From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Sep 1 02:52:43 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:52:43 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Please tell us a tree story Spike (long, not particularly extropian) In-Reply-To: <200508311445.j7VEjrO13302@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <200509010254.j812sfw10514@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike ... > > Yes I shall see something more wonderous than a tree: two > trees that have fallen in opposite directions... spike Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Before the students entered the classroom, the teacher turned the plate > around... kevinfreels wrote: > Maybe they fell at different times from different storms? BillK wrote: > Most likely solution, after the first fall had weakened the roots of > the second tree. OK cool, you are thinking. While hiking at Mount Rainier last week in the old growth forests, I made a number of observations about trees. In an old growth forest in the US northwest, the trees in the biggie range (two to four meter diameter) grow at a typical spacing of 10 to 15 meters. The distribution is not random, which should come as no surprise, because trees compete for resources. They distribute themselves more evenly than random. I did see something puzzling however. There are a number of big trees that are so close they touch. There are more trees that touch at their bases than there are trees that are 3 meters apart. I saw two trees that had fallen in opposite directions. This was not so remarkable, for one might imagine a whirlwind or tornado which has winds in opposite directions simultaneously. I noted that the two trees, if mentally set upright, would actually intersect. The roots on the up side were bent and gnarly (dude), perhaps from competing with the other tree. You may already know of the materials property of wood: it is highly anisotropic. This is a fancy engineering way of saying its strength is highly dependent on load and direction. Snap a toothpick, cut it with a scissor, crush it lengthwise, easy, easy, easy, since wood is a low strength material in compression, shear and bending load. But now try to pull that toothpick apart lengthwise. It will give you a new respect for the tensile strength of wood, and a new respect for the carbon-carbon bond. Back to trees: If you have strong roots on three sides and bent gnarly roots on one side, the most likely direction of fall is gnarly roots up, since the strong roots are unlikely to fail in tension. But they might fail in bending. In an old growth forest, old dead trees fall and become nurse logs: other trees germinate on the log itself, then devour the nutrients in the nurse log. If you have an old growth forest nearby, do look for nurse logs. I noticed that the newly germinated trees were more likely to sprout not on the top of the fallen log, but on the sides, where the cylindrical surface was about 45 degrees from horizontal. Perhaps the rough bark surface could trap more water for a longer time there than on the top of the log? If you find a nurse log, see if you find that there are two rows of newly germinated trees, along either side of the nurse log. Perhaps this would explain why there are so many touching pairs of trees: they both started about the same time on either side of the same nurse log, so neither had a big advantage over the other. They grew up together as twins. Now imagine branches growing out of the trunk toward the twin tree. The two steadily push on each other as the branches grow. In every case where I saw twin trees touching at their bases, they grew apart to form an enormous V. So they were leaning in just the wrong way, depending on their weak gnarly roots on the side that needed the enormous strength of wood in tension. The last bit of the puzzle was provided by twin trees whose roots had been force mostly above ground on the other- tree side, each wrapping around its twin in a root-amentary embrace ({8^D). One could easily imagine that the underground roots were interlaced, as one would interlace one's fingers to crack one's knuckles. With that mental picture one need not call for a whirlwind, but rather the ordinary storm gust strong enough to push over one of the twins, whose roots would then lever the other out of the ground in the opposite direction. Problem solved! As I walked among these stately patriarchs, I marveled at the changes they have seen in their centuries. Filled with awe and wonder was I at their steadfast perseverance across the generations of us temporary primates. My mind boggled as I struggled to comprehend just how much they would be worth if cut up into something useful. Kidding, bygones, I have made arrangements to go to Montana (on a motorcycle of course) to go look at old growth forest. Trees are cool. spike From davidmc at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 04:01:24 2005 From: davidmc at gmail.com (David McFadzean) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 22:01:24 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] ping - please ignore In-Reply-To: <200508310358.j7V3wsO28659@tick.javien.com> References: <2DE9D54D-8DEA-4395-BF26-BED694486444@mac.com> <200508310358.j7V3wsO28659@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: The list was down again for a few hours today. As far as I can tell the cause is unrelated to the downtime last weekend. Just Murphy at work :-/ David On 8/30/05, spike wrote: > I was on vacation. Pondering trees. {8-] spike > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > > Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 12:07 PM > > To: ExI chat list > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] ping - please ignore > > > > Something appears to have been wrong with the list. I sent a note to > > Natasha and spike when I noticed Saturday. I got no reply. This > > isn't the first time. > > > > - s > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From fortean1 at mindspring.com Thu Sep 1 04:55:16 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:55:16 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight?] Message-ID: <431689B4.3050908@mindspring.com> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 23:31:00 -0700, "Terry W. Colvin" fnarded: >There is a professional society of which I have been a member >for over 20 years, SAWE, the Society of Aerospace Weight >Engineers. We sit around and argue about stuff like this. Really. >If you take issue with any of these concepts, do speak >up and state your reasoning. There are a lot of interesting points presented here, but I do have some concerns about going small and light-weight for crew selection on future manned missions. Designing for absolute minimum weight aerospace vehicles is fraught with problems. Current aircraft have a great deal of work done to define the performance criteria of the vehicle, the loading it is expected to encounter and such like - referred to as its "design envelope". Many moons ago I worked on a British military aircraft that had undergone a drastic weight reduction exercise, that employed a variety of techniques (using minimum thickness skins, scalloped edges to cleats and plating, punched and dished holes, the works). While a measure of weight as saved, it made the vehicle so difficult to manufacture that the cost increases by far outweighed any operational savings. it also wrapped the structural capability of the aircraft very close to its performance envelope - thinner skins oilcanned and flexed, the scalloped edges around fastener holes reduced the fatigue life, and so on. In a nutshell, while there are advantages to making stringent size and weight requirements on your crew, simply making a tight, lightweight design is not the complete answer. I also have a bit of a problem with the physical requirements placed on a crew. You have also to be concerned with whether or not a given cew member can coe with possible extremes that could be encounteed on a long-term mission. Coping with extremes of temperature, air pressure, acceleration and the like, must also be considered when choosing a crew. Would, for example, a person of a more delicate stature be capable of enduring a longer or more rigorous work schedule? Where does the cut-off occur between body size and work rate? Simply saying "Astronaut A is thirty percent lighter than Astronaut B, so has a sixty percent less consumable rate" doesn't mean much if Astronaut B can do twice the work in a given time and needs to take fewer rest breaks. Okay, sitting in the cabin of a spacecraft on a zero-g coast between Earth and Mars is going to favour the lightweight crew member. But lugging bits of gear about on the surface of Mars when they get there is going to put a much greater strain on the smaller guy. The enclosed-volume-to-mass of a big space suit going to be a lot easier on the big guy than the little one, especially if things like backpacks and power supplies are standardised. I worked on the design of the cockpit of the Royal Australian Air Force Hawk fast jet trainer. Up until then most of our customers had been on the small side, and in the "one size fits all" aircraft our major worry was whether we could wind the rudder pedals far back enough for the aircrew to reach them. It was a bit of a culture shock to suddenly have to find room in this little aircraft for the six-footers that the Aussies were recruiting into their air force. As it is, I'm still worried that their heads are a touch too close for comfort to the explosive cutting strips fitted to the inside of the canopy Like they say, size (in either direction) isn't everything. Just a thought. Robin Hill, STEAMY BESS, Brough, East Yorkshire. -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Sep 1 05:59:50 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 22:59:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Are dwarfs better for longduration spaceflight?] In-Reply-To: <431689B4.3050908@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <200509010601.j8161kw31304@tick.javien.com> > > "Terry W. Colvin" fnarded: > ... > > Designing for absolute minimum weight aerospace vehicles is fraught > with problems... Granted, however we are discussing only *scaling* as a function of the needs of the astronaut. This exercise is not about shaving close to the margin; the margin is the same for the smaller vehicle as it is for the larger. My notion is that under these extreme conditions, we can make a spherical hab module with a diameter about four times the height of the astronaut. Not roomy, but survivable. The notion then is that the diameter of the sphere scales with the height of the astronaut, and if so, the mass scales as the cube of that height, and if so, finding the smallest astronaut is everything. > ... While a measure of weight as saved, it made the vehicle > so difficult to manufacture that the cost increases by far outweighed > any operational savings... Of course, but manufacturing constraints in aircraft, where you are making many, are not directly comparable to manufacturing constraints in spacecraft where you are making one or two. > ... - thinner skins > oilcanned and flexed... Not applicable to a spherical shell. > ...the scalloped edges around fastener holes > reduced the fatigue life, and so on... Generally not applicable to spacecraft. You would load up the sphere, insert the hapless astronaut, then weld the hatch closed. When she returns, the reentry vehicle would be attached and the hatch cut open. > In a nutshell, while there are advantages to making stringent size and > weight requirements on your crew, simply making a tight, lightweight > design is not the complete answer... OK, but spacecraft are not aircraft. I agree with all that is stated here for planes. > > I also have a bit of a problem with the physical requirements placed > on a crew. You have also to be concerned with whether or not a given > cew member can coe with possible extremes that could be encounteed > on a long-term mission... I grant you that it will take a very special person to pull this off. We have 6e9 people on this planet from which to choose. I think this special person exists somewhere. > Would, for example, a person of a more delicate > stature be capable of enduring a longer or more rigorous work schedule? Yes, I think this durable little person exists somewhere. Her job is a lot like a video game. I see little correlation between physical size and endurance at a video game console. > > Okay, sitting in the cabin of a spacecraft on a zero-g coast between > Earth and Mars is going to favour the lightweight crew member. But > lugging bits of gear about on the surface of Mars when they get there > is going to put a much greater strain on the smaller guy... Ja I should have defined this mission more carefully. There is no lugging stuff around on the surface in this scenario. The mission is to insert into Martian synchronous orbit for a little over two years, during which the astronaut guides robots on the surface which build things that humans will later use: manufacturing facilities, a pressure vessel for growing plants and living in, etc. After 2.4 years, the craft leaves Mars orbit, injects into LEO, docks with a reentry vehicle and comes home. We can carry enough delta V to do all this with current technology. In 2.4 years, she should be able to get some cool stuff accomplished. > ... > Like they say, size (in either direction) isn't everything... In aircraft, I agree. In Mars missions, size matters more than anything. spike ps The news on in the background as I write. Damn that flood in New Orleans is bad. {8-[ From amara at amara.com Thu Sep 1 06:31:16 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:31:16 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] news in perspective Message-ID: spike: >ps The news on in the background as I write. Damn that >flood in New Orleans is bad. {8-[ Yes, it is bad. And so is the ~1000 people in Baghdad who died on a pilgrimage during the time of New Orleans' terrible misfortune. (was that reported?) And so is 200,000 people who died in the tsunami. Death is bad. And I wish the American media would learn to put news in perspective. Even Boing-boing has gone over the top (I don't remember them reporting this much after the tsunami for example). 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/ ******************************************************************** "In my opinion, television validates existence." --Calvin From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 07:18:34 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 00:18:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Are dwarfs better for longduration spaceflight?] In-Reply-To: <200509010601.j8161kw31304@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050901071834.89005.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > Ja I should have defined this mission more > carefully. There > is no lugging stuff around on the surface in this > scenario. The > mission is to insert into Martian synchronous orbit > for a little over > two years, during which the astronaut guides robots > on the > surface which build things that humans will later > use: manufacturing > facilities, a pressure vessel for growing plants and > living in, > etc. After 2.4 years, the craft leaves Mars orbit, > injects into LEO, > docks with a reentry vehicle and comes home. You should have said this first. Mission specifications mean everything in picking an ideal crew. If this is the case then an overachieving midget or a paraplegic person would be ideal. I know of many amputees capable of walking on their hands. I do not understand why you think it ought to be woman as upper body strength especially in a paraplegic might be important. > We can carry enough delta V to do all this with > current > technology. In 2.4 years, she should be able to get > some > cool stuff accomplished. > > In aircraft, I agree. In Mars missions, size > matters more > than anything. It depends entirely on the mission objectives. For an actual planet-fall mission, a diverse crew in body types, sexes, specialties, and skill sets would be ideal. To have an all midget crew in this circumstance would be tempting natural selection by lack of diversity. It would be essentially putting all our eggs in one basket. They could all remain in a sedated sleep for the trip there. The mission doctor could be a midget and stay awake for the trip to take care of the crew and awaken them upon arrival. During the trip there, the sleepers would require little more than a closets worth of space. Anyways, your midget fetish makes a little more sense now, Spike. ;) I actually know a midget deliveryman at work. He delivers dry ice to all the labs on campus and routinely hauls several hundreds of pounds of dry ice around. He is very strong for his size. If he has other appropriate skills and talents, he might be an ideal candidate. > > ps The news on in the background as I write. Damn > that > flood in New Orleans is bad. {8-[ I agree. But lots of people are doing great things now for their fellows. The point of tragedy is that it must be overcome and it brings out the best in our species. I do object to them pulling cops away from search and rescue to keep starving people from looting abandoned stores in New Orleans. If the store owners object so much, why don't they come to work and man the register? I am sure a lot of those people would happily pay for their food, if they had that option. I for one would do whatever it took to survive. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Sep 1 08:25:29 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 01:25:29 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] news in perspective In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Are we so busy worrying our egos about our or their fairness that we are not present to the horror or loss of any and/or all deaths? Evolved primates (probably evolved any old sentient) will feel the loss most keenly for those of nearest relationship. That would be a great start if we really felt it, down to the bone, and did not forget or distract ourselves with side issues. - samantha On Aug 31, 2005, at 11:31 PM, Amara Graps wrote: > spike: > >> ps The news on in the background as I write. Damn that >> flood in New Orleans is bad. {8-[ >> > > Yes, it is bad. > > And so is the ~1000 people in Baghdad who died on a pilgrimage > during the time of New Orleans' terrible misfortune. (was that > reported?) > > And so is 200,000 people who died in the tsunami. > > Death is bad. And I wish the American media would learn to put > news in perspective. Even Boing-boing has gone over the top (I > don't remember them reporting this much after the tsunami for > example). > > 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/ > ******************************************************************** > "In my opinion, television validates existence." --Calvin > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From eugen at leitl.org Thu Sep 1 10:42:37 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 12:42:37 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] news in perspective In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050901104237.GS2249@leitl.org> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 01:25:29AM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Are we so busy worrying our egos about our or their fairness that we > are not present to the horror or loss of any and/or all deaths? > Evolved primates (probably evolved any old sentient) will feel the > loss most keenly for those of nearest relationship. That would be a > great start if we really felt it, down to the bone, and did not > forget or distract ourselves with side issues. Since we cannot yet change us to feel so, crude ratio-level patches such as periodic reminding us that coverage is frequently biased is the only available solution. FWIW, though this snafu is greatly overreported in comparison to the tsunami catastrophe, it is vastly underreported in the mass media (I'm tracking this third-hand from a critical care/relief POV) in regards to the severity and accumulating damage trainwreck. A strong sentiment from those in the trenches is outrage in regards to lack of preparedness and incompetence and slowness in relief. Here's hope that heads will roll. It is really quite awful, and most U.S. folks are not getting it yet. Now back to our regular programme of lunacy, and mental masturbation. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Sep 1 12:14:31 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 07:14:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] AID to ExI members & other Transhumanists in LA, MS, AL Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050901070706.047bfd30@pop-server.austin.rr.com> I am re-posting this message because we have had a number of responses from transhumanists who are offering their homes for people to stay, and other types of assistance. But I have not heard if anyone knows of transhumanists who live in the areas that were affected by Katrina. I urge you to please contact me or info at extropy.org if you know of anyone who needs help or have other suggestions to provide care for our members, friends and family members in this devastated region. Thank you, Natasha >Transhumanists - > >If you know of anyone who is located in New Orleans and other areas on >Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama who may need help, please contact the >Transhumanist Care program at Extropy Institute by sending email to >info at extropy.org > >I am not sure at this time what we can do, but I do know that if there are >transhumanists who are without homes, cloths, etc., we will do our best to >figure something out to help them. (There are ExI members throughout the >southern states who may be available to help.) > > >Many thanks, > >Natasha Vita-More >President Extropy Institute >Transhumanist Care Program Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist, Designer Studies of the Future, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From iph1954 at msn.com Thu Sep 1 13:21:20 2005 From: iph1954 at msn.com (MIKE TREDER) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 09:21:20 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] C-R-Newsletter #33 Message-ID: Center for Responsible Nanotechnology Newsletter #33 August 31, 2005 To read this on the Web, with nice formatting and hyperlinks, go to http://www.crnano.org/archive05.htm#33 CONTENTS - CRN Forms Policy Task Force - Eric Drexler Joins Nanorex - Connecticut Schools Go Nano - NASA Website Covers CRN Work - CRN Goes to Vermont - CRN Goes to Chicago - CRN Goes to Bootcamp - Dimensions of Development - 13th Foresight Conference - Feature Essay: Molecular Manufacturing Design Software ========== We?re a little late getting the C-R-Newsletter out this month, but as you can see, we?ve been extremely busy. To keep up with the latest happenings on a daily basis, be sure to check our Responsible Nanotechnology weblog at http://CRNano.typepad.com/ NOTE: In the items below, links are indicated with [brackets], and shown at the end of each item. CRN Forms Policy Task Force The big news this month is that [CRN announced] the formation of a new Global Task Force to study the societal implications of advanced nanotechnology. Bringing together a diverse group of world-class experts from multiple disciplines, CRN will lead an historic, collaborative effort to develop comprehensive policy recommendations for the safe and responsible use of molecular manufacturing. Just [two weeks] after the initial announcement, which mentioned four ?charter members? of the CRN Task Force, we're up to 39 participants from six different countries. In addition, three organizations are publicly supporting this effort: the Society of Manufacturing Engineers, the Society of Police Futurists International, and the Nanotechnology Now web portal. Several online planning sessions have been held, and the CRN Task Force is now beginning its initial task: to itemize the necessary information that must be available in order to design wise and effective policy. http://www.crnano.org/PR-charter.htm http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2005/08/crn_task_force_.html Eric Drexler Joins Nanorex Nanorex, a molecular engineering software company based in Michigan, has named [Dr. K. Eric Drexler] as the company?s Chief Technical Advisor. [The company] said that Drexler will play a leading role in shaping Nanorex's product strategy and advancing the company?s academic outreach programs. Often described as the 'father of nanotechnology', Eric Drexler is on the [Board of Advisors] for CRN. His groundbreaking theoretical research has been the basis for three books, including [?Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing, and Computation?], and numerous journal articles. Last year, he collaborated with Chris Phoenix, CRN's Director of Research, on [?Safe Exponential Manufacturing?], published in the Institute of Physics journal ?Nanotechnology.? In 1986, Drexler founded the [Foresight Nanotech Institute], a non-profit think tank and public interest organization focused on nanotechnology. He was awarded a PhD from MIT in Molecular Nanotechnology (the first degree of its kind). Drexler is expected to be deeply involved in the project to develop a [Technology Roadmap for Productive Nanosystems], recently announced by Foresight and the Battelle research organization. http://e-drexler.com/p/idx04/00/0404drexlerBioCV.html http://www.nanorex.com/ http://www.crnano.org/about_us.htm#Advisors http://www.crnano.org/5min.htm http://www.crnano.org/papers.htm#Goo http://www.foresight.org/ http://www.foresight.org/cms/press_center/128 Connecticut Schools Go Nano Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell has enacted a [new law] requiring the Commissioner of Higher Education in her state to review the inclusion of nanotechnology, molecular manufacturing and advanced and developing technologies at institutions of higher education. CRN is pleased to note that this measure specifically designates molecular manufacturing as something that should be studied for inclusion in the curriculum at institutions of higher education. We encourage other states -- and indeed, other countries -- to follow Connecticut's lead. http://tinyurl.com/aljbt NASA Website Covers CRN Work The NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC), an independent, NASA-funded organization located in Atlanta, Georgia, was created to promote forward-looking research on radical space technologies that will take 10 to 40 years to come to fruition. Last year, NIAC [awarded a grant] to Chris Phoenix, CRN?s Director of Research, to conduct a feasibility study of nanoscale manufacturing. On NASA?s website, [an article] titled ?The Next Giant Leap? highlights the work NIAC is funding in nanotechnology research, and includes a description of the 112-page report Chris presented to them. We congratulate Chris on this much-deserved recognition. http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2004/09/niac_funds_crn_.html http://tinyurl.com/94luq CRN Goes to Vermont In late July, CRN principals Mike Treder and Chris Phoenix were invited to participate in a [special workshop] on ?geoethical nanotechnology,? held at a beautiful mountain retreat in Vermont. Our gracious host was Martine Rothblatt, CEO of United Therapeutics Corporation, and founder of the [Terasem Movement Foundation.] Among those [making presentations] were Ray Kurzweil, CEO of Kurzweil Technologies; Professor Frank Tipler of Tulane University; Douglas Mulhall, author of ?Our Molecular Future?; and Dr. Barry Blumberg, a Nobel Prize-winner in medicine and Founding Director of the NASA Astrobiology Institute. CRN?s PowerPoint presentation for the event is available online [here.] Geoethical nanotechnology is defined as: the development and implementation under a global regulatory framework of machines capable of assembling molecules into a wide variety of objects, in a broad range of sizes, and in potentially vast quantities. http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2005/07/about_geoethica.html http://terasemfoundation.org/about.htm http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2005/07/applications_an.html http://www.terasemfoundation.org/webcast/ppt/Treder.ppt CRN Goes to Chicago Also in July, CRN Executive Director Mike Treder gave talks at two events in Chicago. First, at a special [nanotech symposium], Mike delivered a presentation called [?The Flat Horizon Problem: Nanotechnology on an Upward Slope?]. Then, during the annual conference of the World Future Society, Mike made a speech titled, [?Do Sweat the Small Stuff: Why Everyone Should Care About Nanotechnology?]. The conference, [WorldFuture 2005: Foresight, Innovation, and Strategy], was managed excellently and enjoyed huge attendance. http://www.crnano.org/SymposiumonNanotechnology_July05,Chicago_.pdf http://www.crnano.org/Speech%20-%20Upward%20Slope.ppt http://www.crnano.org/Speech%20-%20WFS%20-%20Web%20Version.ppt http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2005/08/wfs_conference_.html CRN Goes to Bootcamp In mid-July, CRN Research Director Chris Phoenix spent four days in Washington DC at a [Nano Training Bootcamp] sponsored by the ASME. He called it ?quite a brain-stretcher.? Topics included quantum mechanics, optics, thermoelectrics, nanolithography, and much more. Chris provided us with extensive blog reports during the event, so you can read about all the tech-talk from [Day One], [Day Two], [Day Three], and [Day Four]. http://www.asmeconferences.org/nanobootcamp05/speakers.cfm http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2005/07/nano_training_b.html http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2005/07/asme_nano_bootc.html http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2005/07/asme_nano_bootc_1.html http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2005/07/asme_nano_bootc_2.html Dimensions of Development Many factors will determine how soon and how safely molecular manufacturing is integrated into society, including where, how openly, and how rapidly it is developed. Because nanotech manufacturing could be so disruptive and destabilizing, it is essential that we learn as much as possible about those factors and others. The more we know, the better we may be able to guide and manage this revolutionary transformation. Mike Treder?s [latest essay] for ?Future Brief? describes six different dimensions ? Number, Style, Venue, Approach, Program, and Pace ? along which molecular manufacturing may be developed. Making effective policy for the safe and responsible use of advanced nanotechnology will require a deep and comprehensive understanding of all six dimensions. To be effective, a coordinated and integrated strategy of multiple complimentary policies must be designed and implemented. (Note: At the time the essay was published, the [CRN Global Task Force on Implications and Policy] had not yet been announced.) http://www.futurebrief.com/miketrederdimensions004.asp http://www.crnano.org/PR-charter.htm 13th Foresight Conference CRN is proud to be a media sponsor for the [13th Foresight Conference] on Advanced Nanotechnology. The title of the conference this year is "Advancing Beneficial Nanotechnology: Focusing on the Cutting Edge," and it will be divided into three stand-alone, complementary sessions ? Vision, Applications & Policy, and Research ? spread over six days. The conference is October 22-27, 2005, in San Francisco, California. They've got a great lineup of speakers, so we hope to see you there. http://foresight.org/conference2005/index.html Feature Essay: Molecular Manufacturing Design Software Chris Phoenix, Director of Research, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology Nanofactories, controlled by computerized blueprints, will be able to build a vast range of high performance products. However, efficient product design will require advanced software. Different kinds of products will require different approaches to design. Some, such as high-performance supercomputers and advanced medical devices, will be packed with functionality and will require large amounts of research and invention. For these products, the hardest part of design will be knowing what you want to build in the first place. The ability to build test hardware rapidly and inexpensively will make it easier to do the necessary research, but that is not the focus of this essay. There are many products that we easily could imagine and that a nanofactory easily could build if told exactly how. But as any computer programmer knows, it's not easy to tell a computer what you want it to do?it's more or less like trying to direct a blind person to cook a meal in an unfamiliar kitchen. One mistake, and the food is spilled or the stove catches fire. Computer users have an easier time of it. To continue the analogy, if the blind person had become familiar with the kitchen, instructions could be given on the level of ?Get the onions from the left-hand vegetable drawer? rather than ?Move your hand two inches to your right... a bit more... pull the handle... bend down and reach forward... farther... open the drawer... feel the round things?? It is the job of the programmer to write the low-level instructions that create appliances from obstacles. Another advantage of modern computers, from the user's point of view, is their input devices. Instead of typing a number, a user can simply move a mouse, and a relatively simple routine can translate its motion into the desired number, and the number into the desired operation such as moving a pointer or a scroll bar. Suppose I wanted to design a motorcycle. Today, I would have to do engineering to determine stresses and strains, and design a structure to support them. The engineering would have to take into account the materials and fasteners, which in turn would have to be designed for inexpensive assembly. But these choices would limit the material properties, perhaps requiring several iterations of design. And that's just for the frame. Next, I would have to choose components for a suspension system, configure an engine, add an electrical system and a braking system, and mount a fuel tank. Then, I would have to design each element of the user interface, from the seat to the handgrips to the lights behind the dials on the instrument panel. Each thing the user would see or touch would have to be made attractive, and simultaneously specified in a way that could be molded or shaped. And each component would have to stay out of the way of the others: the engine would have to fit inside the frame, the fuel tank might have to be molded to avoid the cylinder heads or the battery, and the brake lines would have to be routed from the handlebars and along the frame, adding expense to the manufacturing process and complexity to the design process. As I described in lat month?s essay, most nanofactory-built human-scale products will be mostly empty space due to the awesomely high performance of both active and passive components. It will not be necessary to worry much about keeping components out of each other's way, because the components will be so small that they can be put almost anywhere. This means that, for example, the frame can be designed without worrying where the motor will be, because the motor will be a few microns of nanoscale motors lining the axles. Rather than routing large hydraulic brake lines, it will be possible to run highly redundant microscopic signal lines controlling the calipers?or more likely, the regenerative braking functionality built into the motors. It will not be necessary to worry about design for manufacturability. With a planar-assembly nanofactory, almost any shape can be made as easily as any other, because the shapes are made by adding sub-micron nanoblocks to selected locations in a supported plane of the growing product. There will be less constraint on form than there is in sand casting of metals, and of course far more precision. This also means that what is built can contain functional components incorporated in the structure. Rather than building a frame and mounting other pieces later, the frame can be built with all components installed, forming a complete product. This does require functional joints between nanoblocks, but this is a small price to pay for such flexibility. To specify functionality of a product, in many cases it will be sufficient to describe the desired functionality in the abstract without worrying about its physical implementation. If every cubic millimeter of the product contains a networked computer?which is quite possible, and may be the default?then to send a signal from point A to point B requires no more than specifying the points. Distributing energy or even transporting materials may not require much more attention: a rapidly rotating diamond shaft can transport more than a watt per square micron, and would be small enough to route automatically through almost any structure; pipes can be made significantly smaller if they are configured with continually inverting liners to reduce drag. Thus, to design the acceleration and braking behavior of the motorcycle, it might be enough to specify the desired torque on the wheels as a function of speed, tire skidding, and brake and throttle position. A spreadsheet-like interface could calculate the necessary power and force for the motors, and from that derive the necessary axle thickness. The battery would be fairly massive, so the user would position it, but might not have to worry about the motor-battery connection, and certainly should not have to design the motor controller. In order to include high-functionality materials such as motor arrays or stress-reporting materials, it would be necessary to start with a library of well-characterized ?virtual materials? with standard functionality. This approach could significantly reduce the functional density of the virtual material compared to what would be possible with a custom-designed solution, but this would be acceptable for many applications, because functional density of nano-built equipment may be anywhere from six to eighteen orders of magnitude better than today's equipment. Virtual materials could also be used to specify material properties such as density and elasticity over a wide range, or implement active materials that changed attributes such as color or shape under software control. Prototypes as well as consumer products could be heavily instrumented, warning of unexpected operating conditions such as excessive stress or wear on any part. Rather than careful calculations to determine the tradeoff between weight and strength, it might be better to build a first-guess model, try it on increasingly rough roads at increasingly high speeds, and measure rather than calculate the required strength. Once some parameters had been determined, a new version could be spreadsheeted and built in an hour or so at low cost. It would be unnecessary to trade time for money by doing careful calculations to minimize the number of prototypes. Then, for a low-performance application like a motorcycle, the final product could be built ten times stronger than was thought to be necessary without sacrificing much mass or cost. There are only a few sources of shape requirements. One is geometrical: round things roll, flat things stack, and triangles make good trusses. These shapes tend to be simple to specify, though some applications like fluid handling can require intricate curves. The second source of shape is compatibility with other shapes, as in a piece that must fit snugly to another piece. These shapes can frequently be input from existing databases or scanned from an existing object. A third source of shape is user preference. A look at the shapes of pen barrels, door handles, and eyeglasses shows that users are pleased by some pretty idiosyncratic shapes. To input arbitrary shapes into the blueprint, it may be useful to have some kind of interface that implements or simulates a moldable material like clay or taffy. A blob could simply be molded or stretched into a pleasing shape. Another useful technique could be to present the designer or user with several variations on a theme, let them select the best one, and build new variations on that until a sufficiently pleasing version is produced. Although there is more to product design than the inputs described here, this should give some flavor of how much more convenient it could be with computer-controlled rapid prototyping of complete products. Elegant computer-input devices, pervasive instrumentation and signal processing, virtual material libraries, inexpensive creation of one-off spreadsheeted prototypes, and several other techniques could make product design more like a combination of graphic arts and computer programming than the complex, slow, and expensive process it is today. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * FUNDRAISING ALERT! Recent developments in efforts to roadmap the technical steps toward molecular manufacturing make the work of CRN more important than ever. It is critical that we examine the global implications of this rapidly emerging technology, and begin designing wise and effective policy. That?s why we have formed the CRN Task Force. But it won?t be easy. We need to grow, and rapidly, to meet the expanding challenge. Your donation to CRN will help us to achieve that growth. We rely largely on individual donations and small grants for our survival. To make a contribution on-line click this link > https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?aid=5594 This is important work and we welcome your participation. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Fine Print: The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology(TM) is an affiliate of World Care(R), an international, non-profit, 501(c)(3) organization. All donations to CRN are handled through World Care. The opinions expressed by CRN do not necessarily reflect those of World Care. Sign up for a FREE subscription to the C-R-Newsletter -- http://crnano.org/contact.htm#Newsletter From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Sep 1 15:01:07 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:01:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] news in perspective In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509011503.j81F37w30017@tick.javien.com> Amara wrote: > And so is the ~1000 people in Baghdad who died on a pilgrimage > during the time of New Orleans' terrible misfortune. (was that > reported?) > > And so is 200,000 people who died in the tsunami. > > Death is bad. And I wish the American media would learn to put > news in perspective. Even Boing-boing has gone over the top (I > don't remember them reporting this much after the tsunami for > example). > > Amara They did mention it, but didn't really get to the point. Reuters: http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=uri:2005 -08-31T135023Z_01_DIT131351_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAQ-DC.XML&pageNumber=0&summit= The important point of this tragedy is that now the terrorists have figured out a way to slay huge numbers of the other guys without a bomb and without a conspiracy: one guy could do it and probably wouldn't even get trampled or caught, since he would be at the rear of the stampede. Next time the other guys are having one of their gatherings, such as that exercise where they hurl rocks at the devil (?) I fear someone will begin shouting "He has a bomb! Run for your lives!" That particular exercise already caused numerous deaths by trampling, without anyone deliberately starting it. Terrorists could start fatal stampedes here by offering cheap Apple computers: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/16/computer.frenzy.ap/ We humans are weird apes. spike From kevin at kevinfreels.com Thu Sep 1 15:47:37 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 10:47:37 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] news in perspective References: Message-ID: <004001c5af0c$7afe6d50$0100a8c0@kevin> There's more to it than perspective. First of all, coverage is naturally going to be better where it is easier to cover. There is also the ongoing nature of the tradgedy - The people are still dying. They are starving and dehydrating at this very moment. Sansationalism plays a key - many would expect such a disaster in a 3rd world country, but not in a major metropolitan US city. ANd there is the "tribe" mentality. People are naturally going to be more concerned about there own tribe, therefore US journalists are only naturally going to be more concerned about US tradgedies. There's a lot of thought out there that 3rd world countries choose to be the way they are and that their problems are their own to solve. Personally I was shocked at the lack of coverage in Liberia and our lack of interest, but it's not the fault of the news organizations - it's the people who watch the news. The people who turn it off if they aren;t seeing what they want to see. Combined, these things make it only natural that New Orleans is going to be covered more than the Tsunami. It has nothing to do with "fairness" since there is no such thing. The problem lies in the education of the general population. If people want to talk about fairness, where are Thailand and SIngapore right now and why aren;t they here helping? What are their news organizations covering? What about Asia, Africa, etc? Do you honestly think any of them give a shit? I bet many across the world are laughing. Are they concerned with fairness? Somehow I doubt it. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Samantha Atkins" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 3:25 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] news in perspective > Are we so busy worrying our egos about our or their fairness that we > are not present to the horror or loss of any and/or all deaths? > Evolved primates (probably evolved any old sentient) will feel the > loss most keenly for those of nearest relationship. That would be a > great start if we really felt it, down to the bone, and did not > forget or distract ourselves with side issues. > > > - samantha > > > On Aug 31, 2005, at 11:31 PM, Amara Graps wrote: > > > spike: > > > >> ps The news on in the background as I write. Damn that > >> flood in New Orleans is bad. {8-[ > >> > > > > Yes, it is bad. > > > > And so is the ~1000 people in Baghdad who died on a pilgrimage > > during the time of New Orleans' terrible misfortune. (was that > > reported?) > > > > And so is 200,000 people who died in the tsunami. > > > > Death is bad. And I wish the American media would learn to put > > news in perspective. Even Boing-boing has gone over the top (I > > don't remember them reporting this much after the tsunami for > > example). > > > > 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/ > > ******************************************************************** > > "In my opinion, television validates existence." --Calvin > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 15:51:37 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:51:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] news in perspective In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050901155138.25561.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Amara Graps wrote: > spike: > >ps The news on in the background as I write. Damn that > >flood in New Orleans is bad. {8-[ > > Yes, it is bad. > > And so is the ~1000 people in Baghdad who died on a pilgrimage > during the time of New Orleans' terrible misfortune. (was that > reported?) > > And so is 200,000 people who died in the tsunami. > > Death is bad. And I wish the American media would learn to put > news in perspective. Even Boing-boing has gone over the top (I > don't remember them reporting this much after the tsunami for > example). The mayor of New Orleans expects deaths in the thousands, IN NEW ORLEANS alone. There are hundreds of miles of gulf coast impacted. Some communities simply do not exist anymore, in the Biloxi area specifically (100 dead already in Biloxi, count still going up). Authorities have no idea what the death toll is simply because they are not counting yet in the hardest flooded areas. They aren't even picking up the dead, they are still focused on rescuing the living. They have no idea how many people are dead in their submerged homes, or suffocated in their attics. For millions of people in that area, they are not merely without power or water and living with soggy houses. Most are finding their homes either gone, or still under 3-20 feet of sewage filled water. Their places of work are destroyed. There are 60,000 people stranded in the Superdome stadium in downtown New Orleans without power and are running out of bottled water. There are now 3 million refugees evacuated from New Orleans alone, and the mayor is saying the city will need to remain evacuated for at least another month. Here are some before and after satellite pictures: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/new-orleans-imagery.htm Meanwhile, 8 of the nations major refineries are in that area and are shut down. The two largest pipelines up the east coast are idle. Gas prices went up $0.50 overnight in many areas, even 30 cents here in NH. Experts say gas prices will go over $4.00/gallon. This is going to trigger a national recession, which will have its own slow impact on thousands of lives in deaths, poverty, and family destruction. At the same time, I hear German newspaper Der Spiegel is quoting Environmental Minister Juergen Trittin as saying, in an essay published in the center-left daily Frankfurter Rundschau, the US deserved this for its opposition to the Kyoto treaty. http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/ Fuck Germany. Or at least fuck Trittin. Turns out such comments are to be expected from his ilk. He was apparently a leader of the Central Committee of the Kommunister Bund (a Maoist group) prior to his entryist migration to the Green Party in 1982.http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:ksWYVxrRZU0J:www.mail-archive.com/marxism%40lists.panix.com/msg48585.html+trittin+kbw&hl=de&lr=lang_en But Trittin isn't alone. Suddeutsche Zeitung and Die Tageszeitung, two large-circulation left leaning papers, have echoed the accusations in their own editorials. If the rest of the world were as generous as the US has always been, this: http://www.etherzone.com/2005/sent082905.shtml would be a reality, instead of a sad satire on todays world. To be fair, Canada has stepped up: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/08/31/Canadian_relief_Katrina20050831.html http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20050831_katrina_template_050831/?hub=CTVNewsAt11 Russia has also offered aid: http://www.tass.ru/eng/level2.html?NewsID=2367160&PageNum=0 But according to Blogs of War, there are no other known offers of assistance from other nations: http://www.blogsofwar.com/world_rushes_to_aid_katrinas_victims Other notables: The BP Foundation (founded by British Petroleum) has donated $1 million to the Red Cross for Katrina relief. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail for Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 15:55:28 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:55:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Are dwarfs better for longduration spaceflight?] In-Reply-To: <20050901071834.89005.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050901155528.11417.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > You should have said this first. Mission > specifications mean everything in picking an ideal > crew. If this is the case then an overachieving midget > or a paraplegic person would be ideal. I know of many > amputees capable of walking on their hands. I do not > understand why you think it ought to be woman as upper > body strength especially in a paraplegic might be > important. Women have higher G tolerance, as well as higher tolerance against motion sickness. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From amara at amara.com Thu Sep 1 16:27:02 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:27:02 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: news in perspective Message-ID: Me: > And so is the ~1000 people in Baghdad who died on a pilgrimage > during the time of New Orleans' terrible misfortune. (was that > reported?) > > And so is 200,000 people who died in the tsunami. > Spike: >They did mention it, but didn't really get to the point. OK >The important point of this tragedy is that now the terrorists have >figured out a way to slay huge numbers of the other guys without a >bomb and without a conspiracy: one guy could do it Yes. That is what is so sad now. The 'amplification of fear' factor is practically self-sustaining, and it doesn't take much to bring about a tragedy of this scale. BTW, despite my comment earlier about wishing that the America media put this in perspective, it seems from what I've read today that the economic consequences could be huge. And I don't like seeing people in other governments (e.g. Schroeder) exploiting the New Orleans tragedy in political ways. Nevertheless, I think that that the US government will have a hard time with receiving aid. The view of the US from countries outside has changed alot in the last 4 years. It's hard to help a government that one despises, even though it is the American people themselves, not the government, who will suffer. Here's a bit of 'trivia' that someone pointed me to today, a video, from January, from the PBS program "Nova": http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3204/02.html The video fairly accurately predicted what was going to happen. I wonder why the New Orleans area wasn't better prepared, given that these dangers were so well-known. 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/ ******************************************************************** "When you arise in the morning, think of what a precious privilege it is to be alive--to breathe, to think, to enjoy, to love." ---Marcus Aurelius From jpnitya at verizon.net Thu Sep 1 16:45:01 2005 From: jpnitya at verizon.net (Joao Magalhaes) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 12:45:01 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Caloric restriction benefits limited in humans In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050831114755.01dd8980@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050831114755.01dd8980@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.2.20050901123103.0508d2c0@incoming.verizon.net> A few people have recently come out against the benefits of CR in people, including Aubrey. I'm a bit skeptical myself. I mean, I hope everybody knows that a low calorie diet is healthier while a high calorie diet could lead to obesity, diabetes, etc. That doesn't mean CR will work in people the way it does in mice, which BTW are very short-lived animals and hence the evolutionary forces acting on them to deal with periods of food shortage may be different than in humans because these periods in mice will be a larger proportion of the whole lifespan. My general advice is always that people should take attention to what they eat but don't exaggerate. I expect CR to make people live a little bit longer by decreasing the incidence of a number of diseases, but whether CR will delay aging in people like it does in mice is unlikely. Joao At 12:48 PM 31/8/2005, you wrote: >[Robert Bradbury elsewhere sez:] > >John Phelan and Michael Rose have published an article in >Ageing Research Reviews that indicates that caloric restriction >in humans is probably of marginal benefit. See [1,2]. > >Robert > >1. >http://www.sciencedaily.com/print.php?url=/releases/2005/08/050830065729.htm >2. Phelan JP, Rose MR, "Why dietary restriction substantially increases >longevity >in animal models but won't in humans." Ageing Res Rev. 4(3):339-50 (Aug >2005). >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16046282 > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From eugen at leitl.org Thu Sep 1 16:58:52 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:58:52 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: news in perspective In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050901165852.GW2249@leitl.org> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 06:27:02PM +0200, Amara Graps wrote: > BTW, despite my comment earlier about wishing that the America media > put this in perspective, it seems from what I've read today that the > economic consequences could be huge. And I don't like seeing people Economic consequences? It's just money. No amount of money can bring back dead people. Comments a la "this is our Hiroshima" and "this is our tsunami" and even "this is worse than the tsunami" (that's verbatim) demonstrate a certain provincial arrogance to it. A few thousands people are dead, sure, but this is in no way even the same magnitude: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake#Casualties_in_historical_context It's not important, unless it is ours that are hurting. It's a reporting and empathy bias dwarfing Texas. > in other governments (e.g. Schroeder) exploiting the New Orleans > tragedy in political ways. Nevertheless, I think that that the US He's just capitalizing on the fallout from Kyoto and ShrubCo's past policy. It's not callousness, and definitely not schadenfreude, but there's certainly a more detached view from the distance, and sure lots of lost goodwill. Perceived reporting and (partly unrepentantly offensive) perception bias is of course also not necessarily more endearing. > government will have a hard time with receiving aid. The view of the > US from countries outside has changed alot in the last 4 years. It's > hard to help a government that one despises, even though it is the > American people themselves, not the government, who will suffer. Yep. > Here's a bit of 'trivia' that someone pointed me to today, > a video, from January, from the PBS program "Nova": > > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3204/02.html > > The video fairly accurately predicted what was going to happen. > I wonder why the New Orleans area wasn't better prepared, given > that these dangers were so well-known. Reliable sources say 80% of funding for NO infrastructure budget was cut post 9/11. Another source says the NO mayor is not one of the brightest specimens of humankind -- no idea whether this is true. And of course there's the usual lack of compassion and leadership by the main simian. It's a mix of incompetence, corruption, and good old human stupidity, as usual. I'm reading Diamond's "Collapse" right now, there are plenty of lessons to us in there. Technology is useless, if wielded by idiots. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From user at dhp.com Thu Sep 1 17:15:10 2005 From: user at dhp.com (user) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 13:15:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? Message-ID: The debate over peak oil and its related causes/effects/probabilities has been discussed quite a bit on this list. I am curious if anyone has looked at the likelihood of peak oil simply by observing the actions of the parties that are likely to have the most perfect knowledge of the subject ? I was reading a text on game theory and related subjects recently and was reminded of the notion that (greatly simplified) the closer one suspects one is to the end of the game, the nastier one plays that game. At the same time, I have noticed the US (and others?) playing nastier and nastier at the game of oil politics over the course of my adulthood. Certainly there are localized secrets in the oil industry, but in the macro sense, I think it would be a good bet that the US Govt has the best overall intelligence and knowledge of what is really happening in the world. Combine those two, and perhaps you have some good (albeit indirect) evidence that peak oil is coming. Or at least that our leaders think it is. Before you respond, please note that I actually have no opinion on peak oil - I have digested many good arguments on either side, and have resigned myself to "further study" - as much as it can be said that someone has no prejudice on a particular subject, I will claim that for myself in relation to peak oil. With that in mind ... comments ? From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 17:23:12 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 10:23:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway Message-ID: <20050901172312.84734.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technovel_darpa_lasers_050830.html The HELLADS is intended to be mountable on tactical aircraft, a Hummer, or UCAVs and offer performance of 5 kg/kW weapon weight with 150 kW beam energy. So it should come in at about 750 lbs in a design useful on the battlefield Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 18:12:05 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:12:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] re: news in perspective In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050901181205.50729.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Amara Graps wrote: > > BTW, despite my comment earlier about wishing that the America media > put this in perspective, it seems from what I've read today that the > economic consequences could be huge. And I don't like seeing people > in other governments (e.g. Schroeder) exploiting the New Orleans > tragedy in political ways. Nevertheless, I think that that the US > government will have a hard time with receiving aid. The view of the > US from countries outside has changed alot in the last 4 years. It's > hard to help a government that one despises, even though it is the > American people themselves, not the government, who will suffer. America sent millions to Iran after the Bam earthquakes. We spent billions on the USSR helping them defend against Germany, then at the height of the cold war we gave food aid. We gave lots of food aid to North Korea. Many Americans send aid to Cuba. Americans seem to have little problem differentiating the misery of people in other nations from the despicability of their governments. Would that the rest of the world were so noble. I would suggest looking to David's Medienkritik blog: http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/ for objective european analysis of european left wing media irrationality. > > Here's a bit of 'trivia' that someone pointed me to today, > a video, from January, from the PBS program "Nova": > > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3204/02.html > > The video fairly accurately predicted what was going to happen. > I wonder why the New Orleans area wasn't better prepared, given > that these dangers were so well-known. New Orleans has been getting cuts in federal flood control funds since the Clinton administration. Clinton said that flooding is a local problem to be solved by local funding. The problem with New Orleans is that it has been a democrat controlled city intent on spending, - wasting -, millions of dollars on frivolous anti-gun lawsuits against gun makers for the crimes of criminals, and millions on welfare programs and bread and circuses, while ignoring its responsibilities to its citizens need for flood control. The Army Corps of Engineers isn't much better. Since it built the original levee system, it has been bogged down by environmentalist imposed wetlands protection mandates that have been abused by many land owners. This: http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/Trans/hpw104-13.000/hpw104-13_4.HTM reflects congressional testimony from 1995 on how the "404 System" is abused by property owners who don't want development and want to interfere in their neighbors. The Corps has become the de facto property police, judge, and jury for the entire delta area and has many millions a year wasted on these frivolous legal actions that wind up costing property owners lots of legal costs as well. It also turns out that environmentalists have been blocking levee modernization as well as Corps construction of a Hurricane Barrier that would have prevented this disaster. Specifically, SOWL, Save Our Wetlands, sued (http://saveourwetlands.org/edenislehistory.htm#lemieux2) to prevent the construction of the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Barrier Project. So you can put the blame for this on the loony left, once again. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From astapp at amazeent.com Thu Sep 1 18:51:35 2005 From: astapp at amazeent.com (Acy James Stapp) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:51:35 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: news in perspective Message-ID: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE056D6863@amazemail2.amazeent.com> Don't forget that the disappearing wetlands serve as a natural buffer against hurricanes by soaking up storm surge. According to http://hurricane.lsu.edu/_in_the_news/phillyinquirer100804.htm four miles of marsh can absorb a foot of storm surge. Katrina had an estimated 20ft surge. =================================================== Mike Lorrey wrote: The Army Corps of Engineers isn't much better. Since it built the original levee system, it has been bogged down by environmentalist imposed wetlands protection mandates that have been abused by many land owners. This: http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/Trans/hpw104-13.000/hpw104-13_4.HTM reflects congressional testimony from 1995 on how the "404 System" is abused by property owners who don't want development and want to interfere in their neighbors. The Corps has become the de facto property police, judge, and jury for the entire delta area and has many millions a year wasted on these frivolous legal actions that wind up costing property owners lots of legal costs as well. It also turns out that environmentalists have been blocking levee modernization as well as Corps construction of a Hurricane Barrier that would have prevented this disaster. Specifically, SOWL, Save Our Wetlands, sued (http://saveourwetlands.org/edenislehistory.htm#lemieux2) to prevent the construction of the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Barrier Project. So you can put the blame for this on the loony left, once again. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 19:44:28 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 12:44:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Towards Higher Quality, was: ping - please ignore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050901194429.99010.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I for one miss the old Extropy magazine, both the print and online versions. They gave an outlet for high quality, in depth, well reasoned articles by extropic writers for like-minded to keep abreast of the movement without having to wade through a lot of diluted pap and sniping on email lists. Rather than an 'extropy-great' list, I'd suggest instead that we form a committee moderated blog that folks can forward posts and articles of interest to, people can comment on, trackback, etc. etc. and move ExI technology forward. Email lists are getting so last century. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Sep 1 20:03:11 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 13:03:11 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: news in perspective In-Reply-To: <20050901165852.GW2249@leitl.org> References: <20050901165852.GW2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Sep 1, 2005, at 9:58 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 06:27:02PM +0200, Amara Graps wrote: > > >> BTW, despite my comment earlier about wishing that the America media >> put this in perspective, it seems from what I've read today that the >> economic consequences could be huge. And I don't like seeing people >> > > Economic consequences? It's just money. No amount of money can bring > back dead people. This is surely not the point. There are many severe weaknesses in the US economic situation. I would give an 80% probability of an economic downturn worse than 1987 in the next year. I would give 90% odds of an economic downturn of more than Great Depression magnitude before 2010. This level of economic event can cause very major disruption of all of our plans, dreams and hopes and ruin millions of lives. Major economic crises also can lead to major wars. This is not "just money" or in the least unimportant. Economic chaos of sufficient magnitude leads to a lot more dead people. - samantha From eugen at leitl.org Thu Sep 1 20:53:03 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 22:53:03 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: news in perspective In-Reply-To: References: <20050901165852.GW2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20050901205303.GB2249@leitl.org> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 01:03:11PM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: > This is surely not the point. There are many severe weaknesses in > the US economic situation. I would give an 80% probability of an I don't know what's going to happen, but if anything Big Bad happens it won't be because of a mere hurricane wreck. It would be but a trigger. I'm really recommending Jared Diamond's "Collapse". It's very pop science, and there are purportedly much better books, but this doesn't mean it doesn't contain applicable meta level diagnostics and algorithms. > economic downturn worse than 1987 in the next year. I would give 90% > odds of an economic downturn of more than Great Depression magnitude > before 2010. This level of economic event can cause very major > disruption of all of our plans, dreams and hopes and ruin millions of I much agree that We're Having Problems, which at best are delaying things considerably already. What do we do about it, though? We here, on this list? I can't see anything useful beyond personal scope plans. Being part of a solution catalyst would mean succeeding beyond the wildest dreams. > lives. Major economic crises also can lead to major wars. This is > not "just money" or in the least unimportant. Economic chaos of > sufficient magnitude leads to a lot more dead people. Military conflicts is both a cause of collapse and a terminal diagnostic. Many things must be already have gone to the crapper before resource distribution wars break out, and when they do the curtain is soon to follow. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 22:24:10 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:24:10 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: <20050901172312.84734.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050901172312.84734.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/1/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technovel_darpa_lasers_050830.html > > The HELLADS is intended to be mountable on tactical aircraft, a Hummer, > or UCAVs and offer performance of 5 kg/kW weapon weight with 150 kW > beam energy. So it should come in at about 750 lbs in a design useful > on the battlefield > Better hope the enemy doesn't catch on to wrapping their mortar rounds etc in carbon fibre mat. I've seen lasers with a higher power density than that stopped dead by it. Makes a pretty light, though, as it re-radiates. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 22:40:19 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:40:19 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: news in perspective In-Reply-To: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE056D6863@amazemail2.amazeent.com> References: <725F1C117A3EF440A4190D786B8053FE056D6863@amazemail2.amazeent.com> Message-ID: On 9/1/05, Acy James Stapp wrote: > Don't forget that the disappearing wetlands serve as a natural > buffer against hurricanes by soaking up storm surge. According to > http://hurricane.lsu.edu/_in_the_news/phillyinquirer100804.htm > four miles of marsh can absorb a foot of storm surge. Katrina > had an estimated 20ft surge. > See: New Orleans disaster serves up a tough lesson on environment Twice in eight months, Nature has given Man a brutal lesson about the cost of disrespect. Last December 26, beachfront resorts in Thailand were swept away by a tsunami that could have been tamed if developers had not destroyed coral reefs and ripped up mangroves, a natural bulwark against killer waves. On August 29, Hurricane Katrina swamped New Orleans, a city built below sealevel, sustained by a complex system of dams and whose buffer against storm surges, the wetlands of the Mississippi Delta, had been eroded by reckless development. --------------------------------- Rather than blame everything (even bad weather!) on those evil left wing pinko communists, it looks to me as though rampant free market developers are far more to blame. Making as much money as they can while destroying 'the commons'. BillK From hal at finney.org Thu Sep 1 22:21:19 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 15:21:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? Message-ID: <20050901222119.A1DC057EF5@finney.org> user writes: > The debate over peak oil and its related causes/effects/probabilities has > been discussed quite a bit on this list. I am curious if anyone has > looked at the likelihood of peak oil simply by observing the actions of > the parties that are likely to have the most perfect knowledge of the > subject ? Sure, in fact that is one of the strongest arguments against Peak Oil. Who are the insiders who would know if we were about to peak in oil production? Well, how about the oil companies? They should have plenty of inside information. What would you do if you owned an oil well and knew that the world was about to hit a supply/demand crunch in oil? Wouldn't that imply that oil prices are likely to shoot up incredibly high? There was a widely discussed article in the New York Times last week where Peak Oil analyst Matthew Simpson bet that oil would hit $200/barrel by 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/opinion/23tierney.html or http://www.iht.com/protected/articles/2005/08/23/opinion/edtierney.php If you were an insider and knew that oil was going to be worth that much in a few years, why would you be pumping for all you were worth and selling it today for $70/barrel? That doesn't make sense. It would be more profitable to reduce your pumping to the minimum necessary to cover expenses, and to keep it in the ground until the oil is far more valuable than it is today. The thing is, we don't see that. Insiders act as if they believe that today's oil prices are the best they will see in a while. They are pumping and selling oil as fast as they can. And it's not just oil producers. The speculators and hedgers acting in the futures market see the same thing. You can buy a contract today for oil to be delivered in 2010 and lock in a price. What do you think that price is? It's not $200, and it's not $100. It's not even today's price of $70 or so. It's more like $62/barrel, considerably LOWER than today's prices. You can lock in that price today and protect yourself against any price rises between now and 2010. If insiders knew that these prices were unrealistic, they could take positions in the futures market and make enormous profits in a few years. But by their actions they would drive up the prices of the futures contracts, and we don't see that. If you look at Peak Oil websites they have a lot of statistics and evidence for why the peak is just around the corner. It makes for a pretty impressive sounding case. But they don't have a good answer IMO for why all these facts and figures are unconvincing to people who are in the business and people who are investing money based on expectations of future prices. If these facts were really as convincing as Peak Oilers claim them to be, the markets wouldn't be behaving as they are. Insiders and market experts would be convinced, just as the Peak Oil enthusiasts have been, and we would see the kinds of high prices that Matt Simmons bet on. The fact that we don't see this behavior means that insiders don't believe in Peak Oil. To me, that is the strongest argument against that scenario. Hal Finney From robgobblin at aol.com Thu Sep 1 23:20:45 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 13:20:45 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050901222119.A1DC057EF5@finney.org> References: <20050901222119.A1DC057EF5@finney.org> Message-ID: <43178CCD.7020107@aol.com> Hal Finney wrote: >Sure, in fact that is one of the strongest arguments against Peak Oil. >Who are the insiders who would know if we were about to peak in oil >production? Well, how about the oil companies? They should have plenty >of inside information. > > Speaking of which, wouldn't that be a good reason to start a more aggressive set of policies in the middle east and Venezuela? Wouldn't that simultaneously be a good impetus for building ethanol plants domestically? Both of which are happening in abundance. >What would you do if you owned an oil well and knew that the world was >about to hit a supply/demand crunch in oil? Wouldn't that imply that >oil prices are likely to shoot up incredibly high? > Aren't they? >If insiders knew that these prices were unrealistic, they could take >positions in the futures market and make enormous profits in a few years. >But by their actions they would drive up the prices of the futures >contracts, and we don't see that. > > Gamblers take both sides, they're smarter than you think. > >The fact that we don't see this behavior means that insiders don't believe >in Peak Oil. To me, that is the strongest argument against that scenario. > > It is -just common sense-. Oil is not renewing itself, there are no new supplies. The supply -will- dwindle. When is an open question. It shouldn't be regarded as suprising that our "easily accessible" wells are finite in size, should it? Robbie Lindauer From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 23:22:13 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:22:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050901232214.96715.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > On 9/1/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technovel_darpa_lasers_050830.html > > > > The HELLADS is intended to be mountable on tactical aircraft, a > Hummer, > > or UCAVs and offer performance of 5 kg/kW weapon weight with 150 kW > > beam energy. So it should come in at about 750 lbs in a design > useful > > on the battlefield > > > > Better hope the enemy doesn't catch on to wrapping their mortar > rounds etc in carbon fibre mat. > I've seen lasers with a higher power density than that stopped dead > by it. Makes a pretty light, though, as it re-radiates. I'm sure, though I'm not too sure that the mat doesn't abrade the bore of the mortar. Even so, if it gives off that much heat, radiating the laser energy, it should be easily targetable by a perimter defense phalanx gun with a FLIR seeker. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Sep 1 23:26:23 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:26:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] re: news in perspective In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050901232623.73761.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- BillK wrote: > Twice in eight months, Nature has given Man a brutal lesson about the > cost of disrespect. Last December 26, beachfront resorts in Thailand > were swept away by a tsunami that could have been tamed if developers > had not destroyed coral reefs and ripped up mangroves, a natural > bulwark against killer waves. > > On August 29, Hurricane Katrina swamped New Orleans, a city built > below sealevel, sustained by a complex system of dams and whose > buffer > against storm surges, the wetlands of the Mississippi Delta, had been > eroded by reckless development. > > > --------------------------------- > > Rather than blame everything (even bad weather!) on those evil left > wing pinko communists, it looks to me as though rampant free market > developers are far more to blame. Making as much money as they can > while destroying 'the commons'. NO didn't get flooded from the delta side, they were flooded from Lake Ponchartrain, which has an open outlet to the sea through which the storm surge came. It was environmentalist opposition to building a conventional hurricane barrier, like Dutch engineers have advised for years, that was the cause. Claims about wetlands protecting NO are only true in that the storm surge did not come from the delta side of town, it came from lakeside, upon which NO has always been on the shoreline of. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 23:50:04 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 00:50:04 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: <20050901232214.96715.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050901232214.96715.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/2/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > On 9/1/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technovel_darpa_lasers_050830.html > > > > > > The HELLADS is intended to be mountable on tactical aircraft, a > > Hummer, > > > or UCAVs and offer performance of 5 kg/kW weapon weight with 150 kW > > > beam energy. So it should come in at about 750 lbs in a design > > useful > > > on the battlefield > > > > > > > Better hope the enemy doesn't catch on to wrapping their mortar > > rounds etc in carbon fibre mat. > > I've seen lasers with a higher power density than that stopped dead > > by it. Makes a pretty light, though, as it re-radiates. > > I'm sure, though I'm not too sure that the mat doesn't abrade the bore > of the mortar. Even so, if it gives off that much heat, radiating the > laser energy, it should be easily targetable by a perimter defense > phalanx gun with a FLIR seeker. > Well, mortar rounds are already quite trackable by radar so using a HEL to illuminate them seems a bit redundant. IIRC the US and Israel were talking of deploying a similar system to hit katyusha rockets fired at settlements. haven't heard much since about it though. Problem is that hardening munitions against laser energy is relatively easy. Maybe all hamas/Hezbollah would have to do is either polish the rockets or coat them in sawdust/glue. There is not an infinitely long time window in which to down these things. I suspect that the reason it's being deployed on aircraft is to zap MANPADS like Stinger that rely on delicate sensors so more low level flying can be undertaken in places like Afghanistan. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 00:27:26 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:27:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] re: news in perspective In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050902002726.99228.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> --- Amara Graps wrote: > Here's a bit of 'trivia' that someone pointed me to > today, > a video, from January, from the PBS program "Nova": > > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3204/02.html > > The video fairly accurately predicted what was going > to happen. > I wonder why the New Orleans area wasn't better > prepared, given > that these dangers were so well-known. Because when the solutions to dangerous problems are difficult to implement, we are reluctant to solve them and instead, we simply live in denial of the danger. "hmmm. . . is that smoke coming from Vesuvius? Well I don't have time to worry about that now, I must get my sapho to market." - Castigus of Pompei. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Sep 2 00:38:11 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:38:11 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: news in perspective In-Reply-To: <20050901205303.GB2249@leitl.org> References: <20050901165852.GW2249@leitl.org> <20050901205303.GB2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Sep 1, 2005, at 1:53 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 01:03:11PM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > >> This is surely not the point. There are many severe weaknesses in >> the US economic situation. I would give an 80% probability of an >> > > I don't know what's going to happen, but if anything Big Bad happens > it won't be because of a mere hurricane wreck. It would be but a > trigger. I have a pretty good idea of what is likely but of course I can't say how far the repercussions of this particular event will extend. At the least I suspect it will wake people up to several vulnerabilities that have been largely ignored for too long. > > I'm really recommending Jared Diamond's "Collapse". It's very pop > science, and > there are purportedly much better books, but this doesn't mean it > doesn't > contain applicable meta level diagnostics and algorithms. > I read through most of this. It is a good book but I was disappointed by the ending. His models seem to traditional and static to apply without considerable rework in these accelerating times. I didn't see a lot of room to account for truly disruptive technologies. > >> economic downturn worse than 1987 in the next year. I would give 90% >> odds of an economic downturn of more than Great Depression magnitude >> before 2010. This level of economic event can cause very major >> disruption of all of our plans, dreams and hopes and ruin millions of >> > > I much agree that We're Having Problems, which at best are delaying > things > considerably already. What do we do about it, though? We here, on > this list? I can't see anything useful beyond personal scope plans. Yeah. Personal scope plans and what can be done to keep our dreams alive and moving forward even in the face of major crap hitting the fan would be good to discuss. In between the sky is falling and forced optimism even unto denial is planning to the degree we can for various possible scenarios. Another very important thing is how we personally keep our spirits up and our dreams alive and working toward realization regardless of what comes or seems likely to come. > Being part of a solution catalyst would mean succeeding beyond the > wildest > dreams. > Hey, I think there are some pretty wild dreams around here! But yeah, it seems it would take something the size of MNT or perhaps successful capture and mining of an asteroid or two to turn some of this around. - samantha From abeck at berklee.net Fri Sep 2 01:15:37 2005 From: abeck at berklee.net (Andrew Beck) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 21:15:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? Message-ID: <2583795.1125623737536.JavaMail.root@ccprodapp12> >If you were an insider and knew that oil was going to be worth that much >in a few years, why would you be pumping for all you were worth and >selling it today for $70/barrel? That doesn't make sense. It would >be more profitable to reduce your pumping to the minimum necessary to >cover expenses, and to keep it in the ground until the oil is far more >valuable than it is today. The thing about the peak oil debate is that it doesn't take the oil to be nearly gone for it to shoot through the roof in price, just a small decline in oil supply will make the price go way up because of people's complete reliance on oil and refusal to comprimise their easy living. Case in point in the 70s when the supply dropped 5% prices shot up 400%. So all that will make the price of oil shoot up is when the supply slows down a bit. The reserves should still be at least halfway full at that point, so now quanitity is good and won't comprimise the oil companies reserves when the supply is running out. Also I don't think anybody except oil execuatives are in a position to say if they are storing a few wells for a rainy day. From robgobblin at aol.com Fri Sep 2 01:22:50 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 15:22:50 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <2583795.1125623737536.JavaMail.root@ccprodapp12> References: <2583795.1125623737536.JavaMail.root@ccprodapp12> Message-ID: <4317A96A.6070800@aol.com> A green point here: If everyone had their own ethanol still it wouldn't be half the problem it is now - and there wouldn't be the polution problem either. Robbie Andrew Beck wrote: >>If you were an insider and knew that oil was going to be worth that much >>in a few years, why would you be pumping for all you were worth and >>selling it today for $70/barrel? That doesn't make sense. It would >>be more profitable to reduce your pumping to the minimum necessary to >>cover expenses, and to keep it in the ground until the oil is far more >>valuable than it is today. >> >> > >The thing about the peak oil debate is that it doesn't take the oil to be nearly gone for it to shoot through the roof in price, just a small decline in oil supply will make the price go way up because of people's complete reliance on oil and refusal to comprimise their easy living. Case in point in the 70s when the supply dropped 5% prices shot up 400%. So all that will make the price of oil shoot up is when the supply slows down a bit. The reserves should still be at least halfway full at that point, so now quanitity is good and won't comprimise the oil companies reserves when the supply is running out. > >Also I don't think anybody except oil execuatives are in a position to say if they are storing a few wells for a rainy day. >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Sep 2 01:30:55 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 20:30:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need Message-ID: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> Is it my imagination or is someone bumbling this entire rescue effort in New Orleans? I cannot believe for a second that FEMA just found out this morning that thousands of people were at the convention center and 8 hours later the best they could do was a single Blackhawk helicopter with bottled water. This is 4 days after this event. I am certain there are supplies all around that area just waiting to get to people. Why aren't there C130s flying out of Baton Rouge dropping water and MREs? Where is the command and control center? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fauxever at sprynet.com Fri Sep 2 01:40:43 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:40:43 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need References: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <002201c5af5f$558c7730$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: kevinfreels.com Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 6:30 PM > Is it my imagination or is someone bumbling this entire rescue effort in New Orleans? Yes, bumbling. I was thinking the same thing a couple of days ago, and things have only gotten worse: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/12537476.htm New Orleans in Anarchy With Fights, Rapes By ALLEN G. BREED, Associated Press Writer 40 minutes ago NEW ORLEANS - New Orleans descended into anarchy Thursday, as corpses lay abandoned in street medians, fights and fires broke out and storm survivors battled for seats on the buses that would carry them away from the chaos. The tired and hungry seethed, saying they had been forsaken. "This is a desperate SOS," mayor Ray Nagin said. "We are out here like pure animals," the Rev. Issac Clark said outside the New Orleans Convention Center, where he and other evacuees had been waiting for buses for days amid the filth and the dead. "I'm not sure I'm going to get out of here alive," said tourist Larry Mitzel of Saskatoon, Canada, who handed a reporter his business card in case he goes missing. "I'm scared of riots. I'm scared of the locals. We might get caught in the crossfire." Four days after Hurricane Katrina roared in with a devastating blow that inflicted potentially thousands of deaths, the frustration, fear and anger mounted, despite the promise of 1,400 National Guardsmen a day to stop the looting, plans for a $10 billion recovery bill in Congress and a government relief effort President Bush called the biggest in U.S. history. New Orleans' top emergency management official called that effort a "national disgrace" and questioned when reinforcements would actually reach the increasingly lawless city. About 15,000 to 20,000 people who had taken shelter at New Orleans convention center grew increasingly hostile after waiting for buses for days amid the filth and the dead. Police Chief Eddie Compass said he sent in 88 officers to quell the situation at the building, but they were quickly driven back by an angry mob. "We have individuals who are getting raped, we have individuals who are getting beaten," Compass said. "Tourists are walking in that direction and they are getting preyed upon." A military helicopter tried to land at the convention center several times to drop off food and water. But the rushing crowd forced the choppers to back off. Troopers then tossed the supplies to the crowd from 10 feet off the ground and flew away. In hopes of defusing the situation at the convention center, Mayor Ray Nagin gave the refugees permission to march across a bridge to the city's unflooded west bank for whatever relief they could find. But the bedlam made that difficult. "This is a desperate SOS," Nagin said in a statement. "Right now we are out of resources at the convention center and don't anticipate enough buses." At least seven bodies were scattered outside the convention center, a makeshift staging area for those rescued from rooftops, attics and highways. The sidewalks were packed with people without food, water or medical care, and with no sign of law enforcement. An old man in a chaise lounge lay dead in a grassy median as hungry babies wailed around him. Around the corner, an elderly woman lay dead in her wheelchair, covered up by a blanket, and another body lay beside her wrapped in a sheet. "I don't treat my dog like that," 47-year-old Daniel Edwards said as he pointed at the woman in the wheelchair. "You can do everything for other countries, but you can't do nothing for your own people," he added. "You can go overseas with the military, but you can't get them down here." The street outside the center, above the floodwaters, smelled of urine and feces, and was choked with dirty diapers, old bottles and garbage. "They've been teasing us with buses for four days," Edwards said. "They're telling us they're going to come get us one day, and then they don't show up." Every so often, an armored state police vehicle cruised in front of the convention center with four or five officers in riot gear with automatic weapons. But there was no sign of help from the National Guard. At one point the crowd began to chant "We want help! We want help!" Later, a woman, screaming, went on the front steps of the convention center and led the crowd in reciting the 23rd Psalm, "The Lord is my shepherd ..." "We are out here like pure animals," the Issac Clark said. "We've got people dying out here _ two babies have died, a woman died, a man died," said Helen Cheek. "We haven't had no food, we haven't had no water, we haven't had nothing. They just brought us here and dropped us." Tourist Debbie Durso of Washington, Mich., said she asked a police officer for assistance and his response was, "'Go to hell _ it's every man for himself.'" "This is just insanity," she said. "We have no food, no water ... all these trucks and buses go by and they do nothing but wave." At the hot and stinking Superdome, where 30,000 were being evacuated by bus to the Houston Astrodome, fistfights and fires erupted amid a seething sea of tense, suffering people who waited in a lines that stretched a half-mile to board yellow school buses. After a traffic jam kept buses from arriving for nearly four hours, a near-riot broke out in the scramble to get on the buses that finally did show up, with a group of refugees breaking through a line of heavily armed National Guardsmen. One military policeman was shot in the leg as he and a man scuffled for the MP's rifle, police Capt. Ernie Demmo said. The man was arrested. Some of those among the mostly poor crowd had been in the dome for four days without air conditioning, working toilets or a place to bathe. An ambulance service airlifting the sick and injured out of the Superdome suspended flights as too dangerous after it was reported that a bullet was fired at a military helicopter. "If they're just taking us anywhere, just anywhere, I say praise God," said refugee John Phillip. "Nothing could be worse than what we've been through." By Thursday evening, 11 hours after the military began evacuating the Superdome, the arena held 10,000 more people than it did at dawn. National Guard Capt. John Pollard said evacuees from around the city poured into the Superdome and swelled the crowd to about 30,000 because they believed the arena was the best place to get a ride out of town. As he watched a line snaking for blocks through ankle-deep waters, New Orleans' emergency operations chief Terry Ebbert blamed the inadequate response on the Federal Emergency Management Agency. "This is not a FEMA operation. I haven't seen a single FEMA guy," he said. He added: "We can send massive amounts of aid to tsunami victims, but we can't bail out the city of New Orleans." FEMA officials said some operations had to be suspended in areas where gunfire has broken out. A day after Nagin took 1,500 police officers off search-and-rescue duty to try to restore order in the streets, there were continued reports of looting, shootings, gunfire and carjackings _ and not all the crimes were driven by greed. When some hospitals try to airlift patients, Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Cheri Ben-Iesan said, "there are people just taking potshots at police and at helicopters, telling them, `You better come get my family.'" Outside a looted Rite-Aid drugstore, some people were anxious to show they needed what they were taking. A gray-haired man who would not give his name pulled up his T-shirt to show a surgery scar and explained that he needs pads for incontinence. "I'm a Christian. I feel bad going in there," he said. Earl Baker carried toothpaste, toothbrushes and deodorant. "Look, I'm only getting necessities," he said. "All of this is personal hygiene. I ain't getting nothing to get drunk or high with." While floodwaters in the city appeared to stabilize, efforts continued to plug three breaches that had opened up in the levee system that protects this below-sea-level city. Helicopters dropped sandbags into the breach and pilings were being pounded into the mouth of the canal Thursday to close its connection to Lake Pontchartrain, state Transportation Secretary Johnny Bradberry said. He said contractors had completed building a rock road to let heavy equipment roll to the area by midnight. The next step called for using about 250 concrete road barriers to seal the gap. In Washington, the White House said Bush will tour the devastated Gulf Coast region on Friday and has asked his father, former President George H.W. Bush, and former President Clinton to lead a private fund-raising campaign for victims. The president urged a crackdown on the lawlessness. "I think there ought to be zero tolerance of people breaking the law during an emergency such as this _ whether it be looting, or price gouging at the gasoline pump, or taking advantage of charitable giving or insurance fraud," Bush said. "And I've made that clear to our attorney general. The citizens ought to be working together." Donald Dudley, a 55-year-old New Orleans seafood merchant, complained that when he and other hungry refugees broke into the kitchen of the convention center and tried to prepare food, the National Guard chased them away. "They pulled guns and told us we had to leave that kitchen or they would blow our damn brains out," he said. "We don't want their help. Give us some vehicles and we'll get ourselves out of here!" ____ Associated Press reporters Adam Nossiter, Brett Martel, Robert Tanner and Mary Foster contributed to this report. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fauxever at sprynet.com Fri Sep 2 01:46:57 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:46:57 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need References: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <001901c5af60$3465b890$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: kevinfreels.com Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 6:30 PM > Why aren't there C130s flying out of Baton Rouge dropping water and MREs? Where is the command and control center? Iraq has taken a lot of our resources, hasn't it? Iraq even thinned the ranks of our National Guard ... they are supposed to be here - not in Iraq - in case of national emergencies. I have a first cousin (with a husband and son) who has been living in Metarie - just outside of New Orleans - for over a decade. I sent her an email - hoping she will be an an internet cafe somewhere sometime - and haven't heard back from her yet. Olga -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dgc at cox.net Fri Sep 2 01:53:32 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 21:53:32 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <4317B09C.3090502@cox.net> kevinfreels.com wrote: > > Is it my imagination or is someone bumbling this entire rescue effort > in New Orleans? I cannot believe for a second that FEMA just found out > this morning that thousands of people were at the convention center > and 8 hours later the best they could do was a single Blackhawk > helicopter with bottled water. This is 4 days after this event. I am > certain there are supplies all around that area just waiting to get to > people. Why aren't there C130s flying out of Baton Rouge dropping > water and MREs? Where is the command and control center? Indeed. This disaster is very different from the tsunami in the Indian Ocean. The Tsunami was an unpredicted event of very low probability in an area with a sparse logistical base. Pre-planning for such events must be generalized and non-specific. By contrast, a hurricane-induced break in New Orleans' levees was predictable, predicted, and evaluated as the most likely major disaster in the US. Humans need a gallon of drinking water a day, plus some washing water. Just how hard is it to commandeer all the water trucks in the towns along the Lower Mississippi river, place hen in barges, and send the to New Orleans? In my (rich) neighborhood, there are several companies that have such trucks. Each truck has a 7000-gallon tank. the trucks are used to fill swimming pools. 20 trucks a day will support 140,000 people. A single tow-boat per day can trivially handle enough barges to carry the food and water for 100,000 people. What astounded me was the inattention the press gave to the levees. The press did their hurricane thing, looking at the "standard" hurricane damage in Biloxi and Gulfport,and they thought New Orleans was the same. The canal levee was breached on Monday afternoon,and the press ignored it until noon on Tuesday. The breach was the most important part of the story, and anyone with the sense god gave a grasshopper should have known it (with <10 minutes of research) at the time Katrina first turned north in the gulf. I sure did. If I knew it, the governor of Louisiana should have known it. When the Mayor (correctly and courageously) ordered the evacuation and estimated that 100,000 would be left behind, the governor should have commandeered the water trucks and ordered them filled. Of course, someone should also have recommended that everyone remaining in New Orleans fill their bathtubs with double layered 30-gallon garbage bags full of water, and everyone should have placed all dry food into double garbage bags, but that's too simple. I guess. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 02:28:10 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:28:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050902022810.76869.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > On 9/2/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > > On 9/1/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technovel_darpa_lasers_050830.html > > > > > > > > The HELLADS is intended to be mountable on tactical aircraft, a > > > Hummer, > > > > or UCAVs and offer performance of 5 kg/kW weapon weight with > 150 kW > > > > beam energy. So it should come in at about 750 lbs in a design > > > useful > > > > on the battlefield > > > > > > > > > > Better hope the enemy doesn't catch on to wrapping their mortar > > > rounds etc in carbon fibre mat. > > > I've seen lasers with a higher power density than that stopped > dead > > > by it. Makes a pretty light, though, as it re-radiates. > > > > I'm sure, though I'm not too sure that the mat doesn't abrade the > bore > > of the mortar. Even so, if it gives off that much heat, radiating > the > > laser energy, it should be easily targetable by a perimter defense > > phalanx gun with a FLIR seeker. > > > > Well, mortar rounds are already quite trackable by radar so using a > HEL to illuminate them seems a bit redundant. Hardly. A radar itself can be homed in on with an anti-radiation missile or other weapon. A FLIR is passive, and thus a better sensor, just as passive sonar is more secure than active sonar. > IIRC the US and Israel were talking of deploying a similar system to > hit katyusha rockets fired at settlements. haven't heard much since > about it though. > Problem is that hardening munitions against laser energy is > relatively easy. > Maybe all hamas/Hezbollah would have to do is either polish the > rockets or > coat them in sawdust/glue. There is not an infinitely long time > window in which to down these things. > > I suspect that the reason it's being deployed on aircraft is to zap > MANPADS > like Stinger that rely on delicate sensors so more low level flying > can be undertaken in places like Afghanistan. Actually, the THEL has been tested against katyushas. And despite the claims of the disparagers, polishing or sawdust and glue doesn't do anything to protect against a high energy laser. Its all well and good to talk about it, but proving it is another thing. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Sep 2 02:32:34 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:32:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <4317B09C.3090502@cox.net> References: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> <4317B09C.3090502@cox.net> Message-ID: <93F82E16-27B2-4DFC-86F3-57977FD1ACCC@mac.com> What would be needed to purify some of the water the people have all too much of for drinking purposes? What were all those scary powers given to FEMA for if they accomplish so very little in an actual emergency? Who wouldn't loot at least food stores after days of exposure, hunger, thirst and appalling very dangerous conditions? How is it more important to deal really harshly with looters than to end these deplorable conditions giving rise to these behaviors as quickly as possible? I don't understand this. In case of real emergency or disaster I now feel much less safe. - samantha From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 02:37:09 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:37:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <4317A96A.6070800@aol.com> Message-ID: <20050902023709.43132.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> On the contrary, and contrary to the Green agrarian mythology, putting the burden on the agricultural system means much more farmland put under plow, and much more forest re-re-claimed for farmland, means ecological devastation. It is farmland that destroys wildlife habitat. VT and NH were once 90% farmland for only two things: a) to grow hay for all the horses in New York City and Boston, and b) to grow sheep for wool for keeping NYers and Beantowners warm in those cold cold winters of the late 19th century when we were headed into an ice age. Today it is reversed: VT and NH are 90% forest, we have more wildlife than before the europeans came here, and NY and Boston are not hip deep in horseshit, disease, and stink. Insisting on agri-ethanol will push us back to a 19th century economy and ecological devastation. Anyone who advocates it is a luddite who knows not what they ask for. Besides all that, all the distillery mash will release much more methane into the atmosphere. Scientists had thought methane was six times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. A report just came out that its actually 12 times more powerful. --- Robert Lindauer wrote: > A green point here: > > If everyone had their own ethanol still it wouldn't be half the > problem > it is now - and there wouldn't be the polution problem either. > > Robbie > > > Andrew Beck wrote: > > >>If you were an insider and knew that oil was going to be worth that > much > >>in a few years, why would you be pumping for all you were worth and > >>selling it today for $70/barrel? That doesn't make sense. It > would > >>be more profitable to reduce your pumping to the minimum necessary > to > >>cover expenses, and to keep it in the ground until the oil is far > more > >>valuable than it is today. > >> > >> > > > >The thing about the peak oil debate is that it doesn't take the oil > to be nearly gone for it to shoot through the roof in price, just a > small decline in oil supply will make the price go way up because of > people's complete reliance on oil and refusal to comprimise their > easy living. Case in point in the 70s when the supply dropped 5% > prices shot up 400%. So all that will make the price of oil shoot up > is when the supply slows down a bit. The reserves should still be at > least halfway full at that point, so now quanitity is good and won't > comprimise the oil companies reserves when the supply is running out. > > > >Also I don't think anybody except oil execuatives are in a position > to say if they are storing a few wells for a rainy day. > >_______________________________________________ > >extropy-chat mailing list > >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 02:37:36 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 03:37:36 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: <20050902022810.76869.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050902022810.76869.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/2/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > On 9/2/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > > > > On 9/1/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > > http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technovel_darpa_lasers_050830.html > > > > > > > > > > The HELLADS is intended to be mountable on tactical aircraft, a > > > > Hummer, > > > > > or UCAVs and offer performance of 5 kg/kW weapon weight with > > 150 kW > > > > > beam energy. So it should come in at about 750 lbs in a design > > > > useful > > > > > on the battlefield > > > > > > > > > > > > > Better hope the enemy doesn't catch on to wrapping their mortar > > > > rounds etc in carbon fibre mat. > > > > I've seen lasers with a higher power density than that stopped > > dead > > > > by it. Makes a pretty light, though, as it re-radiates. > > > > > > I'm sure, though I'm not too sure that the mat doesn't abrade the > > bore > > > of the mortar. Even so, if it gives off that much heat, radiating > > the > > > laser energy, it should be easily targetable by a perimter defense > > > phalanx gun with a FLIR seeker. > > > > > > > Well, mortar rounds are already quite trackable by radar so using a > > HEL to illuminate them seems a bit redundant. > > Hardly. A radar itself can be homed in on with an anti-radiation > missile or other weapon. A FLIR is passive, and thus a better sensor, > just as passive sonar is more secure than active sonar. > > > IIRC the US and Israel were talking of deploying a similar system to > > hit katyusha rockets fired at settlements. haven't heard much since > > about it though. > > Problem is that hardening munitions against laser energy is > > relatively easy. > > Maybe all hamas/Hezbollah would have to do is either polish the > > rockets or > > coat them in sawdust/glue. There is not an infinitely long time > > window in which to down these things. > > > > I suspect that the reason it's being deployed on aircraft is to zap > > MANPADS > > like Stinger that rely on delicate sensors so more low level flying > > can be undertaken in places like Afghanistan. > > Actually, the THEL has been tested against katyushas. And despite the > claims of the disparagers, polishing or sawdust and glue doesn't do > anything to protect against a high energy laser. Its all well and good > to talk about it, but proving it is another thing. > > The people making it, buying it and paying for it are the last ones to want to develop a $1 countermeasure. I'll leave that to Hezbollah after its deployed. If they can't come up with somthing I'll accept you are correct. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Sep 2 02:39:33 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:39:33 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: news in perspective In-Reply-To: <20050901205303.GB2249@leitl.org> References: <20050901165852.GW2249@leitl.org> <20050901205303.GB2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Sep 1, 2005, at 1:53 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 01:03:11PM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > >> This is surely not the point. There are many severe weaknesses in >> the US economic situation. I would give an 80% probability of an >> > > I don't know what's going to happen, but if anything Big Bad happens > it won't be because of a mere hurricane wreck. It would be but a > trigger. Charlie Stross has some interesting thoughts about how bad this could be on one of his blogs. It is potentially a bit more than a trigger. http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2005/08/31/#katrina-1 Wed, 31 Aug 2005 Katrina aftermath I've avoided posting about the inundation of New Orleans, or Hurricane Katrina, until now -- I'm on the wrong side of the Atlantic and it wasn't obviously any business of mine (other than the odd anxious "are you alright?" email to friends and acquaintances who live a whole lot closer). However: the devastation is now clearly so extensive that I expect it to have very personal consequences indeed. Leaving aside any political partisan finger-pointing, it's worth noting that it's not just New Orleans that's underwater. As Stratfor pointed out in a recent bulletin, New Orleans is just one of the residential hubs of the Port of Southern Louisiana, the huge terminal complex that covers the bottom-most fifty miles of the Mississippi. "The Port of Southern Louisiana is the fifth-largest port in the world in terms of tonnage, and the largest port in the United States. The only global ports larger are Singapore, Rotterdam, Shanghai and Hong Kong. ... The Port of Southern Louisiana stretches up and down the Mississippi River for about 50 miles, running north and south of New Orleans from St. James to St. Charles Parish. It is the key port for the export of grains to the rest of the world -- corn, soybeans, wheat and animal feed. Midwestern farmers and global consumers depend on those exports. The United States imports crude oil, petrochemicals, steel, fertilizers and ores through the port. Fifteen percent of all U.S. exports by value go through the port. Nearly half of the exports go to Europe." The actual estimates for insured structural damage caused by Hurricane Katrina are currently around US $25-30Bn. The current loss of life estimates are in the hundreds (although I'd be unsurprised if the eventual death toll does not eventually top 9/11 by quite a margin). But the economic damage from closing the Port of Southern Louisiana for up to three months is huge -- plausibly equal to 5% of the US balance of trade with the rest of the world. I can't put a figure on that total, but I'd be surprised if it isn't an order of magnitude more than the $25-30Bn insurance costs, and possibly even higher than the cost to date of the Iraq war and occupation ($200Bn). A couple of hundred billion here, a couple of hundred billion there -- pretty soon we're talking real money. What are the likely consequences (locally and globally) of blowing a 5% of GDP sized hole under the waterline of the US economy? (PS: for anyone who suspects this question is prompted by nascent anti-Americanism, rest assured: the real reason is that I earn about 70% of my income in dollars. If the US economy sneezes, I catch a cold ...) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 02:49:55 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:49:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <001901c5af60$3465b890$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <20050902024955.65091.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Olga Bourlin wrote: > From: kevinfreels.com > Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 6:30 PM > > > Why aren't there C130s flying out of Baton Rouge dropping water and > MREs? Where is the command and control center? > > Iraq has taken a lot of our resources, hasn't it? > > Iraq even thinned the ranks of our National Guard ... they are > supposed to be here - not in Iraq - in case of national emergencies. Apparently not. We just raised a million bucks up here in NH for the effort today, and have offered 1100 NG troops, the feds have accepted less than 500 so far, they'll be flying down this weekend. >From what I'm reading, there are a lot of welfare mentalities sitting around waiting for the government to do do do for them. If people living below sea level on the coast in a hurricane zone do not have supplies to deal with such emergencies, they shouldn't be pointing fingers at anyone but themselves. The mayor and governor told the residents of NO to evacuate. Those that stayed around, from the tv video, seem to have done so for the looting opportunities, or live where they are worried about being looted while gone because they know their neighborhood. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Sep 2 02:57:12 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:57:12 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <93F82E16-27B2-4DFC-86F3-57977FD1ACCC@mac.com> Message-ID: <200509020259.j822x7w03358@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 7:33 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need > > What would be needed to purify some of the water the people have all > too much of for drinking purposes? Distilling urine is harder than a lot of good alternatives. Hand operated reverse osmosis pumps that backpackers use will get drinking water out of muddy flood water. I have half a mind to send my RO pumps down to New Orleans, if I knew where to send them. The water in the tank (but not the bowl) of a toilet is considered potable without treatment. I don't see why not, it seems clean enough back there. If you don't have a RO water pump, that might be a good thing to have in your emergency supplies closet. spike From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Sep 2 03:06:54 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 22:06:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need References: <20050902024955.65091.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003f01c5af6b$5fe21260$0100a8c0@kevin> Yeah Mike, tell that to a couple of 90 yr old women I know down there that couldn't leave because they had little extra money and no place to go. Once the levees broker - which was after the storm, there was very little time to get out and no way to notify them about it. Their area is out of the normal "looting" type neighborhood you described but as the bowl filled up, those people moved outwards into other neighborhoods. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Lorrey" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 9:49 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need > > > --- Olga Bourlin wrote: > > > From: kevinfreels.com > > Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 6:30 PM > > > > > Why aren't there C130s flying out of Baton Rouge dropping water and > > MREs? Where is the command and control center? > > > > Iraq has taken a lot of our resources, hasn't it? > > > > Iraq even thinned the ranks of our National Guard ... they are > > supposed to be here - not in Iraq - in case of national emergencies. > > Apparently not. We just raised a million bucks up here in NH for the > effort today, and have offered 1100 NG troops, the feds have accepted > less than 500 so far, they'll be flying down this weekend. > > >From what I'm reading, there are a lot of welfare mentalities sitting > around waiting for the government to do do do for them. If people > living below sea level on the coast in a hurricane zone do not have > supplies to deal with such emergencies, they shouldn't be pointing > fingers at anyone but themselves. > > The mayor and governor told the residents of NO to evacuate. Those that > stayed around, from the tv video, seem to have done so for the looting > opportunities, or live where they are worried about being looted while > gone because they know their neighborhood. > > Mike Lorrey > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: > http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com > Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Sep 2 03:09:24 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 22:09:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need References: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> <4317B09C.3090502@cox.net> <93F82E16-27B2-4DFC-86F3-57977FD1ACCC@mac.com> Message-ID: <004c01c5af6b$b92ca740$0100a8c0@kevin> Exactly. Of course, you have to deal with certain looters -0 especially if what they are looting are gun stores. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Samantha Atkins" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 9:32 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need > What would be needed to purify some of the water the people have all > too much of for drinking purposes? > > What were all those scary powers given to FEMA for if they > accomplish so very little in an actual emergency? > > Who wouldn't loot at least food stores after days of exposure, > hunger, thirst and appalling very dangerous conditions? How is it > more important to deal really harshly with looters than to end these > deplorable conditions giving rise to these behaviors as quickly as > possible? I don't understand this. In case of real emergency or > disaster I now feel much less safe. > > - samantha > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From user at dhp.com Fri Sep 2 03:03:18 2005 From: user at dhp.com (user) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:03:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050902023709.43132.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: > Insisting on agri-ethanol will push us back to a 19th century economy > and ecological devastation. Anyone who advocates it is a luddite who > knows not what they ask for. Also, calculations and economics aside, burning dead plants for fuel (whether recently dead corn or ancient dead dinosaurs) is a low tech way of running our world that we should be ashamed of. If we are going to make any shift at all, I would like it to be a qualitative shift to a modern technology, and not just a shuffling around of means to find different ways to set dead plants on fire. From robgobblin at aol.com Fri Sep 2 03:04:07 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 17:04:07 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050902023709.43132.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050902023709.43132.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4317C127.3030707@aol.com> Interesting, my chemistry book says: C6Hl2O6 ? 2 CH3CH2OH + 2 CO2 + energy glucose ethyl alcohol carbon dioxide As for fallow land, in 1980, around 170,000 acres in Hawaii were dedicated to sugar production, now down to 20k acres, with 150k acres laying, for the most part, fallow. Here it's good sense. In the midwest where they continue to produce corn in abundance, corn-produced alcohol averages about $2.12 per gallon buying corn at market rates, not even touching the abundant supply. Robbie Mike Lorrey wrote: >On the contrary, and contrary to the Green agrarian mythology, putting >the burden on the agricultural system means much more farmland put >under plow, and much more forest re-re-claimed for farmland, means >ecological devastation. It is farmland that destroys wildlife habitat. >VT and NH were once 90% farmland for only two things: a) to grow hay >for all the horses in New York City and Boston, and b) to grow sheep >for wool for keeping NYers and Beantowners warm in those cold cold >winters of the late 19th century when we were headed into an ice age. > >Today it is reversed: VT and NH are 90% forest, we have more wildlife >than before the europeans came here, and NY and Boston are not hip deep >in horseshit, disease, and stink. > >Insisting on agri-ethanol will push us back to a 19th century economy >and ecological devastation. Anyone who advocates it is a luddite who >knows not what they ask for. > >Besides all that, all the distillery mash will release much more >methane into the atmosphere. Scientists had thought methane was six >times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. A report just came out >that its actually 12 times more powerful. > >--- Robert Lindauer wrote: > > > >>A green point here: >> >>If everyone had their own ethanol still it wouldn't be half the >>problem >>it is now - and there wouldn't be the polution problem either. >> >>Robbie >> >> >>Andrew Beck wrote: >> >> >> >>>>If you were an insider and knew that oil was going to be worth that >>>> >>>> >>much >> >> >>>>in a few years, why would you be pumping for all you were worth and >>>>selling it today for $70/barrel? That doesn't make sense. It >>>> >>>> >>would >> >> >>>>be more profitable to reduce your pumping to the minimum necessary >>>> >>>> >>to >> >> >>>>cover expenses, and to keep it in the ground until the oil is far >>>> >>>> >>more >> >> >>>>valuable than it is today. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>The thing about the peak oil debate is that it doesn't take the oil >>> >>> >>to be nearly gone for it to shoot through the roof in price, just a >>small decline in oil supply will make the price go way up because of >>people's complete reliance on oil and refusal to comprimise their >>easy living. Case in point in the 70s when the supply dropped 5% >>prices shot up 400%. So all that will make the price of oil shoot up >>is when the supply slows down a bit. The reserves should still be at >>least halfway full at that point, so now quanitity is good and won't >>comprimise the oil companies reserves when the supply is running out. >> >> >>>Also I don't think anybody except oil execuatives are in a position >>> >>> >>to say if they are storing a few wells for a rainy day. >> >> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>extropy-chat mailing list >>>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>extropy-chat mailing list >>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat >> >> >> > > >Mike Lorrey >Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH >Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: >http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com >Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > > >__________________________________ >Yahoo! Mail >Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: >http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > From neptune at superlink.net Fri Sep 2 03:18:00 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:18:00 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Game Theory Applied to Nuclear Proliferation Message-ID: <005501c5af6c$ed5f4620$f2893cd1@pavilion> "Is the nuclear proliferation a blessing?" "Yes it is. Why? Because things that are good for us are good for others. Terror equilibrium has been guarantor of peace in Europe during the Cold War. Without it Soviets could have a temptation to invade Europe. When there are no nuclear weapons there are classic wars, which can result in massacres comparable to the First World War. Iran/Iraq war was compared to the war between France and Germany. If both sides had nuclear weapons they would hesitate to enter the conflict, which would have saved millions of lives. Possession of nuclear weapons is a good and not a bad. Its dissemination is good and not bad. Indeed, the more countries possess such dissuasive weapon, the wider will be the territory of peace and stability, which we experienced in Europe throughout the Cold War. There have to be serious arguments used in order to prohibit certain country to use such means of dissuading potential aggressors." from http://lemennicier.bwm-mediasoft.com/col_docs/doc_55_fr.pdf Regards, Dan From mbb386 at main.nc.us Fri Sep 2 03:20:54 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:20:54 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <001901c5af60$3465b890$6600a8c0@brainiac> References: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> <001901c5af60$3465b890$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Olga Bourlin wrote: > > I have a first cousin (with a husband and son) who has been living in Metarie - just outside of New Orleans - for over a decade. I sent her an email - hoping she will be an an internet cafe somewhere sometime - and haven't heard back from her yet. > I have a childhood friend in Metarie and have received no response to my email. Guess she's without power. :( Hope she's ok. Regards, MB From fauxever at sprynet.com Fri Sep 2 03:29:53 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 20:29:53 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need References: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> <4317B09C.3090502@cox.net> Message-ID: <004f01c5af6e$958b60d0$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Dan Clemmensen" Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 6:53 PM > > What astounded me was the inattention the press gave to the levees. The > press did their hurricane thing, looking at the "standard" hurricane > damage in Biloxi and Gulfport,and they thought New Orleans was the same. This is another interesting perspective on some possible inattention due to ...?: press box Lost in the Flood Why no mention of race or class in TV's Katrina coverage? By Jack Shafer Posted Wednesday, Aug. 31, 2005, at 4:22 PM PT I can't say I saw everything that the TV newscasters pumped out about Katrina, but I viewed enough repeated segments to say with 90 percent confidence that broadcasters covering the New Orleans end of the disaster demurred from mentioning two topics that must have occurred to every sentient viewer: race and class. Nearly every rescued person, temporary resident of the Superdome, looter, or loiterer on the high ground of the freeway I saw on TV was African-American. And from the look of it, they weren't wealthy residents of the Garden District. This storm appears to have hurt blacks more directly than whites, but the broadcasters scarcely mentioned that fact. Now, don't get me wrong. Just because 67 percent of New Orleans residents are black, I don't expect CNN to rename the storm "Hurricane" Carter in honor of the black boxer. Just because Katrina's next stop after destroying coastal Mississippi was counties that are 25 percent to 86 percent African-American (according to this U.S. Census map), and 27.9 percent of New Orleans residents are below the poverty line, I don't expect the Rev. Jesse Jackson to call the news channels to give a comment. But in the their frenzy to beat freshness into the endless loops of disaster footage that have been running all day, broadcasters might have mentioned that nearly all the visible people left behind in New Orleans are of the black persuasion, and mostly poor. To be sure, some reporters sidled up to the race and class issue. I heard them ask the storm's New Orleans victims why they hadn't left town when the evacuation call came. Many said they were broke?"I live from paycheck to paycheck," explained one woman. Others said they didn't own a car with which to escape and that they hadn't understood the importance of evacuation. But I don't recall any reporter exploring the class issue directly by getting a paycheck-to-paycheck victim to explain that he couldn't risk leaving because if he lost his furniture and appliances, his pots and pans, his bedding and clothes, to Katrina or looters, he'd have no way to replace them. No insurance, no stable, large extended family that could lend him cash to get back on his feet, no middle-class job to return to after the storm. What accounts for the broadcasters' timidity? I saw only a couple of black faces anchoring or co-anchoring but didn't see any black faces reporting from New Orleans. So, it's safe to assume that the reluctance to talk about race on the air was a mostly white thing. That would tend to imply that white people don't enjoy discussing the subject. But they do, as long as they get to call another white person racist. My guess is that Caucasian broadcasters refrain from extemporizing about race on the air mostly because they fear having an Al Campanis moment. Campanis, you may recall, was the Los Angeles Dodgers vice president who brought his career to an end when he appeared on Nightline in 1987 and explained to Ted Koppel that blacks might not have "some of the necessities" it takes to manage a major league team or run it as a general manager for the same reason black people aren't "good swimmers." They lack "buoyancy," he said. Not to excuse Campanis, but as racists go he was an underachiever. While playing in the minor leagues, he threw down his mitt and challenged another player who was bullying Jackie Robinson. As Dodger GM, he aggressively signed black and Latino players, treated them well, and earned their admiration. Although his Nightline statement was transparently racist, in the furor that followed, nobody could cite another racist remark he had ever made. His racism, which surely blocked blacks from potential front-office Dodger careers, was the racism of overwhelming ignorance?a trait he shared (shares?) with many other baseball executives. This sort of latent racism (or something more potent) may lurk in the hearts of many white people who end up on TV, as it does in the hearts of many who watch. Or, even if they're completely clean of racism's taint, anchors and reporters fear that they'll suffer a career-stopping Campanis moment by blurting something poorly thought out or something that gets misconstrued. Better, most think, to avoid discussing race at all unless someone with impeccable race credentials appears to supervise?and indemnify?everybody from potentially damaging charges of racism. Race remains largely untouchable for TV because broadcasters sense that they can't make an error without destroying careers. That's a true pity. If the subject were a little less taboo, one of last night's anchors could have asked a reporter, "Can you explain to our viewers, who by now have surely noticed, why 99 percent of the New Orleans evacuees we're seeing are African-American? I suppose our viewers have noticed, too, that the provocative looting footage we're airing and re-airing seems to depict mostly African-Americans." If the reporter on the ground couldn't answer the questions, a researcher could have Nexised the New Orleans Times-Picayune five-parter from 2002, "Washing Away," which reported that the city's 100,000 residents without private transportation were likely to be stranded by a big storm. In other words, what's happening is what was expected to happen: The poor didn't get out in time. To the question of looting, an informed reporter or anchor might have pointed out that anybody?even one of the 500 Nordic blondes working in broadcast news?would loot food from a shuttered shop if they found themselves trapped by a flood and had no idea when help would come. However sympathetic I might be to people liberating necessities during a disaster in order to survive, I can't muster the same tolerance for those caught on camera helping themselves in a leisurely fashion to dry goods at Wal-Mart. Those people weren't looting as much as they were shopping for good stuff to steal. MSNBC's anchor Rita Cosby, who blurted an outraged if inarticulate harrumph when she aired the Wal-Mart heist footage, deserves more respect than the broadcasters who gave the tape the sort of nonjudgmental commentary they might deliver if they were watching the perps vacuum the carpets at home. When disaster strikes, Americans?especially journalists?like to pretend that no matter who gets hit, no matter what race, color, creed, or socioeconomic level they hail from, we're all in it together. This spirit informs the 1997 disaster flick Volcano, in which a "can't we all just get along" moment arrives at the film's end: Volcanic ash covers every face in the big crowd scene, and everybody realizes that we're all members of one united race. But we aren't one united race, we aren't one united class, and Katrina didn't hit all folks equally. By failing to acknowledge upfront that black New Orleanians?and perhaps black Mississippians?suffered more from Katrina than whites, the TV talkers may escape potential accusations that they're racist. But by ignoring race and class, they boot the journalistic opportunity to bring attention to the disenfranchisement of a whole definable segment of the population. What I wouldn't pay to hear a Fox anchor ask, "Say, Bob, why are these African-Americans so poor to begin with?" sidebar Return to article Jack Shafer is Slate's editor at large. Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2124688/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: c.gif?NA=1132&NC=1262&DI=4098&PI=7315&PS=61736 Type: application/octet-stream Size: 42 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Sep 2 04:01:27 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:01:27 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need References: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> <4317B09C.3090502@cox.net> <004f01c5af6e$958b60d0$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <00b901c5af72$fe514a40$0100a8c0@kevin> This whole article is crap. Indeed, why are so many of them poor? Could it be the spirit of entitlement in the area? The fact that everyone there xepects a handout? The fact that everyone expected that if anything happened, someone would take care of them? And who would be responsible for this? Me? You? The racist "american people"? This is crap. Their mayor is black. If anyone is responsible it is him. These journalists act like this is the result of some huge racial conspiracy. No doubt someone will say this was planned by white people. This has nothing to do with race. It is incompetence and ignorance. I know I started this thread. and I just had a thought. These people have been sitting there for 4 days and yet camera crews and police cars can drive by? Why the hell do they just sit there? Sure, there are some who couldn;t make the walk, but by the looks of the peopole I would guess that most of those "trapped without food" could just walk out at any time. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Olga Bourlin" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 10:29 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need > From: "Dan Clemmensen" > Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 6:53 PM > > > > What astounded me was the inattention the press gave to the levees. The > > press did their hurricane thing, looking at the "standard" hurricane > > damage in Biloxi and Gulfport,and they thought New Orleans was the same. > > This is another interesting perspective on some possible inattention due to > ..?:. > > press box > Lost in the Flood > Why no mention of race or class in TV's Katrina coverage? > By Jack Shafer > Posted Wednesday, Aug. 31, 2005, at 4:22 PM PT > > > > > I can't say I saw everything that the TV newscasters pumped out about > Katrina, but I viewed enough repeated segments to say with 90 percent > confidence that broadcasters covering the New Orleans end of the disaster > demurred from mentioning two topics that must have occurred to every > sentient viewer: race and class. > > Nearly every rescued person, temporary resident of the Superdome, looter, or > loiterer on the high ground of the freeway I saw on TV was African-American. > And from the look of it, they weren't wealthy residents of the Garden > District. This storm appears to have hurt blacks more directly than whites, > but the broadcasters scarcely mentioned that fact. > > > Now, don't get me wrong. Just because 67 percent of New Orleans residents > are black, I don't expect CNN to rename the storm "Hurricane" Carter in > honor of the black boxer. Just because Katrina's next stop after destroying > coastal Mississippi was counties that are 25 percent to 86 percent > African-American (according to this U.S. Census map), and 27.9 percent of > New Orleans residents are below the poverty line, I don't expect the Rev. > Jesse Jackson to call the news channels to give a comment. But in the their > frenzy to beat freshness into the endless loops of disaster footage that > have been running all day, broadcasters might have mentioned that nearly all > the visible people left behind in New Orleans are of the black persuasion, > and mostly poor. > > To be sure, some reporters sidled up to the race and class issue. I heard > them ask the storm's New Orleans victims why they hadn't left town when the > evacuation call came. Many said they were broke?"I live from paycheck to > paycheck," explained one woman. Others said they didn't own a car with which > to escape and that they hadn't understood the importance of evacuation. > > But I don't recall any reporter exploring the class issue directly by > getting a paycheck-to-paycheck victim to explain that he couldn't risk > leaving because if he lost his furniture and appliances, his pots and pans, > his bedding and clothes, to Katrina or looters, he'd have no way to replace > them. No insurance, no stable, large extended family that could lend him > cash to get back on his feet, no middle-class job to return to after the > storm. > > What accounts for the broadcasters' timidity? I saw only a couple of black > faces anchoring or co-anchoring but didn't see any black faces reporting > from New Orleans. So, it's safe to assume that the reluctance to talk about > race on the air was a mostly white thing. That would tend to imply that > white people don't enjoy discussing the subject. But they do, as long as > they get to call another white person racist. > > My guess is that Caucasian broadcasters refrain from extemporizing about > race on the air mostly because they fear having an Al Campanis moment. > Campanis, you may recall, was the Los Angeles Dodgers vice president who > brought his career to an end when he appeared on Nightline in 1987 and > explained to Ted Koppel that blacks might not have "some of the necessities" > it takes to manage a major league team or run it as a general manager for > the same reason black people aren't "good swimmers." They lack "buoyancy," > he said. > > Not to excuse Campanis, but as racists go he was an underachiever. While > playing in the minor leagues, he threw down his mitt and challenged another > player who was bullying Jackie Robinson. As Dodger GM, he aggressively > signed black and Latino players, treated them well, and earned their > admiration. Although his Nightline statement was transparently racist, in > the furor that followed, nobody could cite another racist remark he had ever > made. His racism, which surely blocked blacks from potential front-office > Dodger careers, was the racism of overwhelming ignorance?a trait he shared > (shares?) with many other baseball executives. > > This sort of latent racism (or something more potent) may lurk in the hearts > of many white people who end up on TV, as it does in the hearts of many who > watch. Or, even if they're completely clean of racism's taint, anchors and > reporters fear that they'll suffer a career-stopping Campanis moment by > blurting something poorly thought out or something that gets misconstrued. > Better, most think, to avoid discussing race at all unless someone with > impeccable race credentials appears to supervise?and indemnify?everybody > from potentially damaging charges of racism. > > Race remains largely untouchable for TV because broadcasters sense that they > can't make an error without destroying careers. That's a true pity. If the > subject were a little less taboo, one of last night's anchors could have > asked a reporter, "Can you explain to our viewers, who by now have surely > noticed, why 99 percent of the New Orleans evacuees we're seeing are > African-American? I suppose our viewers have noticed, too, that the > provocative looting footage we're airing and re-airing seems to depict > mostly African-Americans." > > If the reporter on the ground couldn't answer the questions, a researcher > could have Nexised the New Orleans Times-Picayune five-parter from 2002, > "Washing Away," which reported that the city's 100,000 residents without > private transportation were likely to be stranded by a big storm. In other > words, what's happening is what was expected to happen: The poor didn't get > out in time. > > To the question of looting, an informed reporter or anchor might have > pointed out that anybody?even one of the 500 Nordic blondes working in > broadcast news?would loot food from a shuttered shop if they found > themselves trapped by a flood and had no idea when help would come. However > sympathetic I might be to people liberating necessities during a disaster in > order to survive, I can't muster the same tolerance for those caught on > camera helping themselves in a leisurely fashion to dry goods at Wal-Mart. > Those people weren't looting as much as they were shopping for good stuff to > steal. MSNBC's anchor Rita Cosby, who blurted an outraged if inarticulate > harrumph when she aired the Wal-Mart heist footage, deserves more respect > than the broadcasters who gave the tape the sort of nonjudgmental commentary > they might deliver if they were watching the perps vacuum the carpets at > home. > > When disaster strikes, Americans?especially journalists?like to pretend that > no matter who gets hit, no matter what race, color, creed, or socioeconomic > level they hail from, we're all in it together. This spirit informs the 1997 > disaster flick Volcano, in which a "can't we all just get along" moment > arrives at the film's end: Volcanic ash covers every face in the big crowd > scene, and everybody realizes that we're all members of one united race. > > But we aren't one united race, we aren't one united class, and Katrina > didn't hit all folks equally. By failing to acknowledge upfront that black > New Orleanians?and perhaps black Mississippians?suffered more from Katrina > than whites, the TV talkers may escape potential accusations that they're > racist. But by ignoring race and class, they boot the journalistic > opportunity to bring attention to the disenfranchisement of a whole > definable segment of the population. What I wouldn't pay to hear a Fox > anchor ask, "Say, Bob, why are these African-Americans so poor to begin > with?" > > sidebar > Return to article > > > > Jack Shafer is Slate's editor at large. > > Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2124688/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Sep 2 04:02:41 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:02:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need References: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin><001901c5af60$3465b890$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <00bf01c5af73$2afa3e30$0100a8c0@kevin> FYI. It's hard to get calls in, nut I have peope in Harahan that have power. They also say that most of the area can receive text messages on cell phones but can't get rhough on voice. Have you tried that? ----- Original Message ----- From: "MB" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 10:20 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need > > > > On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Olga Bourlin wrote: > > > > I have a first cousin (with a husband and son) who has been living in Metarie - just outside of New Orleans - for over a decade. I sent her an email - hoping she will be an an internet cafe somewhere sometime - and haven't heard back from her yet. > > > > > I have a childhood friend in Metarie and have received no response to > my email. Guess she's without power. :( Hope she's ok. > > > Regards, > MB > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Sep 2 04:24:13 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 21:24:13 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <004f01c5af6e$958b60d0$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <200509020426.j824QLw14232@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Olga Bourlin ... > By Jack Shafer > Posted Wednesday, Aug. 31, 2005, at 4:22 PM PT > > > Nearly every rescued person, temporary resident of the Superdome, looter, > or loiterer on the high ground of the freeway I saw on TV was African- > American... If an African-American is born in America, both her parents are born in America, all her grandparents, great grandparents, and their parents were born in America, at what point is it no longer legitimate that she call herself African American? When does she become, like me, a native American? I have an ancestor who was born in Pretoria South Africa. May I call myself African American? Will all my descendants, for all eternity, be able to call themselves African American? I suspect that only a very small percentage of the population of New Orleans are real African Americans or have ever even been to Africa. Jack Shafer should let it go, be color blind and repent of comments like this one: >This sort of latent racism (or something more potent) may lurk in the >hearts of many white people who end up on TV, as it does in the hearts of >many who watch... Guilty until proven innocent. Of course, it is impossible to prove innocence of latent racism. This comment is *overt* racism, blatant and shameful as all hell. OK now I have said my piece on this, recall a suggestion I made a couple years ago about setting up a number of webcams that would not be controlled by any news agency but rather would give an unbiased unblinking random survey of a disaster area. The cams could be sampled by a web surfer without artificially concentrating on the worst places or seeking out any particular group of looters. Those would tell the real story, would they not? spike From extropy at unreasonable.com Fri Sep 2 04:53:13 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:53:13 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Manhattan vs. New Orleans Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050902003155.0513cdd0@unreasonable.com> My impression, from coverage and commentary, is that, to everyone's pleasant surprise, beyond the quiet and extraordinary heroisms on 9/11, was a communal unity. There *wasn't* the expected uptick in crime with the police busy elsewhere, or desperate people savaging one another for a chance of survival. There *were* people pulling together, and helping one another. My impression, from coverage and commentary of New Orleans, is there are heroics, but less dramatic. Certainly many people trying to help one another. But an atmosphere in many areas of felonious barbarity. Looting, rape, murder, brutality -- not to save oneself or one's loved ones, but in sociopathic nihilism. (1) Do you agree that these are the pictures that have been painted for us of the two events? (2) Do you think either reflect the gist of what has happened? If not, what has caused the distortion(s)? (3) What explains the differences between these two portrayed responses? The causes of the events? The composition of the populace? -- David. From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Sep 2 05:24:58 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 22:24:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a gametheorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509020526.j825Qrw21330@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of user > Re: peak oil debate framed from a gametheorystandpoint ? ... > > > On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > Insisting on agri-ethanol will push us back to a 19th century economy > > and ecological devastation. Anyone who advocates it is a luddite who > > knows not what they ask for... User, I could see ethanol as a transition phase, where we add more ethanol to gasoline over about a decade, to take advantage of the infrastructure already in place. We could use the existing gasoline stations, pumps, etc. Most modern internal combustion engines can run on about 15% ethanol with no modifications, and can go up to around 25% without too much effort or expense. An ethanol-gasoline mix could carry part of the load while we gear up nuclear and coal fired power plants as well as refineries suited to processing sour crude. We will need a few years to get cars adapted to use electricity. Ethanol could help get us thru the transition. Here's a notion I had today. Assume a temporary oil crisis such as one caused by Katrina. We know that a 5% shortfall in supply can cause a huge and destructive surge in price. On the other hand, a small fuel savings could easily cover a 5% shortfall in supply. A government could declare a temporary open season on what types of vehicles are allowed on the roads. Many homes have a dirt bike or other small rec vehicle that could be temporarily declared street legal. We could declare a temporary 50 mph speed limit for the month of September, in all but the far left lane. This might encourage people to ride bicycles, motorized scooters, go carts and dirt bikes on the street for a few weeks, just long enough to get thru the crisis. spike From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 05:56:18 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 22:56:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <20050902055618.37354.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> --- "kevinfreels.com" wrote: > > Is it my imagination or is someone bumbling this > entire rescue effort in New Orleans? I cannot > believe for a second that FEMA just found out this > morning that thousands of people were at the > convention center and 8 hours later the best they > could do was a single Blackhawk helicopter with > bottled water. Well I feel like its complaining about spilled milk, but it seems pretty obvious to me. You can't cut taxes, fund a $250 billion dollar ground war, AND be prepared for disaster relief. Not unless the Federal Government is somehow capable of magically creating money and manpower. As far as I know the federal government is drowning in a bathtub right now. It's called the Mississippi Basin. We get what we ask for. A little over half of us voted for these types of policies, so we got exactly what we deserved. This is 4 days after this event. I am > certain there are supplies all around that area just > waiting to get to people. Why aren't there C130s > flying out of Baton Rouge dropping water and MREs? > Where is the command and control center? > We have most of our logistics infrastructure in the middle east to support to our troops in Iraq. Even as it is, the logistic support to the troops on the ground is suboptimal in regards to certain things like body armor and hard topped vehicles for convoy support. I don't believe there are that many spare C130s to drop off any spare MREs to the people affected. I hardly think an administration that can't foresee the need for an exit strategy when entering a war would have a contigency plan for natural disaster during the war. Karma is a bitch and nature does not care how self-righteous you are. The humbling of America has begun. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Fri Sep 2 06:32:04 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:32:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: On 9/1/05 6:30 PM, "kevinfreels.com" wrote: > Is it my imagination or is someone bumbling this entire rescue effort in New > Orleans? I cannot believe for a second that FEMA just found out this morning > that thousands of people were at the convention center and 8 hours later the > best they could do was a single Blackhawk helicopter with bottled water. This > is 4 days after this event. I am certain there are supplies all around that > area just waiting to get to people. Why aren't there C130s flying out of Baton > Rouge dropping water and MREs? Where is the command and control center? A few points that you may have missed: 1) The Federal government has very limited jurisdiction in this case, and the Feds have been very proactive to the extent they could be; they pre-positioned most of their assets a couple days before the storm. The truly grotesque failure of leadership and planning falls squarely on the State of Louisiana, which not only shows clear evidence of having no plan whatsoever but also is sitting on their asses rather than pushing the necessary buttons required to get more Federal resources in there. Remember, the State of Louisiana is a sovereign entity, and the Federal government has very limited ability to act in their jurisdiction without official permission by the governor. Unfortunately, the governor is WAY out of her league, and clearly lost. 2) The logistical infrastructure has been so thoroughly destroyed that there is extremely limited ability to deliver support. Dropping water and MREs does not do much good if half the place is under a few meters of water. Can't drive in, can't boat in, and can't fly in, for a country-sized region. They are using what logistical assets they can reasonably mobilize under the circumstances. Anybody expecting more has utterly unrealistic notions about the nature of logistics under the circumstances. 