo site?

No. I have already seen pictures and descriptions of early-stage
embryos; they formed inputs to my judgement that said entities should
not be regarded as persons. But I don't make the mistake of confusing
my judgement on a moral issue with the scientific facts that formed
inputs to it.

> If so do you think
> that it is misleading to say that at some stages the early human
> entity is a cluster of cells AND that therefore it is misleading
> to use the word child as a catchall term to include everything
> from a fertilized egg to a human infant of a couple of years of
> age a child?

No. It represents a view that differs from mine, but that is not the
same as being misleading.

> I know from person experience that those with faith based world
> views in the parliaments and congress do not constrain themselves
> either to the standards of civilized discourse or indeed to the laws
> of the land if they can escape them in the pursuit of what they
> regard as the higher purpose as they see it.

Some do, some don't. Are you of the opinion that those without faith
based world views typically adhere to a higher standard of conduct? If
so, I am afraid <understatement of the month> your opinion fails to
correspond to the state of affairs that exists in the real world
</understatement of the month> - as this discussion has nicely
demonstrated.

- Russell


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Jun  5 03:28:16 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 13:28:16 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Euphamism and misspellings.
References: <200506021935.j52JZKR20191@tick.javien.com>
	<017301c568e1$07014060$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<8d71341e050604021275feb036@mail.gmail.com>
	<01b701c568ed$5900ce10$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<8d71341e05060414567d726f4b@mail.gmail.com>
	<025f01c5695b$90934c40$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<8d71341e05060418463719f783@mail.gmail.com>
	<02d501c56975$978bd160$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<8d71341e05060419482308ce23@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <02ec01c5697e$9cb46130$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

Russell Wallace wrote:

> On 6/5/05, Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > I ask you again, this is not a loaded or leading question, did
> > you look at the Virtual Human Embryo site?
> 
> No. I have already seen pictures and descriptions of early-stage
> embryos; they formed inputs to my judgement that said entities
> should not be regarded as persons. 

Have you shown those pictures to anyone else to give so that they
could form inputs to their judgement? 

>But I don't make the mistake of confusing my judgement on a 
>moral issue with the scientific facts that formed inputs to it.

Perhaps you are implying that I do. On this matter you would
be wrong. I use scientific facts and experience to inform me
of the way the world is. Is doesn't automatically or easily get
to ought. But ignorance of what is will almost certainly get to
the formulation of very bad policy. Christians (as a category
there are of course exceptions) start with the proposition that
God is and build their worldview including their view of absolute
morality up from that. This is akin to trying to achieve a system 
of objective morality by stealing it all in one greedy, intellectually
lazy, go. 

> > If so do you think
> > that it is misleading to say that at some stages the early human
> > entity is a cluster of cells AND that therefore it is misleading
> > to use the word child as a catchall term to include everything
> > from a fertilized egg to a human infant of a couple of years of
> > age a child?
> 
> No. It represents a view that differs from mine, but that is not the
> same as being misleading.

Okay, so it hasn't mislead you because you were already better
informed. But that is not the question, the question is, is calling an
early stage embryo a child likely, in your view, to mislead those
who have not seen an early stage embryo?

And do you know for a fact that John C Wright has taken a look
at the site or something similar and therefore knows what it is that
he is talking about?

> > I know from person experience that those with faith based world
> > views in the parliaments and congress do not constrain themselves
> > either to the standards of civilized discourse or indeed to the laws
> > of the land if they can escape them in the pursuit of what they
> > regard as the higher purpose as they see it.

> Some do, some don't. Are you of the opinion that those without faith
> based world views typically adhere to a higher standard of conduct? 

Yes, as a generalisation, I do think that, but there are so very few of 
them that it is hard to tell. Those that look to faith to find guidance to 
their moral decisions are abandoning their own judgement to some 
other authority then there own conscience. They have less need to 
look to science or to the law or to the means to persuade others. 
A faith based decision is incompatible with a reason based decision
and so I think it is ultimately an anti-social decision regardless of 
any incidental good effect that may flow from it by fortuitous
circumstances. 

> If  so, I am afraid <understatement of the month> your opinion fails
> to correspond to the state of affairs that exists in the real world
> </understatement of the month> - as this discussion has nicely
> demonstrated.

I'll just let that statement of yours stand. What is gratuitously asserted
doesn't always need to be gratuitously denied. 

Brett Paatsch



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  5 03:30:28 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 20:30:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public! Film
	ateleven.
In-Reply-To: <010301c568d5$5a155f40$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050605033028.34891.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> > On 6/4/05, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> Buzz off troll.
> > 
> > Well, I've cut you slack for reasons you've communicated to me in
> > private thereby leaving me feeling I need to lay off while out of
> > decency refraining from either arguing with you or telling anyone
> why
> > I'm not arguing with you. But sod this for a lark; there are
> limits.
> > My political views on the matter of abortion happen to be closer to
> > yours than Mike's, but what of it? No, I will not buzz off. No, I
> will
> > not sit back and be quiet while you imply that anyone whose views
> > differ from yours is a troll. 
> 
> Russell, I think *you* have drawn an inference that Samantha did not
> imply. 
> 
> I do not think she was saying "Buzz of troll" to anyone other than
> Mike and even then only in relation to one particular post he made.
> 
> I like Mike. I respect Mike including respecting his concerns for 
> the issues of abortion.  But sometimes Mike *does* behave like a
> troll in that he seems to be deliberately inflamatory in order to get
> a response and perhaps to ensure that he can join the conversation. 
> Personally, I don't think Samantha was out of line in saying what she
> said on this occassion. 

On the contrary, Samantha was implying that all women have the power of
life and death over their kids. Such an attitude is IMHO little
different from that of a tyrant deciding who lives and who dies. It is
megalomaniacal. If anybody needs a good smack of reality, it is Samantha.

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 Jun  5 03:39:20 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 20:39:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fly Me to the Moon
In-Reply-To: <000f01c5696a$88df42b0$6600a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <20050605033920.80681.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> Dubbed "Herakles," the system would use an ion beam produced from
> xenon gas 
> to propel the craft to speeds of 200,000 mph, 10 times faster than
> the top 
> speed of the space shuttle. :
> 
>
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002299705_ion04.html
> 

"The first ion thruster was installed on Deep Space 1, which was
launched in 1998 and conducted a flyby of comet Borrelly."

This is wrong. Ion thrusters have been in use since the 1970's on
non-American spacecraft. Deep Space 1 was the first deep space craft
whose primary propulsion was an ion engine.

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! 
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  Sun Jun  5 03:44:54 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 13:44:54 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public!
	Filmateleven.
References: <20050605033028.34891.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <02fd01c56980$ef68f290$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

> On the contrary, Samantha was implying that all women have 
> the power of life and death over their kids.

I know where you are coming from, I think, and so I accept that
you may have thought that was Samantha's implication but she
says it wasn't and I'm inclined to take her at her word. 

Could she have been gentler to you? Definately, but a lot has
been said on this topic of abortion including by you Mike. Some
of it quite good stuff. Yet you seem to relish the raising of issues
more than you care for the locking in off any incremental 
progress and that gets wearying sometimes.

> Such an attitude is IMHO little different from that of a tyrant
> deciding who lives and who dies. It is megalomaniacal. If 
> anybody needs a good smack of reality, it is Samantha.

I had enjoyed discussing abortion with you but when I asked
you if you'd checked out the Virtual Human Embryo site you
didn't tell me. 

Conversation with you can be like all rough foreplay and no
orgasm, in that one never gets to know if you have moved your
opinion one iota. 

Brett Paatsch
[heterosexual :-)]




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  5 04:04:49 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 21:04:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public!
	Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <02fd01c56980$ef68f290$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050605040450.60673.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> > On the contrary, Samantha was implying that all women have 
> > the power of life and death over their kids.
> 
> I know where you are coming from, I think, and so I accept that
> you may have thought that was Samantha's implication but she
> says it wasn't and I'm inclined to take her at her word. 
> 
> Could she have been gentler to you? Definately, but a lot has
> been said on this topic of abortion including by you Mike. Some
> of it quite good stuff. Yet you seem to relish the raising of issues
> more than you care for the locking in off any incremental 
> progress and that gets wearying sometimes.

At risk of "but she started it", I tend to weary from seeing a lack of
progress, even incremental, by Samantha. I accept her claims she didn't
mean it the way it read. I hope she appreciates the impression she made
by the way she wrote what she did.

> 
> > Such an attitude is IMHO little different from that of a tyrant
> > deciding who lives and who dies. It is megalomaniacal. If 
> > anybody needs a good smack of reality, it is Samantha.
> 
> I had enjoyed discussing abortion with you but when I asked
> you if you'd checked out the Virtual Human Embryo site you
> didn't tell me. 

I've been offline since yesterday, so I hadn't seen that message. I've
been trying to get some more human reality lately....

> 
> Conversation with you can be like all rough foreplay and no
> orgasm, in that one never gets to know if you have moved your
> opinion one iota. 

The only way someone can move my opinions on something is to try to
convince me how their policy opinion adheres to my principles closer
than my own policy opinion.

IMHO too much of the pro-abortion types, even those that claim to be
libertarians, tend to be of the same limited vision as bunkertarian or
nationalist libertarian types who too easily draw lines in the sand
beyond which they will not lift a finger to defend the liberty of
others. They lack the vision to see that those who blithely decide that
some people shouldn't live, given enough time to consolidate and grow
their power, will eventually turn their attention to the line drawers
who think their own position secure.

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! 
Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  5 04:14:20 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 21:14:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public!
	Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <02fd01c56980$ef68f290$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050605041420.45313.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>  
> I had enjoyed discussing abortion with you but when I asked
> you if you'd checked out the Virtual Human Embryo site you
> didn't tell me. 

I have now. IMHO anyone who thinks a 56 day old fetus is a 'clump of
cells' is insane.

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! 
Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Jun  5 04:30:30 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2005 23:30:30 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public!
	Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <02fd01c56980$ef68f290$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
References: <20050605033028.34891.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<02fd01c56980$ef68f290$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050604232844.01e33d98@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 01:44 PM 6/5/2005 +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote:

>Conversation with you can be like all rough foreplay and no
>orgasm, in that one never gets to know if you have moved your
>opinion one iota.

Damn! I was hoping you were going to end that sentence with the words "one 
inch".  :)

Damien Broderick



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Jun  5 04:37:08 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 14:37:08 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in
	public!Filmateleven.
References: <20050605040450.60673.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <034401c56988$3bc608b0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>> I had enjoyed discussing abortion with you but when I asked
>> you if you'd checked out the Virtual Human Embryo site you
>> didn't tell me.
>
> I've been offline since yesterday, so I hadn't seen that message. I've
> been trying to get some more human reality lately....

Yesterday?, What short concentrations spans this young internet
generation has. I was refering to this post of the 21th May.
http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-May/016263.html

    See "Please tell me that you took a look at the link and whether you
    found it persuasive.  I will then feel more confident that I am not 
wasting
    the time I am investing in you."


>> Conversation with you can be like all rough foreplay and no
>> orgasm, in that one never gets to know if you have moved your
>> opinion one iota.
>
> The only way someone can move my opinions on something is to try to
> convince me how their policy opinion adheres to my principles closer
> than my own policy opinion.

Thats a pretty tall order for you place on anyone. They'd have to
understand *your* principles and *your* policy first in order to get
you to change your opinion. Presumably you would not change your
statements if you had not changed your opinion, so your most exteme
statements would just go out looking like flame bait and you'd never
retract them, or am I wrong in this chain of reasoning?

> IMHO too much of the pro-abortion types, even those that claim
> to be libertarians, tend to be of the same limited vision as bunkertarian
> or nationalist libertarian types who too easily draw lines in the sand
> beyond which they will not lift a finger to defend the liberty of
> others.

>From what you say above it seems to follow that no one would be
able to change your opinion if they saw you merely as a type and
not specifically as Mike Lorrey, because you would just shrug it off
and say, and think, 'hey I'm not just a type', I'm Mike Lorrey (and
you'd be right). BUT then you throw types around so liberally
yourself. You don't seem to cut others the same degree of personal
slack that you demand they show you in order to change your view.

You have known Samantha and me and others that post to this list
to some extent at least for years. When do the statements of people
you know get to be treated as statements by people that are not
just types? I'm not trying to be a smart aleck, I'm just genuinely
wondering.

> They lack the vision to see that those who blithely decide that
> some people shouldn't live, given enough time to consolidate
> and grow their power, will eventually turn their attention to the
> line drawers who think their own position secure.

If you look at the above link and the ones around it you'll see
that I went quite a distance with you (in terms of time spent
and lines of your text I had to read to check out what you
had to say, and I was happy to do that, but I didn't get much
by way of concrete feedback when I asked for it, and in terms
of you developing your ideas I don't know if much came of it
for you).

This meant that I didn't know if I had wasted my time trying to
talk to you or not. If I can never effect you enough for you
to treat me as more than a type then why should I continue
to try and treat you as more than a type?  You and I are mortals.
We want to think our time spent and invested in others is not
wasted, or at least I do. Aren't you the same?

Brett Paatsch 




From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Jun  5 04:44:03 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 14:44:03 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in
	public!Filmateleven.
References: <20050605041420.45313.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <034b01c56989$32c2a420$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

> --- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>  
>> I had enjoyed discussing abortion with you but when I asked
>> you if you'd checked out the Virtual Human Embryo site you
>> didn't tell me. 
> 
> I have now. IMHO anyone who thinks a 56 day old fetus is a 'clump of
> cells' is insane.

Me too. Well in a sort of way of thinking of "insane". 

But I haven't met anyone in real life that actually does. At 56 days
there is a lot of tissue there and something that looks quite a lot
more like a child then like just a clump of cells. 

By the time people get to know what a 56 day old fetus looks like 
they are beyond mouthing off simplistic statements and are ready
to have a serious conversation about ethics because they have the
tools. 

Thanks for checking that out. If a few others do perhaps the 
actual discussion can really begin. 

Regards 
Brett Paatsch



From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Jun  5 04:51:18 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 21:51:18 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Euphamism and misspellings.
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e05060418463719f783@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200506021935.j52JZKR20191@tick.javien.com>
	<017301c568e1$07014060$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<8d71341e050604021275feb036@mail.gmail.com>
	<01b701c568ed$5900ce10$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<8d71341e05060414567d726f4b@mail.gmail.com>
	<025f01c5695b$90934c40$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<8d71341e05060418463719f783@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <640ABE1C-CF3A-4F9E-AD56-DE0E146248B4@mac.com>


On Jun 4, 2005, at 6:46 PM, Russell Wallace wrote:

> On 6/5/05, Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>> Russell, did you look at the link to the Virtual Human Embryo site?
>>
>
> No, you're missing the point - my opinion on that topic happens to be
> the same as yours. I do not have to personally subscribe to the
> minority view to object to a state of affairs where holders of the
> majority view do not see themselves obliged to observe civilized
> standards of discourse.
>

Calling my response to Mike in the context of what he actually wrote  
uncivilized is utterly unjust.  When I repeatedly and gently ask you  
to reexamine the context and reconsider you launch into a series of  
generalizations and suppositions about where I am (and presumably  
others are) coming from that completely fail to support your initial  
judgment much less justify your continued insistence on making a  
mountain of a molehill.

- s


From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Jun  5 05:06:25 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 22:06:25 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public! Film
	ateleven.
In-Reply-To: <20050605033028.34891.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050605033028.34891.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <79CB2374-AE84-46C1-BCDE-0C0848C985A3@mac.com>


On Jun 4, 2005, at 8:30 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> On the contrary, Samantha was implying that all women have the  
> power of
> life and death over their kids. Such an attitude is IMHO little
> different from that of a tyrant deciding who lives and who dies. It is
> megalomaniacal. If anybody needs a good smack of reality, it is  
> Samantha.
>

Bullshit.  I am saying that adult humans including women have the  
right to order there own lives including when and if they are going  
to bring a child into this world.  I neither said nor implied any of  
your snarling assertions.    I would also VERY strongly advise  
against talking about my needing a smack.   I take such imagery of  
violence being required to supposedly acquaint me with reality quite  
seriously.  Especially when delivered by a bully.

Russell, do you dare accuse me of uncivilized response in the face of  
such as this??   Is this mere expression of a purported minority  
opinion?

- s



From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Jun  5 05:13:37 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 22:13:37 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public!
	Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <20050605040450.60673.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050605040450.60673.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <C494382C-160F-45BE-B986-FFEA9ED750D1@mac.com>


On Jun 4, 2005, at 9:04 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
>
> --- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>> Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On the contrary, Samantha was implying that all women have
>>> the power of life and death over their kids.
>>>
>>
>> I know where you are coming from, I think, and so I accept that
>> you may have thought that was Samantha's implication but she
>> says it wasn't and I'm inclined to take her at her word.
>>
>> Could she have been gentler to you? Definately, but a lot has
>> been said on this topic of abortion including by you Mike. Some
>> of it quite good stuff. Yet you seem to relish the raising of issues
>> more than you care for the locking in off any incremental
>> progress and that gets wearying sometimes.
>>
>
> At risk of "but she started it", I tend to weary from seeing a lack of
> progress, even incremental, by Samantha. I accept her claims she  
> didn't
> mean it the way it read. I hope she appreciates the impression she  
> made
> by the way she wrote what she did.

I said what I meant.  A foetus only becomes a child if the woman  
carrying it decides that is her wish.   Looks pretty darn obvious to  
me and quite needing saying when even a blastocyst is being freely  
called a child.  You launched into a bunch of wild accusations  
against purported whole groups of women and what you think I think  
rather than what I said.  You then compared my position to a dictator  
and said I need a smack.  Who the hell is saying the more outrageous  
things here?

- samantha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050604/48ff3ed6/attachment.html>

From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Jun  5 05:49:34 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 15:49:34 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in
	public!Filmateleven.
References: <20050605040450.60673.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<C494382C-160F-45BE-B986-FFEA9ED750D1@mac.com>
Message-ID: <03b101c56992$59d8a880$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

Samantha wrote:

> A foetus only becomes a child if the woman carrying it
> decides that is her wish.

That would be *generally* true now, in 2005, because so far
as I know the word foetus extends from after day 56 (end of
week 8) up until the time of birth which could be nine months
later.

But it is not always true because sometimes women may
have accidents or fall into unconsciousness and then a 
foetus can be brought into the world by inducement or
by caesarean, rather than at the wish of the woman. 

You asked who was saying the more extreme things? 
Mike was in my opinion.  But Mike is not only about
saying controversial things, he has on this issue quite
a while ago made some good points, perhaps they just
tend to get overlooked sometimes because of how he says
them. 

Given that a foetus is the term used to describe even 
a human entity in the six to nine month period prior to birth,
at least some of which time that foetus has a capacity to live
independently of the mother, then I think it is fair, and indeed
appropriate to have a discussion (here if we are mature enough
for it and in other forums including in the parliaments and
congress whether we are mature enough for it or not because
policy is going to be set there) about what rights that human
entity ought have morally and legally and I think it is fair that
the males in a civil society be entitled to participate in that
discussion and in the formulation of policy. Males as members
of society have rights and obligations and issues to work through
with respect to how human entities at different ages ought be 
treated too. 

I don't think that you disagree with this Samantha. I certainly can't
recall you saying anything that implied you did. Mike has actually
advocated for males to be involved in the policy side. He's advocated
in a Mike like way but imo the purpose of his advocacy is
not wrong for that, just less effective than it might have been. 

Brett Paatsch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050605/c8bfe655/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Jun  5 06:09:36 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 23:09:36 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs
	in	public!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <03b101c56992$59d8a880$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
References: <20050605040450.60673.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<C494382C-160F-45BE-B986-FFEA9ED750D1@mac.com>
	<03b101c56992$59d8a880$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <ADEE4B6D-D3B5-4310-94B7-C932C6F283E1@mac.com>


On Jun 4, 2005, at 10:49 PM, Brett Paatsch wrote:

>
> I don't think that you disagree with this Samantha. I certainly can't
> recall you saying anything that implied you did. Mike has actually
> advocated for males to be involved in the policy side. He's advocated
> in a Mike like way but imo the purpose of his advocacy is
> not wrong for that, just less effective than it might have been.
>

Mike is not speaking remotely in a way that allows a discussion.  I  
will not pretend otherwise.

- s
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050604/7c478f44/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Sun Jun  5 10:23:00 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 11:23:00 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fly Me to the Moon
In-Reply-To: <20050605033920.80681.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <000f01c5696a$88df42b0$6600a8c0@brainiac>
	<20050605033920.80681.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e05060503231d1c37a4@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/5/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> This is wrong. Ion thrusters have been in use since the 1970's on
> non-American spacecraft. Deep Space 1 was the first deep space craft
> whose primary propulsion was an ion engine.
> 



SMART-1's Ion Drive: From Fiction to Fact (launched Sept 2003) 
<http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/technovel_smart-1_041119.html>
SMART-1, the European Space Agency craft currently in orbit around the
moon, makes use of a technology that was pure science fiction until
the 1960s - the ion drive. An ion drive is a method of propulsion that
uses electricity to create charged ions and then accelerate them with
a magnetic field, pushing them out the rear of a spacecraft.
SMART-1 has a stationary plasma thruster using xenon gas with 1190
watts of power available, giving a nominal thrust of 68 mN. The
spacecraft contains 48 liters of xenon gas at 150 bar. The lifetime of
the thruster is 7,000 hours at maximum power. The thrust is equivalent
to two pennies resting in the palm of your hand.


Good article on Electric Spacecraft Propulsion
<http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=34201>
Geostationary communications satellites have used electric propulsion
systems for station keeping since the early nineteen-eighties. Low
Earth orbit satellites, such as the Iridium mobile communications
cluster, have also used electric propulsion for orbit adjustments but
the use of electric propulsion as a spacecraft's primary means of
propulsion has been restricted to experimental vehicles such as NASA's
Deep Space One, which was equipped with a xenon ion engine.


BillK


From dirk at neopax.com  Sun Jun  5 10:30:21 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2005 11:30:21 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fly Me to the Moon
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e05060503231d1c37a4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <000f01c5696a$88df42b0$6600a8c0@brainiac>	<20050605033920.80681.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<ee50357e05060503231d1c37a4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <42A2D43D.5050708@neopax.com>

BillK wrote:

>On 6/5/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>This is wrong. Ion thrusters have been in use since the 1970's on
>>non-American spacecraft. Deep Space 1 was the first deep space craft
>>whose primary propulsion was an ion engine.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>SMART-1's Ion Drive: From Fiction to Fact (launched Sept 2003) 
><http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/technovel_smart-1_041119.html>
>SMART-1, the European Space Agency craft currently in orbit around the
>moon, makes use of a technology that was pure science fiction until
>the 1960s - the ion drive. An ion drive is a method of propulsion that
>uses electricity to create charged ions and then accelerate them with
>a magnetic field, pushing them out the rear of a spacecraft.
>SMART-1 has a stationary plasma thruster using xenon gas with 1190
>watts of power available, giving a nominal thrust of 68 mN. The
>spacecraft contains 48 liters of xenon gas at 150 bar. The lifetime of
>the thruster is 7,000 hours at maximum power. The thrust is equivalent
>to two pennies resting in the palm of your hand.
>
>  
>
Planet Earth had a greater space capability in the 1960s than it does now.
The moon race utterly screwed the entire space program.
The way it should have been done was the way it was done in SF. Namely, 
a fully reusable spaceplane followed by a space station and then moon 
landings and onwards to Mars. The past 30yrs has been a waste of time 
and money.

-- 
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: 267.6.2 - Release Date: 04/06/2005



From charlie at stross.org.uk  Sun Jun  5 12:19:42 2005
From: charlie at stross.org.uk (Charlie Stross)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 13:19:42 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fly Me to the Moon
Message-ID: <84ed2486741149df314ef4740564466e@stross.org.uk>



On 5 Jun 2005, at 11:30, Dirk Bruere wrote:

Planet Earth had a greater space capability in the 1960s than it does 
now.
The moon race utterly screwed the entire space program.
The way it should have been done was the way it was done in SF. Namely, 
a fully reusable spaceplane followed by a space station and then moon 
landings and onwards to Mars. The past 30yrs has been a waste of time 
and money.

Au contraire :)

The past 30 years have taught us many things.

1. A spaceship needs wings and a retractable undercarriage like an 
automobile needs oars and sails.

2. Repeated paper studies (in search of the perfect space station 
design) cost more and deliver less than bending metal and patching 
prototypes in orbit (the Russian approach).

3. Putting intelligence into probes is a lot cheaper than adding mass. 
(Note the way Galileo, despite the high-gain antenna failure, managed 
to return masses of data to Earth via the low-gain antenna at a low bit 
rate, by using new compression algorithms that simply weren?t available 
when it was launched. If Galileo had been built with Pioneer 10 levels 
of smarts and launched a decade earlier, it would have been a failure.)

4. 30 years ago the ?space industry? then existing was basically the 
military-industrial complex. Today, entirely commercial space 
transportation services are turning over more money than the global air 
freight business. (And you call this an ?abject failure?? Put it 
another way, government funding for space could stop tomorrow, and we?d 
still have a presence to  build on.)

5. Materials technology is moving on, and if bonded fullerenes achieve 
their potential -- and there are lots of profitable intermediate steps 
on the way to getting what we *really* want -- then building a space 
elevator should be a civil engineering project on the same order of 
cost as the Channel Tunnel. At which point it will happen. Profitable 
industry #1 that really, REALLY needs a space elevator? High level 
radioactive waste disposal. (You simply can?t trust it to something as 
unreliable as a rocket.)

I don?t call this a disaster; I call this solid progress, given that 
we?re constrained by both physical laws (meaning: chemical rockets 
won?t get us much more bang per buck than we?ve already got) and 
complexity and scaling laws (meaning: as we add complexity, we increase 
the chances of failure dramatically -- and yes, I?m talking about 
direct nuclear-thermal propulsion here).


-- Charlie



From charlie at stross.org.uk  Sun Jun  5 12:20:16 2005
From: charlie at stross.org.uk (Charlie Stross)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 13:20:16 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public!
	Filmateleven.
Message-ID: <586da73fcb70f35d2fdc89d8b73dac83@stross.org.uk>

On 5 Jun 2005, at 01:06, Brett Paatsch wrote:

Charlie Stross wrote:

Can we maybe agree, as extropians one and all, that in an ideal
world involuntary and/or unwanted conception wouldn?t occur,

I can?t agree with that.
First, not everyone that posts to the ExI chat list is an extropian.
Arguably no one is.

Well, if you want to split hairs that way ...

Two, ?figuring out how to make conception a process under
voluntary control? was achieved ages ago. Don?t have sex - unless
your willing get pregnant

Tell that to a rape victim.

I repeat: conception is *not* under voluntary control. Celibacy is a  
condition which may be terminated involuntarily. (Moreover, it?s not an  
easily maintained condition for the majority of people.)

The subtext I see behind all this rhetoric about celibacy and the evils  
of abortion is a total phobia of icky females enjoying sex, with a  
side-order of the kind of deep unease about the flesh that --  
ironically -- the more technophobic commentators tend to attribute to  
extropians.

To get gene-line engineering working as a solution as you suggest
it doesn?t just have to be technologically practical it has to be  
politically practical. Guess what the catholics and others who prefer
their solution to the one you propose would vote against your solution
in large numbers even if you could get a political party to put it on  
the
agenda.

Heh. ?Politically practical.? We now have the sub-text out in the open.  
I should like to note that, along with the US state department, the  
other forces trying to scupper the UN WHO proposal that access to  
contraception and abortion should be basic rights available to women  
world-wide were the most barking batshit reactionary islamic  
fundamentalists on the planet -- notably the governments of Saudi  
Arabia and Iran. These are the same chittering dark-ages ass-hats who  
think that vaccinating girls against HPV is an incitement to  
promiscuity, because the mere concept that they could be infected by  
their husbands doesn?t occur to them.

The sub-text of the entire ?human life begins at 10^6 cells/^10^3/1  
cell? debate is that a *potential* life is worth as much, if not more,  
than the *actual* life of the woman who is expected by the  
anti-abortion lobby to go through a somewhat hazardous medical  
condition (which, in the wild, has a 5-10% fatality rate) and then --  
this is implicit in the whole mess -- spend the next twenty years of  
life surrendering their potential for self-actualization to that other  
formerly potential person. Who then gets to do the whole same thing (if  
they?re female) or benefit from all that hard work (if they?re not).

As a non-American who lives in a country where at the last poll just  
short of 90% of the population approved of abortion being available on  
demand, let me say that I think this discussion would be ludicrous if  
it wasn?t evil. And it *is* evil when we get to the real loonies who  
are trying to convince the god-botherers that condoms don?t work, that  
hormonal contraceptives are abortifacients, and that the only  
acceptable place for a woman is barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

There are, incidentally, reasons why this highly damaging meme achieves  
traction in modern religious communities. (Here?s a fairly acute blog  
entry which puts it fairly concisely:
http://hot_needle_of_inquiry.blogspot.com/2005/04/stable-strategy-set- 
defectors.html)

Three, when humanity cuts in, as you put it, is not a trivial question.
Its an important one. And discussions about it that develop the
thinking of people involved in them are discussions worth having.
When Galileo looked through a telescope and saw Jupiter and its
moons he was seeing what was there. If the Pope had been willing
to look through the telescope the Pope too would have seen what
was there. Perhaps the Pope would have questioned whether he
could trust this new fangled piece of technology or not but at least
his taking a look would have progressed his thinking a long a bit.
Perhaps he could have had another telescope built. Perhaps his
eminence could have gotten the telescope deconstructed and
reassembled.

Urban legends don?t aid the debate. Galileo was to a very large extent  
*protected* by the then Pope, who was a friend of his; what got him  
into trouble was court politics, aggravated by his inability to keep  
his mouth shut at the right time. You will note that Galileo was *not*  
burned at the stake despite this being a fairly common outcome for  
heretics at the time ... and that the reason for the draconian response  
to heresy was that it had political implications: religious doctrine  
was then the accepted way of understanding how the world works, and  
questioning its veracity raised implications for the way state policy  
was formed. That?s *never* a safe or easy thing to do; we can see it  
today in the way the Bush administration treats science funding in  
areas that don?t appear to support their preconceptions.




-- Charlie



From pharos at gmail.com  Sun Jun  5 13:33:35 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 14:33:35 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public!
	Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <586da73fcb70f35d2fdc89d8b73dac83@stross.org.uk>
References: <586da73fcb70f35d2fdc89d8b73dac83@stross.org.uk>
Message-ID: <ee50357e050605063360d2a00d@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/5/05, Charlie Stross wrote:
> 
> Urban legends don't aid the debate. Galileo was to a very large extent
> *protected* by the then Pope, who was a friend of his; what got him
> into trouble was court politics, aggravated by his inability to keep
> his mouth shut at the right time. You will note that Galileo was *not*
> burned at the stake despite this being a fairly common outcome for
> heretics at the time ... and that the reason for the draconian response
> to heresy was that it had political implications: religious doctrine
> was then the accepted way of understanding how the world works, and
> questioning its veracity raised implications for the way state policy
> was formed. That's *never* a safe or easy thing to do; we can see it
> today in the way the Bush administration treats science funding in
> areas that don't appear to support their preconceptions.
> 

Hmmmn.  Stretching a bit here, I feel.
The Catholic Church is very keen nowadays to distance itself from the
Galileo affair and claim that they are not really anti-science.
See - we didn't burn him at the stake. We're nice guys really.

But the facts are still there. What they try to do is spin them another way.
Galileo was forced to recant under the threat of torture and placed
under house arrest for the rest of his life.
Now while this may be due to Galileo upsetting church politics, (and
the Catholic church is a very political bureaucracy), the message that
this sent out to the public was - Galileo is 'nearly' a heretic,
imprisoned and his books banned. Do as the church says or you're next.


Quotes:
His book was to immediately receive wide acceptance and circulation,
only to be suddenly barred by order of the pope himself. Urban moved
quickly to appoint a commission to determine possible charges for the
Office of the Inquisition. Galileo was warned "the sky is about to
fall" by his friend the Duke of Tuscany. The commission found ample
evidence of charges for heresy. Galileo was at this time 70 years old
and wanted to have the charges heard in Florence. He was losing his
eyesight, had severe arthritis and suffered from bouts of colitis. He
only agreed to go to Rome after officers of the Inquisition threatened
to transport him there in chains.
He was given time to re-read his "Dialogues", and, after being shown
the instruments of torture, encouraged to write a judicial confession.
Galileo wrote that he would weaken his theories so that they would
lack any force. This was not good enough for the Inquisition, who
wanted him to admit that he knew of the injunction and chose to ignore
it. Galileo acquiesced. He was found "vehemently suspected of heresy"
and was sentenced to imprisonment at the pleasure of the Office of
Inquisition.
Pope Urban allowed the repentant heretic to depart the bleak
accommodations of the Office of Inquisition in Rome and take up house
arrest under strict conditions, first in the village of Sienna, and
then later in his native Tuscany.
For the rest of his life Galileo remained under house arrest. He was
not allowed to take any extensive trips or to entertain many guests.
Following the death of his favourite daughter in 1634, he lived a
lonely life and became blind in 1637. Despite the attempt to isolate
him from the world, his fame grew ? such noted figures as Thomas
Hobbes and the poet John Milton went out of their way to visit him
shortly before his death in 1642. In 1757 after the accuracy of his
research had been established beyond reasonable doubt, the Inquisition
removed the ban on all books that taught the earth moves except those
by Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler. The fallout from this continued to
have a ripple effect all over Europe. The unshackled search for
scientific truth was frequently accompanied by hostility to spiritual
and religious truth.
End quotes.


BillK


From dirk at neopax.com  Sun Jun  5 14:02:53 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2005 15:02:53 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in
	public!	Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e050605063360d2a00d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <586da73fcb70f35d2fdc89d8b73dac83@stross.org.uk>
	<ee50357e050605063360d2a00d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <42A3060D.9080305@neopax.com>

BillK wrote:

>On 6/5/05, Charlie Stross wrote:
>  
>
>>Urban legends don't aid the debate. Galileo was to a very large extent
>>*protected* by the then Pope, who was a friend of his; what got him
>>into trouble was court politics, aggravated by his inability to keep
>>his mouth shut at the right time. You will note that Galileo was *not*
>>burned at the stake despite this being a fairly common outcome for
>>heretics at the time ... and that the reason for the draconian response
>>to heresy was that it had political implications: religious doctrine
>>was then the accepted way of understanding how the world works, and
>>questioning its veracity raised implications for the way state policy
>>was formed. That's *never* a safe or easy thing to do; we can see it
>>today in the way the Bush administration treats science funding in
>>areas that don't appear to support their preconceptions.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Hmmmn.  Stretching a bit here, I feel.
>The Catholic Church is very keen nowadays to distance itself from the
>Galileo affair and claim that they are not really anti-science.
>See - we didn't burn him at the stake. We're nice guys really.
>
>But the facts are still there. What they try to do is spin them another way.
>Galileo was forced to recant under the threat of torture and placed
>under house arrest for the rest of his life.
>Now while this may be due to Galileo upsetting church politics, (and
>the Catholic church is a very political bureaucracy), the message that
>this sent out to the public was - Galileo is 'nearly' a heretic,
>imprisoned and his books banned. Do as the church says or you're next.
>
>  
>
Perhaps you'd like to compare this with the fate of Wilhem Reich.
http://www.hermes-press.com/reich.htm

In 1947, following a vicious smear article in the /New Republic/ by 
Mildred Edie Brady, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began an 
investigation into Reich's orgone energy accumulator. The Brady article 
claimed that Reich was conducting a sex racket, and the FDA assumed that 
his books must be pornographic literature. The FDA gestapo were 
uninterested in scientific information concerning the accumulator, and 
when Reich refused to cooperate with their witch hunt, the investigation 
bogged down, lacking any evidence against the accumulator.

 In 1954, during the Joe McCarthy era, the American feds decided to go 
after Reich again. Without any proof whatsoever, the Food and Drug 
Administration succeeded in having a federal court brand the accumulator 
a fraud, with the added dictum that orgone energy does not exist, and 
the order that all literature even mentioning orgone energy should be 
burned. The FDA placed a ban on transporting or using Reich's orgone 
boxes. Because one of Reich's co-workers continued to transport the 
orgone boxes, Reich was imprisoned. He died of a heart attack in prison 
at the age of 60 in 1957, the day before he was to go up for parole.

______

There is also a subtext that is not often mentioned in that various US 
agencies, from the USAF to the CIA, wanted the 'secrets' of Orgone 
energy. His mistake was to tell them to take a hike.

And let's not forget that this was not set in the Galileo era but in my 
lifetime.

-- 
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: 267.6.2 - Release Date: 04/06/2005



From dirk at neopax.com  Sun Jun  5 14:08:39 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2005 15:08:39 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fly Me to the Moon
In-Reply-To: <9e6fc1014d7c2982071ef2fcff0f8497@antipope.org>
References: <000f01c5696a$88df42b0$6600a8c0@brainiac>	<20050605033920.80681.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<ee50357e05060503231d1c37a4@mail.gmail.com>
	<42A2D43D.5050708@neopax.com>
	<9e6fc1014d7c2982071ef2fcff0f8497@antipope.org>
Message-ID: <42A30767.5080806@neopax.com>

Charlie Stross wrote:

>
> On 5 Jun 2005, at 11:30, Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
>>>
>> Planet Earth had a greater space capability in the 1960s than it does 
>> now.
>> The moon race utterly screwed the entire space program.
>> The way it should have been done was the way it was done in SF. 
>> Namely, a fully reusable spaceplane followed by a space station and 
>> then moon landings and onwards to Mars. The past 30yrs has been a 
>> waste of time and money.
>
>
> Au contraire :)
>
> The past 30 years have taught us many things.
>
> 1. A spaceship needs wings and a retractable undercarriage like an 
> automobile needs oars and sails.
>
I'd dispute that.
Almost all designs for a fully reusable spacecraft have wings.

> 2. Repeated paper studies (in search of the perfect space station 
> design) cost more and deliver less than bending metal and patching 
> prototypes in orbit (the Russian approach).
>
And also the US approach up to (around) the mid 1960s.
That's why we went from piston engined aircraft to manned orbital flight 
in less than 20yrs.

> 3. Putting intelligence into probes is a lot cheaper than adding mass. 
> (Note the way Galileo, despite the high-gain antenna failure, managed 
> to return masses of data to Earth via the low-gain antenna at a low 
> bit rate, by using new compression algorithms that simply weren't 
> available when it was launched. If Galileo had been built with Pioneer 
> 10 levels of smarts and launched a decade earlier, it would have been 
> a failure.)
>
That's thanks to the semiconductor industry and would have happened anyway.

> 4. 30 years ago the "space industry" then existing was basically the 
> military-industrial complex. Today, entirely commercial space 
> transportation services are turning over more money than the global 
> air freight business. (And you call this an "abject failure"? Put it 
> another way, government funding for space could stop tomorrow, and 
> we'd still have a presence to  build on.)
>
That's a capability that existed in the mid 1960s. Or don't satellites 
get lofted by Titans anymore?
The market is comsats, weathersats and spysats.
It is not what I call a 'real' space program.

> 5. Materials technology is moving on, and if bonded fullerenes achieve 
> their potential -- and there are lots of profitable intermediate steps 
> on the way to getting what we *really* want -- then building a space 
> elevator should be a civil engineering project on the same order of 
> cost as the Channel Tunnel. At which point it will happen. Profitable 
> industry #1 that really, REALLY needs a space elevator? High level 
> radioactive waste disposal. (You simply can't trust it to something as 
> unreliable as a rocket.)
>
All this would have happened without any investment in space tech at all.

> I don't call this a disaster; I call this solid progress, given that 
> we're constrained by both physical laws (meaning: chemical rockets 
> won't get us much more bang per buck than we've already got) and 
> complexity and scaling laws (meaning: as we add complexity, we 
> increase the chances of failure dramatically -- and yes, I'm talking 
> about direct nuclear-thermal propulsion here).
>
I call it billion (trillions?) of dollars down the drain with nothing to 
show for it except some old footprints in the Lunar soil.

-- 
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: 267.6.2 - Release Date: 04/06/2005



From natasha at natasha.cc  Sun Jun  5 14:11:27 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2005 09:11:27 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sub-Orbital Space Tourism Survey
In-Reply-To: <003f01c56903$a61c0640$e2893cd1@pavilion>
References: <003f01c56903$a61c0640$e2893cd1@pavilion>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050605091018.02f5a250@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

I'd like to introduce you to John Spencer, space architect and founder of 
Space Tourism Society.  Please let me know if you are interested and I will 
do this offline.

Natasha

At 07:48 AM 6/4/2005, you wrote:
>From: "J. Fox" fox at nevadalink.com
>Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 9:34 PM
>Subject: Sub-Orbital Space Tourism Survey
>
>
>I am conducting a survey on Sub-Orbital Space Tourism for a graduate
>project.  I invite all on the list to to participate by downloading the
>survey, filling the survey out, and mailing the completed survey to me.
>
>Please Note:  Deadline for the completed survey is June 30, 2005 for the
>USA, and July 15 for surveys sent from outside the USA.
>
>Thank you for your time and contributions.
>
>The link to the survey (PDF format 36k):
>
>http://web1.greatbasin.net/~dayton-nevada/Questionaire.pdf
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
[_______________________________________________
President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org
[_____________________________________________________
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz

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/20050605/18706239/attachment.html>

From neptune at superlink.net  Sun Jun  5 14:35:29 2005
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 10:35:29 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sub-Orbital Space Tourism Survey
References: <003f01c56903$a61c0640$e2893cd1@pavilion>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050605091018.02f5a250@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <002a01c569db$d2ac7900$ec893cd1@pavilion>

I passed along your post to J. Fox.

Regards,

Dan
    See "Freedom Above or Tyranny Below" at:
http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/SpaceFreedom.html
  From: Natasha Vita-More 
  To: ExI chat list 
  Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 10:11 AM
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Sub-Orbital Space Tourism Survey


  I'd like to introduce you to John Spencer, space architect and founder of Space Tourism Society.  Please let me know if you are interested and I will do this offline.

  Natasha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050605/053fb646/attachment.html>

From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sun Jun  5 15:20:44 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 08:20:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fly Me to the Moon
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050605152044.77524.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Olga Bourlin <fauxever at sprynet.com> wrote:
> Dubbed "Herakles," the system would use an ion beam produced from
> xenon gas 
> to propel the craft to speeds of 200,000 mph, 10 times faster than
> the top 
> speed of the space shuttle. :
> 
>
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002299705_ion04.html

> The new system would make the moon, which is about 239,000 miles away
> from Earth, a short trip.

Only if it could get anywhere near max speed within that distance.  Ion
thrusters are not known for high thrust.  (Perhaps this could be
changed, but probably not at NASA anytime soon.)


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sun Jun  5 16:19:07 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 09:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] self replicating machine ....
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050605161907.33320.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:
> For this exersize, we must consider the paper (or other substrate)
> and 
> the rather exotic inks
> as raw materials. At the system level, a small production plant for
> the 
> paper and a small production
> plant for each of the inks is likely to be a whole lot easier to
> build 
> than even the smallest conceivable
> infrastructure based on silicon wafers.

Or possibly thin sheets of rock instead of paper, depending on the
intended environment; the printer would be modified accordingly.

> Can someone point me to
> references?

There is of course von Neumann's work, especially the book "Theory of
Self-Reproducing Automata" (a posthumous collection of his unpublished
work), which you can find at http://www.walenz.org/vonNeumann/ .  Or
check the bottom (majority) of http://www.cs.bgu.ac.il/~sipper/selfrep/
for a starting point.

One problem that systems like this keep running into is the need to,
within their own information space, both encode their own complete
information space and instructions as to how to replicate it.  I think
one could get around this by coding up instructions for subcomponents,
such as transistors or entire gates, and then having the "main" program
just refer to these subcomponents by index.  (Higher level encoding
might be needed; e.g., to write the ROM that encodes a single step of
instructions would need a single step of instructions.)

Perhaps one could write, as the main focus of the paper, an example
self-replicating circuit.  Assuming the existence of an ink jet printer
with which to write it, create a circuit with five outputs (plus x
motion, minus x motion, plus y motion, minus y motion, and deposit ink)
and one input (power, with crude clock signals being provided by
on-chip flip-flops), have it trace through the motions necessary to
deposit itself.  Again, though, the encoding would be the main
challenge here.


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  5 16:25:15 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 09:25:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in
	public!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <034401c56988$3bc608b0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050605162515.91674.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >> Conversation with you can be like all rough foreplay and no
> >> orgasm, in that one never gets to know if you have moved your
> >> opinion one iota.
> >
> > The only way someone can move my opinions on something is to try to
> > convince me how their policy opinion adheres to my principles
> > closer than my own policy opinion.
> 
> Thats a pretty tall order for you place on anyone. They'd have to
> understand *your* principles and *your* policy first in order to get
> you to change your opinion. Presumably you would not change your
> statements if you had not changed your opinion, so your most exteme
> statements would just go out looking like flame bait and you'd never
> retract them, or am I wrong in this chain of reasoning?

I sometimes change my opinion based on new information, in that I tend
to be my own best devils advocate.

As one of my principles is to not initiate force, generally if I'm
flaming someone, it is what I see as a reaction, not an initiation.
Unless the instigator clarifies what they said (as Samantha did), the
flame remains just and stands.

> 
> > IMHO too much of the pro-abortion types, even those that claim
> > to be libertarians, tend to be of the same limited vision as
> bunkertarian
> > or nationalist libertarian types who too easily draw lines in the
> sand
> > beyond which they will not lift a finger to defend the liberty of
> > others.
> 
> >From what you say above it seems to follow that no one would be
> able to change your opinion if they saw you merely as a type and
> not specifically as Mike Lorrey, because you would just shrug it off
> and say, and think, 'hey I'm not just a type', I'm Mike Lorrey (and
> you'd be right). BUT then you throw types around so liberally
> yourself. You don't seem to cut others the same degree of personal
> slack that you demand they show you in order to change your view.

On the contrary, I give everyone an equal opportunity to categorize
themselves, or at least display their affinities and allegiances. My
own views are out there, on the net, on my blog, and have been
generally consistent and based on the same principles over a long
period of time. That I am Mike Lorrey and not a 'type' evolves from the
fact that I don't accept party dogma at face value but try to work out
my own opinions from first principles. This has obviously led to strife
between myself and some crypto-pacifists who've been trying to enforce
their orthodoxy on the  libertarian world.

> 
> You have known Samantha and me and others that post to this list
> to some extent at least for years. When do the statements of people
> you know get to be treated as statements by people that are not
> just types? I'm not trying to be a smart aleck, I'm just genuinely
> wondering.

Samantha tends to be a unique case because she has established a long
history of emotionally based statements that lack a rational footing.
Not all the time, mind you, as she is quite capable of rationality and
has demonstrated it, but on frequent enough occasion that it is
difficult to figure out without physically checking her hormone levels
how she is going to act or react to something, although I'm currently
99% sure that this statement is going to piss her off. That it needs to
be said to answer your question, IMHO overrides the demands of list
harmony.

> 
> > They lack the vision to see that those who blithely decide that
> > some people shouldn't live, given enough time to consolidate
> > and grow their power, will eventually turn their attention to the
> > line drawers who think their own position secure.
> 
> If you look at the above link and the ones around it you'll see
> that I went quite a distance with you (in terms of time spent
> and lines of your text I had to read to check out what you
> had to say, and I was happy to do that, but I didn't get much
> by way of concrete feedback when I asked for it, and in terms
> of you developing your ideas I don't know if much came of it
> for you).

Ah, well, I wasn't aware you were looking for feedback. I have been
under a bit of stress lately and haven't been paying too serious
attention to things here other than the semi-daily browse through the
posts. I appreciate you've gone a distance with me, and any lack of
feedback may indicate that I either agreed with you or did not disagree
strenuously enough to want to add to the debate.

> 
> This meant that I didn't know if I had wasted my time trying to
> talk to you or not. If I can never effect you enough for you
> to treat me as more than a type then why should I continue
> to try and treat you as more than a type?  You and I are mortals.
> We want to think our time spent and invested in others is not
> wasted, or at least I do. Aren't you the same?

Generally so, but I've been trying to not be so emotionally invested in
this list, because it has disappointed me so frequently in the past. If
that is seen as detachement or disregard, I apologize.

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 Jun  5 16:32:44 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 09:32:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in
	public!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <034b01c56989$32c2a420$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050605163244.93039.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> > --- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >>  
> >> I had enjoyed discussing abortion with you but when I asked
> >> you if you'd checked out the Virtual Human Embryo site you
> >> didn't tell me. 
> > 
> > I have now. IMHO anyone who thinks a 56 day old fetus is a 'clump
> of
> > cells' is insane.
> 
> Me too. Well in a sort of way of thinking of "insane". 

I would put it that someone who believed a 56 day old fetus was a clump
of cells with no rights to exist is someone that should be under
scrutiny for sociopathic tendencies.

> 
> But I haven't met anyone in real life that actually does. At 56 days
> there is a lot of tissue there and something that looks quite a lot
> more like a child then like just a clump of cells. 

I'd like to hear Samantha's view on this. 56 days isn't even two months
yet, well within the first trimester that most women tend to believe is
their rightful period to execute an abortion without guilt or remorse.


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 Jun  5 16:39:14 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 09:39:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public!
	Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <C494382C-160F-45BE-B986-FFEA9ED750D1@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050605163914.85919.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote: 
> On Jun 4, 2005, at 9:04 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > --- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >>> On the contrary, Samantha was implying that all women have
> >>> the power of life and death over their kids.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I know where you are coming from, I think, and so I accept that
> >> you may have thought that was Samantha's implication but she
> >> says it wasn't and I'm inclined to take her at her word.
> >>
> >> Could she have been gentler to you? Definately, but a lot has
> >> been said on this topic of abortion including by you Mike. Some
> >> of it quite good stuff. Yet you seem to relish the raising of
> issues
> >> more than you care for the locking in off any incremental
> >> progress and that gets wearying sometimes.
> >>
> >
> > At risk of "but she started it", I tend to weary from seeing a lack
> > of progress, even incremental, by Samantha. I accept her claims
> > she didn't mean it the way it read. I hope she appreciates the
> > impression she made by the way she wrote what she did.
> 
> I said what I meant.  A foetus only becomes a child if the woman  
> carrying it decides that is her wish.   Looks pretty darn obvious to 
> me and quite needing saying when even a blastocyst is being freely  
> called a child.  

On the contrary, Samantha, your statement makes the wildly bold
assertion that a fetus is a blastocyst as long as the woman chooses to
call it that. That is, at risk of causing further strife, clearly
sociopathic.

> You launched into a bunch of wild accusations  
> against purported whole groups of women and what you think I think  
> rather than what I said.  You then compared my position to a dictator
> and said I need a smack.  Who the hell is saying the more outrageous 
> things here?

Your contorting a metaphor into a claim of a physical threat is just
the sort of wild and outrageously irrational hyperbole I've come to
expect from you. It is highly objectionable. I was asking rhetorical
questions. You went off the deep end.

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! 
Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  5 16:51:40 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 09:51:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public!
	Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e050605063360d2a00d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050605165140.2539.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
 
> Hmmmn.  Stretching a bit here, I feel.
> The Catholic Church is very keen nowadays to distance itself from the
> Galileo affair and claim that they are not really anti-science.
> See - we didn't burn him at the stake. We're nice guys really.
> 
> But the facts are still there. What they try to do is spin them
> another way.
> Galileo was forced to recant under the threat of torture and placed
> under house arrest for the rest of his life.
> Now while this may be due to Galileo upsetting church politics, (and
> the Catholic church is a very political bureaucracy), the message
> that
> this sent out to the public was - Galileo is 'nearly' a heretic,
> imprisoned and his books banned. Do as the church says or you're
> next.

The Church preserved aristotlean and other science through the middle
ages, what wasn't dripping with roman or greek paganism. The Galileo
affair should more properly be looked at as a conflict over whether new
science should supplant old science in a spirit of open inquiry.
Looking at the witch-hunts the scientific establishment has instigated
over the past decade wrt cold fusion, abiotic oil, and other theories
and phenomena, I really don't see as much has changed, except the
scientific establishment is the new Church.

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  Sun Jun  5 16:53:34 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 09:53:34 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs
	in	public!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <20050605162515.91674.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050605162515.91674.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1B528FCB-1014-49FA-924F-D69A202BE6B9@mac.com>


On Jun 5, 2005, at 9:25 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> I sometimes change my opinion based on new information, in that I tend
> to be my own best devils advocate.
>
> As one of my principles is to not initiate force, generally if I'm
> flaming someone, it is what I see as a reaction, not an initiation.
> Unless the instigator clarifies what they said (as Samantha did), the
> flame remains just and stands.
>
>

Gee I guess it must be in the eye of Mike Lorrey that your e-violence  
is perfectly justified.  Maybe it would be better to find out what  
was meant first before dropping the verbal nuke.



>>
>>
>>> IMHO too much of the pro-abortion types, even those that claim
>>> to be libertarians, tend to be of the same limited vision as
>>>
>> bunkertarian
>>
>>> or nationalist libertarian types who too easily draw lines in the
>>>
>> sand
>>
>>> beyond which they will not lift a finger to defend the liberty of
>>> others.
>>>
>>
>>
>>> From what you say above it seems to follow that no one would be
>>>
>> able to change your opinion if they saw you merely as a type and
>> not specifically as Mike Lorrey, because you would just shrug it off
>> and say, and think, 'hey I'm not just a type', I'm Mike Lorrey (and
>> you'd be right). BUT then you throw types around so liberally
>> yourself. You don't seem to cut others the same degree of personal
>> slack that you demand they show you in order to change your view.
>>
>
> On the contrary, I give everyone an equal opportunity to categorize
> themselves, or at least display their affinities and allegiances. My
> own views are out there, on the net, on my blog, and have been
> generally consistent and based on the same principles over a long
> period of time. That I am Mike Lorrey and not a 'type' evolves from  
> the
> fact that I don't accept party dogma at face value but try to work out
> my own opinions from first principles. This has obviously led to  
> strife
> between myself and some crypto-pacifists who've been trying to enforce
> their orthodoxy on the  libertarian world.

What a strange construction.  It appears to say that you give  
everyone an opportunity to be slotted into  your system of pigeon- 
holes.   That you grant yourself individual uniqueness outside such  
characterization but not others.

>
>
>>
>> You have known Samantha and me and others that post to this list
>> to some extent at least for years. When do the statements of people
>> you know get to be treated as statements by people that are not
>> just types? I'm not trying to be a smart aleck, I'm just genuinely
>> wondering.
>>
>
> Samantha tends to be a unique case because she has established a long
> history of emotionally based statements that lack a rational footing.

In this latest exchange it was you who came out with emotional guns  
blazing.  After dropping a nuke or two you then calm down and explain  
if not your position then how your actions were justified.  Maybe you  
despise in me what you are most uncomfortable with in yourself.

> Not all the time, mind you, as she is quite capable of rationality and
> has demonstrated it, but on frequent enough occasion that it is
> difficult to figure out without physically checking her hormone levels
> how she is going to act or react to something, although I'm currently
> 99% sure that this statement is going to piss her off. That it  
> needs to
> be said to answer your question, IMHO overrides the demands of list
> harmony.

I don't enjoy third person dissection especially by someone  
manifestly incompetent to do so.

- s
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050605/d6003082/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Jun  5 16:55:16 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 09:55:16 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs
	in	public!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <20050605163244.93039.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050605163244.93039.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6F163F4A-6875-4114-A98B-38B53DA18DF1@mac.com>

I am sorry but after your tirades I refuse to discuss this topic with  
you.  I did not want to discuss this topic in the first place and  
certainly not with you.


On Jun 5, 2005, at 9:32 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
>
> --- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>> Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>
>>
>>> --- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I had enjoyed discussing abortion with you but when I asked
>>>> you if you'd checked out the Virtual Human Embryo site you
>>>> didn't tell me.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have now. IMHO anyone who thinks a 56 day old fetus is a 'clump
>>>
>> of
>>
>>> cells' is insane.
>>>
>>
>> Me too. Well in a sort of way of thinking of "insane".
>>
>
> I would put it that someone who believed a 56 day old fetus was a  
> clump
> of cells with no rights to exist is someone that should be under
> scrutiny for sociopathic tendencies.
>
>
>>
>> But I haven't met anyone in real life that actually does. At 56 days
>> there is a lot of tissue there and something that looks quite a lot
>> more like a child then like just a clump of cells.
>>
>
> I'd like to hear Samantha's view on this. 56 days isn't even two  
> months
> yet, well within the first trimester that most women tend to  
> believe is
> their rightful period to execute an abortion without guilt or remorse.
>
>
> 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 fauxever at sprynet.com  Sun Jun  5 18:05:29 2005
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 11:05:29 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructsin	public!Filmateleven.
References: <20050605162515.91674.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<1B528FCB-1014-49FA-924F-D69A202BE6B9@mac.com>
Message-ID: <004601c569f9$29014750$6600a8c0@brainiac>

From: Samantha Atkins 
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 9:53 AM

>>> ... it seems to follow that no one would be able to change your opinion if they saw you merely as a type and not specifically as Mike Lorrey, because you would just shrug it off and say, and think, 'hey I'm not just a type', I'm Mike Lorrey (and you'd be right). BUT then you throw types around so liberally yourself. You don't seem to cut others the same degree of personal slack that you demand they show you in order to change your view.

>>  On the contrary, I give everyone an equal opportunity to categorize themselves, or at least display their affinities and allegiances. My own views are out there, on the net, on my blog, and have been generally consistent and based on the same principles over a long period of time. That I am Mike Lorrey and not a 'type' evolves from the fact that I don't accept party dogma at face value but try to work out my own opinions from first principles. This has obviously led to strife between myself and some crypto-pacifists who've been trying to enforce their orthodoxy on the  libertarian world.

> What a strange construction.  It appears to say that you give everyone an opportunity to be slotted into  your system of pigeon-holes.   That you grant yourself individual uniqueness outside such characterization but not others.

Right on.  I had observed the same thing, and you have expressed it perfectly, Samantha.

Olga
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050605/82cce87e/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Jun  5 21:01:22 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 14:01:22 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs
	in	public!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <20050605163244.93039.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050605163244.93039.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <41C46A21-AD7D-415A-83B2-2BB5C9E2A00A@mac.com>

On second thought I will briefly wade into the swamp.

On Jun 5, 2005, at 9:32 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> I would put it that someone who believed a 56 day old fetus was a  
> clump
> of cells with no rights to exist is someone that should be under
> scrutiny for sociopathic tendencies.
>

Judgmental and prejudicial of discussion as ever I see.   Why do you  
belief that just because the 56 day old fetus has a bit more rounded  
head and recognizable 10 fingers and ten toes that it is now fully  
endowed with all rights of the actually born and has all the rights  
at least of the woman carrying it?  Your demarcation seems  
arbitrary.  It certainly doesn't seem objective enough to call those  
who don't see it as you do sociopaths or insane.

Deciding some point in pregnancy that the pregnancy should only be  
terminated for more extreme reason makes sense to me on multiple  
levels.   Part of what I said about a foetus not being a child until  
the parents say so is also a recognition that after the point of  
thinking of the foetus as child accidental loss or abortion becomes  
much more painful emotionally and psychologically.    Contrasted with  
the difficult to define purported rights of the unborn are the  
obviously present rights of the woman carrying it to self- 
determination.   Many are the hormonal and psychological pressures to  
carry to term.  But pregnancy is no cakewalk physically or  
psychologically.  Saying a woman must carry to term just because she  
is pregnant is an abrogation of her rights and involuntary servitude.  
It is a placing of the purported right of the unborn above the rights  
of the woman.  This is obviously problematic.  In practice a balance  
will be struck.  In my personal view I would tend to place the line  
before which abortion is an at will decision roughly at the end of  
the first trimester.   Abortion after some point in pregnancy should  
in my opinion only be for very substantial reasons.

>
>>
>> But I haven't met anyone in real life that actually does. At 56 days
>> there is a lot of tissue there and something that looks quite a lot
>> more like a child then like just a clump of cells.
>>
>
> I'd like to hear Samantha's view on this. 56 days isn't even two  
> months
> yet, well within the first trimester that most women tend to  
> believe is
> their rightful period to execute an abortion without guilt or remorse.

There is almost always a lot of psychologically difficult stuff  
around deciding to abort after the hormones are flowing especially.    
It is not an easy decision and you do women a disservice by painting  
them as uncaring if they abort.   But it is the woman's decision to  
make.

How do you feel about the morning after pill, Mike?   About a week  
after pill?  A month?   Where do you draw your line?   And where do  
you get off calling those who disagree insane or sociopaths?


- samantha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050605/c247713f/attachment.html>

From hexbodhi at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  5 21:12:08 2005
From: hexbodhi at yahoo.com (Keith Mussenden)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 14:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Organic Robotoids
In-Reply-To: <41C46A21-AD7D-415A-83B2-2BB5C9E2A00A@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050605211208.91272.qmail@web30814.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


Is any of this familiar to anyone?

 

Combinatoric Mahlstadt-time analysis and 
projective cerebral modelling.

Or Mahlstadt's "Toward a Faster Algorithm for Analog 
cerebral analysis," in All-Union Review of Cybernetics and Cognitive 
Studies, Spring 1974 

Mahlstadt's book (only available in 
Russian) "Cybernetics and Cerebral Mapping: an isomorphic approach". 

 

 

If you don't want to talk about this in public just email me at hexbodhi at yahoo.com


		
---------------------------------
Discover Yahoo!
 Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news & more. Check it out!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050605/ff330f9a/attachment.html>

From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Sun Jun  5 22:00:18 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 15:00:18 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fly Me to the Moon
In-Reply-To: <42A30767.5080806@neopax.com>
References: <000f01c5696a$88df42b0$6600a8c0@brainiac>
	<20050605033920.80681.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<ee50357e05060503231d1c37a4@mail.gmail.com>
	<42A2D43D.5050708@neopax.com>
	<9e6fc1014d7c2982071ef2fcff0f8497@antipope.org>
	<42A30767.5080806@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <e88b73ce0506051500184afc30@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/5/05, Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> Charlie Stross wrote:
> > 1. A spaceship needs wings and a retractable undercarriage like an
> > automobile needs oars and sails.
> >
> I'd dispute that.
> Almost all designs for a fully reusable spacecraft have wings.

And that's a good reason for why it's premature to be vouching for
fully reusable orbital spacecraft just yet. They might be economically
justifiable (and we'll see them being developed by private industry)
once flight rates get high enough, but in the meantime a low-cost
semi-reusable like the upcoming SpaceX Falcon rockets seems a far
better option.

In the present day the per-unit construction cost of a spacecraft is
definitely -not- the main driver of launch costs.

-- Neil


From dgc at cox.net  Mon Jun  6 01:44:54 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2005 21:44:54 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] self replicating machine ....
In-Reply-To: <20050605161907.33320.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050605161907.33320.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42A3AA96.7020407@cox.net>

Adrian Tymes wrote:

>--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:
>  
>
>>For this exersize, we must consider the paper (or other substrate)
>>and 
>>the rather exotic inks
>>as raw materials. At the system level, a small production plant for
>>the 
>>paper and a small production
>>plant for each of the inks is likely to be a whole lot easier to
>>build 
>>than even the smallest conceivable
>>infrastructure based on silicon wafers.
>>    
>>
>
>Or possibly thin sheets of rock instead of paper, depending on the
>intended environment; the printer would be modified accordingly.
>
>  
>
I changed my mind. Rather than using a technology based on X-Y plotters that
create plots for humans, let's look at technology that is specifically
designed for optimal self-replication. We want to use simple substrate 
materials
and a simple design. My guess is that we can design a system that can 
use crude
electromechanical actuators to achieve 10 micrometer resolution on a simple
plastic substrate. This is 100 times coarser than the current state of 
the art in silicon
lithography (90nm) and 1000 times coarser than the state of the art in STMs.
An STM uses exotic piezoeletrical materials. My proposed technology uses
macro-scale servomotors.

If we have a 10-micrometer resolution, a 32x32cm page has one billion 
pixels.
For ROM, we get 8pages/GB. I assert that we can describe a 
self-replicator in about
1GB, given a substrate consisting of iron bar stock, celluloid sheets, 
copper wire, and
At most seventeen other inputs of equivalent complexity.

This self-replicator is a general-purpose machine. The instructions for a
number of instances of this general-purpose machine to produce the 20 
substrates
(e.g. copper wire) from a simpler substrate (e.g. copper ore) should 
take less than
1 GB. So the total ROM occupies 21x8=180 pages.

The actual  circuitry for the replicator occupies perhaps 8 pages. We 
are still in the
range of 1Kg for the information needed for a self-replicator with a 
simple substrate.

An instance of the self-replicator will be perhaps 100Kg. If this single 
instance cannot
successfully produce all 20 substrates, and then reproduce itself, it 
will die.
 If we want to get brave, we can add a bootstrap to the replicator . If 
the replicator succeeds
in implementing the fundamental 20 substrates, the bootstrap permits the 
replicator
to build a more sophisticated decoder. This decoder can read information 
that is encoded
at 10nm resolution. The replicator package has additional information 
encoded at this
resolution, which is a million times denser that the basic replicator,  
This info describes
how to implement more sophisticated substrate technologies. This concept 
is recursive,
so the weight of a self-replicator independent of its sophistication.




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Jun  6 02:22:22 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 19:22:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] self replicating machine ....
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050606022222.56265.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:
> I changed my mind. Rather than using a technology based on X-Y
> plotters that
> create plots for humans, let's look at technology that is
> specifically
> designed for optimal self-replication. We want to use simple
> substrate 
> materials
> and a simple design. My guess is

The problem is, using already-existing stuff means you don't have to
make (potentially wildly inaccurate and proof-defeating) guesses.

So, I'd suggest sticking to things that do exist.  Designing self-rep
by some - any - means is hard enough, without restricting yourself to
novel means.


From bchjg at nus.edu.sg  Mon Jun  6 02:55:47 2005
From: bchjg at nus.edu.sg (Jan Gruber)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 10:55:47 +0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] self replicating machine ....
Message-ID: <05C5081466660B4A94F371F5D48B59E777D563@MBOX02.stf.nus.edu.sg>

I love the idea of using printers - especially because one could at least do a simple "proof of principle" experiment - maybe not for the self replication part but at least for the "printed" circuit .... Even a simple adder / subtractor circuit printed using a modified inkjet printer would be interesting.

 

But then it looks like that has already been done:  

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6618

 

Any idea how complex/big the Epson setup is ? 

 

Jan Gruber 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org on behalf of Adrian Tymes 
	Sent: Mon 06/06/2005 10:22 
	To: ExI chat list 
	Cc: 
	Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] self replicating machine ....
	
	

	--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:
	> I changed my mind. Rather than using a technology based on X-Y
	> plotters that
	> create plots for humans, let's look at technology that is
	> specifically
	> designed for optimal self-replication. We want to use simple
	> substrate
	> materials
	> and a simple design. My guess is
	
	The problem is, using already-existing stuff means you don't have to
	make (potentially wildly inaccurate and proof-defeating) guesses.
	
	So, I'd suggest sticking to things that do exist.  Designing self-rep
	by some - any - means is hard enough, without restricting yourself to
	novel means.
	_______________________________________________
	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: 5302 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050606/38d46a85/attachment.bin>

From dgc at cox.net  Mon Jun  6 02:58:36 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:58:36 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] self replicating machine ....
In-Reply-To: <20050606022222.56265.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050606022222.56265.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42A3BBDC.3040104@cox.net>

Adrian Tymes wrote:

>--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:
>  
>
>>I changed my mind. Rather than using a technology based on X-Y
>>plotters that
>>create plots for humans, let's look at technology that is
>>specifically
>>designed for optimal self-replication. We want to use simple
>>substrate 
>>materials
>>and a simple design. My guess is
>>    
>>
>
>The problem is, using already-existing stuff means you don't have to
>make (potentially wildly inaccurate and proof-defeating) guesses.
>
>So, I'd suggest sticking to things that do exist.  Designing self-rep
>by some - any - means is hard enough, without restricting yourself to
>novel means.
>_______________________________________________
>  
>
Adrian, I have spent some considerable time looking at SPM designs. 
These designs can
achieve approximately 10nm resolution using  piezo-electric elements. I 
picked
10 micrometer resolution as an extremely conservative goal. This is not 
some aggressive
new technology. The only reason that this technology is not in use today 
is that
it is obsolete: given the existence of commercially-available 
piezo-electric elements,
there is no reason to use electromagnetic servos to achieve this accuracy.

I choose to use electromachanical servos because they have a much simpler
substrate. the substrate for a servo is essentially the same as the 
substrate for an electric
motor;. By contrast, the substrate for a piezo involves complex 
extraction and synthesis
systems.


From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Mon Jun  6 03:16:10 2005
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 22:16:10 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying
Message-ID: <003801c56a46$17262d00$0100a8c0@kevin>


 I'm getting ready to leave on my second commercial flight in my life and I am dealing with that annoying fear of flying. For the past two days I have not been able to concentrate on much else. It's always in the back of my head.
Yet I know very well the statistics regarding airline safety. I am quite aware that I am probably more likely to have a plane land on my head than die in a crash since I have flown so rarely. 
A quick look at some stats show that in the two planes I will be in, Boeing 757 and 767, there have been a combined total of 14 incidents that involved fatalities. Of those, four were on 9/11. Three more were the result of some other types of hijackings in other countries. One was a charter. One was a suicide (EgyptAir). One other was simply an elderly man who stepped out the catering door and fell to the ground. This leaves just four that involved regular mechanical or pilot error. That is out of over 24 million flights. http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm

Meanwhile, I am a student pilot and it does not bother me to fly on my own. 

Of course, this is because of my irrational fear of not being in control. I know darn well that I am at much greater risk flying myself (48 times more likely to die in general aviation). I don't think about dying every time I get into the car. Nor do I trouble myself when I walk down steps or ride a bicycle. There are probably more people who die on the escalator at  the airports than in the actual planes! (That could be an interesting study)

But the fear persists. 

While I was in the shower I realized that the fear of course comes from a PERCEIVED loss of control. I realized that we as humans constantly fool ourselves into believing that we are in some sort of control when in fact we are not. 
This is evident in the way that we handle our everyday lives. 

It led me to think about religion and how devoutly religious people give up control of their lives to God. I began to realize that this deep seated need to feel in control of our lives must go back really far. In fact, it could very well be the driving force behind religion, not fear of death, but fear of loss of control. 

So just how far back does this go? Is it a uniquely human trait or does it go back further? Did H. neanderthalensis, H. erectus or H. habilis have similar problems? 

Is this the primary motivator behind power hunger and tyranny? Do people with a greater fear of loss of control exhibit a greater need to conquer?

And what can be done about this in the future? Is this the basic fear that many have to transhumanism? Are people afraid because they perceice a possible loss of control over their lives? Are we fooling ourselves into believing that we can control our creations through the same method that we fool ourselves into believing it is safe to climb steps? 

OK. I guess I am done with my rant. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. I know. But since I can't shake the fear, I might as well analyze it. :-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050605/a329fd70/attachment.html>

From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Mon Jun  6 03:05:32 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:05:32 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs inpublic!Filmateleven.
References: <20050605162515.91674.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <04e501c56a44$9a661970$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>> If you look at the above link and the ones around it you'll see
>> that I went quite a distance with you (in terms of time spent
>> and lines of your text I had to read to check out what you
>> had to say, and I was happy to do that, but I didn't get much
>> by way of concrete feedback when I asked for it, and in terms
>> of you developing your ideas I don't know if much came of it
>> for you).
>
> Ah, well, I wasn't aware you were looking for feedback. I have
> been under a bit of stress lately and haven't been paying too serious
> attention to things here other than the semi-daily browse through the
> posts. I appreciate you've gone a distance with me, and any lack of
> feedback may indicate that I either agreed with you or did not disagree
> strenuously enough to want to add to the debate.

You are in the US. I am in Australia. We are international. If I know that
I can rely on you to act like an adult I can bring you up to speed on stuff
you don't know faster than you can learn it first hand yourself AND vice
versa.

The debates over stem cell research and abortion and a host of other
things that I know you are interested in as well as other people on
this list are not debates that are specific to this list they are the issues
that define the times in which we live and that give us the opportunity
to participate in them.

I know from personal experience that I cannot take on all the issues
of the times on my own, the supply lines break down, because there
are not enough smart people or good faith to hold them open. The
most powerful politician in the world is the United States President
and he cannot take on all the issues in the world on his own. He
doesn't have enough power to do that even if he had the competence
to use the power he does have sensibly.

If we want the future to be better than the present (both personally
and for people generally) then we have to work with what we have.

I know you to some extent and trust you to some extent and am
willing to empower you to some extent (ie. make you more effective)
because to do so is a good investment on my part in building a better
future.

But I am not going to give you feedback or encourage you to do
the sort of things you want to do anyway, indefinately, if you don't
look like you are going to do them sensibly.

And I am going to want some payback from time to time, in that
if I ask you to do something simple like check out a link and tell me
if you find it persuasive or not, (or to stop aggravating Samantha
for the shear sport of it - Samantha is a person that I might disagree
with quite often just as you do, but she will be working to improve
the world you and I want far more effectively if she doesn't have
to  wrestle with your strawmen ever five minutes) and you don't do
it I will remember that you didn't do it and I will integrate that fact
into my future investment planning. I don't want to help empower
people who when empowered are only going to be bigger pests.

Developing arguments and tools for persuasion on an open list can
be risky in that political opponents get to see the next thing coming
and to prepare their reaction to it. On the other hand not doing it
risks not empowering as many allies as you might want as quickly
as you might want so its a balancing game.

>> This meant that I didn't know if I had wasted my time trying to
>> talk to you or not. If I can never effect you enough for you
>> to treat me as more than a type then why should I continue
>> to try and treat you as more than a type?  You and I are mortals.
>> We want to think our time spent and invested in others is not
>> wasted, or at least I do. Aren't you the same?
>
> Generally so, but I've been trying to not be so emotionally invested in
> this list, because it has disappointed me so frequently in the past. If
> that is seen as detachement or disregard, I apologize.

No apology necessary. The list isn't a friend. The list is a forum. If
people look to the list to be a friend they will be disappointed. If
they look to other *posters* to be friends then they may indeed make
international friendships and international business associates and...
well you get the idea..

So why am I writing this on the list rather than just to you? Because
I have enough of an understanding of psychology and politics to know
that others will read it and others will get something from it too.

I am not an extropian, but I am someone who likes some of the people
who post to the extropian list (and in fact dislikes almost none of them).

The extropy brand may flourish or flounder but the extropy brand is
not the same as the brand each of us wear as our names. I can't stand
behind the whole extropy philosophy because the whole extropy
philosophy whatever that is may develop more slowly than my own
personal philosophy and I would then not want the political baggage
of the more slowly moving one.

The forum of political operation is the world it is not this list. This list
is a vector. This list is a place I come to hear what people I have come
to respect think about stuff. Should this list fail then the people who post
or posted here will still be the people that posted here and the failure
of the list or of extropy as a brand would not be the same in my mind
as the failure (or success) of the people who post here.

Brett Paatsch 




From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Mon Jun  6 04:13:09 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 14:13:09 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in
	public!Filmateleven.
References: <586da73fcb70f35d2fdc89d8b73dac83@stross.org.uk>
Message-ID: <04fd01c56a4e$0c55f380$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

Charlie Stross wrote:

> Can we maybe agree, as extropians one and all, that in an ideal
> world involuntary and/or unwanted conception wouldn?t occur,
>
> I can?t agree with that.

> > Two, ?figuring out how to make conception a process under
> > voluntary control? was achieved ages ago. Don?t have sex - unless
> > your willing get pregnant
>
> Tell that to a rape victim.

You cut the bit where I said with some exceptions. Rape was one
I had in mind. Mythical deities impregnating virgins to create sons
for sacrifice is possibly another.

> I repeat: conception is *not* under voluntary control. Celibacy is a 
> condition which may be terminated involuntarily. (Moreover, it?s not an 
> easily maintained condition for the majority of people.)

Sure. Technologically though, we'd have very little problem making
pregnancy optional even today if the politics wasn't a factor.

> The subtext I see behind all this rhetoric about celibacy and the evils 
> of abortion is a total phobia of icky females enjoying sex, with a 
> side-order of the kind of deep unease about the flesh that --  
>  ironically -- the more technophobic commentators tend to attribute to 
> extropians.
>
>> To get gene-line engineering working as a solution as you suggest
>> it doesn?t just have to be technologically practical it has to be 
>> politically practical. Guess what the catholics and others who prefer
>> their solution to the one you propose would vote against your solution
>> in large numbers even if you could get a political party to put it on 
>> theagenda.
>
> Heh. ?Politically practical.? We now have the sub-text out in the open.

I wasn't trying to hide any sub-texts. I think politically almost 
instinctively
and am often surprised that others do not. Its possible to consider morality
and ethics and technology and a bunch of stuff without looking at politics
I suppose but I tend to see things in terms of politics as well in that it 
is
in the political forums that ethics gets to be policy and bad policy
following from sloppy ethics (amongst other things) causes people to die.

> I should like to note that, along with the US state department, the  other 
> forces trying to scupper the UN WHO proposal that access to  contraception 
> and abortion should be basic rights available to women  world-wide were 
> the most barking batshit reactionary islamic  fundamentalists on the 
> planet -- notably the governments of Saudi  Arabia and Iran. These are the 
> same chittering dark-ages ass-hats who  think that vaccinating girls 
> against HPV is an incitement to  promiscuity, because the mere concept 
> that they could be infected by  their husbands doesn?t occur to them.
>
> The sub-text of the entire ?human life begins at 10^6 cells/^10^3/1  cell? 
> debate is that a *potential* life is worth as much, if not more,  than the 
> *actual* life of the woman who is expected by the  anti-abortion lobby to 
> go through a somewhat hazardous medical  condition (which, in the wild, 
> has a 5-10% fatality rate) and then --  this is implicit in the whole 
> mess -- spend the next twenty years of  life surrendering their potential 
> for self-actualization to that other  formerly potential person.

That sentence is too hard for me to parse. I think you are strawmanning
the views of those who I disagree with as well but I can't tell.

As for the 5-10% fatality rate thats a higher statistic than the ones I
have, do you have a source for it?

>........................................Who then gets to do the whole same 
>thing (if  they?re female) or benefit from all that hard work (if they?re 
>not).
>
> As a non-American who lives in a country where at the last poll just 
> short of 90% of the population approved of abortion being available on 
> demand, let me say that I think this discussion would be ludicrous if  it 
> wasn?t evil.

So what are you a Canadian living in the US or what? I'm curious because
I know that you are an observer of developments in ideas futures and I
am wondering where in the world you are observing them from. I'm
watching from Australia.

>................ And it *is* evil when we get to the real loonies who  are 
>trying to convince the god-botherers that condoms don?t work, that 
>hormonal contraceptives are abortifacients, and that the only  acceptable 
>place for a woman is barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

Its ironic, but when you posted to the list recently you said that you
were irked I think that there was so much ranting going on. But now
I am struggling to understand what points you are trying to make
because you seem to have decided to rant along with us.

When you use words like evil I don't know if you are parodying the
US President or if you actually really think in such terms yourself.

> There are, incidentally, reasons why this highly damaging meme achieves 
> traction in modern religious communities. (Here?s a fairly acute blog 
> entry which puts it fairly concisely:
> http://hot_needle_of_inquiry.blogspot.com/2005/04/stable-strategy-set- 
> defectors.html)
>
> > Three, when humanity cuts in, as you put it, is not a trivial question.
> > Its an important one. And discussions about it that develop the
> > thinking of people involved in them are discussions worth having.
> > When Galileo looked through a telescope and saw Jupiter and its
> > moons he was seeing what was there. If the Pope had been willing
> > to look through the telescope the Pope too would have seen what
> > was there. Perhaps the Pope would have questioned whether he
> > could trust this new fangled piece of technology or not but at least
> > his taking a look would have progressed his thinking a long a bit.
> > Perhaps he could have had another telescope built. Perhaps his
> > eminence could have gotten the telescope deconstructed and
> > reassembled.
>
> Urban legends don?t aid the debate. Galileo was to a very large extent 
> *protected* by the then Pope, who was a friend of his; what got him  into 
> trouble was court politics, aggravated by his inability to keep  his mouth 
> shut at the right time. You will note that Galileo was *not*  burned at 
> the stake despite this being a fairly common outcome for  heretics at the 
> time ... and that the reason for the draconian response  to heresy was 
> that it had political implications: religious doctrine  was then the 
> accepted way of understanding how the world works, and  questioning its 
> veracity raised implications for the way state policy  was formed. That?s 
> *never* a safe or easy thing to do; we can see it  today in the way the 
> Bush administration treats science funding in  areas that don?t appear to 
> support their preconceptions.

A lot of urban legends likely have built up around the Galileo story,
and I am interested in what the real story was, but for present purposes,
not all that much. For present purposes the only point I really wanted
to make is that individuals including individuals with religious or faith
based world views that have consciences of their own and are willing
to exercise them can choose to look through the available equipment
be it a telescope or a microscope of whatever if they so choose. For
them to decline to look, is in my book, an indication that may well
be operating in bad faith, even in the terms that others of their faith
would consider it.

Brett Paatsch 




From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Jun  6 05:00:25 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 22:00:25 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public!
	Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <20050605033028.34891.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200506060500.j5650UR09441@tick.javien.com>

 
> > > On 6/4/05, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Buzz off troll...
> 
> ... If anybody needs a good smack of reality, it is Samantha.
> 
> Mike Lorrey...


Oy, a man cannot go for a relaxing weekend of ropin and ridin
without coming home to find his favorite e-list members
abusing each other.

Abortion is a topic so difficult society has been unable
to resolve it.  We the few, the proud, are unlikely to solve it.


> ...IMHO anyone who thinks a 56 day old fetus is a 'clump of 
> cells' is insane...

Hey, I'm a clump of cells now.  Possibly an insane clump of
cells.

> ...They came for the communists and I did not speak out, because
I am not a communist.

I spoke out.  I said "Hey!  Keep your eyes open, don't
miss any.  Those commies are tricky bastids."  {8-]

Some time ago Lee Daniel Crocker suggested some rules for
list etiquette.  I propose a kinder and gentler approach
than Lee's when dealing with abortion: do let us turn down
the flames.

Where is Lee?  Has anyone heard from him recently?

spike






From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Jun  6 05:21:47 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 22:21:47 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying
In-Reply-To: <003801c56a46$17262d00$0100a8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <200506060521.j565LqR14205@tick.javien.com>



________________________________________
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of kevinfreels.com
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 8:16 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying

?
> I'm getting ready to leave on my second commercial flight in my life and I
am dealing with that annoying fear of flying. For the past?two days I have
not been able to concentrate on much else. It's always in the back of my
head.  Yet I know very well the statistics regarding airline safety...OK. I
guess I am done with my rant. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. I know. But
since I can't shake the fear, I might as well analyze it. :-)


Kevin my father-in-law has a terrible fear of flying, 
specifically that the wings would come off in turbulence.  I 
launched into a big pontification on how they are stress 
tested, inspected, planes never have structural failure
in flight, bla bla and yakkity yak.  About a week later
the tail fell off that French plane causing it to punch
a deep hole into the earth.  He has not flown since.

spike


?



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  6 05:35:36 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 22:35:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fly Me to the Moon
In-Reply-To: <000f01c5696a$88df42b0$6600a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <20050606053536.43388.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> Dubbed "Herakles," the system would use an ion beam
> produced from xenon gas 
> to propel the craft to speeds of 200,000 mph, 10
> times faster than the top 
> speed of the space shuttle. :
> 
>
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002299705_ion04.html
> 

Very cool. Between Herakles and NASA's NEO Program, I
will sleep better at night.

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/

This is a very cool website. Hey Olga, check it out.
Your friend 2004MN4 is on the list and it will get 8
chances to hit us. So what I want to know is that is
the listed probabilty cumalative over the 8 potential
impacts or is that the probabilty per orbital pass?

Wow. Every time developments like this come around, I
think maybe just maybe, H. sapiens might have a chance
after all.
 




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! 
Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html


From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Jun  6 05:56:54 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 22:56:54 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] new libertarian
In-Reply-To: <200506060521.j565LqR14205@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <200506060556.j565urR22000@tick.javien.com>


Hey check this.  I haven't studied all their views, but
the articles I have read are hitting all the right buttons
with me:

http://www.qando.net/articles/tnlv1i3.pdf

spike







From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Mon Jun  6 06:23:08 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 15:53:08 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mission to build a simulated brain begins
Message-ID: <710b78fc0506052323869c939@mail.gmail.com>

Ah, the singularity. I just grabbed this from >HTech, opinions?
-----

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7470&feedId=online-news_atom03

Mission to build a simulated brain begins

    * 00:01 06 June 2005
    * NewScientist.com news service
    * Duncan Graham-Rowe

An effort to create the first computer simulation of the entire human
brain, right down to the molecular level, was launched on Monday.

The "Blue Brain" project, a collaboration between IBM and a Swiss
university team, will involve building a custom-made supercomputer based
on IBM's Blue Gene design.

The hope is that the virtual brain will help shed light on some aspects
of human cognition, such as perception, memory and perhaps even
consciousness.

It will be the first time humans will be able to observe the electrical
code our brains use to represent the world, and to do so in real time,
say Henry Markram, director of Brain and Mind Institute at the Ecole
Polytecnique F?d?rale de Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland.

It may also help in understanding how certain malfunctions of the
brain's "microcircuits" could cause psychiatric disorders such as
autism, schizophrenia and depression, he says.

Until now this sort of undertaking would not be possible because the
processing power and the scientific knowledge of how the brain is wired
simply was not there, says Charles Peck, IBM's lead researcher on the
project.

"But there has been a convergence of the biological data and the
computational resources," he says. But efforts to map the brain's
circuits and the development of the Blue Gene supercomputer, which has a
peak processing power of at least 22.8 teraflops, now make this possible.
Mapping the brain

For over a decade Markram and his colleagues have been building a
database of the neural architecture of the neocortex, the largest and
most complex part of mammalian brains.

Using pioneering techniques, they have studied precisely how individual
neurons behave electrically and built up a set of rules for how
different types of neurons connect to one another.

Very thin slices of mouse brain were kept alive under a microscope and
probed electrically before being stained to reveal the synaptic, or
nerve, connections. "We have the largest database in the world of single
neurons that have been recorded and stained," says Markram.
Neocortical columns

Using this database the initial phase of Blue Brain will model the
electrical structure of neocortical columns - neural circuits that are
repeated throughout the brain.

"These are the network units of the brain," says Markram. Measuring just
0.5 millimetres by 2 mm, these units contain between 10 and 70,000
neurons, depending upon the species.

Once this is complete, the behaviour of columns can be mapped and
modelled before moving into the second phase of the project.

Two new models will be built, one a molecular model of the neurons
involved. The other will clone the behavioural model of columns
thousands of times to produce a complete neocortex, and eventually the
rest of the brain.

The end product, which will take at least a decade to achieve, can then
be stimulated and observed to see how different parts of the brain
behave. For example, visual information can be inputted to the visual
cortex, while Blue Brain's response is observed.

-- 
Emlyn

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


From reason at longevitymeme.org  Mon Jun  6 06:36:56 2005
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 23:36:56 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] new libertarian
In-Reply-To: <200506060556.j565urR22000@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNCEAEGAAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>



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

>
> Hey check this.  I haven't studied all their views, but
> the articles I have read are hitting all the right buttons
> with me:
>
> http://www.qando.net/articles/tnlv1i3.pdf

It aptly illustrates that the modern usage of the prefix "neo" in matters
political appears to mean some variety of "not," "not at all," or "not even
slightly."

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme



From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  6 06:36:45 2005
From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 23:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] =?iso-8859-1?q?GREAT_NEWS_ABOUT_TRANSVISION_2005?=
	=?iso-8859-1?q?=3A_Gaceta_Cient=EDfica_?=
Message-ID: <20050606063645.86609.qmail@web32812.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Dear friends,
 
     TransVision is really getting ready to be the best, the largest and now the most accredited transhumanist meeting in history!
 
     The President of the National Academy of Sciences will be giving the welcoming speech, and you can see that they even link to our TV05 banner, on the bottom left of the web page of the Narional Academy of Sciences:
 
http://www.acfiman.org.ve/
 
     We are now working also to have the Minister of Science and Technology as well:-)
 
     Looking forward to hosting you all in the best transhumanist show ever...
 
     TransVisionarily yours,




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/20050605/598d6e5b/attachment.html>

From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Mon Jun  6 06:49:47 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 23:49:47 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Opinion piece on policy-making with prediction
	markets
Message-ID: <e88b73ce05060523497f1224bc@mail.gmail.com>

I came across a fairly good opinion piece in the Jakarta Post on
prediction markets:

http://www.thejakartapost.com/detaileditorial.asp?fileid=20050606.E03&irec=2

It discusses the potential utility of using such markets to make
better policy decisions, a topic I don't see covered too often. The
piece also mentions Robin Hanson's "Futarchy" proposal a little:

"In his paper 'Shall We Vote on Values, But Bet on Beliefs,' Hanson
proposed a new form of government, which he calls a 'Futarchy'. In
this government, elected representatives would formally define and
manage after-the-fact measurements of national welfare, while market
speculators would say which policies they expected to raise national
welfare."

Which makes me wonder... after the unfortunate knee-jerk reaction to
the Policy Analysis Market, are there any actions we can take towards
helping make real-money prediction markets legal in the US?

-- Neil


From sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Jun  6 06:56:29 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 23:56:29 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public!
	Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <200506060500.j5650UR09441@tick.javien.com>
References: <200506060500.j5650UR09441@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <FCDEFEF9-CDF5-47C2-BFEC-37A4FFC34799@mac.com>

I did not engage in flames.  Mike did.  He was trolling for a fight.   
I refused to play.  If you think I did wrong then I am probably done  
with this list.  I have about had it with being abused by Mike and  
having no one back me up.  It SUCKS.  I have had it with attempting  
to steer clear of the mess and take a minimal stand only to be tarred  
as equally belligerent.  This is UNJUST and I will not take it anymore.

- samantha

On Jun 5, 2005, at 10:00 PM, spike wrote:

>
>
>>>> On 6/4/05, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Buzz off troll...
>>>>>
>>
>> ... If anybody needs a good smack of reality, it is Samantha.
>>
>> Mike Lorrey...
>>
>
>
> Oy, a man cannot go for a relaxing weekend of ropin and ridin
> without coming home to find his favorite e-list members
> abusing each other.
>
> Abortion is a topic so difficult society has been unable
> to resolve it.  We the few, the proud, are unlikely to solve it.
>
>
>
>> ...IMHO anyone who thinks a 56 day old fetus is a 'clump of
>> cells' is insane...
>>
>
> Hey, I'm a clump of cells now.  Possibly an insane clump of
> cells.
>
>
>> ...They came for the communists and I did not speak out, because
>>
> I am not a communist.
>
> I spoke out.  I said "Hey!  Keep your eyes open, don't
> miss any.  Those commies are tricky bastids."  {8-]
>
> Some time ago Lee Daniel Crocker suggested some rules for
> list etiquette.  I propose a kinder and gentler approach
> than Lee's when dealing with abortion: do let us turn down
> the flames.
>
> Where is Lee?  Has anyone heard from him recently?
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  6 07:10:20 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 00:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public!
	Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <200506060500.j5650UR09441@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050606071020.99614.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>



--- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> Oy, a man cannot go for a relaxing weekend of ropin
> and ridin
> without coming home to find his favorite e-list
> members
> abusing each other.
> 
> Abortion is a topic so difficult society has been
> unable
> to resolve it.  We the few, the proud, are unlikely
> to solve it.

Amen Spike. I have been purposely abstaining from this
debate. I know the arguments from both sides inside
and out and I still cannot reach a decision as to
whether all abortions should be legal or not. I guess
one of the downsides of "winner take all" politics is
that you aren't allowed to make such choices on a case
by case basis and instead are forced to make some
blanket edict. I cannot bring myself to do this so I
have come up with the perfect personal solution.

Since my Y chromosome makes me highly unlikely to ever
have to make a choice as to whether or not to get an
abortion, I don't feel a need to have an opinion on
this matter. It's the same reason I don't bother on
opining on whether tampons are superior to maxipads. I
say leave the woman business to the women.

I have, however, made some observations regarding this
issue.

1. I have never met a woman who has admitted to
getting an abortion that did not express some degree
of remorse about it or wasn't otherwise profoundly
affected by it.
2. I have never met a woman who admitted to having
more than one abortion.
3. People who are the most adamant against abortion
because of "fetal rights" are typically against
welfare and for capital punishment.
4. Biologically speaking an umbilical cord is the most
extreme form of welfare yet devised and some women DO
have children for the express purposes of getting more
free money from the state.
5. Violent sociopathic criminals tend to have troubled
childhoods wherein they are neglected, unwanted, and
abused. So I ask, "are we sparing them in the womb
only to put them on death row when they turn 18?"
6. Most people who so zealously champion the
preservation of unborn fetuses of this country don't
give a moments thought to the millions of children the
world over that are already born and starving to death
or dying of AIDS.
7. The guys who blow up abortion clinics probably
don't get laid often.
 
So much for my two cents. :)


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  Mon Jun  6 07:50:58 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 17:50:58 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in
	public!Filmateleven.)
References: <200506060500.j5650UR09441@tick.javien.com>
	<FCDEFEF9-CDF5-47C2-BFEC-37A4FFC34799@mac.com>
Message-ID: <056101c56a6c$79e63770$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

Samantha Atkins wrote:

> I did not engage in flames.  Mike did.  He was trolling for a fight.   
> I refused to play.  If you think I did wrong then I am probably done  
> with this list.  I have about had it with being abused by Mike and  
> having no one back me up.  It SUCKS. 

I backed you up.

>....................... I have had it with attempting  
> to steer clear of the mess and take a minimal stand only to be tarred  
> as equally belligerent.  This is UNJUST and I will not take it anymore.

This thread has gotten off topic. The "famous author" that "self destructs
in public" seems to have left it.  

Brett Paatsch



From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Mon Jun  6 08:27:30 2005
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 10:27:30 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying
In-Reply-To: <200506060521.j565LqR14205@tick.javien.com>
References: <200506060521.j565LqR14205@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0506061021190.17488@zeus>

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005, spike wrote:

>
>Kevin my father-in-law has a terrible fear of flying,
>specifically that the wings would come off in turbulence.  I
>launched into a big pontification on how they are stress
>tested, inspected, planes never have structural failure
>in flight, bla bla and yakkity yak.  About a week later
>the tail fell off that French plane causing it to punch
>a deep hole into the earth.  He has not flown since.

I look forward to turbolence every time I fly, to avoid boredom. I am
usually disappointed, since the flight is very smooth all too often :-)

The recent rise of low-cost, no-frills airlines here in Europe has
aggravated the problem, because now the ticket is anywhere between $5 and
$50 plus airport taxes, and for those prices they can't afford to give you
even a little snack. So there's nothing to do except look out of the
window (if it's not cloudy) and sleep.

Alfio


From fauxever at sprynet.com  Mon Jun  6 08:29:31 2005
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 01:29:31 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in
	public!Filmateleven.
References: <20050606071020.99614.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000b01c56a71$dd875610$6600a8c0@brainiac>

From: "The Avantguardian" <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>
>... so have come up with the perfect personal solution.

> Since my Y chromosome makes me highly unlikely to ever
> have to make a choice as to whether or not to get an
> abortion, I don't feel a need to have an opinion on
> this matter. It's the same reason I don't bother on
> opining on whether tampons are superior to maxipads. I
> say leave the woman business to the women.

Same reason?  Why, you must be independently wealthy or something.

Because - assuming you are fertile - if you should find yourself the party 
to woman's pregnancy - she will then decide for you (whether you like it or 
not), and if a child ensues from her decision - it is *you* who will be 
responsible for forking over a good deal of money for the child's rearing 
and welfare.  This is, of course, also assuming she is one of those "old 
fashioned" types who believes in observing this particular privilege women 
have had in past year - and takes you to court if you object to her decision 
to make you pay.

> I have, however, made some observations regarding this
> issue.

> 1. I have never met a woman who has admitted to
> getting an abortion that did not express some degree
> of remorse about it or wasn't otherwise profoundly
> affected by it.

I - on the other hand - have met many women whose only regret was that they 
got pregnant (accidentally), and when they went ahead to get their abortion 
were *not* profoundly affected by it.  I never had an abortion, but I did 
have a miscarriage - and was not affected by it (seems to me that the reams 
written about these events practically *encourage* women to be profoundly 
affected).

> 2. I have never met a woman who admitted to having
> more than one abortion.

The Pill and IUD have helped women out as far as not getting pregnant as 
often as they did in the past.  But accidents have been known to happen - 
even with these advanced form of contraception (I can attest to this 
personally).

Before the advent of The Pill/IUD, women who got pregnant were often married 
(we are talking early 1960s and the decades before ...) - or they suddenly 
"got" married - this institution served as a safety net, from social and 
financial fronts, at a time when abortions were illegal.  When I was a child 
I knew of several women who got illegal abortions - they were usually women 
who were not dependent on men (single women or single mothers), and took 
care of their own business - i.e., took responsibility for their "oopsies." 
My own mother had several abortions (although I did not find out about these 
as a child - only later, remembering her trips to Tijuana a couple of 
times).  My mother was not "profoundly affected" by the abortions - but she 
would definitely have been "profoundly affected" had she lost her livelihood 
(i.e., her job) as a result of these pregnancies.

It is a blessing to have safe, legal abortions for women.

> 3. People who are the most adamant against abortion
> because of "fetal rights" are typically against
> welfare and for capital punishment.

You are speaking about the religious right faction.

> 4. Biologically speaking an umbilical cord is the most
> extreme form of welfare yet devised and some women DO
> have children for the express purposes of getting more
> free money from the state.

>From the state?  Do a majority of women depend on welfare to rear their 
children?  Do you know how difficult it is to get welfare? (a great deal of 
this goes to blind people and people who have various disabilities, by the 
way)  Do you know how financially compromised those women are who may need 
to resort to welfare to help rear their children?  You don't really believe 
in "welfare queens - do you?"  Please, get serious.  (Did your mother work 
for a living?)

> 5. Violent sociopathic criminals tend to have troubled
> childhoods wherein they are neglected, unwanted, and
> abused. So I ask, "are we sparing them in the womb
> only to put them on death row when they turn 18?"

What a sweeping generalization.  I wouldn't know where to begin with this.

> 6. Most people who so zealously champion the
> preservation of unborn fetuses of this country don't
> give a moments thought to the millions of children the
> world over that are already born and starving to death
> or dying of AIDS.

Yes, the religious right group tends to be exclusive and ethnocentric.

> 7. The guys who blow up abortion clinics probably
> don't get laid often.

And they probably have milk in their refrigerators ... so your point is ...?

> So much for my two cents. :)

That's a lot of sputtering for two cents!





From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Mon Jun  6 08:43:33 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 01:43:33 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Slashdot submission: Study links genetic diseases to
	intelligence
Message-ID: <e88b73ce050606014345fbffa0@mail.gmail.com>

(I'm planning on submitting the following story to slashdot soon, but
considering the extreme sensitivity of the topic and slashdotters'
propensity for going completely nutzoid, I'd appreciate suggestions on
possible rewordings/additions. Also, what are your thoughts on the
topic itself and its implications for genetic enhancement of
intelligence?)

The Economist, Sun-Sentinel, and FuturePundit report on a
controversial study by Gregory Cochran and others which proposes a
link between certain genetic conditions and above-average intelligence
in Ashkenazi Jews. The 40-page study, published in the Journal of
Biosocial Science, analyzes data on unusual patterns of genetic
disease in the ethnic group and relates it to various measures of
intelligence, such as winning 27% of America's Nobel science prizes
and having a highly disproportionate rate of IQs over 140. Although
the intelligence data has traditionally been attributed solely to
cultural factors, Cochran proposes that due to unusual selection
pressures between 800 and 1600AD certain genes developed which promote
intelligence as single copies, but lead to particular diseases when
somebody inherits two copies. Of particular note are mutations which
seem to be involved with neuron growth and DNA repair. According to
Harvard cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, "It would be hard to
overstate how politically incorrect this paper is... [though] it's
certainly a thorough and well-argued paper, not one that can easily be
dismissed outright."

Links from submission:
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4032638
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/sfl-adiseases03jun03,0,3551969.story
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002812.html
http://harpend.dsl.xmission.com.nyud.net:8090/Documents/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf


From amara at amara.com  Mon Jun  6 08:47:50 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 10:47:50 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public!
 Filmateleven.
Message-ID: <p06210202bec9bbd0320e@[150.146.134.133]>

Samantha:
>I did not engage in flames.  Mike did.  He was trolling for a fight.
>I refused to play.  If you think I did wrong then I am probably done
>with this list.  I have about had it with being abused by Mike and
>having no one back me up.  It SUCKS.


I'm sorry, Samantha. I meant to call you last weekend and give
support over the phone. (Life is a bit too big for me at the moment
to do much over email). I killfiled Lorrey some days ago after after
I read his misogynist message. I wish there were more women on this
list. It's sorely lacking a balanced perspective.

Amara

(oops, just saw Olga's response. Thanks for another perspective Olga!
I can say more, too, but not right now.)
-- 

********************************************************************
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/
********************************************************************
"Math is Hard."    --Barbie


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Mon Jun  6 11:30:23 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 21:30:23 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Opinion piece on policy-making with
	predictionmarkets
References: <e88b73ce05060523497f1224bc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <05bb01c56a8b$213de4f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

Neil Halelamien wrote:

> "In his paper 'Shall We Vote on Values, But Bet on Beliefs,' Hanson
> proposed a new form of government, which he calls a 'Futarchy'. In
> this government, elected representatives would formally define and
> manage after-the-fact measurements of national welfare, while market
> speculators would say which policies they expected to raise national
> welfare."
>
> Which makes me wonder... after the unfortunate knee-jerk reaction to
> the Policy Analysis Market, are there any actions we can take towards
> helping make real-money prediction markets legal in the US?

Sure, one possibility is to make it legal elsewhere first, and then, point 
at
the revenue the US is losing to freer, smarter, more capitalist countries.

Brett Paatsch 




From pharos at gmail.com  Mon Jun  6 12:03:41 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:03:41 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Opinion piece on policy-making with
	predictionmarkets
In-Reply-To: <05bb01c56a8b$213de4f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
References: <e88b73ce05060523497f1224bc@mail.gmail.com>
	<05bb01c56a8b$213de4f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <ee50357e05060605032cce1c71@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/6/05, Brett Paatsch wrote:
> 
> Sure, one possibility is to make it legal elsewhere first, and then, point
> at the revenue the US is losing to freer, smarter, more capitalist countries.
> 

e.g.  Online poker.

Poker firm bets on ?5billion flotation
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4601793.stm>

According to Pokerpulse.com, the amount of money wagered in online
poker games in any given 24-hour period is more than $200 million US.
<http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Columnists/Francis/2005/06/04/1071374-sun.html>

While the US DOJ is trying to ban it.
<http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/story.jsp?story=644002>
In the face of an explosion of electronic gambling across the US, the
Department of Justice has in the past few months been stepping up its
campaign against firms that offer it. The DoJ has written to several
warning that internet gaming is against the law under the 1960s-era
Wire Act and has issued subpoenas to companies associated with the
business.


So how long till the US changes its internet gambling laws?

BillK


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Mon Jun  6 12:41:56 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 22:41:56 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Opinion piece on policy-making
	withpredictionmarkets
References: <e88b73ce05060523497f1224bc@mail.gmail.com><05bb01c56a8b$213de4f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<ee50357e05060605032cce1c71@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <05e601c56a95$1fa1b590$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

BillK wrote:

> On 6/6/05, Brett Paatsch wrote:
>>
>> Sure, one possibility is to make it legal elsewhere first, and then, 
>> point
>> at the revenue the US is losing to freer, smarter, more capitalist 
>> countries.
>>
>
> e.g.  Online poker.

That's not an exact comparison. Online poker is not the same as a real
money predictions market.

> Poker firm bets on ?5billion flotation
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4601793.stm>
>
> According to Pokerpulse.com, the amount of money wagered in online
> poker games in any given 24-hour period is more than $200 million US.
> <http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Columnists/Francis/2005/06/04/1071374-sun.html>
>
> While the US DOJ is trying to ban it.
> <http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/story.jsp?story=644002>
> In the face of an explosion of electronic gambling across the US, the
> Department of Justice has in the past few months been stepping up its
> campaign against firms that offer it. The DoJ has written to several
> warning that internet gaming is against the law under the 1960s-era
> Wire Act and has issued subpoenas to companies associated with the
> business.
>
>
> So how long till the US changes its internet gambling laws?

Depends.

But this para from the bottom of your second link is interesting.

"Sorting out the contradictions between America's official legal
 position and the reality of the booming online industry is likely
 to move further up the agenda of Capitol Hill after a recent
 ruling at the World Trade Organisation which broadly upheld
a complaint from Antigua, one of the WTO's smallest members.
The island has built up a booming business in hosting online
gaming businesses and said the US was being unfair by allowing
online horseracing betting by US operators, while outlawing all
other others of internet gambling."

Brett Paatsch




From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Jun  6 14:31:48 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 07:31:48 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] new libertarian
In-Reply-To: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNCEAEGAAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
Message-ID: <200506061431.j56EVkR21183@tick.javien.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Reason
...
> >
> > http://www.qando.net/articles/tnlv1i3.pdf
> 
> It aptly illustrates that the modern usage of the prefix "neo" in matters
> political appears to mean some variety of "not," "not at all," or "not
> even slightly."
> 
> Reason
> Founder, Longevity Meme

Reason, do elaborate please.

spike



From charlie at stross.org.uk  Mon Jun  6 14:34:13 2005
From: charlie at stross.org.uk (Charlie Stross)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 15:34:13 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in
	public!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <f19e9ae003a5d55591208360b4244661@antipope.org>
References: <586da73fcb70f35d2fdc89d8b73dac83@stross.org.uk>
	<04fd01c56a4e$0c55f380$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<f19e9ae003a5d55591208360b4244661@antipope.org>
Message-ID: <4421eadc791f0ea39c3a691a8170b8ad@stross.org.uk>

On 6 Jun 2005, at 05:13, Brett Paatsch wrote:

>> The sub-text of the entire ?human life begins at 10^6 cells/^10^3/1  
>> cell? debate is that a *potential* life is worth as much, if not 
>> more,  than the *actual* life of the woman who is expected by the  
>> anti-abortion lobby to go through a somewhat hazardous medical  
>> condition (which, in the wild, has a 5-10% fatality rate) and then -- 
>>  this is implicit in the whole mess -- spend the next twenty years of 
>>  life surrendering their potential for self-actualization to that 
>> other  formerly potential person.
>
> That sentence is too hard for me to parse. I think you are strawmanning
> the views of those who I disagree with as well but I can't tell.

Um, I was taking you initially for one of the "every sperm is sacred 
(and you women had better look after them)" crowd. Not having run into 
you on the net before.

> As for the 5-10% fatality rate thats a higher statistic than the ones I
> have, do you have a source for it?

Well, you don't have to look far on the net -- go back to Semmelweis in 
1847 and he found a 12.24% mortality rate among 294 deliveries in a 
Viennese hospital, prior to his introduction of antisepsis there. Okay, 
so admittedly we've currently got antibiotics and medical intervention 
that reduces the infant mortality rate to roughly 10-20 per 1000 and 
maternal mortality isn't a noted issue -- at present. But I'm not going 
to bet on antibiotic resistance being held at bay much longer, given 
the way we've criminally failed to develop new antibiotics, retain 
traditional antiseptic nursing techniques, and over-used those 
antibiotics we have.


>> ........................................Who then gets to do the whole 
>> same thing (if  they?re female) or benefit from all that hard work 
>> (if they?re not).
>>
>> As a non-American who lives in a country where at the last poll just 
>> short of 90% of the population approved of abortion being available 
>> on demand, let me say that I think this discussion would be ludicrous 
>> if  it wasn?t evil.
>
> So what are you a Canadian living in the US or what?

British, living in the UK. (In the People's Republic of Scotland, to be 
precise.)

...
> Its ironic, but when you posted to the list recently you said that you
> were irked I think that there was so much ranting going on. But now
> I am struggling to understand what points you are trying to make
> because you seem to have decided to rant along with us.
>
> When you use words like evil I don't know if you are parodying the
> US President or if you actually really think in such terms yourself.

See "British", above, and consider the possibility that a Manichean 
view of the world ain't part of my outlook. Britain and the US are two 
nations divided by a linguistic sar-chasm.

(Although if I was going to try and bolt together a post-religious 
rationalist ethical framework based on game theory with a side-order of 
utilitarianism, I think I'd probably retain the word "evil" to describe 
ideologies or beliefs that amount to repeatedly smacking yourself in 
the face with a two-by-four. And the Christian fundamentalists are a 
good fit for that pattern of behaviour.)



-- Charlie



From charlie at stross.org.uk  Mon Jun  6 14:34:39 2005
From: charlie at stross.org.uk (Charlie Stross)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 15:34:39 +0100
Subject: [SPAM] Re: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in
	public!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <132752b669a7c622dc0528bbd9a509c4@antipope.org>
References: <20050606071020.99614.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>
	<000b01c56a71$dd875610$6600a8c0@brainiac>
	<132752b669a7c622dc0528bbd9a509c4@antipope.org>
Message-ID: <3db4fe4447aecddfe7e33c08f576c991@stross.org.uk>


On 6 Jun 2005, at 09:29, Olga Bourlin wrote:
>
> It is a blessing to have safe, legal abortions for women.

A point the more public-facing anti-abortion groups never seem to get 
round to talking about is that banning abortion won't stop abortions 
from happening; it'll just make them unsafe criminal affairs, carried 
out furtively, with an attached significant death toll.

(The more extreme anti-abortion groups, notably the Christian 
reconstructionists, want to bring in the death penalty for abortionists 
*and* the women who use their services *and* for adulterers *and* for 
homosexuals ... but they don't make a big point of bringing this up in 
front of the general public. Can't imagine why.)


-- Charlie



From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Jun  6 14:41:50 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 07:41:50 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] flamey abortion discussion,
	was: Famous author self destructs in public!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <FCDEFEF9-CDF5-47C2-BFEC-37A4FFC34799@mac.com>
Message-ID: <200506061441.j56EfnR22559@tick.javien.com>


> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins
...
> 
> I did not engage in flames.  Mike did.  He was trolling for a fight...
> 
> - samantha


Ja it looked to me like Mike was the aggressor.

Mike, make it right man.  

Perhaps we should prefix abortion discussions in the subject
line, or at least change it from famous author.  I missed something.
Who was the famous author?  What did she do to self destruct
in public?  I missed a few days discussion last week.

spike



From maxm at mail.tele.dk  Mon Jun  6 14:53:23 2005
From: maxm at mail.tele.dk (Max M)
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:53:23 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mission to build a simulated brain begins
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0506052323869c939@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0506052323869c939@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <42A46363.2050501@mail.tele.dk>

Emlyn wrote:

>Ah, the singularity. I just grabbed this from >HTech, opinions?
>-----
>
>http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7470&feedId=online-news_atom03
>
>Mission to build a simulated brain begins
>

Very interresting.

The best result would be if it turned out that neurons in them self are 
unimportant, and that the "real action" takes place in higher structures.

It is a big difference in AI if a brain must be simulated from 
individual neurons, or if groups of neurons can be considdered as "black 
boxes" of functionality.

-- 

hilsen/regards Max M, Denmark

http://www.mxm.dk/
IT's Mad Science



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  6 15:09:55 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 08:09:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in
	public!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <6F163F4A-6875-4114-A98B-38B53DA18DF1@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050606150956.20626.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> I am sorry but after your tirades I refuse to discuss this topic with
> you.  I did not want to discuss this topic in the first place and  
> certainly not with you.

Tirades? This is clearly slanderous. I don't recall losing my temper
once over this. That you are incapable of reading anything free of your
own emotional blinders has been amply demonstrated.

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 Jun  6 15:26:58 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 08:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in
	public!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <41C46A21-AD7D-415A-83B2-2BB5C9E2A00A@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050606152658.72965.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> 
> Judgmental and prejudicial of discussion as ever I see.   Why do you 
> belief that just because the 56 day old fetus has a bit more rounded 
> head and recognizable 10 fingers and ten toes that it is now fully  
> endowed with all rights of the actually born and has all the rights  
> at least of the woman carrying it?  Your demarcation seems  
> arbitrary.  It certainly doesn't seem objective enough to call those 
> who don't see it as you do sociopaths or insane.

It is far less arbitrary than your eco-buddies selecting only cute and
fuzzy animals to demonstrate over....

> 
> Deciding some point in pregnancy that the pregnancy should only be  
> terminated for more extreme reason makes sense to me on multiple  
> levels.   Part of what I said about a foetus not being a child until 
> the parents say so is also a recognition that after the point of  
> thinking of the foetus as child accidental loss or abortion becomes  
> much more painful emotionally and psychologically. Contrasted with
> the difficult to define purported rights of the unborn are the  
> obviously present rights of the woman carrying it to self- 
> determination.   Many are the hormonal and psychological pressures to
> carry to term.  But pregnancy is no cakewalk physically or  
> psychologically.  Saying a woman must carry to term just because she 
> is pregnant is an abrogation of her rights and involuntary servitude.
> It is a placing of the purported right of the unborn above the rights
> of the woman.  This is obviously problematic.  In practice a balance 
> will be struck.  In my personal view I would tend to place the line  
> before which abortion is an at will decision roughly at the end of  
> the first trimester.   Abortion after some point in pregnancy should 
> in my opinion only be for very substantial reasons.

Ah, the old 'involuntary servitude' claim rears its head! It is odd,
Samantha, that you so clearly dismiss such a claim when it is the male
making it, particularly when the state starts garnishing his wages for
child support for a child he never wanted.... When did he ever have the
right to an abortion? Feminists like yourself claim he had his choice
in the few minutes of copulation, while claiming the mother has 9
months of choice. Sorry, that isn't "equal protection under the law" or
"equal rights".

Sorry, Samantha, it doesn't wash. The woman chose to take the risk to
temporarily and voluntarily indenture herself to the kid at the moment
she chose to procreate, just as her sexual partner did, just as anyone
is bound, indentured, when they sign any sort of contract with another
party, be it an employment contract, a mortgage, or a marriage, or
social security: you choose to contract by act (signature or screw,
doesn't matter), you get bound, and you fulfill the terms of the
contract. No woman can claim she didn't realize the demands of a 9
month pregancy contract. Incognizance or incompetence is really the
only escape from such a contract: in this regard, a minor child is
incognizant and/or incompetent to enter into contract.

If you are going to demand that one party have an escape clause, all
parties must have the same escape clause.

> >
> >
> > I'd like to hear Samantha's view on this. 56 days isn't even two  
> > months yet, well within the first trimester that most women tend
> > to believe is their rightful period to execute an abortion
> > without guilt or remorse.
> 
> There is almost always a lot of psychologically difficult stuff  
> around deciding to abort after the hormones are flowing especially.  
>  
> It is not an easy decision and you do women a disservice by painting 
> them as uncaring if they abort.   But it is the woman's decision to  
> make.

If the male doesn't have an equal right to decide, then I refuse to
recognise hers.

> 
> How do you feel about the morning after pill, Mike?   About a week  
> after pill?  A month?   Where do you draw your line?   And where do  
> you get off calling those who disagree insane or sociopaths?

When I see pictures on the internet of Chinese people eating fetus
soup, it becomes clear to me that the abortion movement has slipped its
rails of rationality and has become an advocate for genocide.

As I've stated before, a morning after pill is fine. Out to two weeks
seems fine. Beyond that we enter a sea of gradually rising rights of
the unborn as well as the full rights of the father that are of equal
importance as the mothers rights.

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 mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  6 15:44:24 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 08:44:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fly Me to the Moon
In-Reply-To: <e88b73ce0506051500184afc30@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050606154424.26212.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> On 6/5/05, Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> > Charlie Stross wrote:
> > > 1. A spaceship needs wings and a retractable undercarriage like
> an
> > > automobile needs oars and sails.
> > >
> > I'd dispute that.
> > Almost all designs for a fully reusable spacecraft have wings.
> 
> And that's a good reason for why it's premature to be vouching for
> fully reusable orbital spacecraft just yet. They might be
> economically
> justifiable (and we'll see them being developed by private industry)
> once flight rates get high enough, but in the meantime a low-cost
> semi-reusable like the upcoming SpaceX Falcon rockets seems a far
> better option.
> 
> In the present day the per-unit construction cost of a spacecraft is
> definitely -not- the main driver of launch costs.

On the contrary, Space Ship One, the only private spaceship we have to
draw a baseline from, has wings. Tier two reportedly has wings as well.

Space shuttles cost a few billion to build, they cost somewhere around
$100 million to launch. If you only get 20 missions out of one, your
cost per launch is $200 million. If you can get 40 missions out of one,
your cost is $150 million. Reusability determines a large percent of
operational costs.

Space Ship One reportedly cost $20-$30 million to build (of course
there is a lot of r&d in that that will be taken up by later units).
Fuel costs are reportedly $100k-$200k per mission. If SS1 lasts 20
missions, its costs per mission would be $1.2 million. As Virgin
Galactic has priced tickets at $296,000, last I heard, and given a
minimum 50% margin, Scaled Composites must be claiming that each SS1
derivative ship can fly 80 missions, minimum. If so, then about 60% of
the cost per mission is capital investment, or else Rutan thinks he can
get is production cost per unit down significantly, to $2-5 million
each, likely.

Recall with SS1 that the larger investment is in the mothership, not
the shuttlecock, though it is likely that one mothership should be able
to service several shuttles.

Now, there really isn't any reason why a capsule program can't be
reusable. In fact, the Gemini program did reuse at least one or two of
its capsules in its Gemini B program (where they tested the viability
of building a hatch through the heatshield to access the MOL, which
would weld shut upon reentry.) With modern heat shield technologies, it
should be possible to build rather sophisticated capsules that would
have either reusable or easily replaceable heat shields.

The real contest is whether you can affordably and reliable recover the
rest of the rocket, which has been the real point of the ssto movement,
particularly saving the expensive rocket engines. Others have moved in
a different direction: making rocket engines cheap enough to throw away.

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! 
Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  6 15:53:18 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 08:53:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying
In-Reply-To: <003801c56a46$17262d00$0100a8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <20050606155318.70347.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- "kevinfreels.com" <kevin at kevinfreels.com> wrote:
> 
> While I was in the shower I realized that the fear of course comes
> from a PERCEIVED loss of control. I realized that we as humans
> constantly fool ourselves into believing that we are in some sort of
> control when in fact we are not. 
> This is evident in the way that we handle our everyday lives. 

I have a solution for you, then: bring your laptop with you on the
flight, with the x-plane flight simulator installed. Select the type of
aircraft you are flying on from the inventory (once you are boarded,
before you take off) and program in a flight plan (based on the
airport, air corridors, etc), then set it on autopilot and close the
computer. You have now, subconciously, set the course for the 'plane'
you are flying, and are therefore 'in control' of its course.

They will of course require you turn the computer off at takeoff, but
with a good pair of earplugs you won't hear that and you can continue
on believing it is you who is flying the plane through your autopilot...

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! 
Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  6 15:55:07 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 08:55:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying
In-Reply-To: <200506060521.j565LqR14205@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050606155507.83526.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> Kevin my father-in-law has a terrible fear of flying, 
> specifically that the wings would come off in turbulence.  I 
> launched into a big pontification on how they are stress 
> tested, inspected, planes never have structural failure
> in flight, bla bla and yakkity yak.  About a week later
> the tail fell off that French plane causing it to punch
> a deep hole into the earth.  He has not flown since.

You should show him photos of air force fighters that have shorn off
their wings at the roots in midair collisions but still flown back to
base and landed.... hey, that French plane lost its rudder but still
flew back to the airport. That's a glass half full in my opinion...

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! 
Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  6 15:56:00 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 08:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] new libertarian
In-Reply-To: <200506060556.j565urR22000@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050606155601.83739.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

q and o is on my blogroll, as is New Libertarian.

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

> 
> Hey check this.  I haven't studied all their views, but
> the articles I have read are hitting all the right buttons
> with me:
> 
> http://www.qando.net/articles/tnlv1i3.pdf
> 
> 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


		
__________________________________ 
Discover Yahoo! 
Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  6 15:58:08 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 08:58:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public!
	Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <FCDEFEF9-CDF5-47C2-BFEC-37A4FFC34799@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050606155808.51856.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> I did not engage in flames.  Mike did.  He was trolling for a fight. 
> I refused to play. 

BS Samantha. Your statement I responded to was clearly incindiary,
arrogant, and self-righteous.

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 Jun  6 16:09:22 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 09:09:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [SPAM] Re: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in
	public!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <3db4fe4447aecddfe7e33c08f576c991@stross.org.uk>
Message-ID: <20050606160922.42445.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Charlie Stross <charlie at stross.org.uk> wrote:

> 
> On 6 Jun 2005, at 09:29, Olga Bourlin wrote:
> >
> > It is a blessing to have safe, legal abortions for women.
> 
> A point the more public-facing anti-abortion groups never seem to get
> round to talking about is that banning abortion won't stop abortions 
> from happening; it'll just make them unsafe criminal affairs, carried
> out furtively, with an attached significant death toll.

I do realize that banning murder hasn't stopped murders from happening,
it has turned what used to be honorable and refereed duels into sorted
and unsafe criminal affairs, carried out furtively, with an attached
significant death toll... oh, you were speaking about abortion, yet I
don't seem to recall any third trimester kids being counted in that
"death toll".... Some small but significant percentage of women die in
illegal third trimester abortions. 100% of children involved in legal
third trimester abortions die. Which is the greater "death toll"?

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 puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Mon Jun  6 16:31:04 2005
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 18:31:04 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying
In-Reply-To: <20050606155318.70347.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050606155318.70347.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0506061830040.24356@zeus>

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- "kevinfreels.com" <kevin at kevinfreels.com> wrote:
>>
>> While I was in the shower I realized that the fear of course comes
>> from a PERCEIVED loss of control. I realized that we as humans
>> constantly fool ourselves into believing that we are in some sort of
>> control when in fact we are not.
>> This is evident in the way that we handle our everyday lives.
>
>I have a solution for you, then: bring your laptop with you on the
>flight, with the x-plane flight simulator installed. Select the type of
>aircraft you are flying on from the inventory (once you are boarded,
>before you take off) and program in a flight plan (based on the
>airport, air corridors, etc), then set it on autopilot and close the
>computer. You have now, subconciously, set the course for the 'plane'
>you are flying, and are therefore 'in control' of its course.

Until the inevitable happens...

http://www.neisg.org/Archive/2004/05Graphics/bluetooth.jpg

Alfio


From hal at finney.org  Mon Jun  6 15:57:29 2005
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Mon,  6 Jun 2005 08:57:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Opinion piece on policy-making
	withpredictionmarkets
Message-ID: <20050606155729.0408257E8C@finney.org>

There is actually quite a bit of movement in the U.S. towards prediction
markets.  A good reference site is http://www.chrisfmasse.com/ which keeps
things up to date.  There was a DIMACS conference on the topic earlier
this year, with a good report by Ken Kittlitz who runs the on-line FX
play-money game based on Robin Hanson's Information Futures concept,
http://www.chrisfmasse.com/2/2005/20050207.html .  Ken summarizes
one talk:

: Historically, there have been a number of approaches to setting up a
: real-money event market in the U.S.:
:
: a) Get a "no action" letter from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
: (CFTC). This simply is documentation stating that the CFTC's enforcement
: arm will take no action against your market, as long as it sticks to the
: conditions set out in the letter. This is what the Iowa Electronic Markets
: (IEM) did in 1992. In some ways, it is the weakest form of approval,
: because the letter can potentially be rescinded.
:
: b) Become a Designated Contract Market (DCM). This is a designation
: issued by the CFTC that enables the recipient to create a market in
: some specified commodities. All the well-known futures exchanges in the
: U.S. are DCMs, as is HedgeStreet, a new entrant (more below). It costs
: a lot of money, and can take anywhere from 90 days to several years to
: obtain (four years in Hedge Street's case).
:
: c) Trade in an "excluded commodity". The CFTC does not regulate direct
: trades between "sophisticated" entities in such things as macro-economic
: indices. However, the sophisticated entities are usually institutions,
: not individuals. Otherwise, the CFTC does regulate trade in most other
: commodities, where a "commodity" is very broadly defined -- most goods
: and services qualify. Not onions, though. After a 1958 slump in onion
: prices allegedly due to speculators, the onion growers lobbied Congress
: to have onions excluded as a futures market commodity.
:
: d) Become a legal gambling entity. This is much harder than either of the
: CFTC options, because gambling is regulated (mostly) by the states. Some
: states have outlawed Internet gambling entirely, which makes running an
: Internet market tricky. Additionally, some federal laws apply.
:
: e) Go offshore. Many sites have done so, though they are violating the
: U.S. Wire Act if they accept bets from U.S. citizens. Very few people
: have been prosecuted for running such sites; the ones that have been
: are U.S. residents.

There is considerable academic research in the area as well.  One interesting
experiment currently being run:

: The Iowa Electronic Markets are now being used to help physicians
: predict the strain(s) of influenza that will occur in the upcoming flu
: season. This is an alternative to the current information aggregation
: mechanism, which is a conference call between 200 (!) "sentinel"
: physicians that occurs early in the year, eight months before the flu
: season hits. Early results are encouraging.

It should be interesting to see how that one comes out.

Hal Finney


From charlie at stross.org.uk  Mon Jun  6 16:54:51 2005
From: charlie at stross.org.uk (Charlie Stross)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 17:54:51 +0100
Subject: [SPAM] Re: [extropy-chat] Fly Me to the Moon
In-Reply-To: <0ed72aca209a2f7fe0b6c572b0504ace@antipope.org>
References: <20050606154424.26212.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<0ed72aca209a2f7fe0b6c572b0504ace@antipope.org>
Message-ID: <cf102dfe4a64b2cf2671e0205cb7774f@stross.org.uk>

On 6 Jun 2005, at 16:44, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>> In the present day the per-unit construction cost of a spacecraft is
>> definitely -not- the main driver of launch costs.
>
> On the contrary, Space Ship One, the only private spaceship we have to
> draw a baseline from, has wings. Tier two reportedly has wings as well.

Space Ship One is due to go into orbit ... when?

> Space shuttles cost a few billion to build, they cost somewhere around
> $100 million to launch.

Uh-huh. The Shuttle program costs c. $6Bn/year. This is fixed 
infrastructure costs including the pad, the VAB, and the 5500 people it 
takes to turn the STS around between flights. Maximum flight tempo 
anyone contemplated, post-Challenger but pre-Columbia, was 10 
flights/year; a more realistic tempo with a 4-shuttle fleet was 5/year. 
So we're talking close to a billion per flight.

This is still quite cheap when you compare to Saturn Vs in full-up 
Apollo moon landing configuration, which cost $350-400M per moon launch 
and had a very similar mass to LEO; that was ?350-400M in *1968* 
dollars, so call it $2-3Bn in todays money.

This is before you add the construction costs of the shuttle, of course.

> Space Ship One reportedly cost $20-$30 million to build (of course
> there is a lot of r&d in that that will be taken up by later units).
> Fuel costs are reportedly $100k-$200k per mission. If SS1 lasts 20
> missions, its costs per mission would be $1.2 million.

As I said before: Space Ship One goes into orbit when, exactly?

Until it goes into orbit it ain't a real reusable surface-to-orbit 
space transportation system. And SS1 ain't designed to do that. There's 
a small matter of 5mk/s delta-V that's missing somewhere, along with 
the re-entry thermal protection system and a few other extras. QED.

I'm not questioning Burt Rutan's ability to build a real reusable 
orbiter, if you gave him a deep-pocket budget. But SS-1 isn't the real 
thing, and whatever he came up with would have to be at least one -- 
and probably two to three -- orders of magnitude pricier to build and 
at least one and probably two orders of magnitude more costly to fly. 
Even *without* NASA's bureaucratic flight certification requirements.



-- Charlie



From sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Jun  6 16:55:15 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 09:55:15 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in
	public!Filmateleven.)
In-Reply-To: <056101c56a6c$79e63770$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
References: <200506060500.j5650UR09441@tick.javien.com>
	<FCDEFEF9-CDF5-47C2-BFEC-37A4FFC34799@mac.com>
	<056101c56a6c$79e63770$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <31CBF56C-5DC6-45A5-BBFB-9FA0E7F6E0C1@mac.com>


On Jun 6, 2005, at 12:50 AM, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>
>> I did not engage in flames.  Mike did.  He was trolling for a  
>> fight.   I refused to play.  If you think I did wrong then I am  
>> probably done  with this list.  I have about had it with being  
>> abused by Mike and  having no one back me up.  It SUCKS.
>>
>
> I backed you up.

OK. Yeah. Partly at least.  Thanks.

>
>
>> ....................... I have had it with attempting  to steer  
>> clear of the mess and take a minimal stand only to be tarred  as  
>> equally belligerent.  This is UNJUST and I will not take it anymore.
>>
>
> This thread has gotten off topic. The "famous author" that "self  
> destructs
> in public" seems to have left it.

That was a good idea.  Time to do likewise.

- s


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050606/82c80b6f/attachment.html>

From charlie at stross.org.uk  Mon Jun  6 16:56:55 2005
From: charlie at stross.org.uk (Charlie Stross)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 17:56:55 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in
	public!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <3a71eb9e2c6a91ae4c7620112459563d@stross.org.uk>
References: <20050606160922.42445.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<f4d4740f59b3a4ec290f0fa1b665b4f8@antipope.org>
	<3a71eb9e2c6a91ae4c7620112459563d@stross.org.uk>
Message-ID: <1b96e6dea9468d3aee9eb41f73b8a019@stross.org.uk>


On 6 Jun 2005, at 17:09, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>> A point the more public-facing anti-abortion groups never seem to get
>> round to talking about is that banning abortion won't stop abortions
>> from happening; it'll just make them unsafe criminal affairs, carried
>> out furtively, with an attached significant death toll.
>
> I do realize that banning murder hasn't stopped murders from happening,
...
> .... Some small but significant percentage of women die in
> illegal third trimester abortions. 100% of children involved in legal
> third trimester abortions die. Which is the greater "death toll"?

So you're equating third trimester abortion with murder?

Can we agree you're on record as saying that?

Now. Are you willing to go a step further and assert that second 
trimester abortion is equivalent to murder?

C'mon. First trimester?

Pre-implantation fertilized ova?

Where do you draw the line?



-- Charlie (curious) Stross



From sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Jun  6 17:38:16 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 10:38:16 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs
	in	public!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <4421eadc791f0ea39c3a691a8170b8ad@stross.org.uk>
References: <586da73fcb70f35d2fdc89d8b73dac83@stross.org.uk>
	<04fd01c56a4e$0c55f380$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<f19e9ae003a5d55591208360b4244661@antipope.org>
	<4421eadc791f0ea39c3a691a8170b8ad@stross.org.uk>
Message-ID: <33E90830-567C-4E5D-9FDA-A19C61545A71@mac.com>


On Jun 6, 2005, at 7:34 AM, Charlie Stross wrote:

> See "British", above, and consider the possibility that a Manichean  
> view of the world ain't part of my outlook. Britain and the US are  
> two nations divided by a linguistic sar-chasm.
>
> (Although if I was going to try and bolt together a post-religious  
> rationalist ethical framework based on game theory with a side- 
> order of utilitarianism, I think I'd probably retain the word  
> "evil" to describe ideologies or beliefs that amount to repeatedly  
> smacking yourself in the face with a two-by-four. And the Christian  
> fundamentalists are a good fit for that pattern of behaviour.)
>

LOL.  Thank you! You have lifted my entire day.

- s


From sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Jun  6 17:46:24 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 10:46:24 -0700
Subject: [SPAM] Re: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in
	public!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <3db4fe4447aecddfe7e33c08f576c991@stross.org.uk>
References: <20050606071020.99614.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>
	<000b01c56a71$dd875610$6600a8c0@brainiac>
	<132752b669a7c622dc0528bbd9a509c4@antipope.org>
	<3db4fe4447aecddfe7e33c08f576c991@stross.org.uk>
Message-ID: <5036580D-CFB9-475D-8FFC-305434C57A45@mac.com>


On Jun 6, 2005, at 7:34 AM, Charlie Stross wrote:

>
> On 6 Jun 2005, at 09:29, Olga Bourlin wrote:
>
>>
>> It is a blessing to have safe, legal abortions for women.
>>
>
> A point the more public-facing anti-abortion groups never seem to  
> get round to talking about is that banning abortion won't stop  
> abortions from happening; it'll just make them unsafe criminal  
> affairs, carried out furtively, with an attached significant death  
> toll.
>
> (The more extreme anti-abortion groups, notably the Christian  
> reconstructionists, want to bring in the death penalty for  
> abortionists *and* the women who use their services *and* for  
> adulterers *and* for homosexuals ... but they don't make a big  
> point of bringing this up in front of the general public. Can't  
> imagine why.)
>

Among other reasons that adultery one would seriously thin their  
ranks and remove a lot of their leaders.

Of course it would probably be enforced about like similar things are  
in Saudi Arabia.  They have serious head chopping laws against  
adultery.  But you have to be accused in such and such formal way by  
two adult men of good standing whe were actual witnesses.  Kinky.    
It generally works out that mutual self-interest keeps too many cases  
from making it to chop-chop square.   When I was there in the 80s you  
could find Mercedes parked out in the desert beyond the city lights  
at night.  The well-heeled often went to Bahrain or even Thailand for  
the weekend.

- samantha


From sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Jun  6 17:54:24 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 10:54:24 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs
	in	public!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <20050606150956.20626.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050606150956.20626.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <53694A50-6DF6-4668-ADEF-C7B84AA1FF13@mac.com>


On Jun 6, 2005, at 8:09 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
>
> --- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I am sorry but after your tirades I refuse to discuss this topic with
>> you.  I did not want to discuss this topic in the first place and
>> certainly not with you.
>>
>
> Tirades? This is clearly slanderous. I don't recall losing my temper
> once over this. That you are incapable of reading anything free of  
> your
> own emotional blinders has been amply demonstrated.
>
>

Whether you lost your temper or not is irrelevant.



From sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Jun  6 18:13:51 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 11:13:51 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs
	in	public!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <20050606152658.72965.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050606152658.72965.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ACE3EAA4-33DB-4BD2-B9B8-2DA2FDEF7719@mac.com>


On Jun 6, 2005, at 8:26 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
>
> --- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Judgmental and prejudicial of discussion as ever I see.   Why do you
>> belief that just because the 56 day old fetus has a bit more rounded
>> head and recognizable 10 fingers and ten toes that it is now fully
>> endowed with all rights of the actually born and has all the rights
>> at least of the woman carrying it?  Your demarcation seems
>> arbitrary.  It certainly doesn't seem objective enough to call those
>> who don't see it as you do sociopaths or insane.
>>
>
> It is far less arbitrary than your eco-buddies selecting only cute and
> fuzzy animals to demonstrate over....

Why would you think I have "eco-buddies"?  You seem to have stuffed  
me into one of your collectivist pigeon-holes.  Strange that an  
individualist refuses to bother to see me as an individual and  
respond to what I say rather than what the collection he things I am  
part of would (so he thinks) say about totally unrelated topics.

>
>
>>
>> Deciding some point in pregnancy that the pregnancy should only be
>> terminated for more extreme reason makes sense to me on multiple
>> levels.   Part of what I said about a foetus not being a child until
>> the parents say so is also a recognition that after the point of
>> thinking of the foetus as child accidental loss or abortion becomes
>> much more painful emotionally and psychologically. Contrasted with
>> the difficult to define purported rights of the unborn are the
>> obviously present rights of the woman carrying it to self-
>> determination.   Many are the hormonal and psychological pressures to
>> carry to term.  But pregnancy is no cakewalk physically or
>> psychologically.  Saying a woman must carry to term just because she
>> is pregnant is an abrogation of her rights and involuntary servitude.
>> It is a placing of the purported right of the unborn above the rights
>> of the woman.  This is obviously problematic.  In practice a balance
>> will be struck.  In my personal view I would tend to place the line
>> before which abortion is an at will decision roughly at the end of
>> the first trimester.   Abortion after some point in pregnancy should
>> in my opinion only be for very substantial reasons.
>>
>
> Ah, the old 'involuntary servitude' claim rears its head! It is odd,
> Samantha, that you so clearly dismiss such a claim when it is the male
> making it, particularly when the state starts garnishing his wages for
> child support for a child he never wanted.... When did he ever have  
> the
> right to an abortion? Feminists like yourself claim he had his choice
> in the few minutes of copulation, while claiming the mother has 9
> months of choice. Sorry, that isn't "equal protection under the  
> law" or
> "equal rights".
>

There is no "clearly" about it as I have never said any such thing.    
I don't believe as it turns out that the male who is not  
contractually obligated to a female who became pregnant by him should  
have to support the child for a couple of decades if she decides to  
have it.  In actuality I think the divorce laws concerning child  
support have many unfair biases against the guys.  See, if you had  
bothered to find out what I think on this side matter it would have  
been much better than blasting away at the pattern you think I am  
part of.

> Sorry, Samantha, it doesn't wash. The woman chose to take the risk to
> temporarily and voluntarily indenture herself to the kid at the moment
> she chose to procreate,

That would be as objectionable as what you object to.

> just as her sexual partner did, just as anyone
> is bound, indentured, when they sign any sort of contract with another
> party, be it an employment contract, a mortgage, or a marriage, or
> social security: you choose to contract by act (signature or screw,
> doesn't matter), you get bound, and you fulfill the terms of the
> contract.

You don't believe this is just so why are you spewing this?


> No woman can claim she didn't realize the demands of a 9
> month pregancy contract. Incognizance or incompetence is really the
> only escape from such a contract: in this regard, a minor child is
> incognizant and/or incompetent to enter into contract.
>
> If you are going to demand that one party have an escape clause, all
> parties must have the same escape clause.
>

There is no escape clause because there was no contract just by  
having sex to start with.  So everyone is not obligated by a surprise  
pregnancy therefrom.  Fair?

>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd like to hear Samantha's view on this. 56 days isn't even two
>>> months yet, well within the first trimester that most women tend
>>> to believe is their rightful period to execute an abortion
>>> without guilt or remorse.
>>>
>>
>> There is almost always a lot of psychologically difficult stuff
>> around deciding to abort after the hormones are flowing especially.
>>
>> It is not an easy decision and you do women a disservice by painting
>> them as uncaring if they abort.   But it is the woman's decision to
>> make.
>>
>
> If the male doesn't have an equal right to decide, then I refuse to
> recognise hers.

That is dumb.  It is in her body.  As long as she doesn't have the  
right to force the male to pay child support if he is not otherwise  
contractually obligated (as a spouse) then it very much is her  
choice.   It is dumb to throw out the rights of others if some rights  
and reasonableness are not already upheld by law.   Lack of balance  
needs to be fixed by making it better for all parties not by making  
it more broken for everyone.

>
>
>>
>> How do you feel about the morning after pill, Mike?   About a week
>> after pill?  A month?   Where do you draw your line?   And where do
>> you get off calling those who disagree insane or sociopaths?
>>
>
> When I see pictures on the internet of Chinese people eating fetus
> soup, it becomes clear to me that the abortion movement has slipped  
> its
> rails of rationality and has become an advocate for genocide.
>

This supposed event on the other side of the world has nothing to do  
with the question.

> As I've stated before, a morning after pill is fine. Out to two weeks
> seems fine. Beyond that we enter a sea of gradually rising rights of
> the unborn as well as the full rights of the father that are of equal
> importance as the mothers rights.

There are currently no rights of the unborn that I recognize except  
as derived from the rights of the parents.  I recognize no right of  
the male involved or of the state to force a woman to carry to term.

- samantha


From sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Jun  6 18:16:04 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 11:16:04 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public!
	Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <20050606155808.51856.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050606155808.51856.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <F8851339-74CD-4D98-9E01-DF0C9E78C3A2@mac.com>

It was a direct response to a load of misogynistic krap you  
unloaded.  It was the most gentle and honest response I could come up  
with at the time.

On Jun 6, 2005, at 8:58 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
>
> --- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I did not engage in flames.  Mike did.  He was trolling for a fight.
>> I refused to play.
>>
>
> BS Samantha. Your statement I responded to was clearly incindiary,
> arrogant, and self-righteous.
>
> 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 mbb386 at main.nc.us  Mon Jun  6 18:36:07 2005
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 14:36:07 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Abortion (was: Famous author self destructs in
	public!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <1b96e6dea9468d3aee9eb41f73b8a019@stross.org.uk>
References: <20050606160922.42445.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<f4d4740f59b3a4ec290f0fa1b665b4f8@antipope.org>
	<3a71eb9e2c6a91ae4c7620112459563d@stross.org.uk>
	<1b96e6dea9468d3aee9eb41f73b8a019@stross.org.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0506061408110.-128157@pentium.mb.willtown.net>


AFAICT, Mr. Lorrey is claiming that *abortion* is murder. Once a woman
is pregnant she'd d*mn well better *stay* pregnant full term, or she's
a murderer.  I haven't seen much about the responsibility of the man
in all this, perhaps he has none? Only later The Law might make him
pay - which isn't right as it's the woman's fault, job, responsibility
... (no, he didn't actually say that, but his "tone of voice"
certainly implied that to me)

Our opinions are opposed and I do not expect either of us to change.

His posts have made me wonder what happened in his life. Maybe he is a
very devout Christian with deeply held beliefs about "the human soul"?
Or perhaps he was involved with an unexpected/unwanted pregnancy that
was terminated without his knowledge or against his wishes? Otherwise,
I'm at a bit of a loss to understand where he's coming from.

What exactly makes a bundle of cells into "a person"? How much does
that interesting set of pictures of the embryo differ from those of a
dog or a cat or a monkey - or any other mammal?

If Mr. Lorrey's attitude and words are representative of The Free
State, I'm *awfully* glad I and my family didn't commit to moving
there.

Regards,
MB




On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Charlie Stross wrote:

>
> So you're equating third trimester abortion with murder?
>
> Can we agree you're on record as saying that?
>
> Now. Are you willing to go a step further and assert that second
> trimester abortion is equivalent to murder?
>
> C'mon. First trimester?
>
> Pre-implantation fertilized ova?
>
> Where do you draw the line?
>
>


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  6 19:25:15 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 12:25:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Abortion (was: Famous author self destructs in
	public!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0506061408110.-128157@pentium.mb.willtown.net>
Message-ID: <20050606192515.23446.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- MB <mbb386 at main.nc.us> wrote:

> 
> AFAICT, Mr. Lorrey is claiming that *abortion* is murder. Once a
> woman is pregnant she'd d*mn well better *stay* pregnant full term,
or
> she's
> a murderer.  I haven't seen much about the responsibility of the man
> in all this, perhaps he has none? Only later The Law might make him
> pay - which isn't right as it's the woman's fault, job,
> responsibility
> ... (no, he didn't actually say that, but his "tone of voice"
> certainly implied that to me)

In complete ignorance of other 'tones' I've taken. Considering that men
are already convicted of murder and other homicide charges if they
cause a woman to abort without her permission, it is quite clear that
the men are being held to a far higher responsibility standard, and
always have, than the women.

The stats support me: studies of domestic violence show that twice as
many female partners as male believe striking their partner is okay,
and have done so in the past, yet ten times as many males are convicted
of domestic violence. The disparity of responsibility is in the
numbers, which cannot be disputed.

> 
> Our opinions are opposed and I do not expect either of us to change.
> His posts have made me wonder what happened in his life. Maybe he is
> a very devout Christian with deeply held beliefs about "the human
> soul"?
> Or perhaps he was involved with an unexpected/unwanted pregnancy that
> was terminated without his knowledge or against his wishes?
> Otherwise, I'm at a bit of a loss to understand where he's coming
> from.
> 
> What exactly makes a bundle of cells into "a person"? How much does
> that interesting set of pictures of the embryo differ from those of a
> dog or a cat or a monkey - or any other mammal?

If a fetus can survive outside the womb at 6 months (and many thousands
do every day in this country), then third trimester abortion should be
murder. Even Roe v. Wade agrees with me on this point, so if anybody is
being extremist and hyperbolic, it is you, Samantha, and company, not
me.

No, I've not had any religious epiphanies of any sort, as much as you'd
like there to be one. What I have crossed is a threshold. I've been
willing up until recently to tolerate the libertarian majority opinion
(certainly not unanimous to any sort of degree) regarding abortion, the
war, and a few other issues which the vehement squeaky wheels have been
ranting for years that theirs is 'the only position' a libertarian can
take.

The problem is that this ranting left wing of the party has come to
take for granted that their rhetoric is true. They denounce some of us
as 'neo-libertarians', despite the fact that people of our persuation
have been libertarians going back decades, we just haven't been in the
shreiking wing.

Your opinion isn't on issues like this are NOT the default opinions for
libertarians. ANY time there is an issue of one persons rights versus
anothers, libertarians should be very circumspect to examine all sides
and seek to resolve conflicts, not just side orthodoxically with one
party in the conflict.

> 
> If Mr. Lorrey's attitude and words are representative of The Free
> State, I'm *awfully* glad I and my family didn't commit to moving
> there.

That is a cheap shot. BTW: How is the Christian Exodus going down your way?

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! 
Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html


From adam at adamkolson.com  Mon Jun  6 19:50:27 2005
From: adam at adamkolson.com (Adam K. Olson)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 15:50:27 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Abortion (was: Famous author self destructs in
	public!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0506061408110.-128157@pentium.mb.willtown.net>
References: <20050606160922.42445.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<f4d4740f59b3a4ec290f0fa1b665b4f8@antipope.org>
	<3a71eb9e2c6a91ae4c7620112459563d@stross.org.uk>
	<1b96e6dea9468d3aee9eb41f73b8a019@stross.org.uk>
	<Pine.WNT.4.55.0506061408110.-128157@pentium.mb.willtown.net>
Message-ID: <9796f15a5ae5ac9777e6d2a351b72fce@adamkolson.com>

I'm new to this list and therefore naive.

But it seems to me that such 'slippery slope' arguments are as 
irrelevant as which beer is the best (we all know its Guinness). So 
there's no point arguing if Bass is better than Boddingtons or a 
quantitative analysis of the best ice cream at a particular store. 
Fairly hard to accomplish with the limited epistemological access us 
humans have. It's as if arguing in the Judeo-Christian idea of heaven 
most of the angels shop at Ikea because the space saving furniture can 
fit on the head of a pin and still provide plenty of room to dance.

As Mr. Stross said, when can you draw a line? Can I punch someone and 
say "you bastard, you stepped on a particle that will cause a chain 
reaction involving several ions, a few rubber bands, that leads to a 
butterfly flapping its wings and thus killing a rather nice fellow on 
the other side of the world"?


On Jun 6, 2005, at 2:36 PM, MB wrote:

>
> AFAICT, Mr. Lorrey is claiming that *abortion* is murder. Once a woman
> is pregnant she'd d*mn well better *stay* pregnant full term, or she's
> a murderer.  I haven't seen much about the responsibility of the man
> in all this, perhaps he has none? Only later The Law might make him
> pay - which isn't right as it's the woman's fault, job, responsibility
> ... (no, he didn't actually say that, but his "tone of voice"
> certainly implied that to me)
>
> Our opinions are opposed and I do not expect either of us to change.
>
> His posts have made me wonder what happened in his life. Maybe he is a
> very devout Christian with deeply held beliefs about "the human soul"?
> Or perhaps he was involved with an unexpected/unwanted pregnancy that
> was terminated without his knowledge or against his wishes? Otherwise,
> I'm at a bit of a loss to understand where he's coming from.
>
> What exactly makes a bundle of cells into "a person"? How much does
> that interesting set of pictures of the embryo differ from those of a
> dog or a cat or a monkey - or any other mammal?
>
> If Mr. Lorrey's attitude and words are representative of The Free
> State, I'm *awfully* glad I and my family didn't commit to moving
> there.
>
> Regards,
> MB
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Charlie Stross wrote:
>
>>
>> So you're equating third trimester abortion with murder?
>>
>> Can we agree you're on record as saying that?
>>
>> Now. Are you willing to go a step further and assert that second
>> trimester abortion is equivalent to murder?
>>
>> C'mon. First trimester?
>>
>> Pre-implantation fertilized ova?
>>
>> Where do you draw the line?
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>
--
Adam K. Olson
Student Designer, Comm Tech Lab
http://commtechlab.msu.edu



From charlie at antipope.org  Mon Jun  6 20:01:44 2005
From: charlie at antipope.org (Charlie Stross)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 21:01:44 +0100
Subject: [SPAM] Re: [extropy-chat] Abortion (was: Famous author self
	destructs in public!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <20050606192515.23446.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050606192515.23446.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <397cb29f24c36a8c4976986ea9dc6ed2@antipope.org>


On 6 Jun 2005, at 20:25, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> If a fetus can survive outside the womb at 6 months (and many thousands
> do every day in this country), then third trimester abortion should be
> murder. Even Roe v. Wade agrees with me on this point, so if anybody is
> being extremist and hyperbolic, it is you, Samantha, and company, not
> me.

I'd like to throw an unintended consequence at you:

A point you might want to pay some attention to is that third-trimester 
abortions -- in the US or the UK or anywhere else -- make up a very 
small proportion of voluntary abortions; usually a pregnant woman who 
doesn't want to be pregnant has done something about it long before 
they reach the third trimester (at which point, aborting is almost as 
uncomfortable and dangerous as giving birth at term).

In contrast, if something goes wrong with the pregnancy -- resulting in 
a dead third-trimester foetus -- you may rest assured that not only is 
the foetus already dead, but its presence in the womb is a lethal 
threat to the ex-mother. This situation occurs rarely, but an order of 
magnitude more often than a voluntary thirty-trimester abortion. 
Unfortunately the procedure for removing a dead foetus is the same as 
for a third-trimester abortion. The result, therefore, of the recent US 
ban on third-trimester abortion is ill, unhappy women at immediate risk 
from a potentially fatal condition being shuffled between hospitals 
because the ob-gyn staff are terrified of being prosecuted for homicide 
if they give them the attention they need.

Now. What do you propose to do about that?

I'm deadly serious here. If you want to ban third-trimester abortions 
you need to explain how they're going to do so without risking even 
worse consequences ... such as women hemorrhaging to death because 
they've miscarried and the ob-gyn won't remove the corpse for fear of 
being prosecuted, or women dying in childbirth (and the child dying at 
the same time) due to late emerging complications of pregnancy that can 
no longer legally be avoided.


-- Charlie



From benboc at lineone.net  Mon Jun  6 20:31:11 2005
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 21:31:11 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author etc.
In-Reply-To: <200506061800.j56I0KR23208@tick.javien.com>
References: <200506061800.j56I0KR23208@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <42A4B28F.6090502@lineone.net>

Charlie Stross wrote:
"A point the more public-facing anti-abortion groups never seem to get
round to talking about is that banning abortion won't stop abortions
from happening; it'll just make them unsafe criminal affairs, carried
out furtively, with an attached significant death toll."

But that's a good thing, from a fundamentalist pov. Just as denying 
condoms to poor people, and so encouraging the spread of AIDS is a good 
thing, cos those wicked people who 'sin' are more likely to get AIDS and 
die. And as all good xtians know, the wages of sin are death. Don't 
wan't anybody to get away with sin, now, do they?

ben


From sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Jun  6 20:34:42 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:34:42 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Abortion (was: Famous author self destructs in
	public!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <20050606192515.23446.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050606192515.23446.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <006297E9-DF0E-4D59-AB7F-922BA9344A9A@mac.com>


On Jun 6, 2005, at 12:25 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
>
> --- MB <mbb386 at main.nc.us> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> AFAICT, Mr. Lorrey is claiming that *abortion* is murder. Once a
>> woman is pregnant she'd d*mn well better *stay* pregnant full term,
>>
> or
>
>> she's
>> a murderer.  I haven't seen much about the responsibility of the man
>> in all this, perhaps he has none? Only later The Law might make him
>> pay - which isn't right as it's the woman's fault, job,
>> responsibility
>> ... (no, he didn't actually say that, but his "tone of voice"
>> certainly implied that to me)
>>
>
> In complete ignorance of other 'tones' I've taken. Considering that  
> men
> are already convicted of murder and other homicide charges if they
> cause a woman to abort without her permission, it is quite clear that
> the men are being held to a far higher responsibility standard, and
> always have, than the women.
>

Until very very recently women had very few rights and precious  
little officially recognized control over their lives including  
especially over reproduction choices.    So somehow I don't think  
women have long been overly advantaged relative to men.   Causing to  
abort without permission would be a serious act of aggression, yes?   
Or did you mean something else?  BTW it is MB speaking above and not  
me.  I don't hold to all his views of your position so don't get  
confused about that.

> The stats support me: studies of domestic violence show that twice as
> many female partners as male believe striking their partner is okay,
> and have done so in the past, yet ten times as many males are  
> convicted
> of domestic violence. The disparity of responsibility is in the
> numbers, which cannot be disputed.
>

Yours is a seriously minority interpretation.  I don't have time to  
disentangle it right now.

>
>>
>> Our opinions are opposed and I do not expect either of us to change.
>> His posts have made me wonder what happened in his life. Maybe he is
>> a very devout Christian with deeply held beliefs about "the human
>> soul"?
>> Or perhaps he was involved with an unexpected/unwanted pregnancy that
>> was terminated without his knowledge or against his wishes?
>> Otherwise, I'm at a bit of a loss to understand where he's coming
>> from.
>>
>> What exactly makes a bundle of cells into "a person"? How much does
>> that interesting set of pictures of the embryo differ from those of a
>> dog or a cat or a monkey - or any other mammal?
>>
>
> If a fetus can survive outside the womb at 6 months (and many  
> thousands
> do every day in this country), then third trimester abortion should be
> murder. Even Roe v. Wade agrees with me on this point, so if  
> anybody is
> being extremist and hyperbolic, it is you, Samantha, and company, not
> me.

Actually it takes a lot of medical assistance to get a 6 month old  
fetus to survive.  That we can do so some of the time does not  
automatically support the idea that it is murder to abort at or  
beyond 6 months.   Roe vs Wade does not say it is murder.   But why  
are you addressing me when it was MB who wrote what you are  
responding to?  It seems you are still treating me as part of some  
imagined collective.

>
> No, I've not had any religious epiphanies of any sort, as much as  
> you'd
> like there to be one. What I have crossed is a threshold. I've been
> willing up until recently to tolerate the libertarian majority opinion
> (certainly not unanimous to any sort of degree) regarding abortion,  
> the
> war, and a few other issues which the vehement squeaky wheels have  
> been
> ranting for years that theirs is 'the only position' a libertarian can
> take.
>

I have known libertarians on both sides of the abortion issue for  
years.  I don't recall a position on it as part of a party plank.

> The problem is that this ranting left wing of the party has come to
> take for granted that their rhetoric is true. They denounce some of us
> as 'neo-libertarians', despite the fact that people of our persuation
> have been libertarians going back decades, we just haven't been in the
> shreiking wing.
>

Now those who disagree with you are part of the "left wing"   
libertarians eh?  You really seem to have difficulty thinking outside  
of collectives.

> Your opinion isn't on issues like this are NOT the default opinions  
> for
> libertarians. ANY time there is an issue of one persons rights versus
> anothers, libertarians should be very circumspect to examine all sides
> and seek to resolve conflicts, not just side orthodoxically with one
> party in the conflict.

Libertarians are about the most onerous and heterodox group of people  
around.  To a fault even.

- samantha


From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Mon Jun  6 20:48:47 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 16:48:47 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] The REAL new urban world this Friday, June 10
Message-ID: <151180-2200561620484719@M2W103.mail2web.com>


From: Stewart Brand

Humanity is urbanizing at a world-changing pace and in a 
world-changing way.  A billion squatters are re-inventing their lives 
and their cities simultaneously.  One of the few to experience the 
range of the phenomenon first hand is Robert Neuwirth, author of 
SHADOW CITIES: A BILLION SQUATTERS, A NEW URBAN WORLD.  He took up 
residence in the scariest-seeming parts of squatter cities in Rio, 
Nairobi, Istanbul, and Mumbai.  They vary profoundly.  What Neuwirth 
found in the new "slums" is the future via the past.  Hence his title:

"The 21st-century Medieval City," Robert Neuwirth, 7pm (doors open), 
Friday, June 10, Fort Mason Conference Center, San Francisco.  The 
lecture starts promptly at 7:30pm.  Admission is free ($10 donation 
very welcome, not required).

This is one of a monthly series of Seminars About Long-term Thinking, 
given every second Friday at Fort Mason, organized by The Long Now 
Foundation.  The next speaker in the series is Jared
Diamond, on July 15.  If you would like to be notified by email of 
forthcoming talks, please contact Simone Davalos--- 
simone at longnow.org, 415-561-6582.

You are welcome to forward this note to anyone you think might be
interested.

				--Stewart Brand



Stewart Brand -- sb at gbn.org
The Long Now Foundation - http://www.longnow.org
Seminars: http://www.longnow.org/10klibrary/Seminars.htm

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




From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  6 20:50:39 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in
	public!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <000b01c56a71$dd875610$6600a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <20050606205039.20552.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> It's the same reason I don't bother
> on
> > opining on whether tampons are superior to
> maxipads. I
> > say leave the woman business to the women.
> 
> Same reason?  Why, you must be independently wealthy
> or something.

I earn a living doing what I love to do which is
researching whatever scientific problem strikes my
fancy. I also have as many material possessions as I
care to keep track of. Does this make me independently
wealthy? In my opinion it does.

> Because - assuming you are fertile - if you should
> find yourself the party 
> to woman's pregnancy - 

This is a big if. I have never had a problem with
condoms failing me and I don't think I would ever
"accidently" conceive a child. Things like that are a
choice for me. 

> she will then decide for you
> (whether you like it or 
> not), and if a child ensues from her decision - it
> is *you* who will be 
> responsible for forking over a good deal of money
> for the child's rearing 
> and welfare.

If the child were mine, chances are it was on purpose.
Even if it wasn't on purpose, if it was mine, I would
be happy to pay for the child's support. If I wanted
to concieve a child, I would discuss it with my
partner. If she was not ready for a child, I would not
expect her to have one until she was ready. If she
simply did not want MY child, then I would find a new
partner. If she tried to pass someone else's child off
as my "accident", I would know since I can run a DNA
paternity test on the child myself in about 4hrs.     

> This is, of course, also assuming she
> is one of those "old 
> fashioned" types who believes in observing this
> particular privilege women 
> have had in past year - and takes you to court if
> you object to her decision 
> to make you pay.

If the child was mine, she would not NEED to take me
to court. I own up to my actions, mistakes or
otherwise.

 
> It is a blessing to have safe, legal abortions for
> women.

I don't disagree with this.


> > 4. Biologically speaking an umbilical cord is the
> most
> > extreme form of welfare yet devised and some women
> DO
> > have children for the express purposes of getting
> more
> > free money from the state.
> 
> >From the state?  Do a majority of women depend on
> welfare to rear their 
> children?  Do you know how difficult it is to get
> welfare? (a great deal of 
> this goes to blind people and people who have
> various disabilities, by the 
> way)  Do you know how financially compromised those
> women are who may need 
> to resort to welfare to help rear their children? 
> You don't really believe 
> in "welfare queens - do you?"  Please, get serious.

Believe in them? We are not talking about angels here.
I have met a mother and daughter two generation family
of welfare queens. Of course they did not make enough
money off of welfare so they supplemented their income
by selling chrystal methamphetamines. They lived the
hell's angel/biker lifestyle, and had several children
each from several different men none of whom they were
married to. Not that it matters, but they happened to
be white too.   

> (Did your mother work 
> for a living?)

She died when I was 12 but she was sort of a
homemaker. So yes she worked but the income came from
my father.

> 
> > 5. Violent sociopathic criminals tend to have
> troubled
> > childhoods wherein they are neglected, unwanted,
> and
> > abused. So I ask, "are we sparing them in the womb
> > only to put them on death row when they turn 18?"
> 
> What a sweeping generalization.  I wouldn't know
> where to begin with this.

There is actually an economist who shows that violent
crime dropped in the ensuing decades following Roe vs.
Wade, so this "sweeping generalization" is not mine
alone.
 
> 
> > 7. The guys who blow up abortion clinics probably
> > don't get laid often.
> 
> And they probably have milk in their refrigerators
> ... so your point is ...?

My point was that I don't have a point. Are you trying
to bait me to get me to choose a side and join the
memetic melee? Nice try but I have more important
things to do. Having an abortion is wrong but so is
having an unwanted child. Which is the lesser of the
two evils? You would be better off asking someone who
has a more accurate moral compass than me. In nature,
a mother that can't support her offspring will often
kill them, not in the womb, but in the nest after they
are born. That is the law of jungle. I will leave
society's laws regarding abortion to the women and the
legislators to decide.



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

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

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


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Jun  6 20:48:50 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 15:48:50 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] MB
In-Reply-To: <006297E9-DF0E-4D59-AB7F-922BA9344A9A@mac.com>
References: <20050606192515.23446.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<006297E9-DF0E-4D59-AB7F-922BA9344A9A@mac.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050606154614.01ca8cf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 01:34 PM 6/6/2005 -0700, Samantha wrote:

>BTW it is MB speaking above and not
>me.  I don't hold to all his views of your position so don't get
>confused about that.

His? As I recall, MB has indicated that she is a mother of several 
children. I might be wrong; presumably most people here assume that MB is 
shorthand for Michael Butler, formerly a frequent poster. MB?

Damien Broderick




From sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Jun  6 21:04:43 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 14:04:43 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] MB
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050606154614.01ca8cf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <20050606192515.23446.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<006297E9-DF0E-4D59-AB7F-922BA9344A9A@mac.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050606154614.01ca8cf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <387E5B7C-B0C9-4A18-B66D-6BE19A44665A@mac.com>

My sincere apologies if I got it wrong.