3) What transportation elements can operate in this environment have a very low carrying capacity that is entirely inadequate for the sheer number of people the have to support. If there were only thousands of people left behind, it would have been less of an issue, but there are hundreds of thousands of people spread over a vast area. Massive airdrops are not granular enough, as there is no distribution channel within the city once you drop a pallet somewhere. 4) As further evidence, the disparities in competence and reaction between affected States, notably Mississippi and Louisiana, is stark. Mississippi is just about the poorest State in the country and took the hurricane head on, thoroughly annihilating a fair portion of that State, but the authorities took charge of the situation very quickly. Louisiana did not prepare ahead of time, and then sat around with a thumb up their ass after the fact. Looting in Mississippi was squashed with extreme prejudice early on. The biggest villains in this whole mess is the State of Louisiana, and its leaders. Criminal incompetence and negligence, amplified by a genuine crisis. Heads are going to roll in the that State when this is all over. J. Andrew Rogers From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Fri Sep 2 06:32:16 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:32:16 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: <20050902022810.76869.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/1/05 7:28 PM, "Mike Lorrey" wrote: > > > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > >> On 9/2/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: >>> >>> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: >>> >>>> On 9/1/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: >>> >> > http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technovel_darpa_lasers_050830.html >>>>> >>>>> The HELLADS is intended to be mountable on tactical aircraft, a >>>> Hummer, >>>>> or UCAVs and offer performance of 5 kg/kW weapon weight with >> 150 kW >>>>> beam energy. So it should come in at about 750 lbs in a design >>>> useful >>>>> on the battlefield >>>>> >>>> >>>> Better hope the enemy doesn't catch on to wrapping their mortar >>>> rounds etc in carbon fibre mat. >>>> I've seen lasers with a higher power density than that stopped >> dead >>>> by it. Makes a pretty light, though, as it re-radiates. >>> >>> I'm sure, though I'm not too sure that the mat doesn't abrade the >> bore >>> of the mortar. Even so, if it gives off that much heat, radiating >> the >>> laser energy, it should be easily targetable by a perimter defense >>> phalanx gun with a FLIR seeker. >>> >> >> Well, mortar rounds are already quite trackable by radar so using a >> HEL to illuminate them seems a bit redundant. > > Hardly. A radar itself can be homed in on with an anti-radiation > missile or other weapon. A FLIR is passive, and thus a better sensor, > just as passive sonar is more secure than active sonar. > >> IIRC the US and Israel were talking of deploying a similar system to >> hit katyusha rockets fired at settlements. haven't heard much since >> about it though. >> Problem is that hardening munitions against laser energy is >> relatively easy. >> Maybe all hamas/Hezbollah would have to do is either polish the >> rockets or >> coat them in sawdust/glue. There is not an infinitely long time >> window in which to down these things. >> >> I suspect that the reason it's being deployed on aircraft is to zap >> MANPADS >> like Stinger that rely on delicate sensors so more low level flying >> can be undertaken in places like Afghanistan. > > Actually, the THEL has been tested against katyushas. And despite the > claims of the disparagers, polishing or sawdust and glue doesn't do > anything to protect against a high energy laser. Its all well and good > to talk about it, but proving it is another thing. > > Mike Lorrey > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: > http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com > Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > > > __________________________________ > Yahoo! Mail > Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: > http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From megao at sasktel.net Fri Sep 2 05:40:01 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:40:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] news in perspective In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4317E5B1.6040508@sasktel.net> This may be a bit tasteless to say but the New Orleans lost city by water is much the same to its residents as the loss of Bagdad or Beirut to war has been to their residents. Amara Graps wrote: > spike: > >> ps The news on in the background as I write. Damn that >> flood in New Orleans is bad. {8-[ > > > Yes, it is bad. > > And so is the ~1000 people in Baghdad who died on a pilgrimage > during the time of New Orleans' terrible misfortune. (was that > reported?) > > And so is 200,000 people who died in the tsunami. > > Death is bad. And I wish the American media would learn to put > news in perspective. Even Boing-boing has gone over the top (I > don't remember them reporting this much after the tsunami for > example). > > Amara > From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Fri Sep 2 06:44:34 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:44:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: <20050902022810.76869.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/1/05 7:28 PM, "Mike Lorrey" wrote: > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: >> Well, mortar rounds are already quite trackable by radar so using a >> HEL to illuminate them seems a bit redundant. > > Hardly. A radar itself can be homed in on with an anti-radiation > missile or other weapon. A FLIR is passive, and thus a better sensor, > just as passive sonar is more secure than active sonar. State-of-the-art active radar systems do not detectably radiate at all, another very, very slick piece of American military technology. It is how stealth attack aircraft like the F-22 can use search radar while still being invisible in the broad RF spectrum. Broad spectrum IR imaging is much better for terminal guidance because it can be made very smart. Modern guidance packages of this type can determine the make and model of their target a long way off, and sometimes the country that owns the hardware. Which is why modern IR guidance packages are all but impervious to decoys and spoofing. > Actually, the THEL has been tested against katyushas. And despite the > claims of the disparagers, polishing or sawdust and glue doesn't do > anything to protect against a high energy laser. Its all well and good > to talk about it, but proving it is another thing. Many critics fail to understand that at some level of power, a laser is qualitatively different in its interaction with matter than a milliwatt laser pointer. These lasers have proven quite effective against dumb/hard targets. J. Andrew Rogers From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 06:47:55 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:47:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <4317B09C.3090502@cox.net> Message-ID: <20050902064756.85722.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dan Clemmensen wrote: > > > By contrast, a hurricane-induced break in New > Orleans' levees was > predictable, predicted, and evaluated as the most > likely major disaster > in the US. Yes but we all know that the people in charge do not listen to learned experts but instead to a loud booming voice in their head they call God. > > Humans need a gallon of drinking water a day, plus > some washing water. > Just how hard is it to commandeer all the water > trucks in the towns > along the Lower Mississippi river, place hen in > barges, and send the to > New Orleans? In my (rich) neighborhood, there are > several companies that > have such trucks. Each truck has a 7000-gallon tank. > the trucks are used > to fill swimming pools. 20 trucks a day will support > 140,000 people. A > single tow-boat per day can trivially handle enough > barges to carry the > food and water for 100,000 people. Yes. Also what they ought to do is bring in powered and solar stills. The problem is not there isn't any water there, the problem is that it is contaminated. Bringing them a gallon of water keeps one of them hydrated for a day. Bring them a still and that person can be hydrated indefinately. > > What astounded me was the inattention the press gave > to the levees. The > press did their hurricane thing, looking at the > "standard" hurricane > damage in Biloxi and Gulfport,and they thought New > Orleans was the same. > The canal levee was breached on Monday afternoon,and > the press ignored > it until noon on Tuesday. The breach was the most > important part of the > story, and anyone with the sense god gave a > grasshopper should have > known it (with <10 minutes of research) at the time > Katrina first turned > north in the gulf. I sure did. If I knew it, the > governor of Louisiana > should have known it. When the Mayor (correctly and > courageously) > ordered the evacuation and estimated that 100,000 > would be left behind, > the governor should have commandeered the water > trucks and ordered them > filled. Of course, someone should also have > recommended that everyone > remaining in New Orleans fill their bathtubs with > double layered > 30-gallon garbage bags full of water, and everyone > should have placed > all dry food into double garbage bags, but that's > too simple. I guess. I am sure they ( the local government) did the best they could. The notion that someone might be in need of water after a flood may not come easy to many people. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Fri Sep 2 06:48:54 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:48:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 9/1/05 11:32 PM, "J. Andrew Rogers" wrote: [...empty response elided...] I have no idea how that happened. Must have been an email client hiccup or operator stupidity. Sorry. J. Andrew Rogers From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 07:09:27 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 00:09:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050902023709.43132.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050902070928.53082.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > On the contrary, and contrary to the Green agrarian > mythology, putting > the burden on the agricultural system means much > more farmland put > under plow, and much more forest re-re-claimed for > farmland, means > ecological devastation. It is farmland that destroys > wildlife habitat. > VT and NH were once 90% farmland for only two > things: a) to grow hay > for all the horses in New York City and Boston, and > b) to grow sheep > for wool for keeping NYers and Beantowners warm in > those cold cold > winters of the late 19th century when we were headed > into an ice age. > > Today it is reversed: VT and NH are 90% forest, we > have more wildlife > than before the europeans came here, and NY and > Boston are not hip deep > in horseshit, disease, and stink. > > Insisting on agri-ethanol will push us back to a > 19th century economy > and ecological devastation. Anyone who advocates it > is a luddite who > knows not what they ask for. I could probably supply all the ethanol and biodiesel the United States would need by harvesting seaweed from the sargasso sea. This would not require one additinal acre of farmland. > > Besides all that, all the distillery mash will > release much more > methane into the atmosphere. Scientists had thought > methane was six > times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. A > report just came out > that its actually 12 times more powerful. A well designed bioreactor would use the methane generated to power the distillation process. You are making your judgements based on unenlightened technology. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 07:58:14 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 00:58:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <200509020259.j822x7w03358@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050902075814.93092.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: If you don't have a RO water pump, that > might be a good thing to have in your emergency > supplies closet. One can make a pretty good solar powered still using a washtub, a bucket (or coffee can), some string or duct tape, a plastic garbage bag or other large sheet of plastic, and two small rocks (preferably clean). The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 08:28:21 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 01:28:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050902082821.53082.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> --- "J. Andrew Rogers" wrote: The logistical infrastructure has been so > thoroughly destroyed that there > is extremely limited ability to deliver support. > Dropping water and MREs > does not do much good if half the place is under a > few meters of water. > Can't drive in, can't boat in, and can't fly in, for > a country-sized region. > They are using what logistical assets they can > reasonably mobilize under the > circumstances. Anybody expecting more has utterly > unrealistic notions about > the nature of logistics under the circumstances. > > 3) What transportation elements can operate in this > environment have a very > low carrying capacity that is entirely inadequate > for the sheer number of > people the have to support. If there were only > thousands of people left > behind, it would have been less of an issue, but > there are hundreds of > thousands of people spread over a vast area. > Massive airdrops are not > granular enough, as there is no distribution channel > within the city once > you drop a pallet somewhere. You have some excellent points here. Doesn't the navy have amphibious hovercraft? It seems like hovercraft and amphibious assault vehicles may be the vehicles of choice for relief efforts in NO. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 08:36:23 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 01:36:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050902083624.53965.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> --- "J. Andrew Rogers" > I have no idea how that happened. Must have been an > email client hiccup or > operator stupidity. > > Sorry. It's ok Light-Fighter, it happens to the best of 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 jay.dugger at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 08:41:26 2005 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 03:41:26 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Towards Higher Quality, was: ping - please ignore In-Reply-To: <20050901194429.99010.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050901194429.99010.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5366105b05090201415c47a509@mail.gmail.com> On 9/1/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > I for one miss the old Extropy magazine, both the print and online > versions. They gave an outlet for high quality, in depth, well reasoned > articles by extropic writers for like-minded to keep abreast of the > movement without having to wade through a lot of diluted pap and > sniping on email lists. Me too. Anyone have back issues for sale? Contact me off-list, if you please. > > Rather than an 'extropy-great' list, I'd suggest instead that we form a > committee moderated blog that folks can forward posts and articles of > interest to, people can comment on, trackback, etc. etc. and move ExI > technology forward. Email lists are getting so last century. > Somewhat related--any volunteers (or anyone already doing it) for reviewing 'transhumanism" and related tags on del.icio.us/technorati? That might make a good first step towards a collaborative filter. A group blog has a couple of candidates, doesn't it? Transhumanism.org, JEET, etc. -- Jay Dugger BLOG: http://hellofrom.blogspot.com/ HOME: http://www.owlmirror.net/~duggerj/ LINKS: http://del.icio.us/jay.dugger Sometimes the delete key serves best. From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 08:41:42 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 09:41:42 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: References: <20050902022810.76869.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/2/05, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > > On 9/1/05 7:28 PM, "Mike Lorrey" wrote: > > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > >> Well, mortar rounds are already quite trackable by radar so using a > >> HEL to illuminate them seems a bit redundant. > > > > Hardly. A radar itself can be homed in on with an anti-radiation > > missile or other weapon. A FLIR is passive, and thus a better sensor, > > just as passive sonar is more secure than active sonar. > > > State-of-the-art active radar systems do not detectably radiate at all, > another very, very slick piece of American military technology. It is how > stealth attack aircraft like the F-22 can use search radar while still > being > invisible in the broad RF spectrum. > > Broad spectrum IR imaging is much better for terminal guidance because it > can be made very smart. Modern guidance packages of this type can > determine > the make and model of their target a long way off, and sometimes the > country > that owns the hardware. Which is why modern IR guidance packages are all > but impervious to decoys and spoofing. > > > > Actually, the THEL has been tested against katyushas. And despite the > > claims of the disparagers, polishing or sawdust and glue doesn't do > > anything to protect against a high energy laser. Its all well and good > > to talk about it, but proving it is another thing. > > > Many critics fail to understand that at some level of power, a laser is > qualitatively different in its interaction with matter than a milliwatt > laser pointer. These lasers have proven quite effective against dumb/hard > targets. > Well, the 100kW aint it. I've worked on lasers putting out 1kW onto 10 mm square carbon fibre mat and it does zilch. Dry hardwood is almost as good. Now work out the power density of the 100kW laser compared to beam size on target. There are numerous ways to absorb, deflect or reradiate that kind of power for the few seconds necessary for the munition to reach its target. Bear in mind that these systems are used in the terminal phase of attack. The laser will work with PGMs, but not with dumb katyushas that have been hardened. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 08:45:08 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 09:45:08 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Manhattan vs. New Orleans In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050902003155.0513cdd0@unreasonable.com> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20050902003155.0513cdd0@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: On 9/2/05, David Lubkin wrote: > > My impression, from coverage and commentary, is that, to everyone's > pleasant surprise, beyond the quiet and extraordinary heroisms on > 9/11, was a communal unity. There *wasn't* the expected uptick in > crime with the police busy elsewhere, or desperate people savaging > one another for a chance of survival. There *were* people pulling > together, and helping one another. > > My impression, from coverage and commentary of New Orleans, is there > are heroics, but less dramatic. Certainly many people trying to help > one another. But an atmosphere in many areas of felonious barbarity. > Looting, rape, murder, brutality -- not to save oneself or one's > loved ones, but in sociopathic nihilism. > > (1) Do you agree that these are the pictures that have been painted > for us of the two events? > > (2) Do you think either reflect the gist of what has happened? If > not, what has caused the distortion(s)? > > (3) What explains the differences between these two portrayed > responses? The causes of the events? The composition of the populace? > > No doubt racists will draw their own conclusions, but the major factor is that with 9/11 the victims died pretty much all in one rapid hit while everyone else was OK. In NO the victims are still alive and suffering a protracted disaster. Plus there are far more actual victims in a city that has been effectivelt destroyed. In NY IIRC three buildings were knocked over. No big deal in real estate terms (except to insurers). Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Sep 2 08:46:55 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 10:46:55 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <20050902075814.93092.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> References: <200509020259.j822x7w03358@tick.javien.com> <20050902075814.93092.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050902084655.GI2249@leitl.org> On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 12:58:14AM -0700, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > --- spike wrote: > > If you don't have a RO water pump, that > > might be a good thing to have in your emergency > > supplies closet. > > One can make a pretty good solar powered still using a > washtub, a bucket (or coffee can), some string or duct > tape, a plastic garbage bag or other large sheet of > plastic, and two small rocks (preferably clean). People, there are lists and whole treatises devoted to what's to be in your emergency kit. Don't reinvent the wheel, find them, and use them. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Sep 2 10:10:09 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 03:10:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49949997-4BC2-4934-8705-E6C92FD3B997@mac.com> On Sep 1, 2005, at 11:32 PM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > > A few points that you may have missed: > > 1) The Federal government has very limited jurisdiction in this > case, and > the Feds have been very proactive to the extent they could be; they > pre-positioned most of their assets a couple days before the > storm. The > truly grotesque failure of leadership and planning falls squarely > on the > State of Louisiana, which not only shows clear evidence of having > no plan > whatsoever but also is sitting on their asses rather than pushing the > necessary buttons required to get more Federal resources in there. > Remember, the State of Louisiana is a sovereign entity, and the > Federal > government has very limited ability to act in their jurisdiction > without > official permission by the governor. Unfortunately, the governor > is WAY out > of her league, and clearly lost. > As I understand it it is very much the job of FEMA and the National Guard to coordinate large scale crisis response. What is in the way of that happening? I don't think they are waiting on some missing local permission. So what has broken down there? Surely it cant' be that hard to evacuate the rest of New Orleans and get the people water and food in the meantime. I see no real justification for your casting blame on the Louisiana leadership. In any case I am not real interested in casting blame right now. I just want the rest of the people evacuated and their needs taken care of NOW. This sovereignty argument seems like a bad joke of an excuse. The Feds have been running roughshod over state's rights. FEMA has a mandate to supersede and coordinate local efforts in an emergency anyway as I understand it. There is no reason whatsoever to believe the governor would do less than beg for all possible help in any case. > 2) The logistical infrastructure has been so thoroughly destroyed > that there > is extremely limited ability to deliver support. Dropping water > and MREs > does not do much good if half the place is under a few meters of > water. > Can't drive in, can't boat in, and can't fly in, for a country- > sized region. > They are using what logistical assets they can reasonably mobilize > under the > circumstances. Anybody expecting more has utterly unrealistic > notions about > the nature of logistics under the circumstances. Are you saying that we do not have the means to lower pallets of goods from military helicopters exactly where we want them? We surely can fly in and we can boat most of the way in. Are you saying that marines can't manage to get into a disaster zone in America but can kick bitt anywhere and everywhere else in the world? I do not believe this. Besides. A lot of the people are in very packed and accessible places. Even they are not being remotely taken care of. What is the excuse for that? > > 3) What transportation elements can operate in this environment > have a very > low carrying capacity that is entirely inadequate for the sheer > number of > people the have to support. If there were only thousands of people > left > behind, it would have been less of an issue, but there are hundreds of > thousands of people spread over a vast area. Massive airdrops are not > granular enough, as there is no distribution channel within the > city once > you drop a pallet somewhere. They are a start and a lot better than sitting back and letting the people go berserk on top of all their other losses. Dropping a pallet with some easy way to find it at least puts resources on the ground and is an improvement. > > 4) As further evidence, the disparities in competence and reaction > between > affected States, notably Mississippi and Louisiana, is stark. > Mississippi > is just about the poorest State in the country and took the > hurricane head > on, thoroughly annihilating a fair portion of that State, but the > authorities took charge of the situation very quickly. Louisiana > did not > prepare ahead of time, and then sat around with a thumb up their > ass after > the fact. Looting in Mississippi was squashed with extreme > prejudice early > on. New Orleans is a very different beast than most of Mississippi. It is basically a bowl protected from its lake and the Ocean by the sides of the bowl. In a major storm surge or breach the bowl can start filling with water flooding much of the city. I do not know of an equally fragile large metropolitan area in Mississippi that faces the same challenges. > > > The biggest villains in this whole mess is the State of Louisiana, > and its > leaders. Criminal incompetence and negligence, amplified by a genuine > crisis. Heads are going to roll in the that State when this is all > over. I wish we would stop looking for who to blame and get on with saving lives. I wish we would study all the things that went wrong to build better safeguards and procedures for the next crises. And it is certainly true that all the states have received a lot less federal dollars. Their budgets are seriously strained. Infrastructure needs are being slighted all over the country. And yes some of that is the fault of this federal administration and the asinine war on terror and especially the war in Iraq. - samantha From eugen at leitl.org Fri Sep 2 10:34:47 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 12:34:47 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: References: <20050902022810.76869.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050902103447.GT2249@leitl.org> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 11:44:34PM -0700, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > State-of-the-art active radar systems do not detectably radiate at all, > another very, very slick piece of American military technology. It is how I don't see how this is supposed to be possible. Are you sure you're not meaning passive radar? > stealth attack aircraft like the F-22 can use search radar while still being > invisible in the broad RF spectrum. > > Many critics fail to understand that at some level of power, a laser is > qualitatively different in its interaction with matter than a milliwatt > laser pointer. These lasers have proven quite effective against dumb/hard > targets. At some level of power, you have plasma defocusing the beam in the path, requiring very large apertures, which make such lasers not portable. Over distances, you need active optics tracking the beam despite atmospheric microlensing. Mirorring the target makes it effectively immune against laser (though the sensors remain the weak part of it, of course). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Fri Sep 2 10:46:20 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 06:46:20 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <00bf01c5af73$2afa3e30$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin><001901c5af60$3465b890$6600a8c0@brainiac> <00bf01c5af73$2afa3e30$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: No, I have not. I do not have her cell phone number and there's nothing I could do for her anyway. I am concerned, but maybe she went to family in SC or something. I'll wait. Thanks for the info, though. :) It's good to hear some positive news from the area. :) I remember Hurricane Hugo in Charleston some years ago and it was devastating, though not as bad. It was a couple of weeks before power was restored to our family. At that point we went to help with cleanup. Regards, MB On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, kevinfreels.com wrote: > FYI. It's hard to get calls in, nut I have peope in Harahan that have power. > They also say that most of the area can receive text messages on cell > phones but can't get rhough on voice. Have you tried that? > From eugen at leitl.org Fri Sep 2 11:21:55 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 13:21:55 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a gametheorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <200509020526.j825Qrw21330@tick.javien.com> References: <200509020526.j825Qrw21330@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050902112155.GY2249@leitl.org> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 10:24:58PM -0700, spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of user > > Re: peak oil debate framed from a gametheorystandpoint ? > ... > > > > > > On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > Insisting on agri-ethanol will push us back to a 19th century economy > > > and ecological devastation. Anyone who advocates it is a luddite who > > > knows not what they ask for... > > User, I could see ethanol as a transition phase, where we add Why ethanol, on earth? Why not synmethanol? Or biodiesel, if you absolutely have to curry favors to big dirty agribusiness? Why not simply lighter, more efficient vehicles (my car averages about 6.2 l/100 km, which is probably half or less of the typical U.S. car, not even SUV)? > more ethanol to gasoline over about a decade, to take advantage > of the infrastructure already in place. We could use the An onboard fuel reformer, or a high-temperature fuel cell would make the most advantage from the infrastructure in place. Alcohols are too corrosive for the current infrastructure, unless used just as additives -- but why bother with footnotes? > existing gasoline stations, pumps, etc. Most modern internal > combustion engines can run on about 15% ethanol with no > modifications, and can go up to around 25% without too much > effort or expense. What is the half life of a modern car? A few years, typically. It would make more sense to just stick to new vehicles. > An ethanol-gasoline mix could carry part of the load > while we gear up nuclear and coal fired power plants as well Nuke? Coal? Are you crazy? > as refineries suited to processing sour crude. We will need > a few years to get cars adapted to use electricity. Ethanol EVs are around. You won't achieve a redesign in a few years, at least as long as established manufactures are merely sticking to putting lipstick on a pig. > could help get us thru the transition. No, it would be a big mistake to make. Biodiesel would be a far smaller mistake, if you insist to make any. > Here's a notion I had today. Assume a temporary > oil crisis such as one caused by Katrina. We know that This isn't just Katrina: http://benzinpreis.de/statistik.phtml?o=7&jahr=2005&sorte=Normal > a 5% shortfall in supply can cause a huge and destructive > surge in price. On the other hand, a small fuel savings > could easily cover a 5% shortfall in supply. A government Or you could just use a price ratchet via taxes, allowing a monotonous slow increase in prices. We've been at >6.5 US$/gallon for a long time. You'll get used to it, too. > could declare a temporary open season on what types > of vehicles are allowed on the roads. Many homes have a > dirt bike or other small rec vehicle that could be temporarily > declared street legal. We could declare a temporary 50 mph > speed limit for the month of September, in all but the far > left lane. This might encourage people to ride bicycles, > motorized scooters, go carts and dirt bikes on the street > for a few weeks, just long enough to get thru the crisis. The crisis is completely artificial. I don't think your legislation changes have any real bite to it. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Sep 2 11:31:33 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 13:31:33 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Manhattan vs. New Orleans In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050902003155.0513cdd0@unreasonable.com> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20050902003155.0513cdd0@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <20050902113133.GZ2249@leitl.org> On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 12:53:13AM -0400, David Lubkin wrote: > My impression, from coverage and commentary of New Orleans, is there My impression from third-hand information from the trenches is that the mass media are innacurate and really slow (by at least 24 h) reporters. Some rather interesting news gets entirely unreported. YMMV. > are heroics, but less dramatic. Certainly many people trying to help > one another. But an atmosphere in many areas of felonious barbarity. > Looting, rape, murder, brutality -- not to save oneself or one's > loved ones, but in sociopathic nihilism. Local police command chain has become dissociated, with local forces participating in the looting. Failure to enforce order has caused external support to stop for time being. Patients are dying like flies. > (1) Do you agree that these are the pictures that have been painted > for us of the two events? Painted by whom? > (2) Do you think either reflect the gist of what has happened? If > not, what has caused the distortion(s)? I don't see any active distortion in the mass media which is not caused by the usual incompetence. > (3) What explains the differences between these two portrayed > responses? The causes of the events? The composition of the populace? The two classes of events are completely incomparable at about every level. I won't even start enumerating. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From bret at bonfireproductions.com Fri Sep 2 13:36:34 2005 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 09:36:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Waterford-3 plant outside NOLA? Message-ID: <44D552AF-8667-4871-8049-A37614CA8305@bonfireproductions.com> Anyone know how the Waterford-3 nuclear plant made out? I understand it is just up the river from New Orleans. If we're having security issues in the area, this could be a problem. I just haven't heard anything on the feeds about it, which I find curious. ]3 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 13:37:42 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 06:37:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <4317C127.3030707@aol.com> Message-ID: <20050902133742.28178.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Your chemistry book deals with converting sugar. You need to turn to the pages where it talks about the decay products of the starches, fiber, protiens, and other compounds that make up plant structure. Ever heard of swamp gas? It's methane. Comes from when man or nature dumps plant waste en masse. Now considered 12 times more greenhousey than CO2, and plants don't absorb it from the atmosphere like they do CO2. --- Robert Lindauer wrote: > Interesting, my chemistry book says: > > C6Hl2O6 ??? 2 CH3CH2OH + 2 CO2 + energy > > glucose ethyl alcohol carbon dioxide > > As for fallow land, in 1980, around 170,000 acres in Hawaii were > dedicated to sugar production, now down to 20k acres, with 150k acres > laying, for the most part, fallow. Actually, returning to jungle, as it should. > > Here it's good sense. > > In the midwest where they continue to produce corn in abundance, > corn-produced alcohol averages about $2.12 per gallon buying corn at > market rates, not even touching the abundant supply. > > Robbie > > > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > >On the contrary, and contrary to the Green agrarian mythology, > putting > >the burden on the agricultural system means much more farmland put > >under plow, and much more forest re-re-claimed for farmland, means > >ecological devastation. It is farmland that destroys wildlife > habitat. > >VT and NH were once 90% farmland for only two things: a) to grow hay > >for all the horses in New York City and Boston, and b) to grow sheep > >for wool for keeping NYers and Beantowners warm in those cold cold > >winters of the late 19th century when we were headed into an ice > age. > > > >Today it is reversed: VT and NH are 90% forest, we have more > wildlife > >than before the europeans came here, and NY and Boston are not hip > deep > >in horseshit, disease, and stink. > > > >Insisting on agri-ethanol will push us back to a 19th century > economy > >and ecological devastation. Anyone who advocates it is a luddite who > >knows not what they ask for. > > > >Besides all that, all the distillery mash will release much more > >methane into the atmosphere. Scientists had thought methane was six > >times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. A report just came > out > >that its actually 12 times more powerful. > > > >--- Robert Lindauer wrote: > > > > > > > >>A green point here: > >> > >>If everyone had their own ethanol still it wouldn't be half the > >>problem > >>it is now - and there wouldn't be the polution problem either. > >> > >>Robbie > >> > >> > >>Andrew Beck wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>>If you were an insider and knew that oil was going to be worth > that > >>>> > >>>> > >>much > >> > >> > >>>>in a few years, why would you be pumping for all you were worth > and > >>>>selling it today for $70/barrel? That doesn't make sense. It > >>>> > >>>> > >>would > >> > >> > >>>>be more profitable to reduce your pumping to the minimum > necessary > >>>> > >>>> > >>to > >> > >> > >>>>cover expenses, and to keep it in the ground until the oil is far > >>>> > >>>> > >>more > >> > >> > >>>>valuable than it is today. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>The thing about the peak oil debate is that it doesn't take the > oil > >>> > >>> > >>to be nearly gone for it to shoot through the roof in price, just a > >>small decline in oil supply will make the price go way up because > of > >>people's complete reliance on oil and refusal to comprimise their > >>easy living. Case in point in the 70s when the supply dropped 5% > >>prices shot up 400%. So all that will make the price of oil shoot > up > >>is when the supply slows down a bit. The reserves should still be > at > >>least halfway full at that point, so now quanitity is good and > won't > >>comprimise the oil companies reserves when the supply is running > out. > >> > >> > >>>Also I don't think anybody except oil execuatives are in a > position > >>> > >>> > >>to say if they are storing a few wells for a rainy day. > >> > >> > >>>_______________________________________________ > >>>extropy-chat mailing list > >>>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >>>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>extropy-chat mailing list > >>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >Mike Lorrey > >Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > >Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: > >http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com > >Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > > > > > > >__________________________________ > >Yahoo! Mail > >Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: > >http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html > > > >_______________________________________________ > >extropy-chat mailing list > >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Sep 2 13:46:24 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 09:46:24 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Waterford-3 plant outside NOLA? Message-ID: <380-22005952134624870@M2W057.mail2web.com> From: Bret Kulakovich >Anyone know how the Waterford-3 nuclear plant made out? I understand >it is just up the river from New Orleans. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9118049/ http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=3776111 -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 13:59:13 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 06:59:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <00b901c5af72$fe514a40$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <20050902135913.43602.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "kevinfreels.com" wrote: > This whole article is crap. Indeed, why are so many of them poor? > Could it be the spirit of entitlement in the area? The fact that > everyone there xepects a handout? The fact that everyone expected > that if anything happened, someone would take care of them? > And who would be responsible for this? Me? You? The racist "american > people"? This is crap. Their mayor is black. If anyone is responsible > it is him. These journalists act like this is the result of some huge > racial conspiracy. No doubt someone will say this was planned by white > people. This has nothing to do with race. It is incompetence and > ignorance. Sure is, but you know the media would rather point fingers at Bush than at Nagin. Nagin, after all, spent millions trying to sue gun makers for the crimes of criminals. The media is incapable of criticising an incompetent black unless they are also an 'uncle tom' republican. > I know I started this thread. and I just had a thought. > These people have been sitting there for 4 days and yet camera crews > and police cars can drive by? Why the hell do they just sit there? Because government said buses were coming, and waiting to ride a bus is a lot less effort than walking ten or twenty miles. After all, it's governments job to take care of people, innit? Of course, a lot of them are now pissed off cause it took three days to get enough buses there, which is to be expected when all the population of a city with any intelligence and initiative evacuates: those left have no idea how to run anything. Those complaining about the response should also consider that, as you are wondering why your friends in the area are not emailing you, the fact is that the entire communications system of the region is non-existent. Thousands of trees down on phone and power and cable wires. Cell towers destroyed, or dependent on connections to now-non-existent land line phone services. Companies are just now moving portable cells into the area. > Sure, there are some who couldn;t make the walk, but by the looks of > the peopole I would guess that most of those "trapped without food" > could just walk out at any time. A lot of those look like a few weeks without food would do them a world of good. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html From megao at sasktel.net Fri Sep 2 13:13:06 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 08:13:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] profitable arbitrage VS gouging/profiteering on disaster Message-ID: <43184FE2.4040900@sasktel.net> I asked someone in the oilpatch who invest, re-invests and has made good from the last few years of oil activity where the money goes from oil investment profits. He said most is still re-invested. What I wanted to know is where else is it might be going. Is the bubble still moving along or are some starting to diversify? Price wise the overnight move from 1.00-1.20/liter CAD is not prompted by supply and demand as I can't see supply bid up for actual delivery that dramatically, that fast. However unleaded gas and heating oil options I can see moving overnight. In this case I am of the opinion that an executive order should have been made as a pre-emptive to cap upward moves in options to say 1/2 a cent a day so that the supply-demand crisis would not simply flush the consumer dollars into options traders profiting on fear/catastrophe in a manner not actually related to market forces. This sort of thing happened with the first BSE with beef and I still remember the phone call I got just as the news broke asking if I wanted to capture the move on beef and "ride it all the way to the bottom". This the sort of thing both our prime minister and the USA president could have done just ahead of the actual crisis to buffer the shock to the population. In my mind this is one of the few things a government can do independant of the market which is intended to be for the general good VS the gouging by a few well placed arbitragers getting an exhorbitant windfall. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 14:10:24 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 07:10:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050902141024.25653.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote:> > Well, the 100kW aint it. > I've worked on lasers putting out 1kW onto 10 mm square carbon fibre > mat and it does zilch. Dry hardwood is almost as good. > Now work out the power density of the 100kW laser compared to beam > size on target. 100 kW is qualitatively different from 1 kW just as a microwave oven is different from a radar gun. > > There are numerous ways to absorb, deflect or reradiate that kind of > power for the few seconds necessary for the munition to reach its > target. Bear in mind that these systems are used in the terminal > phase of attack. The laser will work with PGMs, but not with dumb > katyushas that have been hardened. Any dumb ballistic weapon that you force to be modified with graphite sheets, glue, sawdust, etc will, even if they prevent laser pulse attack, so fundamentally change the ballistic characteristics of the warhead as to make it unusable unless the modifications are done by the manufacturer and he publishes ballistic tables for the new design. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Sep 2 14:19:13 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 07:19:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: <20050902103447.GT2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20050902141913.39808.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > At some level of power, you have plasma defocusing the beam in the > path, > requiring very large apertures, which make such lasers not portable. > Over distances, you need active optics tracking the beam despite > atmospheric microlensing. > > Mirorring the target makes it effectively immune against laser > (though the sensors remain the weak part of it, of course). Ever changed a halogen bulb? High concentration light has difficulty with impurities. The oil and/or dirt from a fingerprint on such a bulb will cause it to fail, either immediately, or soon. So what if you mirror the surface of a mortar round at the factory? Your grunts are going to get it dirty, are going to handle it with bare oily hands, so that even if you are able to mirror polish the surface to a high enough degree for a laser (which will require polishing to such a degree that the mortar round's price inflates from a few bucks up to thousands of dollars each, thus making your war much more expensive), your grunts are going to negate all that with handling. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail for Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail From bret at bonfireproductions.com Fri Sep 2 14:20:17 2005 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 10:20:17 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Waterford-3 plant outside NOLA? In-Reply-To: <380-22005952134624870@M2W057.mail2web.com> References: <380-22005952134624870@M2W057.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <8CB547AA-0433-4AA8-ABA6-906BF5F5E62A@bonfireproductions.com> Phew. Thanks Natasha - why that didn't come up under Google news, I don't know. I only found mention in a 'why there is no power for pipelines' article from a few days ago, and that the plant was offlined before Katrina arrived. Maybe it was my spelling. I remember seeing Waterford from the air a few years back, and it had just occurred to me where I was at the time. Thanks again, Bret On Sep 2, 2005, at 9:46 AM, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > From: Bret Kulakovich > > > > >> Anyone know how the Waterford-3 nuclear plant made out? I understand >> it is just up the river from New Orleans. >> >> > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9118049/ > http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=3776111 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > mail2web - Check your email from the web at > http://mail2web.com/ . > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > From jay.dugger at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 16:31:44 2005 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 11:31:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: <20050902022810.76869.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050902022810.76869.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5366105b05090209315abc91f1@mail.gmail.com> [snip] > > IIRC the US and Israel were talking of deploying a similar system to > > hit katyusha rockets fired at settlements. haven't heard much since > > about it though. > > Problem is that hardening munitions against laser energy is > > relatively easy. > > Maybe all hamas/Hezbollah would have to do is either polish the > > rockets or > > coat them in sawdust/glue. There is not an infinitely long time > > window in which to down these things. Sometimes you see weapons projects appear in the trade press or patent applications, and then they go quiet for a time. This might mark the development period. No sense advertising you've got a great idea if it might not pan out. > > > > I suspect that the reason it's being deployed on aircraft is to zap > > MANPADS > > like Stinger that rely on delicate sensors so more low level flying > > can be undertaken in places like Afghanistan. > Raytheon has a very interesting fixed HPM defense against MANPADS. See AvWeek in the last few months (email me for a reference tomorrow) for details. The idea uses a high power phased array that runs from the local electric grid to sense and attack the missiles in-flight. Raytheon developed, IIRC, from classified HPM projects and on their own dime. Now you just need some software upgrades for AEGIS-class radar sets. LockMart will either license it if Uncle Sam insists, or hold out for a big fat redevelopment contract. -- Jay Dugger http://www.redcross.org Please donate if you can. From eugen at leitl.org Fri Sep 2 16:56:49 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 18:56:49 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: <5366105b05090209315abc91f1@mail.gmail.com> References: <20050902022810.76869.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5366105b05090209315abc91f1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20050902165649.GI2249@leitl.org> On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 11:31:44AM -0500, Jay Dugger wrote: > Raytheon has a very interesting fixed HPM defense against MANPADS. See > AvWeek in the last few months (email me for a reference tomorrow) for > details. The idea uses a high power phased array that runs from the > local electric grid to sense and attack the missiles in-flight. > Raytheon developed, IIRC, from classified HPM projects and on their > own dime. This sounds very interesting, for a space propulsion point of view. Please give us any references you come across (assuming, you're not talking about Vigilant Eagle http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms04_010483.pdf ). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From robgobblin at aol.com Fri Sep 2 17:30:06 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 07:30:06 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050902133742.28178.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050902133742.28178.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43188C1E.7050703@aol.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >Your chemistry book deals with converting sugar. You need to turn to >the pages where it talks about the decay products of the starches, >fiber, protiens, and other compounds that make up plant structure. > It deals with that too. > Ever >heard of swamp gas? It's methane. > People have been using refuse from sugar cane for fertilizer and feed for centuries. If you process the whole plant instead of refined sugar, you get high grade protein feed and fertilizer suitable for replanting and/or pig-feed which is useful out here where Lau Lau rules. Ever hear the expression "happy as a pig" - comes from the pigs eating the still-slightly-alcohol-infused mash-waste from a distillation process. Makes good tasting pigs too - good food comes from happy animals :) > Comes from when man or nature dumps >plant waste en masse. Now considered 12 times more greenhousey than >CO2, and plants don't absorb it from the atmosphere like they do CO2. > > Did your mother drop you on your head or something? Alcohol or biodeisel procession of plant waste renders useful byproducts such as fertilizer and energy, making it smart and wise to convert. Here in Hawaii we in fact have a major problem with excess green-waste (stuff grows so fast here you gotta cut your lawn twice a week just to keep it below your ankles - I compost it and put it on my lawn but lots of people don't). If those plants were then either composted properly and/or processed using a nicely bred yeast we could turn our wate management nightmare into an economic boon. Robbie From megao at sasktel.net Fri Sep 2 17:18:43 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 12:18:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] peak oil debate - "happy as a pig in shit" In-Reply-To: <43188C1E.7050703@aol.com> References: <20050902133742.28178.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <43188C1E.7050703@aol.com> Message-ID: <43188973.4060905@sasktel.net> Most of the world has more marginal curcumstances than Hawaii. So for us we have to have a valuable extractive, bio-pharm or complex bioactive to feed the money machine to grow the biomass. Marginal production will in time be enhanced by modification of plant chemistry or growth cycles. The cellulose based ethanol and fuel-cell use cycle is a handy way to get the last drop of good from biomass but for most of us it only works if the rest of the production economics stand on their own without considering the salvage value of the biomass. With logistical energy costs escalated, the micro-scale distance insensitive local production of low value products combines well with exporting to distant uses small physical quantities of high value materials. For me here it is cannabis. the oilseed is middling value and justifies long distance logistical cycles for processing and use. The fibre must be bio-procesed and used in as short distances as possible. However bioextractives however produced which have an exponent or high multiple value which can build and carry the whole production process. I have not read most of this string so the comments might be way offbase... the pig in (shit) just caught my eye. > People have been using refuse from sugar cane for fertilizer and feed > for centuries. If you process the whole plant instead of refined > sugar, you get high grade protein feed and fertilizer suitable for > replanting and/or pig-feed which is useful out here where Lau Lau > rules. Ever hear the expression "happy as a pig" - comes from the > pigs eating the still-slightly-alcohol-infused mash-waste from a > distillation process. Makes good tasting pigs too - good food comes > from happy animals :) > >> Comes from when man or nature dumps >> plant waste en masse. Now considered 12 times more greenhousey than >> CO2, and plants don't absorb it from the atmosphere like they do CO2. >> >> > > Did your mother drop you on your head or something? Alcohol or > biodeisel procession of plant waste renders useful byproducts such as > fertilizer and energy, making it smart and wise to convert. Here in > Hawaii we in fact have a major problem with excess green-waste (stuff > grows so fast here you gotta cut your lawn twice a week just to keep > it below your ankles - I compost it and put it on my lawn but lots of > people don't). If those plants were then either composted properly > and/or processed using a nicely bred yeast we could turn our wate > management nightmare into an economic boon. > > Robbie > > From robgobblin at aol.com Fri Sep 2 18:56:35 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 08:56:35 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] peak oil debate - "happy as a pig in shit" In-Reply-To: <43188973.4060905@sasktel.net> References: <20050902133742.28178.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <43188C1E.7050703@aol.com> <43188973.4060905@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <4318A063.2070303@aol.com> Lifespan Pharma Inc. wrote: > > Most of the world has more marginal curcumstances than Hawaii. No doubt, however in both the "corn belt" and in the more arid regions there are good alternatives to sugar cane, namely subar beet (which actually processes at a higher level - around 14%), corn, rice, potatoes and barley - all of which are grown commercially now in abundance far exceeding demand with huge potential for increased production. Were demand to increase, existing fallow farmland could be utilized to fulfill needs providing economic stimulus to a now government subsidized industry as well as improved growing methods. I'm -not- suggesting that the total oil utilization could be replaced by alcohol/biodeisel products, only that as an interim solution until a conversion to nuclear power and electric vehicles and mass transportation systems could be affected. Of course the great success story is Brazil which now includes 24% sugar-produced ethanol in all of their fuel and their goal is to replace all oil use with sugar-produced ethanol. And they're "low-tech" compared to the kind of industrialized farming and processing we're capable here in the good 'ol USofA. Albeit at the great expense of the rainforests, but not, strangely, as great a loss as that lost to hamburger production. > So for us we have to have a valuable extractive, bio-pharm or complex > bioactive to feed the money machine > to grow the biomass. There are very, very effective existing ways of producing sugar-sources in almost every climate - and with a little R&D funded at say similar levels as Oil production and processing R&D, I'm sure those could be improved a thousand fold as people get better at it. Trends for sugar production in Hawaii showed an increase of more than 15% per year per acre in yeilded refined sugar up until the sugar crash - and that was before they were seriously considering bio-engineering plants (like sugar cane - say a hybrid between cane sugar and elephant bamboo or something?) > Marginal production will in time be enhanced by modification of plant > chemistry or growth cycles. Quite right! > > The cellulose based ethanol and fuel-cell use cycle is a handy way to > get the last drop of good from > biomass but for most of us it only works if the rest of the production > economics stand on their own > without considering the salvage value of the biomass. The problem with cellulose-based ethanol is the need to pre-process the material. For instance, unprocessed sugar-cane can be fermented using existing yeasts with a yeild of approximately 11% of the total mass. Whereas with processed sugar you get nearly 100% conversion. The difference - the unprocessed cellulose. The problem is that yeast doesn't naturally breakdown cellulose. You'd have to bio-engineer a good bacteria to first breakdown the cellulose and the return sugar for the yeast to make a really effective "self-perpetuating" cellulose fuel system. It is, no doubt, a worthwhile endeavor! > > With logistical energy costs escalated, the micro-scale distance > insensitive local production of low value > products combines well with exporting to distant uses small physical > quantities of high value materials. Local production is key, for sure, but also very good for local economies. > > For me here it is cannabis. the oilseed is middling value and > justifies long distance logistical cycles for > processing and use. The fibre must be bio-procesed and used in as > short distances as possible. And more fun than alcohol as I recall. May both be legal to produce at home soon! > > However bioextractives however produced which have an exponent or high > multiple value which > can build and carry the whole production process. > > I have not read most of this string so the comments might be way > offbase... the pig in (shit) just caught my eye. Ever actually see a pig stumbling around drunk? Very funny. Robbie Lindauer From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Sep 2 19:20:46 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 14:20:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need References: <49949997-4BC2-4934-8705-E6C92FD3B997@mac.com> Message-ID: <01f001c5aff3$6bc89b70$0100a8c0@kevin> > Are you saying that we do not have the means to lower pallets of > goods from military helicopters exactly where we want them? We > surely can fly in and we can boat most of the way in. Are you saying > that marines can't manage to get into a disaster zone in America but > can kick bitt anywhere and everywhere else in the world? I do not > believe this. Besides. A lot of the people are in very packed and > accessible places. Even they are not being remotely taken care of. > What is the excuse for that? An added point for you Samantha - whom I often disagree with - If the TV crews could get there, so could the water and food trucks. I could have loaded up a UHAUL truck at 8 am at Walmart after seeing the conference center on the news and driven there by 8pm from Evansville, IN. The only reason I didn't was because I was afraid I would interfere with a large-scale organized response that never came and because I was certain someone else would get there sooner. From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Sep 2 19:28:31 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 14:28:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need References: <20050902055618.37354.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <021201c5aff4$81580ec0$0100a8c0@kevin> > > Well I feel like its complaining about spilled milk, > but it seems pretty obvious to me. You can't cut > taxes, fund a $250 billion dollar ground war, AND be > prepared for disaster relief. Not unless the Federal > Government is somehow capable of magically creating > money and manpower. As far as I know the federal > government is drowning in a bathtub right now. It's > called the Mississippi Basin. We get what we ask for. > A little over half of us voted for these types of > policies, so we got exactly what we deserved. Are you kidding? Do syou seriously expect anyone to believe this is a cash-flow problem? They take out loans for this kind of stuff and can borrow damn near without limits. > We have most of our logistics infrastructure in the > middle east to support to our troops in Iraq. Even as > it is, the logistic support to the troops on the > ground is suboptimal in regards to certain things like > body armor and hard topped vehicles for convoy > support. > I don't believe there are that many spare C130s to > drop off any spare MREs to the people affected. Kidding again? I see them flying around here all the time. INDIANA > > I hardly think an administration that can't foresee > the need for an exit strategy when entering a war > would have a contigency plan for natural disaster > during the war. > From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Fri Sep 2 19:25:40 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 12:25:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: <20050902103447.GT2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 9/2/05 3:34 AM, "Eugen Leitl" wrote: > On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 11:44:34PM -0700, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > >> State-of-the-art active radar systems do not detectably radiate at all, >> another very, very slick piece of American military technology. It is how > > I don't see how this is supposed to be possible. Are you sure you're not > meaning passive radar? Nope, not passive radar, though on some levels it shares principles. I am not an authority on the details of it, and the real details are classified. The problem with passive radar is that you do not control the characteristics or power of the radiator that is illuminating the target, so one has to measure background and then do cross-correlation to find patterns allowing for variation and uncertainty in the reference. This limits range and resolution. This new type of active radar uses an ultra-wide band radiator that mimics background RF in all respects, but since the computer has perfect knowledge of the background 'noise', it can extract far more detail at far more range than traditional passive radar. A few advanced countries are using UWB radar for their weapon systems, which is much more resistant to ECM than traditional radar and is harder to detect at a distance due to the lower power in a given band. However, most of these systems still generate a signature that an advanced ECM package could detect. The special feature the US state-of-the-art UWB radar used in stealthy systems is that the mimicry of background RF is supposedly nearly perfect such that you can be looking directly at it at quite close range and never see it unless you have the 'key' required to decrypt the background RF one is looking at. In short, by the time the other guy has a prayer of detecting the radiator, you will be in visual range (and the other guy will have long since died). And of course, these same platforms can also be keyed off of AWACs and other external radiators for some proper passive radar. I guess this would be an example of an almost perfectly efficient RF data communication technology, though not used as such in the radar application. As I said, I don't know all the technical details beyond what I've gleaned from radar tech guys who've worked on a lot of military radar systems. Supposedly this is an incremental evolutionary convergence of advanced RF technology that the US has been perfecting for a long time. The radar packages used in many more conventional combat aircraft platforms use UWB radiators, but in a more traditional low probability of intercept configuration that can be detected if the ED/ECM is very slick, due primarily to the fact that it does not look like background RF noise. J. Andrew Rogers From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Sep 2 19:38:16 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 14:38:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Hyphenated Americans WAS: Getting AId to people in need References: <200509020426.j824QLw14232@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <021f01c5aff5$dda1bd60$0100a8c0@kevin> > > If an African-American is born in America, both her parents are > born in America, all her grandparents, great grandparents, and > their parents were born in America, at what point is it no longer > legitimate that she call herself African American? When does she > become, like me, a native American? I have an ancestor who was > born in Pretoria South Africa. May I call myself African > American? Will all my descendants, for all eternity, be able > to call themselves African American? This reminds me of a point I made for several years while a mortgage broker. The 1003 loan application REQUIRES a portion on page 3 to be filled out called HDMA for "government monitoring purposes" It asks race and asks whether a person is Latino or non-latino. in a separate section. The excuse is because you can be a latino and an asian or a latino AND an african american. Of course, you are asked to check all that apply in the second section that has boxes for caucasian, native american, asian, african american, etc. It has a box checked "I do not wish to furnish this information." Of course, if you do not furnish it, the lender will not do the loan because HUD requires that information to track and make sure we aren't declining people or charging higher rates because of race or "ethnicity". No one ever stopped to think that if you didn't ask, the underwriter couldn;t do that because they would have no idea what race or ethnicity they were. As a mortgage broker I was very upset at this. I refused to ask these questions and I began checking all boxes for everyone - regardless of race or ethnicity. The way I saw it, everyone descended from Africa and was therefore African American. EVen the "native Americans" descended from African stock, so we are all native americans - and asians, etc. One day at a closing a borrower noticed this and asked about it. He was very upset with me. After all, he was black and NOT caucasian! From pharos at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 19:51:30 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 20:51:30 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <43188C1E.7050703@aol.com> References: <20050902133742.28178.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <43188C1E.7050703@aol.com> Message-ID: On 9/2/05, Robert Lindauer wrote > > People have been using refuse from sugar cane for fertilizer and feed > for centuries. If you process the whole plant instead of refined sugar, > you get high grade protein feed and fertilizer suitable for replanting > and/or pig-feed which is useful out here where Lau Lau rules. Ever hear > the expression "happy as a pig" - comes from the pigs eating the > still-slightly-alcohol-infused mash-waste from a distillation process. > You just made that up! :) Or, at least, if it is a true story in your locality it has nothing to do with the common idiom "happy as a pig in mud", (in polite company), or army-style "happy as a pig in sh*t". Sometimes shortened to just "happy as a pig" in conversation to avoid possible offence. This saying just means being blissfully happy, like when a pig is in it's ideal environment. The French version is "?tre heureux comme un poisson dans l'eau". Literally translated is "be happy as a fish in water". BillK From fortean1 at mindspring.com Fri Sep 2 22:03:49 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 15:03:49 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight? Message-ID: <4318CC45.60500@mindspring.com> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 23:29:55 -0700, "Terry W. Colvin" fwded: I wrote: Designing for absolute minimum weight aerospace vehicles is fraught with problems... Granted, however we are discussing only *scaling* as a function of the needs of the astronaut. Two of my arguments about current space exploration projects are that (a) their designers are obsessed with building to miniscule performance margins and (b) they are monstrously over-engineered. You've only to look at the problems with the shuttle orbiter's thermal tiles - they only work as heat shields, not debris impact shelds, and it only takes a tiny level of damage to severely compromise the entire vehicle. We should be designing bigger, simpler, more rugged and more flexible, not smaller, lighter and more fragile. Designing a cramped, highly confining vehicle for an undersize crew will never happen simply because of the sheer psychological problems of cooping-up a crew in a baked-bean can for years at a time. Unless your psychological profiles throw up hermit-types with agoraphobia and a desire to return to the womb, then you're going to have extreme problems from the moment you close the hatch. Besides, bigger means that you can work with a number of economies of scale - such as mass production and system duplication to make enough redundancy to cope with discrete failures. It's all very well reducing your air conditioning needs such that it can be provided by one CCU, but if that fails and you've no fall-back then you're in serious trouble. You're going to need prime systems and back-ups anyway. Larger devices tend to be more efficient. There is a point that as you reduce the mass of astronauts, a given number of duplicated support systems is not going to get any smaller. Indeed, why even stop at dwarves? Why not amputees? There's a lot of redundant skeletal tissue in legs. We're starting to make serious headway into tapping directly into the central nervous system. Why not interface your robotic controls directly with the astronaut and do away with limbs altogether? Then your space capsule would be the size of a rubbish bin. I'm afraid I'm not convinced. We should be building bigger spaceships, with multiple cabins, workshops, equipment bays and the like, so that if anything catastrophic happens to one compartment it can be sealed off to protect the rest of the ship. We want space ships not space canoes! Bigger is Better. Let's go for Saturn Vs for the twenty-first century, not bottle rockets! Another big no-no is sending a human crew all that way and not letting them land. You might as well just send robots. The only advantage of putting a human crew into orbit around Mars to supervise machines on the ground is that it reduces the radio-transmission lag. And Mars rovers have already demonstrated that they can be made smart enough to deal autonomously with exploring without human hands on the controls. Again, bigger spacecraft could support bigger, smarter, more versatile machines with greated power and longer endurance, but what would you rather see on the flanks of Mons Olympus, another robot or a human in a space suit? Robin Hill (thinking of founding the Campaign for Real Space Exploration), STEAMY BESS, Brough, East Yorkshire. This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.printcharger.com/emailStripper.htm -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From robgobblin at aol.com Fri Sep 2 22:32:00 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 12:32:00 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: References: <20050902133742.28178.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <43188C1E.7050703@aol.com> Message-ID: <4318D2E0.20609@aol.com> Okay, but until you've seen pigs wallowing in fresh warm mash, you haven't lived! BillK wrote: >On 9/2/05, Robert Lindauer wrote > > >>People have been using refuse from sugar cane for fertilizer and feed >>for centuries. If you process the whole plant instead of refined sugar, >>you get high grade protein feed and fertilizer suitable for replanting >>and/or pig-feed which is useful out here where Lau Lau rules. Ever hear >>the expression "happy as a pig" - comes from the pigs eating the >>still-slightly-alcohol-infused mash-waste from a distillation process. >> >> >> > >You just made that up! :) >Or, at least, if it is a true story in your locality it has nothing to >do with the common idiom "happy as a pig in mud", (in polite company), >or army-style "happy as a pig in sh*t". >Sometimes shortened to just "happy as a pig" in conversation to avoid >possible offence. > >This saying just means being blissfully happy, like when a pig is in >it's ideal environment. > >The French version is "?tre heureux comme un poisson dans l'eau". >Literally translated is "be happy as a fish in water". > >BillK >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > From extropy at unreasonable.com Fri Sep 2 22:50:45 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 18:50:45 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight? In-Reply-To: <4318CC45.60500@mindspring.com> References: <4318CC45.60500@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050902183320.054bbdd8@unreasonable.com> Terry W. Colvin wrote: >Besides, bigger means that you can work with a number of economies >of scale - such as mass production and system duplication to make >enough redundancy to cope with discrete failures. Reminds me of a conversation I had a few years ago with a distinguished astronomer (and apparent idiot) who had worked on some of the robotic space missions. I was talking about how useful it would be to, instead of having one or maybe two crafts that observe some solar system phenomena, set up an assembly line in near-Earth space. Build thousands of identical crafts. Perhaps finishing one a day, shoving it out into a new direction. First, he dismissed the value of having data from different spots in the solar system. I think he's wrong, but at least the point seems debatable. Then came his punchline, which demonstrated to me that Clarke's Laws are still in effect. He proclaimed that spacecraft *must* be custom-built, and that it would *never* be possible to mass-produce them. And yes, friends, he really did mean *never*. -- David Lubkin. From dgc at cox.net Fri Sep 2 22:48:06 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 18:48:06 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Any city is three days away from barbarism? In-Reply-To: <20050901104237.GS2249@leitl.org> References: <20050901104237.GS2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <4318D6A6.6000508@cox.net> I cannot find the exact quote or attribution. I remember the quote as: "Any city is three days away from barbarism." Does anyone know the actual quote? From riel at surriel.com Fri Sep 2 23:30:55 2005 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 19:30:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050901222119.A1DC057EF5@finney.org> References: <20050901222119.A1DC057EF5@finney.org> Message-ID: On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Hal Finney wrote: > If you were an insider and knew that oil was going to be worth that much > in a few years, why would you be pumping for all you were worth and > selling it today for $70/barrel? That doesn't make sense. If you were a 60 year old CEO, would you try to maximise profits today and keep shareholders happy, or would you gamble that prices will be higher 15 years in the future and hope you can string the shareholders along for that time ? -- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan From riel at surriel.com Fri Sep 2 23:40:15 2005 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 19:40:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: References: <20050901172312.84734.