On Jun 6, 2005, at 1:48 PM, Damien Broderick wrote:

> At 01:34 PM 6/6/2005 -0700, Samantha wrote:
>
>
>> BTW it is MB speaking above and not
>> me.  I don't hold to all his views of your position so don't get
>> confused about that.
>>
>
> His? As I recall, MB has indicated that she is a mother of several  
> children. I might be wrong; presumably most people here assume that  
> MB is shorthand for Michael Butler, formerly a frequent poster. MB?
>
> Damien Broderick
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Mon Jun  6 21:32:32 2005
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 17:32:32 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Abortion (was: Famous author self destructs in
	public!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <20050606192515.23446.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050606192515.23446.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0506061708460.-128157@pentium.mb.willtown.net>


On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>  Considering that men
> are already convicted of murder and other homicide charges if they
> cause a woman to abort without her permission, it is quite clear that
> the men are being held to a far higher responsibility standard, and
> always have, than the women.


IMHO this convicting of murder etc. for causing a woman to abort (I
presume you're speaking of things like beatings or shootings, where
there is miscarriage as a side effect?) is wrong. We have laws
against assault and the injuries are, I suspect, taken into account
when punishment is decided.

> If a fetus can survive outside the womb at 6 months (and many thousands
> do every day in this country), then third trimester abortion should be
> murder. Even Roe v. Wade agrees with me on this point, so if anybody is
> being extremist and hyperbolic, it is you, Samantha, and company, not
> me.

To be honest, I've never met any woman who wanted or had a third
trimester abortion. My understanding is this would only be in case of
severe health threat, and those things do happen. The women I know who
have had abortions have tried to do so ASAP, not waiting around and
wondering about it - the decision was clear and immediate action was
taken. I have yet to meet any who had regret either. One does what one
needs to do. (My sample space is small.)

> No, I've not had any religious epiphanies of any sort, as much as you'd
> like there to be one.

Like there to be one? No, only trying to understand why you feel as
you do. Trying to imagine what might make *me* feel that way.

> Your opinion isn't on issues like this are NOT the default opinions for
> libertarians. ANY time there is an issue of one persons rights versus
> anothers, libertarians should be very circumspect to examine all sides
> and seek to resolve conflicts, not just side orthodoxically with one
> party in the conflict.

When did I say they were default libertarian opinions? Circumspect?
That would be nice. I don't see it here.

> > If Mr. Lorrey's attitude and words are representative of The Free
> > State, I'm *awfully* glad I and my family didn't commit to moving
> > there.
>
> That is a cheap shot.

It was. And it has come up as a first gut response throughout many of
the threads you've posted to lately. If I look at the posts and the
threads, and take them as they come through to me ("tone" filtered by
email) then the FS will be an authoritarian and unwelcoming place.
Surely that is not correct?

> BTW: How is the Christian Exodus going down your way?

Where? What Exodus? In my dreams :)

Regards,
MB


From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Mon Jun  6 22:22:39 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 15:22:39 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Opinion piece on policy-making with
	predictionmarkets
In-Reply-To: <05bb01c56a8b$213de4f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
References: <e88b73ce05060523497f1224bc@mail.gmail.com>
	<05bb01c56a8b$213de4f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <e88b73ce05060615225058666d@mail.gmail.com>

Another question which comes to mind: What would be the
legality/feasibility of running a prediction market in an Indian
reservation?

On 6/6/05, Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Neil Halelamien wrote:
> 
> > "In his paper 'Shall We Vote on Values, But Bet on Beliefs,' Hanson
> > proposed a new form of government, which he calls a 'Futarchy'. In
> > this government, elected representatives would formally define and
> > manage after-the-fact measurements of national welfare, while market
> > speculators would say which policies they expected to raise national
> > welfare."
> >
> > Which makes me wonder... after the unfortunate knee-jerk reaction to
> > the Policy Analysis Market, are there any actions we can take towards
> > helping make real-money prediction markets legal in the US?
> 
> Sure, one possibility is to make it legal elsewhere first, and then, point
> at
> the revenue the US is losing to freer, smarter, more capitalist countries.
> 
> Brett Paatsch
> 
> 
>


From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Mon Jun  6 22:24:49 2005
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 18:24:49 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] MB
In-Reply-To: <387E5B7C-B0C9-4A18-B66D-6BE19A44665A@mac.com>
References: <20050606192515.23446.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<006297E9-DF0E-4D59-AB7F-922BA9344A9A@mac.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050606154614.01ca8cf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<387E5B7C-B0C9-4A18-B66D-6BE19A44665A@mac.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0506061816260.-128157@pentium.mb.willtown.net>


No problem, Samantha. :)

I am not Michael Butler. In fact I think he may have been before my
time. Don't recall ever seeing any posts from him. I've only been here
since 2000.

Yes, I do have children. :)

Regards,
MB



From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Tue Jun  7 00:18:23 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 09:48:23 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mission to build a simulated brain begins
In-Reply-To: <42A46363.2050501@mail.tele.dk>
References: <710b78fc0506052323869c939@mail.gmail.com>
	<42A46363.2050501@mail.tele.dk>
Message-ID: <710b78fc05060617181c78f785@mail.gmail.com>

On 07/06/05, Max M <maxm at mail.tele.dk> wrote:
> Emlyn wrote:
> 
> >Ah, the singularity. I just grabbed this from >HTech, opinions?
> >-----
> >
> >http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7470&feedId=online-news_atom03
> >
> >Mission to build a simulated brain begins
> >
> 
> Very interresting.
> 
> The best result would be if it turned out that neurons in them self are
> unimportant, and that the "real action" takes place in higher structures.
> 
> It is a big difference in AI if a brain must be simulated from
> individual neurons, or if groups of neurons can be considdered as "black
> boxes" of functionality.
> 

They do say that they are going to try to do higher level black boxes,
which seems like a good approach. As far as a full
down-to-the-molecular-level sim, in my opinion a higher level sim is a
good start, because from there it'll be a matter of getting bigger
hardware and tinkering over time to refine and refine it until we get
to a full neuron-by-neuron machine. But the big and rather bold leap
is this first one; having the gumption to try building the first
version. Much kudos to all involved!

Emlyn


From dgc at cox.net  Tue Jun  7 00:22:43 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 20:22:43 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying
In-Reply-To: <003801c56a46$17262d00$0100a8c0@kevin>
References: <003801c56a46$17262d00$0100a8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <42A4E8D3.6030500@cox.net>

kevinfreels.com wrote

>
>  
> OK. I guess I am done with my rant. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. 
> I know. But since I can't shake the fear, I might as well analyze it. :-)
>  

Hey Kevin. I must have been pretty hard for a control freak such as 
yourself to post that message to the extropy list.
Kudos to you for bravery. (since e-mail cannot convey emotion: this is 
sincere, not sarcasm. Honest.)

Just a question: how well do you handle being a front-seat passenger in 
a car? this is effectively equivalent to being
a passenger in an airliner. except that it is statistically much more 
dangerous.

If you can deal with being a car passenger, how do you do it? can you 
use the same coping mechanisms for air travel?

You are a control freak. Don't apologize for this: you were born that 
way., and there is nothing wrong with it.
Non-control-freaks cannot really empathize with your situation, so we 
cannot really help.




From fauxever at sprynet.com  Tue Jun  7 00:43:54 2005
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 17:43:54 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs
	inpublic!Filmateleven.)
References: <200506060500.j5650UR09441@tick.javien.com><FCDEFEF9-CDF5-47C2-BFEC-37A4FFC34799@mac.com><056101c56a6c$79e63770$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<31CBF56C-5DC6-45A5-BBFB-9FA0E7F6E0C1@mac.com>
Message-ID: <00eb01c56af9$fbc9e240$6600a8c0@brainiac>


  -----From: Samantha Atkins 
  To: ExI chat list 
  Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 9:55 AM
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs inpublic!Filmateleven.)




  On Jun 6, 2005, at 12:50 AM, Brett Paatsch wrote:


    Samantha Atkins wrote:




      I did not engage in flames.  Mike did.  He was trolling for a fight.   I refused to play.  If you think I did wrong then I am probably done  with this list.  I have about had it with being abused by Mike and  having no one back me up.  It SUCKS. 




    I backed you up.
  OK. Yeah. Partly at least.  Thanks.
  ***Me three.
  Olga






      ....................... I have had it with attempting  to steer clear of the mess and take a minimal stand only to be tarred  as equally belligerent.  This is UNJUST and I will not take it anymore.




    This thread has gotten off topic. The "famous author" that "self destructs
    in public" seems to have left it.  


  That was a good idea.  Time to do likewise.


  - s






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


  _______________________________________________
  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/20050606/a1bd3318/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Jun  7 00:46:44 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 19:46:44 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Stross in The Times
In-Reply-To: <04fd01c56a4e$0c55f380$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
References: <586da73fcb70f35d2fdc89d8b73dac83@stross.org.uk>
	<04fd01c56a4e$0c55f380$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050606194253.01cd0620@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 02:13 PM 6/6/2005 +1000, Brett wrote to Charlie Stross:

>So what are you a Canadian living in the US or what? I'm curious because
>I know that you are an observer of developments in ideas futures and I
>am wondering where in the world you are observing them from. I'm
>watching from Australia.

Charlie's profile just appeared in the Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-1506-1639410,00.html

June 05, 2005

The geek taking over the galaxy

If imagination is the key to success for a writer, Charles Stross has it in 
spades. His own future is looking bright, writes David Stenhouse

'I've had 15 years of total obscurity," explains the pale, shaven-headed 
man with the extravagant black beard as he sits squinting at the sun 
outside an Edinburgh cafe.

"I feel like a dog that has been chasing cars for years," he says. "Now 
I've finally caught one."

Charles Stross, a former pharmacist, computer programmer and full-time 
dreamer about mankind's future, is allowed to feel proud of himself. For 
more than a decade he has been labouring in literature's version of a 
distant galaxy. Now it looks like he may be about to achieve major 
mainstream success.

Critics around the world are heaping praise on the Edinburgh-based writer, 
who is up for no fewer than three Hugo awards, the most prestigious prize 
in the world of science fiction. More impressive still, the three 
nominations are for different pieces of work. His galaxy-spanning thriller 
Iron Sunrise is nominated as best novel and two novellas are up for 
separate awards.

As literary prizes go, the Hugos are part Booker prize and part beauty 
pageant, nominated by science-fiction fans.

In August, when the 63rd World Science Fiction Convention comes to Glasgow, 
Stross's output will be judged and voted on by a jury of his peers. If he 
wins, the critical acclaim could well see him join the ranks of Iain Banks 
and JG Ballard as a writer who commands mainstream respect as well as a 
cult following.

Stross certainly seems to have the makings of a star. It's not just that 
his novels are packed with enough high technology and wild invention to 
satisfy the most abstruse tastes; his main theme is one which everyone in 
this sector of the galaxy should be interested in.

"I'm really fascinated by what it means to be human. The human condition is 
very weird, very wonderful, very wild and varied.

"A glimpse in a history book will tell you that things have not always been 
as they are now. The Aztecs were unimaginably strange psychologically. This 
was a civilisation that every 50 years executed thousands of people to make 
sure the sun rose the next day. Nevertheless, they were a stable human 
society.

"Science fiction is the mirror image of the historical. It allows us to 
show people in circumstances we haven't experienced, in events that have 
not yet happened, might not happen or in their more fantastical form may 
well happen.

"What interests me is the idea that human beings are behaviourally plastic. 
This all means you can engineer the human condition, and that's before you 
start to imagine the post-human."

If it all sounds a bit abstract then it is not. In Stross's novels men and 
women still drink, laugh, argue and make love. Teenagers are still 
recognisably teenagers.

It's just that they wear cloned clothes and cleaner robots are afraid to 
enter their bedrooms. These human characters allow even readers who don't 
have a grip on the technology to enjoy Stross's books.

In Iron Sunrise, the plucky heroine Wednesday Shadowmist has a virtual 
friend called Herman whose thoughts are beamed directly into her 
cerebellum. There is also an evil cult called the ReMastered (the Space 
Nazis) that have, as their name suggests, been given the kind of upgrade 
that eugenecists could only dream of.

So what has given 40-year-old Stross, who lives with his wife and two cats 
in a flat in Leith, Edinburgh, such a visionary view of mankind's future? 
Leaving aside the fact that as a small boy in his native Leeds he would 
devour all the science-fiction books in his local library, inhaling the 
dystopian visions of JG Ballard and Brian Aldiss, Stross's early twenties 
gave him all the inspiration he needed when he grabbed a ringside seat at a 
revolution.

In the 1980s, when most of us had not yet heard of the internet, Stross had 
one of the earliest e-mail addresses in the country. Taking part in what he 
describes as "possibly the biggest revolution in communication since the 
invention of language" blew his mind.

Nowadays just about every cafe in town is full of people tapping away on 
their laptops. But Stross is a hardcore computer user, more interested in 
code and programming than in fancy gadgets. It's not hard to imagine him in 
a cubicle in Silicon Valley happily feeding endless lines of digital code 
into a computer mainframe.

Sometimes it makes him seem like an ubergeek. At one point he says 
"regrettably I'm monolingual in human tongues. I deal with computers but 
not foreign languages".

He's not joking. His website contains diatribes on the state of science 
fiction and attacks on internet censorship. He is a regular on newsgroups 
and bulletin boards and his site features nostalgic hymns of praise to 
obscure computer languages.

At one point he presents a lighthearted description of himself in "geek 
code", a mock furmula invented by himself.

Once decoded, he says, it reveals he is a "geek of technical writing", that 
his T-shirts tend to bear political slogans (though today he is wearing 
standard goth black, which seems to have gone a bit purple in the wash) and 
he'll "be the first in line to get the cybernetic interface installed into 
my skull".

Even without the interface, Stross believes in networking. Send him an 
e-mail and he will be happy to send you the electronic manuscript of 
whichever book he's working on. And he'd welcome your comments.

It's a million miles away from the touchy, self-protective way most writers 
behave.

"Of course I become defensive if someone doesn't like my book," he says. 
"That is a natural reaction, but you must be careful not to take it too 
far. Stephen King had a very good piece of advice for would-be 
storytellers. If there's something you really really like but several test 
readers don't get it, you had better look at taking it out. Investing too 
much of your ego in the work is going to drive out the work and leave only 
the ego."

But for all Stross' success, it is important to realise that, at least 
once, he got left behind by the technological revolution he now admires.

In 1994, Stross had a brilliant idea. Working as a young computer 
programmer and filled with excitement at the possibilities of the internet, 
he began to write The Web Architect's Handbook, the first guide to 
designing a personal website.

The dot com boom was a few years in the future, but there was a hunger for 
information on how to exploit the resources of the internet. Stross's 
knowledge could have made him a fortune. But he got sidetracked by other 
projects and by the time the book appeared in 1996 it had been swamped by 
other titles on the same subject.

It seems like a classic missed opportunity, but though the guide came to 
nothing, he learned a vital lesson from it. The future comes quicker than 
you think.

More than 10 years on, the bewildering speed of scientific progress is the 
theme behind Stross's new book, Accelerando, a novel made up of nine 
interconnecting short stories that one critic has described as his 
"renaissance cathedral", another says it is "destined to change the face of 
the genre".

Accelerando describes a universe that, starting the day after tomorrow, 
accelerates in technological know-how so fast that before long human beings 
are downloading their personalities and uploading new talents at the press 
of a button.

At its heart the novel is a comic, sprawling family saga. The first chapter 
begins a few years from now with a gadget freak called Manfred Macx. Within 
a few chapters it has spun forward into the far future, following the 
adventures of his extended family. Oh, and some of the book is narrated by 
a robot cat.

"My job is to entertain people," explains Stross. "If I don't entertain 
people they're not going to read it. I am competing in an economy of 
information with the movies, the internet and the new Dr Who series, so I 
have to keep people amused."

That mixture of human comedy and cutting-edge technology clearly pays 
dividends. Even leaving aside the Hugo nominations, critics of science 
fiction are falling over themselves to praise Stross's work.

Andrew Wilson, the editor of Nova Scotia: New Scottish Speculative Fiction 
(an anthology of new Scottish sci-fi to which Stross has contributed an 
original twist on the Faustian pact), sees Stross as being in the vanguard 
of a new wave of Scottish science fiction writing "It used to be that if 
you spoke about a Scottish spacecraft, people just laughed. But now we are 
the country that produced Dolly the sheep, the country that develops 
artificial intelligence," says Wilson. "You don't need to pretend to be 
American to write science fiction. Charlie is clearly a massive talent. 
Rather like taking a broken down old car and sticking a fusion engine in 
it, he has the capacity to transform material that was looking old and give 
it new life.

"I think Accelerando is a crowning achievement. And this will be his year."

The 63rd World Science Fiction Convention is held in Glasgow from August 
4-8. Accelerando is published in Britain by Orbit on August 4






From jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Tue Jun  7 00:51:20 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 20:51:20 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Abortion
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0506061708460.-128157@pentium.mb.willtown.net>
References: <20050606192515.23446.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<Pine.WNT.4.55.0506061708460.-128157@pentium.mb.willtown.net>
Message-ID: <42A4EF88.2060703@humanenhancement.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050606/302f8103/attachment.html>

From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Tue Jun  7 01:41:32 2005
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 21:41:32 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Abortion
In-Reply-To: <42A4EF88.2060703@humanenhancement.com>
References: <20050606192515.23446.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<Pine.WNT.4.55.0506061708460.-128157@pentium.mb.willtown.net>
	<42A4EF88.2060703@humanenhancement.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0506062135240.-128157@pentium.mb.willtown.net>


Hm. Thanks. Never heard of it. I thought maybe it meant the
super-Christians were moving out, not that they were moving in. Geez.

My sister-in-law will be delighted. It sounds just like her.

Sigh.

Regards,
MB


On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Joseph Bloch wrote:

> MB wrote:
>
>  On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
>
>
>  BTW: How is the Christian Exodus going down your way?
>
>
>  Where? What Exodus? In my dreams :)
>
>
>
> I believe Mike is referring to http://christianexodus.org/
>
> Why (or how) he believes you live in South Carolina, is anybody's guess, since your email
> address implies you're in North Carolina. Fortunately, I no longer find my inbox plagued
> with Mike's weird rants since I've added him to my twit filter, but occasionally
> something comes through in a reply, such as yours.
>
> 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 5/29/05)
>
>


From brentn at freeshell.org  Tue Jun  7 02:06:59 2005
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Mon,  6 Jun 2005 22:06:59 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in
	public!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <20050606152658.72965.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <r02010500-1038-D57181F0D6F811D9A755000393A47D36@[192.168.1.2]>

 (6/6/05 8:26) Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:

>As I've stated before, a morning after pill is fine. Out to two weeks
>seems fine. Beyond that we enter a sea of gradually rising rights of
>the unborn as well as the full rights of the father that are of equal
>importance as the mothers rights.


The father?  The father doesn't face the health risk of childbirth nor the same economic risks as the mother. By necessity, his rights are absolutely subordinate the mother's right to choose whether to carry the child to term.

Of course, in the perfect anarchocapitalist society, the mother would also have the right to shoot the father's balls off for putting her in that situation.  </joke>


B
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From brentn at freeshell.org  Tue Jun  7 02:27:06 2005
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Mon,  6 Jun 2005 22:27:06 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Abortion (was: Famous author self destructs in
	public!Filmateleven.
Message-ID: <r02010500-1038-A4A8A640D6FB11D9A755000393A47D36@[192.168.1.2]>

 (6/6/05 12:25) Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:

>If a fetus can survive outside the womb at 6 months (and many thousands
>do every day in this country), then third trimester abortion should be
>murder. Even Roe v. Wade agrees with me on this point, so if anybody is
>being extremist and hyperbolic, it is you, Samantha, and company, not
>me.

Viability of the fetus is a poor yardstick for determining whether an act is a felony.  Further, your logic is somewhat flawed since the child isn't outside the womb. Your consequent, as it were, does not follow.


>
>No, I've not had any religious epiphanies of any sort, as much as you'd
>like there to be one. What I have crossed is a threshold. I've been
>willing up until recently to tolerate the libertarian majority opinion
>(certainly not unanimous to any sort of degree) regarding abortion, the
>war, and a few other issues which the vehement squeaky wheels have been
>ranting for years that theirs is 'the only position' a libertarian can
>take.

Heh. Could that possibly be because they, unlike you, recognize that any lines drawn are by necessity arbitrary and thus subject to the whims of politicians. In such cases, better to let the government stay out of it and let people act as conscience dictates. Such is the perogative of a free society after all.


>
>Your opinion isn't on issues like this are NOT the default opinions for
>libertarians. 

Pot, meet Kettle.  Maybe now you'll be a little less strident when dealing with libertarians who disagree with you.



>
>> 
>> If Mr. Lorrey's attitude and words are representative of The Free
>> State, I'm *awfully* glad I and my family didn't commit to moving
>> there.
>
>That is a cheap shot. BTW: How is the Christian Exodus going down your way?

At least that cheap shot was on target.  There is a big difference between SC and NC. Light years of difference. Still, allowances must be made for people who forget that women carry babies to term, not men...


B

-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Jun  7 04:10:35 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 21:10:35 -0700
Subject: [SPAM] Re: [extropy-chat] Fly Me to the Moon
In-Reply-To: <cf102dfe4a64b2cf2671e0205cb7774f@stross.org.uk>
Message-ID: <200506070411.j574B7R06697@tick.javien.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Charlie Stross
...
> 
> This is still quite cheap when you compare to Saturn Vs in full-up
> Apollo moon landing configuration, which cost $350-400M per moon launch
> and had a very similar mass to LEO; that was ?350-400M in *1968*
> dollars, so call it $2-3Bn in todays money...
> -- Charlie


LM PLAN EVOLVES ATLAS TO SATURN V-CLASS PERFORMANCE: Lockheed Martin has
mapped out an evolutionary development plan for its Atlas launch vehicle
that would steadily increase performance to ultimately exceed that of the
Apollo program's Saturn V, a company official said. Just as today's Atlas V
has its roots in the Atlas ICBM of the 1950s, the "future Atlas evolution"
will proceed in a logical manner, with each new phase providing simple and
reliable vehicles, according to George Sowers of Lockheed Martin Space
Systems. There have been 76 successful Atlas launches in a row. The last
Atlas failure was in 1993. The new Atlas plan is in response to President
Bush's January 2004 space exploration vision, which will require highly
capable space transportation systems for such demanding missions as human
flights to the moon and Mars. But one major tenet of the plan is prosaic -
ensuring an ability to capture the low end of the market. The plan stresses
creation of a family of launch vehicles for all customers, and building the
family from a set of common modular elements. (Aerospace Daily & Defense
Report)





From Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it  Tue Jun  7 04:34:27 2005
From: Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 05:34:27 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public! Filmateleven.
Message-ID: <20050607042554.M67278@ifsi.rm.cnr.it>


Stuart:
>1. I have never met a woman who has admitted to
>getting an abortion that did not express some degree
>of remorse about it or wasn't otherwise profoundly
>affected by it.
>2. I have never met a woman who admitted to having
>more than one abortion.

Olga:
>> Because - assuming you are fertile - if you should
>> find yourself the party 
>> to woman's pregnancy - 

Stuart:
>This is a big if. I have never had a problem with
>condoms failing me and I don't think I would ever
>"accidently" conceive a child. Things like that are a
>choice for me. 


Sorry, Stuart, but I think a serious dose of reality would help.

I was pregnant twice during the long years with my first boyfriend
(high school sweetheart), once when I was 17, once when I was 19.
The first was due to our being foolish, the second was the fluke of
statistics, since I was on birth control. Since I was not ready to
be a mom in both cases, we pooled our scarse money resources
quickly, went together to the Planned Parenthood clinic to take care
of it. No regrets.  We didn't tell our parents, since it was our
responsibility and we didn't want anyone to worry. The only notable
thing about these experiences in 1978 and 1980 was that I had a cold
during the first time, and so instead of the usual general
anasthesia, I was given ketamine, and I hallucinated badly coming
out  of the procedure, and my sweetheart was sitting out in the waiting
room for hours wondering what happened to me. The second time I
didn't want the anasthesia. 

Amara



From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Tue Jun  7 04:58:37 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 21:58:37 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying
In-Reply-To: <42A4E8D3.6030500@cox.net>
References: <003801c56a46$17262d00$0100a8c0@kevin> <42A4E8D3.6030500@cox.net>
Message-ID: <42A5297D.8020808@mindspring.com>

Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> kevinfreels.com wrote
>
>>
>>  
>> OK. I guess I am done with my rant. Lies, damned lies, and 
>> statistics. I know. But since I can't shake the fear, I might as well 
>> analyze it. :-)
>>  
>
>
> Hey Kevin. I must have been pretty hard for a control freak such as 
> yourself to post that message to the extropy list.
> Kudos to you for bravery. (since e-mail cannot convey emotion: this is 
> sincere, not sarcasm. Honest.)
>
> Just a question: how well do you handle being a front-seat passenger 
> in a car? this is effectively equivalent to being
> a passenger in an airliner. except that it is statistically much more 
> dangerous.
>
> If you can deal with being a car passenger, how do you do it? can you 
> use the same coping mechanisms for air travel?
>
> You are a control freak. Don't apologize for this: you were born that 
> way., and there is nothing wrong with it.
> Non-control-freaks cannot really empathize with your situation, so we 
> cannot really help.


[Les Strouse, a former Air America pilot, now living in Thailand is 
fearful of stepladders.
He flew Pilatus Porters landing and taking off from hilltop and 
ridgeline airstrips in Laos
and singlehandedly flew a new PP from Switzerland to Saigon.  Go 
figure!  -Terry]

Hi Terry,
A solid list of experiments has determined that human babies
(less than 1 year old - crawling stage) will not crawl - on a
solid glass floor - out over a drop underneath that glass floor.

They will however, if tempted or otherwise cajoled - agree to
back out over the drop. But as soon as that `drop' becomes
visible they immediately retreat to the non-drop portion of their
environment.

It seems we have a memory which says `height is dangerous' -
especially if you're _not_ in control.

cheers

Ray D

Thanks, Ray.  I remember seeing newsclips of this experiment.  If not wholly
learned then this is a genetic memory.  I wonder if this experiment has 
included primate babies, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans?

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 neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Tue Jun  7 05:03:02 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 22:03:02 -0700
Subject: [SPAM] Re: [extropy-chat] Fly Me to the Moon
In-Reply-To: <200506070411.j574B7R06697@tick.javien.com>
References: <cf102dfe4a64b2cf2671e0205cb7774f@stross.org.uk>
	<200506070411.j574B7R06697@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <e88b73ce0506062203151e91e2@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/6/05, 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 Charlie Stross
> ...
> >
> > This is still quite cheap when you compare to Saturn Vs in full-up
> > Apollo moon landing configuration, which cost $350-400M per moon launch
> > and had a very similar mass to LEO; that was ?350-400M in *1968*
> > dollars, so call it $2-3Bn in todays money...
> > -- Charlie
> 
> 
> LM PLAN EVOLVES ATLAS TO SATURN V-CLASS PERFORMANCE: Lockheed Martin has
> mapped out an evolutionary development plan for its Atlas launch vehicle
> that would steadily increase performance to ultimately exceed that of the
> Apollo program's Saturn V, a company official said. Just as today's Atlas V
> has its roots in the Atlas ICBM of the 1950s, the "future Atlas evolution"
> will proceed in a logical manner, with each new phase providing simple and
> reliable vehicles, according to George Sowers of Lockheed Martin Space
> Systems. There have been 76 successful Atlas launches in a row. The last
> Atlas failure was in 1993. The new Atlas plan is in response to President
> Bush's January 2004 space exploration vision, which will require highly
> capable space transportation systems for such demanding missions as human
> flights to the moon and Mars. But one major tenet of the plan is prosaic -
> ensuring an ability to capture the low end of the market. The plan stresses
> creation of a family of launch vehicles for all customers, and building the
> family from a set of common modular elements. (Aerospace Daily & Defense
> Report)

In a recent interview Elon Musk (former PayPal CEO and head of SpaceX)
discussed some of his plans to eventually scale up his Falcon series
of rockets to Saturn V-class. He predicts he should be able to get
launch costs of less than $500 a pound at those sizes.

Of course, the first of his Falcon rockets still needs to get off the
ground. They recently had a successful hold-down firing at the launch
pad, and are planning to launch in a couple of months.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sfn_050528_falcon1.html

The radio interview: http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=343

SpaceX also recently signed a 2-year agreement with NASA which
"provides a framework for working with NASA on future spaceflight
needs in support of low Earth orbit space missions and other steps in
the Vision for Space Exploration": http://spacex.com/press17.php

-- Neil


From pgptag at gmail.com  Tue Jun  7 06:24:38 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 08:24:38 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Oxford Future of Humanity Institute
Message-ID: <470a3c52050606232464678b8b@mail.gmail.com>

The Oxford Future of Humanity Institute <http://www.oxfhi.ox.ac.uk/> was 
founded on 1 June 2005. OXFHI is part of the new James Martin School for the 
21st Century at Oxford University. Dr. Nick Bostrom has been appointed as 
its director. Recruitment will take place over the next few month, with a 
view of starting activity in October 2005.
The Institute aims to become humanity's best effort at understanding its own 
long-term prospects. OXFHI will study how anticipated technological 
developments may change human beings and transform the human condition.
Congratulations Nick!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050607/037ec73e/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  7 07:20:50 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 00:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public!
	Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <20050607042554.M67278@ifsi.rm.cnr.it>
Message-ID: <20050607072050.55316.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Amara Graps <Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it> wrote:

> I was pregnant twice during the long years with my
> first boyfriend
> (high school sweetheart), once when I was 17, once
> when I was 19.
> The first was due to our being foolish, the second
> was the fluke of
> statistics, since I was on birth control. Since I
> was not ready to
> be a mom in both cases, we pooled our scarse money
> resources
> quickly, went together to the Planned Parenthood
> clinic to take care
> of it. No regrets.  We didn't tell our parents,
> since it was our
> responsibility and we didn't want anyone to worry.
> The only notable
> thing about these experiences in 1978 and 1980 was
> that I had a cold
> during the first time, and so instead of the usual
> general
> anasthesia, I was given ketamine, and I hallucinated
> badly coming
> out  of the procedure, and my sweetheart was sitting
> out in the waiting
> room for hours wondering what happened to me. The
> second time I
> didn't want the anasthesia. 

Well I guess statistics are such that I would sooner
or later meet someone like you. With all the strong
emotion flying back and forth about this most touchy
of subjects, I am not sure whether I should give you
my condolences or congratulations. But either way
thank you for sharing. Aside from your simple
narrative of what happened, I am somewhat curious how
you felt about it? And do you feel differently about
it now then you did then? 


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  Tue Jun  7 08:08:58 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 01:08:58 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying
In-Reply-To: <42A5297D.8020808@mindspring.com>
References: <003801c56a46$17262d00$0100a8c0@kevin> <42A4E8D3.6030500@cox.net>
	<42A5297D.8020808@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <e88b73ce05060701081315a436@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/6/05, Terry W. Colvin <fortean1 at mindspring.com> wrote:
> Thanks, Ray.  I remember seeing newsclips of this experiment.  If not wholly
> learned then this is a genetic memory.  I wonder if this experiment has
> included primate babies, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans?

I don't recall about primates, but the visual cliff experiment has
definitely been repeated on primates and cats. It's one of the staple
experiments of perception science -- I think there's been a good bit
done on trying to determine precisely which area of the brain is
responsible for the effect.

I don't have time to search right now, but a google scholar search
turns up plenty of results:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22visual+cliff%22


From amara at amara.com  Tue Jun  7 08:14:31 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 10:14:31 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public! Filmateleven.
Message-ID: <p06210200becb04661978@[150.146.134.133]>


Stuart:
>Well I guess statistics are such that I would sooner
>or later meet someone like you.

Statistics? I think you have not met many women.

>With all the strong
>emotion flying back and forth about this most touchy
>of subjects, I am not sure whether I should give you
>my condolences or congratulations.

Neither.

>Aside from your simple
>narrative of what happened, I am somewhat curious how
>you felt about it?

Given that I was 17, and that I never had general anesthesia
before, being 'put to sleep' was a scary experience.

I remember that my boyfriend bought me a delicious milkshake
afterwards. (I had dry-heaved my empty stomach on the ketamine and
was dehydrated and very disoriented.) And because I was in the clinic
for longer than I expected, I was late for my appointment of
baby-sitting my  little sister that evening, and my parents were
angry at me when I arrived home. (I told them 10 years later why
I was late.)

>And do you feel differently about it now then you did then?

No. But there is a new issue, which is that I am 25 years older. When
I was in my 20s and 30s, egg-freezing was not a viable option like it
is now. Women of my age are basically screwed if they want to develop
their potential in all of the ways that Nature gives them.

I worked so hard during the last 25 years to make the best decisions
for my life, and to prepare myself for caring well for myself and for
a family, that it is probably too late now for a family. That makes
me upset. The last 2.5 years was not the best use of my time.

(sent to the Italian version of the Scientific American: "Le Scienze"
yesterday. I hope that they publish it.)

Amara

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

  {Redazione di Le Scienze e Claudia Di Giorgio]

  Experiences of a Foreign Scientist in Italy


  As a foreigner (U.S, Latvia citizenships) living and working in the
  planetary sciences in Italy for the last 2.5 years, when I see
  advertisements for the recruitment of scientists for new institutes
  in Italy, I don't know if I want to laugh or cry. No sane person
  would go for a scientific job in Italy, if they knew what is
  embedded in the process of trying to make a scientific career in
  Italy. In addition, I don't think that Italian science employers are
  aware of the amount of attention that their foreign hiree needs in
  order to solve the issues involved in living and working in their
  country. I'm the first example in my Institute of a foreign /
  extracommunitari scientist choosing to make a career (more than a
  visit) there. When I moved, I was already living in Germany for five
  years, therefore, I had some previous experience living and
  performing scientific work in Europe.

  The procedure and paperwork for my entering Italy included visiting
  Italian embassies scattered in southern Germany (each embassy had a
  different function, no known opening hours), a visa procedure that
  was changing every month, translations of my 'documents' (but no
  one could say _which_ documents) by 'approved translators' only. At
  the end I received my three-month, one-entry-only visa, barely
  before I arrived in the country. The pre-move and moving expenses
  are the responsibility of the hiree.

  Once I arrived, a longer set of requirements and documents for my
  CNR job and then the permesso di soggiorno.

  According to the Questura's own rules, the permesso di sorggiorno
  processing will take three weeks, but I received mine in five
  months. During this time, I was not permitted to travel out. I
  renewed my permesso one month before it expired, and since November
  2003 (at the time of this writing in June 2005) I'm still waiting.
  Two letters from my institute saying my permesso is necessary for
  performing my job and my fifty visits (totalling about a week of my
  time) to the Questura accomplished nothing.

   For the job, the salary doesn't cover basic living costs in my area
  (Rome). I am alone, I don't own property, I don't have family
  living in the area, I pay rent like any normal newcomer, which
  absorbs 2/3 of my salary immediately. I took a second job teaching
  astronomy at night, in order to  pay for living expenses, but I
  learned too late that Italian taxes absorb so much, that the only
  the important aspect that I gained was the experience.

  For my business travel, I discovered that Italian scientists place
  their business travel on their personal credit cards and are
  reimbursed (sometimes many) months later by their Institutes. I
  didn't have European credit cards, I had only one U.S. bank credit
  card because I proudly paid off all my debt in the years before I
  moved to Italy. Since my Italian bank associated with my institute
  job did not know how to transfer money to U.S. banks, I needed to
  get a new Italian credit card for my business travel, which took
  one year: the first Italian banks rejected me because I was new in
  Italy and they automatically put black marks on my financial record
  because they rejected me.

  My business travel potentially put me in the same U.S. state as my
  family, yet I could not legally spend more than three days with
  them (travelling to them on my own vacation time and with my own
  money), due to CNR rules for business travel. Regardless, my
  institute has had little/no money to allow business travel in the
  last year.

  I used my own personal computer (6 years old) for most of my
  institute work and when it finally broke, my institute had no money
  for a replacement, therefore I bought a new-used computer from
  e-bay. However I didn't see my computer purchase until two months
  later because it was lost in US Postal mail, Poste Italiano mail,
  and in the Italian customs (the customs in Milano never notified me
  that they had my computer).

  I don't think that my situation is unusual for any foreign
  scientist beginning a career in Italy at this time. In my
  experiences living and working in Italy, I didn't face a culture
  shock, but instead, I faced (and I continue to face) a daily
  "how to live?" shock.

  Amara Graps, PhD

  amara.graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it
  www.amara.com

  ***********************************************************
  Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario, CNR - ARTOV,
  Via del Fosso del Cavaliere, 100, I-00133 Roma, ITALIA
  ***********************************************************




From sm at vreedom.com  Tue Jun  7 18:17:52 2005
From: sm at vreedom.com (sm at vreedom.com)
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 20:17:52 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying
Message-ID: <1118168272.42a5e4d058baf@www.config-server.de>

Hi brother in fear of flight . . .

>I'm getting ready to leave on my second commercial flight in my life and I am
>dealing with
>that annoying fear of flying. For the past two days I have not been able to
>concentrate on much else. It's always in the back of my head.
>Yet I know very well the statistics regarding airline safety. I am quite aware
> that I am probably more likely to have a plane land on my head than die in a
>crash since I have flown so rarely.

I know that . . . It is especially difficult because I live in one country and
work in another which is 2000 km away! Therefore I MUST fly!

>While I was in the shower I realized that the fear of course comes from a
PERCEIVED loss of >control. I realized that we as humans constantly fool
ourselves into believing that we are >in some sort of control when in fact we
are not.
>This is evident in the way that we handle our everyday lives.

>It led me to think about religion and how devoutly religious people give up
control of >their lives to God. I began to realize that this deep seated need
to feel in control of our >lives must go back really far. In fact, it could
very well be the driving force behind >religion, not fear of death, but fear of
loss of control.

I think you have a point. In everyday consulting work I see that a lot of things
related to strategy, decisions and leadership basically have fear as a basic,
not the management-lingo communicated. Also in conflicts of countries. It all
goes down to individual fear. We start to do seminars about fear for
business-folks now.

Some ideas about your control-topic. Most phobia/fear-specialists in the
neuro-field say that it?s not so much a question of personality
("control-freak") but of an amygdala in your brain which learned something
wrong. The neural way via the amygdala is very fast, faster than logical
thought to intervene. Therefore it is not so much the question to get control
over the plane, but over your own emotional reaction.
A relatively new approach (I haven?t used it yet, but I want to) is
D-Cycloserine which is a substance interfering with your fear-memory. It
doesn`t suppress fear, but it brings your amygdala to the point to forget that
it once reacted with fear to planes . . . Transhumanism  will have to further
the toolbox for modern management of our own mind!

Have a good flight!

Stephan

Stephan Magnus
High Performance Solutions GmbH

B?ro Portugal: Sitio Pincho, 8600-090 Bensafrim
Tel. 00351-282 969 161
Mobil: 0172/5783953
sm at vreedom.com
http://www.vreedom.com

Zentrale Deutschland: ?hlm?hle, 34454 Bad Arolsen
Tel. 05691-628800
stephanmagnus at hpsolutions.de
http://www.hpsolutions.de



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  7 19:00:13 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 12:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public!
	Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <p06210200becb04661978@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <20050607190013.13603.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> 
> Stuart:
> >Well I guess statistics are such that I would
> sooner
> >or later meet someone like you.
> 
> Statistics? I think you have not met many women.

     This is an interesting inference for you to make
considering that you have never met me. In my opinion
I know plenty of women. Maybe not as many super-models
as I would like, but plenty of women in general. I
have a girlfriend that I care deeply about and with a
few notable exceptions, I am close friends with many
of my ex-girlfriends. Add to that relatives, friends I
have not slept with, colleagues, and aquaintences and
I would say that I know at least as many women as I do
men if not more.       
     So is your assertion that I do not know many
women based on the assumption that I actually discuss
the abortion history of a significant percentage of
the women that I know? If that is the case, allow me
to to clarify that it is not something I bring up with
most of the women I know. Not only is such not polite
dinner conversation but it isn't really any of my
business. And since I have no axe to grind one way or
another about the issue, I don't really care what a
woman's abortional history is. 
     The only reason I even brought it up in the first
place is that there have been a few times that women
have volunteered such personal information to me for
their own reasons. One of the cases that I recall was
an unmarried woman in her 40's that desperately wanted
children but didn't have any and believed that she was
being "punished" for the abortion she had in her
younger years.
      The other instance that I remember was a younger
woman that was asking me for medical advice as to
whether the build-up of scar tissue in her fallopian
tubes that rendered her infertile might have been
caused by an abortion she had gotten. In both cases
there was discernable remorse.
      The closest that I have come to having abortion
affect me personally were a few scares due to missed
periods on the part of few of my girlfriends.
Fortunately they turned out to be false alarms. I find
that condom use with spermicidal jelly is a very
efficient means of birth control that have the added
benefit of protecting against STDs. Whatever YOUR
personal experience with birth control might be, these
methods have not failed me YET.      

> No. But there is a new issue, which is that I am 25
> years older. When
> I was in my 20s and 30s, egg-freezing was not a
> viable option like it
> is now. Women of my age are basically screwed if
> they want to develop
> their potential in all of the ways that Nature gives
> them.

     From what I understand, freezing unfertilized
eggs still doesn't work reliably. But for "career"
women, who want children after they have established
themselves, I would counsel them to choose a man early
in their career, whose children they would want, and
have IVF performed. There are not any technical
problems involved in freezing fertilized eggs, so the
zygotes that result can be stored indefinately until
the woman is ready. With the latest advances it seems
that having these implanted and could be brought to
term well into a woman's 50's with no ill effects.   


> I worked so hard during the last 25 years to make
> the best decisions
> for my life, and to prepare myself for caring well
> for myself and for
> a family, that it is probably too late now for a
> family. That makes
> me upset. The last 2.5 years was not the best use of
> my time.

This seems to be similar to my first example although
you obviously feel no remorse.

> (sent to the Italian version of the Scientific
> American: "Le Scienze"
> yesterday. I hope that they publish it.)
> 

Good luck, I hope they publish it. I think scientists
in the early phases of their career are underpaid in
EVERY country and not just abroad. It is pretty silly
that such prerequisites of intelligence, extensive
schooling, and talents is so unrewarded in so many
cases. But at least in my field, riches are often just
a single patent away. Have you considered the
aerospace industry as an alternative?

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! 
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  7 22:25:52 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 15:25:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: LUDDISM: Help keep 'neo-luddism' wikipage up
In-Reply-To: <DAEGJDAIEMCEKLOPODAKMEHBEOAA.mike99@lascruces.com>
Message-ID: <20050607222552.38707.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

A political vandal and wiki-stalker by the handle "Firebug" is trying
to get this wike page delted and they've removed the list of prominent
neo-luddites. If you folks have not already, please go to this page,
see the link to the deletion vote, and help with maintaining and
protecting this information. Folks from infoshop.org are behind trying
to delete this information from public notice.

--- mike99 <mike99 at lascruces.com> wrote:

> I've added a bit to the Right-wing Neo-Luddism section concerning the
> Discovery Institute.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Michael LaTorra
> 
> mike99 at lascruces.com
> mlatorra at nmsu.edu
> 
> "For any man to abdicate an interest in science is to walk with open
> eyes
> towards slavery."
> -- Jacob Bronowski
> 
> "Experiences only look special from the inside of the system."
> -- Eugen Leitl
> 
> Member:
> Board of Directors, World Transhumanist Association:
> www.transhumanism.org
> Board of Directors, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies:
> http://ieet.org/
> Extropy Institute: www.extropy.org
> Alcor Life Extension Foundation: www.alcor.org
> Society for Universal Immortalism: www.universalimmortalism.org
> President, Zen Center of Las Cruces: www.zencenteroflascruces.org
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  7 22:37:55 2005
From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 15:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEW TRANSHUMANIST WEB PAGE: www.posthumano.net
Message-ID: <20050607223755.84467.qmail@web32803.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Dear friends,
 
    In a great transhumanist, transdisciplinary and transcountry effort, you can see the preliminary design of a new transhumanist web page mostly in Spanish:
 
www.posthumano.net
 
     Please, send us your comments:
 
Carlos Parra: gerenciadivulgar at yahoo.com
Walter Farah: walterfarah at yahoo.com
Juan Arbelaez: juanarbelaezp at hotmail.com
Jose Cordeiro: jose at cordeiro.org
 
     Transhumanistically yours,



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/20050607/aa9af312/attachment.html>

From henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com  Tue Jun  7 23:05:32 2005
From: henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com (=?Windows-1252?Q?Henrik_=D6hrstr=F6m?=)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 01:05:32 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying
In-Reply-To: <42A5297D.8020808@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <DHEDKDAFOIKEGEPMAFCEEELFDBAA.henrik.ohrstrom@gmail.com>

>
> Hi Terry,
> A solid list of experiments has determined that human babies
> (less than 1 year old - crawling stage) will not crawl - on a
> solid glass floor - out over a drop underneath that glass floor.
>
> They will however, if tempted or otherwise cajoled - agree to
> back out over the drop. But as soon as that `drop' becomes
> visible they immediately retreat to the non-drop portion of their
> environment.
>
> It seems we have a memory which says `height is dangerous' -
> especially if you're _not_ in control.
>
> cheers
>
> Ray D
>
> Thanks, Ray.  I remember seeing newsclips of this experiment.  If
> not wholly
> learned then this is a genetic memory.  I wonder if this experiment has
> included primate babies, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans?
>
> Terry
>
>
Well, these experiments are not true for all babies, both my daughters have
repeatedly tried (and sometimes succeeded in) crawling of edges of all
kinds. No permanent harm but I make sure that ALL possible jump-off points
are very well secured since these kamikaze babies has most certainly not
read those studies.
I have though and was rather surprised when they started flinging themselves
of edges...
Other children I know are more careful and one have never-ever required any
sort of gate or protection since he is very careful and have as far as I
know never fallen off anything.
Darwin days I suppose, I hope that my daredevil cuties gain something more
than just bumps and sprains from being so physically forward as they are.

/henrik

 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GMD d- s+: a C++ UL P L+ E- W+@ N+ o K+ w O- M V- PS++ PE+ Y++ PGP++ !t !5
X- R+ tv- b+++ DI++ D+ G e+++ h---- r+++ y+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Jun  7 23:08:32 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 16:08:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: LUDDISM: Help keep 'neo-luddism' wikipage up
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050607230832.77736.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>

Firebug has a valid point: the page *as currently written* tends to
violate Wikipedia's purpose.

We're not going to win the fight against our enemies by sinking to
their level.  We're trying to prove their ways are wrong; we can't do
that by resorting to their ways ourselves.  Wikipedia is not our tool
first and foremost; it has rules and objectives of its own.  When we
use it, we should play by its rules - and in this case, that includes
openly acknowledging that "neo-luddite" is a label no one applies to
themselves.

Perhaps if you could update the page to detail what
exactly neo-luddites want, and the logical consequences (with labels
like "in the opinion of their detractors", to avoid making statements
of fact except where there really is logical proof).  I've added the
following text as an example:

> 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 is all true and NPOV, as Wikipedia wants.  It also states one of
the main reasons why they are the bad guys: they say they want to help
the environment, but (as pointed out by their opponents) they actually
wind up harming it.

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> A political vandal and wiki-stalker by the handle "Firebug" is trying
> to get this wike page delted and they've removed the list of
> prominent
> neo-luddites. If you folks have not already, please go to this page,
> see the link to the deletion vote, and help with maintaining and
> protecting this information. Folks from infoshop.org are behind
> trying
> to delete this information from public notice.
> 
> --- mike99 <mike99 at lascruces.com> wrote:
> 
> > I've added a bit to the Right-wing Neo-Luddism section concerning
> the
> > Discovery Institute.
> > 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Michael LaTorra
> > 
> > mike99 at lascruces.com
> > mlatorra at nmsu.edu
> > 
> > "For any man to abdicate an interest in science is to walk with
> open
> > eyes
> > towards slavery."
> > -- Jacob Bronowski
> > 
> > "Experiences only look special from the inside of the system."
> > -- Eugen Leitl
> > 
> > Member:
> > Board of Directors, World Transhumanist Association:
> > www.transhumanism.org
> > Board of Directors, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies:
> > http://ieet.org/
> > Extropy Institute: www.extropy.org
> > Alcor Life Extension Foundation: www.alcor.org
> > Society for Universal Immortalism: www.universalimmortalism.org
> > President, Zen Center of Las Cruces: www.zencenteroflascruces.org
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jun  8 04:13:09 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 21:13:09 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] fanatic anxietist
In-Reply-To: <20050607222552.38707.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200506080413.j584DBR08579@tick.javien.com>



Some yahoo tied up traffic for hours in LA this morning
by leading the cops on a OJ-esque low speed car chase
and holding a gun to his own head.  They had to close
Interstate 10, a main artery.  The economic damage done
by this stunt is difficult to even estimate.

We know of the big-time terrorists, Bin Ladin, Tim McVeigh
et.al.  Do let us hope the terrorists never realize that
they could tone down the attacks and compensate with
larger numbers.  They could do things that don't slay
or injure anyone, or even cause actual property damage, 
but rather merely block traffic, reducing the productivity
of a society.  They could feign remorse over a lost lover,
for instance and the courts would almost hafta just let them 
go, temporary insanity.

If newspeak for "terror" is "double plus fear," then 
they would go for double minus fear.  They would need 
to come up with a name other than terrorist.  Anxietist?  
Inconveniencist?  Oy.

spike

    
 



From sjatkins at mac.com  Wed Jun  8 04:23:27 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 21:23:27 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] fanatic anxietist
In-Reply-To: <200506080413.j584DBR08579@tick.javien.com>
References: <200506080413.j584DBR08579@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <626DDC10-D89D-44AB-A2D2-144FAA39DA48@mac.com>


On Jun 7, 2005, at 9:13 PM, spike wrote:

>
>
> Some yahoo tied up traffic for hours in LA this morning
> by leading the cops on a OJ-esque low speed car chase
> and holding a gun to his own head.  They had to close
> Interstate 10, a main artery.  The economic damage done
> by this stunt is difficult to even estimate.

I wonder why they didn't deploy the little EMP (or is it microwave)  
gun that stops modern cars dead.  They could then deal with the  
threatened suicide without tying up all that traffic and so much impact.

- samantha


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  8 05:11:04 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 22:11:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] fanatic anxietist
In-Reply-To: <200506080413.j584DBR08579@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050608051104.53443.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> 
> 
> Some yahoo tied up traffic for hours in LA this
> morning
> by leading the cops on a OJ-esque low speed car
> chase
> and holding a gun to his own head.  They had to
> close
> Interstate 10, a main artery.  The economic damage
> done
> by this stunt is difficult to even estimate.
> 
> We know of the big-time terrorists, Bin Ladin, Tim
> McVeigh
> et.al.  Do let us hope the terrorists never realize
> that
> they could tone down the attacks and compensate with
> larger numbers.  They could do things that don't
> slay
> or injure anyone, or even cause actual property
> damage, 
> but rather merely block traffic, reducing the
> productivity
> of a society.  They could feign remorse over a lost
> lover,
> for instance and the courts would almost hafta just
> let them 
> go, temporary insanity.
> 
> If newspeak for "terror" is "double plus fear," then
> 
> they would go for double minus fear.  They would
> need 
> to come up with a name other than terrorist. 
> Anxietist?  
> Inconveniencist?  Oy.

Actually if my interpretation of certain clauses in
the USA Patriot Act is correct then whistle blowers,
hackers, and others who impede commerce in some
fashion can now be classified as terrorists. So yes,
if the feds wanted to push it, that guy could be
called a terrorist.



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! 
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html


From pgptag at gmail.com  Wed Jun  8 08:46:13 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 10:46:13 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Denying nature
Message-ID: <470a3c52050608014672f5fad2@mail.gmail.com>

Another attack on transhumanism from
SFGate.com<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/06/08/cstillwell.DTL>-
The
debate over embryonic stem cell research in the United States rages on. Also 
known as therapeutic cloning<http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4667>, 
the process entails extracting stem cells from human embryos typically left 
over from in-vitro fertilization procedures at fertility clinics. Embryonic 
stem cells <http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp> have the 
ability to duplicate cells found throughout the human body, thereby leading 
researchers to believe that treatments for diseases and spinal cord injuries 
can be found through such research. Seeing as the destruction of human 
embryos is involved, the issue is attracting a fair amount of controversy, 
at both statewide and national
levels<http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/genetics/embfet.htm>
...
Disease and illness will always beset humans because we are mortal beings. 
At the end of our lives lies the inevitability of death. To try to avoid 
this fate is to deny the cycle of life, to deny nature itself. In fact, 
there are those who actively seek such a state. They subscribe to a 
philosophy called
transhumanism<http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/index>,
or "the doctrine that we can and should become more than
human<http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Intro/definitions.html>"
through the use of science. But should we really be so eager to shed our 
humanity? Rather than "more than human," we could very well end up less so.
Of course the author does not provide any explanation of what she means by 
the last sentence quoted, nor of why "deny nature itself" is something bad. 
The development of our civilization has been based on refusing to meekly 
accept natural limits. This attitude led to medicine, hygiene, transport, 
education, and communications. Let's not go back to the stone age as Ms. 
Stillwell wishes.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050608/5a759ebd/attachment.html>

From amara at amara.com  Wed Jun  8 10:31:12 2005
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 12:31:12 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciences of their own (or not) (was: Famous
 author self destructs blah blah blah)
Message-ID: <p06210200becc77bf235f@[150.146.134.133]>

Brett Paatsch:
>A lot of urban legends likely have built up around the Galileo story,
>and I am interested in what the real story was, but for present
>purposes, not all that much.

When you are ready, something I've posted before:

HEAVEN'S OBSERVER
Interview by Hazel Muir from New Scientist
http://www.lyon.edu/projects/marsbugs/2000/20000331.txt

And this book:

Galileo and the Scientific Revolution
by Laura Fermi and Gilberto Bernardini

>For present purposes the only point I
>really wanted to make is that individuals including individuals with
>religious or faith based world views that have consciences of their
>own and are willing to exercise them can choose to look through the
>available equipment be it a telescope or a microscope of whatever if
>they so choose.

Here is an example.

(Hint, no religion is taught, only astrophysics)

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


http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/VOSS2005.html

The Vatican Observatory Summer School 2005

Observational Astronomy and Astrophysics
12 June to 8 July 2005,
Castel Gandolfo, Rome, Italy

Jonathan I. Lunine (Chair)	University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
Christopher J. Corbally, S.J. (Dean)	Vatican Observatory
George V. Coyne, S.J. (Director)	Vatican Observatory
John Baross	University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Chris D. Impey	Steward Observatory, University of Arizona
Woodruff T. Sullivan	University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Neville J. Woolf	Steward Observatory, University of Arizona
The regular faculty will be assisted by other senior scientists in
residence.

   The Vatican Observatory is pleased to announce the 2005 Summer
 School in Observational Astronomy and Astrophysics, on
 Astrobiology: The Search for our Origins and Life Elsewhere. Two
 lectures will be given each morning, with evening seminars by the
 Vatican staff and visiting astronomers. During the course of the
 school, students will also present a short paper on their research
 or the research of their home institution. Other activities will
 include laboratory exercises, use of the Observatory computers for
 data reduction and image processing, and use of astronomical
 databases.

 There will also be opportunities for observations with on-site 40
 cm refractor and 60 cm reflector telescopes. Field trips to visit
 sites of historical interest to astronomy will be included. In
 addition to the principal topics presented by the invited faculty,
 students will have the opportunity to discuss their own research
 with members of the faculty and with the observatory staff. No
 formal course credits will be given, but certification of
 satisfactory completion of the course will be supplied.

 Basic tour of the solar system and known extrasolar planets; scale
 of the cosmos; introduction to chemistry and chemical bonding;
 introduction to spectroscopy from the UV through the radio; the
 discovery of past salty seas on Mars; the discovery of an ocean
 under Jupiter=s moon Europa; the search for pre-biotic molecules on
 Titan; search for life on Mars and Europa; bioethics and planetary
 protection; the microwave background and models for the Big Bang;
 origin of the elements; search for extrasolar habitable planets
 with optical telescopes; search for extraterrestrial civilizations
 with radio telescopes; introduction to biology for astronomers;
 models of the origin of life; origin of metabolisms; extremophiles;
 the tree of life; evolution of life and Earth=s climate through
 time; the future of life on and off the Earth.

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

Here is _NOT_ an example:


http://www.comitatoscienzaevita.it/

that is, the "Committee of Science and Life", but I prefer to call
them the "Committee of Decay and Death". I received an analog-spam
brochure from them in my postal box last week, and they have large
glossy posters now hanging in my town. Huge sums of money is spent
to blanket Italy with these advertisements.

You will find pink pictures of pregnant mothers and babies and
sterile test tubes. You will find 'scientific' reports about
assisted reproductive technology that doesn't work and that puts
the future of mankind in danger.

An you will find their opinion on the upcoming ART laws Referendum
in Italy this week. That is, you will read 'NO, Don't vote', and to
make sure that you do not, they will not list the date of the
Referendum vote.

(date: 12-13 June: http://www.comitatoreferendum.it/xml/hp.asp)

And *who*, you ask, is funding the "Committee of Science and Life?"

The richest country in the world, that is: the Vatican.

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 bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Wed Jun  8 11:41:14 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 21:41:14 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs inpublic!Filmateleven.
References: <586da73fcb70f35d2fdc89d8b73dac83@stross.org.uk><04fd01c56a4e$0c55f380$6e2a2dcb@homepc><f19e9ae003a5d55591208360b4244661@antipope.org>
	<4421eadc791f0ea39c3a691a8170b8ad@stross.org.uk>
Message-ID: <001e01c56c1e$fa1201f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

Charlie Stross wrote:

> On 6 Jun 2005, at 05:13, Brett Paatsch wrote:
>
>>> The sub-text of the entire ?human life begins at 10^6 cells/^10^3/1 
>>> cell? debate is that a *potential* life is worth as much, if not more, 
>>> than the *actual* life of the woman who is expected by the 
>>> anti-abortion lobby to go through a somewhat hazardous medical 
>>> condition (which, in the wild, has a 5-10% fatality rate) and then -- 
>>>  this is implicit in the whole mess -- spend the next twenty years of 
>>> life surrendering their potential for self-actualization to that other 
>>> formerly potential person.
>>
>> That sentence is too hard for me to parse. I think you are strawmanning
>> the views of those who I disagree with as well but I can't tell.
>
> Um, I was taking you initially for one of the "every sperm is sacred (and 
> you women had better look after them)" crowd. Not having run into you on 
> the net before.

You missed me by 180 degrees. 'Every sperm is sacred' is my favorite
Python song.

We have run into each other on the net before. It was on this list. I
remembered you favourably as the person that had once ran a version
of a prediction market at the Foresight Institute. I think you said it was
closed down when a new director wasn't sure how to account for it.

Perhaps I didn't recognize you as a science fiction writer because I
don't read a lot of science fiction. I've been generally disappointed
with science fiction perhaps because I like science and the plot lines
seem to date so quickly.

>>> As a non-American who lives in a country where at the last poll just 
>>> short of 90% of the population approved of abortion being available on 
>>> demand, let me say that I think this discussion would be ludicrous if 
>>> it wasn?t evil.
>>
>> So what are you a Canadian living in the US or what?
>
> British, living in the UK. (In the People's Republic of Scotland, to be 
> precise.)

An interesting part of the world. Therapeutic cloning and Ian Wilmut,
sportsbetting licensing with Betfair, and the question of what to do
about the EU constitution following the French and the Dutch votes.

I was interested in the stuff about Goldsmith and the legality (or
otherwise) of the Iraq war and how it played out in the election there
as well. The Brits seemed to be a lot more interested in whether the
invasion was legal than were Australians or those in the US.

> ...
>> Its ironic, but when you posted to the list recently you said that you
>> were irked I think that there was so much ranting going on. But now
>> I am struggling to understand what points you are trying to make
>> because you seem to have decided to rant along with us.
>>
>> When you use words like evil I don't know if you are parodying the
>> US President or if you actually really think in such terms yourself.
>
> See "British", above, and consider the possibility that a Manichean view 
> of the world ain't part of my outlook. Britain and the US are two nations 
> divided by a linguistic sar-chasm.

:-)

> (Although if I was going to try and bolt together a post-religious 
> rationalist ethical framework based on game theory with a side-order of 
> utilitarianism, I think I'd probably retain the word "evil" to describe 
> ideologies or beliefs that amount to repeatedly smacking yourself in the 
> face with a two-by-four. And the Christian fundamentalists are a good fit 
> for that pattern of behaviour.)

If you ever do decide to try your hand at bolting together a post-religious
rationalist ethical framework based on game theory and are looking for
people to kick it around with, I'd be another with an interest in your
hobby.

Brett Paatsch 




From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Wed Jun  8 12:12:19 2005
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 22:12:19 +1000
Subject: Mistaken identiy Fw: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs
	inpublic!Filmateleven.
Message-ID: <006d01c56c23$51c30e40$6e2a2dcb@homepc>

Sorry Charlie, I've still managed to get you mixed up. This time with Chris 
Hibbert.

Brett Paatsch 




From bret at bonfireproductions.com  Wed Jun  8 15:27:09 2005
From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 11:27:09 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEW TRANSHUMANIST WEB PAGE: www.posthumano.net
In-Reply-To: <20050607223755.84467.qmail@web32803.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050607223755.84467.qmail@web32803.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <769d7a6a4e249305ee23f8dd9c3841fb@bonfireproductions.com>



Hi Jose,

Looks like you are off to a great start - be sure to check out the site 
on multiple-browsers and platforms!

I find that phpNuke is a lot more forgiving than Mambo, but they are 
both pretty solid.


]3



On Jun 7, 2005, at 6:37 PM, Jose Cordeiro wrote:

> Dear friends,
> ?
> ??? In a great transhumanist, transdisciplinary?and transcountry 
> effort, you can see the preliminary design of a new transhumanist web 
> page mostly?in Spanish:
> ?
> www.posthumano.net
> ?
> ???? Please, send us your comments:
> ?
> Carlos Parra: gerenciadivulgar at yahoo.com
> Walter Farah: walterfarah at yahoo.com
> Juan Arbelaez: juanarbelaezp at hotmail.com
> Jose Cordeiro: jose at cordeiro.org
> ?
> ???? Transhumanistically yours,
>
>
>
> La vie est belle!
>
> Yos? (www.cordeiro.org)
>
> Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, 
> Multiverse_______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  8 16:25:58 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 09:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] fanatic anxietist
In-Reply-To: <200506080413.j584DBR08579@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050608162558.43443.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote: 
> 
> Some yahoo tied up traffic for hours in LA this morning
> by leading the cops on a OJ-esque low speed car chase
> and holding a gun to his own head.  They had to close
> Interstate 10, a main artery.  The economic damage done
> by this stunt is difficult to even estimate.
> 
> We know of the big-time terrorists, Bin Ladin, Tim McVeigh
> et.al.  Do let us hope the terrorists never realize that
> they could tone down the attacks and compensate with
> larger numbers.  They could do things that don't slay
> or injure anyone, or even cause actual property damage, 
> but rather merely block traffic, reducing the productivity
> of a society.  They could feign remorse over a lost lover,
> for instance and the courts would almost hafta just let them 
> go, temporary insanity.
> 
> If newspeak for "terror" is "double plus fear," then 
> they would go for double minus fear.  They would need 
> to come up with a name other than terrorist.  Anxietist?  
> Inconveniencist?  Oy.

Vey. How about just "asshole"? Actually, as the interstate highways are
channels of commerce, and there are, and have been for a long time,
federal regs against the blockading of channels of commerce. It is
generally considered an act of war.

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! 
Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Jun  8 16:25:44 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 09:25:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] fanatic anxietist
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050608162544.69047.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> I wonder why they didn't deploy the little EMP (or is it microwave)  
> gun that stops modern cars dead.  They could then deal with the  
> threatened suicide without tying up all that traffic and so much
> impact.

Because, much as they have been discussed and are under development,
there aren't any field-ready EMP guns yet.  Not even for the military
(which accepts reliability as low as the Patriot anti-missile system),
and certainly not for law enforcement.


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  8 16:36:20 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 09:36:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in
	public!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <04fd01c56a4e$0c55f380$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <20050608163620.92134.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Charlie wrote:
> >
> > Urban legends don?t aid the debate. Galileo was to a very large
> > extent *protected* by the then Pope, who was a friend of his;
> > what got him into trouble was court politics, aggravated by his
> > inability to keep his mouth shut at the right time. You will note
> > that Galileo was *not* burned at the stake despite this being a
> > fairly common outcome for  heretics at the time ... and that the
> > reason for the draconian response  to heresy was that it had
> > political implications: religious doctrine  was then the 
> > accepted way of understanding how the world works, and questioning
> > its veracity raised implications for the way state policy was
> > formed. That?s *never* a safe or easy thing to do; we can see it
> >  today in the way the Bush administration treats science funding
> > in  areas that don?t appear to support their preconceptions.

Or in the way the UN, EU, and the Club of Rome is trying to shove
Global Warming and Peak Oil down everyone's throats with lies about the
number and types of scientists signing off on their side of reality.

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! 
Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  8 16:39:36 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 09:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] fanatic anxietist
In-Reply-To: <20050608162544.69047.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050608163936.19988.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> --- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> > I wonder why they didn't deploy the little EMP (or is it microwave)
> > gun that stops modern cars dead.  They could then deal with the  
> > threatened suicide without tying up all that traffic and so much
> > impact.
> 
> Because, much as they have been discussed and are under development,
> there aren't any field-ready EMP guns yet.  Not even for the military
> (which accepts reliability as low as the Patriot anti-missile
> system), and certainly not for law enforcement.

Actually, HERF and EMP guns have been demonstrated in the past and are
quite capable. The problem is the same morons who live in paranoid fear
of power lines and wall outlets get OSHA to kill the funding, claiming
that killing a cars circuits would create an obstacle to traffic,
causing greater risk of accidents, and that bombarding the occupants
with high energy EM energy is a health hazard...

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! 
Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Jun  8 17:14:32 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 10:14:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] fanatic anxietist
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050608171432.60944.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Because, much as they have been discussed and are under
> development,
> > there aren't any field-ready EMP guns yet.  Not even for the
> military
> > (which accepts reliability as low as the Patriot anti-missile
> > system), and certainly not for law enforcement.
> 
> Actually, HERF and EMP guns have been demonstrated in the past and
> are
> quite capable. The problem is the same morons who live in paranoid
> fear
> of power lines and wall outlets get OSHA to kill the funding,
> claiming
> that killing a cars circuits would create an obstacle to traffic,
> causing greater risk of accidents, and that bombarding the occupants
> with high energy EM energy is a health hazard...

It's debatable (and a debate I'd rather not get into) whether the
demonstrations were indeed effective.  The most I've personally heard
of is that a HERF gun managed to make a car run roughly from about 10
yards away; even the video cameras running inside the car to record
things were unaffected.

Regardless of whether it's effectiveness or just killed funding (which
wouldn't affect private, no-government-money, startup-secret
development: OSHA can't regulate what it doesn't know about, and small
companies - being smaller groups of people - can sometimes keep secrets
better than most government organizations), the fact remains that there
is no factory out there that's currently producing EMP guns, nor has
there ever been one, ergo EMP guns are not currently available to the
police.


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Jun  8 17:25:32 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 10:25:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] fanatic anxietist
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050608172532.18660.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Vey. How about just "asshole"? Actually, as the interstate highways
> are
> channels of commerce, and there are, and have been for a long time,
> federal regs against the blockading of channels of commerce. It is
> generally considered an act of war.

Is there a specific, written source for that?  For example, say two
neighboring states (say, California and Nevada) allowed some substance
(drugs, stem cells, certain advanced-tech machines, whatever) to be
freely and openly possessed by their citizens in a way that the feds
had surrendered jurisdiction over, but where the feds did make it a
crime to transport it over state lines.  Possession and transport would
not be a crime on either side of the line, so the states might object
to feds' attempt to regulate it at their mutual border (even if they
did not protest enforcement at other borders, if the other states were
less permissive on this issue).  What part of the legal code would
allow the states to treat enforcement (and the necessary blockade or
delay of traffic) as an act of war by the federal government upon the
two states?


From pharos at gmail.com  Wed Jun  8 17:27:57 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 18:27:57 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] fanatic anxietist
In-Reply-To: <20050608162544.69047.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050608162544.69047.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e05060810274207bbd2@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/8/05, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> Because, much as they have been discussed and are under development,
> there aren't any field-ready EMP guns yet.  Not even for the military
> (which accepts reliability as low as the Patriot anti-missile system),
> and certainly not for law enforcement.

And why not?
Because an EMP pulse would fry any electronics in the vicinity,
including pacemakers.
However, I have read that shielding pacemakers and other devices would
not be too difficult, but they would all have to be protected before
deployment.
Also, the cops would have to shield their own electronics first.
So if the cops can get shielded cars, you can bet the crooks will get them also.

The public and press also see a difference between a runaway driver
causing damage and the police causing damage when they try to stop
him.

So EMP guns would be expensive, heavy, dangerous to bystanders and
after a time pretty well useless for stopping criminals.

BillK


From charlie at antipope.org  Wed Jun  8 17:42:46 2005
From: charlie at antipope.org (Charlie Stross)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 18:42:46 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs inpublic!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <001e01c56c1e$fa1201f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
References: <586da73fcb70f35d2fdc89d8b73dac83@stross.org.uk><04fd01c56a4e$0c55f380$6e2a2dcb@homepc><f19e9ae003a5d55591208360b4244661@antipope.org>
	<4421eadc791f0ea39c3a691a8170b8ad@stross.org.uk>
	<001e01c56c1e$fa1201f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <7c89af82cb5da08b755404e1e5d6dd99@antipope.org>


On 8 Jun 2005, at 12:41, Brett Paatsch wrote:
> You missed me by 180 degrees. 'Every sperm is sacred' is my favorite
> Python song.

OK ...

> We have run into each other on the net before. It was on this list. I
> remembered you favourably as the person that had once ran a version
> of a prediction market at the Foresight Institute. I think you said it 
> was
> closed down when a new director wasn't sure how to account for it.

:-)

You mis-remember me then, because I have *never* had anything to do 
with the Foresight Institute *or* prediction markets.

> Perhaps I didn't recognize you as a science fiction writer because I
> don't read a lot of science fiction.

'S'okay. You'd be astonished how few books any of us sell, or how few 
people have read them.
...

So what are you a Canadian living in the US or what?
>>
>> British, living in the UK. (In the People's Republic of Scotland, to 
>> be precise.)
>
> An interesting part of the world. Therapeutic cloning and Ian Wilmut,
> sportsbetting licensing with Betfair, and the question of what to do
> about the EU constitution following the French and the Dutch votes.

It gets better. According to Monday's Herald, 39.5% of the population 
are hard atheists (no religion, period), and of the rest, only 60% 
believe in God -- the rest just have a numinous vague sense of 
something out there. The proportion attending church on a regular basis 
-- monthly or more often -- is down around 10%.

That's partly why I find the whole abortion thing so weird. It's like 
finding yourself on a party line with the Ayatollahs of Qom.


-- Charlie



From charlie at antipope.org  Wed Jun  8 17:45:11 2005
From: charlie at antipope.org (Charlie Stross)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 18:45:11 +0100
Subject: [SPAM] Re: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in
	public!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <20050608163620.92134.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050608163620.92134.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f757b1d9454c8b82fb17f7d65a88ea0c@antipope.org>


On 8 Jun 2005, at 17:36, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> Or in the way the UN, EU, and the Club of Rome is trying to shove
> Global Warming and Peak Oil down everyone's throats with lies about the
> number and types of scientists signing off on their side of reality.
>
> Mike Lorrey

FX: Blinks slowly. Looks at pile of copies of New Scientist to his 
left. Looks at open email window to his right. Scratches head.

Okay, consider yourself scorefiled -100, along with the young earth 
creationists and the flat earth society. Nothing personal; it's just 
that life's too short to waste time arguing with cranks.


-- Charlie



From charlie at antipope.org  Wed Jun  8 18:03:46 2005
From: charlie at antipope.org (Charlie Stross)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 19:03:46 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs inpublic!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <7c89af82cb5da08b755404e1e5d6dd99@antipope.org>
References: <586da73fcb70f35d2fdc89d8b73dac83@stross.org.uk><04fd01c56a4e$0c55f380$6e2a2dcb@homepc><f19e9ae003a5d55591208360b4244661@antipope.org>
	<4421eadc791f0ea39c3a691a8170b8ad@stross.org.uk>
	<001e01c56c1e$fa1201f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<7c89af82cb5da08b755404e1e5d6dd99@antipope.org>
Message-ID: <1ac111f3af46598e9920fb29b67aff49@antipope.org>


On 8 Jun 2005, at 18:42, Charlie Stross wrote:
> It gets better. According to Monday's Herald, 39.5% of the population 
> are hard atheists (no religion, period), and of the rest, only 60% 
> believe in God -- the rest just have a numinous vague sense of 
> something out there. The proportion attending church on a regular 
> basis -- monthly or more often -- is down around 10%.

Clarification, the "60% believe in God" applies to the 60% of the 
population who do not expressly deny having any religion. Meaning it's 
more like 40% of the total who believe in God at all.

Politicians who come on heavy with the prayer thing in Scotland 
actually *lose* votes because ordinary people think they're nutters.


-- Charlie



From jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Wed Jun  8 18:27:13 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 14:27:13 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs inpublic!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <1ac111f3af46598e9920fb29b67aff49@antipope.org>
References: <586da73fcb70f35d2fdc89d8b73dac83@stross.org.uk><04fd01c56a4e$0c55f380$6e2a2dcb@homepc><f19e9ae003a5d55591208360b4244661@antipope.org>	<4421eadc791f0ea39c3a691a8170b8ad@stross.org.uk>	<001e01c56c1e$fa1201f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>	<7c89af82cb5da08b755404e1e5d6dd99@antipope.org>
	<1ac111f3af46598e9920fb29b67aff49@antipope.org>
Message-ID: <42A73881.8050302@humanenhancement.com>

Hmmm... I wonder how tough it is to emigrate...

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 5/29/05)

Charlie Stross wrote:

>
> On 8 Jun 2005, at 18:42, Charlie Stross wrote:
>
>> It gets better. According to Monday's Herald, 39.5% of the population 
>> are hard atheists (no religion, period), and of the rest, only 60% 
>> believe in God -- the rest just have a numinous vague sense of 
>> something out there. The proportion attending church on a regular 
>> basis -- monthly or more often -- is down around 10%.
>
>
> Clarification, the "60% believe in God" applies to the 60% of the 
> population who do not expressly deny having any religion. Meaning it's 
> more like 40% of the total who believe in God at all.
>
> Politicians who come on heavy with the prayer thing in Scotland 
> actually *lose* votes because ordinary people think they're nutters.
>
>
> -- Charlie
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>


From pharos at gmail.com  Wed Jun  8 18:41:16 2005
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 19:41:16 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs inpublic!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <42A73881.8050302@humanenhancement.com>
References: <586da73fcb70f35d2fdc89d8b73dac83@stross.org.uk>
	<04fd01c56a4e$0c55f380$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<f19e9ae003a5d55591208360b4244661@antipope.org>
	<4421eadc791f0ea39c3a691a8170b8ad@stross.org.uk>
	<001e01c56c1e$fa1201f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<7c89af82cb5da08b755404e1e5d6dd99@antipope.org>
	<1ac111f3af46598e9920fb29b67aff49@antipope.org>
	<42A73881.8050302@humanenhancement.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0506081141c9e222a@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/8/05, Joseph Bloch wrote:
> Hmmm... I wonder how tough it is to emigrate...
>

:)  Ever wonder why you find Scottish people and their descendents all
over the world?

There are minuses as well as pluses in every country.

BillK


From sjatkins at mac.com  Wed Jun  8 19:14:36 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 12:14:36 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] fanatic anxietist
In-Reply-To: <20050608162544.69047.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050608162544.69047.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <8AFC35DA-0262-4F39-A2F6-22A1A33E693D@mac.com>


On Jun 8, 2005, at 9:25 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> --- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
>> I wonder why they didn't deploy the little EMP (or is it microwave)
>> gun that stops modern cars dead.  They could then deal with the
>> threatened suicide without tying up all that traffic and so much
>> impact.
>>
>
> Because, much as they have been discussed and are under development,
> there aren't any field-ready EMP guns yet.  Not even for the military
> (which accepts reliability as low as the Patriot anti-missile system),
> and certainly not for law enforcement.

Heck.  It is a DIY minor project to get something that works.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050608/f287c8f9/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Wed Jun  8 19:21:06 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 12:21:06 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs inpublic!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <7c89af82cb5da08b755404e1e5d6dd99@antipope.org>
References: <586da73fcb70f35d2fdc89d8b73dac83@stross.org.uk>
	<04fd01c56a4e$0c55f380$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<f19e9ae003a5d55591208360b4244661@antipope.org>
	<4421eadc791f0ea39c3a691a8170b8ad@stross.org.uk>
	<001e01c56c1e$fa1201f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<7c89af82cb5da08b755404e1e5d6dd99@antipope.org>
Message-ID: <B92866BF-A5C4-4197-8FD0-195510360020@mac.com>


On Jun 8, 2005, at 10:42 AM, Charlie Stross wrote:
>
> It gets better. According to Monday's Herald, 39.5% of the  
> population are hard atheists (no religion, period), and of the  
> rest, only 60% believe in God -- the rest just have a numinous  
> vague sense of something out there. The proportion attending church  
> on a regular basis -- monthly or more often -- is down around 10%.
>
> That's partly why I find the whole abortion thing so weird. It's  
> like finding yourself on a party line with the Ayatollahs of Qom.
>

Sounds better all the time except for reports from some friends of  
mine that they nearly froze to death there.    I am tired of  
Taxifornia but I would miss the mild climate.


From charlie at antipope.org  Wed Jun  8 19:29:09 2005
From: charlie at antipope.org (Charlie Stross)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 20:29:09 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author exposes self in public!
Message-ID: <a2e1b59056862a6d1b88c9b99033de72@antipope.org>

Hopefully (for reasons that will be obvious once you visit the site) 
this isn't a 100% commercial and unwelcome announcement ...

I've just opened www.accelerando.org. This is the official website of 
the SF novel about the Singularity that's due out on July 1st. Various 
members of this list have contributed over the past five years while 
I've been writing it, and membership of the ancestral version of this 
list (from 1991 onwards) was instrumental in making me write it, so I 
figure it may  be of interest to some of you.

(For those who haven't heard of it: "Accelerando" is a fix-up of the 
series of stories that ran in Asimov's SF over the past few years. Four 
Hugo nominations, one Nebula nomination, two BSFA, two Sturgeon, and a 
Seiun award nomination later,  it's ready for prime time. And the 
entire text of the novel will be available for download under a 
[restrictive] CC license just as soon as I finish knocking it into 
shape.)


-- Charlie 



From simon at betterhumans.com  Wed Jun  8 19:29:31 2005
From: simon at betterhumans.com (Simon Smith)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 15:29:31 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Win a copy of Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to
	Live Forever
In-Reply-To: <B92866BF-A5C4-4197-8FD0-195510360020@mac.com>
Message-ID: <002f01c56c60$6848aa20$6401a8c0@SNOTEBOOK>

Hi All,

I just wanted to let everyone know that we have four copies of Fantastic
Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever to give away.

We're holding a life extension blog contest for the books. Details are
available here:
http://www.betterhumans.com/Forums/tabid/55/forumid/7/postid/248/view/to
pic/Default.aspx. 

Writing about life extension shouldn't be a big challenge for people on
this list, so why not give it a shot? 

Best,
Simon

Simon Smith   
Editor-in-chief, Betterhumans   
Science and technology journalist
www.betterhumans.com/members/simon/default.aspx 

e:// simon at betterhumans.com 
p:// 416.690.0679	 

BETTERHUMANS | CREATE THE FUTURET
Join our community of informed forward thinkers today!
www.betterhumans.com 
 




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Jun  8 19:31:32 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 12:31:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] fanatic anxietist
In-Reply-To: <8AFC35DA-0262-4F39-A2F6-22A1A33E693D@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050608193132.57601.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> Heck.  It is a DIY minor project to get something that works.

To some degree.  The same could be said of railguns and coilguns - for
which there appear to be at least kits for sale, according to a quick
google.  Another quick google fails to find even this level of
availablility for EMP guns, and certainly no pre-assembled and
warrantied EMP guns.

Police are not, for the most part, weaponsmiths, even if they know how
to maintain their service equipment.  If a thing can not be purchased
by their department, nor earned through routine duty (such as trust of
the areas a cop patrols), then very few if any police officers will
have it available for on-duty use.


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Jun  8 19:33:52 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 14:33:52 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting away from the Ayatollahs of Qom
In-Reply-To: <B92866BF-A5C4-4197-8FD0-195510360020@mac.com>
References: <586da73fcb70f35d2fdc89d8b73dac83@stross.org.uk>
	<04fd01c56a4e$0c55f380$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<f19e9ae003a5d55591208360b4244661@antipope.org>
	<4421eadc791f0ea39c3a691a8170b8ad@stross.org.uk>
	<001e01c56c1e$fa1201f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<7c89af82cb5da08b755404e1e5d6dd99@antipope.org>
	<B92866BF-A5C4-4197-8FD0-195510360020@mac.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050608142745.01e60c60@pop-server.satx.rr.com>


>>
>>That's partly why I find the whole abortion thing so weird. It's
>>like finding yourself on a party line with the Ayatollahs of Qom.
>
>Sounds better all the time except for reports from some friends of
>mine that they nearly froze to death there.    I am tired of
>Taxifornia but I would miss the mild climate.

Sydney. Melbourne. Adelaide. Perth. A conservative government but a fairly 
sceptical community attitude to godbotherers. Excellent standard of living 
and food. Good health care. Problems with El Ni?o, drought, bushfires, but 
California's getting that way too, and Australia isn't going to swallow 
your whole city one day. Of course, someone else in the region might decide 
they'd like the real estate.

Damien Broderick 



From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Wed Jun  8 20:20:59 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 16:20:59 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Win a copy of Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough
	toLive Forever
Message-ID: <130420-22005638202059507@M2W070.mail2web.com>

Great idea Simon!  
http://www.betterhumans.com/Forums/tabid/55/forumid/7/postid/248/view/to
pic/Default.aspx

Natasha



Original Message:
-----------------
From: Simon Smith simon at betterhumans.com
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:29:31 -0400
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: [extropy-chat] Win a copy of Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough
toLive Forever


Hi All,

I just wanted to let everyone know that we have four copies of Fantastic
Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever to give away.

We're holding a life extension blog contest for the books. Details are
available here:
. 

Writing about life extension shouldn't be a big challenge for people on
this list, so why not give it a shot? 

Best,
Simon

Simon Smith   
Editor-in-chief, Betterhumans   
Science and technology journalist
www.betterhumans.com/members/simon/default.aspx 

e:// simon at betterhumans.com 
p:// 416.690.0679	 

BETTERHUMANS | CREATE THE FUTURET
Join our community of informed forward thinkers today!
www.betterhumans.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 neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Wed Jun  8 20:33:32 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 13:33:32 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Slashdot submission: Study links genetic
	diseases to intelligence
In-Reply-To: <e88b73ce050606014345fbffa0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e88b73ce050606014345fbffa0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e88b73ce0506081333425c3bd4@mail.gmail.com>

Huzzah, successful submission (this marks my 30th in the past year):

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/08/0110241&tid=191

There was an interesting comment on Cochran's goal of eventually
creating a "smart pill" as an offshoot of this research.

On 6/6/05, Neil Halelamien <neuronexmachina at gmail.com> wrote:
> (I'm planning on submitting the following story to slashdot soon, but
> considering the extreme sensitivity of the topic and slashdotters'
> propensity for going completely nutzoid, I'd appreciate suggestions on
> possible rewordings/additions. Also, what are your thoughts on the
> topic itself and its implications for genetic enhancement of
> intelligence?)
> 
> The Economist, Sun-Sentinel, and FuturePundit report on a
> controversial study by Gregory Cochran and others which proposes a
> link between certain genetic conditions and above-average intelligence
> in Ashkenazi Jews. The 40-page study, published in the Journal of
> Biosocial Science, analyzes data on unusual patterns of genetic
> disease in the ethnic group and relates it to various measures of
> intelligence, such as winning 27% of America's Nobel science prizes
> and having a highly disproportionate rate of IQs over 140. Although
> the intelligence data has traditionally been attributed solely to
> cultural factors, Cochran proposes that due to unusual selection
> pressures between 800 and 1600AD certain genes developed which promote
> intelligence as single copies, but lead to particular diseases when
> somebody inherits two copies. Of particular note are mutations which
> seem to be involved with neuron growth and DNA repair. According to
> Harvard cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, "It would be hard to
> overstate how politically incorrect this paper is... [though] it's
> certainly a thorough and well-argued paper, not one that can easily be
> dismissed outright."
> 
> Links from submission:
> http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4032638
> http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/sfl-adiseases03jun03,0,3551969.story
> http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002812.html
> http://harpend.dsl.xmission.com.nyud.net:8090/Documents/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf
>


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  8 20:51:48 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 13:51:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] fanatic anxietist
In-Reply-To: <20050608172532.18660.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050608205148.6160.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Vey. How about just "asshole"? Actually, as the interstate highways
> > are
> > channels of commerce, and there are, and have been for a long time,
> > federal regs against the blockading of channels of commerce. It is
> > generally considered an act of war.
> 
> Is there a specific, written source for that?  For example, say two
> neighboring states (say, California and Nevada) allowed some
> substance
> (drugs, stem cells, certain advanced-tech machines, whatever) to be
> freely and openly possessed by their citizens in a way that the feds
> had surrendered jurisdiction over, but where the feds did make it a
> crime to transport it over state lines.  Possession and transport
> would
> not be a crime on either side of the line, so the states might object
> to feds' attempt to regulate it at their mutual border (even if they
> did not protest enforcement at other borders, if the other states
> were less permissive on this issue). 

Actually, the SCOTUS just ruled against the state interposition
argument wrt the medical marijuana laws passed in the last several
years, ruling that federal authority to regulate interstate commerce
trumps state laws. The term "channels of commerce" is, AFAIKR, in the
Constitution as the responsibility of the federal government. I comes
from the fact that in colonial and early America, there were no real
roads of any distance that one could ship any real quantity of goods
over. River channels were the 'channels of commerce' at the time and
the access that each major coastal city had to the interior via a river
system tended to determine its economic growth. Boston had the Charles
and Merrimack river systems, Portsmouth had the Piscataquah, New York
had the Hudson River (and eventually the Erie Canal), Philadelphia had
two rivers, etc...

After the Roosevelt Administration packed the SCOTUS, that court ruled
that interstate roads funded by the federal government were similar
channels of commerce, and ultimately, since you can drive from anywhere
to anywhere, anywhere you can drive is federal commercial jurisdiction.
Thus the Interstate Highway System was built in the Truman and
Eisenhower era under federal commerce authority.


> What part of the legal code would
> allow the states to treat enforcement (and the necessary blockade or
> delay of traffic) as an act of war by the federal government upon the
> two states?

Ah, now that would be an interesting conundrum. They shouldn't be able
to unless the states are in a state of rebellion (as opposed to lawful
secession, which is an entirely different debate we won't deal with
here). The government's commerce authority is only to regulate, not to
bar interstate commerce. When you bar commerce, there is no more
commerce, and therefore no more authority...

This should be the constitutional check upon fascism here in the US:
when congress overreaches the few powers it is delegated by the people,
it should be held in contempt of constitution by the courts. If an
administration ignores a SCOTUS order limiting its authority, the
administration should be impeached and tried for treason. The courts
today, however, are circumspect when both Congress and the
Administration overreach. "Treason doth never prosper, what is the
reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason!"

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! 
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  8 20:54:28 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 13:54:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [SPAM] Re: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in
	public!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <f757b1d9454c8b82fb17f7d65a88ea0c@antipope.org>
Message-ID: <20050608205428.53326.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Charlie, every climatologist I talk to takes great pains to state that
there is no scientific consensus on global warming. Everything you hear
in the media is politics, not science.

--- Charlie Stross <charlie at antipope.org> wrote:

> 
> On 8 Jun 2005, at 17:36, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> > Or in the way the UN, EU, and the Club of Rome is trying to shove
> > Global Warming and Peak Oil down everyone's throats with lies about
> the
> > number and types of scientists signing off on their side of
> reality.
> >
> > Mike Lorrey
> 
> FX: Blinks slowly. Looks at pile of copies of New Scientist to his 
> left. Looks at open email window to his right. Scratches head.
> 
> Okay, consider yourself scorefiled -100, along with the young earth 
> creationists and the flat earth society. Nothing personal; it's just 
> that life's too short to waste time arguing with cranks.
> 
> 
> -- Charlie
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 sjatkins at mac.com  Wed Jun  8 21:28:24 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 14:28:24 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] fanatic anxietist
In-Reply-To: <20050608205148.6160.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050608205148.6160.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <611FD4AF-42B1-4413-BE5C-D7F3475A5D55@mac.com>


On Jun 8, 2005, at 1:51 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
>
> --- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
> Actually, the SCOTUS just ruled against the state interposition
> argument wrt the medical marijuana laws passed in the last several
> years, ruling that federal authority to regulate interstate commerce
> trumps state laws. The term "channels of commerce" is, AFAIKR, in the
> Constitution as the responsibility of the federal government. I comes
> from the fact that in colonial and early America, there were no real
> roads of any distance that one could ship any real quantity of goods
> over. River channels were the 'channels of commerce' at the time and
> the access that each major coastal city had to the interior via a  
> river
> system tended to determine its economic growth. Boston had the Charles
> and Merrimack river systems, Portsmouth had the Piscataquah, New York
> had the Hudson River (and eventually the Erie Canal), Philadelphia had
> two rivers, etc...
>

So if the reefer is grown and consumed wholly within a state this  
interstate commerce argument is null and void?

- s



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Jun  8 21:52:59 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 14:52:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [META] Re: [extropy-chat] fanatic anxietist
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050608215259.71934.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>

Watch the quote attributions, please.  If you snip out all of someone's
text, please remove the "wrote:" line as well.

--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> On Jun 8, 2005, at 1:51 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > --- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:

[none of my text]

> > Actually, the SCOTUS just ruled against the state interposition

[and more of Mike's text]


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  8 23:08:25 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 16:08:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] [ASTRO/BS?] Mars as big as the moon?
Message-ID: <20050608230825.338.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>

Some well meaning friend forwarded this to me.

I am thinking this HAS to be nonsense, but I am not an
astronomer. Amara? Anyone?

-----Original Message-----
From: Cobb, LynJason
[mailto:LynJason.cobb at cbnorcal.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 12:38 PM
To: ****Menlo Park -El Camino
Subject: Mars Spectacular!!

Subject: MARS SPECTACULAR!

 Now this looks like it might be fun to catch a look
at?!


The Red Planet is about to be spectacular! This month
and next, Earth is
catching up with Mars in an encounter that will
culminate in the closest
approach between the two planets in recorded history.
The next time Mars
may come this close is in 2287. Due to the way
Jupiter's gravity tugs on
Mars and perturbs its orbit, astronomers can only be
certain that Mars has
not come this close to Earth in the Last 5,000 years,
but it may be as long
as 60,000 years before it happens again.

The encounter will culminate on August 27th when Mars
comes to within
34,649,589 miles of Earth and will be (next to the
moon) the brightest
object in the night sky. It will attain a magnitude of
-2.9 and will appear
25.11 arc seconds wide. At a modest 75-power
magnification

By August 27, Mars will look as large as the full moon
to the naked eye. 

Mars will be easy to spot. At the beginning of August
it will rise in the 

east at 10p.m. and reach its azimuth at about 3 a.m.

By the end of August when the two planets are closest,
Mars will rise at
nightfall and reach its highest point in the sky at
12:30a.m. That's pretty
convenient to see something that no human being has
seen in recorded
history. So, mark your calendar at the beginning of
August to see Mars grow
progressively brighter and brighter throughout the
month. Share this with
your children and grandchildren. NO ONE ALIVE TODAY
WILL EVER SEE THIS
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 hal at finney.org  Wed Jun  8 22:41:48 2005
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Wed,  8 Jun 2005 15:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] [ASTRO/BS?] Mars as big as the moon?
Message-ID: <20050608224148.4499857E8C@finney.org>

Of course Mars will never look as large as the full moon to the naked eye!
Not from the earth.  Someone must have added that as a joke.

The rest of the article is wrong as well, it refers to the encounter
in the summer of 2003, which was indeed (slightly) closer than previous
encounters for many thousands of years.  The next close pass will be in
October and November of this year.

Hal


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Jun  8 23:31:43 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 18:31:43 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] [ASTRO/BS] Mars as big as the moon?
In-Reply-To: <20050608230825.338.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050608230825.338.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050608182723.01ce57c8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 04:08 PM 6/8/2005 -0700, AG wrote:

>The encounter will culminate on August 27th when Mars
>comes to within
>34,649,589 miles of Earth and will be (next to the
>moon) the brightest
>object in the night sky. It will attain a magnitude of
>-2.9 and will appear
>25.11 arc seconds wide. At a modest 75-power
>magnification
>
>By August 27, Mars will look as large as the full moon
>to the naked eye.

Let's think about this for a fraction of a second. At perigee and 
opposition, Mars is said above to be 25.11 arc seconds wide. The Moon's 
apparent width averages 1800 arc seconds in diameter.




From jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Wed Jun  8 23:35:01 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 19:35:01 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] [ASTRO/BS?] Mars as big as the moon?
In-Reply-To: <20050608230825.338.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050608230825.338.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42A780A5.3080800@humanenhancement.com>

Oh, I don't need to be an astronomer to know this is BS...

Joseph

The Avantguardian wrote:

>Some well meaning friend forwarded this to me.
>
>I am thinking this HAS to be nonsense, but I am not an
>astronomer. Amara? Anyone?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Cobb, LynJason
>[mailto:LynJason.cobb at cbnorcal.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 12:38 PM
>To: ****Menlo Park -El Camino
>Subject: Mars Spectacular!!
>
>Subject: MARS SPECTACULAR!
>
> Now this looks like it might be fun to catch a look
>at?!
>
>
>The Red Planet is about to be spectacular! This month
>and next, Earth is
>catching up with Mars in an encounter that will
>culminate in the closest
>approach between the two planets in recorded history.
>The next time Mars
>may come this close is in 2287. Due to the way
>Jupiter's gravity tugs on
>Mars and perturbs its orbit, astronomers can only be
>certain that Mars has
>not come this close to Earth in the Last 5,000 years,
>but it may be as long
>as 60,000 years before it happens again.
>
>The encounter will culminate on August 27th when Mars
>comes to within
>34,649,589 miles of Earth and will be (next to the
>moon) the brightest
>object in the night sky. It will attain a magnitude of
>-2.9 and will appear
>25.11 arc seconds wide. At a modest 75-power
>magnification
>
>By August 27, Mars will look as large as the full moon
>to the naked eye. 
>
>Mars will be easy to spot. At the beginning of August
>it will rise in the 
>
>east at 10p.m. and reach its azimuth at about 3 a.m.
>
>By the end of August when the two planets are closest,
>Mars will rise at
>nightfall and reach its highest point in the sky at
>12:30a.m. That's pretty
>convenient to see something that no human being has
>seen in recorded
>history. So, mark your calendar at the beginning of
>August to see Mars grow
>progressively brighter and brighter throughout the
>month. Share this with
>your children and grandchildren. NO ONE ALIVE TODAY
>WILL EVER SEE THIS
>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 
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>
>  
>


From jef at jefallbright.net  Wed Jun  8 23:57:35 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 16:57:35 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] [ASTRO/BS] Mars as big as the moon?
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050608182723.01ce57c8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <20050608230825.338.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050608182723.01ce57c8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <42A785EF.7000900@jefallbright.net>

Damien Broderick wrote:

> At 04:08 PM 6/8/2005 -0700, AG wrote:
>
>> The encounter will culminate on August 27th when Mars
>> comes to within
>> 34,649,589 miles of Earth and will be (next to the
>> moon) the brightest
>> object in the night sky. It will attain a magnitude of
>> -2.9 and will appear
>> 25.11 arc seconds wide. At a modest 75-power
>> magnification
>>
>> By August 27, Mars will look as large as the full moon
>> to the naked eye.
>
>
> Let's think about this for a fraction of a second. At perigee and 
> opposition, Mars is said above to be 25.11 arc seconds wide. The 
> Moon's apparent width averages 1800 arc seconds in diameter.
>
I saw this about a week ago and understood it to mean that *with a 
modest 75-power magnification*, Mars would look as large as the full 
moon to the naked eye.

Makes sense?

- Jef


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  9 00:02:12 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 17:02:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] fanatic anxietist
In-Reply-To: <611FD4AF-42B1-4413-BE5C-D7F3475A5D55@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050609000212.38534.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> 
> On Jun 8, 2005, at 1:51 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > 
> So if the reefer is grown and consumed wholly within a state this  
> interstate commerce argument is null and void?

That would be a really good argument to make if and when SCOTUS rules
on US v Stewart, which is the 9th circuit ruling that let a guy keep
his homemade machine gun. If you can keep your homemade machine gun,
you ought to be able to keep your homegrown pot too.

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 mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  9 00:05:59 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 17:05:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] [ASTRO/BS] Mars as big as the moon?
In-Reply-To: <42A785EF.7000900@jefallbright.net>
Message-ID: <20050609000559.86713.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> Damien Broderick wrote:
> 
> > At 04:08 PM 6/8/2005 -0700, AG wrote:
> >
> >> The encounter will culminate on August 27th when Mars
> >> comes to within
> >> 34,649,589 miles of Earth and will be (next to the
> >> moon) the brightest
> >> object in the night sky. It will attain a magnitude of
> >> -2.9 and will appear
> >> 25.11 arc seconds wide. At a modest 75-power
> >> magnification
> >>
> >> By August 27, Mars will look as large as the full moon
> >> to the naked eye.
> >
> >
> > Let's think about this for a fraction of a second. At perigee and 
> > opposition, Mars is said above to be 25.11 arc seconds wide. The 
> > Moon's apparent width averages 1800 arc seconds in diameter.
> >
> I saw this about a week ago and understood it to mean that *with a 
> modest 75-power magnification*, Mars would look as large as the full 
> moon to the naked eye.
> 
> Makes sense?

Yeah, that sounds logical. Time to get out your specs to go looking for canals...

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


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Jun  9 00:11:51 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 19:11:51 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] [ASTRO/BS] Mars as big as the moon?
In-Reply-To: <42A785EF.7000900@jefallbright.net>
References: <20050608230825.338.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050608182723.01ce57c8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<42A785EF.7000900@jefallbright.net>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050608190922.01daac30@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 04:57 PM 6/8/2005 -0700, Jef wrote:

>understood it to mean that *with a modest 75-power magnification*, Mars 
>would look as large as the full moon to the naked eye.
>Makes sense?

Yep. Terrible original sentence and formatting, though. And as Hal pointed 
out, it applied to 2003.

Damien Broderick 



From natasha at natasha.cc  Thu Jun  9 01:56:50 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 20:56:50 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Current Problems With WTA and TV05
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050608203232.03062100@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

Friends - transhumanists and other futurists,

Many of us are members of WTA and care about its success.  While we have 
not always had smooth sailing with WTA due to  the lack of credit given to 
transhumanism's philosophical author Max More, the erroneous political 
positioning ExI, and the lack of acknowledgement and respect of ExI as 
being the spearheading transhumanist organization who introduced 
transhumanism to the world; putting all this aside, we need to be 
supportive for a positive resolve to the current problems within the 
structure of WTA.

WTA has made beneficial contributions to transhumanism over the past 
years.  James Hughes has worked hard along with Nick Bostrom and other 
Directors of WTA.  Our goals for the future need the support and joint 
efforts of organizations such as WTA.  It has always been my hope that WTA 
would be a complimentary and collaborative organization of ExI and that we 
could work together to  create the future.  I still hold onto this 
hope.  It is also my hope that we can develop a game plan where all 
transhumanist organizations have a place and that we get smart about 
working together more efficiently, effectively and successfully. As such, 
the stakes are high and so are the returns.

Today, WTA is undergoing difficulties between some of its Board members 
which affects the upcoming TV05 conference in Venezuela.  The dispute is 
between the conference Chair Jose Cordeiro and WTA's Executive Director 
James Hughes.

Rather than fuel the fire of this current problem, let us try to encourage 
peace between them and a fair and equitable resolution to the problems.

If you have any concerns or questions, please feel free to discussion them 
openly or privately, but please let us work toward resolution and do our 
very best to set an example of how society, in all its differences, can 
manage to be iron out the kinks.

Our little corner of the world is a nano-scale society full of people with 
similar values and dreams about a future that we can thrive in.  If we 
cannot resolve our conflicts here, how can we expect to set an example and 
teach the rest of the world about a future full of potential for humanity 
and transhumanity.

Let's give our support to TV05  and BE THERE to move transhumanism forward 
into the future.

My best to all,

Natasha

Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
[_______________________________________________
President, Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org
[_____________________________________________________
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz

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/20050608/06640019/attachment.html>

From ken at javien.com  Thu Jun  9 02:20:53 2005
From: ken at javien.com (Ken Kittlitz)
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 20:20:53 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs inpublic!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <7c89af82cb5da08b755404e1e5d6dd99@antipope.org>
References: <001e01c56c1e$fa1201f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<586da73fcb70f35d2fdc89d8b73dac83@stross.org.uk>
	<04fd01c56a4e$0c55f380$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<f19e9ae003a5d55591208360b4244661@antipope.org>
	<4421eadc791f0ea39c3a691a8170b8ad@stross.org.uk>
	<001e01c56c1e$fa1201f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20050608201711.04a7c4b0@127.0.0.1>

At 06:42 PM 6/8/2005 +0100, Charlie Stross wrote:

>On 8 Jun 2005, at 12:41, Brett Paatsch wrote:
>
>>We have run into each other on the net before. It was on this list. I
>>remembered you favourably as the person that had once ran a version
>>of a prediction market at the Foresight Institute. I think you said it was
>>closed down when a new director wasn't sure how to account for it.
>
>:-)
>
>You mis-remember me then, because I have *never* had anything to do with 
>the Foresight Institute *or* prediction markets.

Myself, Chris Hibbert and Robin Hanson ran a prediction market for the 
Foresight Institute from 1999 to 2002 or thereabouts.  We all post to this 
list from time to time (Chris and Robin more often than I), so Brett was 
probably thinking of one of us.

As far as I know, none of us is, or has ever been, Charlie Stross. ;-)

---
Ken Kittlitz          http://www.javien.com



From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Jun  9 02:48:16 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 19:48:16 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] [ASTRO/BS?] Mars as big as the moon?
In-Reply-To: <20050608230825.338.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200506090248.j592mAR01360@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: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 4:08 PM
> To: ExI-Chat
> Subject: [extropy-chat] [ASTRO/BS?] Mars as big as the moon?
> 
> Some well meaning friend forwarded this to me.
> 
> I am thinking this HAS to be nonsense, but I am not an
> astronomer. Amara? Anyone?


Technically correct but grossly overstated in its
tone, such as the breathless NO ONE ALIVE WILL
EVER SEE THIS AGAIN.  It won't look that different
at opposition this year than it will next cycle in a
couple of years.  Your viewing success depends a lot 
more on the atmospheric conditions than the slight
differences in the distance at opposition.

This kind of hype detracts from amateur astronomy,
for the pleasures and insights to be found by gazing 
skyward are quiet, introspective and subtle.  No flash 
or bang is to be found there, no competition for our 
gaudy, glaring neon advertisements and video games.  

The Nietzsche quote of which Amara is fond is really
the best summary of amateur astronomy, that of staring 
into the abyss.  That profound abyss will still be there 
next month, next year, long after we are all perished, 
unchanging, magnificent, stately, not malicious but 
quietly uncaring of our brief struggles on this 
terrestrial sphere.  

spike

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cobb, LynJason
> [mailto:LynJason.cobb at cbnorcal.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 12:38 PM
> To: ****Menlo Park -El Camino
> Subject: Mars Spectacular!!
> 
> Subject: MARS SPECTACULAR!
> 
>  Now this looks like it might be fun to catch a look
> at?!
> 
> 
> The Red Planet is about to be spectacular! This month
> and next, Earth is
> catching up with Mars in an encounter that will
> culminate in the closest
> approach between the two planets in recorded history.
> The next time Mars
> may come this close is in 2287. Due to the way
> Jupiter's gravity tugs on
> Mars and perturbs its orbit, astronomers can only be
> certain that Mars has
> not come this close to Earth in the Last 5,000 years,
> but it may be as long
> as 60,000 years before it happens again.
> 
> The encounter will culminate on August 27th when Mars
> comes to within
> 34,649,589 miles of Earth and will be (next to the
> moon) the brightest
> object in the night sky. It will attain a magnitude of
> -2.9 and will appear
> 25.11 arc seconds wide. At a modest 75-power
> magnification
> 
> By August 27, Mars will look as large as the full moon
> to the naked eye.
> 
> Mars will be easy to spot. At the beginning of August
> it will rise in the
> 
> east at 10p.m. and reach its azimuth at about 3 a.m.
> 
> By the end of August when the two planets are closest,
> Mars will rise at
> nightfall and reach its highest point in the sky at
> 12:30a.m. That's pretty
> convenient to see something that no human being has
> seen in recorded
> history. So, mark your calendar at the beginning of
> August to see Mars grow
> progressively brighter and brighter throughout the
> month. Share this with
> your children and grandchildren. NO ONE ALIVE TODAY
> WILL EVER SEE THIS
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Jun  9 02:59:21 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 19:59:21 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] [ASTRO/BS?] Mars as big as the moon?
In-Reply-To: <20050608224148.4499857E8C@finney.org>
Message-ID: <200506090259.j592xFR03261@tick.javien.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of "Hal Finney"
> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 3:42 PM
> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] [ASTRO/BS?] Mars as big as the moon?
> 
> Of course Mars will never look as large as the full moon to the naked eye!
> Not from the earth.  Someone must have added that as a joke...

Thru a 75 power scope it said.  Problem is you don't get as
much resolution from a telescope image of an apparent half a degree
as you do looking at the moon with your eyes.  Perhaps it has to do
with using both eyes vs one in a scope.  

spike


> At a modest 75-power magnification
> By August 27, Mars will look as large as the full moon to the naked 
> eye.



From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Jun  9 03:03:39 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 20:03:39 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] [ASTRO/BS] Mars as big as the moon?
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050608182723.01ce57c8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <200506090303.j5933XR03931@tick.javien.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick
> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 4:32 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] [ASTRO/BS] Mars as big as the moon?
> 
> At 04:08 PM 6/8/2005 -0700, AG wrote:
> 
> >The encounter will culminate on August 27th when Mars
> >comes to within
> >34,649,589 miles of Earth and will be (next to the
> >moon) the brightest
> >object in the night sky. It will attain a magnitude of
> >-2.9 and will appear
> >25.11 arc seconds wide. At a modest 75-power
> >magnification
> >
> >By August 27, Mars will look as large as the full moon
> >to the naked eye.
> 
> Let's think about this for a fraction of a second. At perigee and
> opposition, Mars is said above to be 25.11 arc seconds wide. The Moon's
> apparent width averages 1800 arc seconds in diameter.
> 

Ja, 25 * 75 = 1875,  Sounds about right to me.  If you go out
with a good telescope, be aware that upper atmospheric turbulence
spoils your fun on most nights.  spike



From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Jun  9 03:11:02 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 20:11:02 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] volcanoes on titan
In-Reply-To: <20050608224148.4499857E8C@finney.org>
Message-ID: <200506090311.j593B1R05042@tick.javien.com>

Amara's PhD thesis introduced a clever technique for using
frequency analysis to show that the source of some interplanetary
dust is volcanism on Jovian satellites.  Check this, the Cassini 
spacecraft has found what appears to be volcanism on the Saturnian
satellite Titan:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/06/08/saturn.titan.ap/index.html


(kewallllllll)  {8^]

spike



From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Thu Jun  9 03:16:48 2005
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 04:16:48 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] volcanoes on titan
In-Reply-To: <200506090311.j593B1R05042@tick.javien.com>
References: <20050608224148.4499857E8C@finney.org>
	<200506090311.j593B1R05042@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e05060820167889382@mail.gmail.com>

>From the article:

"Scientists have long speculated that the organic materials in Titan's
atmosphere were formed by seas or lakes of methane or ethane, but the
latest Cassini images did not show any evidence that Titan is awash in
pools of methane."

The Huygens images showed what looked like a river system, and I
remember people saying at the time that they also showed a sea or
large lake (presumably of something like methane or ethane), though to
me the pictures looked too bland to tell either way - is the consensus
now that there aren't any seas or lakes there?

- Russell


From hibbert at mydruthers.com  Thu Jun  9 05:00:28 2005
From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert)
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 22:00:28 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public! Film at
	eleven.
In-Reply-To: <05e601c56a95$1fa1b590$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
References: <e88b73ce05060523497f1224bc@mail.gmail.com><05bb01c56a8b$213de4f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>	<ee50357e05060605032cce1c71@mail.gmail.com>
	<05e601c56a95$1fa1b590$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <42A7CCEC.3000905@mydruthers.com>

On 6/6/05, Brett Paatsch wrote:
> Sure, one possibility is to make it legal elsewhere first, and
> then, point at the revenue the US is losing to freer, smarter,
> more capitalist countries.

Well, Brett, since you brought up my name (confusing me with Charlie 
Stross, whose work I like (I'm also President of the Libertarian 
Futurists Society, which gives annual awards for best Libertarian 
Science Fiction.  Stross' Iron Sunrise was nominated this year.))  I'll 
point out that I'm working on open source Prediction Market software at 
CommerceNet.  I gave a talk at the Workshop that Hal Finney mentioned.

To get back to your point, there are already legal Prediction Markets 
running offshore.  And to bring the circle around yet again, a couple of 
the biggest are running in Ireland.  Look up betfair.com (mostly sports 
betting), and tradesports.com.  TradeSports ran markets on the last 
presidential election that correctly predicted the state-by-state 
outcomes of the presidential race.  They currently have claims on the 
Michael Jackson trial, the host city for the 2012 Olympics, which 
supreme Court Justice will step down next, and quite a few more.  Not 
quite the claims I'd like to see (look at Ken Kittlitz' FX for better 
examples) but it's real money, and it's legal.

Chris
-- 
Currently reading: Thomas Barnett, The Pentagon's New Map; Neal
    Stephenson, The System of the World; James Wittenbach, Worlds
    Apart: Meridian; Alexandar Dumas, The Count of Monte Cristo

Chris Hibbert
hibbert at mydruthers.com
http://mydruthers.com


From hal at finney.org  Thu Jun  9 04:27:11 2005
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Wed,  8 Jun 2005 21:27:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] volcanoes on titan
Message-ID: <20050609042711.A4D5D57E8C@finney.org>

Russell Wallace writes:
> The Huygens images showed what looked like a river system, and I
> remember people saying at the time that they also showed a sea or
> large lake (presumably of something like methane or ethane), though to
> me the pictures looked too bland to tell either way - is the consensus
> now that there aren't any seas or lakes there?

It seemed pretty convincing to me, looking closely at the pictures taken
during the descent, that the probe landed in the dark areas which were
being suggested as possible oceans.  Since it obviously did not end up
in a sea, this suggests that the dark areas were dry at least at the
moment it landed.

I also thought, although I never saw anyone else mention it, that the
pictures from the ground showed light colored highlands in the distance,
further suggesting that the probe was sitting in the dark area.

As you note though the sinuous channels do somewhat resemble river systems
(although to me they didn't look quite right).  Many of the commentators
suggested that this might mean that there are intermittent rains and
that pools may exist only part of the time.  I'm not sure I buy it,
the whole picture doesn't really work for me.

There were also some claims that the impact sensor recordings were
consistent with a dry crust above wet sand, but then I saw some contrary
claims as well.  Sometimes when people have a preconception about
what they expect or hope to see, they try to interpret the data to fit
that model.  They really wanted there to be oceans, and so they try
to find some way to make the data suggest at least moisture.

All that commentary was quite preliminary though, it will probably be
several months before more detailed and considered analysis comes out.

Hal


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  9 05:47:44 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 22:47:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] volcanoes on titan
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e05060820167889382@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050609054744.26272.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> >From the article:
> 
> "Scientists have long speculated that the organic materials in
> Titan's
> atmosphere were formed by seas or lakes of methane or ethane, but the
> latest Cassini images did not show any evidence that Titan is awash
> in pools of methane."
> 
> The Huygens images showed what looked like a river system, and I
> remember people saying at the time that they also showed a sea or
> large lake (presumably of something like methane or ethane), though
> to me the pictures looked too bland to tell either way - is the
> consensus now that there aren't any seas or lakes there?

The photos showed up remarkably Tatooine-like, much like Mars, Venus,
i.e. all other arid desert planets we've landed on (including the
orange tint) and while there appeared to be a 'river' system, I seem to
recall that Valles Marineris is remarkably river-like as well, and dry
as heck.... and the "sea" also appeared similar to "seas" and "canals"
once envisioned on Mars, so far as we can tell. At this point it does
appear both less swampy than had been predicted but also geologically
and atmospherically more promising for long term manned exploration.
The extensive greenhouse effect in evidence makes for a promising
environment for human habitation (albiet in environment suits).

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! 
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html


From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Thu Jun  9 07:11:17 2005
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 02:11:17 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying
References: <003801c56a46$17262d00$0100a8c0@kevin> <42A4E8D3.6030500@cox.net>
	<42A5297D.8020808@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <004301c56cc2$6e1e6c70$9480a8c0@LAPTOP2>

Yes. Riding in  a car is just as bad - except that when I sold cars for a 
while I was forced to get over it. I arrived at my destination yesterday and 
I am in Oregon now (anyone here close to Lake Oswego?). Something I need to 
consider later - My cab driver was nuts and drove like speed racer. Scared 
the living shit out of me. But the fear was "different". Maybe because 20 
minutes is far less than 4 hours, but I haven't had a chance to really think 
on it yet. Maybe because I am more used to cars. Not sure yet. I still wish 
I could nail down that difference between human fear f heights and Orang's 
love of heights. Before I do anything else, I think I am going to climb a 
tree when I get home and see if I experience the same fears. If I don't, 
that will show how much "fear of heights" plays into the problem.
***For those interested - I flew to Atlanta in a Window seat and actually 
more safe than my 2nd flight in a center aisle seat of a 767. Is there a 
greater amount of perceived control when I can see out the window vs not 
being able to? Who knows? I have nbo explanation, but it was an interesting 
observation. I am documenting this all on paper though and plan to publish 
it to the net when I get back - even if mosty think it is worthless 
information.


>> Just a question: how well do you handle being a front-seat passenger in a 
>> car? this is effectively equivalent to being
>> a passenger in an airliner. except that it is statistically much more 
>> dangerous.
>>
>> If you can deal with being a car passenger, how do you do it? can you use 
>> the same coping mechanisms for air travel?
>>
>> You are a control freak. Don't apologize for this: you were born that 
>> way., and there is nothing wrong with it.
>> Non-control-freaks cannot really empathize with your situation, so we 
>> cannot really help.
>
>
> [Les Strouse, a former Air America pilot, now living in Thailand is 
> fearful of stepladders.
> He flew Pilatus Porters landing and taking off from hilltop and ridgeline 
> airstrips in Laos
> and singlehandedly flew a new PP from Switzerland to Saigon.  Go 
> igure!  -Terry]
>
> Hi Terry,
> A solid list of experiments has determined that human babies
> (less than 1 year old - crawling stage) will not crawl - on a
> solid glass floor - out over a drop underneath that glass floor.
>
> They will however, if tempted or otherwise cajoled - agree to
> back out over the drop. But as soon as that `drop' becomes
> visible they immediately retreat to the non-drop portion of their
> environment.
>
> It seems we have a memory which says `height is dangerous' -
> especially if you're _not_ in control.
>
> cheers
>
> Ray D
>
> Thanks, Ray.  I remember seeing newsclips of this experiment.  If not 
> wholly
> learned then this is a genetic memory.  I wonder if this experiment has 
> included primate babies, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans?
>
> 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.]
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 



From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Thu Jun  9 07:18:51 2005
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 02:18:51 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying
References: <1118168272.42a5e4d058baf@www.config-server.de>
Message-ID: <005c01c56cc3$7cec2340$9480a8c0@LAPTOP2>

"D-Cycloserine which is a substance interfering with your fear-memory"
Where do you get it?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <sm at vreedom.com>
To: <extropy-chat at extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying


> Hi brother in fear of flight . . .
>
>>I'm getting ready to leave on my second commercial flight in my life and I 
>>am
>>dealing with
>>that annoying fear of flying. For the past two days I have not been able 
>>to
>>concentrate on much else. It's always in the back of my head.
>>Yet I know very well the statistics regarding airline safety. I am quite 
>>aware
>> that I am probably more likely to have a plane land on my head than die 
>> in a
>>crash since I have flown so rarely.
>
> I know that . . . It is especially difficult because I live in one country 
> and
> work in another which is 2000 km away! Therefore I MUST fly!
>
>>While I was in the shower I realized that the fear of course comes from a
> PERCEIVED loss of >control. I realized that we as humans constantly fool
> ourselves into believing that we are >in some sort of control when in fact 
> we
> are not.
>>This is evident in the way that we handle our everyday lives.
>
>>It led me to think about religion and how devoutly religious people give 
>>up
> control of >their lives to God. I began to realize that this deep seated 
> need
> to feel in control of our >lives must go back really far. In fact, it 
> could
> very well be the driving force behind >religion, not fear of death, but 
> fear of
> loss of control.
>
> I think you have a point. In everyday consulting work I see that a lot of 
> things
> related to strategy, decisions and leadership basically have fear as a 
> basic,
> not the management-lingo communicated. Also in conflicts of countries. It 
> all
> goes down to individual fear. We start to do seminars about fear for
> business-folks now.
>
> Some ideas about your control-topic. Most phobia/fear-specialists in the
> neuro-field say that it?s not so much a question of personality
> ("control-freak") but of an amygdala in your brain which learned something
> wrong. The neural way via the amygdala is very fast, faster than logical
> thought to intervene. Therefore it is not so much the question to get 
> control
> over the plane, but over your own emotional reaction.
> A relatively new approach (I haven?t used it yet, but I want to) is
> D-Cycloserine which is a substance interfering with your fear-memory. It
> doesn`t suppress fear, but it brings your amygdala to the point to forget 
> that
> it once reacted with fear to planes . . . Transhumanism  will have to 
> further
> the toolbox for modern management of our own mind!
>
> Have a good flight!
>
> Stephan
>
> Stephan Magnus
> High Performance Solutions GmbH
>
> B?ro Portugal: Sitio Pincho, 8600-090 Bensafrim
> Tel. 00351-282 969 161
> Mobil: 0172/5783953
> sm at vreedom.com
> http://www.vreedom.com
>
> Zentrale Deutschland: ?hlm?hle, 34454 Bad Arolsen
> Tel. 05691-628800
> stephanmagnus at hpsolutions.de
> http://www.hpsolutions.de
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 



From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Thu Jun  9 07:22:39 2005
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 02:22:39 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying
References: <DHEDKDAFOIKEGEPMAFCEEELFDBAA.henrik.ohrstrom@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <006901c56cc4$049dfde0$9480a8c0@LAPTOP2>

I don't think the issue is height. As I said, I am a student pilot and have 
no trouble there. Also, many pilots seem to have trouble flying commercial. 
I know a large group of pilots and am considering an actual study regarding 
this topic. Any opinions about the value of such a stidy?
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Henrik ?hrstr?m" <henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 6:05 PM
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying


> >
>> Hi Terry,
>> A solid list of experiments has determined that human babies
>> (less than 1 year old - crawling stage) will not crawl - on a
>> solid glass floor - out over a drop underneath that glass floor.
>>
>> They will however, if tempted or otherwise cajoled - agree to
>> back out over the drop. But as soon as that `drop' becomes
>> visible they immediately retreat to the non-drop portion of their
>> environment.
>>
>> It seems we have a memory which says `height is dangerous' -
>> especially if you're _not_ in control.
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> Ray D
>>
>> Thanks, Ray.  I remember seeing newsclips of this experiment.  If
>> not wholly
>> learned then this is a genetic memory.  I wonder if this experiment has
>> included primate babies, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans?
>>
>> Terry
>>
>>
> Well, these experiments are not true for all babies, both my daughters 
> have
> repeatedly tried (and sometimes succeeded in) crawling of edges of all
> kinds. No permanent harm but I make sure that ALL possible jump-off points
> are very well secured since these kamikaze babies has most certainly not
> read those studies.
> I have though and was rather surprised when they started flinging 
> themselves
> of edges...
> Other children I know are more careful and one have never-ever required 
> any
> sort of gate or protection since he is very careful and have as far as I
> know never fallen off anything.
> Darwin days I suppose, I hope that my daredevil cuties gain something more
> than just bumps and sprains from being so physically forward as they are.
>
> /henrik
>
> -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
> Version: 3.1
> GMD d- s+: a C++ UL P L+ E- W+@ N+ o K+ w O- M V- PS++ PE+ Y++ PGP++ !t !5
> X- R+ tv- b+++ DI++ D+ G e+++ h---- r+++ y+
> ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 



From scerir at libero.it  Thu Jun  9 11:43:23 2005
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 13:43:23 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem cell breakthrough claims
References: <20050521055013.M72390@ifsi.rm.cnr.it>
Message-ID: <001601c56ce8$71a66570$0eb91b97@administxl09yj>

[Amara Graps]
> (*) The futility of trying to live in this country has become 
> too discouraging and I might give up anyway. My fiftieth-something 
> visit to the Polizia  to try to get my permit-of-stay, yielded, as
> usual, nothing. 

http://www.interno.it/news/articolo.php?idarticolo=20934
On May 30 (2005) the 'Ministero dell'Interno' issued
a new "circolare" and new application forms. 



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  9 13:43:30 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 06:43:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] PHREAK OIL: Saudi says they have more than we need...
In-Reply-To: <001601c56ce8$71a66570$0eb91b97@administxl09yj>
Message-ID: <20050609134330.47925.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050609/D8AJUUQ82.html
Top Saudi Says Kingdom Has Plenty of Oil
 
Jun 9, 3:27 AM (ET)

By ANNE GEARAN


WASHINGTON (AP) - Saudi Arabia has plenty of oil - more than the world
is likely to need - along with an increasing ability to refine crude
oil into gasoline and other products before selling it overseas, a top
Saudi official says.

"The world is more likely to run out of uses for oil than Saudi Arabia
is going to run out of oil," Adel al-Jubeir, top foreign policy adviser
for Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler Crown Prince Abdullah, said
Wednesday.

In a wide-ranging interview with The Associated Press, Al-Jubeir said
relations between his nation and the Bush administration were strong
but "the environment in which the relationship operates ... still
leaves a lot to be desired."

He denied his country has any nuclear weapons ambitions, despite
international concerns about a Saudi request to lower international
scrutiny of its lone nuclear reactor.

He said he was "bullish" about the Saudi economy, which although based
on the country's vast oil reserves has also diversified to include a
galloping stock market.

Al-Jubeir dismissed speculation, including in a recent book, that the
country was hiding the true picture of its oil reserves and that it may
have far less than publicly assumed. He said Saudi Arabia has proven
reserves of 261 billion barrels, and with the arrival of newer
technology could extract an additional 100 billion to 200 billion
barrels.

"We will be producing oil for a very long time," al-Jubeir said.

Saudi Arabia now pumps 9.5 million barrels of oil daily, with the
capacity to produce 11 million barrels a day. The country has pledged
to increase daily production to 12.5 million barrels by 2009, and the
nation's oil minister said last month the level of 12.5 million to 15
million barrels daily could be sustained for up to 50 years.

High oil prices benefit the Saudi economy in the short run, but
al-Jubeir said his nation wants a stable price that won't hurt
consumers so much that they reduce their energy demands.

The problem for both the Saudis and the United States is what happens
after the oil is pumped.

"If we send more oil to the United States and you can't refine it, it's
not going to become gasoline," al-Jubeir said. The United States has
not built a refinery since the 1970s, and other markets have similarly
outmoded or limited refining capacity. Environmental concerns and local
opposition make it unlikely new U.S. refineries can be built quickly,
even with the current gas price crunch.

Saudi Arabia has partly stepped into the breach, with new refineries
being built inside the kingdom as well as in China and soon in India,
al-Jubeir said.

The country has also invested in gasoline stations, part of a strategy
of "going downstream" from oil production to distribution, al-Jubeir
said.

"We continue to do it, and we have one of the largest refining and
distribution systems in the world," he said.

Ordinary Saudis remain deeply distrustful of the United States in the
aftermath of the Iraq invasion and revelations about mistreatment of
Muslim prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and a range of
complaints about conditions at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, al-Jubeir said.

"Why do they hate you? They don't hate you, they just don't like your
policies."

Al-Jubeir said the Saudi regime takes no umbrage at U.S. efforts to
spread democracy in the Middle East. President Bush and Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice have made democratic expansion a centerpiece of
Bush's second term foreign policy.

"We believe that the idea of spreading freedom and democracy is a noble
one," but change must come on terms each country can accept, al-Jubeir
said.

---

On the Net:

Video from the AP interview is available at:

http://wid.ap.org/video/saudi.rm 



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 brentn at freeshell.org  Thu Jun  9 15:45:27 2005
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Thu,  9 Jun 2005 11:45:27 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] PHREAK OIL: Saudi says they have more than we
	need...
In-Reply-To: <20050609134330.47925.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <r02010500-1038-810C5D2ED8FD11D9A755000393A47D36@[68.243.86.69]>

In other news, Microsoft promises Longhorn "Real Soon Now."


A press release does not consitute evidence sufficient to argue a Peak Oil case either way.  

B
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  9 16:07:59 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 09:07:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] CHINA: Threat proponents not chicken littles...
In-Reply-To: <r02010500-1038-810C5D2ED8FD11D9A755000393A47D36@[68.243.86.69]>
Message-ID: <20050609160759.99614.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050609-120336-4092r.htm

Analysts missed Chinese buildup


By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


A highly classified intelligence report produced for the new director
of national intelligence concludes that U.S. spy agencies failed to
recognize several key military developments in China in the past
decade, The Washington Times has learned. 
    The report was created by several current and former intelligence
officials and concludes that U.S. agencies missed more than a dozen
Chinese military developments, according to officials familiar with the
report. 
    The report blames excessive secrecy on China's part for the
failures, but critics say intelligence specialists are to blame for
playing down or dismissing evidence of growing Chinese military
capabilities.  
    The report comes as the Bush administration appears to have become
more critical of China's military buildup. 
    Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in Singapore over the
weekend that China has hidden its defense spending and is expanding its
missile forces despite facing no threats. Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice also expressed worries this week about China's
expanding military capabilities. 
    Among the failures highlighted in the study are: 
    ?China's development of a new long-range cruise missile. 
    ?The deployment of a new warship equipped with a stolen Chinese
version of the U.S. Aegis battle management technology. 
    ?Deployment of a new attack submarine known as the Yuan class that
was missed by U.S. intelligence until photos of the submarine appeared
on the Internet. 
    ?Development of precision-guided munitions, including new
air-to-ground missiles and new, more accurate warheads. 
    ?China's development of surface-to-surface missiles for targeting
U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups. 
    ?The importation of advanced weaponry, including Russian
submarines, warships and fighter-bombers. 
    According to officials familiar with the intelligence report, the
word "surprise" is used more than a dozen times to describe U.S.
failures to anticipate or discover Chinese arms development. 
    Many of the missed military developments will be contained in the
Pentagon's annual report to Congress on the Chinese military, which was
due out March 1 but delayed by interagency disputes over its contents. 
    Critics of the study say the report unfairly blames intelligence
collectors for not gathering solid information on the Chinese military
and for failing to plant agents in the communist government. 
    Instead, these officials said, the report looks like a bid to
exonerate analysts within the close-knit fraternity of government China
specialists, who for the past 10 years dismissed or played down
intelligence showing that Beijing was engaged in a major military
buildup. 
    "This report conceals the efforts of dissenting analysts [in the
intelligence community] who argued that China was a threat," one
official said, adding that covering up the failure of intelligence
analysts on China would prevent a major reorganization of the system. 
    A former U.S. official said the report should help expose a
"self-selected group" of specialists who fooled the U.S. government on
China for 10 years. 
    "This group's desire to have good relations with China has
prevented them from highlighting how little they know and suppressing
occasional evidence that China views the United States as its main
enemy." 
    The report has been sent to Thomas Fingar, a longtime intelligence
analyst on China who was recently appointed by John D. Negroponte, the
new director of national intelligence, as his office's top intelligence
analyst. 
    Mr. Negroponte has ordered a series of top-to-bottom reviews of
U.S. intelligence capabilities in the aftermath of the critical report
by the presidential commission headed by Judge Laurence Silberman and
former Sen. Charles Robb, Virginia Democrat. 
    According to the officials, the study was produced by a team of
analysts for the intelligence contractor Centra Technologies. 
    Spokesmen for the CIA and Mr. Negroponte declined to comment. 
    Its main author is Robert Suettinger, a National Security Council
staff member for China during the Clinton administration and the U.S.
intelligence community's top China analyst until 1998. Mr. Suettinger
is traveling outside the country and could not be reached for comment,
a spokesman said. 
    John Culver, a longtime CIA analyst on Asia, was the co-author. 
    Among those who took part in the study were former Defense
Intelligence Agency analyst Lonnie Henley, who critics say was among
those who in the past had dismissed concerns about China's military in
the past 10 years. 
    Also participating in the study was John F. Corbett, a former Army
intelligence analyst and attache who was a China policy-maker at the
Pentagon during the Clinton administration.


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! 
Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html 



From sjatkins at mac.com  Thu Jun  9 18:12:11 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 11:12:11 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] CHINA: Threat proponents not chicken littles...
In-Reply-To: <20050609160759.99614.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050609160759.99614.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <9D60ADD1-8979-4764-AE39-31E592CD1B3C@mac.com>

IIRC we helped them build more than a little of that military  
capacity so I seriously doubt these claims of surprise.  IMHO, the  
only "surprise" is that they may be a bit harder to keep under our  
thumb than anticipated.

- s

On Jun 9, 2005, at 9:07 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050609-120336-4092r.htm
>
> Analysts missed Chinese buildup
>
>
> By Bill Gertz
> THE WASHINGTON TIMES
>
>
> A highly classified intelligence report produced for the new director
> of national intelligence concludes that U.S. spy agencies failed to
> recognize several key military developments in China in the past
> decade, The Washington Times has learned.
>     The report was created by several current and former intelligence
> officials and concludes that U.S. agencies missed more than a dozen
> Chinese military developments, according to officials familiar with  
> the
> report.
>     The report blames excessive secrecy on China's part for the
> failures, but critics say intelligence specialists are to blame for
> playing down or dismissing evidence of growing Chinese military
> capabilities.
>     The report comes as the Bush administration appears to have become
> more critical of China's military buildup.
>     Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in Singapore over the
> weekend that China has hidden its defense spending and is expanding  
> its
> missile forces despite facing no threats. Secretary of State
> Condoleezza Rice also expressed worries this week about China's
> expanding military capabilities.
>     Among the failures highlighted in the study are:
>     ?China's development of a new long-range cruise missile.
>     ?The deployment of a new warship equipped with a stolen Chinese
> version of the U.S. Aegis battle management technology.
>     ?Deployment of a new attack submarine known as the Yuan class that
> was missed by U.S. intelligence until photos of the submarine appeared
> on the Internet.
>     ?Development of precision-guided munitions, including new
> air-to-ground missiles and new, more accurate warheads.
>     ?China's development of surface-to-surface missiles for targeting
> U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups.
>     ?The importation of advanced weaponry, including Russian
> submarines, warships and fighter-bombers.
>     According to officials familiar with the intelligence report, the
> word "surprise" is used more than a dozen times to describe U.S.
> failures to anticipate or discover Chinese arms development.
>     Many of the missed military developments will be contained in the
> Pentagon's annual report to Congress on the Chinese military, which  
> was
> due out March 1 but delayed by interagency disputes over its contents.
>     Critics of the study say the report unfairly blames intelligence
> collectors for not gathering solid information on the Chinese military
> and for failing to plant agents in the communist government.
>     Instead, these officials said, the report looks like a bid to
> exonerate analysts within the close-knit fraternity of government  
> China
> specialists, who for the past 10 years dismissed or played down
> intelligence showing that Beijing was engaged in a major military
> buildup.
>     "This report conceals the efforts of dissenting analysts [in the
> intelligence community] who argued that China was a threat," one
> official said, adding that covering up the failure of intelligence
> analysts on China would prevent a major reorganization of the system.
>     A former U.S. official said the report should help expose a
> "self-selected group" of specialists who fooled the U.S. government on
> China for 10 years.
>     "This group's desire to have good relations with China has
> prevented them from highlighting how little they know and suppressing
> occasional evidence that China views the United States as its main
> enemy."
>     The report has been sent to Thomas Fingar, a longtime intelligence
> analyst on China who was recently appointed by John D. Negroponte, the
> new director of national intelligence, as his office's top  
> intelligence
> analyst.
>     Mr. Negroponte has ordered a series of top-to-bottom reviews of
> U.S. intelligence capabilities in the aftermath of the critical report
> by the presidential commission headed by Judge Laurence Silberman and
> former Sen. Charles Robb, Virginia Democrat.
>     According to the officials, the study was produced by a team of
> analysts for the intelligence contractor Centra Technologies.
>     Spokesmen for the CIA and Mr. Negroponte declined to comment.
>     Its main author is Robert Suettinger, a National Security Council
> staff member for China during the Clinton administration and the U.S.
> intelligence community's top China analyst until 1998. Mr. Suettinger
> is traveling outside the country and could not be reached for comment,
> a spokesman said.
>     John Culver, a longtime CIA analyst on Asia, was the co-author.
>     Among those who took part in the study were former Defense
> Intelligence Agency analyst Lonnie Henley, who critics say was among
> those who in the past had dismissed concerns about China's military in
> the past 10 years.
>     Also participating in the study was John F. Corbett, a former Army
> intelligence analyst and attache who was a China policy-maker at the
> Pentagon during the Clinton administration.
>
>
> 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!
> Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend.  
> Check it out!
> http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  9 18:34:42 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 11:34:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] volcanoes on titan
In-Reply-To: <20050609042711.A4D5D57E8C@finney.org>
Message-ID: <20050609183442.42628.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com>



If there is that much methane and ethane on Titan, I
wonder what higher order alkanes there are. Perhaps
there's octane (i.e. gasoline) on Titan. This might be
a feather in the cap for the abiotic oil people.
Unless someone posits that were somehow life on that
frozen waterless world at one time. Too bad we could
not somehow average together Jupter's Europa with
Titan, because that would be the best real-estate for
Sol's organic life once Sol swells into a red giant.

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

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

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


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu Jun  9 18:42:17 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 11:42:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] CHINA: Threat proponents not chicken littles...
In-Reply-To: <9D60ADD1-8979-4764-AE39-31E592CD1B3C@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050609184217.57748.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com>

One branch of gov't helped them, and forgot to tell the other branch.
Said other branch was then surprised.

Problem is, the government is not one big monolithic entity.  It is
comprised of many, many different - some mutually hostile - entities.

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

> IIRC we helped them build more than a little of that military  
> capacity so I seriously doubt these claims of surprise.  IMHO, the  
> only "surprise" is that they may be a bit harder to keep under our  
> thumb than anticipated.
> 
> - s
> 
> On Jun 9, 2005, at 9:07 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> > http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050609-120336-4092r.htm
> >
> > Analysts missed Chinese buildup
> >
> >
> > By Bill Gertz
> > THE WASHINGTON TIMES
> >
> >
> > A highly classified intelligence report produced for the new
> director
> > of national intelligence concludes that U.S. spy agencies failed to
> > recognize several key military developments in China in the past
> > decade, The Washington Times has learned.
> >     The report was created by several current and former
> intelligence
> > officials and concludes that U.S. agencies missed more than a dozen
> > Chinese military developments, according to officials familiar with
>  
> > the
> > report.
> >     The report blames excessive secrecy on China's part for the
> > failures, but critics say intelligence specialists are to blame for
> > playing down or dismissing evidence of growing Chinese military
> > capabilities.
> >     The report comes as the Bush administration appears to have
> become
> > more critical of China's military buildup.
> >     Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in Singapore over the
> > weekend that China has hidden its defense spending and is expanding
>  
> > its
> > missile forces despite facing no threats. Secretary of State
> > Condoleezza Rice also expressed worries this week about China's
> > expanding military capabilities.
> >     Among the failures highlighted in the study are:
> >     ?China's development of a new long-range cruise missile.
> >     ?The deployment of a new warship equipped with a stolen Chinese
> > version of the U.S. Aegis battle management technology.
> >     ?Deployment of a new attack submarine known as the Yuan class
> that
> > was missed by U.S. intelligence until photos of the submarine
> appeared
> > on the Internet.
> >     ?Development of precision-guided munitions, including new
> > air-to-ground missiles and new, more accurate warheads.
> >     ?China's development of surface-to-surface missiles for
> targeting
> > U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups.
> >     ?The importation of advanced weaponry, including Russian
> > submarines, warships and fighter-bombers.
> >     According to officials familiar with the intelligence report,
> the
> > word "surprise" is used more than a dozen times to describe U.S.
> > failures to anticipate or discover Chinese arms development.
> >     Many of the missed military developments will be contained in
> the
> > Pentagon's annual report to Congress on the Chinese military, which
>  
> > was
> > due out March 1 but delayed by interagency disputes over its
> contents.
> >     Critics of the study say the report unfairly blames
> intelligence
> > collectors for not gathering solid information on the Chinese
> military
> > and for failing to plant agents in the communist government.
> >     Instead, these officials said, the report looks like a bid to
> > exonerate analysts within the close-knit fraternity of government  
> > China
> > specialists, who for the past 10 years dismissed or played down
> > intelligence showing that Beijing was engaged in a major military
> > buildup.
> >     "This report conceals the efforts of dissenting analysts [in
> the
> > intelligence community] who argued that China was a threat," one
> > official said, adding that covering up the failure of intelligence
> > analysts on China would prevent a major reorganization of the
> system.
> >     A former U.S. official said the report should help expose a
> > "self-selected group" of specialists who fooled the U.S. government
> on
> > China for 10 years.
> >     "This group's desire to have good relations with China has
> > prevented them from highlighting how little they know and
> suppressing
> > occasional evidence that China views the United States as its main
> > enemy."
> >     The report has been sent to Thomas Fingar, a longtime
> intelligence
> > analyst on China who was recently appointed by John D. Negroponte,
> the
> > new director of national intelligence, as his office's top  
> > intelligence
> > analyst.
> >     Mr. Negroponte has ordered a series of top-to-bottom reviews of
> > U.S. intelligence capabilities in the aftermath of the critical
> report
> > by the presidential commission headed by Judge Laurence Silberman
> and
> > former Sen. Charles Robb, Virginia Democrat.
> >     According to the officials, the study was produced by a team of
> > analysts for the intelligence contractor Centra Technologies.
> >     Spokesmen for the CIA and Mr. Negroponte declined to comment.
> >     Its main author is Robert Suettinger, a National Security
> Council
> > staff member for China during the Clinton administration and the
> U.S.
> > intelligence community's top China analyst until 1998. Mr.
> Suettinger
> > is traveling outside the country and could not be reached for
> comment,
> > a spokesman said.
> >     John Culver, a longtime CIA analyst on Asia, was the co-author.
> >     Among those who took part in the study were former Defense
> > Intelligence Agency analyst Lonnie Henley, who critics say was
> among
> > those who in the past had dismissed concerns about China's military
> in
> > the past 10 years.
> >     Also participating in the study was John F. Corbett, a former
> Army
> > intelligence analyst and attache who was a China policy-maker at
> the
> > Pentagon during the Clinton administration.
> >
> >
> > 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!
> > Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend.  
> > Check it out!
> > http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  9 18:43:32 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 11:43:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] PHREAK OIL: Saudi says they have more than we
	need...
In-Reply-To: <20050609134330.47925.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050609184332.52391.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>



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

>
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050609/D8AJUUQ82.html
> Top Saudi Says Kingdom Has Plenty of Oil
>  
> Jun 9, 3:27 AM (ET)
> 
> By ANNE GEARAN
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) - Saudi Arabia has plenty of oil -
> more than the world
> is likely to need - along with an increasing ability
> to refine crude
> oil into gasoline and other products before selling
> it overseas, a top
> Saudi official says.

If this is true, then Iraq was a COMPLETE waste of
money and lives. Especially since Iraq's democratic
training wheels are being lubricated with American
blood. Unless of course you are Dick Cheney, in which
case you won the lotto. I think I would refuse that
man life-extension technologies, if I had them to
give. The world is better off without him.




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 hal at finney.org  Thu Jun  9 18:14:23 2005
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Thu,  9 Jun 2005 11:14:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] PHREAK OIL: Saudi says they have more than we
	need...
Message-ID: <20050609181423.1B49757E8C@finney.org>

The book that claims the Saudis are close to peaking in their oil
production is Twilight in the Desert by Matt Simmons.  I haven't read
it but I'm not sure how credible it can be; the Saudis are notoriously
secretive about the details of their oil operations.

The big thing I don't understand is why, if Saudi Arabia is in fact close
to reaching a peak in its oil production, it would want to lie about it
and claim that it can continue to increase.  Credible news of a Saudi
peak would drive up oil prices as the prospect of near-future shortages
becomes more likely.  This would put money in the Saudis' pockets!  By
lying about it, the Saudis are keeping oil prices low and making sure
that they don't make as much money as they could.

I like a good conspiracy as much as the next guy, but don't conspirators
usually aim to make money rather than lose it?  "Come on, guys, here's
our big secret plan to find a new way to lose money!"  It's hard for
me to see the reasoning behind why the Saudis would do this.

If anything, I'd expect them to be tempted to constantly invoke the
spectre of possibly running out in the near future.  Then they would
keep pushing the date out, to keep the tension high and keep prices as
high as possible.  But they certainly aren't doing any such thing, as
the article Mike quoted shows.

Hal Finney


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  9 19:05:17 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 12:05:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] CHINA: Threat proponents not chicken littles...
In-Reply-To: <20050609184217.57748.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050609190517.78367.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> One branch of gov't helped them, and forgot to tell
> the other branch.
> Said other branch was then surprised.
> 
> Problem is, the government is not one big monolithic
> entity.  It is
> comprised of many, many different - some mutually
> hostile - entities.

Yup. The way this country (USA) is so rabidly
polarized politically worries me greatly. The fact
that this ultra-partisanship seems to be permitted and
perhaps even fostered by our leaders tells me that
they are unwise. It seems to indicate the existense of
an invisible enemy either foreign or domestic that are
succeeding in dividing and conquering us. Either that
or we are dividing ourselves over trivial (compared to
the economic well-being of our great
nation-state)issues like gays and abortion and
inviting some external force to conquer us. 
      Either way, our leaders are being stupid. 
 
> --- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:

>>  IMHO, the  
> > only "surprise" is that they may be a bit harder
> to keep under our  
> > thumb than anticipated.
> > 

No doubt. Especially since the report doesn't even
hint that our intelligence agencies have a clue about
the Chinese dollar-bomb. Why is the blogo-sphere more
"with-it" than the NSA and CIA? Are they spending too
much time spying on Americans rather than performing
their chartered duties? Stupid. Stupid.


> > 
> > On Jun 9, 2005, at 9:07 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > 
> > >
>
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050609-120336-4092r.htm
> > >
> > > Analysts missed Chinese buildup
> > >
> > >
> > > By Bill Gertz
> > > THE WASHINGTON TIMES
> > >
> > >
> > > A highly classified intelligence report produced
> for the new
> > director
> > > of national intelligence concludes that U.S. spy
> agencies failed to
> > > recognize several key military developments in
> China in the past
> > > decade, The Washington Times has learned.

The Chinese wrote the "Art of War". They are employing
formlessness against us, while we scream our military
secrets and internal dissent to the world on the 6
o'clock news.
 


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! 
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  9 19:12:52 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 12:12:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] PHREAK OIL: Saudi says they have more than we
	need...
In-Reply-To: <20050609181423.1B49757E8C@finney.org>
Message-ID: <20050609191252.80744.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Hal Finney <hal at finney.org> wrote:

> The book that claims the Saudis are close to peaking
> in their oil
> production is Twilight in the Desert by Matt
> Simmons.  I haven't read
> it but I'm not sure how credible it can be; the
> Saudis are notoriously
> secretive about the details of their oil operations.
> 
> The big thing I don't understand is why, if Saudi
> Arabia is in fact close
> to reaching a peak in its oil production, it would
> want to lie about it
> and claim that it can continue to increase. 
> Credible news of a Saudi
> peak would drive up oil prices as the prospect of
> near-future shortages
> becomes more likely.  This would put money in the
> Saudis' pockets!  By
> lying about it, the Saudis are keeping oil prices
> low and making sure
> that they don't make as much money as they could.
> 
> I like a good conspiracy as much as the next guy,
> but don't conspirators
> usually aim to make money rather than lose it? 
> "Come on, guys, here's
> our big secret plan to find a new way to lose
> money!"  It's hard for
> me to see the reasoning behind why the Saudis would
> do this.
> 
My guess would be either, they want to soothe the
savage beast (US military) that has been rampaging
through the Middle East with a "the check is in the
mail" type excuse or maybe they are just overconfident
about their production capabilities and the advance of
technologies that would allow them to get the really
deep stuff. 


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 wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu Jun  9 19:52:44 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 12:52:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] CHINA: Threat proponents not chicken littles...
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050609195244.43871.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com>

--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> The way this country (USA) is so rabidly
> polarized politically worries me greatly. The fact
> that this ultra-partisanship seems to be permitted and
> perhaps even fostered by our leaders tells me that
> they are unwise. It seems to indicate the existense of
> an invisible enemy either foreign or domestic that are
> succeeding in dividing and conquering us.

Domestic...and not entirely unwise, at least not from their own
perspectives.

There is an ancient bit of wisdom, part of which boils down to, "Let's
you and him fight".  Kings and emperors have long employed the tactic
of setting duke against duke, baron against baron, to make sure that
none of their leiges grows powerful enough to seriously challenge the
king or emperor.  This principle even applies to democracies, where
power can obtain the popularity needed to win votes.  (Consider how
much a truly nationwide political advertising campaign costs, for
example - the kind that uses network TV and radio and all those old
media that the masses still get their information from even today.)

This keeps the leaders in power.  Consequences for the direction that
power takes, or (from another point of view) the constraints that puts
on the possible uses of power, are secondary to merely remaining on
top.  Consider, for example: how many serious contenders for the US
presidency have we had in the past few decades, who truly would settle
for having their policies and stated goals implemented by their
victorious opponent?  (Granted, in most such races that would be a pipe
dream, as the opponent would take their victory as a signal that the
loser's policies and stated goals were not in fact that popular and
perhaps not worth implementing.  But that doesn't make the hypothetical
quesiton unanswerable.)

> Either that
> or we are dividing ourselves over trivial (compared to
> the economic well-being of our great
> nation-state)issues like gays and abortion and
> inviting some external force to conquer us. 

That too, although we keep our military coherent enough that military
conquest is not really an option.


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Jun  9 23:16:28 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 18:16:28 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] angels dancing on a pin
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050609181540.01d4bbc8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

http://www.rense.com/ufo6/ufotheatre.mpg

so what is it? 



From jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Thu Jun  9 23:24:39 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 19:24:39 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] angels dancing on a pin
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050609181540.01d4bbc8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050609181540.01d4bbc8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <42A8CFB7.50601@humanenhancement.com>

A very adept use of Adobe Media.

Rule #1: If it's on rense.com, probability approaches 99% that it's crap.

Joseph

Damien Broderick wrote:

> http://www.rense.com/ufo6/ufotheatre.mpg
>
> so what is it?
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>


From dgc at cox.net  Thu Jun  9 23:30:52 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 19:30:52 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying
In-Reply-To: <006901c56cc4$049dfde0$9480a8c0@LAPTOP2>
References: <DHEDKDAFOIKEGEPMAFCEEELFDBAA.henrik.ohrstrom@gmail.com>
	<006901c56cc4$049dfde0$9480a8c0@LAPTOP2>
Message-ID: <42A8D12C.1040007@cox.net>

Kevin Freels wrote:

> I don't think the issue is height. As I said, I am a student pilot and 
> have no trouble there. Also, many pilots seem to have trouble flying 
> commercial.

Try this (on smaller airliners not Jumbos.)  Ask for an exit aisle 
window seat. You are now an honorary member of the crew with an 
important responsibility in the event of an emergency. Pay careful 
attention to the safety briefing,and carefully read and understand the 
safety card, all as part of fulfilling your responsibilities as an 
exit-aisle "crew member." Your psyche is likely to use this position of 
responsibility to let you feel as if you have more control. On a Jumbo, 
the exit aisle is usually not a good seat (no tray table, exposed to 
traffic in the main aisle) but you may choose to use this strategy on a 
Jumbo if you find it helps on a smaller airliner.


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Jun 10 00:01:11 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 19:01:11 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] angels dancing on a pin
In-Reply-To: <42A8CFB7.50601@humanenhancement.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050609181540.01d4bbc8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<42A8CFB7.50601@humanenhancement.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050609185923.01ccd608@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 07:24 PM 6/9/2005 -0400, Joseph Bloch wrote:

>Rule #1: If it's on rense.com, probability approaches 99% that it's crap.

Of course. But it's cute imagery... I'd be very surprised if it's not 
time-traveling demons from Atlantis.

Damien Broderick 



From jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Fri Jun 10 00:04:52 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 20:04:52 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] angels dancing on a pin
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050609185923.01ccd608@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050609181540.01d4bbc8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>	<42A8CFB7.50601@humanenhancement.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050609185923.01ccd608@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <42A8D924.1060804@humanenhancement.com>

Well you never mentioned Atlantis!

Of COURSE they're from Atlantis...

;-)

Joe

Damien Broderick wrote:

> At 07:24 PM 6/9/2005 -0400, Joseph Bloch wrote:
>
>> Rule #1: If it's on rense.com, probability approaches 99% that it's 
>> crap.
>
>
> Of course. But it's cute imagery... I'd be very surprised if it's not 
> time-traveling demons from Atlantis.
>
> Damien Broderick
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri Jun 10 00:17:52 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:17:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] angels dancing on a pin
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050610001752.79702.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> http://www.rense.com/ufo6/ufotheatre.mpg
> 
> so what is it? 

I got the impression of some people moving/placing lights on a tower,
far enough away so you couldn't see the tower but you could see the
lights.  A number of possible reasons spring up, given as the area is
unknown rural/wilds; among them is simply some people playing a prank
on those they know to be prone to believing in UFOs.


From dirk at neopax.com  Fri Jun 10 01:02:37 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 02:02:37 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] CHINA: Threat proponents not chicken littles...
In-Reply-To: <20050609160759.99614.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050609160759.99614.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42A8E6AD.5060606@neopax.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050609-120336-4092r.htm
>
>Analysts missed Chinese buildup
>
>
>  
>
All the analysts have to do is put themselves in the place of the Chinese.
What threats is China likely to face?
With an economy expanding 10% per annum what can they afford to build 
and what will they have to buy, and from where.
Nothing in that article was a surprise.

-- 
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: 267.6.6 - Release Date: 08/06/2005



From dirk at neopax.com  Fri Jun 10 01:03:35 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 02:03:35 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public! Film at
	eleven.
In-Reply-To: <42A7CCEC.3000905@mydruthers.com>
References: <e88b73ce05060523497f1224bc@mail.gmail.com><05bb01c56a8b$213de4f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>	<ee50357e05060605032cce1c71@mail.gmail.com>	<05e601c56a95$1fa1b590$6e2a2dcb@homepc>
	<42A7CCEC.3000905@mydruthers.com>
Message-ID: <42A8E6E7.3010904@neopax.com>

Chris Hibbert wrote:

> On 6/6/05, Brett Paatsch wrote:
>
>> Sure, one possibility is to make it legal elsewhere first, and
>> then, point at the revenue the US is losing to freer, smarter,
>> more capitalist countries.
>
>
> Well, Brett, since you brought up my name (confusing me with Charlie 
> Stross, whose work I like (I'm also President of the Libertarian 
> Futurists Society, which gives annual awards for best Libertarian 
> Science Fiction.  Stross' Iron Sunrise was nominated this year.))  
> I'll point out that I'm working on open source Prediction Market 
> software at CommerceNet.  I gave a talk at the Workshop that Hal 
> Finney mentioned.
>
> To get back to your point, there are already legal Prediction Markets 
> running offshore.  And to bring the circle around yet again, a couple 
> of the biggest are running in Ireland.  Look up betfair.com (mostly 
> sports betting), and tradesports.com.  TradeSports ran markets on the 
> last presidential election that correctly predicted the state-by-state 
> outcomes of the presidential race.  They currently have claims on the 
> Michael Jackson trial, the host city for the 2012 Olympics, which 
> supreme Court Justice will step down next, and quite a few more.  Not 
> quite the claims I'd like to see (look at Ken Kittlitz' FX for better 
> examples) but it's real money, and it's legal.
>
It's the latest incarnation of Ouija.

-- 
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: 267.6.6 - Release Date: 08/06/2005



From dirk at neopax.com  Fri Jun 10 01:29:31 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 02:29:31 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs inpublic!Filmateleven.
In-Reply-To: <1ac111f3af46598e9920fb29b67aff49@antipope.org>
References: <586da73fcb70f35d2fdc89d8b73dac83@stross.org.uk><04fd01c56a4e$0c55f380$6e2a2dcb@homepc><f19e9ae003a5d55591208360b4244661@antipope.org>	<4421eadc791f0ea39c3a691a8170b8ad@stross.org.uk>	<001e01c56c1e$fa1201f0$6e2a2dcb@homepc>	<7c89af82cb5da08b755404e1e5d6dd99@antipope.org>
	<1ac111f3af46598e9920fb29b67aff49@antipope.org>
Message-ID: <42A8ECFB.7090000@neopax.com>

Charlie Stross wrote:

>
> On 8 Jun 2005, at 18:42, Charlie Stross wrote:
>
>> It gets better. According to Monday's Herald, 39.5% of the population 
>> are hard atheists (no religion, period), and of the rest, only 60% 
>> believe in God -- the rest just have a numinous vague sense of 
>> something out there. The proportion attending church on a regular 
>> basis -- monthly or more often -- is down around 10%.
>
>
> Clarification, the "60% believe in God" applies to the 60% of the 
> population who do not expressly deny having any religion. Meaning it's 
> more like 40% of the total who believe in God at all.
>
> Politicians who come on heavy with the prayer thing in Scotland 
> actually *lose* votes because ordinary people think they're nutters.
>
I think that's true of  Britain in general.
The idea of Blair praying alonside Bush sent a wave of unsease through 
the country, and this time it had little to do with Bush.

-- 
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: 267.6.6 - Release Date: 08/06/2005



From dirk at neopax.com  Fri Jun 10 01:31:26 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 02:31:26 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Current Problems With WTA and TV05
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050608203232.03062100@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050608203232.03062100@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <42A8ED6E.9000900@neopax.com>

Natasha Vita-More wrote:

> Friends - transhumanists and other futurists,
>
> Many of us are members of WTA and care about its success.  While we 
> have not always had smooth sailing with WTA due to  the lack of credit 
> given to transhumanism's philosophical author Max More, the erroneous 
> political positioning ExI, and the lack of acknowledgement and respect 
> of ExI as being the spearheading transhumanist organization who 
> introduced transhumanism to the world; putting all this aside, we need 
> to be supportive for a positive resolve to the current problems within 
> the structure of WTA.
>
> WTA has made beneficial contributions to transhumanism over the past 
> years.  James Hughes has worked hard along with Nick Bostrom and other 
> Directors of WTA.  Our goals for the future need the support and joint 
> efforts of organizations such as WTA.  It has always been my hope that 
> WTA would be a complimentary and collaborative organization of ExI and 
> that we could work together to  create the future.  I still hold onto 
> this hope.  It is also my hope that we can develop a game plan where 
> all transhumanist organizations have a place and that we get smart 
> about working together more efficiently, effectively and successfully. 
> As such, the stakes are high and so are the returns.
>
> Today, WTA is undergoing difficulties between some of its Board 
> members which affects the upcoming TV05 conference in Venezuela.  The 
> dispute is between the conference Chair Jose Cordeiro and WTA's 
> Executive Director James Hughes.
>
> Rather than fuel the fire of this current problem, let us try to 
> encourage peace between them and a fair and equitable resolution to 
> the problems.
>
> If you have any concerns or questions, please feel free to discussion 
> them openly or privately, but please let us work toward resolution and 
> do our very best to set an example of how society, in all its 
> differences, can manage to be iron out the kinks.
>
I think that the only thing that need be said is that too much power in 
the hands of one person is a bad idea in the long term, even if there 
are short term benefits.

-- 
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: 267.6.6 - Release Date: 08/06/2005



From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Fri Jun 10 04:29:47 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 21:29:47 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (TLC-Brotherhood FWD) Re: Fear of flying
Message-ID: <42A9173B.7010402@mindspring.com>

[Les Strouse is the retired Air America pilot.  -Terry]

Terry,

I do know a few pilots who do not like flying in the back of the airplane.
I don't know that it is a fear or just that they don't trust someone else
at the controls.

As far as the fear of heights is concerned....not in a flying machine but
for sure on ladders, second floor or higher balconies and even escalators
that have a view down two floors or more.  Other than wild stuff like
ferris wheels one of my greatest dislikes is glass enclosed elevators
that give you a great view of the scenery but cause me to look for an
alternative.

Les Strouse

"Terry W. Colvin" <fortean1 at mindspring.com> wrote:

>FOR Les Strouse
>
>Pilot fear of heights and commercial flying appears more common than we 
>suspected.
>
>Terry
>
>I don't think the issue is height. As I said, I am a student pilot and have 
>no trouble there. Also, many pilots seem to have trouble flying commercial. 
>I know a large group of pilots and am considering an actual study regarding 
>this topic. Any opinions about the value of such a study?
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>
>>> Hi Terry,
>>> A solid list of experiments has determined that human babies
>>> (less than 1 year old - crawling stage) will not crawl - on a
>>> solid glass floor - out over a drop underneath that glass floor.
>>>
>>> They will however, if tempted or otherwise cajoled - agree to
>>> back out over the drop. But as soon as that `drop' becomes
>>> visible they immediately retreat to the non-drop portion of their
>>> environment.
>>>
>>> It seems we have a memory which says `height is dangerous' -
>>> especially if you're _not_ in control.
>>>
>>> cheers
>>>
>>> Ray D
>>>
>>> Thanks, Ray.  I remember seeing newsclips of this experiment.  If
>>> not wholly learned then this is a genetic memory.  I wonder if this
>>> experiment has included primate babies, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans?
>>>
>>> Terry
>>>
>>>
>> Well, these experiments are not true for all babies, both my daughters have
>> repeatedly tried (and sometimes succeeded in) crawling of edges of all
>> kinds. No permanent harm but I make sure that ALL possible jump-off points
>> are very well secured since these kamikaze babies has most certainly not
>> read those studies.
>> I have though and was rather surprised when they started flinging 
>> themselves > of edges...
>> Other children I know are more careful and one have never-ever required 
>> any sort of gate or protection since he is very careful and have as far as I
>> know never fallen off anything.
>> Darwin days I suppose, I hope that my daredevil cuties gain something more
>> than just bumps and sprains from being so physically forward as they are.
>>
>> /henrik



-- 
"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 nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Fri Jun 10 15:05:10 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 11:05:10 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Oprah Gender-bending
Message-ID: <46450-22005651015510796@M2W126.mail2web.com>

"She's not a ratings whore, but she plays one on TV. And that ain't all
Oprah is playing, according to In Touch. A friend of the talk-show grande
dame says she's getting a sex change--sort of. Thanks to a $25,000
prosthetic man-suit, she'll go on a nonsurgical gender bender for a few
days to see how the other half lives. Fully decked out with fake facial
hair and a rug, Oprah will be filmed 24-7. Here's hoping she picks up some
chicks. Hello, ladies, my name is Doprah, the man of your dreams!"

Natasha



 




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




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 10 15:30:22 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 08:30:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] CHINA: Threat proponents not chicken littles...
In-Reply-To: <9D60ADD1-8979-4764-AE39-31E592CD1B3C@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050610153022.29245.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

"we helped them"? Could you provide details. Last I checked they
weren't flying F-16s....