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Dirk Bruere wrote: > On 9/1/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technovel_darpa_lasers_050830.html > > Better hope the enemy doesn't catch on to wrapping their mortar rounds > etc in carbon fibre mat. Or making the surface have corner cubes. With small enough ones it may even have beneficial aerodynamic properties. -- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 00:46:28 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 17:46:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Any city is three days away from barbarism? In-Reply-To: <4318D6A6.6000508@cox.net> Message-ID: <20050903004628.65269.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I thought it was "any culture is two meals from revolution". --- Dan Clemmensen wrote: > I cannot find the exact quote or attribution. I remember the quote > as: > "Any city is three days away from barbarism." > Does anyone know the actual quote? > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Sep 3 02:19:15 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 21:19:15 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Any city is three days away from barbarism? In-Reply-To: <20050903004628.65269.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <4318D6A6.6000508@cox.net> <20050903004628.65269.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050902211732.01ed3e60@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 05:46 PM 9/2/2005 -0700, Mike wrote: >I thought it was "any culture is two meals from revolution". No, no, that's "any bicycle is two wheels from revolution". Damien Broderick From outlawpoet at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 02:31:24 2005 From: outlawpoet at gmail.com (justin corwin) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 19:31:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Any city is three days away from barbarism? In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050902211732.01ed3e60@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <4318D6A6.6000508@cox.net> <20050903004628.65269.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050902211732.01ed3e60@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <3ad827f3050902193190705c7@mail.gmail.com> On 9/2/05, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 05:46 PM 9/2/2005 -0700, Mike wrote: > > >I thought it was "any culture is two meals from revolution". > > No, no, that's "any bicycle is two wheels from revolution". I think you're remembering an old adage electric motor makers have, "a revolution at the axle, is worth two in the brush(es)" -- Justin Corwin outlawpoet at hell.com http://outlawpoet.blogspot.com http://www.adaptiveai.com From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Sep 3 03:00:00 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 20:00:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from agametheorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050902112155.GY2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200509030300.j83302w31803@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl ... > > > > User, I could see ethanol as a transition phase, where we add > > Why ethanol, on earth? Why not synmethanol? Or biodiesel, if > you absolutely have to curry favors to big dirty agribusiness?... Synmethanol and biodiesel are fine, those two guys can play too. I mentioned ethanol because it is easy to make and burn in current vehicles. Biodiesel will be useful for existing Diesel engines. In both cases, I am looking toward the current infrastructure as much as possible during the long transition away from fossil fuels. > Why not simply lighter, more efficient vehicles (my car averages > about 6.2 l/100 km, which is probably half or less of the typical > U.S. car, not even SUV)?... Eventually yes. Think about the transition phase. > > Alcohols are too corrosive for the current infrastructure, unless > used just as additives -- but why bother with footnotes? We will need them. I suspect the answer will come from many directions. > > What is the half life of a modern car? A few years, typically. > It would make more sense to just stick to new vehicles... Good question. I would think it is about 8 years. We will have them for a long time. Cars as we know them will still be with us when you and I take the old nitrogen bath Gene. {8-| {8-] > > > An ethanol-gasoline mix could carry part of the load > > while we gear up nuclear and coal fired power plants as well > > Nuke? Coal? Are you crazy? No, we will need those guys too. I suspect when the proles are faced with the choice of either a nuke plant in the back yard, a coal plant in the back yard or no power, we will choose the nuke plant in loud unison. > > ... Biodiesel would be > a far smaller mistake, if you insist to make any... I'm suggesting that we will have biodiesel, ethanol, synmethanol, full plug-in EVs, turbodiesel series hybrids, parallel hybrids, and good old fashioned gas-only V8 Detroits sharing the roads for the next five decades. ... > > Or you could just use a price ratchet via taxes, allowing > a monotonous slow increase in prices. We've been at > >6.5 US$/gallon for a long time. You'll get used to it, too... Here is where I disagree. The U.S. and state governments do not *really* have the leeway to tax motor fuels this high. If they try, their political opponents can win an election merely by promising to reduce fuel taxes, or any taxes that mess with our cars. We saw in Taxifornia a governor recalled a year into his second term, not because he was merely corrupt (we would tolerate corrupt) but rather because he *legitimately* raised the license fees for cars. The license fees on cars was a flat tax. A flat tax hits the portemonnaie of the poor man much harder than it does the rich. A fuel tax is also a flat tax in a sense, but more than that: a fuel tax is one that everyone pays over and over and over, since everything is made of fuel: the stuff at the grocery store, well, the stuff at every store. A fuel tax is a highly inflationary tax, and it is very destructive to any economy. Americans will not tolerate fuel taxes! We will skip the bit about hurling the tea into Boston Harbor, go straight to hurling the politicians into the Patomac River. We would vote for anyone who promises to end the fuel tax, and I myself would be at the front of the line with the blue finger. I would suggest an alternative: during the transition from fossil fuels we remove taxes and restrictions on any private manufacturing of alcohol, biodiesel or anything that can be used as a motor fuel. With no tax, we could produce oil equivalents at about four bucks a gallon, perhaps less. We would temporarily relax restrictions on water usage, such as pumping out of rivers, to establish corn, potatoes and rice on land that is currently not economical to farm. It will cost us a few fish, but it beats the alternatives. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Sep 3 03:02:14 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 20:02:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050902183320.054bbdd8@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <200509030302.j8332Gw32018@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of David Lubkin ... > > He proclaimed that spacecraft *must* be custom-built, and that it > would *never* be possible to mass-produce them. And yes, friends, he > really did mean *never*. > > > -- David Lubkin. Surely your friend forgot about the Iridium constellation. We build 73 of those. spike From fauxever at sprynet.com Sat Sep 3 03:16:36 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 20:16:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Halliburton gets Katrina Contract Message-ID: <004401c5b035$e4fb0ae0$6600a8c0@brainiac> Who would have thought? WHO would have thought? ... Halliburton gets Katrina contract, hires former FEMA director 1 Sept. 2005 WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 (HalliburtonWatch.org) -- The US Navy asked Halliburton to repair naval facilities damaged by Hurricane Katrina, the Houston Chronicle reported today. The work was assigned to Halliburton's KBR subsidiary under the Navy's $500 million CONCAP contract awarded to KBR in 2001 and renewed in 2004. The repairs will take place in Louisiana and Mississippi. KBR has not been asked to repair the levees destroyed in New Orleans which became the primary cause of most of the damage. Since 1989, governments worldwide have awarded $3 billion in contracts to KBR's Government and Infrastructure Division to clean up damage caused by natural and man-made disasters. Earlier this year, the Navy awarded $350 million in contracts to KBR and three other companies to repair naval facilities in northwest Florida damaged by Hurricane Ivan, which struck in September 2004. The ongoing repair work involves aircraft support facilities, medium industrial buildings, marine construction, mechanical and electrical improvements, civil construction, and family housing renovation. In March, the former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which is tasked with responding to hurricane disasters, became a lobbyist for KBR. Joe Allbaugh was director of FEMA during the first two years of the Bush administration. Today, FEMA is widely criticized for its slow response to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Allbaugh managed Bush's campaign for Texas governor in 1994, served as Gov. Bush's chief of staff and was the national campaign manager for the Bush campaign in 2000. Along with Karen Hughes and Karl Rove, Allbaugh was one of Bush's closest advisers. "This is a perfect example of someone cashing in on a cozy political relationship," said Scott Amey, general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington watchdog group. "Allbaugh's former placement as a senior government official and his new lobbying position with KBR strengthens the company's already tight ties to the administration, and I hope that contractor accountability is not lost as a result." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fauxever at sprynet.com Sat Sep 3 03:18:48 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 20:18:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Who Failed Storm Victims? Message-ID: <005001c5b036$33a103c0$6600a8c0@brainiac> Politicians. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050901/D8CBNMA88.html Olga From scerir at libero.it Sat Sep 3 06:10:44 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 08:10:44 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Any city is three days away from barbarism? References: <20050901104237.GS2249@leitl.org> <4318D6A6.6000508@cox.net> Message-ID: <002601c5b04e$385aa750$5ebf1b97@administxl09yj> > Does anyone know the actual quote? There is a real quotation (courtesy of CNN, but taken from another list). "Don't try it! Sleeping inside with: Big dog Ugly woman Two shotguns Claw hammer." [On a New Orleans antique shop] From robgobblin at aol.com Sat Sep 3 06:30:48 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 20:30:48 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from agametheorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <200509030300.j83302w31803@tick.javien.com> References: <200509030300.j83302w31803@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Sep 2, 2005, at 5:00 PM, spike wrote: > With no tax, we could produce oil > equivalents at about four bucks a gallon, perhaps less. We would > temporarily relax restrictions on water usage, such as pumping > out of rivers, to establish corn, potatoes and rice on land > that is currently not economical to farm. It will cost us > a few fish, but it beats the alternatives. Much less than $4.00/gallon to produce alcohol even using market-rate refined sugar, btw. Ethanol currently retails around 2.12/gallon in most of the midwest states and if you're in an e85 car in those states right now, you're lovin' life finally getting to say "I told you so" to all those gas-burners. But I agree with you, taxation -in general- is regressive especially taxation of fuel and income. And since firearms and tobacco are the only other things the federal revenuers really have their chubby little fingers in, let's just send them all home! Robbie From hal at finney.org Sat Sep 3 05:58:25 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 22:58:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? Message-ID: <20050903055825.909C357EF7@finney.org> A terrific source for informed analysis of the economic questions about Peak Oil comes from http://www.econbrowser.org , the weblog of James D. Hamilton, Professor of Economics at UC San Diego. This blog, which started just this past June, is a great resource for insight on all kinds of economic topics, but JDH has taken a particular interest in Peak Oil and has shed very helpful light from an economic perspective. http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/energy/index.html provides all of his energy-related postings, but in particular I would point to the three part series: How to talk to an economist about peak oil http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/07/how_to_talk_to.html Further discussion about economists and peak oil http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/07/further_discuss.html Discussions with economists about peak oil: Chapter 3 http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/07/discussions_wit.html These expand on the ideas I listed earlier about what we would expect to see if insiders really believed that Peak Oil were coming in the next few years, and how that doesn't match up with reality. You will also find many more good articles elsewhere on his blog, including discussions of the impact of Katrina on the oil markets and on the economy. I am finding Econbrowser to be an invaluable resource for improving my understanding of what is going on in the world. Another interesting economics blog, not as good as Econbrowser but still worth reading occasionally, is the Freakonomics blog at http://www.freakonomics.com/blog.php by the authors of the book. Steven Levitt is the award winning economist who writes most of the articles and he has had quite a few recently about oil markets in general and Peak Oil in particular. Hal Finney From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 07:21:53 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 00:21:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <021201c5aff4$81580ec0$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <20050903072153.45552.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> --- "kevinfreels.com" wrote: > Are you kidding? Do syou seriously expect anyone to > believe this is a > cash-flow problem? They take out loans for this kind > of stuff and can borrow > damn near without limits. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I was merely hypothesizing why the federal government would sit idly by and watch one of its oldest and most historic cities become a third-world-country over night and then let it sit that way for days before doing anything. My assumption was that it was a cash flow problem as even loans take time to process but if you are right and cash flow/logistic problems are not to blame, then I was being overly charitable to the government. If the snafu was not logistical, then it was intentional. If the federal govern COULDN'T provide immediate disaster relief, that would be one thing. But if it COULD then apparently, it was just reluctant to do so and that opens a whole new can of worms. Because then one is left with the question of why the federal government didn't want to? Was it because the victims were blacks? Was it because New Orleans voted democrat last time around? Or maybe all the FEMA guys were waiting for Bush to get back from vacation so that he could tell them what to do? If it was Miami, Dubya would have had check in Jeb's hand before the hurricane hit. I don't think it's a state jurisdiction issue either as the federal government has made it crystal clear to California that it will come in and step all over state's jurisdiction when it WANTS to. Lets face it. In this administration, if you live in a blue state (or a blue county in a red state) you might was well be in Somalia. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Sat Sep 3 07:43:37 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 00:43:37 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Halliburton gets Katrina Contract In-Reply-To: <004401c5b035$e4fb0ae0$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: On 9/2/05 8:16 PM, "Olga Bourlin" wrote: > Who would have thought? WHO would have thought? ... Well, duh. Who else could do it? This the kind of thing they *specialize* in. No matter what kind of contract Halliburton gets, it MUST be a sinister conspiracy of some type. It is written into their corporate charter doncha know. Recycle that aluminum foil please, when you are done wearing it on your head. Proof positive that knee-jerk tribalism and their kook fringe friends are alive and well... J. Andrew Rogers From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 07:58:51 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 00:58:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Halliburton gets Katrina Contract In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050903075851.18738.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> --- "J. Andrew Rogers" wrote: > On 9/2/05 8:16 PM, "Olga Bourlin" > wrote: > > Who would have thought? WHO would have thought? > ... > > > Well, duh. Who else could do it? This the kind of > thing they *specialize* > in. No matter what kind of contract Halliburton > gets, it MUST be a sinister > conspiracy of some type. It is written into their > corporate charter doncha > know. I think the lady's point is that Halliburton should not be (and probably isn't when I think about it) the ONLY company that can do it. There is this thing called monopoly that gums up the gears of a freemarket economy and I don't need my tin-foil hat to figure out that monopoly needs a collusion between the government and A COMPANY in order to prosper in a free market. I say put these kind of contracts up on BID. There are many construction contractors that are perfectly capable of building whatever you want them to build especially if they are not in a war-zone. What's next, is Halliburton gonna muscle in on the home-improvement market? The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Sat Sep 3 08:37:41 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 01:37:41 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Halliburton gets Katrina Contract In-Reply-To: <20050903075851.18738.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/3/05 12:58 AM, "The Avantguardian" wrote: > > I think the lady's point is that Halliburton should > not be (and probably isn't when I think about it) the > ONLY company that can do it. Then please, start your own company that can compete with them. There are several large companies that routinely get the business of the government because they have no realistic competitors in a number of sectors of expertise for large scale projects. Halliburton is one of those companies. Lockheed-Martin is another. You and I don't have to like it, that is just the way it is. And when they do have competitors, it is usually some other "evil" company that is synonymous with conspiracy theories anyway. As I've pointed out in the past, it is not just the US government that uses Halliburton. A good number of the world's governments have hired Halliburton at one time or another to do what they do. They have competitors, but none that have the ability to handle really large projects to the extent Halliburton can. I really don't give a crap if Halliburton gets another contract, nor do I think they are a particularly excellent company. I just think it is ludicrous that everyone questions the selection of Halliburton for contracts when there are no other viable competitors in the field more often than not. Don't whine about it, offer a genuinely viable alternative. If you think you can do better, there is a mountain of gold in them thar hills to be had. Armchair quarterbacking and all that. J. Andrew Rogers From pharos at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 08:41:26 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 09:41:26 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Halliburton gets Katrina Contract In-Reply-To: <20050903075851.18738.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050903075851.18738.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/3/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > I think the lady's point is that Halliburton should > not be (and probably isn't when I think about it) the > ONLY company that can do it. There is this thing > called monopoly that gums up the gears of a freemarket > economy and I don't need my tin-foil hat to figure out > that monopoly needs a collusion between the government > and A COMPANY in order to prosper in a free market. I > say put these kind of contracts up on BID. There are > many construction contractors that are perfectly > capable of building whatever you want them to build > especially if they are not in a war-zone. What's next, > is Halliburton gonna muscle in on the home-improvement > market? > Heh! :) I guess you haven't dealt with government bureaucrats much. Here in UK (and I doubt if the US is much different) if the gov put a contract out for public tender you are talking about at least six months before a contract is issued. They have to prepare a requirements document, send it out, wait a few months to give the companies time to prepare proposals, then these have to be reviewed by committees to get down to a short list. Then the shortlist get into negotiations with the bureaucrats and eventually a contract will be issued. I think the US Navy might be in a bit of a hurry to get their stuff working again. :) The only way to do this is to cut the gov out of the process. The US Navy probably know Haliburton is not the cheapest quote, but they expect results, *fast*. BillK From jay.dugger at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 10:30:39 2005 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 05:30:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: <20050902165649.GI2249@leitl.org> References: <20050902022810.76869.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5366105b05090209315abc91f1@mail.gmail.com> <20050902165649.GI2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <5366105b0509030330bb31ae3@mail.gmail.com> [snip] > This sounds very interesting, for a space propulsion point of view. > Please give us any references you come across (assuming, you're not > talking about Vigilant Eagle > > http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms04_010483.pdf > That's the one. I don't know if this might have spin-on to beamed power for powersats, elevator climbers, or high-energy laser lift. The AvWeek article has a few more details, but the press release sums it up pretty nicely. -- Jay Dugger http://www.redcross.org Please donate if you can. From eugen at leitl.org Sat Sep 3 11:38:12 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 13:38:12 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050902183320.054bbdd8@unreasonable.com> References: <4318CC45.60500@mindspring.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050902183320.054bbdd8@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <20050903113811.GG2249@leitl.org> On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 06:50:45PM -0400, David Lubkin wrote: > He proclaimed that spacecraft *must* be custom-built, and that it > would *never* be possible to mass-produce them. And yes, friends, he > really did mean *never*. He was most likely already wrong at the time he spoke: http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20010601eo1.html http://www.afrlhorizons.com/Briefs/0009/VS0014.html http://www.wtec.org/loyola/ar93_94/scst.htm -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 13:35:46 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 06:35:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Halliburton gets Katrina Contract In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050903133546.98134.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> --- "J. Andrew Rogers" wrote: > > I really don't give a crap if Halliburton gets > another contract, nor do I > think they are a particularly excellent company. I > just think it is > ludicrous that everyone questions the selection of > Halliburton for contracts > when there are no other viable competitors in the > field more often than not. > Don't whine about it, offer a genuinely viable > alternative. If you think > you can do better, there is a mountain of gold in > them thar hills to be had. > Armchair quarterbacking and all that. Well I consider myself less like an armchair quarterback and more like a fan that bought a ticket to see a football game played and instead had Halliburton win because the other team forfeited by not showing up. But if I were to pick up your gauntlet and take the field myself, I think I would have to try to take on Lockheed-Martin because jet fighters are so much cooler than plumbing and electrical. ;) The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 14:04:45 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 07:04:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050903140445.92508.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> --- Rik van Riel wrote: > On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Hal Finney wrote: > > > If you were an insider and knew that oil was going > to be worth that much > > in a few years, why would you be pumping for all > you were worth and > > selling it today for $70/barrel? That doesn't > make sense. > > If you were a 60 year old CEO, would you try to > maximise > profits today and keep shareholders happy, or would > you > gamble that prices will be higher 15 years in the > future > and hope you can string the shareholders along for > that > time ? Precisely. From your 60 yr old CEO's point of view, it would be most advantageous to keep your investors thinking that the oil was plentiful and that everything was going smoothly. Even if you were in reality pumping the dregs of your wells. After all, if you are waiting to see if you die before you go out of business, you might as well make every buck you can while you can. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 14:40:43 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 07:40:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Any city is three days away from barbarism? In-Reply-To: <3ad827f3050902193190705c7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20050903144043.51250.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- justin corwin wrote: > On 9/2/05, Damien Broderick wrote: > > At 05:46 PM 9/2/2005 -0700, Mike wrote: > > > > >I thought it was "any culture is two meals from revolution". > > > > No, no, that's "any bicycle is two wheels from revolution". > > I think you're remembering an old adage electric motor makers have, > "a revolution at the axle, is worth two in the brush(es)" No, I think you are remembering the Bush family motto: "A revolution in the Axis is worth two more Bushes." Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 15:10:16 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 08:10:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight? In-Reply-To: <200509030302.j8332Gw32018@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050903151016.57935.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of David Lubkin > ... > > > > He proclaimed that spacecraft *must* be custom-built, and that it > > would *never* be possible to mass-produce them. And yes, friends, > > he really did mean *never*. > > Surely your friend forgot about the Iridium constellation. We > build 73 of those. And someone like Davids friend would point out that Iridium was a 'failure' (though ignoring that it is still functioning and turning a profit for the corporation that bought the assets of the original company (and the only way for people to communicate in the mess of New Orleans, currently)). As he is an astronomer, it is understandable that he only pays attention to orbiting observatories. You only need one of each type in orbit at a time of these sorts, he is right there, provided each can provide sufficient observation time to each of the worlds astronomers that needs it. Thing is, the more observatories there are, the more market there is for astronomers... Of course, he is likely not aware of the plans for the Darwin Space Interferometer Terrestrial Planet Finding Project, which would consist of 6 separate spacecraft capable of resolving terrestrial planets, within their primary's habitable zomes, within 25 parsecs from Earth. The Mark 2 version of Darwin, which would be used to actually observe terrestrial planetary surfaces and detect trace amounts of methane, would have a similar constellation, though moving up from a 1.5 meter mirror size to 7.5 meter mirror size for each spacecraft. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 15:17:46 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 08:17:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Halliburton gets Katrina Contract In-Reply-To: <004401c5b035$e4fb0ae0$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <20050903151746.33179.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> What? That KBR, a private company, is more trusted to repair hurricane damaged facilities than FEMA? That it is good at its job? If you want to make a believable case of any sort of malfeasance, Olga, you are going to have to dive into KBR's contract record and show that KBR has gotten more contracts since 2000 than before it. And if it is, is there anything wrong with KBR cashing in on its former relationship to a current vice president than isn't equally wrong for a former first lady to cash in on her relationship to a former president in order to win a seat in the US Senate? For a drunk philandering killer to cash in on the legacy of his older brothers in the white house to get a seat in the Senate? --- Olga Bourlin wrote: > Who would have thought? WHO would have thought? ... > Halliburton gets Katrina contract, hires former FEMA director > 1 Sept. 2005 > WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 (HalliburtonWatch.org) -- The US Navy asked > Halliburton to repair naval facilities damaged by Hurricane Katrina, > the Houston Chronicle reported today. The work was assigned to > Halliburton's KBR subsidiary under the Navy's $500 million CONCAP > contract awarded to KBR in 2001 and renewed in 2004. The repairs will > take place in Louisiana and Mississippi. > > KBR has not been asked to repair the levees destroyed in New > Orleans which became the primary cause of most of the damage. > > Since 1989, governments worldwide have awarded $3 billion in > contracts to KBR's Government and Infrastructure Division to clean up > damage caused by natural and man-made disasters. > > Earlier this year, the Navy awarded $350 million in contracts to > KBR and three other companies to repair naval facilities in northwest > Florida damaged by Hurricane Ivan, which struck in September 2004. > The ongoing repair work involves aircraft support facilities, medium > industrial buildings, marine construction, mechanical and electrical > improvements, civil construction, and family housing renovation. > > In March, the former director of the Federal Emergency Management > Agency (FEMA), which is tasked with responding to hurricane > disasters, became a lobbyist for KBR. Joe Allbaugh was director of > FEMA during the first two years of the Bush administration. > > Today, FEMA is widely criticized for its slow response to the > victims of Hurricane Katrina. > > Allbaugh managed Bush's campaign for Texas governor in 1994, served > as Gov. Bush's chief of staff and was the national campaign manager > for the Bush campaign in 2000. Along with Karen Hughes and Karl Rove, > Allbaugh was one of Bush's closest advisers. > > "This is a perfect example of someone cashing in on a cozy > political relationship," said Scott Amey, general counsel at the > Project on Government Oversight, a Washington watchdog group. > "Allbaugh's former placement as a senior government official and his > new lobbying position with KBR strengthens the company's already > tight ties to the administration, and I hope that contractor > accountability is not lost as a result." > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From kevin at kevinfreels.com Sat Sep 3 15:47:45 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 10:47:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need References: <20050903072153.45552.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003c01c5b09e$d5089d00$0100a8c0@kevin> You are forgetting the most probable reason this was bumbled. Incompetence. I am starting to get the idea that everyone thought someone else was doing things while no one was aware of just how big ght problem was. The whole mess has been an information nightmare. The FEME people apaprently weren't watching TV. No one thought "Hey, lets grope some troops on the ground and assess the situation" Or "Let's follow the TV news crews - they always know where to go". I am willing to bet that the communications infrastructure of the news companies is superior to anything FEMA has which is why everyone except FEMA seemed to know what was going on. Had they just watched the news they could have tackled that issue. ----- Original Message ----- From: "The Avantguardian" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 2:21 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need > > > --- "kevinfreels.com" wrote: > > > Are you kidding? Do syou seriously expect anyone to > > believe this is a > > cash-flow problem? They take out loans for this kind > > of stuff and can borrow > > damn near without limits. > > I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I was > merely hypothesizing why the federal government would > sit idly by and watch one of its oldest and most > historic cities become a third-world-country over > night and then let it sit that way for days before > doing anything. My assumption was that it was a cash > flow problem as even loans take time to process but if > you are right and cash flow/logistic problems are not > to blame, then I was being overly charitable to the > government. > > If the snafu was not logistical, then it was > intentional. If the federal govern COULDN'T provide > immediate disaster relief, that would be one thing. > But if it COULD then apparently, it was just reluctant > to do so and that opens a whole new can of worms. > Because then one is left with the question of why the > federal government didn't want to? Was it because the > victims were blacks? Was it because New Orleans voted > democrat last time around? Or maybe all the FEMA guys > were waiting for Bush to get back from vacation so > that he could tell them what to do? If it was Miami, > Dubya would have had check in Jeb's hand before the > hurricane hit. > > I don't think it's a state jurisdiction issue either > as the federal government has made it crystal clear to > California that it will come in and step all over > state's jurisdiction when it WANTS to. > > Lets face it. In this administration, if you live in a > blue state (or a blue county in a red state) you might > was well be in Somalia. > > > 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 Sat Sep 3 15:44:05 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 08:44:05 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Halliburton gets Katrina Contract In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509031544.j83FiBw04646@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of J. Andrew Rogers > ... Halliburton is one of those companies. > Lockheed-Martin is another. You and I don't have to like it... I like it. {8-] > ... And when they do have competitors, it is usually some other > "evil" company that is synonymous with conspiracy theories anyway... ... > J. Andrew Rogers ... Such as Booeing. And it isn't just a theory, they really was a conspiracy. They got caught this time. See number two on this list: http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03december/dec03corp1.html The odd part is that thru it all, Booeing stock soared, while the main competitor, Lockheeed Martin, is the same price now that it was five years ago. {8-[ Don't seem right. Halliburton seems like a legitimate outfit. I haven't seen anything by them that seems too out of line. Being big doesn't mean evil necessarily. I don't see who the heck else is set up to do the kinds of jobs they do. spike From kevin at kevinfreels.com Sat Sep 3 15:52:29 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 10:52:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Halliburton gets Katrina Contract References: <20050903151746.33179.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004201c5b09f$7dd38530$0100a8c0@kevin> Is there a company out there that is more capable and better at handling the job and is willing to do it for less? Is this information readily available? No doubt they should have spent a little more time shopping for various companies and accepting bids on such projects . That way the work could get started several months after the disasters happen. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 16:23:12 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 09:23:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <20050903072153.45552.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050903162312.1099.