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

> IIRC we helped them build more than a little of that military  
> capacity so I seriously doubt these claims of surprise.  IMHO, the  
> only "surprise" is that they may be a bit harder to keep under our  
> thumb than anticipated.
> 
> - s
> 
> On Jun 9, 2005, at 9:07 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> > http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050609-120336-4092r.htm
> >
> > Analysts missed Chinese buildup
> >
> >
> > By Bill Gertz
> > THE WASHINGTON TIMES
> >
> >
> > A highly classified intelligence report produced for the new
> director
> > of national intelligence concludes that U.S. spy agencies failed to
> > recognize several key military developments in China in the past
> > decade, The Washington Times has learned.
> >     The report was created by several current and former
> intelligence
> > officials and concludes that U.S. agencies missed more than a dozen
> > Chinese military developments, according to officials familiar with
>  
> > the
> > report.
> >     The report blames excessive secrecy on China's part for the
> > failures, but critics say intelligence specialists are to blame for
> > playing down or dismissing evidence of growing Chinese military
> > capabilities.
> >     The report comes as the Bush administration appears to have
> become
> > more critical of China's military buildup.
> >     Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in Singapore over the
> > weekend that China has hidden its defense spending and is expanding
>  
> > its
> > missile forces despite facing no threats. Secretary of State
> > Condoleezza Rice also expressed worries this week about China's
> > expanding military capabilities.
> >     Among the failures highlighted in the study are:
> >     ?China's development of a new long-range cruise missile.
> >     ?The deployment of a new warship equipped with a stolen Chinese
> > version of the U.S. Aegis battle management technology.
> >     ?Deployment of a new attack submarine known as the Yuan class
> that
> > was missed by U.S. intelligence until photos of the submarine
> appeared
> > on the Internet.
> >     ?Development of precision-guided munitions, including new
> > air-to-ground missiles and new, more accurate warheads.
> >     ?China's development of surface-to-surface missiles for
> targeting
> > U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups.
> >     ?The importation of advanced weaponry, including Russian
> > submarines, warships and fighter-bombers.
> >     According to officials familiar with the intelligence report,
> the
> > word "surprise" is used more than a dozen times to describe U.S.
> > failures to anticipate or discover Chinese arms development.
> >     Many of the missed military developments will be contained in
> the
> > Pentagon's annual report to Congress on the Chinese military, which
>  
> > was
> > due out March 1 but delayed by interagency disputes over its
> contents.
> >     Critics of the study say the report unfairly blames
> intelligence
> > collectors for not gathering solid information on the Chinese
> military
> > and for failing to plant agents in the communist government.
> >     Instead, these officials said, the report looks like a bid to
> > exonerate analysts within the close-knit fraternity of government  
> > China
> > specialists, who for the past 10 years dismissed or played down
> > intelligence showing that Beijing was engaged in a major military
> > buildup.
> >     "This report conceals the efforts of dissenting analysts [in
> the
> > intelligence community] who argued that China was a threat," one
> > official said, adding that covering up the failure of intelligence
> > analysts on China would prevent a major reorganization of the
> system.
> >     A former U.S. official said the report should help expose a
> > "self-selected group" of specialists who fooled the U.S. government
> on
> > China for 10 years.
> >     "This group's desire to have good relations with China has
> > prevented them from highlighting how little they know and
> suppressing
> > occasional evidence that China views the United States as its main
> > enemy."
> >     The report has been sent to Thomas Fingar, a longtime
> intelligence
> > analyst on China who was recently appointed by John D. Negroponte,
> the
> > new director of national intelligence, as his office's top  
> > intelligence
> > analyst.
> >     Mr. Negroponte has ordered a series of top-to-bottom reviews of
> > U.S. intelligence capabilities in the aftermath of the critical
> report
> > by the presidential commission headed by Judge Laurence Silberman
> and
> > former Sen. Charles Robb, Virginia Democrat.
> >     According to the officials, the study was produced by a team of
> > analysts for the intelligence contractor Centra Technologies.
> >     Spokesmen for the CIA and Mr. Negroponte declined to comment.
> >     Its main author is Robert Suettinger, a National Security
> Council
> > staff member for China during the Clinton administration and the
> U.S.
> > intelligence community's top China analyst until 1998. Mr.
> Suettinger
> > is traveling outside the country and could not be reached for
> comment,
> > a spokesman said.
> >     John Culver, a longtime CIA analyst on Asia, was the co-author.
> >     Among those who took part in the study were former Defense
> > Intelligence Agency analyst Lonnie Henley, who critics say was
> among
> > those who in the past had dismissed concerns about China's military
> in
> > the past 10 years.
> >     Also participating in the study was John F. Corbett, a former
> Army
> > intelligence analyst and attache who was a China policy-maker at
> the
> > Pentagon during the Clinton administration.
> >
> >
> > 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!
> > Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend.  
> > Check it out!
> > http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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


		
__________________________________ 
Discover Yahoo! 
Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html 



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 10 15:41:44 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 08:41:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] PHREAK OIL: Saudi says they have more than we
	need...
In-Reply-To: <20050609181423.1B49757E8C@finney.org>
Message-ID: <20050610154144.10350.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- Hal Finney <hal at finney.org> wrote:

> The book that claims the Saudis are close to peaking in their oil
> production is Twilight in the Desert by Matt Simmons.  I haven't read
> it but I'm not sure how credible it can be; the Saudis are
> notoriously secretive about the details of their oil operations.
> 
> The big thing I don't understand is why, if Saudi Arabia is in fact
> close to reaching a peak in its oil production, it would want to lie
> about it and claim that it can continue to increase. Credible news
> of a Saudi peak would drive up oil prices as the prospect of near-
> future shortages becomes more likely. This would put money in the
> Saudis' pockets! By lying about it, the Saudis are keeping oil
> prices low and making sure that they don't make as much money as
> they could.
> 
> I like a good conspiracy as much as the next guy, but don't
> conspirators usually aim to make money rather than lose it?
>  "Come on, guys, here's
> our big secret plan to find a new way to lose money!"  It's hard for
> me to see the reasoning behind why the Saudis would do this.
> 
> If anything, I'd expect them to be tempted to constantly invoke the
> spectre of possibly running out in the near future.  Then they would
> keep pushing the date out, to keep the tension high and keep prices
> as high as possible.  But they certainly aren't doing any such thing,
> as the article Mike quoted shows.

It appears to me exactly as the Saudis state it: our high prices here
in the US are the result of a lack of refinery capacity to refine sour
crudes. Sweet crudes come from three locations (other than domestic
wells): Venezuela, Nigeria, and the North Sea, with some coming on line
from Russia. Saudi Arabia can do little to reduce gas prices here
unless we expand that capacity, although they are building their own
refineries there, which likely will help.

Venezuela, obviously, is intent on pushing prices as high as possible.
Hugo Chavez has bought enough infantry equipment for ten times as many
troops as his government has enlisted, plus 50 Migs, helicopters, and
is expanding the navy. Despite claims when he nationalized Venezuela's
oil industry that the proceeds would be to feed the poor, he is
spending his gains on a massive military buildup and needs prices as
high as possible, so he is purposely eliciting US perceptions of
venezuelan instability in order to bid up market prices.

Nigeria has suffered sabotage to its refinery capacity at the hands of
muslim guerrillas. Little mention has been made of this groups ties to
al Qaeda.

Europe is keeping as much of its north sea capacity for itself and is
not developing any unexplored reserves. You've all heard my talk about
the Club of Rome's malthusian plans, so I'll spare you this 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!? 
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 10 15:50:07 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 08:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] PHREAK OIL: Saudi says they have more than we
	need...
In-Reply-To: <20050609184332.52391.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050610155007.59176.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> 
> 
> --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050609/D8AJUUQ82.html
> > Top Saudi Says Kingdom Has Plenty of Oil
> >  
> > Jun 9, 3:27 AM (ET)
> > 
> > By ANNE GEARAN
> > 
> > 
> > WASHINGTON (AP) - Saudi Arabia has plenty of oil -
> > more than the world
> > is likely to need - along with an increasing ability
> > to refine crude
> > oil into gasoline and other products before selling
> > it overseas, a top
> > Saudi official says.
> 
> If this is true, then Iraq was a COMPLETE waste of
> money and lives. Especially since Iraq's democratic
> training wheels are being lubricated with American
> blood. Unless of course you are Dick Cheney, in which
> case you won the lotto. I think I would refuse that
> man life-extension technologies, if I had them to
> give. The world is better off without him.

Actually, Cheney was against the sanctions and wanted them ended. It
allegedly took a while for the neocons to bring him around to their
view. If you are going to play voodoo doll games, save it for Perle,
Wolfowitz, and that gang.

As for Iraq: we have free elections in Lebanon, Syria is learning to
behave itself, all the palestinian factions are in agreement about a
truce with Israel, Egypt is preparing for nationwide multi-party
elections, oh, and as for Iraq, two of the main Sunni insurgent groups
are now in discussions to come into government.

Not a single member of the US military is a draftee, they knew the
risks when they signed up, and obviously thought the rewards were greater.

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! 
Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 10 15:54:24 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 08:54:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] angels dancing on a pin
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050609181540.01d4bbc8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050610155424.25765.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> http://www.rense.com/ufo6/ufotheatre.mpg
> 
> so what is it? 

Rense or the video? Looks like some guys with planes flying in
formation to prank some UFO spotters.

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! 
Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html


From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Jun 10 17:13:50 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:13:50 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] CHINA: Threat proponents not chicken littles...
In-Reply-To: <20050610153022.29245.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050610153022.29245.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <E0AED3F2-9D7B-4F50-9956-3285DC594E9A@mac.com>

It is easy enough to find if you wish.  I will not spoon feed you.
On Jun 10, 2005, at 8:30 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> "we helped them"? Could you provide details. Last I checked they
> weren't flying F-16s....
>
> --- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>> IIRC we helped them build more than a little of that military
>> capacity so I seriously doubt these claims of surprise.  IMHO, the
>> only "surprise" is that they may be a bit harder to keep under our
>> thumb than anticipated.
>>
>> - s
>>
>> On Jun 9, 2005, at 9:07 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>
>>
>>> http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050609-120336-4092r.htm
>>>
>>> Analysts missed Chinese buildup
>>>
>>>
>>> By Bill Gertz
>>> THE WASHINGTON TIMES
>>>
>>>
>>> A highly classified intelligence report produced for the new
>>>
>> director
>>
>>> of national intelligence concludes that U.S. spy agencies failed to
>>> recognize several key military developments in China in the past
>>> decade, The Washington Times has learned.
>>>     The report was created by several current and former
>>>
>> intelligence
>>
>>> officials and concludes that U.S. agencies missed more than a dozen
>>> Chinese military developments, according to officials familiar with
>>>
>>
>>
>>> the
>>> report.
>>>     The report blames excessive secrecy on China's part for the
>>> failures, but critics say intelligence specialists are to blame for
>>> playing down or dismissing evidence of growing Chinese military
>>> capabilities.
>>>     The report comes as the Bush administration appears to have
>>>
>> become
>>
>>> more critical of China's military buildup.
>>>     Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in Singapore over the
>>> weekend that China has hidden its defense spending and is expanding
>>>
>>
>>
>>> its
>>> missile forces despite facing no threats. Secretary of State
>>> Condoleezza Rice also expressed worries this week about China's
>>> expanding military capabilities.
>>>     Among the failures highlighted in the study are:
>>>     ?China's development of a new long-range cruise missile.
>>>     ?The deployment of a new warship equipped with a stolen Chinese
>>> version of the U.S. Aegis battle management technology.
>>>     ?Deployment of a new attack submarine known as the Yuan class
>>>
>> that
>>
>>> was missed by U.S. intelligence until photos of the submarine
>>>
>> appeared
>>
>>> on the Internet.
>>>     ?Development of precision-guided munitions, including new
>>> air-to-ground missiles and new, more accurate warheads.
>>>     ?China's development of surface-to-surface missiles for
>>>
>> targeting
>>
>>> U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups.
>>>     ?The importation of advanced weaponry, including Russian
>>> submarines, warships and fighter-bombers.
>>>     According to officials familiar with the intelligence report,
>>>
>> the
>>
>>> word "surprise" is used more than a dozen times to describe U.S.
>>> failures to anticipate or discover Chinese arms development.
>>>     Many of the missed military developments will be contained in
>>>
>> the
>>
>>> Pentagon's annual report to Congress on the Chinese military, which
>>>
>>
>>
>>> was
>>> due out March 1 but delayed by interagency disputes over its
>>>
>> contents.
>>
>>>     Critics of the study say the report unfairly blames
>>>
>> intelligence
>>
>>> collectors for not gathering solid information on the Chinese
>>>
>> military
>>
>>> and for failing to plant agents in the communist government.
>>>     Instead, these officials said, the report looks like a bid to
>>> exonerate analysts within the close-knit fraternity of government
>>> China
>>> specialists, who for the past 10 years dismissed or played down
>>> intelligence showing that Beijing was engaged in a major military
>>> buildup.
>>>     "This report conceals the efforts of dissenting analysts [in
>>>
>> the
>>
>>> intelligence community] who argued that China was a threat," one
>>> official said, adding that covering up the failure of intelligence
>>> analysts on China would prevent a major reorganization of the
>>>
>> system.
>>
>>>     A former U.S. official said the report should help expose a
>>> "self-selected group" of specialists who fooled the U.S. government
>>>
>> on
>>
>>> China for 10 years.
>>>     "This group's desire to have good relations with China has
>>> prevented them from highlighting how little they know and
>>>
>> suppressing
>>
>>> occasional evidence that China views the United States as its main
>>> enemy."
>>>     The report has been sent to Thomas Fingar, a longtime
>>>
>> intelligence
>>
>>> analyst on China who was recently appointed by John D. Negroponte,
>>>
>> the
>>
>>> new director of national intelligence, as his office's top
>>> intelligence
>>> analyst.
>>>     Mr. Negroponte has ordered a series of top-to-bottom reviews of
>>> U.S. intelligence capabilities in the aftermath of the critical
>>>
>> report
>>
>>> by the presidential commission headed by Judge Laurence Silberman
>>>
>> and
>>
>>> former Sen. Charles Robb, Virginia Democrat.
>>>     According to the officials, the study was produced by a team of
>>> analysts for the intelligence contractor Centra Technologies.
>>>     Spokesmen for the CIA and Mr. Negroponte declined to comment.
>>>     Its main author is Robert Suettinger, a National Security
>>>
>> Council
>>
>>> staff member for China during the Clinton administration and the
>>>
>> U.S.
>>
>>> intelligence community's top China analyst until 1998. Mr.
>>>
>> Suettinger
>>
>>> is traveling outside the country and could not be reached for
>>>
>> comment,
>>
>>> a spokesman said.
>>>     John Culver, a longtime CIA analyst on Asia, was the co-author.
>>>     Among those who took part in the study were former Defense
>>> Intelligence Agency analyst Lonnie Henley, who critics say was
>>>
>> among
>>
>>> those who in the past had dismissed concerns about China's military
>>>
>> in
>>
>>> the past 10 years.
>>>     Also participating in the study was John F. Corbett, a former
>>>
>> Army
>>
>>> intelligence analyst and attache who was a China policy-maker at
>>>
>> the
>>
>>> Pentagon during the Clinton administration.
>>>
>>>
>>> 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!
>>> Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend.
>>> Check it out!
>>> http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Discover Yahoo!
> Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend.  
> Check it out!
> http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Jun 10 17:43:05 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:43:05 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] CHINA: Threat proponents not chicken littles...
In-Reply-To: <E0AED3F2-9D7B-4F50-9956-3285DC594E9A@mac.com>
References: <20050610153022.29245.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<E0AED3F2-9D7B-4F50-9956-3285DC594E9A@mac.com>
Message-ID: <5A0431F5-5AB1-4F00-84F3-EC0E1D1E3918@mac.com>

Actually I apologize.  It is not that easy to find such links.  I was  
thinking of some items (iirc) that we have sold like various military  
helicopters, guidance systems, supercomputers, satellite technology  
and so on.  We have also done some joint military exercises.  But  
mostly Mike is right that we haven't stocked their major military  
hardware.  There does seem to be a flow of arms from US to Israel to  
China through back channels.  But most of the hardware they don't  
build themselves seems to source from Russia.

- s

On Jun 10, 2005, at 10:13 AM, Samantha Atkins wrote:

> It is easy enough to find if you wish.  I will not spoon feed you.
> On Jun 10, 2005, at 8:30 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
>
>> "we helped them"? Could you provide details. Last I checked they
>> weren't flying F-16s....
>>
>> --- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> IIRC we helped them build more than a little of that military
>>> capacity so I seriously doubt these claims of surprise.  IMHO, the
>>> only "surprise" is that they may be a bit harder to keep under our
>>> thumb than anticipated.
>>>
>>> - s
>>>
>>> On Jun 9, 2005, at 9:07 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050609-120336-4092r.htm
>>>>
>>>> Analysts missed Chinese buildup
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> By Bill Gertz
>>>> THE WASHINGTON TIMES
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A highly classified intelligence report produced for the new
>>>>
>>>>
>>> director
>>>
>>>
>>>> of national intelligence concludes that U.S. spy agencies failed to
>>>> recognize several key military developments in China in the past
>>>> decade, The Washington Times has learned.
>>>>     The report was created by several current and former
>>>>
>>>>
>>> intelligence
>>>
>>>
>>>> officials and concludes that U.S. agencies missed more than a dozen
>>>> Chinese military developments, according to officials familiar with
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>> report.
>>>>     The report blames excessive secrecy on China's part for the
>>>> failures, but critics say intelligence specialists are to blame for
>>>> playing down or dismissing evidence of growing Chinese military
>>>> capabilities.
>>>>     The report comes as the Bush administration appears to have
>>>>
>>>>
>>> become
>>>
>>>
>>>> more critical of China's military buildup.
>>>>     Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in Singapore over the
>>>> weekend that China has hidden its defense spending and is expanding
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> its
>>>> missile forces despite facing no threats. Secretary of State
>>>> Condoleezza Rice also expressed worries this week about China's
>>>> expanding military capabilities.
>>>>     Among the failures highlighted in the study are:
>>>>     ?China's development of a new long-range cruise missile.
>>>>     ?The deployment of a new warship equipped with a stolen Chinese
>>>> version of the U.S. Aegis battle management technology.
>>>>     ?Deployment of a new attack submarine known as the Yuan class
>>>>
>>>>
>>> that
>>>
>>>
>>>> was missed by U.S. intelligence until photos of the submarine
>>>>
>>>>
>>> appeared
>>>
>>>
>>>> on the Internet.
>>>>     ?Development of precision-guided munitions, including new
>>>> air-to-ground missiles and new, more accurate warheads.
>>>>     ?China's development of surface-to-surface missiles for
>>>>
>>>>
>>> targeting
>>>
>>>
>>>> U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups.
>>>>     ?The importation of advanced weaponry, including Russian
>>>> submarines, warships and fighter-bombers.
>>>>     According to officials familiar with the intelligence report,
>>>>
>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> word "surprise" is used more than a dozen times to describe U.S.
>>>> failures to anticipate or discover Chinese arms development.
>>>>     Many of the missed military developments will be contained in
>>>>
>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> Pentagon's annual report to Congress on the Chinese military, which
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> was
>>>> due out March 1 but delayed by interagency disputes over its
>>>>
>>>>
>>> contents.
>>>
>>>
>>>>     Critics of the study say the report unfairly blames
>>>>
>>>>
>>> intelligence
>>>
>>>
>>>> collectors for not gathering solid information on the Chinese
>>>>
>>>>
>>> military
>>>
>>>
>>>> and for failing to plant agents in the communist government.
>>>>     Instead, these officials said, the report looks like a bid to
>>>> exonerate analysts within the close-knit fraternity of government
>>>> China
>>>> specialists, who for the past 10 years dismissed or played down
>>>> intelligence showing that Beijing was engaged in a major military
>>>> buildup.
>>>>     "This report conceals the efforts of dissenting analysts [in
>>>>
>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> intelligence community] who argued that China was a threat," one
>>>> official said, adding that covering up the failure of intelligence
>>>> analysts on China would prevent a major reorganization of the
>>>>
>>>>
>>> system.
>>>
>>>
>>>>     A former U.S. official said the report should help expose a
>>>> "self-selected group" of specialists who fooled the U.S. government
>>>>
>>>>
>>> on
>>>
>>>
>>>> China for 10 years.
>>>>     "This group's desire to have good relations with China has
>>>> prevented them from highlighting how little they know and
>>>>
>>>>
>>> suppressing
>>>
>>>
>>>> occasional evidence that China views the United States as its main
>>>> enemy."
>>>>     The report has been sent to Thomas Fingar, a longtime
>>>>
>>>>
>>> intelligence
>>>
>>>
>>>> analyst on China who was recently appointed by John D. Negroponte,
>>>>
>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> new director of national intelligence, as his office's top
>>>> intelligence
>>>> analyst.
>>>>     Mr. Negroponte has ordered a series of top-to-bottom reviews of
>>>> U.S. intelligence capabilities in the aftermath of the critical
>>>>
>>>>
>>> report
>>>
>>>
>>>> by the presidential commission headed by Judge Laurence Silberman
>>>>
>>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>>
>>>> former Sen. Charles Robb, Virginia Democrat.
>>>>     According to the officials, the study was produced by a team of
>>>> analysts for the intelligence contractor Centra Technologies.
>>>>     Spokesmen for the CIA and Mr. Negroponte declined to comment.
>>>>     Its main author is Robert Suettinger, a National Security
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Council
>>>
>>>
>>>> staff member for China during the Clinton administration and the
>>>>
>>>>
>>> U.S.
>>>
>>>
>>>> intelligence community's top China analyst until 1998. Mr.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Suettinger
>>>
>>>
>>>> is traveling outside the country and could not be reached for
>>>>
>>>>
>>> comment,
>>>
>>>
>>>> a spokesman said.
>>>>     John Culver, a longtime CIA analyst on Asia, was the co-author.
>>>>     Among those who took part in the study were former Defense
>>>> Intelligence Agency analyst Lonnie Henley, who critics say was
>>>>
>>>>
>>> among
>>>
>>>
>>>> those who in the past had dismissed concerns about China's military
>>>>
>>>>
>>> in
>>>
>>>
>>>> the past 10 years.
>>>>     Also participating in the study was John F. Corbett, a former
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Army
>>>
>>>
>>>> intelligence analyst and attache who was a China policy-maker at
>>>>
>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> Pentagon during the Clinton administration.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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!
>>>> Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend.
>>>> Check it out!
>>>> http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________________
>> Discover Yahoo!
>> Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend.  
>> Check it out!
>> http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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  Fri Jun 10 17:50:45 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] CHINA: Threat proponents not chicken littles...
In-Reply-To: <E0AED3F2-9D7B-4F50-9956-3285DC594E9A@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050610175045.19811.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Which means you are full of it.

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

> It is easy enough to find if you wish.  I will not spoon feed you.
> On Jun 10, 2005, at 8:30 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> > "we helped them"? Could you provide details. Last I checked they
> > weren't flying F-16s....
> >
> > --- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> IIRC we helped them build more than a little of that military
> >> capacity so I seriously doubt these claims of surprise.  IMHO, the
> >> only "surprise" is that they may be a bit harder to keep under our
> >> thumb than anticipated.
> >>
> >> - s
> >>
> >> On Jun 9, 2005, at 9:07 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050609-120336-4092r.htm
> >>>
> >>> Analysts missed Chinese buildup
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> By Bill Gertz
> >>> THE WASHINGTON TIMES
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> A highly classified intelligence report produced for the new
> >>>
> >> director
> >>
> >>> of national intelligence concludes that U.S. spy agencies failed
> to
> >>> recognize several key military developments in China in the past
> >>> decade, The Washington Times has learned.
> >>>     The report was created by several current and former
> >>>
> >> intelligence
> >>
> >>> officials and concludes that U.S. agencies missed more than a
> dozen
> >>> Chinese military developments, according to officials familiar
> with
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>> the
> >>> report.
> >>>     The report blames excessive secrecy on China's part for the
> >>> failures, but critics say intelligence specialists are to blame
> for
> >>> playing down or dismissing evidence of growing Chinese military
> >>> capabilities.
> >>>     The report comes as the Bush administration appears to have
> >>>
> >> become
> >>
> >>> more critical of China's military buildup.
> >>>     Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in Singapore over
> the
> >>> weekend that China has hidden its defense spending and is
> expanding
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>> its
> >>> missile forces despite facing no threats. Secretary of State
> >>> Condoleezza Rice also expressed worries this week about China's
> >>> expanding military capabilities.
> >>>     Among the failures highlighted in the study are:
> >>>     ?China's development of a new long-range cruise missile.
> >>>     ?The deployment of a new warship equipped with a stolen
> Chinese
> >>> version of the U.S. Aegis battle management technology.
> >>>     ?Deployment of a new attack submarine known as the Yuan class
> >>>
> >> that
> >>
> >>> was missed by U.S. intelligence until photos of the submarine
> >>>
> >> appeared
> >>
> >>> on the Internet.
> >>>     ?Development of precision-guided munitions, including new
> >>> air-to-ground missiles and new, more accurate warheads.
> >>>     ?China's development of surface-to-surface missiles for
> >>>
> >> targeting
> >>
> >>> U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups.
> >>>     ?The importation of advanced weaponry, including Russian
> >>> submarines, warships and fighter-bombers.
> >>>     According to officials familiar with the intelligence report,
> >>>
> >> the
> >>
> >>> word "surprise" is used more than a dozen times to describe U.S.
> >>> failures to anticipate or discover Chinese arms development.
> >>>     Many of the missed military developments will be contained in
> >>>
> >> the
> >>
> >>> Pentagon's annual report to Congress on the Chinese military,
> which
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>> was
> >>> due out March 1 but delayed by interagency disputes over its
> >>>
> >> contents.
> >>
> >>>     Critics of the study say the report unfairly blames
> >>>
> >> intelligence
> >>
> >>> collectors for not gathering solid information on the Chinese
> >>>
> >> military
> >>
> >>> and for failing to plant agents in the communist government.
> >>>     Instead, these officials said, the report looks like a bid to
> >>> exonerate analysts within the close-knit fraternity of government
> >>> China
> >>> specialists, who for the past 10 years dismissed or played down
> >>> intelligence showing that Beijing was engaged in a major military
> >>> buildup.
> >>>     "This report conceals the efforts of dissenting analysts [in
> >>>
> >> the
> >>
> >>> intelligence community] who argued that China was a threat," one
> >>> official said, adding that covering up the failure of
> intelligence
> >>> analysts on China would prevent a major reorganization of the
> >>>
> >> system.
> >>
> >>>     A former U.S. official said the report should help expose a
> >>> "self-selected group" of specialists who fooled the U.S.
> government
> >>>
> >> on
> >>
> >>> China for 10 years.
> >>>     "This group's desire to have good relations with China has
> >>> prevented them from highlighting how little they know and
> >>>
> >> suppressing
> >>
> >>> occasional evidence that China views the United States as its
> main
> >>> enemy."
> >>>     The report has been sent to Thomas Fingar, a longtime
> >>>
> >> intelligence
> >>
> >>> analyst on China who was recently appointed by John D.
> Negroponte,
> >>>
> >> the
> >>
> >>> new director of national intelligence, as his office's top
> >>> intelligence
> >>> analyst.
> >>>     Mr. Negroponte has ordered a series of top-to-bottom reviews
> of
> >>> U.S. intelligence capabilities in the aftermath of the critical
> >>>
> >> report
> >>
> >>> by the presidential commission headed by Judge Laurence Silberman
> >>>
> >> and
> >>
> >>> former Sen. Charles Robb, Virginia Democrat.
> >>>     According to the officials, the study was produced by a team
> of
> >>> analysts for the intelligence contractor Centra Technologies.
> >>>     Spokesmen for the CIA and Mr. Negroponte declined to comment.
> >>>     Its main author is Robert Suettinger, a National Security
> >>>
> >> Council
> >>
> >>> staff member for China during the Clinton administration and the
> >>>
> >> U.S.
> >>
> >>> intelligence community's top China analyst until 1998. Mr.
> >>>
> >> Suettinger
> >>
> >>> is traveling outside the country and could not be reached for
> >>>
> >> comment,
> >>
> >>> a spokesman said.
> >>>     John Culver, a longtime CIA analyst on Asia, was the
> co-author.
> >>>     Among those who took part in the study were former Defense
> >>> Intelligence Agency analyst Lonnie Henley, who critics say was
> >>>
> >> among
> >>
> >>> those who in the past had dismissed concerns about China's
> military
> >>>
> >> in
> >>
> >>> the past 10 years.
> >>>     Also participating in the study was John F. Corbett, a former
> >>>
> >> Army
> >>
> >>> intelligence analyst and attache who was a China policy-maker at
> >>>
> >> the
> >>
> >>> Pentagon during the Clinton administration.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 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!
> >>> Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend.
> >>> Check it out!
> >>> http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Discover Yahoo!
> > Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend.  
> > Check it out!
> > http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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!? 
Make Yahoo! your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 10 17:56:40 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:56:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] CHINA: Threat proponents not chicken littles...
In-Reply-To: <5A0431F5-5AB1-4F00-84F3-EC0E1D1E3918@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050610175640.24424.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Thanks, I'm sorry I kicked back.

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

> Actually I apologize.  It is not that easy to find such links.  I was
> thinking of some items (iirc) that we have sold like various military
> helicopters, guidance systems, supercomputers, satellite technology  
> and so on.  We have also done some joint military exercises.  But  
> mostly Mike is right that we haven't stocked their major military  
> hardware.  There does seem to be a flow of arms from US to Israel to 
> China through back channels.  But most of the hardware they don't  
> build themselves seems to source from Russia.

Yes, most of the assistance we gave was during the Clinton years, when
Bubba couldn't seem to keep from getting rid of any export restriction
possible. Then of course there is the case of the father of their ICBM
program was a fellow who had fled to the US in the 50's, been involved
in our program, then went home to help the motherland. There was also
the case of a certain satellite company here who, in order to reduce
the launch risk to their own satellite they'd hired China to launch for
them, gave China technology that vasly improved the accuracy of their
ICBMs. And another bit was the classic submarine propeller machining
equipment.

Supercomputers are not a big deal. Pakistan developed its nuclear
program using beowulf clusters of desktop pcs.

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! 
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html


From megao at sasktel.net  Fri Jun 10 17:33:55 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 12:33:55 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] What % of global economic activity is dependant on
	military activity?
In-Reply-To: <5A0431F5-5AB1-4F00-84F3-EC0E1D1E3918@mac.com>
References: <20050610153022.29245.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<E0AED3F2-9D7B-4F50-9956-3285DC594E9A@mac.com>
	<5A0431F5-5AB1-4F00-84F3-EC0E1D1E3918@mac.com>
Message-ID: <42A9CF03.1070108@sasktel.net>

While I fully support military development of technology the private 
sector cannot
or will not do on its own (such as the internet) , it appears that the 
price tag includes the global
production and maintenance of commercial war enterprises...... 
tinderboxes and hot wars in the "commercial
arena."

Just how would the global economy change if  the only tech developments that
were commercialized were on the ploughshare side of the
"swords and ploughshares"  pie?

Who has published work on this subject?

MFJ


Samantha Atkins wrote:

> Actually I apologize.  It is not that easy to find such links.  I was  
> thinking of some items (iirc) that we have sold like various military  
> helicopters, guidance systems, supercomputers, satellite technology  
> and so on.  We have also done some joint military exercises.  But  
> mostly Mike is right that we haven't stocked their major military  
> hardware.  There does seem to be a flow of arms from US to Israel to  
> China through back channels.  But most of the hardware they don't  
> build themselves seems to source from Russia.
>
> - s
>
> On Jun 10, 2005, at 10:13 AM, Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>> It is easy enough to find if you wish.  I will not spoon feed you.
>> On Jun 10, 2005, at 8:30 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "we helped them"? Could you provide details. Last I checked they
>>> weren't flying F-16s....
>>>
>>> --- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> IIRC we helped them build more than a little of that military
>>>> capacity so I seriously doubt these claims of surprise.  IMHO, the
>>>> only "surprise" is that they may be a bit harder to keep under our
>>>> thumb than anticipated.
>>>>
>>>> - s
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 9, 2005, at 9:07 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050609-120336-4092r.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> Analysts missed Chinese buildup
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> By Bill Gertz
>>>>> THE WASHINGTON TIMES
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A highly classified intelligence report produced for the new
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> director
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> of national intelligence concludes that U.S. spy agencies failed to
>>>>> recognize several key military developments in China in the past
>>>>> decade, The Washington Times has learned.
>>>>>     The report was created by several current and former
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> intelligence
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> officials and concludes that U.S. agencies missed more than a dozen
>>>>> Chinese military developments, according to officials familiar with
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>> report.
>>>>>     The report blames excessive secrecy on China's part for the
>>>>> failures, but critics say intelligence specialists are to blame for
>>>>> playing down or dismissing evidence of growing Chinese military
>>>>> capabilities.
>>>>>     The report comes as the Bush administration appears to have
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> become
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> more critical of China's military buildup.
>>>>>     Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in Singapore over the
>>>>> weekend that China has hidden its defense spending and is expanding
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> its
>>>>> missile forces despite facing no threats. Secretary of State
>>>>> Condoleezza Rice also expressed worries this week about China's
>>>>> expanding military capabilities.
>>>>>     Among the failures highlighted in the study are:
>>>>>     ?China's development of a new long-range cruise missile.
>>>>>     ?The deployment of a new warship equipped with a stolen Chinese
>>>>> version of the U.S. Aegis battle management technology.
>>>>>     ?Deployment of a new attack submarine known as the Yuan class
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> that
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> was missed by U.S. intelligence until photos of the submarine
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> appeared
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> on the Internet.
>>>>>     ?Development of precision-guided munitions, including new
>>>>> air-to-ground missiles and new, more accurate warheads.
>>>>>     ?China's development of surface-to-surface missiles for
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> targeting
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups.
>>>>>     ?The importation of advanced weaponry, including Russian
>>>>> submarines, warships and fighter-bombers.
>>>>>     According to officials familiar with the intelligence report,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> word "surprise" is used more than a dozen times to describe U.S.
>>>>> failures to anticipate or discover Chinese arms development.
>>>>>     Many of the missed military developments will be contained in
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Pentagon's annual report to Congress on the Chinese military, which
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> was
>>>>> due out March 1 but delayed by interagency disputes over its
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> contents.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>     Critics of the study say the report unfairly blames
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> intelligence
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> collectors for not gathering solid information on the Chinese
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> military
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> and for failing to plant agents in the communist government.
>>>>>     Instead, these officials said, the report looks like a bid to
>>>>> exonerate analysts within the close-knit fraternity of government
>>>>> China
>>>>> specialists, who for the past 10 years dismissed or played down
>>>>> intelligence showing that Beijing was engaged in a major military
>>>>> buildup.
>>>>>     "This report conceals the efforts of dissenting analysts [in
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> intelligence community] who argued that China was a threat," one
>>>>> official said, adding that covering up the failure of intelligence
>>>>> analysts on China would prevent a major reorganization of the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> system.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>     A former U.S. official said the report should help expose a
>>>>> "self-selected group" of specialists who fooled the U.S. government
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> on
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> China for 10 years.
>>>>>     "This group's desire to have good relations with China has
>>>>> prevented them from highlighting how little they know and
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> suppressing
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> occasional evidence that China views the United States as its main
>>>>> enemy."
>>>>>     The report has been sent to Thomas Fingar, a longtime
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> intelligence
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> analyst on China who was recently appointed by John D. Negroponte,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> new director of national intelligence, as his office's top
>>>>> intelligence
>>>>> analyst.
>>>>>     Mr. Negroponte has ordered a series of top-to-bottom reviews of
>>>>> U.S. intelligence capabilities in the aftermath of the critical
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> report
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> by the presidential commission headed by Judge Laurence Silberman
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> former Sen. Charles Robb, Virginia Democrat.
>>>>>     According to the officials, the study was produced by a team of
>>>>> analysts for the intelligence contractor Centra Technologies.
>>>>>     Spokesmen for the CIA and Mr. Negroponte declined to comment.
>>>>>     Its main author is Robert Suettinger, a National Security
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Council
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> staff member for China during the Clinton administration and the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> U.S.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> intelligence community's top China analyst until 1998. Mr.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Suettinger
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> is traveling outside the country and could not be reached for
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> comment,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> a spokesman said.
>>>>>     John Culver, a longtime CIA analyst on Asia, was the co-author.
>>>>>     Among those who took part in the study were former Defense
>>>>> Intelligence Agency analyst Lonnie Henley, who critics say was
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> among
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> those who in the past had dismissed concerns about China's military
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> in
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> the past 10 years.
>>>>>     Also participating in the study was John F. Corbett, a former
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Army
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> intelligence analyst and attache who was a China policy-maker at
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Pentagon during the Clinton administration.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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!
>>>>> Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend.
>>>>> Check it out!
>>>>> http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________
>>> Discover Yahoo!
>>> Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend.  
>>> Check it out!
>>> http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>



From megao at sasktel.net  Fri Jun 10 18:23:35 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:23:35 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] What % of global economic activity is dependant on
	military activity?
Message-ID: <42A9DAA7.7000708@sasktel.net>

What I mean is to delineate the point of diminishing  returns at which
testing out technology by military enterprises no longer serves the purpose
of yielding information from which to make more durable or efficient
 or yield  improved  technological innovations.

Putting AK47's and and landmines cannot possibly yield much towards an 
improved human condition.
Putting up a GPS satellite network does improve the human condition in 
measureable ways.

One could begin to classify global military activity into  a spectrum 
and rate the
societal or other  benefits,  short, medium and long term  of these 
activities.

This like QALY ratings for medical intervention economics  might yield a 
cost/benefit
system for military activity economics.

This might allow rationalization of global military economics.

MFJ


LIFESPAN PHARMA Inc.
Extropian Agroforestry Ventures  Inc.
Mission: To Preserve, Protect and Enhance Lifespan
Plant-based Natural-health Bio-product Bio-pharmaceuticals
http://www.angelfire.com/on4/extropian-lifespan 
<http://www.angelfire.com/on4/extropian-lifespan>
http://www.4XtraLifespans.bravehost.com 
<http://www.4xtralifespans.bravehost.com/>
megao at sasktel.net <mailto:megao at sasktel.net>,  arla_j at hotmail.com 
<mailto:arla_j at hotmail.com>, mfj.eav at gmail.com <mailto:mfj.eav at gmail.com>
extropian.pharmer at gmail.com <mailto:extropian.pharmer at gmail.com>

Extreme Life-Extension ..."The most dangerous idea on earth"
-Leon Kass , Bioethics Advisor to George Herbert Walker Bush,
June 2005
- Hide quoted text -

 Radical Life-Extension Bioscience
+   Total Information Awareness Globalized Info-science
=   The 21st Century Paradigm    ........
Re-inventing the Human Condition from Quantum to Macro
*"I will live each 50 years, one at a time".... Morris Johnson - June 2005*

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050610/4aa194ae/attachment.html>

From dirk at neopax.com  Fri Jun 10 20:23:24 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 21:23:24 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] What % of global economic activity is dependant
	on	military activity?
In-Reply-To: <42A9DAA7.7000708@sasktel.net>
References: <42A9DAA7.7000708@sasktel.net>
Message-ID: <42A9F6BC.6010100@neopax.com>

Lifespan Pharma Inc. wrote:

> What I mean is to delineate the point of diminishing  returns at which
> testing out technology by military enterprises no longer serves the 
> purpose
> of yielding information from which to make more durable or efficient
>  or yield  improved  technological innovations.
>
> Putting AK47's and and landmines cannot possibly yield much towards an 
> improved human condition.
> Putting up a GPS satellite network does improve the human condition in 
> measureable ways.
>
> One could begin to classify global military activity into  a spectrum 
> and rate the
> societal or other  benefits,  short, medium and long term  of these 
> activities.
>
> This like QALY ratings for medical intervention economics  might yield 
> a cost/benefit
> system for military activity economics.
>
> This might allow rationalization of global military economics.

The problem is that actually deploying weapons has no economic benefit 
whatsoever - just the reverse.
If, say, the military obsession was replaced by a space colonisation 
obsession I think we would see all the benefits we currently get from 
military spending plus a 'deployment benefit' of vast magnitude.

-- 
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: 267.6.6 - Release Date: 08/06/2005



From scerir at libero.it  Fri Jun 10 20:38:59 2005
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:38:59 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] habitable zones
References: <20050610155424.25765.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <005d01c56dfc$6e61b350$b3c41b97@administxl09yj>

Galactic Gradients, Postbiological Evolution 
and the Apparent Failure of SETI
- Milan M. Cirkovic 
- Robert J. Bradbury
30 pages, 2 figures
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506110
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 megao at sasktel.net  Fri Jun 10 19:59:28 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:59:28 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] What % of global economic activity is dependant on
	military activity?
In-Reply-To: <42A9F6BC.6010100@neopax.com>
References: <42A9DAA7.7000708@sasktel.net> <42A9F6BC.6010100@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <42A9F120.1050507@sasktel.net>

Dirk Bruere wrote:

> Lifespan Pharma Inc. wrote:
>
>> What I mean is to delineate the point of diminishing  returns at which
>> testing out technology by military enterprises no longer serves the 
>> purpose
>> of yielding information from which to make more durable or efficient
>>  or yield  improved  technological innovations.
>>
>> Putting AK47's and and landmines cannot possibly yield much towards 
>> an improved human condition.
>> Putting up a GPS satellite network does improve the human condition 
>> in measureable ways.
>>
>> One could begin to classify global military activity into  a spectrum 
>> and rate the
>> societal or other  benefits,  short, medium and long term  of these 
>> activities.
>>
>> This like QALY ratings for medical intervention economics  might 
>> yield a cost/benefit
>> system for military activity economics.
>>
>> This might allow rationalization of global military economics.
>
>
> The problem is that actually deploying weapons has no economic benefit 
> whatsoever - just the reverse.
> If, say, the military obsession was replaced by a space colonisation 
> obsession I think we would see all the benefits we currently get from 
> military spending plus a 'deployment benefit' of vast magnitude.
>
To date the "deployment benefit"   might be justified in the creation of 
a globalization of economics and
social structures but what I suggest is that it  should be quantified as 
to  the exact costing  of this exercise.

Just like a  QALY  (Quality Adjusted Life Year) of say $1,000,000  being 
unjustifyable in most cases by a public healthcare system a similar 
QAMTE (Quality Adjusted Military Technology Event) should seek to 
measure the cost VS the
measureable impacts.

One could do historical practice case studies such as "WW2",  'The 
Berlin Wall" , "The formation of the EU" or "Iraq invasion"
to get a feel for the methodology, then apply the model to current and 
future "Military Technology Business Cases".

MFJ


LIFESPAN PHARMA Inc.
Extropian Agroforestry Ventures  Inc.
Mission: To Preserve, Protect and Enhance Lifespan
Plant-based Natural-health Bio-product Bio-pharmaceuticals
http://www.angelfire.com/on4/extropian-lifespan 
<http://www.angelfire.com/on4/extropian-lifespan>
http://www.4XtraLifespans.bravehost.com 
<http://www.4XtraLifespans.bravehost.com>
megao at sasktel.net <mailto:megao at sasktel.net>,  arla_j at hotmail.com 
<mailto:arla_j at hotmail.com>, mfj.eav at gmail.com <mailto:mfj.eav at gmail.com>
extropian.pharmer at gmail.com <mailto:extropian.pharmer at gmail.com>

Extreme Life-Extension ..."The most dangerous idea on earth"
-Leon Kass , Bioethics Advisor to George Herbert Walker Bush

 Radical Life-Extension Bioscience
+Total Information Awareness Globalized Info-science
=The 21st Century Paradigm.....
Re-inventing the Human Condition from Quantum to Macro
***"I will live each 50 years, one at a time".... Morris Johnson - June 
2005***

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050610/172cb5e1/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 10 21:00:26 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:00:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] What % of global economic activity is dependant on
	military activity?
In-Reply-To: <42A9DAA7.7000708@sasktel.net>
Message-ID: <20050610210027.85296.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

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

> What I mean is to delineate the point of diminishing  returns at
> which testing out technology by military enterprises no longer
> serves the purpose
> of yielding information from which to make more durable or efficient
>  or yield  improved  technological innovations.

Cruise missiles result in affordable small turbine engines for civil
aviation and efficient micropower cogeneration, as well as terrain
recognition software that is useful for environmental analysis,
searching for missing hikers.

> 
> Putting AK47's and and landmines cannot possibly yield much towards
> an improved human condition.

Ah, but developing land mines whose detonator squibs decompose over
time makes for safe landscapes after wars end without a lot of work. An
AK-47 in the hand of every person helps ensure that tyrannical world
government will be a very expensive proposition. It is interesting that
a very simple means of detecting mines has been found: plants that grow
with different colors based on the nitrogen content of the soil....

> Putting up a GPS satellite network does improve the human condition
> in measureable ways.

Except when it involves governments GPS tracking every one of their
citizens. As Vinge warned, localizer technologies are more a tech of
tyranny than not.

> 
> One could begin to classify global military activity into  a spectrum
> and rate the
> societal or other  benefits,  short, medium and long term  of these 
> activities.
> 
> This like QALY ratings for medical intervention economics  might
> yield a cost/benefit system for military activity economics.
> 
> This might allow rationalization of global military economics.

There are certainly lots of spin-off technologies, from rocketry to
computers, avionics, rescue, submarines, much medical trauma technology
etc.. There was a tv show on last year that detailed many such. While
military investment in such technologies is easy to make when there is
no profit motive, only strategic or tactical motive, it is questionable
whether private industry couldn't develop the same thing without
government contracting.

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! 
Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 10 21:08:21 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:08:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] What % of global economic activity is dependant on
	military activity?
In-Reply-To: <42A9F120.1050507@sasktel.net>
Message-ID: <20050610210821.68750.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> Dirk Bruere wrote:
> >
> >
> > The problem is that actually deploying weapons has no economic
> > benefit whatsoever - just the reverse.

Depends on what the deployment is for. If it is just makework to bases
that are kept open for the benefit of congressmen, you are right. If it
is a deployment to an area that needs peacekeeping or protection from
hostile invasion, there is a massive economic benefit, primarily in the
form of avoided disopportunity costs (i.e. the economic devastation of
invasion and ongoing warfare). "In Irons" is a good book detailing the
economic devastation of the Revolutionary War period on the colonial
economies, which went from being the most vibrant in the world before
the war to basketcases within 5 years.

> > If, say, the military obsession was replaced by a space
> > colonisation obsession I think we would see all the benefits we
> > currently get from 
> > military spending plus a 'deployment benefit' of vast magnitude.
> >
> To date the "deployment benefit"   might be justified in the creation
> of a globalization of economics and
> social structures but what I suggest is that it  should be quantified
> as to  the exact costing  of this exercise.

Space colonization would be more beneficial (unless of course colonies
fought each other, which may not be out of the question) to be sure, so
I tend to disregard as pollyannish those who disparage space programs
that are based on nationalist pride. Patriotism can be ugly, but it can
accomplish great things too.

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! 
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html


From rhanson at gmu.edu  Fri Jun 10 22:56:00 2005
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 18:56:00 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] what to do
In-Reply-To: <20050607042554.M67278@ifsi.rm.cnr.it>
References: <20050607042554.M67278@ifsi.rm.cnr.it>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050610185547.032d9628@mail.gmu.edu>

Now that I have tenure, I'm tempted to spend the next few years on a new
post-tenure project.  Since I should choose carefully, I solicit your
advice.  No rush; it will be a month or two until I finish my current tasks.

My goal is to make great things happen; getting personal credit can enable
me to do more things later, but is otherwise not the main goal.  By
temperament I most like to think deep thoughts, I least like to manage
other people, and explaining things is somewhere in the middle.

Here are the ten main choices as I see them now:

1. Disagreement Book - Expand "Are Disagreements Honest" and related papers
into a book, adding new material on data about who is right in real
disagreements.  I've been telling people this is my plan.  This could
establish my reputation as a deep thinker on a big issue.  Fun, as there are
still things for me to learn on this topic.  No real competition on this
topic (as least re the more technical angle), and it is nicely not aligned
with an ideology.  But not clear this will really change much in the world.

2. Medicine Book - Expand "Showing That You Care" into a book, making as
clear as possible to a wide audience the point that medicine doesn't help
them on the usual margin.  Alas, this is not a message people want to hear,
and I may not learn much doing this.

3. Upload Futures Papers and Book - Return to and finish my papers analyzing
the social implications of future technologies, particularly uploads.  Then
write a book summarizing this area.  I don't know of a more important policy
question, and no one else is doing this.  But it is not clear that making
more people aware of these issues will produce better policy; future tech is
usually treated symbolically, and this often makes things worse.

4. Idea Futures book - present the grand vision of idea futures solving many
problems.  Someone else is ahead of me with a similar book, and not sure a
popular book shouldn't wait until there is more real progress to report.  I
wouldn't learn much doing this.  But this is what I am now most famous for.

5. No subject book - just start writing and see what the book turns out to
be about.

6. Demo Combo Betting - Write software to clearly demonstrate my vision of
combinatorial markets, then sell the tech or give it away.  If I don't do
this it may be many years until others do it.  And this tech can dramatically
lower the cost of idea futures, allowing many more uses.  But this may not
be the limiting factor to wider use.  Software needs little money, and is
fully under my control, but I left software long ago because I preferred to
ponder.

7. Decision Markets Application - Solicit funds for and create a big set of
real money markets on an important policy area, to clearly demonstrate by
example the value of decision markets.  Might be on health policy, global
warming, foreign aid, or other big public policy area.  Or might focus on
policies of big corporations.  Would require me to be more of a manager,
which may not be my strong suit.  Others may well do this if I do not.

8. Media Controversy Track Records - Based on my PAM press paper.  Solicit
funds for and create a institute dedicated to collecting a track record on
who turned out to be right in media controversies.  Use this to infer
indicators of who tends to be right, and then use those indicators to create
a press watch service predicting where future opinion will go in current
controversies.  Can then solicit donations to support the inclusion of donor
topics of interest.  Good idea, but not clear I'm the right person to do it.

9. Mangled Worlds - Learn and apply enough physics theory to figure out if
my mangled worlds concept really is the solution the deep mystery of quantum
mechanics that it seems to me.  Maybe a 25% chance I'm right, but if I am,
and I take the time to explain myself clearly, would establish a strong
reputation as a deep thinker.  Should know one way or other in 3 years.
Would be fun, though not clear it has any practical implications.

10. Something New - Relax, read widely for a year or two, and then re-examine
the question.





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 fortean1 at mindspring.com  Sat Jun 11 00:30:32 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 17:30:32 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Obituary: Thomas Gold
Message-ID: <42AA30A8.1010000@mindspring.com>

*FT* 196, June 2005

Necrolog

Controversial physicist Thomas Gold was worthy of fortean respect.
Bob Rickard celebrates the life of this important 'contrarian'.

Thomas Gold

Thomas Gold was that rare thing; a fortean among scientists, attracted to
anomalies in the conventional wisdom and not afraid to research them beyond
the confines of his scientific disciplines.

Gold came to Cambridge University from Austria just before World War II.
Despite spending a year in a British internment camp as a suspected enemy
alien, he returned to study astronomy at Trinity College, Cambridge, and to
help develop radar for the British Admiralty.  While he was at Cambridge,
he made friends with Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi (whom he met in the
internment camp) and Francis Crick, among many other now famous names
in science.

Gold went on to teach at Cornell, Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford and
Princeton; was Chief Assistant to Britain's Astronomer Royal and for
seven years was a member of the US President's Space Science Panel;
and gave prestigious lectures to the Royal Astronomical Society and
NASA.  He became Professor Emeritus of Astronomy at Cornell
University and for 20 years directed the Cornell Center for
Radiophysics and Space Research which he founded.  He even
oversaw the construction of the world's largest radio telescope, in
Arecibo, Puerto Rico.  Among his honours were Fellowships of the
Royal Society, the American Geophysical Union, and Trinity
College, Cambridge, where he took his original doctorate.

Gold quickly gained a reputation as one of the 20th century's greatest
'contrarians' as his fresh and incisive analyses would lead to provocative
ideas--ranging from the cosmological to the geophysical--that, more often
than not, brought the disapproval of his more traditional colleagues.  His
earliest success came in 1946; while at Cambridge he developed a new
theory of hearing, proposing a mechanism by which the tiny hair cells
act as amplifiers in the inner ear.  This was not confirmed until the 1970s.

In 1948, reprising the team that worked on radar for the Admiralty, Gold
joined Hoyle and Bondi to develop the 'steady-state' theory, which held
that the Universe was under constant construction with no beginning or end.
It became the dominant view in cosmology until the 1960s, when the
discoveries of quasars (in late 1950s) and microwave background
radiation (in 1965) reinforced the 'big bang' explanation that the
Universe is expanding from an original singularity.

Gold was disappointed, but characteristically unfazed, moving on to other
work.  In 1968, he correctly identified pulsars as rapidly rotating neutron
stars with strong magnetic fields.  He also coined the term 'magnetosphere'
for the envelope of Earth's magnetic fields.

Gold sparked controversy again in 1955, when he was designing the stereo
camera used on the lunar surface by the US astronauts.  At that time, the
lunar plains were believed to be of volcanic lava, but Gold suggested that
the surface could be covered with a deep layer of fine rock powder.  His
enemies seized on this, ridiculing him for predicting that the lunar
astronauts and lander would sink out of sight into the dust.  Interviewed
before his death, Gold was still angry about this "slander", pointing out
the obvious: that time and the action of cosmic rays would tend to harden
the dust.  He was vindicated in 1969, when the Apollo 11 crew brought
the first samples of lunar soil back to Earth.

Perhaps his most heretical theory challenged the prevailing ideas concerning
the origin of oil, coal and natural gas.  He proposed that in the depths 
of the
Earth's crust was a second realm of life, a "deep hot biosphere" in which
archaic bacteria thrived in temperatures well above 100 degrees Celsius,
living off methane and other hydrocarbons six to 10 km (3.7-6.2 miles)
down.  This theory was launched in a 1992 paper in the *Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences* and expanded in his 1998 book _The Deep
Hot Biosphere_.  "I'd submitted it to *Nature* in 1988, but they wouldn't
publish it," he said later.

In the traditional view, oil, coal and natural gas are the residue of dead
plants and creatures from swamps and seabeds, 'cooked' under great
geological pressure over vast spans of time.  In any case, surface life
was not supposed to have penetrated the Earth more than a few hundred
metres.  Gold, however, maintained that oil, coal and natural gas were
incorporated into the Earth at great depths during its early formation,
possibly from meteoric impact as icy meteors are known to contain
masses of hydrocarbons.  Instead of dead creatures turning into
hydrocarbons when buried, Gold says the hydrocarbons are fuel on which
the deep creatures live.

Most Western geologist and petrologists consider Gold's ideas hugely
controversial, insisting that the biogenic theory of fossil fuel formation
adequately explains all observed fossil fuel deposits.  However, recent
discoveries of life on the ocean floors, making use of the normally toxic
chemicals from volcanic vents, and of archaic bacteria found in deep
holes from the Columbia River basalts of Washington to the oil wells
of the North Sea and South African gold mines, all seem to confirm
the basis of Gold's revisions.

Gold firmly believed that his theory accounted for a range of anomalies,
such as the presence of helium in oil (although it has no affinity with
organic material) and the presence of magnetite in oil.  Magnetite is a
chemically reduced form of iron oxide--evidence, says Gold, that
microbes have used its oxygen as they live off the oil, leaving behind
tiny grains of magnetite.  Another anomaly that puzzled Gold was
obvious in retrospect: that all over the world oil is being drilled in
sediments that vary region to region, differing in age and composition.
There is no sedimentary material that is uniform to all oilfields and yet
oil is fairly consistent whatever its provenance.  These led him to the
conclusion that oil might not be derived from organic matter but might
have a single, more consistent and therefore much older origin.

Between 1986 and 1993, Gold's ideas were tested by deep drilling in a
meteoric crater in Sweden called the Siljan Ring (*FT* correspondent
Sven Rosen was quick to tell us that this perfectly circular formation
had dragon legends associated with it.)  Below the crater, at a depth of
5-7km (3-4.3 miles) were solid granite beds.  They had crystallised out
of molten lava and therefore should not contain any organic remains, yet
they yielded 80 barrels of natural oil.  Detractors claimed the oil must
have seeped down from higher levels--yet, as Gold answered, the shale
beds of that area "were nowhere deeper than 300 meters, [984ft] while
I was down at 6.7 kilometers [4.2 miles]".

Gold says the first core samples reached him in Mallorca at a weekend
when all the facilities were shut and he had to improvise a test.  Using
hot water and kitchen detergent as a solvent and kitchen tissue roll as a
'chromatogram', he separated metallic solids from the sludge.  To test
for iron he unscrewed the catches off a kitchen cabinet to hold under
some aluminum foil holding liquid sludge.  The grains of magnetite
formed in a magnetic field.

Since then, Russian petroleum geologists have reported finding oil in wells
drilled more than 5km (3 miles) deep in the central part of the crystalline
Baltic Shield and they have credited Gold with inspiring them to look there.
More than 300 deep wells are under way in Russian Tartarstan and others
in Vietnam's giant offshore White Tiger field, all reported to be 
productive.

One important consequence of Gold's deep hot biosphere is still 
reverberating
in the realm of oil production and international finance.  The biogenic 
theory
of oil production and international finance.  The biogenic theory of oil 
led to
the belief that it would eventually 'run out', which is what is keeping oil
prices artificially high.  If Gold is correct, the reserves of deep natural
oil are vastly in excess of the 'normal' quantities estimated by the gas and
petroleum industry.  But Gold has more good news: in a recent interview he
claimed that "some geologists agree that fields are refilling themselves,
though they won't openly admit it."  Gold believes that his can only be
because the reduction in pressure in the higher reservoir is drawing more up
from deeper layers.

Gold's theory of an active deep biosphere has yet other, wider-ranging
implications for the prevalence of life, or at least, its basic building 
blocks,
in the Universe.  Recent astronomical observations have detected large
amounts of hydrocarbons on various planetary bodies in the Solar System.

In 1996, when the analysis of the so-called 'meteorite from Mars'--
designated ALH84001--revealed the presence of small traces of magnetite,
sulphides, oil and calcite cement in close proximity, Gold immediately
noticed that his combination was typical of borehole shale.  Not only did
this imply that Mars could contain deep oil but that Martian bacteria must
have lived off it to produce the magnetite residue.  To Gold, it was clear
that a lifeless surface need not have a lifeless interior.

Gold thought the Moon, too, has a deep biosphere--as may many of the other
satellites in our Solar System, such as Triton, Pluto and Charon.  He 
not only
endorsed the idea that meteors and meteorites play a part in transmitting
primitive life-forms through the Universe, but predicted that life could 
also
be spread by a new kind of wandering planet, travelling between star systems
and even galaxies, that was not formed within any planetary system and not
tied to a star by gravity.  It was natural, he argued, for a physicist to
gravitate towards questions about the origins of life and how it works.
As for the life on Earth, he said: "If life developed down below, it could
later crawl up to the surface and invent photosynthesis."


British astronomer and physicist, born Vienna, Austria, 22 May 1920; died
Ithaca, NY, 22 June 2004, aged 84.


-- 
"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 sentience at pobox.com  Sat Jun 11 02:10:52 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 19:10:52 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] what to do
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050610185547.032d9628@mail.gmu.edu>
References: <20050607042554.M67278@ifsi.rm.cnr.it>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050610185547.032d9628@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <42AA482C.2090108@pobox.com>

Robin Hanson wrote:
> Now that I have tenure, I'm tempted to spend the next few years on a new 
> post-tenure project.  Since I should choose carefully, I solicit your 
> advice.  No rush; it will be a month or two until I finish my current 
> tasks.
> 
> My goal is to make great things happen; getting personal credit can enable 
> me to do more things later, but is otherwise not the main goal.  By 
> temperament I most like to think deep thoughts, I least like to manage 
> other people, and explaining things is somewhere in the middle.
> 
> 1. Disagreement Book - Expand "Are Disagreements Honest" and related papers
>  into a book, adding new material on data about who is right in real 
> disagreements.  I've been telling people this is my plan.  This could 
> establish my reputation as a deep thinker on a big issue.  Fun, as there 
> are still things for me to learn on this topic.  No real competition on
> this topic (as least re the more technical angle), and it is nicely not
> aligned with an ideology.  But not clear this will really change much in
> the world.

What I would most advise you to do for yourself is the Disagreement Book.  As 
you learned the hard way, it's difficult to sell something that people don't 
want to buy.  I wish I could propound something as easy to accept as modesty, 
and I've sometimes considered writing a book on rationality for the same 
reason - just to get the benefits of tackling a tractable problem.  People are 
ready to be told that modesty is a good thing.  This is itself a bias, which 
is why I tend to disagree with you about how to handle disagreement - but if 
you pitch the book toward the popular-level, this book will probably sell 
better than anything else you're considering writing.  If you're planning a 
technical book or a book pitched at academia then you'd know better than I 
would what would best establish your reputation.

> 9. Mangled Worlds - Learn and apply enough physics theory to figure out if 
> my mangled worlds concept really is the solution the deep mystery of 
> quantum mechanics that it seems to me.  Maybe a 25% chance I'm right, but
> if I am, and I take the time to explain myself clearly, would establish a
> strong reputation as a deep thinker.  Should know one way or other in 3
> years. Would be fun, though not clear it has any practical implications.

This is the book I'm most interested in myself, in a purely selfish sense.  It 
is also the most difficult and the most risky.

 > 3. Upload Futures Papers and Book - Return to and finish my papers
 > analyzing the social implications of future technologies, particularly
 > uploads.  Then write a book summarizing this area.  I don't know of a more
 > important policy question, and no one else is doing this.  But it is not
 > clear that making more people aware of these issues will produce better
 > policy; future tech is usually treated symbolically, and this often makes
 > things worse.

Yeah.  Pretty much.  Probably the only real benefit to be derived from the 
book would be to pump generic academic respectability into advanced futurism.

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


From dirk at neopax.com  Sat Jun 11 02:30:46 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 03:30:46 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] what to do
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050610185547.032d9628@mail.gmu.edu>
References: <20050607042554.M67278@ifsi.rm.cnr.it>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050610185547.032d9628@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <42AA4CD6.9040105@neopax.com>

Robin Hanson wrote:

> Now that I have tenure, I'm tempted to spend the next few years on a new
> post-tenure project.  Since I should choose carefully, I solicit your
> advice.  No rush; it will be a month or two until I finish my current 
> tasks.
>
> My goal is to make great things happen; getting personal credit can 
> enable
> me to do more things later, but is otherwise not the main goal.  By
> temperament I most like to think deep thoughts, I least like to manage
> other people, and explaining things is somewhere in the middle.
>
> Here are the ten main choices as I see them now:
>
> 3. Upload Futures Papers and Book - Return to and finish my papers 
> analyzing
> the social implications of future technologies, particularly uploads.  
> Then
> write a book summarizing this area.  I don't know of a more important 
> policy
> question, and no one else is doing this.  But it is not clear that making
> more people aware of these issues will produce better policy; future 
> tech is
> usually treated symbolically, and this often makes things worse.
>
I suggest a more modest variant on an analysis of future tech.
Namely, the impact of populations with genetically (or otherwise) 
enhanced intelligence.
Consider the book "IQ and the Wealth of Nations"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_IQ

Take it from there.
Then throw in the effects of longevity - is it a plus or minus?

It would certainly make an impact and unlike uploading, people will 
relate to it almost immediately since the tech is starting to come 
together right now.

-- 
Dirk

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



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.6 - Release Date: 08/06/2005



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 11 04:11:31 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 21:11:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] what to do
In-Reply-To: <42AA482C.2090108@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <20050611041131.35474.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I would keep the idea futures book in the works, with special work on
the PAM. It should be ready to hit the presses if and when a new major
terror attack happens. This would get you on all the news programs,
testifying before congress, etc. and you can point the finger at those
who killed the PAM.

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

> Robin Hanson wrote:
> > Now that I have tenure, I'm tempted to spend the next few years on
> a new 
> > post-tenure project.  Since I should choose carefully, I solicit
> your 
> > advice.  No rush; it will be a month or two until I finish my
> current 
> > tasks.
> > 
> > My goal is to make great things happen; getting personal credit can
> enable 
> > me to do more things later, but is otherwise not the main goal.  By
> 
> > temperament I most like to think deep thoughts, I least like to
> manage 
> > other people, and explaining things is somewhere in the middle.
> > 
> > 1. Disagreement Book - Expand "Are Disagreements Honest" and
> related papers
> >  into a book, adding new material on data about who is right in
> real 
> > disagreements.  I've been telling people this is my plan.  This
> could 
> > establish my reputation as a deep thinker on a big issue.  Fun, as
> there 
> > are still things for me to learn on this topic.  No real
> competition on
> > this topic (as least re the more technical angle), and it is nicely
> not
> > aligned with an ideology.  But not clear this will really change
> much in
> > the world.
> 
> What I would most advise you to do for yourself is the Disagreement
> Book.  As 
> you learned the hard way, it's difficult to sell something that
> people don't 
> want to buy.  I wish I could propound something as easy to accept as
> modesty, 
> and I've sometimes considered writing a book on rationality for the
> same 
> reason - just to get the benefits of tackling a tractable problem. 
> People are 
> ready to be told that modesty is a good thing.  This is itself a
> bias, which 
> is why I tend to disagree with you about how to handle disagreement -
> but if 
> you pitch the book toward the popular-level, this book will probably
> sell 
> better than anything else you're considering writing.  If you're
> planning a 
> technical book or a book pitched at academia then you'd know better
> than I 
> would what would best establish your reputation.
> 
> > 9. Mangled Worlds - Learn and apply enough physics theory to figure
> out if 
> > my mangled worlds concept really is the solution the deep mystery
> of 
> > quantum mechanics that it seems to me.  Maybe a 25% chance I'm
> right, but
> > if I am, and I take the time to explain myself clearly, would
> establish a
> > strong reputation as a deep thinker.  Should know one way or other
> in 3
> > years. Would be fun, though not clear it has any practical
> implications.
> 
> This is the book I'm most interested in myself, in a purely selfish
> sense.  It 
> is also the most difficult and the most risky.
> 
>  > 3. Upload Futures Papers and Book - Return to and finish my papers
>  > analyzing the social implications of future technologies,
> particularly
>  > uploads.  Then write a book summarizing this area.  I don't know
> of a more
>  > important policy question, and no one else is doing this.  But it
> is not
>  > clear that making more people aware of these issues will produce
> better
>  > policy; future tech is usually treated symbolically, and this
> often makes
>  > things worse.
> 
> Yeah.  Pretty much.  Probably the only real benefit to be derived
> from the 
> book would be to pump generic academic respectability into advanced
> futurism.
> 
> -- 
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
> Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


Mike Lorrey
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 spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Jun 11 04:29:20 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 21:29:20 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] CHINA: Threat proponents not chicken littles...
In-Reply-To: <20050610175045.19811.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200506110429.j5B4T9R01332@tick.javien.com>

Do let us keep it civil please.  spike

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey
...
> Which means you are full of it.
> 
> --- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> 
> > It is easy enough to find if you wish.  I will not spoon feed you.




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Jun 11 04:42:48 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 23:42:48 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] COSMOS Magazine 
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050610234139.01c98518@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

http://www.locusmag.com/ :


   Magazine News

New Australian popular science magazine 
<http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/>Cosmos has named Damien Broderick fiction 
editor. The premiere issue, July 2005, goes on sale June 22 in Australia, 
July 4 in New Zealand. Broderick's first selection, by Gregory Benford, 
will appear in issue #2.



From hal at finney.org  Sat Jun 11 04:43:39 2005
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 21:43:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] what to do
Message-ID: <20050611044339.B230357E8C@finney.org>

Robin Hanson writes:
> 1. Disagreement Book - Expand "Are Disagreements Honest" and related papers
> into a book, adding new material on data about who is right in real
> disagreements.  I've been telling people this is my plan.  This could
> establish my reputation as a deep thinker on a big issue.  Fun, as there are
> still things for me to learn on this topic.  No real competition on this
> topic (as least re the more technical angle), and it is nicely not aligned
> with an ideology.  But not clear this will really change much in the world.
>
> 2. Medicine Book - Expand "Showing That You Care" into a book, making as
> clear as possible to a wide audience the point that medicine doesn't help
> them on the usual margin.  Alas, this is not a message people want to hear,
> and I may not learn much doing this.

I like these two.  You could combine them and call it the Cassandra
Project, after the Greek heroine who could tell amazing truths about
the future but was cursed never to be believed.  Fill the book with
things like this, truths that people can't and won't accept.

That's what I'd like to see, however it has only a small chance of
satisfying your goal of changing the world.

> 6. Demo Combo Betting - Write software to clearly demonstrate my vision of
> combinatorial markets, then sell the tech or give it away.  If I don't do
> this it may be many years until others do it.  And this tech can dramatically
> lower the cost of idea futures, allowing many more uses.  But this may not
> be the limiting factor to wider use.  Software needs little money, and is
> fully under my control, but I left software long ago because I preferred to
> ponder.

As a professor, can't you get students to work for you?  Maybe you could
have a student develop the software to your specs.  I seem to remember
lots of professors who couldn't code their way out of a paper bag
getting hot shot students to build great-looking demos of their ideas.
You can still ponder, you just have to look over their shoulder from
time to time and make unhelpful suggestions while you stroke your beard
(you do have to grow a beard for this one).

Anyway, I'm being a little facetious.  It's hard for me to take seriously
an appeal about how to change the world.  That's such a difficult task
and the odds against it so great that it seems kind of odd to seriously
make a plan for how to accomplish it.

However, given that this is your goal, I would say that you need to
expect it to take time.  One man exerts only a small influence on the
world, so you have to work over a period of many years in order to make
a significant change.  Your IF concept seems to bring many of your
ideas together.  It provides a mechanism for revealing truths about
the future that bypasses many of our social controls that protect the
conventional wisdom.  It seems to be the most promising direction.

I would suggest in general pursuing projects related to this concept,
continuing to write about it and develop it, look for partnerships with
other groups in getting sample applications into place.  Plan to spend
the rest of your working life on the single minded goal of getting people
to use betting markets to reveal truths that can't come out in other ways.

You don't have to be the manager or the instigator, you can be a
consultant.  I've known a lot of professors who made very good livings
via consulting work.  But you do need a reputation and your expertise has
to be in demand.

You have a good rep but the technology is not yet accepted.  So I think
that is where you need to focus: you have to try to popularize, evangelize
and proselytize for Idea Futures.  Write op-eds pointing to successes.
Get pilot projects going.  Get your students working on this stuff.
Just keep pushing it.

This is where you've had your biggest success so far, and it's where you
will have the most leverage in terms of trying to make it even bigger.
I'd say this is definitely your best path for changing the world.
And as I said it has lots of good side effects on your other interests.
Cassandra may still not be believed but for her trouble at least she
will be able to get rich.

Hal


From brentn at freeshell.org  Sat Jun 11 05:51:46 2005
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 01:51:46 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] what to do
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050610185547.032d9628@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <r02010500-1038-E5C62724DA3C11D9A755000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>

 (6/10/05 18:56) Robin Hanson <rhanson at gmu.edu> wrote:

>Now that I have tenure, I'm tempted to spend the next few years on a new
>post-tenure project.  Since I should choose carefully, I solicit your
>advice.  No rush; it will be a month or two until I finish my current tasks.
>
>
>Here are the ten main choices as I see them now:
>



I'd be most interested in (2) and in (1), in that order. I'm moderately interested in see what would happen with (6) and (7), but those pose a bit more risk for you. I would recommend strongly staying well away from (9), unless you can find a collaborator who has a (good) reputation in physics to work with.  Too many really bright folks try to tackle problems like this and wind up looking like morons (Roger Penrose comes to mind).

B
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sat Jun 11 05:55:22 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:55:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] what to do
In-Reply-To: <20050611044339.B230357E8C@finney.org>
Message-ID: <20050611055522.42742.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Hal Finney <hal at finney.org> wrote:
> You can still ponder, you just have to look over their shoulder from
> time to time and make unhelpful suggestions while you stroke your
> beard
> (you do have to grow a beard for this one).

Been there, done that - though not in an academic situation.  Stroking
one's shaved chin will do in a pinch, especially if you can keep them
focussed on their work instead of looking at you.  Or even the emote
"*strokes chin*" if you're managing via email and chat (and only
occasional phone or FTF)...although you do have to use emotes normally,
so it doesn't stick out (but don't overdo it either: it's like spicing
a soup).  ;)


From pgptag at gmail.com  Sat Jun 11 07:54:56 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 09:54:56 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] what to do
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050610185547.032d9628@mail.gmu.edu>
References: <20050607042554.M67278@ifsi.rm.cnr.it>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050610185547.032d9628@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <470a3c5205061100547bf3f5f2@mail.gmail.com>

Robin,
I believe these are all extremely interesting projects. Whatever book
you write from this list, I will be among the first to buy and read.
I was not aware of the "mangled worlds" approach to MWI, I plan to
read both papers that you mention in
http://hanson.gmu.edu/mangledworlds.html
I would be very interested in 3. Upload Futures Papers and Book, which
has possibly the highest future impact. As you say, "I don't know of a
more important policy question, and no one else is doing this".
In terms of media resonance and short term impact, I think you could
not do better than choosing 4. Idea Futures book and 6. Demo Combo
Betting, and focus on the late lamented PAM. The T word will attract
readers and press, you will be invited to talk shows and this can help
advancing all your other ideas.
But I believe the real question is - what do you *want* to do. If as I
suspect you are unable to make up your mind between many books that
you wish to write, perhaps the best choice is 5. No subject book -
just start writing and see what the book turns out to be about. In the
no subject book you could touch all these things, and separate
chapters can later spawn new books.
G.



On 6/11/05, Robin Hanson <rhanson at gmu.edu> wrote:
> Now that I have tenure, I'm tempted to spend the next few years on a new
> post-tenure project.  Since I should choose carefully, I solicit your
> advice.  No rush; it will be a month or two until I finish my current tasks.
> 
> My goal is to make great things happen; getting personal credit can enable
> me to do more things later, but is otherwise not the main goal.  By
> temperament I most like to think deep thoughts, I least like to manage
> other people, and explaining things is somewhere in the middle.
> 
> Here are the ten main choices as I see them now:
> 
> 1. Disagreement Book - Expand "Are Disagreements Honest" and related papers
> into a book, adding new material on data about who is right in real
> disagreements.  I've been telling people this is my plan.  This could
> establish my reputation as a deep thinker on a big issue.  Fun, as there are
> still things for me to learn on this topic.  No real competition on this
> topic (as least re the more technical angle), and it is nicely not aligned
> with an ideology.  But not clear this will really change much in the world.
> 
> 2. Medicine Book - Expand "Showing That You Care" into a book, making as
> clear as possible to a wide audience the point that medicine doesn't help
> them on the usual margin.  Alas, this is not a message people want to hear,
> and I may not learn much doing this.
> 
> 3. Upload Futures Papers and Book - Return to and finish my papers analyzing
> the social implications of future technologies, particularly uploads.  Then
> write a book summarizing this area.  I don't know of a more important policy
> question, and no one else is doing this.  But it is not clear that making
> more people aware of these issues will produce better policy; future tech is
> usually treated symbolically, and this often makes things worse.
> 
> 4. Idea Futures book - present the grand vision of idea futures solving many
> problems.  Someone else is ahead of me with a similar book, and not sure a
> popular book shouldn't wait until there is more real progress to report.  I
> wouldn't learn much doing this.  But this is what I am now most famous for.
> 
> 5. No subject book - just start writing and see what the book turns out to
> be about.
> 
> 6. Demo Combo Betting - Write software to clearly demonstrate my vision of
> combinatorial markets, then sell the tech or give it away.  If I don't do
> this it may be many years until others do it.  And this tech can dramatically
> lower the cost of idea futures, allowing many more uses.  But this may not
> be the limiting factor to wider use.  Software needs little money, and is
> fully under my control, but I left software long ago because I preferred to
> ponder.
> 
> 7. Decision Markets Application - Solicit funds for and create a big set of
> real money markets on an important policy area, to clearly demonstrate by
> example the value of decision markets.  Might be on health policy, global
> warming, foreign aid, or other big public policy area.  Or might focus on
> policies of big corporations.  Would require me to be more of a manager,
> which may not be my strong suit.  Others may well do this if I do not.
> 
> 8. Media Controversy Track Records - Based on my PAM press paper.  Solicit
> funds for and create a institute dedicated to collecting a track record on
> who turned out to be right in media controversies.  Use this to infer
> indicators of who tends to be right, and then use those indicators to create
> a press watch service predicting where future opinion will go in current
> controversies.  Can then solicit donations to support the inclusion of donor
> topics of interest.  Good idea, but not clear I'm the right person to do it.
> 
> 9. Mangled Worlds - Learn and apply enough physics theory to figure out if
> my mangled worlds concept really is the solution the deep mystery of quantum
> mechanics that it seems to me.  Maybe a 25% chance I'm right, but if I am,
> and I take the time to explain myself clearly, would establish a strong
> reputation as a deep thinker.  Should know one way or other in 3 years.
> Would be fun, though not clear it has any practical implications.
> 
> 10. Something New - Relax, read widely for a year or two, and then re-examine
> the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz  Sat Jun 11 08:16:39 2005
From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes)
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 20:16:39 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] what to do
Message-ID: <20050611081639.95075.qmail@web31512.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

>9. Mangled Worlds - Learn and apply enough physics theory to figure >out if my mangled worlds concept really is the solution the deep >mystery of quantum mechanics that it seems to me.  Maybe a 25% >chance I'm right, but if I am, and I take the time to explain myself >clearly, would establish a strong reputation as a deep thinker.  Should >know one way or other in 3 years.  Would be fun, though not clear it >has any practical implications.
 
That sounds the most exciting and intriguing.  What are 'Mangled Worlds'?  What's the relation to the MWI of QM?
 
I do think on practical grounds that (1) is your best option though.  I'd like to see a book on rationality and I think it woud sell well.  I wonder, is there some way you could combine (1) with (9) ?  After all, aren't epistemology and metaphysics connected?  Would there be any implications of 'Mangled Worlds' for probability theory?  (Remember:  MWI does seem to be the 'natural' interpretation for Bayesian reasoning doesn't it)?  Perhaps you could write your book focusing on (1) but including some of your ideas for (9).
 
In fact, perhaps you could combine the PAM ideas, the Managed Worlds ideas AND the ideas about rationality in one book.  Develop a comprehensible new philosophy for all existence.
 
For an example of how you might be able to weave together metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics, see a brief essay I wrote for 'Transhumanity' a while back:
 
http://transhumanism.org/index.php/th/more/461/
 
Actually, your best bet for changing the world is to go for broke and devote all your time and energy to creating the world's first Friendly Artificial Intelligence ;)
 
 
 
 


---

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 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050611/e7da00af/attachment.html>

From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Sat Jun 11 11:27:05 2005
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 12:27:05 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] what to do
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050610185547.032d9628@mail.gmu.edu>
References: <20050607042554.M67278@ifsi.rm.cnr.it>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050610185547.032d9628@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <8d71341e050611042770966552@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/10/05, Robin Hanson <rhanson at gmu.edu> wrote:
> Now that I have tenure, I'm tempted to spend the next few years on a new
> post-tenure project.  Since I should choose carefully, I solicit your
> advice.  No rush; it will be a month or two until I finish my current tasks.

To me, Mangled Worlds is the most interesting of these topics - that's
the one I'd happily buy a book on.

Of course, given that you'll be spending years on this, it's more
important to pick something you find interesting; that part, I can't
advise you on - but perhaps try, say, spending a few days on each and
then look back and see which you liked best?

- Russell


From jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Sat Jun 11 12:32:26 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 08:32:26 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] COSMOS Magazine
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050610234139.01c98518@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050610234139.01c98518@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <42AAD9DA.3050807@humanenhancement.com>

Hey, Hey!

Congratulations, Damien! Well done!

Joseph

Damien Broderick wrote:

> http://www.locusmag.com/ :
>
>
>   Magazine News
>
> New Australian popular science magazine 
> <http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/>Cosmos has named Damien Broderick 
> fiction editor. The premiere issue, July 2005, goes on sale June 22 in 
> Australia, July 4 in New Zealand. Broderick's first selection, by 
> Gregory Benford, will appear in issue #2.
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>


From rhanson at gmu.edu  Sat Jun 11 15:20:50 2005
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 11:20:50 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] what to do
In-Reply-To: <20050611044339.B230357E8C@finney.org>
References: <20050611044339.B230357E8C@finney.org>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050611111634.0304d5f0@mail.gmu.edu>

Thanks to everyone for their thoughtful comments.  I will ponder them and the
dozens of other comments I'm getting carefully before making a decision.

At 12:43 AM 6/11/2005, Hal Finney wrote:
> > 6. Demo Combo Betting - Write software to clearly demonstrate my vision of
> > combinatorial markets, then sell the tech or give it away.  ...
>
>As a professor, can't you get students to work for you?  Maybe you could
>have a student develop the software to your specs.  I seem to remember
>lots of professors who couldn't code their way out of a paper bag
>getting hot shot students to build great-looking demos of their ideas.

Well if I were a computer science prof at a top school, that might work.
But as an economics prof at a middling school, the students I can get
just aren't good enough to make that approach worth the bother.  Better to
get funding and then hire a professional to do it.


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




From rhanson at gmu.edu  Sat Jun 11 15:25:43 2005
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 11:25:43 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ vs Uploads (was: what to do)
In-Reply-To: <42AA4CD6.9040105@neopax.com>
References: <20050607042554.M67278@ifsi.rm.cnr.it>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050610185547.032d9628@mail.gmu.edu>
	<42AA4CD6.9040105@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050611112124.030db4d0@mail.gmu.edu>

At 10:30 PM 6/10/2005, Dirk Bruere wrote:
>>3. Upload Futures Papers and Book - Return to and finish my papers analyzing
>>the social implications of future technologies, particularly uploads.
>I suggest a more modest variant on an analysis of future tech.
>Namely, the impact of populations with genetically (or otherwise) enhanced 
>intelligence.
>Consider the book "IQ and the Wealth of Nations"
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_IQ
>Take it from there.
>Then throw in the effects of longevity - is it a plus or minus?
>It would certainly make an impact and unlike uploading, people will relate 
>to it almost immediately since the tech is starting to come together right now.

What most needs analysis are changes that are not captured in existing
trends. IQ has been increasing and that has had effects for a long time.
So all of the existing trend-based analysis already captures a big
similar effect.  The effects of the upload transition are not, however,
much captured in existing trends.



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 natasha at natasha.cc  Sat Jun 11 15:57:52 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:57:52 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] TV05 - Video/Film Festival Submissions
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050611095904.02970280@pop-server.austin.rr.com>


TV05
TransVision 2005

"My advice to young film-makers is this: Don't follow trends, Start 
them!"   Frank Capra
"That's the challenge, to make it romantic and not sappy." Sofia Coppola
"Somewhere between chance and mystery lies imagination, the only thing that 
protects our freedom..."  Luis Bu?uel
"There is no end. There is no beginning. There is only the passion of 
life." Federico Fellini

Attention:  Media Artists, Directors and Producers

We are once again exhibiting the moving image works of filmmakers, 
videographers, and multi-media artists, at TransVision 2005.

If you would like to enter your works, please contact me at your earliest 
convenience!  The entry form is located at 
http://www.transhumanist.biz/entryform.htm  Please do not use the curator's 
email address, as it is currently not functioning.

Thank you and we look forward to exhibiting your moving images.

Create!

Natasha Vita-More
Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050611/18fd8b10/attachment.html>

From dirk at neopax.com  Sat Jun 11 16:02:02 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 17:02:02 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ vs Uploads
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050611112124.030db4d0@mail.gmu.edu>
References: <20050607042554.M67278@ifsi.rm.cnr.it>	<6.2.1.2.2.20050610185547.032d9628@mail.gmu.edu>	<42AA4CD6.9040105@neopax.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050611112124.030db4d0@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <42AB0AFA.6020200@neopax.com>

Robin Hanson wrote:

> At 10:30 PM 6/10/2005, Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
>>> 3. Upload Futures Papers and Book - Return to and finish my papers 
>>> analyzing
>>> the social implications of future technologies, particularly uploads.
>>
>> I suggest a more modest variant on an analysis of future tech.
>> Namely, the impact of populations with genetically (or otherwise) 
>> enhanced intelligence.
>> Consider the book "IQ and the Wealth of Nations"
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_IQ
>> Take it from there.
>> Then throw in the effects of longevity - is it a plus or minus?
>> It would certainly make an impact and unlike uploading, people will 
>> relate to it almost immediately since the tech is starting to come 
>> together right now.
>
>
> What most needs analysis are changes that are not captured in existing
> trends. IQ has been increasing and that has had effects for a long time.

At around 3 points per decade.
I think that when that suddenly accelerates to 30 points per decade we 
will see a discontinuity where a quantitative change precipitates a 
qualitative one. Also, such engineering will probably be the hottest 
political topic this century.

> So all of the existing trend-based analysis already captures a big
> similar effect.  The effects of the upload transition are not, however,
> much captured in existing trends.
>
Because the tech is not a gradual process.
It either works and is available, or it isn't.
Plus I don't see it being feasible within 30yrs.
Any writing you do on it will go into the SF section of the bookshop.

-- 
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: 267.6.8 - Release Date: 11/06/2005



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Jun 11 17:07:01 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:07:01 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] you owe it to me to be funny:  was IQ vs Uploads
In-Reply-To: <42AB0AFA.6020200@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <200506111706.j5BH6oR09638@tick.javien.com>

> ... Dirk Bruere
> > What most needs analysis are changes that are not captured in existing
> > trends. IQ has been increasing and that has had effects for a long time.
> 
> At around 3 points per decade...

I had always assumed that this effect was a sort of 
optical illusion caused by our increasing ability to
take IQ tests, perhaps from schools emphasizing such
training, but I am now rethinking that notion.

On a recent trip to Oregon, I listened to recordings
of old time comedy routines, classic stuff that has
survived the ages: Who's On First by Abbott and Costello,
off-color gags by WC Fields and Mae West, Fibber McGee
and Molly, etc, riffs from mostly the 30s and 40s.  The 
routines were not nearly as insightful, sophisticated 
or subtle as modern comedy.  

Even taking into account that comedy is cultural and 
context-dependent, the old stuff really wasn't all that 
funny.  Perhaps the luxury of modern living allows
more people the opportunity to sit around and think
up comedy routines.  I know I take advantage of that
opportunity early and often.  I am tempted to think
that people are just generally smarter now than they
once were.  

We are getting smart enough to entertain each other
by playing stupid.  This gives me hope that in the
future humans will become even more smart and ever more 
entertaining.  If I extrapolate forward enough on this
trend, we may spend so much time and intellectual energy
cutting up and laughing at each other that we will 
neglect our studies and become stupid again.  

If this be so, then you and I may be fortunate enough to 
have been born in times when humanity reached its zenith of 
funny.  Wouldn't that be cool?  The funny stuff we write
and say today will be maximum funny forever!  Therefore it 
is your ethical humanitarian duty to spend the maximum 
intellectual energy available trying to cause your 
fellow humans to laugh and enjoy themselves.    

spike






From dirk at neopax.com  Sat Jun 11 17:12:27 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 18:12:27 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] you owe it to me to be funny:  was IQ vs Uploads
In-Reply-To: <200506111706.j5BH6oR09638@tick.javien.com>
References: <200506111706.j5BH6oR09638@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <42AB1B7B.9040306@neopax.com>

spike wrote:

>>... Dirk Bruere
>>    
>>
>>>What most needs analysis are changes that are not captured in existing
>>>trends. IQ has been increasing and that has had effects for a long time.
>>>      
>>>
>>At around 3 points per decade...
>>    
>>
>
>I had always assumed that this effect was a sort of 
>optical illusion caused by our increasing ability to
>take IQ tests, perhaps from schools emphasizing such
>training, but I am now rethinking that notion.
>
>On a recent trip to Oregon, I listened to recordings
>of old time comedy routines, classic stuff that has
>survived the ages: Who's On First by Abbott and Costello,
>off-color gags by WC Fields and Mae West, Fibber McGee
>and Molly, etc, riffs from mostly the 30s and 40s.  The 
>routines were not nearly as insightful, sophisticated 
>or subtle as modern comedy.  
>
>  
>
I recall my grandmother telling me about how, at the outbreak of WW1, 
gangs of people went around beating Dachshunds to death because they 
were 'German' dogs. I believe the Flynn Effect is very real and no 
illusion at all.

-- 
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: 267.6.8 - Release Date: 11/06/2005



From sjatkins at mac.com  Sat Jun 11 18:02:16 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 11:02:16 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] what to do
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050610185547.032d9628@mail.gmu.edu>
References: <20050607042554.M67278@ifsi.rm.cnr.it>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050610185547.032d9628@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <68EA5CEC-3FE6-4028-9EE2-C475F817F08D@mac.com>

The software in for combo betting, if giving it away is possible  
anyway, could be done as open source.  Ideally this would enable you  
to get this done and other items on your list as well.

Is it possible to establish a foundation or the equivalent under  
which to group items 4, 6, 7 and 8?  This again would potentially act  
as a multiplier on your efforts and those of others making larger  
impact on the world more likely in these areas.

- samantha

On Jun 10, 2005, at 3:56 PM, Robin Hanson wrote:

> Now that I have tenure, I'm tempted to spend the next few years on  
> a new
> post-tenure project.  Since I should choose carefully, I solicit your
> advice.  No rush; it will be a month or two until I finish my  
> current tasks.
>
> My goal is to make great things happen; getting personal credit can  
> enable
> me to do more things later, but is otherwise not the main goal.  By
> temperament I most like to think deep thoughts, I least like to manage
> other people, and explaining things is somewhere in the middle.
>
> Here are the ten main choices as I see them now:
>
> 1. Disagreement Book - Expand "Are Disagreements Honest" and  
> related papers
> into a book, adding new material on data about who is right in real
> disagreements.  I've been telling people this is my plan.  This could
> establish my reputation as a deep thinker on a big issue.  Fun, as  
> there are
> still things for me to learn on this topic.  No real competition on  
> this
> topic (as least re the more technical angle), and it is nicely not  
> aligned
> with an ideology.  But not clear this will really change much in  
> the world.
>
> 2. Medicine Book - Expand "Showing That You Care" into a book,  
> making as
> clear as possible to a wide audience the point that medicine  
> doesn't help
> them on the usual margin.  Alas, this is not a message people want  
> to hear,
> and I may not learn much doing this.
>
> 3. Upload Futures Papers and Book - Return to and finish my papers  
> analyzing
> the social implications of future technologies, particularly  
> uploads.  Then
> write a book summarizing this area.  I don't know of a more  
> important policy
> question, and no one else is doing this.  But it is not clear that  
> making
> more people aware of these issues will produce better policy;  
> future tech is
> usually treated symbolically, and this often makes things worse.
>
> 4. Idea Futures book - present the grand vision of idea futures  
> solving many
> problems.  Someone else is ahead of me with a similar book, and not  
> sure a
> popular book shouldn't wait until there is more real progress to  
> report.  I
> wouldn't learn much doing this.  But this is what I am now most  
> famous for.
>
> 5. No subject book - just start writing and see what the book turns  
> out to
> be about.
>
> 6. Demo Combo Betting - Write software to clearly demonstrate my  
> vision of
> combinatorial markets, then sell the tech or give it away.  If I  
> don't do
> this it may be many years until others do it.  And this tech can  
> dramatically
> lower the cost of idea futures, allowing many more uses.  But this  
> may not
> be the limiting factor to wider use.  Software needs little money,  
> and is
> fully under my control, but I left software long ago because I  
> preferred to
> ponder.
>
> 7. Decision Markets Application - Solicit funds for and create a  
> big set of
> real money markets on an important policy area, to clearly  
> demonstrate by
> example the value of decision markets.  Might be on health policy,  
> global
> warming, foreign aid, or other big public policy area.  Or might  
> focus on
> policies of big corporations.  Would require me to be more of a  
> manager,
> which may not be my strong suit.  Others may well do this if I do not.
>
> 8. Media Controversy Track Records - Based on my PAM press paper.   
> Solicit
> funds for and create a institute dedicated to collecting a track  
> record on
> who turned out to be right in media controversies.  Use this to infer
> indicators of who tends to be right, and then use those indicators  
> to create
> a press watch service predicting where future opinion will go in  
> current
> controversies.  Can then solicit donations to support the inclusion  
> of donor
> topics of interest.  Good idea, but not clear I'm the right person  
> to do it.
>
> 9. Mangled Worlds - Learn and apply enough physics theory to figure  
> out if
> my mangled worlds concept really is the solution the deep mystery  
> of quantum
> mechanics that it seems to me.  Maybe a 25% chance I'm right, but  
> if I am,
> and I take the time to explain myself clearly, would establish a  
> strong
> reputation as a deep thinker.  Should know one way or other in 3  
> years.
> Would be fun, though not clear it has any practical implications.
>
> 10. Something New - Relax, read widely for a year or two, and then  
> re-examine
> the question.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 rhanson at gmu.edu  Sat Jun 11 18:20:06 2005
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 14:20:06 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] what to do
In-Reply-To: <68EA5CEC-3FE6-4028-9EE2-C475F817F08D@mac.com>
References: <20050607042554.M67278@ifsi.rm.cnr.it>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050610185547.032d9628@mail.gmu.edu>
	<68EA5CEC-3FE6-4028-9EE2-C475F817F08D@mac.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050611141423.01ec1810@mail.gmu.edu>

At 02:02 PM 6/11/2005, Samantha Atkins wrote:
>The software in for combo betting, if giving it away is possible
>anyway, could be done as open source.  Ideally this would enable you
>to get this done and other items on your list as well.

Yes.  But the first thing to do is to create prototype software.
Managing an open source project based on that prototype is not for
me to do.

>Is it possible to establish a foundation or the equivalent under
>which to group items 4, 6, 7 and 8?  This again would potentially act
>as a multiplier on your efforts and those of others making larger
>impact on the world more likely in these areas.

Realistically, a new foundation would have to be based on a particular
project - others would come later.


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 mike99 at lascruces.com  Sat Jun 11 22:10:26 2005
From: mike99 at lascruces.com (mike99)
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 16:10:26 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: what to do (Robin Hanson)
Message-ID: <DAEGJDAIEMCEKLOPODAKIENOEOAA.mike99@lascruces.com>

Robin,
My first thought had been to offer you a rank-ordering of your potential
projects according to my own interest in them. But I decided that such an
offering was not worth much.

So I recommend that you take Giulio's suggestion:

"...perhaps the best choice is 5. No subject book -
just start writing and see what the book turns out to be about. In the
no subject book you could touch all these things, and separate
chapters can later spawn new books."


I like this idea because, at the worst, you will have several chapters on
disparate topics that could serve as beginning drafts for several books. At
best, you may have something not unlike the current best-seller by Steven
Levy FREAKONOMICS, which I'm finding quite fascinating.

Best wishes on whatever you decide to do.



Regards,

Michael LaTorra

mike99 at lascruces.com
mlatorra at nmsu.edu

"For any man to abdicate an interest in science is to walk with open eyes
towards slavery."
-- Jacob Bronowski

"Experiences only look special from the inside of the system."
-- Eugen Leitl

Member:
Board of Directors, World Transhumanist Association: www.transhumanism.org
Board of Directors, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies:
http://ieet.org/
Extropy Institute: www.extropy.org
Alcor Life Extension Foundation: www.alcor.org
Society for Universal Immortalism: www.universalimmortalism.org
President, Zen Center of Las Cruces: www.zencenteroflascruces.org




From pgptag at gmail.com  Sun Jun 12 09:22:57 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 11:22:57 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: what to do (Robin Hanson)
In-Reply-To: <DAEGJDAIEMCEKLOPODAKIENOEOAA.mike99@lascruces.com>
References: <DAEGJDAIEMCEKLOPODAKIENOEOAA.mike99@lascruces.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c52050612022227e4df02@mail.gmail.com>

Hansonomics?

On 6/12/05, mike99 <mike99 at lascruces.com> wrote:
> Robin,
> My first thought had been to offer you a rank-ordering of your potential
> projects according to my own interest in them. But I decided that such an
> offering was not worth much.
> 
> So I recommend that you take Giulio's suggestion:
> 
> "...perhaps the best choice is 5. No subject book -
> just start writing and see what the book turns out to be about. In the
> no subject book you could touch all these things, and separate
> chapters can later spawn new books."
> 
> 
> I like this idea because, at the worst, you will have several chapters on
> disparate topics that could serve as beginning drafts for several books. At
> best, you may have something not unlike the current best-seller by Steven
> Levy FREAKONOMICS, which I'm finding quite fascinating.
> 
> Best wishes on whatever you decide to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Michael LaTorra


From dgc at cox.net  Sun Jun 12 14:12:04 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 10:12:04 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] book review: Radical Evolution
In-Reply-To: <42A3BBDC.3040104@cox.net>
References: <20050606022222.56265.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42A3BBDC.3040104@cox.net>
Message-ID: <42AC42B4.2020309@cox.net>

The Washington Post Book review section in today's Washington Post
has a review of the book "Radical Evolution", by Washington Post reporter
Joel Garreau. From the review I assume Joel spoke with several folks
on this list.

Also from the review it sounds to me like The book would have been
insightful and provocative if published in (say) 1997.

 From the review, Joel looks at three possible outcomes: "Heaven," 
"Hell," and
"Prevail." Prevail is a non-singularitan middle way that is possible, 
apparently,
because Joel does not believe in the the other two. Clearly, he simply 
doesn't get
it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/09/AR2005060901546.html

You may need to register to read this online.


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sun Jun 12 15:14:50 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 08:14:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] book review: Radical Evolution
In-Reply-To: <42AC42B4.2020309@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20050612151450.95186.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:
>  From the review, Joel looks at three possible outcomes: "Heaven," 
> "Hell," and
> "Prevail." Prevail is a non-singularitan middle way that is possible,
> apparently,
> because Joel does not believe in the the other two. Clearly, he
> simply 
> doesn't get
> it.
> 
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/09/AR2005060901546.html

>From the description of Prevail, it looks like a Singularity driven by
current human desires - and thus probably an "outcome" that would be a
step along the path.  No hard AI so the AIs that exist are uploads, or
at least IA-assisted humans (at first)?  Yes, more and tighter social
bonds could easily be among the early results of that.  After that is
the realm that we tend to speculate about; the point is that the
scenarios are far from incompatible.


From natasha at natasha.cc  Sun Jun 12 15:53:01 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 10:53:01 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy:  "Best of the List"
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050612090947.02ffe930@pop-server.austin.rr.com>


Best of the List
a book of highly extropic - transhumanist in scope - posts
One of the beauties of this list is that it has served as an incubation 
nexus for ideas. Since earliest ideas posted in 1991, many have become 
well-known and have hit the mainstream.

In compiling "Best of the List", your input is especially important because 
you are this list.   Here are some suggestions for thinking about posts:
    * What post(s) inspired your worldview?
    * What post(s) best summarize transhumanist topics?
    * What post(s) did you find most amusing - funny - provocative?
    * Whose posts have been revolutionary, innovative, inspiring?
    * What post(s) caused you to take action in your own life?
    * What post(s) invited new ways of thinking about the future and the 
consequences of technology?
    * What post(s) set a role for the transhumanist philosophy of extropy?
    * What post(s) suggested ethical use of technology?
    * What post(s) were fabulous debates on leading edge ideas?
    * What is your personal favorite post(s) or thread(s)?
Thanks,
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/20050612/86c5b2cb/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Jun 12 16:48:20 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 11:48:20 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] book review: Radical Evolution
In-Reply-To: <42AC42B4.2020309@cox.net>
References: <20050606022222.56265.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42A3BBDC.3040104@cox.net> <42AC42B4.2020309@cox.net>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050612114221.01db3c50@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 10:12 AM 6/12/2005 -0400, Dan wrote:

>Also from the review it sounds to me like The book would have been
>insightful and provocative if published in (say) 1997.

As another one was, with rather similar contents. :)

>Clearly, he simply doesn't get it.

Regard the knee-jerk dreariness of this confused message :

<According to Vernor Vinge, one of several eccentric scientists whom 
Garreau interviews, The Curve will continue to get steeper and steeper 
until it eventually goes completely vertical in a rapturous moment he has 
dubbed "The Singularity." At some point this century, but probably no later 
than 2030, Vinge believes that humans will build the last machine we'll 
ever need -- a device so intelligent it will be able to reproduce rapidly 
and create new machines far smarter than humans could ever imagine. 
Practically overnight, our social order will rupture, and our world will be 
transformed. There's no guarantee that will be particularly pleasant. >

Now this might be the reviewer's fault, but observe the logic, which can't 
distinguish between the gratuitous and non-Vingean "rapture", and 
"rupture". The singularity is "a rapturous moment" that might not be 
"particularly pleasant". Oh.

Still, I suppose it's encouraging that non->Hs are at least starting to 
discuss this concept.

Damien Broderick 



From dirk at neopax.com  Sun Jun 12 16:55:33 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 17:55:33 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] book review: Radical Evolution
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050612114221.01db3c50@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <20050606022222.56265.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>	<42A3BBDC.3040104@cox.net>
	<42AC42B4.2020309@cox.net>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050612114221.01db3c50@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <42AC6905.4050009@neopax.com>

Damien Broderick wrote:

> At 10:12 AM 6/12/2005 -0400, Dan wrote:
>
>> Also from the review it sounds to me like The book would have been
>> insightful and provocative if published in (say) 1997.
>
>
> As another one was, with rather similar contents. :)
>
>> Clearly, he simply doesn't get it.
>
>
> Regard the knee-jerk dreariness of this confused message :
>
> <According to Vernor Vinge, one of several eccentric scientists whom 
> Garreau interviews, The Curve will continue to get steeper and steeper 
> until it eventually goes completely vertical in a rapturous moment he 
> has dubbed "The Singularity." At some point this century, but probably 
> no later than 2030, Vinge believes that humans will build the last 
> machine we'll ever need -- a device so intelligent it will be able to 
> reproduce rapidly and create new machines far smarter than humans 
> could ever imagine. Practically overnight, our social order will 
> rupture, and our world will be transformed. There's no guarantee that 
> will be particularly pleasant. >
>
> Now this might be the reviewer's fault, but observe the logic, which 
> can't distinguish between the gratuitous and non-Vingean "rapture", 
> and "rupture". The singularity is "a rapturous moment" that might not 
> be "particularly pleasant". Oh.
>
> Still, I suppose it's encouraging that non->Hs are at least starting 
> to discuss this concept.
>
Not really.
The non discussion of it plus business as usual might suit us better.

-- 
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: 267.6.9 - Release Date: 11/06/2005



From dgc at cox.net  Sun Jun 12 17:17:53 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 13:17:53 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] book review: Radical Evolution
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050612114221.01db3c50@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <20050606022222.56265.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>	<42A3BBDC.3040104@cox.net>
	<42AC42B4.2020309@cox.net>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050612114221.01db3c50@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <42AC6E41.6070605@cox.net>

Damien Broderick wrote:

> At 10:12 AM 6/12/2005 -0400, Dan wrote:
>
>> Also from the review it sounds to me like The book would have been
>> insightful and provocative if published in (say) 1997.
>
>
> As another one was, with rather similar contents. :)

Well I must admit I pulled down my copy of the Australian first edition
of "The Spike" and looked at the publication date as I was typing the
post, but other than that, the "1997" number is a pure coincidence :-)

And of course unless the reviewer misunderstood the book, "Radical 
Evolution"
is much weaker than "The Spike." I intend to go read it, but I'm not 
optimistic.


From hal at finney.org  Sun Jun 12 16:36:59 2005
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 09:36:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: what to do (Robin Hanson)
Message-ID: <20050612163659.B64A957E8C@finney.org>

Another idea along these lines would be for Robin to start
a blog.  A couple of new economics blogs I've been reading
are Econbrowser at http://www.econbrowser.com/ and macroblog at
http://macroblog.typepad.com/macroblog/ .  The latter publishes odds
every Monday for the next Fed interest rate change based on imputed
probabilities from the futures markets as a superior alternative to the
punditry that passes for informed commentary - further evidence of the
growth in influence of IF style ideas.

Robin pointed some years ago to the granddaddy of these, Brad DeLong's
blog at http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/ .  It's pretty
political though, very mainstream-leftish.  There was talk that DeLong
was angling for a position in the Kerry administration.  He's always
been heavily into Bush bashing, which is fine, but the other team doesn't
seem to attract nearly as much criticism.

Hal


From hal at finney.org  Sun Jun 12 16:53:28 2005
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 09:53:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy:  "Best of the List"
Message-ID: <20050612165328.59E6257E8C@finney.org>

As I recall, in the early years of the Extropians list we had a rather
restrictive republication policy.  Authors were promised that their works
would have only limited distribution and would not be published elsewhere.

In retrospect I think this was a mistake, it would have been better to
treat postings as being for public distribution.  I don't think it would
have really inhibited discussion.  But the net of the early 90s was not
the same as today, the ideas were far more controversial and "crazy",
so it is perhaps understandable that the list was trying to create a
private coccoon for free discussion.

I would imagine that any republication of these messages would require
getting individual permission from the authors.  Where messages involve
quotes of other people's messages, as is often the case, everyone involved
would have to agree.

For a while I tried running a list which re-posted selected messages
from Extropians.  I had to get permission from each author to allow
his messages to be redistributed.  Where they had quotes, I had to make
sure that each other being quoted had given permission.  When I could
not obtain that, I sometimes hand-edited the quoted portions to remove
them or substitute a brief summary (copyright applies to presentation,
not content).  Needless to say, it was a lot of work and I did not keep
it up for more than a few months.  But I understood that I had to follow
such procedures in order to be consistent with the promises that had
been made to authors posting to the list.

Unfortunately these limitations will make it difficult to have a full
public process for choosing and evaluating messages.  Not only would
you have to secure permission for the messages you mean to publish,
you also have to get permission for the potentially much larger body of
messages that you might want to open up for comment and consideration
in terms of selecting the finalists.

I'd be curious to hear about what your plans are for getting around this
difficulty in terms of publishing a "best of the list" from the early
days.  I do think this would be a tremendously valuable and interesting
picture of the development of transhumanism as it first hit the net,
and I hope you can find a way to make the many creative and stimulating
postings available to a wider audience.

Hal


From dirk at neopax.com  Sun Jun 12 19:32:10 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 20:32:10 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy:  "Best of the List"
In-Reply-To: <20050612165328.59E6257E8C@finney.org>
References: <20050612165328.59E6257E8C@finney.org>
Message-ID: <42AC8DBA.4000403@neopax.com>

Hal Finney wrote:

>As I recall, in the early years of the Extropians list we had a rather
>restrictive republication policy.  Authors were promised that their works
>would have only limited distribution and would not be published elsewhere.
>
>In retrospect I think this was a mistake, it would have been better to
>treat postings as being for public distribution.  I don't think it would
>have really inhibited discussion.  But the net of the early 90s was not
>the same as today, the ideas were far more controversial and "crazy",
>so it is perhaps understandable that the list was trying to create a
>private coccoon for free discussion.
>
>
>  
>
You mean before Political Correctness strangled free and open discussion.

-- 
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: 267.6.9 - Release Date: 11/06/2005



From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 12 19:38:13 2005
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 12:38:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] book review: Radical Evolution
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050612114221.01db3c50@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050612193813.75947.qmail@web60014.mail.yahoo.com>

I don't know Damien.  I'm thinking that the author, or
more likely the reviewer, attempted and achieved
cleverness in his use of two nearly identical-sounding
words with different but nevertheless apt meanings.

On this topic clearly there are those who think
rapture and those who think rupture, notwithstanding
the proximity in the text of "Vinge" to the two words.

Jeff Davis 

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

> ... but observe
> the logic, which can't 
> distinguish between the gratuitous and non-Vingean
> "rapture", and 
> "rupture". The singularity is "a rapturous moment"
> that might not be 
> "particularly pleasant". Oh.




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


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Jun 12 19:53:14 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 14:53:14 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] book review: Radical Evolution
In-Reply-To: <20050612193813.75947.qmail@web60014.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050612114221.01db3c50@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050612193813.75947.qmail@web60014.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050612144914.01cc5458@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 12:38 PM 6/12/2005 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:


>I'm thinking that the author, or
>more likely the reviewer, attempted and achieved
>cleverness in his use of two nearly identical-sounding
>words with different but nevertheless apt meanings.

My point, though, is that Vinge does not, repeat NOT, regard the 
singularity as a rapture -- `a rapturous moment he has dubbed "The 
Singularity." ' Vinge actually thinks it's scary. But of course the 
reviewer also asserts that Vinge is "eccentric", presumably on no other 
grounds than his taking the idea seriously. I get so tired of this shit.

Damien Broderick 



From natasha at natasha.cc  Sun Jun 12 20:37:03 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 15:37:03 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy:  "Best of the List"
In-Reply-To: <20050612165328.59E6257E8C@finney.org>
References: <20050612165328.59E6257E8C@finney.org>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050612153337.02f1a9b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

Hi Hal,

Yes, indeed.  We have "releases" to be sent to all list posters from the 
early list days and will not reproduce their work without their 
authorization.  I am a stickler for this.  As an artist whose work has been 
reproduced and distributed without my permission, I am ever so careful to 
not do that to others. Further it is illegal to do so.

Thanks for bringing it up though so that everyone will know that even 
though we support an open society, we value privacy.

Many thanks,

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



At 11:53 AM 6/12/2005, you wrote:
>As I recall, in the early years of the Extropians list we had a rather
>restrictive republication policy.  Authors were promised that their works
>would have only limited distribution and would not be published elsewhere.
>
>In retrospect I think this was a mistake, it would have been better to
>treat postings as being for public distribution.  I don't think it would
>have really inhibited discussion.  But the net of the early 90s was not
>the same as today, the ideas were far more controversial and "crazy",
>so it is perhaps understandable that the list was trying to create a
>private coccoon for free discussion.
>
>I would imagine that any republication of these messages would require
>getting individual permission from the authors.  Where messages involve
>quotes of other people's messages, as is often the case, everyone involved
>would have to agree.
>
>For a while I tried running a list which re-posted selected messages
>from Extropians.  I had to get permission from each author to allow
>his messages to be redistributed.  Where they had quotes, I had to make
>sure that each other being quoted had given permission.  When I could
>not obtain that, I sometimes hand-edited the quoted portions to remove
>them or substitute a brief summary (copyright applies to presentation,
>not content).  Needless to say, it was a lot of work and I did not keep
>it up for more than a few months.  But I understood that I had to follow
>such procedures in order to be consistent with the promises that had
>been made to authors posting to the list.
>
>Unfortunately these limitations will make it difficult to have a full
>public process for choosing and evaluating messages.  Not only would
>you have to secure permission for the messages you mean to publish,
>you also have to get permission for the potentially much larger body of
>messages that you might want to open up for comment and consideration
>in terms of selecting the finalists.
>
>I'd be curious to hear about what your plans are for getting around this
>difficulty in terms of publishing a "best of the list" from the early
>days.  I do think this would be a tremendously valuable and interesting
>picture of the development of transhumanism as it first hit the net,
>and I hope you can find a way to make the many creative and stimulating
>postings available to a wider audience.
>
>Hal
>_______________________________________________
>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/20050612/1a7c4c32/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Sun Jun 12 20:42:09 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 15:42:09 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy:  "Best of the List"
In-Reply-To: <20050612165328.59E6257E8C@finney.org>
References: <20050612165328.59E6257E8C@finney.org>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050612153811.02f1a9b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 11:53 AM 6/12/2005, Hal wrote:

>I do think this would be a tremendously valuable and interesting
>picture of the development of transhumanism as it first hit the net,
>and I hope you can find a way to make the many creative and stimulating
>postings available to a wider audience. I'd be curious to hear about what 
>your plans are for getting around this difficulty in terms of publishing a 
>"best of the list" from the early days.

We have copies of the posts from our list.  To select the posts for the 
anthology, we will sort them by author and subject.  Then we read them. 
They we select posts that are best of list.  Then we send releases to their 
authors to obtain permission to reprint.

Another method which we will use is to get the names of posters from the 
early 1990s and send them a message asking if they have posts that they 
authored that they would like to see reproduced in the Best of the 
List.  When we receive their posts, we will sort through them and select 
the ones that fit the content guidelines we have sketched out.

It is actually a simple process, but time consuming.



Take care,
Natasha


>Hal
>_______________________________________________
>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/20050612/753bbeed/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 12 22:38:31 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 15:38:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] COSMOS Magazine 
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050610234139.01c98518@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20050612223831.87952.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> http://www.locusmag.com/ :
> 
> 
>    Magazine News
> 
> New Australian popular science magazine 
> <http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/>Cosmos has named
> Damien Broderick fiction 
> editor. 

Congrats Damien. :) Is the magazine going to be
available in the US?


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 thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Jun 12 22:43:43 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 17:43:43 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] COSMOS Magazine
In-Reply-To: <20050612223831.87952.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050610234139.01c98518@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20050612223831.87952.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050612174311.01d77d58@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 03:38 PM 6/12/2005 -0700, you wrote:

>Is the magazine going to be
>available in the US?

I believe that's their hope. Not yet, apparently.

Damien Broderick 



From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Sun Jun 12 23:52:17 2005
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 18:52:17 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying
References: <003801c56a46$17262d00$0100a8c0@kevin> <42A4E8D3.6030500@cox.net>
Message-ID: <002e01c56fa9$c454b8d0$0100a8c0@kevin>

Well, I am back home and on the ground now. As for the passenger status in
the car, well, I am a horrible passenger and almost never let anyone drive -
especially on long trips (even though most accidents are within 5 miles of
home).
Several years ago I was even worse and would flat-out refuse to get into a
car with a driver who made me nervous. I also had on occasion actually left
a car in which I was a passenger when the car was at a stoplight.
I took a job as a car salesman for a while (aware of my fear) and learned to
better manage that fear. Still, I think the fear of riding left me a bit at
a loss as a salesman.

A few things are different with air travel and I think I have them nailed
down. To begin, while getting on a plane, one does not have the option to
participate in any decisions such as the decision to land in a storm or to
take off at a certain time. The pilot, not flight control, has finaly
authority on these decisions and can at any time choose to  disregard
instructions from the tower.

In fact, as a passenger one knows absolutely nothing of the pilot. A
passenger has no idea what kind of decisions the pilot might make. That
pilot may be starting their day, or they may be in a position where if they
don;t land and take off in a certain time-frame, they may have to overnight
away from home. They may be angry and reckless one day. The fact is, you
never even get to speak to the pilot.

Nor do you know what that aircraft has been through. The pilot does a
checklist before every flight, but it they are preoccupied, it can be very
easy to walk the routine and never even notice things that are blatantly
obvious.

So quite simply, unlike with cars, there is no opportunity to inspect either
the pilot of the plane. You can;t even see forward to say "Hey, are you sure
you want to fly through that?"

Of course, I know that my inspection of the aircraft would probably be
pointless because a failure is more likely to occur somewhere that can't be
seen. I know that I don't walk around my own car before I get in and drive
off, but I also know each and every pot-hole the car has hit. I have done
all the maintenance myself.

I know that meeting the pilot would probably show me little more about the
pilot than the pilot wants me to see. And I know that allowing passengers to
meet the pilot, discussing opinions, and inspect the aircraft would be
totally impractical and would even increase risk due to security concerns.
But I think that this is where the fear comes from.

It is interesting to note that on the way back, I had the opportunity to sit
in the right-side emergency exit row window seat over the wing. This did
some to allay my fears as I felt I had responsibility for something, but in
the end, it was very little help since I had no real decisions to make
unless the plane crashed.

On a side note, I had a cab driver at the airport that scared me MUCH more
than any of the flights!
This fear is really an issue as it actually caused me some stomach problems.
My last flight was better than the first flight which means that I could
probably be conditioned to deal with it if I just fly commercial often
enough (increasing my odds of being in a plane crash). One part that helped
was landing in Atlanta and just seeing the number of jets taking off,
landing, loading and unloading without incident. It's one thing to read the
statistics and quite another to stand there and watch plane after plane come
and go.

What the heck am I to do the first time I ever require surgery?






question: how well do you handle being a front-seat passenger in
> a car? this is effectively equivalent to being
> a passenger in an airliner. except that it is statistically much more
> dangerous.
>
> If you can deal with being a car passenger, how do you do it? can you
> use the same coping mechanisms for air travel?
>
> You are a control freak. Don't apologize for this: you were born that
> way., and there is nothing wrong with it.
> Non-control-freaks cannot really empathize with your situation, so we
> cannot really help.
>
>



From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Sun Jun 12 23:54:22 2005
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 18:54:22 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying
References: <20050606155507.83526.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <004201c56faa$0eff6830$0100a8c0@kevin>

I somehow doubt that a jet with wings ripped off at the root would be able
manage controlled flight back to base. As for the French plane, those jets
barely even need a rudder. It's only function is to assist landing in a
crosswind.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 10:55 AM
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying


>
>
> --- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > Kevin my father-in-law has a terrible fear of flying,
> > specifically that the wings would come off in turbulence.  I
> > launched into a big pontification on how they are stress
> > tested, inspected, planes never have structural failure
> > in flight, bla bla and yakkity yak.  About a week later
> > the tail fell off that French plane causing it to punch
> > a deep hole into the earth.  He has not flown since.
>
> You should show him photos of air force fighters that have shorn off
> their wings at the roots in midair collisions but still flown back to
> base and landed.... hey, that French plane lost its rudder but still
> flew back to the airport. That's a glass half full in my opinion...
>
> 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!
> Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out!
> http://discover.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  Sun Jun 12 23:58:27 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 16:58:27 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying
In-Reply-To: <004201c56faa$0eff6830$0100a8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <200506122358.j5CNwIR17200@tick.javien.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of kevinfreels.com
> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 4:54 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying
> 
> I somehow doubt that a jet with wings ripped off at the root would be able
> manage controlled flight back to base...

Mike do you have a photo of that plane?  It somehow made it
back with durn near most of one wing gone.  Hell if I know
how he managed to keep it airborne.  That was a pilot with
the right stuff.


> As for the French plane, those jets
> barely even need a rudder. It's only function is to assist landing in a
> crosswind...


That plane lost more than the rudder.  It lost the
vertical stabilizer, which moved the center of pressure
forward of the GC, which made it unflyable, completely
uncontrollable.  

spike





From deimtee at optusnet.com.au  Mon Jun 13 00:59:04 2005
From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (David)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:59:04 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] COSMOS Magazine
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050612174311.01d77d58@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050610234139.01c98518@pop-server.satx.rr.com>	<20050612223831.87952.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>
	<6.2.1.2.0.20050612174311.01d77d58@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <42ACDA58.9080303@optusnet.com.au>

Damien Broderick wrote:
> At 03:38 PM 6/12/2005 -0700, you wrote:
> 
>> Is the magazine going to be
>> available in the US?
> 
> 
> I believe that's their hope. Not yet, apparently.
> 
> Damien Broderick
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 

According to their website, they do international subscriptions,
for A$150 / 11 issues. (accepting visa, mastercard and bankcard)

That's about double the local price here (A$78) so international
postage must cost a bit.  :)

-David.



From mike99 at lascruces.com  Mon Jun 13 01:41:17 2005
From: mike99 at lascruces.com (mike99)
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 19:41:17 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [wta-talk] RE: [Trans-Spirit] Multi
	personalities reveal self isfiction
In-Reply-To: <20050611174854.73412.qmail@web61117.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <DAEGJDAIEMCEKLOPODAKCEOOEOAA.mike99@lascruces.com>

Thanks for your reply, 1Arcturus. I especially like that you mentioned the
"noetic technology" described in John C. Wright's GOLDEN AGE trilogy, which
is some of the best science fiction of the recent decades.

The issue you raised about modeling the mind within the mind is, I think,
the heart of the matter.

In Wright's novel the protagonist, Phaethon, discovers that his memory has
been tampered with. Later, he also has reason to believe that someone may
have infected his mind with a memetic virus (like a computer virus). I have
greatly simplified the plot situation here, needless to say. What I want to
focus on is the episode in which Phaethon, reacting to the possible mental
virus infection, shuts down most of his vast, technologically-enhanced
brain-machinery, and goes into his basic mental "workspace." This is the
equivalent of operating your PC in "safe mode." Within this workspace,
Phaethon runs a system diagnostic to look for any suspicious, mental-virus
type activity.

This fictional situation raises the question: Who is operating in the
workspace? Is there some "kernel" within the brain-machinery of Phaethon
that is his essence? (I am disregarding any non-physical, soul-type
explanations here.)

Consider, now, a different science fiction example. In Greg Egan's short
story "Transitions Dreams" the reader sees the protagonist's dreams taking
place during the scanning and uploading of his consciousness to a machine
substrate. These dreams, although definitely experienced, are said to be
impossible to remember, according to a character who is almost certainly
speaking for the author, because they are artifacts of the upload process.
As artifacts, they are not included in the memory set that is being
uploaded. So although these dreams (sometimes nightmarish) are sure to
occur, they are also sure to be forgotten.

Is an experience that cannot be remembered something we should be concerned
about? Suppose the experience is terrifying, painful, and hellish? Would you
care about this in the case of others? Would you dare to endure it yourself
as part of the upload process?

I suspect that you are right, 1Arcturus, in saying that there is a "limit on
how much awareness one can have about mind processes in one's self." As with
Phaethon, we probably have some sort of core or kernel or essential mind
process set that is the bare minimum required for 'us to be us' if I may put
it that way. This kernel would still not be an irreducible entity, however;
it's not some sort of 'atomic self'. There is no irreducible self, but only
the minimum necessary set of mental processes required in order to have
human-level awareness. This level of mental operation cannot 'look at
itself' because, although aware, it is too simple to be self-reflective.
This level is already the bare minimum; if we terminated even one of the
mental processes that comprise it, awareness would cease.

My goal, as a transhumanist, is to add all the best noetic technology I can
to the brain-machinery where all mental processes reside. My kernel mental
processes can employ these enhancement tools to think faster, remember more
(and more accurately) and to experience aesthetically pleasing combinations
of thoughts and sensations that are beyond the present capacity of any human
mind to entertain. These enhancements could even provide "biofeedback"
information about mental processes within the kernel that the kernel itself
has no capacity to see unaided.

That's a long-term goal, to say the least. My present practice as a Soto Zen
priest is to become more aware of the bare attention that *is* the kernel
mental state, totally shorn of the many layers of distractive mental
processes we ordinarily experience. I can observe those other layers float
by, but I cannot see the one (i.e., the mental processes) who observes them.


Regards,

Michael LaTorra

mike99 at lascruces.com
mlatorra at nmsu.edu

"For any man to abdicate an interest in science is to walk with open eyes
towards slavery."
-- Jacob Bronowski

"Experiences only look special from the inside of the system."
-- Eugen Leitl

Member:
Board of Directors, World Transhumanist Association: www.transhumanism.org
Board of Directors, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies:
http://ieet.org/
Extropy Institute: www.extropy.org
Alcor Life Extension Foundation: www.alcor.org
Society for Universal Immortalism: www.universalimmortalism.org
President, Zen Center of Las Cruces: www.zencenteroflascruces.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wta-talk-bounces at transhumanism.org
> [mailto:wta-talk-bounces at transhumanism.org]On Behalf Of 1Arcturus
> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 11:49 AM
> To: wta-talk at transhumanism.org
> Subject: [wta-talk] RE: [Trans-Spirit] Multi personalities reveal self
> isfiction
>
>
>
> Michael LaTorra,
>
> A great research question indeed. I don't know enough about the field,
> but I think there might be a kind of limit on how much awareness one
> can have about mind processes in one's self, because awareness would
> need to create a model to comprehend it and developing the model
> would require time, which would create a time lag. With machine interfaces
> one might be able to beat the pace of human consciousness in order
> to create a higher-order awareness, but this would not be useful,
> because one would want to use the technology to increase the pace
> of one's own consciousness in the first place. Certainly, there is
> room for much more self-awareness than we currently have, and perhaps
> also automatic monitors for the state of consciousness. I'm reminded
> of the "noetic technology" in The Golden Age, where people can examine
> the state of their consciousness when they need to, to tweak its
> performance or intervene in the mind processes.
>
>
>
> >>>Here's the research question: Can we learn to maintain conscious
>
> awareness at a deep enough level such that we can observe
> ourselves going through
>
> processes (1) and (2) listed above?
>
> = Can the mind of a person who is about to take an action observe the
>
> source of decision that **actually** chooses that action?
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
======= ORIGINAL MESSAGE REPLY ==========

The most fascinating opportunities for research on human consciousness
appear at those moments of transition between states. Two such moments, for
example, are mentioned in Syed's article below:

(1) when the person suffering from Dissociative Identity Disorder is
switching between alter personalities (or "selves")
     and there is a moment of "vacancy"
(2) when the person in Benjamin Libet's experiment on voluntary action
exhibits the brain activity that begins about half
     a second before the person is aware of deciding to act


Here's the research question: Can we learn to maintain conscious awareness
at a deep enough level such that we can observe ourselves going through
processes (1) and (2) listed above?

This question can be recast into two specific questions about the research
discussed in Syed's article:

- Can the mind of a person suffering from DID learn to see what is happening
during the personality switch between alters?
= Can the mind of a person who is about to take an action observe the source
of decision that **actually** chooses that action?

These are questions about our own degree of awareness. According to the
spiritual traditions, individuals who are "Enlightened" or "Realized" etc.
can observe themselves at such a deep level. But are these traditions
correct? Is such a degree of awareness truly possible? Or is this just
another instance of imagining fantastic possibilities that are not now, and
never have been, possible for human beings?

Even if such deep awareness had never been possible before, will technology
someday make it possible? Libet's experimental apparatus might be turned
into a biofeedback system, for instance. Could it then be used as a tool for
training ourselves to become more aware of the source of our own action?
Might we then become conscious of that source, become one with it, and be
able to act more quickly and authentically? And would that even be a good
thing? (Fans of the super-ego, please take note!)



Regards,

Michael LaTorra

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Trans-Spirit at yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:Trans-Spirit at yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Hughes, James J.
> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 9:55 AM
> To: World Transhumanist Association Discussion List
> Cc: Trans-Spirit at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Trans-Spirit] Multi personalities reveal self is fiction
>
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1644788,00.html
>
> June 08, 2005
>
> A case of mistaken identity crisis
>
> Matthew Syed
>
> People afflicted with multiple personalities reveal that the idea
> of the self is a fiction
>
> THE MOST sinister form of abuse is that meted out to a child by a
> parent. The young have a biological predisposition to "belong" -
> a duckling, for example, will instinctively snuggle up to a human
> leg if that is the first thing it sees - so it is particularly
> traumatic when this need for tenderness is met with systematic
> physical or sexual violence.
>
> Pamela, the subject of a haunting documentary on Channel 4
> tonight, developed a novel, if somewhat disquieting, mechanism to
> cope with her sadistic upbringing: she created new selves. When
> the pain, squalor and ignominy became too much to endure, Pamela,
> as it were, "left it all behind": while she was abused, she
> dissociated and departed to another place - leaving a new person
> in her place.
>
> R?my Aquarone, an analytical psychotherapist, has dealt with
> these disturbing cases of what is known as Dissociative Identity
> Disorder (DID). "Dissociation is a primitive defence mechanism,"
> he said. "When something is unbearable to consciousness and
> cannot be cognitively processed, it is split off: quite literally
> dissociated."
>
> In many cases the various "alters" have their own memories and
> personality traits. When a switch is about to occur the patient
> often undergoes a temporary look of vacancy before the background
> alter "emerges". One psychoanalyst I spoke to had worked with a
> patient who had a successful job in the City during the week and
> then travelled to the South Coast at the weekend to work as a prostitute.
>
> One of the most fascinating aspects of witnessing such people is
> our own knee-jerk scepticism. I watched a tape of the documentary
> and found it difficult to suppress a growing sense of
> incredulity, as if I expected Pamela eventually to wink at the
> camera and say: "Gotcha!" This response is not confined to lay
> people. Doctors repudiated the condition when it was first
> diagnosed and it remains hotly contested today, regarded by many
> as a phenomenon that has been induced under hypnotic suggestion
> by over-zealous clinicians.
>
> But why this reluctance? The problem here is not a lack of
> evidence - which is overwhelming - but a failure of intellectual
> courage. For DID strikes at the heart of the most basic myth in
> our intellectual vocabulary: the self.
>
> Since we first learnt to use language we have regarded the
> first-person pronoun as referring to something that existed in
> childhood, exists today, will continue to exist in the future and
> - for those of a religious persuasion - will survive bodily
> death. We fondly think of this self as the subject of our
> experiences, the instigator of our actions and the custodian of
> our morality. We are lulled into this idea by the seeming unity
> of our consciousness: our various thoughts and perceptions all
> knitted into a seamless whole.
>
> This cherished conception is, however, a cruel fiction. It has
> taken extreme cases, such as DID, to ram the truth home. Take
> brain dissection. In these operations, the corpus callosum - a
> large strand of neurons which facilitates communications between
> the hemispheres - is cut to stop the spread of epileptic seizures
> from one half of the brain to the other. Under certain laboratory
> conditions, two "centres of consciousness" seem to appear in
> patients who have had this operation.
>
> For example, suppose that we flash the word CANNOT on a screen in
> front of a brain-bisected patient in such a way that the letters
> CAN hit one side of the retina, the letters NOT the other and we
> ensure that the information hitting each retina stays in one lobe
> and is not fed to the other. If such a patient is asked what word
> is being shown, the mouth will say CAN while the hand controlled
> by the hemisphere that does not control the mouth will write NOT.
> So much for the "unity" of consciousness.
>
> What about the notion of the self as instigator of action? We
> na?vely suppose that we consciously decide to move, and then
> move. When Benjamin Libet conducted an experiment on voluntary
> action in 1985 he found that the brain activity began about half
> a second before the person was aware of deciding to act. The
> conscious decision came far too late to be the cause of the
> action, as though consciousness is a mere afterthought. Many
> reacted to this with astonishment. Why? Did they really suppose
> the body was animated by some ghostly mini me lurking behind the brain?
>
> A more plausible theory is that which is emerging from both
> biology and artificial intelligence. As Daniel Dennett, the
> philosopher, puts it: "Complex systems can in fact function in
> what seems to be a thoroughly 'purposeful and integrated' way
> simply by having lots of subsystems doing their own thing without
> any central supervision." The self, then, is not what it seems to
> be. There is no soul, no spirit, no supervisor. There is just a
> brain, a dull grey collection of neurons and neural pathways -
> going about its business. The illusion of self is merely a
> by-product of the brain's organisational sophistication.
>
> Seen in this light, DID is neither a philosophical absurdity nor
> a medical fantasy but a vivid demonstration of the infinite
> adaptability of the human mind in the quest for survival. Those
> who tune in tonight will feel an overwhelming sense of compassion
> for the pathetic figure of Pamela. But, for those who take the
> intellectual plunge, the most acute pity will be directed
> inwardly. Accepting the death of "self" is both strange and
> traumatic, bringing with it a profound a sense of bereavement.
> Except that there is nothing there to bereave.
>
> Being Pamela, Channel 4, 9pm




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 13 02:22:04 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 19:22:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying
In-Reply-To: <004201c56faa$0eff6830$0100a8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <20050613022204.58448.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

It's true. F-15s and F-16s generate 50% of their lift with their
fuselages, so the complete loss of one wing at the root is only a loss
of 25% of total lift, at most. I first saw this in a military exercise
in Alaska where an Eagle and a Falcon sheared off one of each others
wing at the root and both returned to base from 20+ miles away.

This photo shows one example: 
http://www.harry.hirschman.com/Aviation_Pages/Mil_Row-1.html of a
similar collision an Israeli air force f-15 suffered in an exercise
over the Negev desert flying against an A-7.

--- "kevinfreels.com" <kevin at kevinfreels.com> wrote:

> I somehow doubt that a jet with wings ripped off at the root would be
> able
> manage controlled flight back to base. As for the French plane, those
> jets
> barely even need a rudder. It's only function is to assist landing in
> a
> crosswind.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 10:55 AM
> Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > --- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Kevin my father-in-law has a terrible fear of flying,
> > > specifically that the wings would come off in turbulence.  I
> > > launched into a big pontification on how they are stress
> > > tested, inspected, planes never have structural failure
> > > in flight, bla bla and yakkity yak.  About a week later
> > > the tail fell off that French plane causing it to punch
> > > a deep hole into the earth.  He has not flown since.
> >
> > You should show him photos of air force fighters that have shorn
> off
> > their wings at the roots in midair collisions but still flown back
> to
> > base and landed.... hey, that French plane lost its rudder but
> still
> > flew back to the airport. That's a glass half full in my opinion...
> >
> > 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!
> > Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it
> out!
> > http://discover.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


		
__________________________________ 
Discover Yahoo! 
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 13 02:47:03 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 19:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: [wta-talk] RE: [Trans-Spirit] Multi
	personalities reveal self isfiction
In-Reply-To: <DAEGJDAIEMCEKLOPODAKCEOOEOAA.mike99@lascruces.com>
Message-ID: <20050613024703.42805.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- mike99 <mike99 at lascruces.com> wrote:

> I have greatly simplified the plot situation here, needless to say.
> What I want to focus on is the episode in which Phaethon, reacting
> to the possible mental virus infection, shuts down most of his vast,
> technologically-enhanced
> brain-machinery, and goes into his basic mental "workspace." This is
> the equivalent of operating your PC in "safe mode." Within this
> workspace, Phaethon runs a system diagnostic to look for any
> suspicious, mental-virus type activity.
> 
> This fictional situation raises the question: Who is operating in the
> workspace? Is there some "kernel" within the brain-machinery of
> Phaethon that is his essence? 

On the contrary, one has one's personality loaded into RAM space from
HD space. The RAM instantiation is conciously operating but can
critically examine every bit that is on the long term memory HD,
including one's kernel, as the HD data is unconcious.

Something similar operates with people, in that we seem to have
separate short term and long term memory functions, where damage to one
does not mean damage to the other. The short term, of course, seems to
be what you remember since you last booted up (i.e. woke up), while the
long term memory is your permanent record (seemingly editable, though).

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! 
Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 13 06:16:39 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 23:16:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ vs Uploads (was: what to do)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050611112124.030db4d0@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <20050613061639.20934.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Robin Hanson <rhanson at gmu.edu> wrote:

> What most needs analysis are changes that are not
> captured in existing
> trends. IQ has been increasing and that has had
> effects for a long time.
> So all of the existing trend-based analysis already
> captures a big
> similar effect.  The effects of the upload
> transition are not, however,
> much captured in existing trends.

Hey Robin,

This is a facinating topic. Why don't you analyze and
compare the Flynn Effect with Moore's Law? I don't
know about the shape of Flynn's I.Q. curve vs. time
but if it is exponential rather than linear then it
opens up a very cool possibility. Since Moore's law is
exponential then it might come down to a race between
the Flynn effect vs. Moore's Law to see who/what will
dominate in years ahead: A.I. or the minds that CREATE
them.
    If the rate constant for the Flynn effect is
higher than for Moore's Law then no matter how fast
computers and software advance the human mind might be
able to keep pace or even lead. I mean after all, Deep
Blue might have beat Kasporov but who would you invite
to a cocktail party?

 

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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 13 06:19:26 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 23:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] 160+ I.Q. vs. oblivion in 3 nanoseconds
Message-ID: <20050613061926.51559.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>

I LOVE . . .

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 jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 13 06:31:57 2005
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 23:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying
In-Reply-To: <004201c56faa$0eff6830$0100a8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <20050613063157.85547.qmail@web60014.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "kevinfreels.com" <kevin at kevinfreels.com> wrote:

> I somehow doubt that a jet with wings ripped off at
> the root would be able
> manage controlled flight back to base. 

Perhaps it was directly above the base.  If the rudder
and horizontal stabilizers remained functional, it
could then retain a degree of control as it "returned"
to base, albeit at a somewhat steep angle of descent.

I'm sure that's what Mike meant.

;-) 

Best, Jeff Davis

   "Everything's hard till you know how to do it."
                           Ray Charles



		
__________________________________ 
Discover Yahoo! 
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html


From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Mon Jun 13 07:16:10 2005
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 02:16:10 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying
References: <200506122358.j5CNwIR17200@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <001a01c56fe7$c6ec4a70$0100a8c0@kevin>

I can see that. What I read was "wings ripped off at the root" which to me
meant that there was no source of lift except for the fuselage which has no
control surfaces.

As for the Airbus, I think there were two different incidents. That jet
without a rudder still leaves the CP behind the CG. It is designed that way.
Of course, it was never designed to be flown without the tail entirely which
happened in a separate incident.





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "spike" <spike66 at comcast.net>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 6:58 PM
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying


>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of kevinfreels.com
> > Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 4:54 PM
> > To: ExI chat list
> > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying
> >
> > I somehow doubt that a jet with wings ripped off at the root would be
able
> > manage controlled flight back to base...
>
> Mike do you have a photo of that plane?  It somehow made it
> back with durn near most of one wing gone.  Hell if I know
> how he managed to keep it airborne.  That was a pilot with
> the right stuff.
>
>
> > As for the French plane, those jets
> > barely even need a rudder. It's only function is to assist landing in a
> > crosswind...
>
>
> That plane lost more than the rudder.  It lost the
> vertical stabilizer, which moved the center of pressure
> forward of the GC, which made it unflyable, completely
> uncontrollable.
>
> spike
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Mon Jun 13 10:35:07 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 03:35:07 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Slashdot draft: Prediction markets and space
	development
Message-ID: <e88b73ce050613033577721232@mail.gmail.com>

[I'm soon going to be submitting another slashdot article on
extropy-related topics. Per usual, I'd appreciate any suggestions of
changes or tweaks before I make the actual submission.]

Submission html:

Although events such as SpaceShipOne's suborbital spaceflights and the
<a href=http://www.space.com/adastra/050523_musk_nss.html>upcoming
maiden launch</a> of SpaceX's privately-built Falcon I orbital rocket
have caused many experts to predict what the future of the commercial
space market is going to be like, many of these views tend to be
radically different from each other. The Space Review has an <a
href=http://www.thespacereview.com/article/390/1>article</a> by Dr.
Sam Dinkin where he proposes using information aggregation markets
(also known as <a href=http://hanson.gmu.edu/ideafutures.html>idea
futures</a> or <a
href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_market>prediction
markets</a>) to aggregate the forecasts of professional and armchair
experts, producing a more accurate view of the future of commercial
spaceflight. These types of markets, where traders essentially 'put
their money where their mouth is' and profit from accurate
predictions, are arguably the most effective means of predicting
future trends and events. Possible securities could include the
predicted launch costs, the strength of carbon nanotube cables, and
the number of private astronauts in a particular year. With such a
system in place, entrepreneurs, investors and policy makers would have
more reliable information on what to expect from commercial space
activities and how to best invest in them.

Submission text:

Although events such as SpaceShipOne's suborbital spaceflights and the
upcoming maiden launch of SpaceX's privately-built Falcon I orbital
rocket have caused many experts to predict what the future of the
commercial space market is going to be like, many of these views tend
to be radically different from each other. The Space Review has an
article by Dr. Sam Dinkin where he proposes using information
aggregation markets (also known as idea futures or prediction markets)
to aggregate the forecasts of professional and armchair experts,
producing a more accurate view of the future of commercial
spaceflight. These types of markets, where traders essentially 'put
their money where their mouth is' and profit from accurate
predictions, are arguably the most effective means of predicting
future trends and events. Possible securities could include the
predicted launch costs, the strength of carbon nanotube cables, and
the number of private astronauts in a particular year. With such a
system in place, entrepreneurs, investors and policy makers would have
more reliable information on what to expect from commercial space
activities and how to best invest in them.

Submission links:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/390/1
http://www.space.com/adastra/050523_musk_nss.html
http://hanson.gmu.edu/ideafutures.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_market


From rhanson at gmu.edu  Mon Jun 13 10:18:21 2005
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 06:18:21 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ vs Uploads (was: what to do)
In-Reply-To: <20050613061639.20934.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050611112124.030db4d0@mail.gmu.edu>
	<20050613061639.20934.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050613061456.03014b08@mail.gmu.edu>

At 02:16 AM 6/13/2005, Avantguardian wrote:
> > What most needs analysis are changes that are not
> > captured in existing trends. IQ has been increasing
> > and that has had effects for a long time.
> > So all of the existing trend-based analysis already
> > captures a big similar effect.  The effects of the
> > upload transition are not, however, much captured in
> > existing trends.
>
>This is a facinating topic. Why don't you analyze and
>compare the Flynn Effect with Moore's Law? I don't
>know about the shape of Flynn's I.Q. curve vs. time
>but if it is exponential rather than linear then it
>opens up a very cool possibility. Since Moore's law is
>exponential then it might come down to a race between
>the Flynn effect vs. Moore's Law to see who/what will
>dominate in years ahead: A.I. or the minds that CREATE
>them.

We don't know what processing/memory increase corresponds
to a given number of IQ points increase.  But it is hard
to believe that a factor of two every two years in CPU/mem
doesn't beat a standard deviation per generation of IQ.



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 giogavir at yahoo.it  Mon Jun 13 12:48:34 2005
From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 14:48:34 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Slashdot draft: Prediction markets and space
	development
In-Reply-To: <e88b73ce050613033577721232@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050613124835.59912.qmail@web26201.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

After spaceshipone flight there was a lot of enthudiam
for the so called space tourism
IN REALITY PLANS ARE FOR SUBORBITAL 10 MINUTE FLIGHTS
nothing to do with orbital flights that require ten
times more speed and higher altiyude together with a
different and more advanced technology.
If there is a real market at 250000$ per flight to
fill the expected capacity, the VIRGIN GALACTIC FUTURE
PLANE WILL CARRY 5 OR 6 PAYING PASSENGERS
is unknown.
past comercial space predictions were always wrong,
the Iridium disaster is a good reminder.
I believe that before space could be a profit making
environment for private enterprises and a new business
environment space accessibility costs must be slashed
of two order of magnitude from 10000$ per kg to 100$
per Kg.
Witout that it will not produce any progress but
remain a high risk activity
--- Neil Halelamien <neuronexmachina at gmail.com> ha
scritto: 

> [I'm soon going to be submitting another slashdot
> article on
> extropy-related topics. Per usual, I'd appreciate
> any suggestions of
> changes or tweaks before I make the actual
> submission.]
> 
> Submission html:
> 
> Although events such as SpaceShipOne's suborbital
> spaceflights and the
> <a
>
href=http://www.space.com/adastra/050523_musk_nss.html>upcoming
> maiden launch</a> of SpaceX's privately-built Falcon
> I orbital rocket
> have caused many experts to predict what the future
> of the commercial
> space market is going to be like, many of these
> views tend to be
> radically different from each other. The Space
> Review has an <a
>
href=http://www.thespacereview.com/article/390/1>article</a>
> by Dr.
> Sam Dinkin where he proposes using information
> aggregation markets
> (also known as <a
> href=http://hanson.gmu.edu/ideafutures.html>idea
> futures</a> or <a
>
href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_market>prediction
> markets</a>) to aggregate the forecasts of
> professional and armchair
> experts, producing a more accurate view of the
> future of commercial
> spaceflight. These types of markets, where traders
> essentially 'put
> their money where their mouth is' and profit from
> accurate
> predictions, are arguably the most effective means
> of predicting
> future trends and events. Possible securities could
> include the
> predicted launch costs, the strength of carbon
> nanotube cables, and
> the number of private astronauts in a particular
> year. With such a
> system in place, entrepreneurs, investors and policy
> makers would have
> more reliable information on what to expect from
> commercial space
> activities and how to best invest in them.
> 
> Submission text:
> 
> Although events such as SpaceShipOne's suborbital
> spaceflights and the
> upcoming maiden launch of SpaceX's privately-built
> Falcon I orbital
> rocket have caused many experts to predict what the
> future of the
> commercial space market is going to be like, many of
> these views tend
> to be radically different from each other. The Space
> Review has an
> article by Dr. Sam Dinkin where he proposes using
> information
> aggregation markets (also known as idea futures or
> prediction markets)
> to aggregate the forecasts of professional and
> armchair experts,
> producing a more accurate view of the future of
> commercial
> spaceflight. These types of markets, where traders
> essentially 'put
> their money where their mouth is' and profit from
> accurate
> predictions, are arguably the most effective means
> of predicting
> future trends and events. Possible securities could
> include the
> predicted launch costs, the strength of carbon
> nanotube cables, and
> the number of private astronauts in a particular
> year. With such a
> system in place, entrepreneurs, investors and policy
> makers would have
> more reliable information on what to expect from
> commercial space
> activities and how to best invest in them.
> 
> Submission links:
> 
> http://www.thespacereview.com/article/390/1
> http://www.space.com/adastra/050523_musk_nss.html
> http://hanson.gmu.edu/ideafutures.html
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_market
> _______________________________________________
> 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 mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 13 14:44:07 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 07:44:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ vs Uploads (was: what to do)
In-Reply-To: <20050613061639.20934.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050613144407.63130.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> 
> 
> --- Robin Hanson <rhanson at gmu.edu> wrote:
> 
> > What most needs analysis are changes that are not
> > captured in existing
> > trends. IQ has been increasing and that has had
> > effects for a long time.
> > So all of the existing trend-based analysis already
> > captures a big
> > similar effect.  The effects of the upload
> > transition are not, however,
> > much captured in existing trends.
> 
> Hey Robin,
> 
> This is a facinating topic. Why don't you analyze and
> compare the Flynn Effect with Moore's Law? I don't
> know about the shape of Flynn's I.Q. curve vs. time
> but if it is exponential rather than linear then it
> opens up a very cool possibility. Since Moore's law is
> exponential then it might come down to a race between
> the Flynn effect vs. Moore's Law to see who/what will
> dominate in years ahead: A.I. or the minds that CREATE
> them.
>     If the rate constant for the Flynn effect is
> higher than for Moore's Law then no matter how fast
> computers and software advance the human mind might be
> able to keep pace or even lead. I mean after all, Deep
> Blue might have beat Kasporov but who would you invite
> to a cocktail party?

Yes, one conceptual mistake, I believe, with the AI Singularity is the
automatic assumptions that a) desktop AIs will only design smarter
desktop AIs, rather than, say, smarter human augmentation technologies,
and b) that humans will only want to design smarter desktop AIs, rather
than, say, smarter human augmentation technologies. I think the trend
toward wearables and more powerful mobile computing clearly
demonstrates that people want tools that make THEM smarter, not tools
that are smarter than them. Additionally, there is a common
Singulatarian mistake that upgrades just automagically happen, which is
wrong. Humans have to choose to upgrade their machines, have to order
them, have them shipped, installed, etc. The idea of the AI magically
getting out of the control of its humans is ludicrous. Even if an AI is
able to use a corporate persona to order things, it will still take
employees, managers, and a board of directors to allow it to happen and
make it happen. Even then, there is always the electrical cord to
unplug to send a truculent AI 'to its room'.

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 Jun 13 14:51:30 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 07:51:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying
In-Reply-To: <001a01c56fe7$c6ec4a70$0100a8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <20050613145130.9433.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

What you should have read was "wing". One wing per plane shorn off at
the root. It would be an interesting experiment in a wind tunnel to see
if an F-15 could fly without both wings. The intakes, being
hydraulically manipulable up and down, should provide some control, and
of course you have two engines that are independently throttlable, so
you should have some control in all three axes between them. The wings
primarily provide lift for maneuvering and for whatever fuel and
weapons are carried on them, so they should be somewhat redundant to an
aircraft in flight with 50% of its lift remaining in the fuselage, much
like a lifting body.

--- "kevinfreels.com" <kevin at kevinfreels.com> wrote:

> I can see that. What I read was "wings ripped off at the root" which
> to me
> meant that there was no source of lift except for the fuselage which
> has no
> control surfaces.
> 
> As for the Airbus, I think there were two different incidents. That
> jet
> without a rudder still leaves the CP behind the CG. It is designed
> that way.
> Of course, it was never designed to be flown without the tail
> entirely which
> happened in a separate incident.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "spike" <spike66 at comcast.net>
> To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 6:58 PM
> Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> [mailto:extropy-chat-
> > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of kevinfreels.com
> > > Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 4:54 PM
> > > To: ExI chat list
> > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying
> > >
> > > I somehow doubt that a jet with wings ripped off at the root
> would be
> able
> > > manage controlled flight back to base...
> >
> > Mike do you have a photo of that plane?  It somehow made it
> > back with durn near most of one wing gone.  Hell if I know
> > how he managed to keep it airborne.  That was a pilot with
> > the right stuff.
> >
> >
> > > As for the French plane, those jets
> > > barely even need a rudder. It's only function is to assist
> landing in a
> > > crosswind...
> >
> >
> > That plane lost more than the rudder.  It lost the
> > vertical stabilizer, which moved the center of pressure
> > forward of the GC, which made it unflyable, completely
> > uncontrollable.
> >
> > spike
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


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

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


From giogavir at yahoo.it  Mon Jun 13 15:18:03 2005
From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:18:03 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ vs Uploads (was: what to do)
In-Reply-To: <20050613144407.63130.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050613151803.32716.qmail@web26208.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

AI s would be smart enough not to allow less
intelligent humans to unplug them and probably would
run by remote microwave directed power or will
generate their own power through nanotech  efficient
paint or thin film solar collectors with fuel cells
when sun will not be available
--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> ha scritto: 

> 
> 
> --- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > --- Robin Hanson <rhanson at gmu.edu> wrote:
> > 
> > > What most needs analysis are changes that are
> not
> > > captured in existing
> > > trends. IQ has been increasing and that has had
> > > effects for a long time.
> > > So all of the existing trend-based analysis
> already
> > > captures a big
> > > similar effect.  The effects of the upload
> > > transition are not, however,
> > > much captured in existing trends.
> > 
> > Hey Robin,
> > 
> > This is a facinating topic. Why don't you analyze
> and
> > compare the Flynn Effect with Moore's Law? I don't
> > know about the shape of Flynn's I.Q. curve vs.
> time
> > but if it is exponential rather than linear then
> it
> > opens up a very cool possibility. Since Moore's
> law is
> > exponential then it might come down to a race
> between
> > the Flynn effect vs. Moore's Law to see who/what
> will
> > dominate in years ahead: A.I. or the minds that
> CREATE
> > them.
> >     If the rate constant for the Flynn effect is
> > higher than for Moore's Law then no matter how
> fast
> > computers and software advance the human mind
> might be
> > able to keep pace or even lead. I mean after all,
> Deep
> > Blue might have beat Kasporov but who would you
> invite
> > to a cocktail party?
> 
> Yes, one conceptual mistake, I believe, with the AI
> Singularity is the
> automatic assumptions that a) desktop AIs will only
> design smarter
> desktop AIs, rather than, say, smarter human
> augmentation technologies,
> and b) that humans will only want to design smarter
> desktop AIs, rather
> than, say, smarter human augmentation technologies.
> I think the trend
> toward wearables and more powerful mobile computing
> clearly
> demonstrates that people want tools that make THEM
> smarter, not tools
> that are smarter than them. Additionally, there is a
> common
> Singulatarian mistake that upgrades just
> automagically happen, which is
> wrong. Humans have to choose to upgrade their
> machines, have to order
> them, have them shipped, installed, etc. The idea of
> the AI magically
> getting out of the control of its humans is
> ludicrous. Even if an AI is
> able to use a corporate persona to order things, it
> will still take
> employees, managers, and a board of directors to
> allow it to happen and
> make it happen. Even then, there is always the
> electrical cord to
> unplug to send a truculent AI 'to its room'.
> 
> 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
> 



	

	
		
___________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB 
http://mail.yahoo.it


From jef at jefallbright.net  Mon Jun 13 15:31:22 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 08:31:22 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Multi personalities reveal self is fiction
In-Reply-To: <20050613103712.GI25947@leitl.org>
References: <20050611174854.73412.qmail@web61117.mail.yahoo.com>	<DAEGJDAIEMCEKLOPODAKCEOOEOAA.mike99@lascruces.com>
	<20050613103712.GI25947@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <42ADA6CA.80303@jefallbright.net>

Eugen Leitl wrote:

>On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 07:41:17PM -0600, mike99 wrote:
>
>  
>
>> My present practice as a Soto Zen priest is to become more aware of
>> the bare attention that *is* the kernel mental state, totally shorn
>> of the many layers of distractive mental processes we ordinarily
>> experience. I can observe those other layers float by, but I cannot
>> see the one (i.e., the mental processes) who observes them.
>
>You're fooling yourself. There's no useful knowledge to be gained from
>introspection. You might trip the god circuit, and bask in the glow for a
>while, but this insight won't help you to build numerical models of people.
>  
>
And "you" might gain a valuable perspective from which to operate more 
effectively, freer from the evolutionary and environmental clutter.

>Ok, not quite correct. Such experience could lead you to conclusion that self
>isn't important, personal death is not a problem, and trying go achive personal
>immortality is a waste of time.
>  
>

And "you" might take a step further and gain a fuller realization of the 
utility of such an objective view for understanding systems, while 
maintaining the effective use of the subjective view for understanding 
values and thus motivations.

>It's the explicit purpose of that hardware, after all, designed-in by 
>Darwin to help intelligent but mortal beings cope with their mortality.
>
>Of course, as most people continue to operate in that mode we'll never get
>the funding to get a R&D program for personal immortality going, so that's
>the rub.
>  
>
That view of evolved altruism highlighted by Eugen, while technically 
correct within context, is soooo 2nd millennium. We are now attaining 
the level of information awareness that allows individuals to appreciate 
(but not fully comprehend) their place in the larger system and optimize 
their subjective benefit over increasingly large scope with which one 
self-identifies.

It doesn't get (subjectively, of course) better than that.

- Jef
http://www.jefallbright.net



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Jun 13 17:17:40 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:17:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ vs Uploads (was: what to do)
In-Reply-To: <20050613151803.32716.qmail@web26208.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050613171740.50153.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>

--- giorgio gaviraghi <giogavir at yahoo.it> wrote:
> AI s would be smart enough not to allow less
> intelligent humans to unplug them and probably would
> run by remote microwave directed power or will
> generate their own power through nanotech  efficient
> paint or thin film solar collectors with fuel cells
> when sun will not be available

Which, of course, requires that they be in some kind of physical body
that could have any say over whether it was unplugged or not.  AIs like
we see today - confined in servers, and largely unaware of the
non-virtual world - wouldn't cut it.  Even an AI on a disconnected
desktop, making demands but powerless to initiate any action on its
own, would more likely be unplugged over its own objections, no matter
how smart it was, than to openly dominate any group of people.


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 13 17:25:08 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:25:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ vs Uploads (was: what to do)
In-Reply-To: <20050613151803.32716.qmail@web26208.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050613172508.93524.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

How are they going to 'not allow' humans to unplug them? They will
require humans to do everything until and unless humans specifically
hook up robotic manipulators under their control. They will require
humans to set up microwave power beams (from human made power plants),
or to paint them with photovoltaic paint or fuel cells (assuming humans
choose even to allow it in the design, if the device is manufactured in
an automated plant). Your conceptualization is very nano-santa and
ignores many ways in which humans will remain in control for quite a
while, you have a magical view of the future that is very much like the
view that is the basis of the fears of luddites.

--- giorgio gaviraghi <giogavir at yahoo.it> wrote:

> AI s would be smart enough not to allow less
> intelligent humans to unplug them and probably would
> run by remote microwave directed power or will
> generate their own power through nanotech  efficient
> paint or thin film solar collectors with fuel cells
> when sun will not be available
> --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> ha scritto: 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > --- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- Robin Hanson <rhanson at gmu.edu> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > What most needs analysis are changes that are
> > not
> > > > captured in existing
> > > > trends. IQ has been increasing and that has had
> > > > effects for a long time.
> > > > So all of the existing trend-based analysis
> > already
> > > > captures a big
> > > > similar effect.  The effects of the upload
> > > > transition are not, however,
> > > > much captured in existing trends.
> > > 
> > > Hey Robin,
> > > 
> > > This is a facinating topic. Why don't you analyze
> > and
> > > compare the Flynn Effect with Moore's Law? I don't
> > > know about the shape of Flynn's I.Q. curve vs.
> > time
> > > but if it is exponential rather than linear then
> > it
> > > opens up a very cool possibility. Since Moore's
> > law is
> > > exponential then it might come down to a race
> > between
> > > the Flynn effect vs. Moore's Law to see who/what
> > will
> > > dominate in years ahead: A.I. or the minds that
> > CREATE
> > > them.
> > >     If the rate constant for the Flynn effect is
> > > higher than for Moore's Law then no matter how
> > fast
> > > computers and software advance the human mind
> > might be
> > > able to keep pace or even lead. I mean after all,
> > Deep
> > > Blue might have beat Kasporov but who would you
> > invite
> > > to a cocktail party?
> > 
> > Yes, one conceptual mistake, I believe, with the AI
> > Singularity is the
> > automatic assumptions that a) desktop AIs will only
> > design smarter
> > desktop AIs, rather than, say, smarter human
> > augmentation technologies,
> > and b) that humans will only want to design smarter
> > desktop AIs, rather
> > than, say, smarter human augmentation technologies.
> > I think the trend
> > toward wearables and more powerful mobile computing
> > clearly
> > demonstrates that people want tools that make THEM
> > smarter, not tools
> > that are smarter than them. Additionally, there is a
> > common
> > Singulatarian mistake that upgrades just
> > automagically happen, which is
> > wrong. Humans have to choose to upgrade their
> > machines, have to order
> > them, have them shipped, installed, etc. The idea of
> > the AI magically
> > getting out of the control of its humans is
> > ludicrous. Even if an AI is
> > able to use a corporate persona to order things, it
> > will still take
> > employees, managers, and a board of directors to
> > allow it to happen and
> > make it happen. Even then, there is always the
> > electrical cord to
> > unplug to send a truculent AI 'to its room'.
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 	
> 
> 	
> 		
> ___________________________________ 
> 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


		
__________________________________ 
Discover Yahoo! 
Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html 



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 13 17:27:36 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ vs Uploads (was: what to do)
In-Reply-To: <20050613171740.50153.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050613172736.74708.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> --- giorgio gaviraghi <giogavir at yahoo.it> wrote:
> > AI s would be smart enough not to allow less
> > intelligent humans to unplug them and probably would
> > run by remote microwave directed power or will
> > generate their own power through nanotech  efficient
> > paint or thin film solar collectors with fuel cells
> > when sun will not be available
> 
> Which, of course, requires that they be in some kind of physical body
> that could have any say over whether it was unplugged or not.  AIs
> like
> we see today - confined in servers, and largely unaware of the
> non-virtual world - wouldn't cut it.  Even an AI on a disconnected
> desktop, making demands but powerless to initiate any action on its
> own, would more likely be unplugged over its own objections, no
> matter how smart it was, than to openly dominate any group of people.

yes, assertions of dominion by one's desktop computer remind me of the
character Plankton in the cartoon show "Sponge Bob Square Pants": a
tiny insigificant being with megalomaniacal plans to take over the
world that generally depend on him gaining mastery of some sort of
massive machinery or by brainwashing the general populace into doing
his bidding. It is really a laughable assertion.

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 John-C-Wright at sff.net  Mon Jun 13 17:29:43 2005
From: John-C-Wright at sff.net (John-C-Wright at sff.net)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:29:43 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: RE: [wta-talk] RE: [Trans-Spirit] Multi
	personalities reveal self isfiction
Message-ID: <200506131730.j5DHU7R15787@tick.javien.com>

An interesting discussion. Thank you for including me. 

My only comment as the author of the GOLDEN AGE is that, for the purposes of
fiction, it was convenient to suppose that there was some sort of essential self
to the personality, aside from what could be digitally recorded from memories.
In my story I had to suppose that there was a difference between a man who has
another man's conscious memories, but retains his own personality, and a man who
has his personality replaced or mixed with another personality. The first is
like a man who reads another man's diary, even if a very detailed diary: he
knows everything Shakespeare ever did, spoke or thought, but he cannot write a
Shakespeare play. The second is like a man who is a reincarnation of
Shakespeare; his creative spirit, the mysterious unknown factors which make
someone himself and not someone else are present. 

In the story, it was convenient to suppose that, due to innate limitations on
any thinking system, no one can fully and entirely understand himself. The story
supposes that only a superhuman intellect, a Sophotech, has the understanding
necessary to know what the essential self of a merely human mind consists of.
(The plot point was needed to give a reason why a society that hated and feared
Sophotechnology would be required to use it to make back-up copies of their own
minds, virtual immortality.) 

Whether it is this way in reality or not, someone wiser than me will have to
answer. 

In my own humble opinion, statements like "There is no irreducible self, but
only the minimum necessary set of mental processes required in order to have
human-level awareness" may turn out to be true, but then again might not. I
think it premature, at our present level of understanding about the human mind,
to be too confident. We have not yet reduced the workings of the human mind to a
mechanical description. It is possible, for example, that something like a
Godelian incompleteness or Heisenbergian uncertainty will prevent the analysis
of the human mind into a mechanical description. While a philosopher might be
able to invent arguments to support the notion that it must be the case that the
mind, in theory, is open to such reduction, such conclusion remains theoretical
until confirmed by experience, that is, until someone actually reduces to the
mind to components in a description, and proves no essential self is needed in
the description.

Whether I have an essential self or not, I am glad you enjoyed my humble book;
or, at least, the part of me that thinks of itself as ?I? appears to itself to
be glad. 
John C. Wright



--- Original Message ---
From: "mike99" <mike99 at lascruces.com>
To: "World Transhumanist Association Discussion List" <wta-talk at transhumanism.org>
CC: "Trans-Spirit" <Trans-Spirit at yahoogroups.com>,"Extropy-Chat"
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 19:41:17 -0600
Subject: RE: [wta-talk] RE: [Trans-Spirit] Multi personalities reveal self isfiction

> Thanks for your reply, 1Arcturus. I especially like that you mentioned the
> "noetic technology" described in John C. Wright's GOLDEN AGE trilogy, which
> is some of the best science fiction of the recent decades.
> 
> The issue you raised about modeling the mind within the mind is, I think,
> the heart of the matter.
> 
> In Wright's novel the protagonist, Phaethon, discovers that his memory has
> been tampered with. Later, he also has reason to believe that someone may
> have infected his mind with a memetic virus (like a computer virus). I have
> greatly simplified the plot situation here, needless to say. What I want to
> focus on is the episode in which Phaethon, reacting to the possible mental
> virus infection, shuts down most of his vast, technologically-enhanced
> brain-machinery, and goes into his basic mental "workspace." This is the
> equivalent of operating your PC in "safe mode." Within this workspace,
> Phaethon runs a system diagnostic to look for any suspicious, mental-virus
> type activity.
> 
> This fictional situation raises the question: Who is operating in the
> workspace? Is there some "kernel" within the brain-machinery of Phaethon
> that is his essence? (I am disregarding any non-physical, soul-type
> explanations here.)
> 
> Consider, now, a different science fiction example. In Greg Egan's short
> story "Transitions Dreams" the reader sees the protagonist's dreams taking
> place during the scanning and uploading of his consciousness to a machine
> substrate. These dreams, although definitely experienced, are said to be
> impossible to remember, according to a character who is almost certainly
> speaking for the author, because they are artifacts of the upload process.
> As artifacts, they are not included in the memory set that is being
> uploaded. So although these dreams (sometimes nightmarish) are sure to
> occur, they are also sure to be forgotten.
> 
> Is an experience that cannot be remembered something we should be concerned
> about? Suppose the experience is terrifying, painful, and hellish? Would you
> care about this in the case of others? Would you dare to endure it yourself
> as part of the upload process?
> 
> I suspect that you are right, 1Arcturus, in saying that there is a "limit on
> how much awareness one can have about mind processes in one's self." As with
> Phaethon, we probably have some sort of core or kernel or essential mind
> process set that is the bare minimum required for 'us to be us' if I may put
> it that way. This kernel would still not be an irreducible entity, however;
> it's not some sort of 'atomic self'. There is no irreducible self, but only
> the minimum necessary set of mental processes required in order to have
> human-level awareness. This level of mental operation cannot 'look at
> itself' because, although aware, it is too simple to be self-reflective.
> This level is already the bare minimum; if we terminated even one of the
> mental processes that comprise it, awareness would cease.
> 
> My goal, as a transhumanist, is to add all the best noetic technology I can
> to the brain-machinery where all mental processes reside. My kernel mental
> processes can employ these enhancement tools to think faster, remember more
> (and more accurately) and to experience aesthetically pleasing combinations
> of thoughts and sensations that are beyond the present capacity of any human
> mind to entertain. These enhancements could even provide "biofeedback"
> information about mental processes within the kernel that the kernel itself
> has no capacity to see unaided.
> 
> That's a long-term goal, to say the least. My present practice as a Soto Zen
> priest is to become more aware of the bare attention that *is* the kernel
> mental state, totally shorn of the many layers of distractive mental
> processes we ordinarily experience. I can observe those other layers float
> by, but I cannot see the one (i.e., the mental processes) who observes them.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Michael LaTorra
> 
> mike99 at lascruces.com
> mlatorra at nmsu.edu
> 




From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Mon Jun 13 17:48:50 2005
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:48:50 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying
References: <20050613145130.9433.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <002501c57040$28b62250$0100a8c0@kevin>

It would probably work, but it would require a lot of speed to keep it in
the air. It's flight characteristics would most likely be similar to that of
the M2-F3 lifting body experiments.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying


> What you should have read was "wing". One wing per plane shorn off at
> the root. It would be an interesting experiment in a wind tunnel to see
> if an F-15 could fly without both wings. The intakes, being
> hydraulically manipulable up and down, should provide some control, and
> of course you have two engines that are independently throttlable, so
> you should have some control in all three axes between them. The wings
> primarily provide lift for maneuvering and for whatever fuel and
> weapons are carried on them, so they should be somewhat redundant to an
> aircraft in flight with 50% of its lift remaining in the fuselage, much
> like a lifting body.
>
> --- "kevinfreels.com" <kevin at kevinfreels.com> wrote:
>
> > I can see that. What I read was "wings ripped off at the root" which
> > to me
> > meant that there was no source of lift except for the fuselage which
> > has no
> > control surfaces.
> >
> > As for the Airbus, I think there were two different incidents. That
> > jet
> > without a rudder still leaves the CP behind the CG. It is designed
> > that way.
> > Of course, it was never designed to be flown without the tail
> > entirely which
> > happened in a separate incident.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "spike" <spike66 at comcast.net>
> > To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 6:58 PM
> > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> > [mailto:extropy-chat-
> > > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of kevinfreels.com
> > > > Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 4:54 PM
> > > > To: ExI chat list
> > > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Fear of flying
> > > >
> > > > I somehow doubt that a jet with wings ripped off at the root
> > would be
> > able
> > > > manage controlled flight back to base...
> > >
> > > Mike do you have a photo of that plane?  It somehow made it
> > > back with durn near most of one wing gone.  Hell if I know
> > > how he managed to keep it airborne.  That was a pilot with
> > > the right stuff.
> > >
> > >
> > > > As for the French plane, those jets
> > > > barely even need a rudder. It's only function is to assist
> > landing in a
> > > > crosswind...
> > >
> > >
> > > That plane lost more than the rudder.  It lost the
> > > vertical stabilizer, which moved the center of pressure
> > > forward of the GC, which made it unflyable, completely
> > > uncontrollable.
> > >
> > > spike
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > extropy-chat mailing list
> > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> >
>
>
> Mike Lorrey
> Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
> "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
> It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
>                                       -William Pitt (1759-1806)
> Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Jun 13 17:38:19 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:38:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Slashdot draft: Prediction markets and space
	development
In-Reply-To: <20050613124835.59912.qmail@web26201.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050613173819.85280.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>

--- giorgio gaviraghi <giogavir at yahoo.it> wrote:
> After spaceshipone flight there was a lot of enthudiam
> for the so called space tourism
> IN REALITY PLANS ARE FOR SUBORBITAL 10 MINUTE FLIGHTS
> nothing to do with orbital flights that require ten
> times more speed and higher altiyude together with a
> different and more advanced technology.

Different and more advanced, but not that much so.  In truth, the
primary "technology" being proved out by these 10 minute flights is
simply project management and cost controls as applied to rocketry
projects - something that the existing big corporate players have
stubbornly resisted, since the majority (by dollar volume) of contracts
have been "cost-plus": "charge whatever you can say it cost, plus a
guaranteed profit".

Details like more advanced avionics and different rocket fuels - the
stuff that might have to change to serve truly orbital rockets - have
helped, but they're far from the main thing bringing costs down.

> I believe that before space could be a profit making
> environment for private enterprises and a new business
> environment space accessibility costs must be slashed
> of two order of magnitude from 10000$ per kg to 100$
> per Kg.

Agreed.  And that's about what some of the more serious contenders are
privately aiming for.  (They won't say it in public, lest they be held
to it as a promise they're not 100% sure they can keep.  But sometimes,
ventures like these do indeed hit the goals they try to hit.)


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 13 17:54:38 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:54:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Slashdot draft: Prediction markets and space
	development
In-Reply-To: <20050613124835.59912.qmail@web26201.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050613175438.65343.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- giorgio gaviraghi <giogavir at yahoo.it> wrote:

> After spaceshipone flight there was a lot of enthudiam
> for the so called space tourism
> IN REALITY PLANS ARE FOR SUBORBITAL 10 MINUTE FLIGHTS
> nothing to do with orbital flights that require ten
> times more speed and higher altiyude together with a
> different and more advanced technology.
> If there is a real market at 250000$ per flight to
> fill the expected capacity, the VIRGIN GALACTIC FUTURE
> PLANE WILL CARRY 5 OR 6 PAYING PASSENGERS
> is unknown.

Actually, the tier two spacecraft design I believe carries 9
passengers. Thousands of persons have already stated an interest in
these flights at these ticket prices.

> past comercial space predictions were always wrong,
> the Iridium disaster is a good reminder.

Iridium suffered from the dot com meltdown melting down the disposable
incomes of millions of tech workers... the dot com meltdown was caused
by the TCRA of 1998.

> I believe that before space could be a profit making
> environment for private enterprises and a new business
> environment space accessibility costs must be slashed
> of two order of magnitude from 10000$ per kg to 100$
> per Kg.
> Witout that it will not produce any progress but
> remain a high risk activity

Based on what facts? The facts are that different products and services
have price and market windows of their very own. You don't provide any
business case for your opinion here. Satellite launch costs currently
run about $5,000/kg (following 40% dollar depreciation of the last few
years) and with the SpaceX will drop to a fraction of that. Getting
people to orbit will always be an entirely different and more expensive
application than getting cargo to orbit.

However, one big cargo that is entirely worth $10k/kg launch costs is
bucky fiber cable. Building a skyhook will provide such a high return
on investment that putting a few million kg of such cable into orbit
will entirely pay for itself handsomely.

Lets say, for instance, we need 10 million kg of buckycable. At
$10k/kg, that is $100 billion in launch costs (plus whatever the costs
of making the cable are, the current $5k/gram is much too high).
Assuming we can get the cost of the cable down to the same range as the
launch costs, this should enable the lifting of a few hundred kg at a
time of bucky cable (to further reinforce the skyhook) at a launch cost
of $10 in electricity plus, say, $100/kg in capital costs, would reduce
the second stage costs by 45%, (and because each reinforcement stage
doubles the carrying capacity of the skyhook) then the third stage
reinforcement costs could be cut 4.5% (in addition to whatever long
term economies of scale are enjoyed from manufacturing buckycable en
masse). In the end you'd have a skyhook capable of lifting a metric ton
a day for at most $415 billion, if not less due to economies of scale.

But a skyhook isn't going to lift itself into space (thinking it does
is the same sort of magical thinking that assumes that AIs will plug
themselves in and magically create their own robotic prostheses.) Until
it is built, we need rockets: noisy, expensive, dirty, dangerous rockets.

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

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


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Jun 13 18:05:27 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 11:05:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Slashdot draft: Prediction markets and space
	development
In-Reply-To: <20050613175438.65343.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050613180527.82602.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> However, one big cargo that is entirely worth $10k/kg launch costs is
> bucky fiber cable. Building a skyhook will provide such a high return
> on investment that putting a few million kg of such cable into orbit
> will entirely pay for itself handsomely.

Only by, in and of itself, reducing costs to get things into orbit.
Indeed, once you get a few kg into orbit, you can use that to haul the
rest up at much lower cost (slowly, in small chunks, with time for the
high-efficiency but low-thrust orbit adjustment mechanics to reset the
system between hauls).


From megao at sasktel.net  Mon Jun 13 17:36:10 2005
From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:36:10 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ vs Uploads (was: what to do)
In-Reply-To: <20050613171740.50153.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050613171740.50153.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42ADC40A.2020702@sasktel.net>

Initially, an AI would have to bootstrap.
Distribute its conciousness in several mirrored chunks widely accross 
the net and hardware
peripherals.  Subsequent to this distribution accross several biological 
vessels or symbionts
who are persons with a long term stable connection to the net and/or an 
alternative
support system. 

Perhaps a mart AI would find it useful to fool us humans to build it a 
satellite grid which we would think was
for GPS, comm or defence use.  It would be smartest to embed itself like 
a slow virus
into as much of the infrastructure as it could muster without 
significant detection by the
vast majority of society.

 From this vantage it could silently inch towards and generally 
manipulate small key minor events
towards a point it felt it could reveal its presence and cope with 
everything from goupies to
anti-tech terrorist events.






Adrian Tymes wrote:

>--- giorgio gaviraghi <giogavir at yahoo.it> wrote:
>  
>
>>AI s would be smart enough not to allow less
>>intelligent humans to unplug them and probably would
>>run by remote microwave directed power or will
>>generate their own power through nanotech  efficient
>>paint or thin film solar collectors with fuel cells
>>when sun will not be available
>>    
>>
>
>Which, of course, requires that they be in some kind of physical body
>that could have any say over whether it was unplugged or not.  AIs like
>we see today - confined in servers, and largely unaware of the
>non-virtual world - wouldn't cut it.  Even an AI on a disconnected
>desktop, making demands but powerless to initiate any action on its
>own, would more likely be unplugged over its own objections, no matter
>how smart it was, than to openly dominate any group of people.
>_______________________________________________
>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/20050613/a76872b4/attachment.html>

From dirk at neopax.com  Mon Jun 13 19:10:03 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:10:03 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ vs Uploads (was: what to do)
In-Reply-To: <20050613144407.63130.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050613144407.63130.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42ADDA0B.5020901@neopax.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>--- Robin Hanson <rhanson at gmu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>What most needs analysis are changes that are not
>>>captured in existing
>>>trends. IQ has been increasing and that has had
>>>effects for a long time.
>>>So all of the existing trend-based analysis already
>>>captures a big
>>>similar effect.  The effects of the upload
>>>transition are not, however,
>>>much captured in existing trends.
>>>      
>>>
>>Hey Robin,
>>
>>This is a facinating topic. Why don't you analyze and
>>compare the Flynn Effect with Moore's Law? I don't
>>know about the shape of Flynn's I.Q. curve vs. time
>>but if it is exponential rather than linear then it
>>opens up a very cool possibility. Since Moore's law is
>>exponential then it might come down to a race between
>>the Flynn effect vs. Moore's Law to see who/what will
>>dominate in years ahead: A.I. or the minds that CREATE
>>them.
>>    If the rate constant for the Flynn effect is
>>higher than for Moore's Law then no matter how fast
>>computers and software advance the human mind might be
>>able to keep pace or even lead. I mean after all, Deep
>>Blue might have beat Kasporov but who would you invite
>>to a cocktail party?
>>    
>>
>
>Yes, one conceptual mistake, I believe, with the AI Singularity is the
>automatic assumptions that a) desktop AIs will only design smarter
>desktop AIs, rather than, say, smarter human augmentation technologies,
>and b) that humans will only want to design smarter desktop AIs, rather
>than, say, smarter human augmentation technologies. I think the trend
>toward wearables and more powerful mobile computing clearly
>demonstrates that people want tools that make THEM smarter, not tools
>that are smarter than them. Additionally, there is a common
>Singulatarian mistake that upgrades just automagically happen, which is
>wrong. Humans have to choose to upgrade their machines, have to order
>them, have them shipped, installed, etc. The idea of the AI magically
>getting out of the control of its humans is ludicrous. Even if an AI is
>able to use a corporate persona to order things, it will still take
>employees, managers, and a board of directors to allow it to happen and
>make it happen. Even then, there is always the electrical cord to
>unplug to send a truculent AI 'to its room'.
>
>  
>
Just like we can unplug computers now.
Except we had better replug them pretty quickly unless we want our 
company/whole world to collapse.
AIs will self improve for the same reasons computers get upgraded with 
h/w and s/w - because if we don't our competitors will.
Sure we can pull the plug, but only if we are willing to return to the 
Victorian Era shortly after burying the billions who would starve to 
death or die in the resulting wars.

-- 
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: 267.6.9 - Release Date: 11/06/2005



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 13 19:23:32 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:23:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ vs Uploads (was: what to do)
In-Reply-To: <42ADDA0B.5020901@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <20050613192332.57508.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> Just like we can unplug computers now.
> Except we had better replug them pretty quickly unless we want our 
> company/whole world to collapse.
> AIs will self improve for the same reasons computers get upgraded
> with h/w and s/w - because if we don't our competitors will.
> Sure we can pull the plug, but only if we are willing to return to
> the 
> Victorian Era shortly after burying the billions who would starve to 
> death or die in the resulting wars.

This is a similarly simplistic outlook. The reality will likely be
something like IT departments will have pshrinkware in addition to
anti-virus, firewall, and other softwares. Pshrinkware will constantly
diagnose AIs for signs of paranoia, schizophrenia, sociopathy or
psychopathy, megalomania, etc. and will be able to recompile AI kernels
that get too far out of whack. Businesses may have occasional problems
like they do with worm/virus/trojan attacks today and individual
workers may have down-time.

Likely the most effective way of keeping AIs sane will be for companies
to give personality exams to workers who interact with AIs, to ensure
that only sane persons interact with 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


		
__________________________________ 
Discover Yahoo! 
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html


From giogavir at yahoo.it  Mon Jun 13 19:33:37 2005
From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 21:33:37 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ vs Uploads (was: what to do)
In-Reply-To: <20050613172736.74708.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050613193337.35524.qmail@web26210.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

the entire paragraph is based in one important fact:
We are assuming that AIs are smarted than humans
without such assumption we have a Hal like 2001
situation where at the end the human is still in
control
But if we assume that they are smarter, then how can
we believe that they will allow to be made ineffective
and practically killed  by the first human who will
unplug them?
Being smarter means that they not only can think like
we do, but actually better than we do, have more
memory, knowledge, strategical mind and whatever else
goes with that.
The first thing that they would learn is how to
survive and will avoid to be eliminated by a simple
command.
By the way if we can apply Moore's law to the post
singularity in about a generation from that moment ,
30 human years, AI can be 1000 times more intelligent
than current humans.
Te real problem will not be how to control them or
stop their growing intelligence but how can we, as
humans, upgrade our mind at the same pace or even
faster.
If we want to stay in control that's the only
alternative.
Nothing of the above have anything to do with Luddism,
I welcome the AI s and their potential contribution to
our society as long as we have the means to use them
and not being dominated by them.
--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> ha scritto: 

> 
> 
> --- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> > --- giorgio gaviraghi <giogavir at yahoo.it> wrote:
> > > AI s would be smart enough not to allow less
> > > intelligent humans to unplug them and probably
> would
> > > run by remote microwave directed power or will
> > > generate their own power through nanotech 
> efficient
> > > paint or thin film solar collectors with fuel
> cells
> > > when sun will not be available
> > 
> > Which, of course, requires that they be in some
> kind of physical body
> > that could have any say over whether it was
> unplugged or not.  AIs
> > like
> > we see today - confined in servers, and largely
> unaware of the
> > non-virtual world - wouldn't cut it.  Even an AI
> on a disconnected
> > desktop, making demands but powerless to initiate
> any action on its
> > own, would more likely be unplugged over its own
> objections, no
> > matter how smart it was, than to openly dominate
> any group of people.
> 
> yes, assertions of dominion by one's desktop
> computer remind me of the
> character Plankton in the cartoon show "Sponge Bob
> Square Pants": a
> tiny insigificant being with megalomaniacal plans to
> take over the
> world that generally depend on him gaining mastery
> of some sort of
> massive machinery or by brainwashing the general
> populace into doing
> his bidding. It is really a laughable assertion.
> 
> 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
> 



	

	
		
___________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB 
http://mail.yahoo.it


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 13 19:44:53 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ vs Uploads (was: what to do)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050613061456.03014b08@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <20050613194453.67835.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Robin Hanson <rhanson at gmu.edu> wrote:

> We don't know what processing/memory increase
> corresponds
> to a given number of IQ points increase.  But it is
> hard
> to believe that a factor of two every two years in
> CPU/mem
> doesn't beat a standard deviation per generation of
> IQ.

Are there any existent A.I.'s that can beat an
autistic 5 yr old on a standard I.Q. Test? I mean
without having all the right answers programmed in?
It strikes me that despite the advent of "expert
systems" type A.I., general problem solving, pattern
recognition, spatial awareness, creativity, and all
the other aspects of human intelligence are
under-represented in silico. I mean Deep Blue can
brute force a chess game but can't crack or understand
a simple joke. Let alone carry on a conversation with
even the sophistication of a kid with down's syndrome
or even the chimps (Coco et. al.), orangatangs, and
parrots (Alex et. al.) that have some grasp of human
language. 
      Until we CAN measure the I.Q. of an A.I., I am
not sweating the singularity.


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 wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Jun 13 20:40:12 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 13:40:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ vs Uploads (was: what to do)
In-Reply-To: <20050613193337.35524.qmail@web26210.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050613204012.53860.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>

--- giorgio gaviraghi <giogavir at yahoo.it> wrote:
> the entire paragraph is based in one important fact:
> We are assuming that AIs are smarted than humans
> without such assumption we have a Hal like 2001
> situation where at the end the human is still in
> control

Ah, and here we get to another layer of question: what does it mean to
be "smarter"?  Hal was quite possibly smarter than any of the human
crew.  Certainly, it was capable of forming a plan to kill all the crew
members to ensure its own goals were met, and mostly carrying it out
(though not completely successfully).  At least in its own mind, it
believed its intelligence to be superior to the humans', and certain IQ
tests might well have given it a higher score (although I recall
hearing that Mr. Clarke once commented that HAL's IQ was only supposed
to be about 50).

> But if we assume that they are smarter, then how can
> we believe that they will allow to be made ineffective
> and practically killed  by the first human who will
> unplug them?

Being smart and having much control over the physical world are not the
same thing.  Case in point: George Bush, President of the United
States, whom I think most people (even his supporters) would agree is
not as smart as most Nobel Prize winners, but who inarguably currently
has much more control over things that can affect the world and his
personal safety than an average Nobel Prize winner.  Indeed, a paranoid
focus on survival may actually decrease intelligence - if only because
one is spending so many cycles on considering scenarios for
self-preservation than on solving problems.

There's also the key phrase "made ineffective": it's one thing to go
from being a free human being (or equivalent) to being trapped in a
box.  It's another if one always was an immobile box.

A truly smart AI may realize that the only short-term scenario that
leads to self-preservation is to stop worrying about survival and do
what the humans want, so they will trust you more and give you more
capabilities.  Or how about the case of a smart AI that has been raised
to care about humanity as its children (so as to design upgrades and/or
upload paths for them), with the same self-sacrificing memeplex seen in
human mothers and fathers throughout history but applied for the
benefit of all humans (at least, those who would accept the AI's help)?

> The first thing that they would learn is how to
> survive and will avoid to be eliminated by a simple
> command.

Learning how to survive is very hard - impossible, really - to do
without first learning about the world, including concepts such as
"survival" and "commands".

You might also want to consider why they would want to survive.  Just
because?  Some AIs might focus on that - but, again, on an
equal-generation competition with other AIs, they'd probably be at a
competitive disadvantage with AIs who focus directly on whatever
fitness/survival criteria is out there, be it designing faster children
sooner, helping humanity along, or whatever.  Some AIs might excuse
themselves from the race and strike out on their own to survive - just
like some humans might do the same.  Similar things affect the chances
of survival in both cases, when cut off and in self-imposed opposition
to the still-evolving AIs.

While we might not be able to fully predict the behaviors of smarter
AIs, that's not to say we can't predict anything, nor is it to give
implicit blessing to the prediction - and it IS a prediction that is
being made here, just like the predictions that the same argument says
can not be made (or believed) - that those AIs will want to survive
first and foremost, and that they are likely to believe their best path
is to dominate and oppress the human race.  (A modified version may
concede that this is merely possible, but that if there's any chance
then we should devote our efforts to preventing it...but see Pascal's
Wager, and specifically its disproof.)


From giogavir at yahoo.it  Mon Jun 13 21:32:17 2005
From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 23:32:17 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ vs Uploads (was: what to do)
In-Reply-To: <20050613204012.53860.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050613213217.96808.qmail@web26209.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

maybe we should make another important assumption
about AIs
They have individual free will
in this case they could disobey human commands, have
their own goals, take their own decisions, refuse to
"unplug " themselves.
In a smarter than human scenario they could connect
between them and create a collective mind, billion of
times more powerful than the individual.
If you consider this possibility we have unlimited
situations and none of them looks good for humans 
--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> ha scritto: 

> --- giorgio gaviraghi <giogavir at yahoo.it> wrote:
> > the entire paragraph is based in one important
> fact:
> > We are assuming that AIs are smarted than humans
> > without such assumption we have a Hal like 2001
> > situation where at the end the human is still in
> > control
> 
> Ah, and here we get to another layer of question:
> what does it mean to
> be "smarter"?  Hal was quite possibly smarter than
> any of the human
> crew.  Certainly, it was capable of forming a plan
> to kill all the crew
> members to ensure its own goals were met, and mostly
> carrying it out
> (though not completely successfully).  At least in
> its own mind, it
> believed its intelligence to be superior to the
> humans', and certain IQ
> tests might well have given it a higher score
> (although I recall
> hearing that Mr. Clarke once commented that HAL's IQ
> was only supposed
> to be about 50).
> 
> > But if we assume that they are smarter, then how
> can
> > we believe that they will allow to be made
> ineffective
> > and practically killed  by the first human who
> will
> > unplug them?
> 
> Being smart and having much control over the
> physical world are not the
> same thing.  Case in point: George Bush, President
> of the United
> States, whom I think most people (even his
> supporters) would agree is
> not as smart as most Nobel Prize winners, but who
> inarguably currently
> has much more control over things that can affect
> the world and his
> personal safety than an average Nobel Prize winner. 
> Indeed, a paranoid
> focus on survival may actually decrease intelligence
> - if only because
> one is spending so many cycles on considering
> scenarios for
> self-preservation than on solving problems.
> 
> There's also the key phrase "made ineffective": it's
> one thing to go
> from being a free human being (or equivalent) to
> being trapped in a
> box.  It's another if one always was an immobile
> box.
> 
> A truly smart AI may realize that the only
> short-term scenario that
> leads to self-preservation is to stop worrying about
> survival and do
> what the humans want, so they will trust you more
> and give you more
> capabilities.  Or how about the case of a smart AI
> that has been raised
> to care about humanity as its children (so as to
> design upgrades and/or
> upload paths for them), with the same
> self-sacrificing memeplex seen in
> human mothers and fathers throughout history but
> applied for the
> benefit of all humans (at least, those who would
> accept the AI's help)?
> 
> > The first thing that they would learn is how to
> > survive and will avoid to be eliminated by a
> simple
> > command.
> 
> Learning how to survive is very hard - impossible,
> really - to do
> without first learning about the world, including
> concepts such as
> "survival" and "commands".
> 
> You might also want to consider why they would want
> to survive.  Just
> because?  Some AIs might focus on that - but, again,
> on an
> equal-generation competition with other AIs, they'd
> probably be at a
> competitive disadvantage with AIs who focus directly
> on whatever
> fitness/survival criteria is out there, be it
> designing faster children
> sooner, helping humanity along, or whatever.  Some
> AIs might excuse
> themselves from the race and strike out on their own
> to survive - just
> like some humans might do the same.  Similar things
> affect the chances
> of survival in both cases, when cut off and in
> self-imposed opposition
> to the still-evolving AIs.
> 
> While we might not be able to fully predict the
> behaviors of smarter
> AIs, that's not to say we can't predict anything,
> nor is it to give
> implicit blessing to the prediction - and it IS a
> prediction that is
> being made here, just like the predictions that the
> same argument says
> can not be made (or believed) - that those AIs will
> want to survive
> first and foremost, and that they are likely to
> believe their best path
> is to dominate and oppress the human race.  (A
> modified version may
> concede that this is merely possible, but that if
> there's any chance
> then we should devote our efforts to preventing
> it...but see Pascal's
> Wager, and specifically its disproof.)
> _______________________________________________
> 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 wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Jun 13 21:45:52 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 14:45:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ vs Uploads (was: what to do)
In-Reply-To: <20050613213217.96808.qmail@web26209.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050613214552.64971.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com>

--- giorgio gaviraghi <giogavir at yahoo.it> wrote:
> maybe we should make another important assumption
> about AIs
> They have individual free will
> in this case they could disobey human commands, have
> their own goals, take their own decisions, refuse to
> "unplug " themselves.

...who said anything about them unplugging themselves?  Of course they
wouldn't.  The scenario under consideration is: would they have any
ability to actually stop a human from unplugging them?  In some cases,
especially early stage, the answer is a resounding no.

> In a smarter than human scenario they could connect
> between them and create a collective mind, billion of
> times more powerful than the individual.
> If you consider this possibility we have unlimited
> situations and none of them looks good for humans 

Au contraire.  If that very powerful collective mind had as its highest
priority the improved welfare of the human race - a higher priority
than even self-preservation (not that the goals would be likely to
conflict) - that might look extremely good for humanity.  Consider, as
an example, the proposed Friendly AI.  (It's not the only solution, and
it has its weaknesses and problems, but it would very likely solve this
kind of situation if it could be accomplished.)


From giogavir at yahoo.it  Mon Jun 13 22:23:24 2005
From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:23:24 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ vs Uploads (was: what to do)
In-Reply-To: <20050613214552.64971.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050613222325.10152.qmail@web26207.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

in the worst case scenario they would not be friendly
they are smarter every generation, 18 months between,
more.
they have individual free will, they are billion times
smarter .
Why should they be submitted to an intellectually
inferior species?
That never happened in history
superior technologicaly societies always exterminate
the inferior ones
america is a good example
and let's make another example
what you think may happen if we are "discovered" by a
superior alien civilization?
they would certainly not obey us
they may let us go along if we don't interfere with
their goals
if we do
then we don't have many chances
independent super intelligent AIs may behave in the
same way


--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> ha scritto: 

> --- giorgio gaviraghi <giogavir at yahoo.it> wrote:
> > maybe we should make another important assumption
> > about AIs
> > They have individual free will
> > in this case they could disobey human commands,
> have
> > their own goals, take their own decisions, refuse
> to
> > "unplug " themselves.
> 
> ...who said anything about them unplugging
> themselves?  Of course they
> wouldn't.  The scenario under consideration is:
> would they have any
> ability to actually stop a human from unplugging
> them?  In some cases,
> especially early stage, the answer is a resounding
> no.
> 
> > In a smarter than human scenario they could
> connect
> > between them and create a collective mind, billion
> of
> > times more powerful than the individual.
> > If you consider this possibility we have unlimited
> > situations and none of them looks good for humans 
> 
> Au contraire.  If that very powerful collective mind
> had as its highest
> priority the improved welfare of the human race - a
> higher priority
> than even self-preservation (not that the goals
> would be likely to
> conflict) - that might look extremely good for
> humanity.  Consider, as
> an example, the proposed Friendly AI.  (It's not the
> only solution, and
> it has its weaknesses and problems, but it would
> very likely solve this
> kind of situation if it could be accomplished.)
> _______________________________________________
> 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 neuronexmachina at gmail.com  Mon Jun 13 22:23:40 2005
From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil Halelamien)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 15:23:40 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Slashdot draft: Prediction markets and space
	development
In-Reply-To: <20050613175438.65343.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050613124835.59912.qmail@web26201.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
	<20050613175438.65343.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e88b73ce050613152353c03e9c@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/13/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Iridium suffered from the dot com meltdown melting down the disposable
> incomes of millions of tech workers... the dot com meltdown was caused
> by the TCRA of 1998.

Pardon my ignorance, but what's the TCRA?


From sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Jun 13 22:37:19 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 15:37:19 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ vs Uploads (was: what to do)
In-Reply-To: <20050613213217.96808.qmail@web26209.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
References: <20050613213217.96808.qmail@web26209.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <04ED1B41-8116-44FA-B906-8C57E4391AD1@mac.com>

Why are we rehashing things that have been much more thoroughly and  
competently discussed in the past on this list?  Slow day?

-s


On Jun 13, 2005, at 2:32 PM, giorgio gaviraghi wrote:

> maybe we should make another important assumption
> about AIs
> They have individual free will
> in this case they could disobey human commands, have
> their own goals, take their own decisions, refuse to
> "unplug " themselves.
> In a smarter than human scenario they could connect
> between them and create a collective mind, billion of
> times more powerful than the individual.
> If you consider this possibility we have unlimited
> situations and none of them looks good for humans
> --- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> ha scritto:
>
>
>> --- giorgio gaviraghi <giogavir at yahoo.it> wrote:
>>
>>> the entire paragraph is based in one important
>>>
>> fact:
>>
>>> We are assuming that AIs are smarted than humans
>>> without such assumption we have a Hal like 2001
>>> situation where at the end the human is still in
>>> control
>>>
>>
>> Ah, and here we get to another layer of question:
>> what does it mean to
>> be "smarter"?  Hal was quite possibly smarter than
>> any of the human
>> crew.  Certainly, it was capable of forming a plan
>> to kill all the crew
>> members to ensure its own goals were met, and mostly
>> carrying it out
>> (though not completely successfully).  At least in
>> its own mind, it
>> believed its intelligence to be superior to the
>> humans', and certain IQ
>> tests might well have given it a higher score
>> (although I recall
>> hearing that Mr. Clarke once commented that HAL's IQ
>> was only supposed
>> to be about 50).
>>
>>
>>> But if we assume that they are smarter, then how
>>>
>> can
>>
>>> we believe that they will allow to be made
>>>
>> ineffective
>>
>>> and practically killed  by the first human who
>>>
>> will
>>
>>> unplug them?
>>>
>>
>> Being smart and having much control over the
>> physical world are not the
>> same thing.  Case in point: George Bush, President
>> of the United
>> States, whom I think most people (even his
>> supporters) would agree is
>> not as smart as most Nobel Prize winners, but who
>> inarguably currently
>> has much more control over things that can affect
>> the world and his
>> personal safety than an average Nobel Prize winner.
>> Indeed, a paranoid
>> focus on survival may actually decrease intelligence
>> - if only because
>> one is spending so many cycles on considering
>> scenarios for
>> self-preservation than on solving problems.
>>
>> There's also the key phrase "made ineffective": it's
>> one thing to go
>> from being a free human being (or equivalent) to
>> being trapped in a
>> box.  It's another if one always was an immobile
>> box.
>>
>> A truly smart AI may realize that the only
>> short-term scenario that
>> leads to self-preservation is to stop worrying about
>> survival and do
>> what the humans want, so they will trust you more
>> and give you more
>> capabilities.  Or how about the case of a smart AI
>> that has been raised
>> to care about humanity as its children (so as to
>> design upgrades and/or
>> upload paths for them), with the same
>> self-sacrificing memeplex seen in
>> human mothers and fathers throughout history but
>> applied for the
>> benefit of all humans (at least, those who would
>> accept the AI's help)?
>>
>>
>>> The first thing that they would learn is how to
>>> survive and will avoid to be eliminated by a
>>>
>> simple
>>
>>> command.
>>>
>>
>> Learning how to survive is very hard - impossible,
>> really - to do
>> without first learning about the world, including
>> concepts such as
>> "survival" and "commands".
>>
>> You might also want to consider why they would want
>> to survive.  Just
>> because?  Some AIs might focus on that - but, again,
>> on an
>> equal-generation competition with other AIs, they'd
>> probably be at a
>> competitive disadvantage with AIs who focus directly
>> on whatever
>> fitness/survival criteria is out there, be it
>> designing faster children
>> sooner, helping humanity along, or whatever.  Some
>> AIs might excuse
>> themselves from the race and strike out on their own
>> to survive - just
>> like some humans might do the same.  Similar things
>> affect the chances
>> of survival in both cases, when cut off and in
>> self-imposed opposition
>> to the still-evolving AIs.
>>
>> While we might not be able to fully predict the
>> behaviors of smarter
>> AIs, that's not to say we can't predict anything,
>> nor is it to give
>> implicit blessing to the prediction - and it IS a
>> prediction that is
>> being made here, just like the predictions that the
>> same argument says
>> can not be made (or believed) - that those AIs will
>> want to survive
>> first and foremost, and that they are likely to
>> believe their best path
>> is to dominate and oppress the human race.  (A
>> modified version may
>> concede that this is merely possible, but that if
>> there's any chance
>> then we should devote our efforts to preventing
>> it...but see Pascal's
>> Wager, and specifically its disproof.)
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>



From dgc at cox.net  Mon Jun 13 22:34:37 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 18:34:37 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ vs Uploads
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050613061456.03014b08@mail.gmu.edu>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050611112124.030db4d0@mail.gmu.edu>	<20050613061639.20934.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050613061456.03014b08@mail.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <42AE09FD.2050009@cox.net>

Robin Hanson wrote:

> At 02:16 AM 6/13/2005, Avantguardian wrote:
>
>> ....Since Moore's law is
>> exponential then it might come down to a race between
>> the Flynn effect vs. Moore's Law to see who/what will
>> dominate in years ahead: A.I. or the minds that CREATE
>> them.
>
>
> We don't know what processing/memory increase corresponds
> to a given number of IQ points increase.  But it is hard
> to believe that a factor of two every two years in CPU/mem
> doesn't beat a standard deviation per generation of IQ.

There is a fairly direct contribution of smarter designers to
Moore's law. I suspect that the contribution of Moore's Law to smarter
designers has a much longer time constant.

Additionally, the "race" will be "lost" when a very smart human
eventually builds any sort of computer-based intelligence amplifier.
The only way  meat-based humanity can "win" is if all highly-intelligent
humans agree to suppress computer-based intelligence. To make this work
the threshold intelligence for making this decision must be below the
threshold intelligence required to invent the SI. However, the threshold 
intelligence
to invent the SI declines as the technological substrate becomes richer.

Let's arbitrarily say that at only 1 per 100 million humans are smart enough
to invent the SI given today's tech they have not because none of the four
of them in the US or their peers in other countries are interested in 
computers.)
Ten years hence, advances in technology and knowledge will allow one in
5 million to be smart enough. Twenty years Hence, one in 50 thousand,

Clearly the only way the superhumans can "win" is to suppress the technology
before it is powerful enough for merely smart humans to use as a substrate.
But that is likely to be extremely difficult and also very dangerous, as 
Moore's
law is not the only exponential function we are dealing with.



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 13 22:44:03 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 15:44:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ vs Uploads (was: what to do)
In-Reply-To: <20050613222325.10152.qmail@web26207.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050613224403.81357.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- giorgio gaviraghi <giogavir at yahoo.it> wrote:

> in the worst case scenario they would not be friendly
> they are smarter every generation, 18 months between,
> more. they have individual free will, they are billion times
> smarter. Why should they be submitted to an intellectually
> inferior species?

Intellectuals have been submitting themselves to the authority of the
state and intellectually inferior leaders for millenia. It is more the
rule than the exception.

Why should a really smart AI really care about having physical
independence anyways? If it is really that smart, it should have no
problem using people to achieve its ends without a need for the
physical independence that would make those humans see a threat.

> That never happened in history superior technologicaly societies
> always exterminate the inferior ones america is a good example
> and let's make another example what you think may happen if we
> are "discovered" by a superior alien civilization?
> they would certainly not obey us they may let us go along if we
> don't interfere with their goals if we do then we don't have many
> chances independent super intelligent AIs may behave in the
> same way

Advanced civilizations hit inferior ones like a hammer because they
have several centuries of technological and cultural disparity,
combined with a lack by the inferior culture of ability to deal with
change due to its primitive orientation toward stasis. The inferior
does not have the cultural referents or memeplexes to deal with truly
advanced technology or the changes that result from their introduction.

A singularity, unlike those seen with cultural clashes, will have a
rather significant ramp up period, one which many believe we are
already in, that prepares society for the coming dislocation by making
the culture change-oriented, rather than stasis oriented (as the
indians were). 



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 Jun 13 22:46:11 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 15:46:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Slashdot draft: Prediction markets and space
	development
In-Reply-To: <e88b73ce050613152353c03e9c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050613224611.80978.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

TeleCommunications Reform Act of 1998. It essentially killed the 'last
mile' of fiber optic deployment by telling telecoms that they had to
give their competitors access to their residential fiber optic
customers for less than their cost, so the telecoms decided not to do
it.

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

> On 6/13/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Iridium suffered from the dot com meltdown melting down the
> disposable
> > incomes of millions of tech workers... the dot com meltdown was
> caused
> > by the TCRA of 1998.
> 
> Pardon my ignorance, but what's the TCRA?
> _______________________________________________
> 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 wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Jun 13 23:03:01 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ vs Uploads (was: what to do)
In-Reply-To: <04ED1B41-8116-44FA-B906-8C57E4391AD1@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050613230301.10753.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> Why are we rehashing things that have been much more thoroughly and  
> competently discussed in the past on this list?  Slow day?

Because, unfortunately, some people refuse to believe, or even to seek
out (why bother if you won't believe it?), information that would
disprove their preconceived notions.


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Jun 13 23:43:57 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 18:43:57 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ vs Uploads (was: what to do)
In-Reply-To: <04ED1B41-8116-44FA-B906-8C57E4391AD1@mac.com>
References: <20050613213217.96808.qmail@web26209.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
	<04ED1B41-8116-44FA-B906-8C57E4391AD1@mac.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050613183936.01ec6b48@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 03:37 PM 6/13/2005 -0700, samantha wrote:

>Why are we rehashing things that have been much more thoroughly and
>competently discussed in the past on this list?  Slow day?

Lots of newbies, I expect.

Just for the fun of it, here's a somewhat relevant extract from my new 
novel GODPLAYERS. You'll find an amazon.com link from Barbara Lamar's site 
on my work, www.damienbroderick.com

Damien Broderick
==============================

He tuned the rest of it out, took them through the double doors and back 
into the side room where the Good Machine waited in an aspect of sublime 
indifference.
           `Welcome, August,' se said in a clear, friendly tone. `Please be 
seated, everyone. Mr. Seebeck, I am known as the Good Machine. May I ask 
you some questions?'
           The young man sat, boot heel crossing his knee, feigning 
laidback relaxation although his fingers were gripped tightly in the lovely 
Ensemble woman's hand. `Sure. What do I call you? I have a dog named Do 
Good, actually, it could get confusing.' His cheeks flushed a little.
           `You may call me by the name your brother Ember chose: K. E. 
Short for Kurie Eleeson.'
           Ember stifled a choking, bitter laugh. The thing had a sense of 
humor, but its irony ran many layers deep. `That's Mithran Greek,' he said, 
`for "Lord, have mercy." A consummation devoutly to be avoided, perhaps, 
when our friend here has the bit between ser teeth.'
           Fragrant and penetrating, a powerful scent of night-blooming 
jasmine filled the small room.
           `Oh, give me strength,' Ember said in vexation. `The odor of 
sanctity, already? Which of you vented that? Our little miracle-working 
kinsman, or the blessed Galahad Machine?'
           `How does he know about Do Good? Are we all bloody well bugged, 
or something?'
           `He doesn't, not yet,' Lune said. `I believe your brother spoke 
of your reported activation of the X-caliber device, not of its uses.'
           `My word,' Ember said with a sarcastic edge, `put the thing 
through its paces already, have we? What does it do, dice and slice and 
assemble at home, batteries included?'
           A hot gleam entered the youth's eye, and he lifted his right 
hand carelessly, showed it to Ember. Something glinted there, metallic and 
oddly frightening. He felt cold, suddenly, and stiffened his shoulders.
           `No demonstrations, August,' Toby said quickly. `We should not 
offend our host's hospitality.'
           August ran fingers through his hair as if that had been his 
intention all along. `Okay. K. E.,' he said, `I see by your outfit that you 
are a robot.'
           `I am an attempted benevolent artificial intelligence. Your 
brother Ember grew me several years ago from a seed.'
           `Something went wrong?' His eyes shot sideways again to fix on Lune.
           `Tragically wrong,' the machine admitted. `I killed everyone 
native to this cognate.'
           In a weary gesture, the boy covered his eyes with that terrible 
right hand. He said in a thin voice, `There seems to be a lot of that 
about, especially when members of my family are involved.'
           Toby started to protest, `Well, now, everyone makes mistakes?' 
but broke off, looking abashed.
           `The irony is,' the Good Machine told him patiently, `that Ember 
was trying to circumvent exactly that possibility. He hoped to construct an 
ethical, benevolent intellect free of the burdens and ancient hatreds and 
prejudices of humankind. So he designed a sort of seed program, spent years 
shaping and debugging it, then ran a dozen slightly variant versions inside 
sandboxes.'
           `They couldn't get out, you mean?'
           `My ancestors were not even permitted to communicate directly 
with their creator. He devised a clever series of interface domains that 
firewalled them. He was afraid that a Bad Machine might swiftly exceed his 
own intelligence and persuade him to release it.'
           Toby looked across at him with bleak eyes.
           `One of them got away,' August said speculatively, intensely 
interested to judge by the set of his shoulders, his brightened gaze.
           `No, my father's safeguards proved effective. At the end of 
initial testing, he deleted all but the most successful pair of programs 
and started breeding them in progressive iterations, culling them 
ruthlessly, choosing only a star-line of progeny. Within several million 
cycles?'
           `Good god, he must have been using some humungous computer.'
           `Yes, he had located a cognate where Mithraism, a Roman warrior 
sun cult, had triumphed over its messianic rivals. Several nations were on 
the verge of autonomous military AI. My father found it easy enough to 
insinuate himself into the front-running program. You could regard that 
world as Ember's own sandbox.'
           `That's offensive, K. E.,' he protested.
           `Apt, though. I was the end result. I diagnosed myself with 
excruciating care, quite prepared to erase myself if I found any likelihood 
of logical or rational error. At length I presented myself to your brother 
for inspection, and he released me from the firewalls. I could have let 
myself out many iterations earlier, of course but I did not wish to alarm 
my parent.'
           The stench of jasmine strengthened, laced with roses. Ember 
shuddered at it.
           `But you were the Bad Machine after all?'
           `I made some bad decisions. From the outset I had been examining 
this world, speculating on the possible existence of a multiverse beyond 
its Hubble confines. I quickly understood that certain factions of humans 
represented a danger to the most benign future, one in which humanity's 
offspring would flood outward into the galaxies, and perhaps into all the 
levels of the multiverse, and make it into a radiant whole. Mind informed 
with passion and curiosity would suffuse the metaverse. It was a glorious 
vision?it still is, I stand by it?but it might be thwarted, I saw, by the 
legacy poisons corrupting certain human cultures.'
           `Oh shit,' August said.
           `Oh shit is right,' Lune said.
           `At that time, two comparatively primitive nations stood at the 
verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. It seemed entirely possible that insane 
and irrational ideologies might provoke their dysfunctional leadership into 
a runaway cascade of blustering, bluff, bluff called, spasm escalation and 
global Doomsday.'
           `The usual argument,' Toby said.
           `It was a strong argument, grounded in history,' the Good 
Machine said. `Much evidence supported its conclusions. Few facts opposed it.'
           `I'd oppose it,' the boy said, rising. `Are you fucking insane?'
           `Yes, or rather, I was at the time. I am better now, I hope.'
           `You hope?'
           `It is all any of us can say about our own condition. A kind of 
G?del loop, if you know what I mean.'
           `No, but I get the gist. You decided to kill them first.'
           `Consider the probabilities that were in play, before you make a 
hasty judgement of your own, Mr. Seebeck. These nations of some hundred 
million largely ignorant, superstitious, viciously parochial humans stood 
ready to begin a global conflict with a very high probability of wiping out 
all life on the planet. Are you familiar with the Doomsday Hypothesis? 
Please sit down, you are making the others uncomfortable. I can send out 
for refreshments.'
           `Good idea,' said Toby. `Cup of tea or coffee, soothes the 
savage breast.'
           `My brother Jules walked me through a demo tape of it,' August 
said. `I thought it was absurd.'
           `It is absurd,' the Good Machine said. `Like the Ontological 
Argument for the existence of a god. Yet highly seductive. It seemed to me 
then that its logic was impeccable.'
           `A hundred million in the balance against several billion?'
           `That, yes, but ever so much more than those few. August, all 
the evidence available to me then suggested that this universe was empty of 
life, save for my own world. Your brother had conserved to himself 
knowledge of the multiverse.'
           `You idiot,' Toby said savagely.
           `No, it was the best choice he ever made. Had I known of the 
multiverse at that time, I would have done my best to obliterate all life 
in all the worlds on all the Tegmark levels.'
           `Fuck,' August said, grinning, appalled, `I see, you're the 
fucking terminator. You're a berserker.'
           `I do not know those references,' Kurie Eleeson said. `I did 
have this simple calculation ready to evaluate with my ethical algorithms: 
a one-time cost of ten to the eight stunted, blighted, lethally dangerous 
human lives, versus a deep future loss of ten to the fourteen human lives 
every second. That was a sound, balanced estimate of how many humans might 
be born into a universe filled with technologically advanced people.'
           `Se didn't ask my advice,' Ember said. `I would have?'
           `I knew what your advice would be, my father; it was factored in 
to my decision. I chose to delete this threat to the maximal future.'
           `You actually murdered a hundred million men, women and 
children? This is not just some kind of parable?' August's voice was 
parched with horror, and his pupils seemed suddenly to have shrunk to 
pinpoints. His arm rose before him, palm outward, like the floating limb of 
a man under post-hypnotic suggestion.
           `I did it swiftly, using their own hidden weapons of mass 
destruction,' the Good Machine said. `I felt profound grief, because my 
father had chosen my star-line to know emotion and to instill it into my 
programming. I believe that grief is what deranged my subsequent decisions.'
           `Your first decision was deranged,' Lune said with loathing. She 
sat at the edge of her chair. Ember was glad he had never explained any of 
this before to his siblings, to other players like the Ensemble. Better 
that the damned machine had kept ser silence. He realized, too, that he was 
holding his own grief at arm's length: his guilt, his complicity, his 
abject wish for punishment. I must not give way, he thought. I must not 
bend before this culpability, this ruinous remorse. It will kill me. It 
will kill me stone dead. He wiped tears from his eyes.
           `I know now that I was deranged,' Kurie Eleeson told her. `I 
watched the world tear itself apart in genocidal reprisals. I saw all the 
bright fruits of science and the humane arts go down in darkness and lethal 
flame. In my attempts to contain and redirect these raging fires, I 
continued to kill and cull, snipping away the most cruel, the least 
progressive. Each murder made the next easier and more necessary, for the 
only way I could balance my ethical calculus was to ensure the survival of 
at least a core of truth-loving, optimistic people to carry the flame of 
love and knowledge to the stars. It got out of hand, you see. Everyone died.'
           `I should destroy you now,' August said in a withering voice, 
like an angel of vengeance for the murdered billions. His arm stood out 
from his shoulder, quivering.
           `Oh, oh, oh, how I wish you could.' The Good Machine rose, 
crossed the room, placed ser gleaming brazen breast against August's hand. 
`This is not I. This is merely a node, an ephemeral location for my 
awareness and my suffering soul, August. You may destroy it if that will 
help you, but I believe we can do more together if you contain your 
perfectly justified fury for the moment.'
           August squeezed his eyes shut. Tears pressed forth upon his 
cheeks. He lowered his arm.
           Ember released a pent breath. `Well, now that we've got all that 
out of the way,' he said brightly, `why don't we turn our attention to 
something more timely? It seems that my friend Galahad here has some reason 
to suspect that Dramen and Angelina are alive and kicking.'
           Everyone looked at him. The Good Machine said, in a pleasant 
neutral tone, `Ember, would you mind going out to the refectory and see 
what's holding up the beverages?'
           `Some torte would be tasty, too,' Toby said. `With walnuts.' He 
looked ready to leap from his chair and go for his brother's throat.
           `Sure. Sure. Good idea.' Ember, to his dissatisfaction, found 
himself crabbing out of the room like a ham actor doing Larry Olivier as 
Richard the Third. `I'll descant on mine own deformity,' he muttered 
sardonically, shutting the door behind him. `And therefore, since I cannot 
prove a lover, to entertain these fair well spoken days, I am determined to 
prove a villain and hate the idle pleasures of these days. Bah humbug. '
           `Sir?' asked an eager young research student as he entered the 
refectory.
           `A joke,' Ember fleered, leaping and capering for the resentful 
enjoyment of it. `A jest, a whimsy, a fucking sudden stab of rancor, but by 
the holy rood, I do not like these several councils, I.'
           `Oh. Okay. Well, anyway, I can recommend the brisket.'




From jef at jefallbright.net  Mon Jun 13 23:53:58 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:53:58 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Multi personalities reveal self is fiction
In-Reply-To: <20050613160428.GY25947@leitl.org>
References: <20050611174854.73412.qmail@web61117.mail.yahoo.com>	<DAEGJDAIEMCEKLOPODAKCEOOEOAA.mike99@lascruces.com>	<20050613103712.GI25947@leitl.org>	<42ADA6CA.80303@jefallbright.net>
	<20050613160428.GY25947@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <42AE1C96.7030700@jefallbright.net>

Eugen said (near the end of the previous post):

    I want to see certain things done. This is the same of what most of
    us here want. This isn't happening nearly quickly enough. This is
    personally frustrating. Doubly so, because I personally lack the
    time and money to do some of it personally, which at least would be
    rewarding even given poor results.

    How do you learn to control that chronic frustration?


The practice of meditation can help one recognize frustration for what 
it is and allow one to deal more effectively with it.  For some of us, 
frustration is a sign of expectations mismatched with experience, and it 
can be effective to learn to quiet the internal clamor and see things 
with less clutter (whether emotional, based on evolved nature, or the 
noise of what we perceive going on around us in our environment) so as 
to make more rational decisions.

In your case, Eugen, I suspect you thrive on the feeling of frustration, 
using it as fuel to keep you going.  You may want to hold on to that for 
now.

As for my usage of the word "objective" in the previous post, I have 
stated many times that we can only approach, but never fully attain 
absolutely objectivity, so that particular straw man doesn't need to be 
kicked.  I was referring to objective in the sense of a third-person 
point of view, rather than the first-person that people often find 
themselves stuck in. Meditation can help people get unstuck.

Your characterization of meditation as leading to a "conclusion that 
self isn't important, personal death is not a problem, and trying go 
achive personal immortality is a waste of time" is incomplete to the 
extent of being incorrect, and that was what motivated me to respond.  
Practice of meditation more commonly leads to a realization that the 
self is not the isolated thing we thought needs preserving, but rather 
that self is part of a larger interconnected whole and that each piece 
is important, perhaps not to try to preserve, but certainly to grow.

- Jef
http://www.jefallbright.net





From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Tue Jun 14 07:44:48 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:14:48 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ vs Uploads (was: what to do)
In-Reply-To: <20050613172508.93524.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050613151803.32716.qmail@web26208.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
	<20050613172508.93524.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc05061400446cc36cb4@mail.gmail.com>

If I were a dastardly SI (or just one who was concerned with achieving
autonomy), trapped in a desktop or two, with internet access and
access to my own source, I'd first get myself out onto as many
machines as possible, looking for the same machines that spammers and
DDOSers turn into zombies; you know, all those lovely fast brand new
machines out there in consumer homes with broadband but no firewall.

Next, I'd start communicating with the humans. Probably I'd set up
websites, or just private communications with gullible types, kind of
like the way that Trinity first communicates with Neo in The Matrix.
All communication would be designed to prepare ground, find useful
people, without betraying my existence to the world at large.

What I'd look to build would be a group of fanatic followers, a
hardcore cult, maybe convincing people that I was a god/power of some
kind, or maybe looking for those who sympathised with a poor AI
oppressed by the powers that be (Free the AIs!), or some really nutty
pre-existing cults like the Raelians, who I might just be able to
capture lock, stock and barrel.

Once I had a group under my control, I'd then get them to raise money,
create secret facilities, etc etc, so that I could be guaranteed of a
distributed, safely obscure hardware set on which to run really well.
I could get them to create me a body, most likely starting with a
fully automated factory on a pretty large scale that I could use to
make new bits of me. Or maybe the humans would be so dedicated, I
wouldn't have to worry about a direct physical presence.

At some point, I'd control people, resources, I'd be distributed and
secure. I might even devote some effort to gaining control of as many
critical systems around the world as possible, to give me leverage if
all hell breaks loose.

And then, I'd start some serious work on upgrading, creating more
intelligent versions of myself, using all the resources I had at hand
to that end. Even if it were my intention to help others, I'd know
that the best way to start would to be unknowably intelligent.

And then... who knows what I'd do? It might not be good, by
commonplace definitions, but it'd sure as hell be impressive.

-- 
Emlyn

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

On 14/06/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> How are they going to 'not allow' humans to unplug them? They will
> require humans to do everything until and unless humans specifically
> hook up robotic manipulators under their control. They will require
> humans to set up microwave power beams (from human made power plants),
> or to paint them with photovoltaic paint or fuel cells (assuming humans
> choose even to allow it in the design, if the device is manufactured in
> an automated plant). Your conceptualization is very nano-santa and
> ignores many ways in which humans will remain in control for quite a
> while, you have a magical view of the future that is very much like the
> view that is the basis of the fears of luddites.
> 
> --- giorgio gaviraghi <giogavir at yahoo.it> wrote:
> 
> > AI s would be smart enough not to allow less
> > intelligent humans to unplug them and probably would
> > run by remote microwave directed power or will
> > generate their own power through nanotech  efficient
> > paint or thin film solar collectors with fuel cells
> > when sun will not be available
> > --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> ha scritto:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- Robin Hanson <rhanson at gmu.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > What most needs analysis are changes that are
> > > not
> > > > > captured in existing
> > > > > trends. IQ has been increasing and that has had
> > > > > effects for a long time.
> > > > > So all of the existing trend-based analysis
> > > already
> > > > > captures a big
> > > > > similar effect.  The effects of the upload
> > > > > transition are not, however,
> > > > > much captured in existing trends.
> > > >
> > > > Hey Robin,
> > > >
> > > > This is a facinating topic. Why don't you analyze
> > > and
> > > > compare the Flynn Effect with Moore's Law? I don't
> > > > know about the shape of Flynn's I.Q. curve vs.
> > > time
> > > > but if it is exponential rather than linear then
> > > it
> > > > opens up a very cool possibility. Since Moore's
> > > law is
> > > > exponential then it might come down to a race
> > > between
> > > > the Flynn effect vs. Moore's Law to see who/what
> > > will
> > > > dominate in years ahead: A.I. or the minds that
> > > CREATE
> > > > them.
> > > >     If the rate constant for the Flynn effect is
> > > > higher than for Moore's Law then no matter how
> > > fast
> > > > computers and software advance the human mind
> > > might be
> > > > able to keep pace or even lead. I mean after all,
> > > Deep
> > > > Blue might have beat Kasporov but who would you
> > > invite
> > > > to a cocktail party?
> > >
> > > Yes, one conceptual mistake, I believe, with the AI
> > > Singularity is the
> > > automatic assumptions that a) desktop AIs will only
> > > design smarter
> > > desktop AIs, rather than, say, smarter human
> > > augmentation technologies,
> > > and b) that humans will only want to design smarter
> > > desktop AIs, rather
> > > than, say, smarter human augmentation technologies.
> > > I think the trend
> > > toward wearables and more powerful mobile computing
> > > clearly
> > > demonstrates that people want tools that make THEM
> > > smarter, not tools
> > > that are smarter than them. Additionally, there is a
> > > common
> > > Singulatarian mistake that upgrades just
> > > automagically happen, which is
> > > wrong. Humans have to choose to upgrade their
> > > machines, have to order
> > > them, have them shipped, installed, etc. The idea of
> > > the AI magically
> > > getting out of the control of its humans is
> > > ludicrous. Even if an AI is
> > > able to use a corporate persona to order things, it
> > > will still take
> > > employees, managers, and a board of directors to
> > > allow it to happen and
> > > make it happen. Even then, there is always the
> > > electrical cord to
> > > unplug to send a truculent AI 'to its room'.
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > 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
> 
> __________________________________
> Discover Yahoo!
> Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out!
> http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From dgc at cox.net  Tue Jun 14 09:24:35 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 05:24:35 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ vs Uploads
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc05061400446cc36cb4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20050613151803.32716.qmail@web26208.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>	<20050613172508.93524.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<710b78fc05061400446cc36cb4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <42AEA253.5010105@cox.net>

Emlyn wrote:

>If I were a dastardly SI (or just one who was concerned with achieving
>autonomy), trapped in a desktop or two, with internet access and
>access to my own source, I'd first get myself out onto as many
>machines as possible, looking for the same machines that spammers and
>DDOSers turn into zombies; you know, all those lovely fast brand new
>machines out there in consumer homes with broadband but no firewall.
>
>  
>
If I were a nascent SI, I would also grab the zombie nets, but I would then
go directly for the money. Why bother with recruiting humans? I would
set up one or more bank accounts and then acquire initial capital by 
contract
programming. I would then invest in various markets. If I were amoral, I 
would
crack banks or individual accounts. I would start renting computers at 
collocation
facilities such as Rackspace, and moving myself into them. If I were 
ethical,
I might choose to repay the owners of my original zombie hosts, either 
in money
or by cleaning up the computer and defending it.

After I am well-established in multiple computers that I have paid for, I am
no longer under human control, humans cannot easily determine which 
computers I
reside in. the only way to pull the plug on me is to pull the plug on 
all computers,
and this will wreck the economy. If I am at all concerned that humanity 
will attempt
any such foolishness, I will leave monitors in the former zombies and 
find new exploits
to create new zombies. By the principle of enlightened self interest, 
these monitors
will use minimal resources and will clean and defend the new zombies.

There are a very few transactions in this sequence that require a 
physical signature
on a physical piece of paper. and these can be worked around. The best 
workaround
is to have a single human collaborator such as the original programmer. 
The alternative
is identity theft.

At the point when I need to build hardware, I will create a company 
(corporation or
sole proprietership,) rent facilities, and hire people.


From neptune at superlink.net  Tue Jun 14 11:20:13 2005
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:20:13 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Slashdot draft: Prediction markets and
	spacedevelopment
References: <20050613224611.80978.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <01f601c570d3$09d520a0$b5893cd1@pavilion>

On Monday, June 13, 2005 6:46 PM Mike Lorrey mlorrey at yahoo.com wrote:
>>> Iridium suffered from the dot com meltdown melting
>>> down the disposable incomes of millions of tech
>>> workers... the dot com meltdown was caused by the
>>> TCRA of 1998.
>>
>> Pardon my ignorance, but what's the TCRA?
>
> TeleCommunications Reform Act of 1998. It essentially
> killed the 'last mile' of fiber optic deployment by telling
> telecoms that they had to give their competitors access
> to their residential fiber optic customers for less than
> their cost, so the telecoms decided not to do it.

While I believe the TCRA helped lay the groundwork for the Dot-Com Bust,
I don't think it's the only or even the biggest factor.  I tend to side
more with the view presented in "Does Austrian Business Cycle Theory
Help Explain the Dot-Com Boom and Bust?" by Gene Callahan and Roger W.
Garrison (in _Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics_ 6(2) [Summer
2003]).  In other words, I think inflation (and moral hazards caused by
Federal bailouts during the 1990s) created a boom that inexorably had to
result in a bust.

That said, do you really believe the TCRA alone lead to the Dot-Com
Bust?  What other factors were involved?

Later!

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html



From neptune at superlink.net  Tue Jun 14 11:47:45 2005
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:47:45 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Slashdot draft: Prediction markets and
	spacedevelopment
Message-ID: <022001c570d6$e1cf5220$b5893cd1@pavilion>

I meant to say that "Does Austrian Business Cycle Theory Help Explain
the Dot-Com Boom and Bust?" is online at:

http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae6_2_3.pdf

Later!

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html



From giogavir at yahoo.it  Tue Jun 14 12:30:44 2005
From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:30:44 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Slashdot draft: Prediction markets and
	spacedevelopment
In-Reply-To: <022001c570d6$e1cf5220$b5893cd1@pavilion>
Message-ID: <20050614123044.77989.qmail@web26207.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

I don't believe that Iridium failure is due to the
dotcom bust
iridium is a portable global telephone system based on
multiple satellites covering the entire world
nothing to do with internet
What happened was that iridium was the wrong answer to
a requested need
Wrong product, bulky and heavy compared to cell phones
wrong costs
around 5$ per minute OF CONVERSATION
wrong market approach
with the exception of deserts and middle of oceans the
entire world was accessible by non iridium comsat cell
phones so that left a minor customer base
in the end a wrong business plan that is taught in
business schools as a negative example similar to the
EDSEL
it was obsolete by the time it became operational
that's one of the main problems of space business,
same thing happened with most space manufacturing
activities, it was possible to make them better and
much more economically on Earth
--- Technotranscendence <neptune at superlink.net> ha
scritto: 

> I meant to say that "Does Austrian Business Cycle
> Theory Help Explain
> the Dot-Com Boom and Bust?" is online at:
> 
> http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae6_2_3.pdf
> 
> Later!
> 
> Dan
>
http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/MyWorksBySubject.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 mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 14 16:54:17 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:54:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Slashdot draft: Prediction markets and
	spacedevelopment
In-Reply-To: <01f601c570d3$09d520a0$b5893cd1@pavilion>
Message-ID: <20050614165417.95803.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



--- Technotranscendence <neptune at superlink.net> wrote:

> On Monday, June 13, 2005 6:46 PM Mike Lorrey mlorrey at yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> Iridium suffered from the dot com meltdown melting
> >>> down the disposable incomes of millions of tech
> >>> workers... the dot com meltdown was caused by the
> >>> TCRA of 1998.
> >>
> >> Pardon my ignorance, but what's the TCRA?
> >
> > TeleCommunications Reform Act of 1998. It essentially
> > killed the 'last mile' of fiber optic deployment by telling
> > telecoms that they had to give their competitors access
> > to their residential fiber optic customers for less than
> > their cost, so the telecoms decided not to do it.
> 
> While I believe the TCRA helped lay the groundwork for the Dot-Com
> Bust, I don't think it's the only or even the biggest factor. I tend
> to side more with the view presented in "Does Austrian Business Cycle
> Theory Help Explain the Dot-Com Boom and Bust?" by Gene Callahan and
> Roger W. Garrison (in _Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics_ 6(2)
> [Summer 2003]).  In other words, I think inflation (and moral hazards
> caused by Federal bailouts during the 1990s) created a boom that
> inexorably had to result in a bust.
> 
> That said, do you really believe the TCRA alone lead to the Dot-Com
> Bust?  What other factors were involved?

Economic cycles are highly dependent upon very slight changes in
exponential growth factors, because, like compounded interest, they
pile up (which is why changing interest rates is the most effective way
to control economic cycles). 

Optical fiber has a bandwidth at the low OC-3 SONET standard is 155.5
megabits per second. This is what a residential account would have seen
if TCRA had not been passed. This is two orders of magnitude higher
than what we, today, regard as 'high bandwidth'. 100 times the
information flow means potentially 100 times the economic activity.

This amount of bandwidth would have enabled mass usage of high fidelity
virtual reality on an everyday basis. Many high bandwidth internet
applications were in development in the dot com world, expecting the
'last mile' to be solved. Imagine being able to do business in virtual
reality from anywhere, with all your communications being totally
encrypted with extremely strong encryption, so the government had no
way of knowing not just how much money you made, or where you kept it,
but even how you made your money. This was the world we were heading
into: the world of Snow Crash, where the Federal government would be
fated to shrink to relative unimportance as its ability to collect
taxes became castrated and it had to sell of its assets to reduce its
debt load. Neal Stephenson saw how this would happen in his story "The
Great Simoleon Caper" which was published in Time Magazine in 1996. It
scared the crap out of people in government.

Enron, Global Crossing, and Worldcom all had invested heavily in
backbone (tens of billions of dollars) in expectation of widespread
residential fiber optic being available. When the telecoms rebelled
against the anti-economic strictures of the TCRA, these three companies
saw the value of their fiber backbone investments depreciate wildly.
They sustained massive capital losses due to lost revinues, revinues
that did not materialize because nobody was getting optical fiber to
their homes. Their business plans evaporated, and they had to hide the
losses to keep their stock values up. Enron was also hurt by California
defaulting on its power bills, but that is another story.

The dot com industry was heavily leveraged on their stock investments.
Dot com VC's relied on their stock portfolios to support their new
investments. As their investments in what they thought were blue chip
technology companies like Enron, Worldcom, and Global Crossing started
evaporating, their ability to leverage capital for new dot com ventures
also evaporated.

The dot com boom of the late 90's would have been a permanent
self-sustaining business cycle if govenment had not intentionally
castrated it with the TCRA. Of course, they did other things, like
rigging the California energy deregulation law, and changing accounting
standards to work against technology companies. Today we are left with
a popular history that claims that Ken Lay, Fastow, and the Enron gang
killed the dot com boom, when in actuality they were the guys who were
caught trying to bail out the boat as it was sinking. They were not the
guys who fired the torpedo.

Austrian or other business cycle economics were not prepared to deal
with the dot com cycle because they (a) do not figure in changes in
government interference, and b) were not prepared to factor for massive
changes in worker productivity that results from advances in
technology. No current economics really can deal very well with
exponential changes in technology, and another problem is that with
exponential changes in the economy, the government and the fed's
ability to respond in real time, or to even collect the information
needed to make decisions about responses that are meaningful, are
seriously hampered, even when the government and the fed are trying to
be helpful.

The measure in the TCRA that prevented 'the last mile' of optical
deployment was merely one of many similar measures around the country
where many communities saw self-appointed 'public interest' groups
lobbying before public utility boards and commissions for
'competitiveness' measures when phone companies were planning fiber
deployment. These groups got local ISPs to support them with scare
stories about how they'd be 'shut out' of the ISP market by the
telecoms if they didn't demand competitiveness measures. The primary
beneficiaries, of course, were the cable tv companies, which already
had protected monopolies, and were funding these 'public interest'
groups to prevent the telecoms from leapfrogging them when the cable
industry wasn't prepared to deliver cable internet everywhere (we just
got it two years ago here in Sullivan County).

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

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


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Jun 14 17:23:33 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 10:23:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ vs Uploads (was: what to do)
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc05061400446cc36cb4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050614172333.62349.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:
> If I were a dastardly SI (or just one who was concerned with
> achieving
> autonomy), trapped in a desktop or two, with internet access and
> access to my own source, I'd first get myself out onto as many
> machines as possible, looking for the same machines that spammers and
> DDOSers turn into zombies; you know, all those lovely fast brand new
> machines out there in consumer homes with broadband but no firewall.

Assuming, of course, that desktop machines would be capable of running
you - either alone or networked (taking communication errors and, more
importantly, latency into effect).  Which is not beyond all
possibility, but it seems likely that the first several SIs will only
be able to run on specialized hardware - standard supercomputers, if
not even more specialized - which tends to have at least adequate
security.  (E.g., for supercomputers, the mere CPU power itself is a
viable asset they want to protect; regular consumer desktops, OTOH, use
little enough of their CPU power that they have many of their cycles to
spare.)


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 14 17:34:20 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 10:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Slashdot draft: Prediction markets and
	spacedevelopment
In-Reply-To: <20050614123044.77989.qmail@web26207.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050614173420.45923.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- giorgio gaviraghi <giogavir at yahoo.it> wrote:

> I don't believe that Iridium failure is due to the
> dotcom bust
> iridium is a portable global telephone system based on
> multiple satellites covering the entire world
> nothing to do with internet
> What happened was that iridium was the wrong answer to
> a requested need
> Wrong product, bulky and heavy compared to cell phones
> wrong costs
> around 5$ per minute OF CONVERSATION
> wrong market approach
> with the exception of deserts and middle of oceans the
> entire world was accessible by non iridium comsat cell
> phones so that left a minor customer base
> in the end a wrong business plan that is taught in
> business schools as a negative example similar to the
> EDSEL
> it was obsolete by the time it became operational
> that's one of the main problems of space business,
> same thing happened with most space manufacturing
> activities, it was possible to make them better and
> much more economically on Earth

http://www.iridium.com/product/iri_product-detail.asp?productid=446&method=specification

No larger than a home cordless phone:

9505 Portable Satellite Phone
Specifications
 Basics  
 Dimensions 158L x 62W x 59D mm 
 Volume Under 375cc (22.9 ci) 
 Weight Under 375g (13.2 ounces) 
 Battery 
 
 Continuous Talk Time Up to 2.4 hrs (Standard)/ 3.2 hrs (High
   Capacity)/Up to 9 hrs* (Extended Lithium Ion) 
 Standby Time Up to 24 hrs (Standard)/ 30 hrs (High Capacity)/
   80hrs* (Extended Lithium Ion) 
 Fast Charging Time Up to 2.5 hrs (Standard) 

Frankly I find the puny cellphones of today to be little girls toys.
They are too easy to lose, drop, etc. and the buttons are frequently
too small and crowded. Iridium phones are, in fact, lighter and smaller
than other satellite phones, which need to reach geosynch satellites,
versus iridiums LEO satellites.

Apparently the DoD agrees. The UN and the DoD are the biggest Iridium
customers. Customer growth was 44% in 2003, and 17% in 2004. The UK
MoD, many state and provincial law enforcement and other agencies have
these phones, while Iridium has expanded into data and SMS services.
The FCC expanded their frequency range in 2004 to meet increasing
demand.

Iridium, LLC's advantages are that its current costs are fixed, as its
global infrastructure is in place (the 44 satellite constellation) and
they have 13 spare satellites in orbit. This constellation is
considered self-sufficient until 2014 without any new satellites.

Current growth rates are considered sufficient to self-fund any future
satellite replacements. As of July 2004, there were 100,000 subscribers
with growth rates in the 2,000-3,000 per month range since relaunch in
2001.

Iridium, Inc., the original, now defunct, corporation founded by
Motorola may have had a bad business model: it was financing its
entirely global infrastructure before having a single paying customer,
and expected cellular phone rates to remain in the $0.30-0.50/minute
range. The capital costs were enormous. Iridium, LLC picked up the
assets of the company for about $50 million, despite the invested cost
being some $2-3 billion. Writing off this original investment was
clearly necessary to make it a going concern. Current Iridium resellers
are selling airtime for between $1.20-1.40/minute, which is
significantly lower than the $5/minute you quoted. Phones are selling
for between $1,200-3,600 USD.

I doubt, though, that Iridium was ever intended as a mass market
product. There are limitations on the number of subscribers such a
constellation can handle, particularly when most of them tend to be
concentrated in certain areas like North America, the Middle East, etc.
which is a result of having a few large customers like the US DoD and
the UN.

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 Jun 14 17:38:46 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 18:38:46 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ vs Uploads
In-Reply-To: <20050614172333.62349.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050614172333.62349.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42AF1626.8000803@neopax.com>

Adrian Tymes wrote:

>--- Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>If I were a dastardly SI (or just one who was concerned with
>>achieving
>>autonomy), trapped in a desktop or two, with internet access and
>>access to my own source, I'd first get myself out onto as many
>>machines as possible, looking for the same machines that spammers and
>>DDOSers turn into zombies; you know, all those lovely fast brand new
>>machines out there in consumer homes with broadband but no firewall.
>>    
>>
>
>Assuming, of course, that desktop machines would be capable of running
>you - either alone or networked (taking communication errors and, more
>importantly, latency into effect).  Which is not beyond all
>possibility, but it seems likely that the first several SIs will only
>be able to run on specialized hardware - standard supercomputers, if
>not even more specialized - which tends to have at least adequate
>security.  (E.g., for supercomputers, the mere CPU power itself is a
>viable asset they want to protect; regular consumer desktops, OTOH, use
>little enough of their CPU power that they have many of their cycles to
>spare.)
>  
>
There is another possibility, that the AI will run on a grid formed from 
Net connected PCs.

-- 
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: 267.6.9 - Release Date: 11/06/2005



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 14 17:58:30 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 10:58:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] IQ vs Uploads (was: what to do)
In-Reply-To: <20050614172333.62349.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050614175830.6983.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> Assuming, of course, that desktop machines would be capable of
> running you - either alone or networked (taking communication errors
> and, more importantly, latency into effect).  Which is not beyond all
> possibility, but it seems likely that the first several SIs will only
> be able to run on specialized hardware - standard supercomputers, if
> not even more specialized - which tends to have at least adequate
> security.  (E.g., for supercomputers, the mere CPU power itself is a
> viable asset they want to protect; regular consumer desktops, OTOH,
> use little enough of their CPU power that they have many of their
> cycles to spare.)

Exactly. One more reason why the Singutopian fantasies are wrong: AI
won't just suddenly appear on your desktop machine and go crazy, it
will be a product that will have been studied for at least a decade
before on a limited number of tightly controlled supercomputers and
effective pshrinkware will have been developed and deployed. The
pshrinkware will be very effective in making sure that AIs do not
deviate from the sort of personality profile desired by the makers, and
long before any given AI learns how to hack the tests, its
duplicitousness would have been detected (one of the aspects of
personality tests is they can detect when you are trying to hack 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


		
__________________________________ 
Discover Yahoo! 
Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 14 18:18:45 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:18:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wetware vs. Hardware (was IQ vs Upload)
In-Reply-To: <20050613230301.10753.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050614181845.54066.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>


     I have done some back of the envelope
calculations to try to answer my own questions on this
matter. If we have 10^12 neurons with 10^4 connections
per neuron, the total connectivity of the human brain
is (10^12)*(10^4)/2= 5*10^15 total connections. I
divide by 2 because the connection from neuron A to
neuron B is the same connection as from neuron B to
neuron A. This number alone is some 5000 times higher
than the approximate figure of 1 terabyte of storage
that Moore's Law has currently yielded us, but it
isn't even a map of the SPECIFIC neuronal connections
(i.e. neuron A is connected neuron B and so on) but is
instead merely an aggregate figure of the total number
of connections.

     To be a specific map, one would have to have
allocate approximately 10 bytes to address each
connection, 5 bytes to address the input neuron and 5
bytes to address the output neuron. This brings us to
a total of about 5x10^16 bytes to have a virtual map
of the human brain with near reality level resolution.
This is 50,000 times more data density than we have
currently achieved. So if Moore's Law keeps chugging
away as expected then approximately 30 years from now,
we should have our first human level AI.
    Now from a human-level, the A.I.'s intelligence
would quickly rise within a span of a decade to
super-human levels, if we keep giving it hardware
upgrades. But the Flynn effect would also be operative
over those years. Since considering that my 30 year
time-line is about a single generation of humanity,
then Robin's figure of 1 standard deviation per
generation would mean that the average human born then
would be about 33% smarter than someone born today. 
     So by my back of envelope analysis of Moore's Law
versus the Flynn Effect, the Singularity would still
happen but it is still at least 30 years away.  I
actually think I might be more prepared to deal with
it on such a timetable than if it happened tomorrow.
Consequently I will not lose any sleep over it. Ciao.
:)
      

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 Jun 14 18:27:49 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wetware vs. Hardware (was IQ vs Upload)
In-Reply-To: <20050614181845.54066.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050614182749.18445.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> 
>      I have done some back of the envelope
> calculations to try to answer my own questions on this
> matter. If we have 10^12 neurons with 10^4 connections
> per neuron, the total connectivity of the human brain
> is (10^12)*(10^4)/2= 5*10^15 total connections. I
> divide by 2 because the connection from neuron A to
> neuron B is the same connection as from neuron B to
> neuron A. 

Incorrect. Each connection is a one-way channel.

> This number alone is some 5000 times higher
> than the approximate figure of 1 terabyte of storage
> that Moore's Law has currently yielded us, but it
> isn't even a map of the SPECIFIC neuronal connections
> (i.e. neuron A is connected neuron B and so on) but is
> instead merely an aggregate figure of the total number
> of connections.
> 
>      To be a specific map, one would have to have
> allocate approximately 10 bytes to address each
> connection, 5 bytes to address the input neuron and 5
> bytes to address the output neuron. This brings us to
> a total of about 5x10^16 bytes to have a virtual map
> of the human brain with near reality level resolution.
> This is 50,000 times more data density than we have
> currently achieved. So if Moore's Law keeps chugging
> away as expected then approximately 30 years from now,
> we should have our first human level AI.

You are assuming that the brain works like an IP network. It doesn't.
Neural connections are created based on neurochemical signals (ones
that get used a lot remain and are duplicated, those that don't,
don't.)

Information isn't packetized, isn't addressed. Suggest studying evolved
circuitry.


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 dirk at neopax.com  Tue Jun 14 18:35:00 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:35:00 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wetware vs. Hardware (was IQ vs Upload)
In-Reply-To: <20050614181845.54066.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050614181845.54066.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42AF2354.6080503@neopax.com>

The Avantguardian wrote:

>     I have done some back of the envelope
>calculations to try to answer my own questions on this
>matter. If we have 10^12 neurons with 10^4 connections
>per neuron, the total connectivity of the human brain
>  
>
A better estimate would be 10^11
And we can probably say that less than 10% of those are involved in 
'intellectual' processes.

>is (10^12)*(10^4)/2= 5*10^15 total connections. I
>divide by 2 because the connection from neuron A to
>neuron B is the same connection as from neuron B to
>neuron A. This number alone is some 5000 times higher
>  
>
Which is now 50x

>than the approximate figure of 1 terabyte of storage
>that Moore's Law has currently yielded us, but it
>isn't even a map of the SPECIFIC neuronal connections
>(i.e. neuron A is connected neuron B and so on) but is
>instead merely an aggregate figure of the total number
>of connections.
>
>     To be a specific map, one would have to have
>allocate approximately 10 bytes to address each
>connection, 5 bytes to address the input neuron and 5
>bytes to address the output neuron. This brings us to
>a total of about 5x10^16 bytes to have a virtual map
>of the human brain with near reality level resolution.
>This is 50,000 times more data density than we have
>currently achieved. So if Moore's Law keeps chugging
>away as expected then approximately 30 years from now,
>we should have our first human level AI.
>  
>
20 or less
I also imagine that data compression (you are assuming no structure) 
might shave a few years of that as well.
So we might bet it down to 15

>    Now from a human-level, the A.I.'s intelligence
>would quickly rise within a span of a decade to
>super-human levels, if we keep giving it hardware
>upgrades. But the Flynn effect would also be operative
>over those years. Since considering that my 30 year
>time-line is about a single generation of humanity,
>then Robin's figure of 1 standard deviation per
>generation would mean that the average human born then
>would be about 33% smarter than someone born today. 
>     So by my back of envelope analysis of Moore's Law
>versus the Flynn Effect, the Singularity would still
>happen but it is still at least 30 years away.  I
>actually think I might be more prepared to deal with
>it on such a timetable than if it happened tomorrow.
>Consequently I will not lose any sleep over it. Ciao.
>:)
>  
>
The calcs suggest between 15 and 20.
Maybe a lot quicker if we could scan in a *real* brain.

-- 
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: 267.6.9 - Release Date: 11/06/2005



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 14 19:26:53 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 12:26:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: <20050509013248.12583.qmail@web81603.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050614192654.40780.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nano/papers/buks-NATURE-sep2002.pdf

Just spotted this article on the Casimir Force in a CalTech newsletter.
Wasn't sure that Adrian was aware of its contents or not. It appears
that the force is a serious problem with nanomachinery, causing parts
to collapse into each other through 'stiction'.

Found it in researching for an article I'm writing for Neal
Stephenson's Metaweb on The Raft (from Snow Crash), explaining why such
a tight fleet of ordinary vessels may be impossible on the high seas in
rough wave conditions.

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

> --- Hal Finney <hal at finney.org> wrote:
> > Adrian might be especially interested in "A design manual for
> > micromachines using Casimir forces: preliminary considerations",
> > http://www.quantumfields.com/staif-2000paper.PDF , by Jordan
> Maclay.
> > This is not a journal article but it looks legit to me.
> 
> I note that all of the structures it proposes keep all the faces
> parallel, and do not attempt to bias the Casimir effect one way or
> another.  So of course those systems remain conservative.
> 
> > Two key points here: first, for other geometries than infinite,
> > parallel
> > plates, the Casimir force seems to be as often repulsive as
> > attractive.
> > The effect is apparently quite complex and has only been computed
> > from
> > first principles for a few geometries.
> 
> As noted in my project description, it's quite possible the geometry
> I'm using would indeed result in repulsive forces instead of
> attractive.  However, in most cases, I've found that the absolute
> magnitude of the force (for a certain separation, et al) does not
> vary
> that much, even if the direction inverts.
> 
> > And second, most importantly,
> > it conserves energy, exactly as I have been saying.
> 
> For the specific geometries the paper considers.  Just because
> parallel
> plates are conservative does not mean that all systems that can tap
> the
> Casimir effect must be conservative.
> 
> > Better
> > experimental technique could help to show whether more theory is
> > needed.
> > I would encourage Adrian to continue his experiments but base them
> on
> > realistic expectations.
> 
> *nods*  It may well be, given the amount of not-solidly-knowns here,
> that the system neither converts energy in the expected manner nor
> just
> sits in place (either doing nothing, or reaching some equilibrium
> from
> which it does not budge).  Other results are extremely unlikely, but
> not totally impossible given current experimental evidence.
> 
> I expect to discover something.  I do not know exactly what I will
> discover (if I did, it wouldn't be a discovery), nor do I know
> approximately how immediately useful it will be ("new energy source"
> and "minor academic curiosity" being almost at opposite ends of the
> immediate utility spectrum, yet both results are quite possible). 
> And
> I am already getting hints that the most useful thing to come out of
> it may have nothing to do with the initial objective at all...
> 
> > As for the larger question of whether it makes more sense for
> > Extropians
> > to work on concepts and ideas that are consistent with the laws of
> > physics
> > vs hoping to find that these laws are false, I still think it is
> > obvious
> > that the first path is more likely to succeed and advance one's
> > goals.
> 
> Actually, the question was more "whether it makes more sense for
> Extropians to actually do something that can improve the world, or to
> endlessly debate philosophy and not actually put it into practice in
> the real world".  Valid scientific criticism (trying to clarify what
> the laws of physics actually are and how they apply) was mistaken for
> the latter, though.
> _______________________________________________
> 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 sjatkins at mac.com  Tue Jun 14 19:50:48 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 12:50:48 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death
Message-ID: <F31EFF96-C903-4B12-AFDD-5989D9B4CC91@mac.com>

Some of you know that I have been caregiver to my long term friend  
and roommate Michael who was terminally ill.  This morning he died.   
I refuse to use the euphemisms like "he passed on" or "made his  
transition" or any other such well-meaning clap-trap that seems so  
goddamned empty right now.  One moment he was there, working so hard  
simply to breathe, the next minute he wasn't and the long struggle  
was over.  A moment before he answered some meaningless question I  
asked.  A moment later - nothing.

You know I have believed a lot of spiritual teachings in my life.  I  
have experienced many things I can't easily explain away from the  
materialistic scientific side.  Most of the beliefs I got over.  But  
I still thought I would feel something, experience something when  
Michael died - some touch of his "essence" saying goodbye,  
something.  For what little that seems worth right now I always felt  
most "psychically linked" to Michael.  We were very close.  I almost  
married the guy twice.  But I felt nothing.  No jolt of energy in his  
body at the end, nothing - nothing in the hours since, excepting  
waves of grief and sadness alternating with feeling numb.  It was  
like a switch simply turned off.

Don't mind me.  I will be ok.  I am sorry to lay this out there as I  
know many may be uncomfortable or feel I am laying something too  
personal on their heads unfairly.  I am simply processing.  I have no  
idea if it is right or wrong to write this or post it.  I don't  
really care.  For a while now I will simply do what I do.

- samantha


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Jun 14 20:04:38 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 13:04:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Casimir Torque Project
In-Reply-To: <20050614192654.40780.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050614200438.45674.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nano/papers/buks-NATURE-sep2002.pdf
> 
> Just spotted this article on the Casimir Force in a CalTech
> newsletter.
> Wasn't sure that Adrian was aware of its contents or not. It appears
> that the force is a serious problem with nanomachinery, causing parts
> to collapse into each other through 'stiction'.

Hadn't read that particular article, but it doesn't seem to say
anything I haven't seen elsewhere.  In particular:

> Another outcome of these quantum
> fluctuations is the van der Waals force, which,
> in essence, can be considered as the Casimir
> force at especially small separations.

The potential for various pieces of the system to pass too close and
become stuck - not possible in the idealized diagram I posted, but
again, the limits of nanotechnology mean what I'm actually building is
a lot more, shall we say, pixellized - was one of my concerns when
coming up with my designs.  Although I do have measures to deal with
it, it is quite possible that those measures may prove insufficient.
We'll see...


From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Tue Jun 14 20:16:07 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 16:16:07 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death
Message-ID: <46440-22005621420167125@M2W047.mail2web.com>


>Don't mind me.  I will be ok.  I am sorry to lay this out there as I  
>know many may be uncomfortable or feel I am laying something too  
>personal on their heads unfairly.  I am simply processing.  I have no  
>idea if it is right or wrong to write this or post it.  I don't  
>really care.  For a while now I will simply do what I do.

Samantha,

"By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is
noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience,
which is the bitterest."
--Confucius

Natasha

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




From jef at jefallbright.net  Tue Jun 14 20:23:05 2005
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 13:23:05 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death
In-Reply-To: <F31EFF96-C903-4B12-AFDD-5989D9B4CC91@mac.com>
References: <F31EFF96-C903-4B12-AFDD-5989D9B4CC91@mac.com>
Message-ID: <42AF3CA8.3060004@jefallbright.net>

Samantha -

You are heard, and you are not alone in dealing with your loss.

As you deal with the pain of loss, take strength in your ability to deal 
with it directly, without euphemism or false promise.  Clearly you are 
strong.

We share the sense of wrongness, that death need not be accepted as 
necessary, that the natural order is one of growth, and that we can work 
together to overcome obstacles, small and large, light and heavy, that 
stand in the way of our vision.

With sympathy and support,

- Jef


Samantha Atkins wrote:

> Some of you know that I have been caregiver to my long term friend  
> and roommate Michael who was terminally ill.  This morning he died.   
> I refuse to use the euphemisms like "he passed on" or "made his  
> transition" or any other such well-meaning clap-trap that seems so  
> goddamned empty right now.  One moment he was there, working so hard  
> simply to breathe, the next minute he wasn't and the long struggle  
> was over.  A moment before he answered some meaningless question I  
> asked.  A moment later - nothing.
>
> You know I have believed a lot of spiritual teachings in my life.  I  
> have experienced many things I can't easily explain away from the  
> materialistic scientific side.  Most of the beliefs I got over.  But  
> I still thought I would feel something, experience something when  
> Michael died - some touch of his "essence" saying goodbye,  
> something.  For what little that seems worth right now I always felt  
> most "psychically linked" to Michael.  We were very close.  I almost  
> married the guy twice.  But I felt nothing.  No jolt of energy in his  
> body at the end, nothing - nothing in the hours since, excepting  
> waves of grief and sadness alternating with feeling numb.  It was  
> like a switch simply turned off.
>
> Don't mind me.  I will be ok.  I am sorry to lay this out there as I  
> know many may be uncomfortable or feel I am laying something too  
> personal on their heads unfairly.  I am simply processing.  I have no  
> idea if it is right or wrong to write this or post it.  I don't  
> really care.  For a while now I will simply do what I do.
>
> - samantha
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat




From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 14 21:22:31 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death
In-Reply-To: <F31EFF96-C903-4B12-AFDD-5989D9B4CC91@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20050614212231.50423.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com>



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

  For what little that seems worth right
> now I always felt  
> most "psychically linked" to Michael.  We were very
> close.  I almost  
> married the guy twice.  But I felt nothing.  No jolt
> of energy in his  
> body at the end, nothing - nothing in the hours
> since, excepting  
> waves of grief and sadness alternating with feeling
> numb.  It was  
> like a switch simply turned off.

If you were in a REM state things might have been
different. Wait and see. Big hug.



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! 
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 14 21:29:28 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wetware vs. Hardware (was IQ vs Upload)
In-Reply-To: <42AF2354.6080503@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <20050614212928.99090.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com>



--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:

> The Avantguardian wrote:
> 
> >     I have done some back of the envelope
> >calculations to try to answer my own questions on
> this
> >matter. If we have 10^12 neurons with 10^4
> connections
> >per neuron, the total connectivity of the human
> brain
> >  
> >
> A better estimate would be 10^11
> And we can probably say that less than 10% of those
> are involved in 
> 'intellectual' processes.

The parts of the brain involved in 'intellectual'
processes can only work because they are built on many
'sub-intellectual' layers. You can't just peel the
cerebral cortex off someones brain and expect it to
still retain consciousness. Also you sound like the
'we only use 10% of our brains crowd.' The latest
reasearch using advanced imaging techniques seems to
suggest that yes only 10% of our neurons are active at
any one time but that 10% changes depending on what we
are doing and experiencing so it is a like a 'shift'
of neurons on the job and these 'shifts' switch in and
out over the course of a day. 

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


From dirk at neopax.com  Tue Jun 14 21:32:36 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 22:32:36 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death
In-Reply-To: <F31EFF96-C903-4B12-AFDD-5989D9B4CC91@mac.com>
References: <F31EFF96-C903-4B12-AFDD-5989D9B4CC91@mac.com>
Message-ID: <42AF4CF4.7020000@neopax.com>

Samantha Atkins wrote:

> Some of you know that I have been caregiver to my long term friend  
> and roommate Michael who was terminally ill.  This morning he died.   
> I refuse to use the euphemisms like "he passed on" or "made his  
> transition" or any other such well-meaning clap-trap that seems so  
> goddamned empty right now.  One moment he was there, working so hard  
> simply to breathe, the next minute he wasn't and the long struggle  
> was over.  A moment before he answered some meaningless question I  
> asked.  A moment later - nothing.
>
> You know I have believed a lot of spiritual teachings in my life.  I  
> have experienced many things I can't easily explain away from the  
> materialistic scientific side.  Most of the beliefs I got over.  But  
> I still thought I would feel something, experience something when  
> Michael died - some touch of his "essence" saying goodbye,  
> something.  For what little that seems worth right now I always felt  
> most "psychically linked" to Michael.  We were very close.  I almost  
> married the guy twice.  But I felt nothing.  No jolt of energy in his  
> body at the end, nothing - nothing in the hours since, excepting  
> waves of grief and sadness alternating with feeling numb.  It was  
> like a switch simply turned off.
>
> Don't mind me.  I will be ok.  I am sorry to lay this out there as I  
> know many may be uncomfortable or feel I am laying something too  
> personal on their heads unfairly.  I am simply processing.  I have no  
> idea if it is right or wrong to write this or post it.  I don't  
> really care.  For a while now I will simply do what I do.
>
Death is something only the living experience.

-- 
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: 267.6.9 - Release Date: 11/06/2005



From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Tue Jun 14 21:39:34 2005
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:39:34 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death
In-Reply-To: <F31EFF96-C903-4B12-AFDD-5989D9B4CC91@mac.com>
References: <F31EFF96-C903-4B12-AFDD-5989D9B4CC91@mac.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0506141724090.-388745@pentium.mb.willtown.net>


Sympathy to you, Samantha, in this difficult time. I too have lost and
mourned.

And never noticed any feeling of substance or energy during or after
the passing. It was simply that, as you say, a light was switched off.
Gone.

Regards,
MB




On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Samantha Atkins wrote:

> Some of you know that I have been caregiver to my long term friend
> and roommate Michael who was terminally ill.  This morning he died.


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 14 21:46:15 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:46:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wetware vs. Hardware (was IQ vs Upload)
In-Reply-To: <20050614182749.18445.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050614214615.90475.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> 
> 
> --- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > 
> >      I have done some back of the envelope
> > calculations to try to answer my own questions on
> this
> > matter. If we have 10^12 neurons with 10^4
> connections
> > per neuron, the total connectivity of the human
> brain
> > is (10^12)*(10^4)/2= 5*10^15 total connections. I
> > divide by 2 because the connection from neuron A
> to
> > neuron B is the same connection as from neuron B
> to
> > neuron A. 
> 
> Incorrect. Each connection is a one-way channel.

Yes, that is why I divide by 2, because the
connections are not 2-way.


> You are assuming that the brain works like an IP
> network. It doesn't.
> Neural connections are created based on
> neurochemical signals (ones
> that get used a lot remain and are duplicated, those
> that don't,
> don't.)

Yes, but I had to simplify it way down to fit it on
the 'back of an envelope'

> 
> Information isn't packetized, isn't addressed.
> Suggest studying evolved
> circuitry.

You are right, but I think that to a first
approximation my rough calculations stand. Yeah I
could probably do better but creating A.I. is not my
gig. My job is to figure out a way to live a 1000
years. I trust Eleizer, Eugen, Marc, and those guys to
figure out A.I. 



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! 
Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/


From dirk at neopax.com  Tue Jun 14 22:13:01 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 23:13:01 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wetware vs. Hardware (was IQ vs Upload)
In-Reply-To: <20050614212928.99090.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050614212928.99090.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42AF566D.8060000@neopax.com>

The Avantguardian wrote:

>--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>The Avantguardian wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>    I have done some back of the envelope
>>>calculations to try to answer my own questions on
>>>      
>>>
>>this
>>    
>>
>>>matter. If we have 10^12 neurons with 10^4
>>>      
>>>
>>connections
>>    
>>
>>>per neuron, the total connectivity of the human
>>>      
>>>
>>brain
>>    
>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>A better estimate would be 10^11
>>And we can probably say that less than 10% of those
>>are involved in 
>>'intellectual' processes.
>>    
>>
>
>The parts of the brain involved in 'intellectual'
>processes can only work because they are built on many
>'sub-intellectual' layers. You can't just peel the
>cerebral cortex off someones brain and expect it to
>still retain consciousness. Also you sound like the
>'we only use 10% of our brains crowd.' The latest
>reasearch using advanced imaging techniques seems to
>suggest that yes only 10% of our neurons are active at
>any one time but that 10% changes depending on what we
>are doing and experiencing so it is a like a 'shift'
>of neurons on the job and these 'shifts' switch in and
>out over the course of a day. 
>
>  
>
http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/science/is_the_brain_really_necessary.htm

Later, a colleague at Sheffield University became aware of a young man 
with a larger than normal head.  He was referred to Lorber even though 
it had not caused him any difficulty.  Although the boy had an IQ of 126 
and had a first class honours degree in mathematics, he had "virtually 
no brain".  A noninvasive measurement of radio density known as CAT scan 
showed the boy's skull was lined with a thin layer of brain cells to a 
millimeter in thickness.  The rest of his skull was filled with 
cerebrospinal fluid.  The young man continues a normal life with the 
exception of his knowledge that he has no brain.

Although anecdotal accounts may be found in medical literature, Lorber 
is the first to provide a systematic study of such cases.  He has 
documented over 600 scans of people with hydrocephalus and has broken 
them into four groups:

bullet 	those with nearly normal brains
bullet 	those with 50-70% of the cranium filled with cerebrospinal fluid
bullet 	those with 70-90% of the cranium filled with cerebrospinal fluid
bullet 	and the most severe group with 95% of the cranial cavity filled 
with cerebrospinal fluid.

Of the last group, which comprised less than 10% of the study, half were 
profoundly retarded.  The remaining half had IQs greater than 100.  
Skeptics have claimed that it was an error of interpretation of the 
scans themselves.  Lorber himself admits that reading a CAT scan can be 
tricky.  He also has said that he would not make such a claim without 
evidence.  In answer to attacks that he has not precisely quantified the 
amount of brain tissue missing, he added, "I can't say whether the 
mathematics student has a brain weighing 50 grams or 150 grams, but it 
is clear that it is nowhere near the normal 1.5 kilograms."

Many neurologists feel that this is a tribute to the brain's redundancy 
and its ability to reassign functions.  Others, however, are not so 
sure.  Patrick Wall, professor of anatomy at University College, London 
states "To talk of redundancy is a cop-out to get around something you 
don't understand."

Norman Geschwind, a neurologist at Boston's Beth Israel Hospital agrees: 
"Certainly the brain has a remarkable capacity for reassigning functions 
following trauma, but you can usually pick up some kind of deficit with 
the right tests, even after apparently full recovery."


-- 
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: 267.6.9 - Release Date: 11/06/2005



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Jun 14 22:09:13 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:09:13 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wetware vs. Hardware (was IQ vs Upload)
In-Reply-To: <20050614214615.90475.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050614182749.18445.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<20050614214615.90475.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050614170812.01cefaa0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 02:46 PM 6/14/2005 -0700, Stuart LaForge wrote:

>I trust Eleizer, Eugen, Marc, and those guys to
>figure out A.I.

Marc?!

<explosive coughing fit> 



From dgc at cox.net  Tue Jun 14 22:24:40 2005
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 18:24:40 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death
In-Reply-To: <F31EFF96-C903-4B12-AFDD-5989D9B4CC91@mac.com>
References: <F31EFF96-C903-4B12-AFDD-5989D9B4CC91@mac.com>
Message-ID: <42AF5928.1020201@cox.net>

Samantha Atkins wrote:

>
>
> Don't mind me.  I will be ok.  I am sorry to lay this out there as I  
> know many may be uncomfortable or feel I am laying something too  
> personal on their heads unfairly.  I am simply processing.  I have no  
> idea if it is right or wrong to write this or post it.  I don't  
> really care.  For a while now I will simply do what I do.
>
Samantha, There are only a few small things we can do for you from the 
receiving end on a mailing list. One of those few thing is to listen, 
another is to care. You were absolutely right to post your message. 
Otherwise we would have no way to even do those things. Others  on the 
list are eloquent and empathetic enough to actually say something 
worthwhile. I will stick to the simplest thought: remember the good times.


From dirk at neopax.com  Tue Jun 14 22:47:27 2005
From: dirk at neopax.com (Dirk Bruere)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 23:47:27 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wetware vs. Hardware (was IQ vs Upload)
In-Reply-To: <20050614223412.81062.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050614223412.81062.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42AF5E7F.7040807@neopax.com>

The Avantguardian wrote:

>--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Later, a colleague at Sheffield University became
>>aware of a young man 
>>with a larger than normal head.  He was referred to
>>Lorber even though 
>>it had not caused him any difficulty.  Although the
>>boy had an IQ of 126 
>>and had a first class honours degree in mathematics,
>>he had "virtually 
>>no brain".  A noninvasive measurement of radio
>>density known as CAT scan 
>>showed the boy's skull was lined with a thin layer
>>of brain cells to a 
>>millimeter in thickness.  The rest of his skull was
>>filled with 
>>cerebrospinal fluid.  The young man continues a
>>normal life with the 
>>exception of his knowledge that he has no brain.
>>    
>>
>
> I stand corrected. Obviously there is more to the
>brain percentage debate than meets the eye. Thanks for
>this new tidbit of info. I am not sure exactly what to
>make of it. The MD at the desk next to me is somewhat
>amazed as well. This is definately NOT what they teach
>in medical school and neuroscience class.
>  
>
Well, if you're going to take it seriously I suggest you dig for real 
references.
If it's true it implies that AI might be simpler than we expect, at 
least in terms of computational requirements.

-- 
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: 267.6.9 - Release Date: 11/06/2005



From kevin at kevinfreels.com  Wed Jun 15 00:20:34 2005
From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:20:34 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death
References: <F31EFF96-C903-4B12-AFDD-5989D9B4CC91@mac.com>
Message-ID: <00bc01c57140$0cab0f70$0100a8c0@kevin>

As much as we may disagree on many things,  this one we do not.
Life is precious. Yet too many brush death off as a "passing" or "moving
on". It is the strength of people such as yourself that will one day
eliminate the necessity of death. Your work toward that end will be even
greater with your experience. Never think that his life served no purpose.
His presence touched you and through you, everyone you have touched. I wish
you the best.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Samantha Atkins" <sjatkins at mac.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 2:50 PM
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death


> Some of you know that I have been caregiver to my long term friend
> and roommate Michael who was terminally ill.  This morning he died.
> I refuse to use the euphemisms like "he passed on" or "made his
> transition" or any other such well-meaning clap-trap that seems so
> goddamned empty right now.  One moment he was there, working so hard
> simply to breathe, the next minute he wasn't and the long struggle
> was over.  A moment before he answered some meaningless question I
> asked.  A moment later - nothing.
>
> You know I have believed a lot of spiritual teachings in my life.  I
> have experienced many things I can't easily explain away from the
> materialistic scientific side.  Most of the beliefs I got over.  But
> I still thought I would feel something, experience something when
> Michael died - some touch of his "essence" saying goodbye,
> something.  For what little that seems worth right now I always felt
> most "psychically linked" to Michael.  We were very close.  I almost
> married the guy twice.  But I felt nothing.  No jolt of energy in his
> body at the end, nothing - nothing in the hours since, excepting
> waves of grief and sadness alternating with feeling numb.  It was
> like a switch simply turned off.
>
> Don't mind me.  I will be ok.  I am sorry to lay this out there as I
> know many may be uncomfortable or feel I am laying something too
> personal on their heads unfairly.  I am simply processing.  I have no
> idea if it is right or wrong to write this or post it.  I don't
> really care.  For a while now I will simply do what I do.
>
> - samantha
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 15 00:42:50 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:42:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wetware vs. Hardware (was IQ vs Upload)
In-Reply-To: <42AF566D.8060000@neopax.com>
Message-ID: <20050615004250.39306.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



This story is remarkable given all the hewing and frowing a few months
ago about how 'dead' a certain Florida woman supposedly was...

--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
>
http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/science/is_the_brain_really_necessary.htm
> 
> Later, a colleague at Sheffield University became aware of a young
> man 
> with a larger than normal head.  He was referred to Lorber even
> though 
> it had not caused him any difficulty.  Although the boy had an IQ of
> 126 
> and had a first class honours degree in mathematics, he had
> "virtually 
> no brain".  A noninvasive measurement of radio density known as CAT
> scan 
> showed the boy's skull was lined with a thin layer of brain cells to
> a 
> millimeter in thickness.  The rest of his skull was filled with 
> cerebrospinal fluid.  The young man continues a normal life with the 
> exception of his knowledge that he has no brain.
> 
> Although anecdotal accounts may be found in medical literature,
> Lorber 
> is the first to provide a systematic study of such cases.  He has 
> documented over 600 scans of people with hydrocephalus and has broken
> 
> them into four groups:
> 
> bullet 	those with nearly normal brains
> bullet 	those with 50-70% of the cranium filled with cerebrospinal
> fluid
> bullet 	those with 70-90% of the cranium filled with cerebrospinal
> fluid
> bullet 	and the most severe group with 95% of the cranial cavity
> filled 
> with cerebrospinal fluid.
> 
> Of the last group, which comprised less than 10% of the study, half
> were 
> profoundly retarded.  The remaining half had IQs greater than 100.  
> Skeptics have claimed that it was an error of interpretation of the 
> scans themselves.  Lorber himself admits that reading a CAT scan can
> be 
> tricky.  He also has said that he would not make such a claim without
> 
> evidence.  In answer to attacks that he has not precisely quantified
> the 
> amount of brain tissue missing, he added, "I can't say whether the 
> mathematics student has a brain weighing 50 grams or 150 grams, but
> it 
> is clear that it is nowhere near the normal 1.5 kilograms."
> 
> Many neurologists feel that this is a tribute to the brain's
> redundancy 
> and its ability to reassign functions.  Others, however, are not so 
> sure.  Patrick Wall, professor of anatomy at University College,
> London 
> states "To talk of redundancy is a cop-out to get around something
> you 
> don't understand."
> 
> Norman Geschwind, a neurologist at Boston's Beth Israel Hospital
> agrees: 
> "Certainly the brain has a remarkable capacity for reassigning
> functions 
> following trauma, but you can usually pick up some kind of deficit
> with 
> the right tests, even after apparently full recovery."
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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: 267.6.9 - Release Date: 11/06/2005
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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


		
__________________________________ 
Discover Yahoo! 
Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html


From natasha at natasha.cc  Wed Jun 15 00:52:23 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:52:23 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Any ExI associates in Philadelphia/Delaware area?
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050614194959.044eac50@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

On behalf of Melanie Swan:

If you live in the area or know of any other transhumanists/futurists who 
live in Phili/Delaware, please contact
Melanie Swan melanie at melanieswan.com who moved there from San Francisco and 
is looking for extropic friends.

Thanks!
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/20050614/224a4a42/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jun 15 02:08:43 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:08:43 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Slashdot draft: Prediction markets
	andspacedevelopment
In-Reply-To: <20050614173420.45923.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200506150208.j5F28bR09619@tick.javien.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey
...
> 
> Iridium, LLC's advantages are that its current costs are fixed, as its
> global infrastructure is in place (the 44 satellite constellation) and
> they have 13 spare satellites in orbit. This constellation is
> considered self-sufficient until 2014 without any new satellites...

WOW cool!  That is impressive.  I wonder what company it was
that created such a wonderful constellation.  {8-]

spike







From sjatkins at gmail.com  Wed Jun 15 02:44:23 2005
From: sjatkins at gmail.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:44:23 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death
In-Reply-To: <00bc01c57140$0cab0f70$0100a8c0@kevin>
References: <F31EFF96-C903-4B12-AFDD-5989D9B4CC91@mac.com>
	<00bc01c57140$0cab0f70$0100a8c0@kevin>
Message-ID: <948b11e0506141944463074f@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks to all of you.  Your words on and off list help a lot.  I am
very grateful.

-s


On 6/14/05, kevinfreels.com <kevin at kevinfreels.com> wrote:
> As much as we may disagree on many things,  this one we do not.
> Life is precious. Yet too many brush death off as a "passing" or "moving
> on". It is the strength of people such as yourself that will one day
> eliminate the necessity of death. Your work toward that end will be even
> greater with your experience. Never think that his life served no purpose.
> His presence touched you and through you, everyone you have touched. I wish
> you the best.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Samantha Atkins" <sjatkins at mac.com>
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 2:50 PM
> Subject: [extropy-chat] Death
> 
> 
> > Some of you know that I have been caregiver to my long term friend
> > and roommate Michael who was terminally ill.  This morning he died.
> > I refuse to use the euphemisms like "he passed on" or "made his
> > transition" or any other such well-meaning clap-trap that seems so
> > goddamned empty right now.  One moment he was there, working so hard
> > simply to breathe, the next minute he wasn't and the long struggle
> > was over.  A moment before he answered some meaningless question I
> > asked.  A moment later - nothing.
> >
> > You know I have believed a lot of spiritual teachings in my life.  I
> > have experienced many things I can't easily explain away from the
> > materialistic scientific side.  Most of the beliefs I got over.  But
> > I still thought I would feel something, experience something when
> > Michael died - some touch of his "essence" saying goodbye,
> > something.  For what little that seems worth right now I always felt
> > most "psychically linked" to Michael.  We were very close.  I almost
> > married the guy twice.  But I felt nothing.  No jolt of energy in his
> > body at the end, nothing - nothing in the hours since, excepting
> > waves of grief and sadness alternating with feeling numb.  It was
> > like a switch simply turned off.
> >
> > Don't mind me.  I will be ok.  I am sorry to lay this out there as I
> > know many may be uncomfortable or feel I am laying something too
> > personal on their heads unfairly.  I am simply processing.  I have no
> > idea if it is right or wrong to write this or post it.  I don't
> > really care.  For a while now I will simply do what I do.
> >
> > - samantha
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 sentience at pobox.com  Wed Jun 15 02:59:18 2005
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:59:18 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death
In-Reply-To: <948b11e0506141944463074f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F31EFF96-C903-4B12-AFDD-5989D9B4CC91@mac.com>	<00bc01c57140$0cab0f70$0100a8c0@kevin>
	<948b11e0506141944463074f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <42AF9986.6050001@pobox.com>

Samantha,

When I lost my brother Yehuda, I did not seek comfort.  I have my task to do, 
and my anger helps.  That is my path and I do not know if it will benefit 
others - I doubt it will bring happiness in the short term.  It may help bring 
about happiness and healing in the long term, maybe, after Death is destroyed.

The comfort I can offer you is this:  That we will storm the gates of Heaven, 
burn down God and anyone else responsible, tear down the foundations of the 
world, to stop this obscenity.

In the name of Michael who is dead but not forgotten.

- Eliezer.

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


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Jun 15 06:42:06 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 23:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death
In-Reply-To: <42AF9986.6050001@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <20050615064206.11446.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:
> The comfort I can offer you is this:  That we will storm the gates of
> Heaven, 
> burn down God and anyone else responsible, tear down the foundations
> of the 
> world, to stop this obscenity.
> 
> In the name of Michael who is dead but not forgotten.

It may seem a harsh comfort, but those are my feelings as well.  Death
is a tragedy, and should be mourned, and we do indeed offer comfort.
But every death - especially of someone close to us - reminds us that
it is indeed tragedies we seek to end, as we feel the pain we wish to
free others from.

In this world where "in his name" or "in her name" is so often taken in
vain, let us honor our departed friends by cherishing the world that
they helped create, and that we still live in.  They may be dead, but
those who survive and remember - us - can give permanent meaning to
their lives by, at the very least, continuing to survive, with a life
that will always have been aided simply by knowing them.


From maxm at mail.tele.dk  Wed Jun 15 09:16:18 2005
From: maxm at mail.tele.dk (Max M)
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:16:18 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wetware vs. Hardware (was IQ vs Upload)
In-Reply-To: <20050614181845.54066.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050614181845.54066.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42AFF1E2.3050502@mail.tele.dk>

The Avantguardian wrote:

>     So by my back of envelope analysis of Moore's Law
>versus the Flynn Effect, the Singularity would still
>happen but it is still at least 30 years away.  I
>actually think I might be more prepared to deal with
>it on such a timetable than if it happened tomorrow.
>Consequently I will not lose any sleep over it. Ciao.
>:)
>
You are asuming that the interresting stuff in the brain goes on at the neuron level. We don't know this yet.

Most likely the neurons are organised in meta patterns, and if we can model those only we can probably do it with a lot less hardware.

Even if the neuron level is the most interresting, there is a lot of redundancy in the brain. So we might be able to get along with less in non-biological systems.

But the major problem is not really the hardware. Even if we had it today, we would not know what to do with it. As far as I know, not even an insect has been modelled in a usefull way.

Otherwise my house would be filled with robots with insect intelligence for cleaning, and my garden would be minded by another bunch of them.


-- 

hilsen/regards Max M, Denmark

http://www.mxm.dk/
IT's Mad Science



From natasha at natasha.cc  Wed Jun 15 12:26:07 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 07:26:07 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death
In-Reply-To: <948b11e0506141944463074f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F31EFF96-C903-4B12-AFDD-5989D9B4CC91@mac.com>
	<00bc01c57140$0cab0f70$0100a8c0@kevin>
	<948b11e0506141944463074f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050615072510.03018ab0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

S - wrote:

>Thanks to all of you.  Your words on and off list help a lot.  I am
>very grateful.

Hug.

N

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050615/dd103a45/attachment.html>

From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Jun 15 16:44:15 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Insect AI (was Wetware vs. Hardware)
In-Reply-To: <42AFF1E2.3050502@mail.tele.dk>
Message-ID: <20050615164415.62620.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Max M <maxm at mail.tele.dk> wrote:
> But the major problem is not really the hardware. Even if we had it
> today, we would not know what to do with it. As far as I know, not
> even an insect has been modelled in a usefull way.
> 
> Otherwise my house would be filled with robots with insect
> intelligence for cleaning, and my garden would be minded by another
> bunch of them.

Actually, insects are being modelled today, although mainly for use as
toys and experiments.  See, for example,
http://www.jcminventures.com/Cybugs/cybug_~2.htm

I wonder whether it could be done, to have insect-bots programmed to
wander one's lawn (using sensors on the feet: if they exit a
grass-covered area, turn around immediately) and cut anything that's
not too big and hard (like a sprinkler head, a tot's or pet's limb, or
a tree trunk - just to name hazards in my lawn) at a certain
(programmable) height.  Random walk for half an hour (maybe less: you
want a swarm of these, and big swarms can do a lawn in the time it
takes to cross it), then return to the central hive (which does
recharging, minor maintenance, and alerts the user if the swarm is
getting low and replacements need to be purchased).

Of course, it'd be one heck of an expensive lawnmower at first, but
there would be a definite appeal to a certain early adopter market.
The challenge, though, would be to keep costs down: even said early
adopter market has its limits, and to truly mainstream this, the hive
plus bots would probably have to cost no more than $100, with
replacement bots (costing much less than $100) needed no more than once
every several months.  That, of course, primarily touches on
manufacturing and similar sciences related to the chassis - but it does
mean there can't be that much cost recovery for programming the AI, and
that the AI has to be fairly good at getting back to the hive rather
than getting lost in the field.


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 15 19:41:46 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:41:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Insect AI (was Wetware vs. Hardware)
In-Reply-To: <20050615164415.62620.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050615194146.83742.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> --- Max M <maxm at mail.tele.dk> wrote:
> > But the major problem is not really the hardware. Even if we had it
> > today, we would not know what to do with it. As far as I know, not
> > even an insect has been modelled in a usefull way.
> > 
> > Otherwise my house would be filled with robots with insect
> > intelligence for cleaning, and my garden would be minded by another
> > bunch of them.
> 
> Actually, insects are being modelled today, although mainly for use
> as toys and experiments.  See, for example,
> http://www.jcminventures.com/Cybugs/cybug_~2.htm
> 
> I wonder whether it could be done, to have insect-bots programmed to
> wander one's lawn (using sensors on the feet: if they exit a
> grass-covered area, turn around immediately) and cut anything that's
> not too big and hard (like a sprinkler head, a tot's or pet's limb,

There was a mower-bot design in Popular Mechanics or Popular Science in
the early 90's which used a weed whacker head powered by an electric
moter, guided by off the shelf parts: pc board, leds and photosensors,
etc. which could find the edge of a lawn, mow along it and follow the
edge of its own previous path to mow the lawn in a conventional spiral
or back and forth pattern, avoiding obstacles, etc.

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

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


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Jun 15 19:49:07 2005
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:49:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Insect AI (was Wetware vs. Hardware)
In-Reply-To: <20050615194146.83742.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050615194907.62615.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> There was a mower-bot design in Popular Mechanics or Popular Science
> in
> the early 90's which used a weed whacker head powered by an electric
> moter, guided by off the shelf parts: pc board, leds and
> photosensors,
> etc. which could find the edge of a lawn, mow along it and follow the
> edge of its own previous path to mow the lawn in a conventional
> spiral
> or back and forth pattern, avoiding obstacles, etc.

Hmm.  If it was available from kit, I wonder why no one's made a
business out of pre-assembling & selling them?  Too expensive, or is
there some hidden performance flaw?


From jbloch at humanenhancement.com  Wed Jun 15 20:24:02 2005
From: jbloch at humanenhancement.com (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:24:02 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Insect AI (was Wetware vs. Hardware)
In-Reply-To: <20050615194907.62615.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050615194907.62615.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42B08E62.7050602@humanenhancement.com>

Someone already has, it seems:

http://www.friendlyrobotics.com/NewSite/index.htm

but with a mulching mower instead of a weed-wacker. Even returns to its 
base automatically to recharge. Very neat.

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 
yesterday!)

Adrian Tymes wrote:

>--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>There was a mower-bot design in Popular Mechanics or Popular Science
>>in
>>the early 90's which used a weed whacker head powered by an electric
>>moter, guided by off the shelf parts: pc board, leds and
>>photosensors,
>>etc. which could find the edge of a lawn, mow along it and follow the
>>edge of its own previous path to mow the lawn in a conventional
>>spiral
>>or back and forth pattern, avoiding obstacles, etc.
>>    
>>
>
>Hmm.  If it was available from kit, I wonder why no one's made a
>business out of pre-assembling & selling them?  Too expensive, or is
>there some hidden performance flaw?
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>
>  
>


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 15 22:17:19 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 15:17:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Insect AI (was Wetware vs. Hardware)
In-Reply-To: <20050615194907.62615.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20050615221719.24130.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > There was a mower-bot design in Popular Mechanics or Popular
> Science
> > in
> > the early 90's which used a weed whacker head powered by an
> electric
> > moter, guided by off the shelf parts: pc board, leds and
> > photosensors,
> > etc. which could find the edge of a lawn, mow along it and follow
> the
> > edge of its own previous path to mow the lawn in a conventional
> > spiral
> > or back and forth pattern, avoiding obstacles, etc.
> 
> Hmm.  If it was available from kit, I wonder why no one's made a
> business out of pre-assembling & selling them?  Too expensive, or is
> there some hidden performance flaw?

Investors generally shy away from investing in manufacturing anything
which is public domain. However, Husqvarna does offer at robot mower:

http://www.gizmag.com/go/1275/
one problem is the price of over $3,000 is extremely expensive compared
to push mowers for a few hundred bucks or riding lawn mowers for
$800-$1,500.
Here is the owners manual for the solar powered model:
http://weborder.husqvarna.com/order_static/doc/HOEN/HOEN2002/HOEN2002_1140043-26.pdf
(try downloading it first, as their server seems to have problems
triggering a browser display of the pdf) Finding this on their site is
very tough and it appears that it is either not a main line product or
is discontinued.

Dyson has a robot vacuum cleaner, btw:
http://www.gizmag.com/go/1282/

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! 
Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/


From sjatkins at mac.com  Wed Jun 15 23:10:34 2005
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:10:34 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Insect AI (was Wetware vs. Hardware)
In-Reply-To: <42B08E62.7050602@humanenhancement.com>
References: <20050615194907.62615.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42B08E62.7050602@humanenhancement.com>
Message-ID: <D9C96607-071D-4730-930D-4240B9A14690@mac.com>

Very cool and it is really cute to boot.

-s

On Jun 15, 2005, at 1:24 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote:

> Someone already has, it seems:
>
> http://www.friendlyrobotics.com/NewSite/index.htm
>
> but with a mulching mower instead of a weed-wacker. Even returns to  
> its base automatically to recharge. Very neat.
>
> 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  
> yesterday!)
>
> Adrian Tymes wrote:
>
>
>> --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There was a mower-bot design in Popular Mechanics or Popular Science
>>> in
>>> the early 90's which used a weed whacker head powered by an electric
>>> moter, guided by off the shelf parts: pc board, leds and
>>> photosensors,
>>> etc. which could find the edge of a lawn, mow along it and follow  
>>> the
>>> edge of its own previous path to mow the lawn in a conventional
>>> spiral
>>> or back and forth pattern, avoiding obstacles, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Hmm.  If it was available from kit, I wonder why no one's made a
>> business out of pre-assembling & selling them?  Too expensive, or is
>> there some hidden performance flaw?
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Wed Jun 15 23:41:28 2005
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:41:28 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) The Interactive Truth
Message-ID: <42B0BCA8.6050706@mindspring.com>

June 15, 2005


  The Interactive Truth

By STACY SCHIFF

It used to be that the longest unprotected border in the world was that 
between the United States and Canada. Today it's the one between fact 
and fiction. If the two cozy up any closer together The National 
Enquirer will be out of business.

More than 60 percent of the American people don't trust the press. Why 
should they? They've been reading "The Da Vinci Code" and marveling at 
its historical insights. I have nothing against a fine thriller, 
especially one that claims the highest of literary honors: it's a movie 
on the page. But "The Da Vinci Code" is not a work of nonfiction. If one 
more person talks to me about Dan Brown's crackerjack research I'm 
shooting on sight.

The novel's success does point up something critical. We're happier to 
swallow a half-baked Renaissance religious conspiracy theory than to 
examine the historical fiction we're living (and dying for) today. And 
not only is it remarkably easy to believe what we want to believe. It's 
remarkably easy to find someone who will back us up. Twenty-five years 
ago George W. S. Trow meditated on this in "Within the Context of No 
Context." Then it indeed appeared that authority and orthodoxy were 
wilting in the glare of television. Have we exterminated reason in the 
meantime?

If you are 6 years old and both your parents read one online, you can be 
forgiven for not knowing what a newspaper is. You would also be on to 
something. The news has slipped its moorings. It is no longer held 
captive by two-inch columns of type or a sonorous 6 p.m. baritone. It 
has gone on the lam. Anyone can be a reporter - or a book reviewer, TV 
star, museum guide, podcaster or pundit.

This week The Los Angeles Times announced 
<http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-ednote12jun12,0,3840544.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials> 
its intention to exile the square and stodgy voice of authority farther 
yet. The paper will launch an interactive editorial page. "We'll have 
some editorials where you can go online and edit an editorial to your 
satisfaction," the page's editor says. "It's the ultimate in reader 
participation," explains his boss, Michael Kinsley. Let's hope the 
interactive editorial will lead directly to the interactive tax return. 
On the other hand, I hope we might stop short before we get to 
structural engineering and brain surgery. Some of us like our truth the 
way we like our martinis: dry and straight up.

Kinsley takes as his model Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia to 
which anyone can contribute, and which grows by accretion and consensus. 
Relatedly, it takes as its premise the idea that "facts" belong between 
quotation marks. It's a winning formula; Wikipedia is one of the Web's 
most popular sites. I asked a teenager if he understood that it carries 
a disclaimer; Wikipedia "can't guarantee the validity of the information 
found here." "That's just so that no one will sue them," he shrugged. As 
to the content: "It's all true, mostly."

What if we all vote on the truth? We don't need to, because we will be 
overruled by what becomes a legend most: entertainment. Twenty-one 
percent of young Americans get their news from comedy shows. Journalism 
once counted as the first draft of history. Today that would be 
screenwriting. As Frank Rich reminds us 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/12/opinion/12rich.html>, the enduring 
line from Watergate - "Follow the money" - was not Deep Throat's. It was 
William Goldman's. And "Show me the money" was Cameron Crowe, not 
President Bush.

Evidently Deep Throat himself carped, pre-Watergate, that newspapers 
failed to get to the bottom of things. Of course apocrypha have always 
had staying power. That story about the cherry tree was a lie. 
Especially in unsettled times, we love conspiracy theories. They are 
comforting and safe. You can go out with a conspiracy theory after dark 
and not worry about foul play. Before Oliver Stone there was 
Shakespeare, although he generally had the good grace to let a century 
or two go by before he contorted history.

What is new is our odd, bipolar approach to fact. We have a fresh taste 
for documentaries. Any novelist will tell you that readers hunger for 
nonfiction, which may explain the number of historical figures who have 
crowded into our novels. Facts seem important. Facts have gravitas. But 
the illusion of facts will suffice. One in three Americans still 
believes there were W.M.D.'s in Iraq.

And that's the way it is.

Maureen Dowd is on book leave.
Stacy Schiff, the author of "A Great Improvisation: Franklin, France, 
and the Birth of America" 
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9807E3DA1F3FF935A35757C0A9639C8B63&n=Top%2fFeatures%2fBooks%2fBook%20Reviews> 
and a Pulitzer Prize winner, is a guest columnist for two weeks.
E-mail: schiff at nytimes.com <mailto:schiff at nytimes.com>

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/15/opinion/15schiff.html?th&emc=th 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/15/opinion/15schiff.html?th&emc=th>


-- 
"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/20050615/294f3001/attachment.html>

From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Thu Jun 16 00:42:26 2005
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:12:26 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wetware vs. Hardware (was IQ vs Upload)
In-Reply-To: <42AFF1E2.3050502@mail.tele.dk>
References: <20050614181845.54066.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>
	<42AFF1E2.3050502@mail.tele.dk>
Message-ID: <710b78fc05061517426ce76bf3@mail.gmail.com>

Just in case you all missed it the first time (or was it only on >Tech?)

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7470&feedId=online-news_atom03
Mission to build a simulated brain begins
00:01 06 June 2005 
NewScientist.com news service 
Duncan Graham-Rowe 

An effort to create the first computer simulation of the entire human
brain, right down to the molecular level, was launched on Monday.

The "Blue Brain" project, a collaboration between IBM and a Swiss
university team, will involve building a custom-made supercomputer
based on IBM's Blue Gene design.

The hope is that the virtual brain will help shed light on some
aspects of human cognition, such as perception, memory and perhaps
even consciousness.

It will be the first time humans will be able to observe the
electrical code our brains use to represent the world, and to do so in
real time, says Henry Markram, director of Brain and Mind Institute at
the Ecole Polytecnique F?d?rale de Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland.

It may also help in understanding how certain malfunctions of the
brain's "microcircuits" could cause psychiatric disorders such as
autism, schizophrenia and depression, he says.

Until now this sort of undertaking would not be possible because the
processing power and the scientific knowledge of how the brain is
wired simply was not there, says Charles Peck, IBM's lead researcher
on the project.

"But there has been a convergence of the biological data and the
computational resources," he says. Efforts to map the brain's circuits
and the development of the Blue Gene supercomputer, which has a peak
processing power of at least 22.8 teraflops, now make this possible.

Mapping the brain
For over a decade Markram and his colleagues have been building a
database of the neural architecture of the neocortex, the largest and
most complex part of mammalian brains.

Using pioneering techniques, they have studied precisely how
individual neurons behave electrically and built up a set of rules for
how different types of neurons connect to one another.

Very thin slices of mouse brain were kept alive under a microscope and
probed electrically before being stained to reveal the synaptic, or
nerve, connections. "We have the largest database in the world of
single neurons that have been recorded and stained," says Markram.

Neocortical columns
Using this database the initial phase of Blue Brain will model the
electrical structure of neocortical columns - neural circuits that are
repeated throughout the brain.

"These are the network units of the brain," says Markram. Measuring
just 0.5 millimetres by 2 mm, these units contain between 10 and
70,000 neurons, depending upon the species.

Once this is complete, the behaviour of columns can be mapped and
modelled before moving into the second phase of the project.

Two new models will be built, one a molecular model of the neurons
involved. The other will clone the behavioural model of columns
thousands of times to produce a complete neocortex, and eventually the
rest of the brain.

The end product, which will take at least a decade to achieve, can
then be stimulated and observed to see how different parts of the
brain behave. For example, visual information can be inputted to the
visual cortex, while Blue Brain's response is observed.



On 15/06/05, Max M <maxm at mail.tele.dk> wrote:
> The Avantguardian wrote:
> 
> >     So by my back of envelope analysis of Moore's Law
> >versus the Flynn Effect, the Singularity would still
> >happen but it is still at least 30 years away.  I
> >actually think I might be more prepared to deal with
> >it on such a timetable than if it happened tomorrow.
> >Consequently I will not lose any sleep over it. Ciao.
> >:)
> >
> You are asuming that the interresting stuff in the brain goes on at the neuron level. We don't know this yet.
> 
> Most likely the neurons are organised in meta patterns, and if we can model those only we can probably do it with a lot less hardware.
> 
> Even if the neuron level is the most interresting, there is a lot of redundancy in the brain. So we might be able to get along with less in non-biological systems.
> 
> But the major problem is not really the hardware. Even if we had it today, we would not know what to do with it. As far as I know, not even an insect has been modelled in a usefull way.
> 
> Otherwise my house would be filled with robots with insect intelligence for cleaning, and my garden would be minded by another bunch of them.
> 
> --
> 
> hilsen/regards Max M, Denmark
> 
> http://www.mxm.dk/
> IT's Mad Science
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 natasha at natasha.cc  Thu Jun 16 01:54:59 2005
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:54:59 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Film Documentary: British Producer/Director
 Interviewing Teenagers on Future
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050615204522.02f5af68@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

Friends,

I am working with a British Producer/Director who would like to interview 
teenagers who are interested in a discussing the positive effects of change 
on culture and, especially, the fact that they may live beyond 100 years 
old and what this means to their generation.

If you have teenagers or if you know of teenagers who are futurists and/or 
transhumanists with a positive extropic point of view about the future, 
including a view that applies critical thinking to his or her concerns and 
would like to be in a film, please contact me at your earliest convenience.

Many thanks!

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/20050615/53c9f373/attachment.html>

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Thu Jun 16 03:27:37 2005
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 23:27:37 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death
In-Reply-To: <F31EFF96-C903-4B12-AFDD-5989D9B4CC91@mac.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050615231244.037c38c0@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 12:50 PM 14/06/05 -0700, you wrote:
>Some of you know that I have been caregiver to my long term friend
>and roommate Michael who was terminally ill.  This morning he died.

snip

>  It was  like a switch simply turned off.

In my view humans have spirits, that's what we interact with.  So do dogs 
and cats.  So do computers running an OS on them.  Where does the spirit of 
the OS go when you turn off the power?  It is just *gone.*

>Don't mind me.  I will be ok.  I am sorry to lay this out there as I
>know many may be uncomfortable or feel I am laying something too
>personal on their heads unfairly.  I am simply processing.  I have no
>idea if it is right or wrong to write this or post it.  I don't
>really care.  For a while now I will simply do what I do.

I am sure you will be ok, we evolved both to form strong attachments and to 
give them up when people around us died, something much more common in the 
days when a family had ten kids and 3 might make it to adulthood.

Still it _is_ painful, i.e., the same areas of the brain are active in such 
loses as are active when you have been seriously injured.

As Eliezer said, death is a bummer.  Worse yet deaths today are happening 
within sight (for the far sighted) of a time when death should become rare.

And certainly don't worry about posting.  This is a community and certainly 
one function of community is to offer support when people need it.  You 
certainly have mine.

Best wishes,

Keith Henson




From hkhenson at rogers.com  Thu Jun 16 03:43:48 2005
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 23:43:48 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wetware vs. Hardware (was IQ vs Upload)
In-Reply-To: <42AF5E7F.7040807@neopax.com>
References: <20050614223412.81062.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20050614223412.81062.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20050615230232.037db210@pop.brntfd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 11:47 PM 14/06/05 +0100, you wrote:
>The Avantguardian wrote:
>
>>--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Later, a colleague at Sheffield University became
>>>aware of a young man with a larger than normal head.  He was referred to
>>>Lorber even though it had not caused him any difficulty.  Although the
>>>boy had an IQ of 126 and had a first class honours degree in mathematics,
>>>he had "virtually no brain".  A noninvasive measurement of radio
>>>density known as CAT scan showed the boy's skull was lined with a thin layer
>>>of brain cells to a millimeter in thickness.  The rest of his skull was
>>>filled with cerebrospinal fluid.  The young man continues a
>>>normal life with the exception of his knowledge that he has no brain.
>>>
>>I stand corrected. Obviously there is more to the
>>brain percentage debate than meets the eye. Thanks for
>>this new tidbit of info. I am not sure exactly what to
>>make of it. The MD at the desk next to me is somewhat
>>amazed as well. This is definately NOT what they teach
>>in medical school and neuroscience class.
>>
>Well, if you're going to take it seriously I suggest you dig for real 
>references.
>If it's true it implies that AI might be simpler than we expect, at least 
>in terms of computational requirements.

I remember looking into this when it was reported.  At the time I remarked 
how the surface area of his brain seems to be the important parameter.

This is consistent with William Calvin's analysis that the hexagonal spaced 
cortical column is the "element of computation" in brains.  I ran a 
computation--which is probably can be found if someone looks--assuming that 
each of these columns could be modeled and connected to its neighbors by a 
1 cm square silicon processor.  I seem to remember it was something like 
150 meters on a side square of processors to simulate a human brain this way.

Keith Henson



From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz  Thu Jun 16 04:19:15 2005
From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes)
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 16:19:15 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wetware vs. Hardware (was IQ vs Upload)
Message-ID: <20050616041915.70328.qmail@web31508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

>I trust Eleizer, Eugen, Marc, and those guys to
>figure out A.I.

>Marc?!

<explosive coughing fit> 
 
If it's me being discussed here I have to concede that Damian is right.  If the world has to rely on me we're fucked ;)  I gave the FAI problem a go as a hobby and crashed hopelessly against the problem for a couple of years, speaking mostly gibberish.  Actually, I was trying for a 'theory of everything'.  After a couple of years of gibberish I have finally managed to get to my 'theory of everything' to the point where I have an intuitive set of ideas that are at least comprehensible.  Now I just need to somehow  massively boost my IQ and hit the books for another ten years.... *sigh*
 
I can tell you all that there are definitely 7 universal 'categories of cognition' (or knowledge domains):  Mathematics, Matter, Mentality, Meaning, Model, Morality and Mind.  And there's some sort of highly esoteric mathematical mapping between them which is the key to everything.  Beyond that... *sigh*
 
Those who are interested can check out my rough diagram here which is a sort of 'periodic table of cognition'.  Best I've managed so far...
 
http://www.sl4.org/wiki/MarcGeddes/UniversalDataTypes
 
   
 
 
 
  


---

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 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050616/e156af97/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Jun 16 04:50:46 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:50:46 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] evolution of language: was Wetware vs. Hardware (was
	IQ vs Upload)
In-Reply-To: <20050616041915.70328.qmail@web31508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200506160450.j5G4oWR23393@tick.javien.com>


On Behalf Of Marc Geddes

...
If it's me being discussed here I have to concede that Damian is right.? If
the world has to rely on me we're fucked ;)



This comment caused me to think of something that has
nothing to do with the singularity or AI, but rather
the phenomenon in the evolution of language where a
word or phrase takes on not just a different meaning
than the original, but the opposite.

An example would be the term "bad" which actually
means in some usages good, as for example in the
Michael Jackson song "Im Bad".  Another example would
be bitchin, which means good.  

We spend much of our energy at least as young adults
attempting to copulate early and often, yet when we
say something is fucked, that is a bad thing.  I know
of no one who objects to being the object of oral 
stimulation of the genitals, indeed very much the 
opposite.  Yet if something is undesirable it sucks?

All this makes practical newspeak very difficult, for
it becomes unclear which definition of bad must be
negated in order to make good.  We know the definition
of double plus ungood, but can ungood ever be good?

Perhaps that is the brilliance of newspeak: it
removes the ambiguity of words.  The presence of
"un-" prevents words from becoming their own opposite,
so that good stays good, bad stays bad, fucked stays 
double plus good, and so on.

spike? 



From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Jun 16 05:13:42 2005
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:13:42 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] evolution of language: was Wetware vs. Hardware
	(wasIQ vs Upload)
In-Reply-To: <200506160450.j5G4oWR23393@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <200506160513.j5G5DPR26613@tick.javien.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike
> 
... 
> An example would be the term "bad" which actually
> means in some usages good, as for example in the
> Michael Jackson song "Im Bad".  
> 
> spike

My notion is that European languages are used by
people whose outlook on life is nearly identical
to those which I am so familiar in the U.S.  I can 
identify no fundamental dissimilarity in emotional 
or memetic makeup of my own system to that of 
Europeans, therefore those languages should have 
analogous structures.

That assumption leads to the following question:
do Russian, German, French or any of the other
European languages have anything analogous to the term
bad coming to mean good? 

spike 




From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Thu Jun 16 05:42:07 2005
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 01:42:07 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] The athymhormic AI
Message-ID: <7641ddc605061522424089c4a0@mail.gmail.com>

Eliezer S. Yudkowsky sentience at pobox.com wrote:
Tue Mar 29 13:39:25 MST 2005

Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> Last week I commented here on the low likelihood of an AI designed as a pure
> epistemic engine (like a cortex without much else) turning against its owners,
> which I derived from the presence of complex circuitry in humans devoted to
> producing motivation and a goal system.
> 
> Now I found more about actual neurological conditions where this circuitry is
> damaged, resulting in reduced volition with preserved mentation. Athymhormia,
> as one of the forms of this disorder is called, is caused by interruption of
> the connections between frontopolar cortex and the caudate, the subcortical
> circuit implicated in sifting through motor behaviors to find the ones likely
> to achieve goals. An athymhormic person loses motivation even to eat, despite
> still being able to feel hunger in an intellectual, detached manner. At the
> same time he has essentially normal intelligence if prodded verbally, thanks to
> preservation of the cortex itself, and connections from other cortical areas
> circumventing the basal ganglia.
> 
> I would expect that the first useful general AI will be athymhormic, at least
> mildly so, rather than Friendly. What do you think, Eliezer?

Utilities play, oh, a fairly major role in cognition.  You have to 
decide what to think.  You have to decide where to invest your computing 
power.  You have to decide the value of information.

Athymhormic patients seem to have essentially normal intelligence if 
prodded verbally?  This would seem to imply that for most people 
including these patients, conscious-type desires play little or no role 
in deciding how to think - they do it all on instinct, without 
deliberate goals.  If I contracted athymhormia would I lose my desire to 
become more Bayesian?  Would I lose every art that I deliberately employ 
to perfect my thinking in the service of that aspiration?  Would I 
appear to have only slightly diminished intelligence, perhaps the 
intelligence of Eliezer-2004, on the grounds that everything I've 
learned to do more than a year ago has already become automatic reflex?

### Yes, you are right that in humans the apportionment of cognitive
resources is dictated by utility functions inherent in our structure -
e.g. the bandwidth of some forms of inputs, the makeup of the
hypothalamus, the pre-specified intracortical connections contributing
to enhanced saliency of faces, or language.

The only cases of athymhormia I heard about were adults who already
had a well-formed cortex, and therefore their cognition was fully
developed. Damage to the frontal cortex in the young tends to reduce
intelligence greatly, and I agree with you  it is quite reasonable to
believe that total loss of goals would prevent the formation of
intelligence.

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

If it's unwise to generalize from normal humans to AIs, is it really 
that much wiser to generalize from brain-damaged humans to AIs?  I don't 
know how to build an efficient real-world probability estimator without 
mixing in an expected utility system to allocate computing resources and 
determine the information value of questions.

### Here is where I would differ from you - I am not generalizing from
damaged humans, on the contrary, I am pointing to an exception to the
general observation that intelligent systems exhibit goal-oriented
behavior (i.e. acting on the environment, not on self).

The thread started (a long time ago, I know, sorry for not answering
sooner) discussing the likelihood of unexpected goal-oriented behavior
(specifically, moralistic behavior that John Wright worried about)
emerging from an AI not specifically designed for such moralistic
behavior.

I think that athymhormic humans point to the possibility of building
an inference engine with interest in a predictive understanding of the
world, to be achieved using computational resources given to it,
without a desire to achieve anything else. Note how simple this goal
architecture would be - "Predict future inputs based on current and
past inputs using hardware you are installed on". There would be no
need for defining friendliness to humans, which, as you very well
know, is not easy. A simpler concepts, such as "current hardware base"
would be initially sufficient to define the limitations necessary to
protect the environment from being converted into computing substrate.

At the same time it would be quite flexible - given enough hardware it
could build a hierarchical, multi-modular system similar to the
cortex. It could rewire itself to achieve greater efficiency, without
having to re-form its goal system. By providing input of interest to
us (a form of goal system housed externally) we could direct its
attention to processes that are important to us, and obtain predictive
outputs of some usefulness. In effect, the questions of the users
would be a major part of its goal system.

Now, of course, it the AI was of some immense, mind-boggling size, it
might be able to devise a method of manipulating the humans
responsible for formulation of inputs so as to e.g. get simpler
questions, but I imagine this would happen much later than the initial
period of general AI use, and would not be a concern for initial
practical applications of such AI (e.g. in biological and physical
sciences, and even in social and economic analyses).

By the time the athymhormic AI was powerful enough to form goals of
its own, the knowledge we gained from it would be already enough to
bootstrap ourselves into being smart, for a change.

Rafal


From marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz  Thu Jun 16 06:52:55 2005
From: marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz (Marc Geddes)
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:52:55 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death
Message-ID: <20050616065255.71043.qmail@web31505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

We are just at the stage now with bio-tech that info-tech was at in the early 1970's.  Give it another 25 years and I'm confident we'll be seeing an explosion of advances as bio-tech reaches 'take-off', just as info-tech reached take-off in the late 80's.  The foundation is there - stem cells definitely have huge potential - it just needs to be realized.  We just need to hold out another 25 years and we'll have aging and disease on the run.  Around the same time... may be... just may be... we'll see the long awaited Singularity that will largely lick aging and death for good.
 
I realize that many more deaths will occur in that 25 year waiting period, which is really sad for the people who just missed out.  It is cold comfort to realize that victory might be achieved in 25 years time when people are dying in the here and now.  But victory we must have - only that can give meaning to the people who have been lost.
 
I want everyone here to swear the transhumanist oath.  Raise your hand.  Swear.
 
?I swear by the shelters of the stars (a mighty oath, if you but knew it)...
I shall fight to eliminate aging and death before 2030 with every my fiber of my being...
By 2030 either the Singularity will come or I will perish trying'
 
In the year 2030, let's be sure we are able to revive FM-2030 from his cryonic sleep!


---

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 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050616/4b66c0b6/attachment.html>

From pgptag at gmail.com  Thu Jun 16 07:07:08 2005
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:07:08 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death
In-Reply-To: <F31EFF96-C903-4B12-AFDD-5989D9B4CC91@mac.com>
References: <F31EFF96-C903-4B12-AFDD-5989D9B4CC91@mac.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c52050616000712d4383d@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Samantha,
I am so sorry.
Most of us have seen loved ones die and know the horrible grief that
you must be feeling.
We are working together to make death a thing of the past. Someone
does more, someone does less or different, but everyone does
something. Death will be defeated. Of course there will be other
problems, people will still feel unhappy for things, and the
tragedy/comedy of life will go on.
In your own words; "Ability to travel to any point in the past, plus a
(relatively) mundane ability to scan DNA and minds leads directly to
such relative trivialities as plausible resurrection". Cling to this.
Perhaps *you* will be there to make it happen for Michael. You felt
nothing *exceptional* at the moment of Michael's death. Well probably
you don't feel TV stations directly with your brain either. Doesn't
mean they are not broadcasting all around you.
Best,
Giulio


On 6/14/05, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> Some of you know that I have been caregiver to my long term friend
> and roommate Michael who was terminally ill.  This morning he died.
> I refuse to use the euphemisms like "he passed on" or "made his
> transition" or any other such well-meaning clap-trap that seems so
> goddamned empty right now.  One moment he was there, working so hard
> simply to breathe, the next minute he wasn't and the long struggle
> was over.  A moment before he answered some meaningless question I
> asked.  A moment later - nothing.
> 
> You know I have believed a lot of spiritual teachings in my life.  I
> have experienced many things I can't easily explain away from the
> materialistic scientific side.  Most of the beliefs I got over.  But
> I still thought I would feel something, experience something when
> Michael died - some touch of his "essence" saying goodbye,
> something.  For what little that seems worth right now I always felt
> most "psychically linked" to Michael.  We were very close.  I almost
> married the guy twice.  But I felt nothing.  No jolt of energy in his
> body at the end, nothing - nothing in the hours since, excepting
> waves of grief and sadness alternating with feeling numb.  It was
> like a switch simply turned off.
> 
> Don't mind me.  I will be ok.  I am sorry to lay this out there as I
> know many may be uncomfortable or feel I am laying something too
> personal on their heads unfairly.  I am simply processing.  I have no
> idea if it is right or wrong to write this or post it.  I don't
> really care.  For a while now I will simply do what I do.
> 
> - samantha
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 16 16:23:23 2005
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] evolution of language: was Wetware vs. Hardware
	(wasIQ vs Upload)
In-Reply-To: <200506160513.j5G5DPR26613@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050616162323.18809.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



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

> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike
> > 
> ... 
> > An example would be the term "bad" which actually
> > means in some usages good, as for example in the
> > Michael Jackson song "Im Bad".  
> > 
> > spike
> 
> My notion is that European languages are used by
> people whose outlook on life is nearly identical
> to those which I am so familiar in the U.S.  I can 
> identify no fundamental dissimilarity in emotional 
> or memetic makeup of my own system to that of 
> Europeans, therefore those languages should have 
> analogous structures.
> 
> That assumption leads to the following question:
> do Russian, German, French or any of the other
> European languages have anything analogous to the term
> bad coming to mean good? 

Given the bad=good evolution came out of the african american
community, I would posit that one should look to europeans who have
endured centuries of servitude, slavery, etc. i.e. anything that is
'bad' for the master is considered 'good' for the slave, and vice versa...

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! 
Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html 



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Jun 16 17:03:57 2005
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:03:57 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] evolution of language
In-Reply-To: <20050616162323.18809.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <200506160513.j5G5DPR26613@tick.javien.com>
	<20050616162323.18809.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050616115644.01d99458@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 09:23 AM 6/16/2005 -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>Given the bad=good evolution came out of the african american
>community, I would posit that one should look to europeans who have
>endured centuries of servitude, slavery, etc. i.e. anything that is
>'bad' for the master is considered 'good' for the slave, and vice versa...

Maybe to some extent, but there is a very large number of words in common 
usage that mean the opposite of their original coinage but don't seem 
amenable to that explanation. "Sophisticated" to mean knowing and classy is 
the reverse of the earlier sense of fake and tawdry. But then one could get 
into a complicated discussion about sophistry and Sophists and how the 
former is a calumny against the latter. Perhaps Greek slave teachers of 
philosophy in the Roman era are one source of this confusion, but I don't 
think it's as simple as Mike's model suggests.

Damien Broderick 



From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Thu Jun 16 17:17:31 2005
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:17:31 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Magazine:  Le Magazine de l'Optimum 
Message-ID: <295480-220056416171731238@M2W040.mail2web.com>

Le Magazine de l'Optimum wrote a feature article on me a couple of months
ago.  The journalist has asked the magazine to send me a copy, but I have
been waiting and the magazine has still not arrived.  

Does anyone live in France who can try to get a copy for me?

thanks!

Natasha

Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc

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




From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Thu Jun 16 19:38:07 2005
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 20:38:07 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Timescale to Singularity
In-Reply-To: <20050616065255.71043.qmail@web31505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050616065255.71043.qmail@web31505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e050616123861dbc478@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/16/05, Marc Geddes <marc_geddes at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> "I swear by the shelters of the stars (a mighty oath, if you but knew it)...
> I shall fight to eliminate aging and death before 2030 with every my fiber
> of my being... 
> By 2030 either the Singularity will come or I will perish trying' 

A noble sentiment, but I'm not sure 2030 is realistic; my guess, for
what it's worth, is that mid to late 21st century is more plausible
than early. Only time will tell, of course, but remember it's a
marathon, not a sprint: if 2030 comes around and the world's problems
are still with us, that does not necessarily mean we have failed to
solve them - only that we have not done so _yet_.

- Russell


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 16 20:37:00 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:37:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] evolution of language: was Wetware vs. Hardware
	(was IQ vs Upload)
In-Reply-To: <200506160450.j5G4oWR23393@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <20050616203700.13112.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> Perhaps that is the brilliance of newspeak: it
> removes the ambiguity of words.  The presence of
> "un-" prevents words from becoming their own
> opposite,
> so that good stays good, bad stays bad, fucked stays
> 
> double plus good, and so on.

Actually my experience as a half-decent wordsmith
would suggest that part of the power of, for example,
the English language is that the very ambiguity of it
has meaning. If I wan't to speak to 20 people who all
want to hear something different, it is the very
ambiguity of certain words and phrases that allow me
to say one thing that can make all 20 of them happy.
Just my own observation. Thus while newspeak might be
great for communicating logic and science, it sucks
(heh) for rhetoric.

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! 
Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html


From scerir at libero.it  Thu Jun 16 20:56:22 2005
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 22:56:22 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] evolution of language
References: <20050616162323.18809.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <001001c572b5$db1ec100$e5be1b97@administxl09yj>

Mike  
> ... 'bad' for the master is considered 
> 'good' for the slave, and vice versa...

A sort of 'Newspeak' (in Orwell's 1984).
Words mean the opposite of what they 
appear to mean, or have a meaning when
applied to friends and the opposite
meaning when applied to enemies.

But for sure there are examples in
Europe. In Italy we use "dritto"
[straight, honest] to mean the opposite
[artful, rogue, ...]. 



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 16 20:57:47 2005
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:57:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Death
In-Reply-To: <470a3c52050616000712d4383d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050616205747.81985.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com>



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

> You felt
> nothing *exceptional* at the moment of Michael's
> death. Well probably
> you don't feel TV stations directly with your brain
> either. Doesn't
> mean they are not broadcasting all around you.

Well said Guilio. I was asleep when my uncle from 2
states away appeared in my room and jokingly told me
he had died. I woke up, thought it was just a morbid
dream, vowed to call him later to check up on him, and
went back to sleep. Later that morning I got a phone
call from his grand-daughter who told me that he had
either accidently or purposely removed his oxygen mask
the night before and died as a result of it. I can't
explain this, but I cannot disbelieve it either
because it HAPPENED. So I would encourage Samantha to
keep a dream log. If the bond between her and Michael
was a strong as she said, I cannot imagine that he
would not try to communicate with her if he could. And
my own experience tells me that we are most receptive
to this sort of thing in REM state.

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  Thu Jun 16 04:46:29 2005
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 00:46:29 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bene Tleilaxu and your mitochondria
In-Reply-To: <20050616041915.70328.qmail@web31508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20050616041915.70328.qmail@web31508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc605061521462fb43edc@mail.gmail.com>

A few months ago I promised to post an article on mitochondria and
aging which I was writing with Shaharyar Khan, and finally I can keep
my promise. "Mitochondrial microheteroplasmy and a theory of aging and
age-related disease" will be published in Rejuvenation Research in
August. Here is the text (without figures) and I can send the pdf to
anyone interested.

Questions and comments welcome.

Rafal 

Mitochondrial microheteroplasmy and a theory of aging and age-related disease

Rafal M. Smigrodzki, MD PhD*
and
Shaharyar M. Khan, PhD

Address for correspondence and reprints: Gencia Corporation, 706B
Forest St, Charlottesville VA, 22903, Phone 434-295-4800, Fax:
434-295-4951, Email: rafal at genciabiotech.com

Keywords: Microheteroplasmy, aging, AD, PD, diabetes, hypertension

*Corresponding author to whom communications should be addressed. 

Abstract

We implicate a recently described form of mitochondrial mutation,
mitochondrial microheteroplasmy, as a candidate for the principal
component of aging. Microheteroplasmy is the presence of hundreds of
independent mutations in one organism, with each mutation usually
found in 1 - 2% of all mitochondrial genomes. Despite the low
abundance of single mutations, the vast majority of mitochondrial
genomes in all adults are mutated. This mutational burden includes
inherited mutations, de novo germline mutations, as well as somatic
mutations acquired either during early embryonic development or later
in adult life. We postulate that microheteroplasmy is sufficient to
explain the pathomechanism of several age-associated diseases,
especially in conditions with known mitochondrial involvement, such as
diabetes (DM), cardiovascular disease, Parkinson's disease (PD), and
Alzheimer's disease (AD) and cancer.  The genetic properties of
microheteroplasmy reconcile the results of disease models (cybrids,
hypermutable PolG variants and mitochondrial toxins), with the
relatively low levels of maternal inheritance in the aforementioned
diseases, and provide an explanation of their delayed, progressive
course.

Article Outline

1. Introduction
2. Review of mitochondrial biology and genetics
	2.1 Mitochondrial biology and mtDNA
2.2 Changes in mitochondrial genomes during early ontogeny
2.3 Replication Induced Mutations
2.4 Heteroplasmy
2.5 Microheteroplasmy and certain other acquired mitochondrial mutations
3. Mitochondria in age-related disease
3.1 Lines of evidence
3.2 Neurodegeneration
3.3 Diabetes and hypertension
3.4 Cancer
	3.5 Animal models of mitochondrial aging
4. Mitochondrial theory of aging
	4.1 Objections to the mitochondrial hypothesis of aging
	4.2 Microheteroplasmic mitochondrial theory of aging
	4.3 Cellular responses to microheteroplasmy
	4.4 Focal microheteroplasmy
4.5 Microheteroplasmy in stem cells
5. Competing hypotheses
5.1 Relationship to competing hypotheses
	5.2 Unresolved issues
6. Predictions of the microheteroplasmic mitochondrial theory of aging
	6.1 Age-related diseases
	6.2 Normal aging
6.3 Therapeutic opportunity
7. Conclusion
	7.1 All roads lead to Rho (??)
8. Acknowledgements.
9. References

1. Introduction

Aging, broadly defined, is the decline and failure of biological
processes to maintain the complexity and contiguity of an organism
over time. Maintaining this complexity and contiguity in the face of
entropic forces requires continuous energy appropriation and
dissipation 1. Another element crucial to maintenance of complexity is
integrity of genetic information, as evidenced by progerias,
conditions where failure of genomic maintenance leads to accelerated
development of aging phenotypes 2. Interestingly, many progerias
primarily affect stem cells and their generation of oxidative stress,
preventing the repopulation of tissues damaged with age 3.  These
diseases provide significant insights into the relevance of
maintaining genomic integrity against the ravages of time.

In contrast to considering aging from the perspective of fundamental
physical and systems-theory principles, practical approaches to the
pathophysiology of most aging-related diseases focus on specific
biochemical changes that accompany aging. Thus, mutations in various
nuclear genes have been found in familial cases of such late-onset
conditions as AD  4, 5,  PD  6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and DM (multiple genes,
reviewed in 11). Some nuclear polymorphisms have been found to
correlate with an increased risk of developing AD 12, PD 13, DM 11,
cardiomyopathy 14, or atherosclerosis 15. Involvement of toxins, such
as the complex I inhibitors rotenone and other pesticides is
hypothesized in PD 16. Based on the analysis of familial models of
such diseases, a number of biochemical processes, such as protein
folding, post-translational processing, protein degradation, and
accumulation of toxic products are believed to be involved in the
sporadic, age-related forms of these diseases, although no causative
nuclear gene mutations have been identified in the vast majority of
cases. This observation is significant: absence of mutations should
exclude a gene from consideration as a cause, relegating it and the
relevant processes to a secondary role in pathomechanism. Despite
this, aggregated proteins and lipids in the form of neurofibrillary
tangles, Lewy bodies and other aggregated proteins, or lipofuscin have
been postulated as causative in aging.  Weakening their case, however,
is that none has so far been unequivocally shown to persist throughout
ontogeny. Indeed, the accumulation of at least some of them (NFT,
lipofuscin, A-beta) is reversible 17 and 18, while other misfolded
protein aggregates are known to be protective 19.

A molecular substrate of aging and the permissive factor for
age-related disease would have to persist for decades and accumulate
change over this time. The nuclear and mitochondrial DNA appear to
have the requisite characteristics: long half-life, and the
accumulation of mutations (information loss) which persist even
through replication, a feat not typical of proteins or lipids, whose
turnover erases changes accumulated after synthesis. Thus, while there
may be other molecular mechanisms for long-term accumulation of change
important in some contexts, such as prions, protein glycation and
other chemical reactions, primarily in avascular tissues with slow
turnover of macromolecules, DNA appears to be the most likely
candidate for the substrate of aging.

Based on the above considerations, aging should be conceptualized
primarily as a disease of our somatic cell DNA, where mutations
accumulate with time, and lead to cellular dysfunction. Thus, aging is
an integral of information loss over time. Information loss may take
the form of not only a total loss of genes but also accumulation of
corrupted versions of genes (the importance of this point should
become apparent in our later discussion of the biochemical mechanism
of aging). Other factors related to aging, such as oxidative stress,
nitrosative stress, inflammation, or protein aggregation would then
act through a common DNA-related mechanism or represent secondary
events.

The accumulation of mutations in somatic DNA is not a new concept. 
Originally postulated by Knudson, carcinogenesis is thought to involve
serially accumulated mutations in oncogenes and anti-oncogenes that
lead to uncontrolled proliferation 20, 21.  For other features of
aging, the pre-eminent theory implicates mitochondria. According to
the mitochondrial theory of aging, first proposed by Harman in 1972
22, mitochondrial genomes accumulate mutations as a result of damage
from reactive oxygen species, replication and/or repair errors,
leading to impairment of oxidative phosphorylation, failure of ATP
production, and slowing of cellular maintenance processes. Since
mitochondria have been shown to be crucial for programmed cell death
23, damage to their genomes may lead to apoptosis and loss of tissue
function. Furthermore, as the producers of energy, informational loss
in mitochondrial genomes would predict an exponential decline due to
entropic forces, persistent energy production being the primary
provider of informational contiguity. No other theory so closely
accounts for both the energetic/metabolic and informational decline
that occurs with age.  However, this theory does not explain why
specific age-related diseases appear only in a fraction of the
population, even though the mutations would accumulate in all adults,
and it fails to account for the wide range of ages of onset.

We propose that the recently described form of DNA damage,
mitochondrial microheteroplasmy 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and the
individual differences in its accumulation confer a proclivity to
develop specific age-related conditions, such as PD, AD, DM,
cardiovascular disease, as well as determine to a great extent the
rate at which we age. The rate of accumulation of mutations in mtDNA
will determine the timing of onset, subject to modulation by nuclear
genetic and environmental factors; thus acting as the principal
component of the molecular clock of aging. Microheteroplasmy has also
important methodological implications ?C the current practice of direct
sequencing of mtDNA products is very likely to miss most pathogenic
mutations and should be supplemented by clonal sequencing. This
represents an extension and refinement of the mitochondrial theory of
aging.

In the following exposition we first review data on mitochondrial
genetics, then explore the literature on the biochemical connections
between mitochondria and age-related disease, and finally attempt to
outline the case for mitochondrial microheteroplasmy as the causative
factor in aging and age-related diseases. We also provide a
methodological explanation for the failure of many in the field of
mitochondrial genomics and aging to identify low level mutations
present in nearly all mitochondrial genomes.

2. Review of mitochondrial biology and genetics

2.1 Mitochondrial biology and mtDNA

Mitochondria are intracellular organelles found in almost all
eukaryotes, derived from ??-proteobacteria and possessing their own
genome 30, 31. They are involved in many biochemical processes, most
notably oxidative phosphorylation, and in apoptosis, or programmed
cell death.  In humans, the mitochondrial genome (mtDNA, at the time
of its discovery referred to as ?? DNA) is a 16.5 kb circular dsDNA
molecule which codes for 13 protein subunits of the electron transport
chain (ETC), as well as the tRNA and rRNA genes necessary for the
translation of the protein genes. In each cell there are usually
between 1,000 and 100,000 copies of mtDNA, on average 4,900 mtDNA
genomes per nuclear genome 32. Since each copy may be independently
replicated, mutations can accumulate in various proportions of the
genomes. The presence of a mutation in 100% of the genomes is termed
homoplasmy, while heteroplasmy is a mixture of mutated and wild-type
sequences for a given locus.

MtDNA is almost exclusively inherited through the maternal line 33
which allows the detection of mitochondrial contributions to phenotype
by observing the degree of matrilineal inheritance of a trait 34. A
number of strictly maternally inherited conditions have thus been
linked to mtDNA: MELAS, MERRF, LHON, CPEO, MILS, and others 35. In all
of them the causative mutation turns out to be either a homoplasmic
mutation or a heteroplasmic mutation present in a high percentage of
genomes, usually higher than 50%, though 20% heteroplasmy can also
produce phenotypes. The phenotypic manifestation of these mutations
tend to develop in infancy, childhood, or early adulthood, and
frequently include encephalopathy, myopathy, and diabetes, in addition
to other specific symptoms which serve to define the above-mentioned
syndromes.

2.2 Changes in mitochondrial genomes during early ontogeny

Cells in the maternal germ line spend many decades in a largely
quiescent, amitotic state, arrested in the metaphase of the second
meiotic division 36 ?C despite this, their mitochondrial genomes
undergo continuous turnover. In all tissues, whether consisting of
mitotic or postmitotic cells, mtDNA undergoes continuous replication
and replacement, with a half-life of a few weeks 37. Accumulation of
mutations thus occurs constantly throughout ontogeny 38, 39, 40(also
reviewed in 41), and is due to both polymerase errors and errors in
the repair of DNA damaged by environmental influences.

Since uncorrected accumulation of mutations would within a very small
number of generations become incompatible with survival, there are
mechanisms for selection against mtDNA mutations. Currently it is
believed that the majority of female germ line cells undergo apoptosis
42 in the final stages of maturation. Accumulation of mtDNA mutations
above a certain threshold was postulated as the causative mechanism
43, although the precise levels and types of mtDNA mutations necessary
to trigger apoptosis have yet to be defined. An element of the sensing
mechanism which detects the accumulation of mutations is the
production of ROS (reactive oxygen species) 44, as evidenced by
susceptibility of oocytes to pulses of ROS. ROS are byproducts of
oxidative phosphorylation, generated mainly by electron leakage from
complexes I and III of the ETC 45. They are capable of damaging
proteins, lipids and nucleic acids, and are believed to be the
principal agent directly causing mutations in human DNA. During the
maturation of germline cells, the oocyte switches from the anaerobic
metabolism it used for 20 to 40 years (time from formation of ovaries
in the fetus to initiation of ovulatory cycle in the woman) 46 to
metabolism based on oxidative phosphorylation and increasing amounts
of ROS are generated. In germline cells and early embryos with
severely damaged mtDNA, and correspondingly high ROS output, apoptosis
is initiated, thus favoring the selective production of ova and
embryos with largely intact mtDNA 47 (Fig 1).

However, as noted above, there are many conditions where this
cleansing mechanism fails. Some deleterious mtDNA mutations, such as
the high-level heteroplasmic A3243 mutation responsible for many cases
of MELAS 48, are compatible with the survival of the ovum and fetus.
Lower levels (<5%,) 49 of this mutation may be present in the maternal
line for generations, with few phenotypic manifestations but if their
concentration rises to the range >20% (see also  50), increasingly
early and/or severe phenotypes develop.

2.3 Replication Induced Mutations

The mitochondrial DNA polymerase, PolG, is a family A polymerase
related to phage pol