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > > > --- "kevinfreels.com" wrote: > > > Are you kidding? Do syou seriously expect anyone to > > believe this is a > > cash-flow problem? They take out loans for this kind > > of stuff and can borrow > > damn near without limits. > > I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I was > merely hypothesizing why the federal government would > sit idly by and watch one of its oldest and most > historic cities become a third-world-country over > night and then let it sit that way for days before > doing anything. Your improper assumption was that New Orleans wasn't a third world country before this disaster. I don't know how many times I've heard that people like to go there specifically because it has third world country characteristics without having to leave the US. > My assumption was that it was a cash > flow problem as even loans take time to process but if > you are right and cash flow/logistic problems are not > to blame, then I was being overly charitable to the > government. > > If the snafu was not logistical, then it was > intentional. If the federal govern COULDN'T provide > immediate disaster relief, that would be one thing. > But if it COULD then apparently, it was just reluctant > to do so and that opens a whole new can of worms. Generally speaking the Federal Government is not the rescuer of first resort with natural disasters on US soil, the states are. If anybody has been laying down on the job, it is the state governments and people of LA and MS who seem to have surrendered and can only point fingers at this point. There are a lot more people in both states than those living near the coast, and looking at the unemployment rates in both states, there are a lot of people down there sitting around with nothing to do but help with rescue efforts. > Because then one is left with the question of why the > federal government didn't want to? Was it because the > victims were blacks? Was it because New Orleans voted > democrat last time around? Or maybe all the FEMA guys > were waiting for Bush to get back from vacation so > that he could tell them what to do? If it was Miami, > Dubya would have had check in Jeb's hand before the > hurricane hit. I will note that, from my recollections of media appearances, Jeb has always been well prepared ahead of time for hurricanes headed toward his state. I cannot say the same for the leadership of LA and MS. > > I don't think it's a state jurisdiction issue either > as the federal government has made it crystal clear to > California that it will come in and step all over > state's jurisdiction when it WANTS to. > > Lets face it. In this administration, if you live in a > blue state (or a blue county in a red state) you might > was well be in Somalia. The problem with this statement is that both Louisiana and Mississippi were red states. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/ An examination of red and blue parishes in Louisiana shows that while Orleans and St. John the Baptist parishes are blue, all others hardest hit by Katrina are red parishes. (Here you need to select the right election and race: http://69.2.40.145/sosmaps/dynamicmapping.aspx In Mississippi, the situation is similar, though the Secty of States website seems down at the moment, possibly due to the disaster... Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 16:39:52 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 09:39:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <003c01c5b09e$d5089d00$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <20050903163952.49445.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> It readily exposes how dependent the emergency infrastructure is on a non-robust communications network. If all your cops, ambulances, and others are trying to communicate with a cellphone and landline system that isn't working, how do you expect to accomplish anything? And, once again, FEMA also expected people to follow the mandatory evacuation order. For those complaining about all the stranded being black, perhaps that is more a commentary on those who chose to stay for various reasons, good or bad, than on the system. --- "kevinfreels.com" wrote: > You are forgetting the most probable reason this was bumbled. > Incompetence. > I am starting to get the idea that everyone thought someone else was > doing > things while no one was aware of just how big ght problem was. The > whole > mess has been an information nightmare. The FEME people apaprently > weren't > watching TV. No one thought "Hey, lets grope some troops on the > ground and > assess the situation" Or "Let's follow the TV news crews - they > always know > where to go". I am willing to bet that the communications > infrastructure of > the news companies is superior to anything FEMA has which is why > everyone > except FEMA seemed to know what was going on. Had they just watched > the news > they could have tackled that issue. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "The Avantguardian" > To: "ExI chat list" > Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 2:21 AM > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need > > > > > > > > --- "kevinfreels.com" wrote: > > > > > Are you kidding? Do syou seriously expect anyone to > > > believe this is a > > > cash-flow problem? They take out loans for this kind > > > of stuff and can borrow > > > damn near without limits. > > > > I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I was > > merely hypothesizing why the federal government would > > sit idly by and watch one of its oldest and most > > historic cities become a third-world-country over > > night and then let it sit that way for days before > > doing anything. My assumption was that it was a cash > > flow problem as even loans take time to process but if > > you are right and cash flow/logistic problems are not > > to blame, then I was being overly charitable to the > > government. > > > > If the snafu was not logistical, then it was > > intentional. If the federal govern COULDN'T provide > > immediate disaster relief, that would be one thing. > > But if it COULD then apparently, it was just reluctant > > to do so and that opens a whole new can of worms. > > Because then one is left with the question of why the > > federal government didn't want to? Was it because the > > victims were blacks? Was it because New Orleans voted > > democrat last time around? Or maybe all the FEMA guys > > were waiting for Bush to get back from vacation so > > that he could tell them what to do? If it was Miami, > > Dubya would have had check in Jeb's hand before the > > hurricane hit. > > > > I don't think it's a state jurisdiction issue either > > as the federal government has made it crystal clear to > > California that it will come in and step all over > > state's jurisdiction when it WANTS to. > > > > Lets face it. In this administration, if you live in a > > blue state (or a blue county in a red state) you might > > was well be in Somalia. > > > > > > The Avantguardian > > is > > Stuart LaForge > > alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu > > > > "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they > haven't > attempted to contact us." > > -Bill Watterson > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From extropy at unreasonable.com Sat Sep 3 17:16:08 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 13:16:08 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight? In-Reply-To: <20050903113811.GG2249@leitl.org> References: <4318CC45.60500@mindspring.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050902183320.054bbdd8@unreasonable.com> <20050903113811.GG2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050903104728.05517b78@unreasonable.com> I wrote: > He proclaimed that spacecraft *must* be custom-built, and that > it would *never* be possible to mass-produce them. And yes, > friends, he really did mean *never*. Eugen replied: >He was most likely already wrong at the time he spoke: > >http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20010601eo1.html >http://www.afrlhorizons.com/Briefs/0009/VS0014.html >http://www.wtec.org/loyola/ar93_94/scst.htm I most often encounter this in public or broadcast discussions of science, medicine, and technology. Someone will declare that X will not achieved for decades or centuries, or perhaps ever, when I know that it in fact was already done years ago. The remark usually stands unchallenged. -- David. From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Sep 3 17:20:17 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 10:20:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need (such as dope) In-Reply-To: <20050903163952.49445.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200509031720.j83HKJw14061@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey ... > And, once again, FEMA also expected people to follow the mandatory > evacuation order...perhaps that is more a commentary on those who chose to stay for > various reasons, good or bad, than on the system... > Mike Lorrey I had a random idea, not too closely related to Mike's comment, but here goes: I will define addiction broadly as any behavior which leads people to do irrational things to satisfy the addiction. (Of course by that definition we are all addicted to sex, but let us set that one aside for the moment.) Let us focus on chemical addictions, to include tobacco, some recreational drugs, and alcohol, but exclude necessities such as food, water and sex. We have likely seen heavy smokers get in a sitch where they had no access to tobacco. I went backpacking with a smoker whose cigs were ruined by water. He hiked out on the second day, perfect weather, terrific conditions, no tobacco, he was outta there. {8^D How much more crazy would he have acted had he been addicted to heroin or crack or something? Now imagine a place where a larger than usual percentage of the proles were addicted to something, and they were acting irrationally to satisfy the urge. That wouldn't be a pleasant sitch. Now recall that they interviewed a bunch of the New Orleans people, asking why they didn't flee the storm. A very large percentage said they couldn't: they didn't have a car, couldn't afford to, lived paycheck to paycheck, etc. Simple line of reasoning: addictions of any kind will contribute to poverty. Many addictions will cause people to be unfit for working a 9 to 5, and of course they are expensive. A heavy smoker will often burn more money on tobacco than on food. So addictions may have contributed to poverty which contributed to non-fleeing, which certainly now contributed to poverty and suffering, which may contribute to addiction. Oy freeking vey! To make matters worse, imagine living in a neighborhood where addictions are common, where the supply of *everything* is suddenly cut off: not just no food, no water, no power, no medicine (which would be bad enough) but now addicts with no tobacco, no alcohol, no crack, no heroine, no meth, acting even more crazy than before, because the FEMA and Red Cross don't bring them smokes, alcohol or recreational drugs! Did anyone take that into account? Wonder if we could hire the dope smugglers to carry in emergency food and medical supplies, then pay them the wages to which they are so fondly accustomed? spike From extropy at unreasonable.com Sat Sep 3 17:17:24 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 13:17:24 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight? In-Reply-To: <20050903151016.57935.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <200509030302.j8332Gw32018@tick.javien.com> <20050903151016.57935.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050903122424.05046528@unreasonable.com> I wrote: >> He proclaimed that spacecraft *must* be custom-built, and that it >> would *never* be possible to mass-produce them. And yes, friends, >> he really did mean *never*. Mike Lorrey replied to Spike: >And someone like Davids friend While I have friends who are distinguished astronomers and friends who are apparent idiots, this person was not a friend, just someone I chatted with once. >As he is an astronomer, it is understandable that he only pays >attention to orbiting observatories. You only need one of each type in >orbit at a time of these sorts, he is right there We were not talking about observatories in Earth orbit. The context was missions like Stardust or Genesis. -- David Lubkin. From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Sep 3 17:48:45 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 10:48:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050903122424.05046528@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <200509031748.j83Hmkw16849@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of David Lubkin > Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration > spaceflight? > > I wrote: > > >> He proclaimed that spacecraft *must* be custom-built, and that it > >> would *never* be possible to mass-produce them. And yes, friends, > >> he really did mean *never*. ... > > >And someone like Davids friend > > While I have friends who are distinguished astronomers and friends > who are apparent idiots, this person was not a friend, just someone I > chatted with once... > > > -- David Lubkin... David if you see your astronomer acquaintance, do point out that altho the Iridium satellite constellation was an *business* failure, the Lockheeed-Martin-built satellites were a smashing success from a spacecraft reliability point of view. We knew when we were building them that they would not come: the handsets were a couple thousand bucks and needed a heavy battery that had to be carried in a small briefcase. Cell phones were already available by then and getting cheap, so Iridium didn't sell. Well duh! The Motorola board of directors were smoking crack if they ever believed otherwise. But the 66 Iridium birds worked, and they still do. If you are traveling in Antarctica and need to call the office, it is the way to go. Otherwise, cell phones: lighter, a tenth the price, a bunch of companies competing for your business. {8-] spike From kevin at kevinfreels.com Sat Sep 3 18:18:47 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 13:18:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Halliburton gets Katrina Contract References: <20050903075851.18738.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <005a01c5b0b3$ede32c90$0100a8c0@kevin> Um. Didn't I just make that same remark - but with sarcasm? These kinds of things need immediate work, not a months lonog bid process. There has been no end run around the free market. It is there. Just start your own company, do a better job quicker and do it for less and I am sure you will get all the business. :-) ----- Original Message ----- From: "The Avantguardian" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 2:58 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Halliburton gets Katrina Contract > > > --- "J. Andrew Rogers" > wrote: > > > On 9/2/05 8:16 PM, "Olga Bourlin" > > wrote: > > > Who would have thought? WHO would have thought? > > ... > > > > > > Well, duh. Who else could do it? This the kind of > > thing they *specialize* > > in. No matter what kind of contract Halliburton > > gets, it MUST be a sinister > > conspiracy of some type. It is written into their > > corporate charter doncha > > know. > > I think the lady's point is that Halliburton should > not be (and probably isn't when I think about it) the > ONLY company that can do it. There is this thing > called monopoly that gums up the gears of a freemarket > economy and I don't need my tin-foil hat to figure out > that monopoly needs a collusion between the government > and A COMPANY in order to prosper in a free market. I > say put these kind of contracts up on BID. There are > many construction contractors that are perfectly > capable of building whatever you want them to build > especially if they are not in a war-zone. What's next, > is Halliburton gonna muscle in on the home-improvement > market? > > 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 kevin at kevinfreels.com Sat Sep 3 18:33:27 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 13:33:27 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? References: <20050903140445.92508.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <008601c5b0b5$fa526480$0100a8c0@kevin> > > --- Rik van Riel wrote: > > > On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Hal Finney wrote: > > > > > If you were an insider and knew that oil was going > > to be worth that much > > > in a few years, why would you be pumping for all > > you were worth and > > > selling it today for $70/barrel? That doesn't > > make sense. > > > > If you were a 60 year old CEO, would you try to > > maximise > > profits today and keep shareholders happy, or would > > you > > gamble that prices will be higher 15 years in the > > future > > and hope you can string the shareholders along for > > that > > time ? > > Precisely. From your 60 yr old CEO's point of view, it > would be most advantageous to keep your investors > thinking that the oil was plentiful and that > everything was going smoothly. Even if you were in > reality pumping the dregs of your wells. After all, if > you are waiting to see if you die before you go out of > business, you might as well make every buck you can > while you can. > > If I were 60 and CEO, I would make the world think I was about out of oil and charge 3 times as much for it so I could make a ton more money and spend it before I die. The investors, seeing that prices were soon to go way up would hang onto and maybe even buy more stock. They could always get out later just before the oil ran out, and would in fact stay in till the last minute to maximize the profits. From fortean1 at mindspring.com Sat Sep 3 18:43:24 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 11:43:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) An Anniversary Message-ID: <4319EECC.20604@mindspring.com> While we have been watching the fiasco unfold in NOLA, the anniversary of another disastrous storm passed quietly and without much notice in the Press. On September 2, 1935-70 years ago, the most intense hurricane to ever strike the US slammed into the Florida Keys. This was the infamous Labor Day Hurricane. It was a very compact storm that bombed into a Cat 5 storm in a short time. The pressure in the storm as it passed over Matacumbe Key was 892mb-the lowest pressure ever measured in the US and was to stand as the lowest pressure measure in an Atlantic Basin Storm until Gilbert's 888mb reading in 1988. The winds in the storm were estimated to have been as high as 200mph sustained. Not until Camille in 1969 was a Cat 5 to visit our shores. Now for Katrina, not a Cat 5 at landfall but it has sadly verified all predictions as to what could happen in NOLA in such a situation. It's quickly becoming obvious that this will become the greatest natural disaster ever in the history of the US with a death toll usually reserved for less develop countries. Also obvious that all levels of Government have failed abysmally in their response. This is most disturbing for now Al Qaida knows how weak we are. I can imagine that the people in NHC have to be sad and angry at what has happened for they did an outstanding job of forecasting the track of the storm and of putting out the warnings only to have the idiots in NOLA crap it all away. We have one last (and minor) period of monsoonal moisture and flow in here now for some shower and boomer activity through the weekend and then we will probably shut the monsoon down for another year. Typhoon Nabi has weakened a bit to 120kt and is expected to pass NE of Okinawa and then head for Korea. Steve -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Sep 3 19:10:07 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 12:10:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Halliburton gets Katrina Contract In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9A41AC68-0D1A-4D05-8FAB-60015A572972@mac.com> Thanks for the poison pen enlightenment. Really. -s On Sep 3, 2005, at 12:43 AM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > On 9/2/05 8:16 PM, "Olga Bourlin" wrote: > >> Who would have thought? WHO would have thought? ... >> > > > Well, duh. Who else could do it? This the kind of thing they > *specialize* > in. No matter what kind of contract Halliburton gets, it MUST be a > sinister > conspiracy of some type. It is written into their corporate > charter doncha > know. > > Recycle that aluminum foil please, when you are done wearing it on > your > head. Proof positive that knee-jerk tribalism and their kook > fringe friends > are alive and well... > > > J. Andrew Rogers > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Sep 3 19:30:36 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 12:30:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) An Anniversary In-Reply-To: <4319EECC.20604@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <200509031930.j83JUdw26793@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Terry W. Colvin > Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 11:43 AM > To: skeptic at listproc.hcf.jhu.edu; ExI chat list > Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) An Anniversary > > ... On September 2, 1935-70 years ago, the most intense hurricane > to ever strike the US slammed into the Florida Keys... Impossible! That was before global warming. > > ...NHC have to be sad and angry at what has happened for they > did an outstanding job of forecasting the track of the storm and of > putting out the warnings only to have the idiots in NOLA crap it all away... > Steve There was a NOVA program a few months ago where they talked about what would happen should a hurricane hit near New Orleans. I only saw part of it, but what I saw was stunningly prescient. The guy had a pole 18 feet long, down in the French sector, talking about how the water would go this high after the levy failed somewhere near Lake Ponchartrain, filled the basin, and it would happen most likely *after* the eye of the storm was well inland, since the storm would carry moisture up the river, drop rain, water would back up, over it goes, wash away the support for the levy, low basin fills in, loss of life and property difficult to imagine. Right, right, right and right. Did anyone else see that program? Wasn't it on just a few months ago? Has it already been mentioned here? spike From extropy at unreasonable.com Sat Sep 3 19:46:26 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 15:46:26 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) An Anniversary In-Reply-To: <4319EECC.20604@mindspring.com> References: <4319EECC.20604@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050903152642.056de008@unreasonable.com> Terry W. Colvin wrote: >It's quickly becoming obvious that this will become the greatest >natural disaster ever in the history of the US with a death toll >usually reserved for less develop countries. Also obvious that all >levels of Government have failed abysmally in their response. This >is most disturbing for now Al Qaida knows how weak we are. Watching the analysis of how the flooding of New Orleans resulted from two small breaks, it struck me that a group opposed to us might pick ordinary stress points in our system and attack them at times of peak stress. Wouldn't causing those breaks be a lot simpler than orchestrating 9/11? Yet the human and economic ripples are comparable or greater. No particular PR value, but there are other goals an enemy might have, and some foes might want to hurt us without exposure. It also might be a great first blow in a one-two punch. Divert our attention while they can get their main mission in place. -- David Lubkin. From mail at harveynewstrom.com Sat Sep 3 21:23:34 2005 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 17:23:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050903122424.05046528@unreasonable.com> References: <200509030302.j8332Gw32018@tick.javien.com> <20050903151016.57935.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050903122424.05046528@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <22a515912957cd7edfe6e944516f06d9@HarveyNewstrom.com> On Sep 3, 2005, at 1:17 PM, David Lubkin wrote: > [...] I have friends who are distinguished astronomers and friends who > are apparent idiots [....] (Camera zooms in on Harv's face while we hear his thoughts audibly on the soundtrack.) Hm. I wonder which group I'm in. On the one hand, I like to think that I am one of David's friends. But on the other hand, I'm no astronomer. (pause) That would mean.... (thinking.... thinking... thinking...) (almost a look of recognition, then a blank look) No, wait. I've lost it. (Shrugs) (Camera zooms out to normal position. Regular conversation resumes.) -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From pharos at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 22:03:11 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 23:03:11 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Any city is three days away from barbarism? In-Reply-To: <4318D6A6.6000508@cox.net> References: <20050901104237.GS2249@leitl.org> <4318D6A6.6000508@cox.net> Message-ID: On 9/2/05, Dan Clemmensen wrote: > I cannot find the exact quote or attribution. I remember the quote as: > "Any city is three days away from barbarism." > Does anyone know the actual quote? I could only find one reference, a comment piece about the New Orleans flood. Friday, September 02, 2005 Hurricane Katrina: Granting a Grim Insight into the American Society of Excuses It's not pretty, it's pretty grim. American society is only three days from barbarism. Today we are seeing heroism and villainy in New Orleans. Hurricane Katrina is giving us a rare view into the psyche of our people. It is a view of sacrifice, voluntarism, charity, helpful neighbors, and tireless rescuers. But it is also a view of looting, assault, killing, anger, hatred, and, ultimately, anarchy. Today we see what happens when this "thin veneer of civilization" is stripped away from our society. --------------- But the "three days" thing seems to be almost a built-in assumption in many of the disaster planning articles, so I wouldn't be surprised to find many similar quotes using slightly different words. e.g. Most city households have three days supplies of food and water. If there is a permanent power blackout, after three days everything stops. If a city section riots, the police generally wait three days for the rioters to calm down, get hungry and thirsty, then they move in to clean up. BillK From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Sep 3 22:30:11 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 15:30:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050903122424.05046528@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <20050903223011.41481.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- David Lubkin wrote: > I wrote: > > >> He proclaimed that spacecraft *must* be custom-built, and that it > >> would *never* be possible to mass-produce them. And yes, friends, > >> he really did mean *never*. > > Mike Lorrey replied to Spike: > > >And someone like Davids friend > > While I have friends who are distinguished astronomers and friends > who are apparent idiots, this person was not a friend, just someone I > > chatted with once. > > >As he is an astronomer, it is understandable that he only pays > >attention to orbiting observatories. You only need one of each type > in > >orbit at a time of these sorts, he is right there > > We were not talking about observatories in Earth orbit. The context > was missions like Stardust or Genesis. Ah, probes. You are of course correct that having lots of probes exploring lots of areas of the solar system would be great and really expand knowledge, there are points to be made that each probe mission calls for a specific mix of instruments, power systems, etc. However, there is no reason that, say, a dozen different classes of probe with modularized equipment could not be designed and mass produced to be sent out in quanitites to explore lots of things. The tough problem is that when you are mass producing something, you are doing so in order to earn a profit by doing so. Making space science pay for itself, such as geological assays and surveys do, is the key to doing what you want. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From dgc at cox.net Sat Sep 3 22:46:43 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 18:46:43 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Any city is three days away from barbarism? In-Reply-To: References: <20050901104237.GS2249@leitl.org> <4318D6A6.6000508@cox.net> Message-ID: <431A27D3.9090300@cox.net> BillK wrote: >On 9/2/05, Dan Clemmensen wrote: > > >>I cannot find the exact quote or attribution. I remember the quote as: >> "Any city is three days away from barbarism." >>Does anyone know the actual quote? >> >> > > >I could only find one reference, a comment piece about the New Orleans flood. > > >Friday, September 02, 2005 >Hurricane Katrina: Granting a Grim Insight into the American Society of Excuses > >It's not pretty, it's pretty grim. American society is only three days >from barbarism. > > Sorry. I initially started asking my co-workers about this quote on Wednesday. I remember it form a decade or more ago. I do not think american society is 3 days away from barbarism, Th effect results from a cutoff of essential inputs from an ares hat cannot produce the inputs itself. That can happen to a city, but not to the US as a whole. A catastrophe affecting the US as a whole would have a different dynamic. Depending on the catastrophe, the effect might be even more horrific, but would likely take more than three days. Essentially any group of people will revert to barbarism when truly essential supplies are suddenly completely unavailable. The "three days" is approximately the reserve for potable water in a city. Note that a barbaric society will still contain majority of individuals that exhibit heroism, altruism, and all the other laudable human qualities, but when your baby or your grandparent need water to live and there is not enough water to go around, you are likely to act decisively to secure water. This is true whether you are rich or poor, educated or uneducated, smart or stupid, black or white, homo or hetero, religious or atheist. From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Sep 3 23:54:48 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 18:54:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Manhattan vs. New Orleans In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050902003155.0513cdd0@unreasonable.com> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20050902003155.0513cdd0@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050903185319.01c4d090@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 12:53 AM 9/2/2005 -0400, David L wrote: >(3) What explains the differences between these two portrayed responses? >The causes of the events? The composition of the populace? Here's a perhaps unexpected reply, from novelist Anne Rice (perhaps it will be dismissed as romanticism): http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/04/opinion/04rice.html?ei=5090&en=ce2f33f8719dba9c&ex=1283486400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print September 4, 2005 Do You Know What It Means to Lose New Orleans? By ANNE RICE La Jolla, Calif. WHAT do people really know about New Orleans? Do they take away with them an awareness that it has always been not only a great white metropolis but also a great black city, a city where African-Americans have come together again and again to form the strongest African-American culture in the land? The first literary magazine ever published in Louisiana was the work of black men, French-speaking poets and writers who brought together their work in three issues of a little book called L'Album Litt?raire. That was in the 1840's, and by that time the city had a prosperous class of free black artisans, sculptors, businessmen, property owners, skilled laborers in all fields. Thousands of slaves lived on their own in the city, too, making a living at various jobs, and sending home a few dollars to their owners in the country at the end of the month. This is not to diminish the horror of the slave market in the middle of the famous St. Louis Hotel, or the injustice of the slave labor on plantations from one end of the state to the other. It is merely to say that it was never all "have or have not" in this strange and beautiful city. Later in the 19th century, as the Irish immigrants poured in by the thousands, filling the holds of ships that had emptied their cargoes of cotton in Liverpool, and as the German and Italian immigrants soon followed, a vital and complex culture emerged. Huge churches went up to serve the great faith of the city's European-born Catholics; convents and schools and orphanages were built for the newly arrived and the struggling; the city expanded in all directions with new neighborhoods of large, graceful houses, or areas of more humble cottages, even the smallest of which, with their floor-length shutters and deep-pitched roofs, possessed an undeniable Caribbean charm. Through this all, black culture never declined in Louisiana. In fact, New Orleans became home to blacks in a way, perhaps, that few other American cities have ever been. Dillard University and Xavier University became two of the most outstanding black colleges in America; and once the battles of desegregation had been won, black New Orleanians entered all levels of life, building a visible middle class that is absent in far too many Western and Northern American cities to this day. The influence of blacks on the music of the city and the nation is too immense and too well known to be described. It was black musicians coming down to New Orleans for work who nicknamed the city "the Big Easy" because it was a place where they could always find a job. But it's not fair to the nature of New Orleans to think of jazz and the blues as the poor man's music, or the music of the oppressed. Something else was going on in New Orleans. The living was good there. The clock ticked more slowly; people laughed more easily; people kissed; people loved; there was joy. Which is why so many New Orleanians, black and white, never went north. They didn't want to leave a place where they felt at home in neighborhoods that dated back centuries; they didn't want to leave families whose rounds of weddings, births and funerals had become the fabric of their lives. They didn't want to leave a city where tolerance had always been able to outweigh prejudice, where patience had always been able to outweigh rage. They didn't want to leave a place that was theirs. And so New Orleans prospered, slowly, unevenly, but surely - home to Protestants and Catholics, including the Irish parading through the old neighborhood on St. Patrick's Day as they hand out cabbages and potatoes and onions to the eager crowds; including the Italians, with their lavish St. Joseph's altars spread out with cakes and cookies in homes and restaurants and churches every March; including the uptown traditionalists who seek to preserve the peace and beauty of the Garden District; including the Germans with their clubs and traditions; including the black population playing an ever increasing role in the city's civic affairs. Now nature has done what the Civil War couldn't do. Nature has done what the labor riots of the 1920's couldn't do. Nature had done what "modern life" with its relentless pursuit of efficiency couldn't do. It has done what racism couldn't do, and what segregation couldn't do either. Nature has laid the city waste - with a scope that brings to mind the end of Pompeii. ? I share this history for a reason - and to answer questions that have arisen these last few days. Almost as soon as the cameras began panning over the rooftops, and the helicopters began chopping free those trapped in their attics, a chorus of voices rose. "Why didn't they leave?" people asked both on and off camera. "Why did they stay there when they knew a storm was coming?" One reporter even asked me, "Why do people live in such a place?" Then as conditions became unbearable, the looters took to the streets. Windows were smashed, jewelry snatched, stores broken open, water and food and televisions carried out by fierce and uninhibited crowds. Now the voices grew even louder. How could these thieves loot and pillage in a time of such crisis? How could people shoot one another? Because the faces of those drowning and the faces of those looting were largely black faces, race came into the picture. What kind of people are these, the people of New Orleans, who stay in a city about to be flooded, and then turn on one another? Well, here's an answer. Thousands didn't leave New Orleans because they couldn't leave. They didn't have the money. They didn't have the vehicles. They didn't have any place to go. They are the poor, black and white, who dwell in any city in great numbers; and they did what they felt they could do - they huddled together in the strongest houses they could find. There was no way to up and leave and check into the nearest Ramada Inn. What's more, thousands more who could have left stayed behind to help others. They went out in the helicopters and pulled the survivors off rooftops; they went through the flooded streets in their boats trying to gather those they could find. Meanwhile, city officials tried desperately to alleviate the worsening conditions in the Superdome, while makeshift shelters and hotels and hospitals struggled. And where was everyone else during all this? Oh, help is coming, New Orleans was told. We are a rich country. Congress is acting. Someone will come to stop the looting and care for the refugees. And it's true: eventually, help did come. But how many times did Gov. Kathleen Blanco have to say that the situation was desperate? How many times did Mayor Ray Nagin have to call for aid? Why did America ask a city cherished by millions and excoriated by some, but ignored by no one, to fight for its own life for so long? That's my question. I know that New Orleans will win its fight in the end. I was born in the city and lived there for many years. It shaped who and what I am. Never have I experienced a place where people knew more about love, about family, about loyalty and about getting along than the people of New Orleans. It is perhaps their very gentleness that gives them their endurance. They will rebuild as they have after storms of the past; and they will stay in New Orleans because it is where they have always lived, where their mothers and their fathers lived, where their churches were built by their ancestors, where their family graves carry names that go back 200 years. They will stay in New Orleans where they can enjoy a sweetness of family life that other communities lost long ago. But to my country I want to say this: During this crisis you failed us. You looked down on us; you dismissed our victims; you dismissed us. You want our Jazz Fest, you want our Mardi Gras, you want our cooking and our music. Then when you saw us in real trouble, when you saw a tiny minority preying on the weak among us, you called us "Sin City," and turned your backs. Well, we are a lot more than all that. And though we may seem the most exotic, the most atmospheric and, at times, the most downtrodden part of this land, we are still part of it. We are Americans. We are you. From hal at finney.org Sat Sep 3 23:32:18 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 16:32:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? Message-ID: <20050903233218.1925F57EF5@finney.org> Here are a few more thoughts about Peak Oil. For those who have not run into it, although there are many variants, the most virally virulent version of Peak Oil says that we are within two or three years of the fall of Western civilization. This may seem absurd on its face but I will lay out the argument briefly. It is suggested that we are reaching a peak in oil production such that no reasonable amount of money, or perhaps no amount of money whatsoever, can increase production levels. While the world's oil wells still have lots of oil, it is becoming harder and harder to extract. Existing technologies to increase the rate of extraction work for a few years but then the fields "die" and the rate of production begins to fall by 10 to 20 percent per year, and no known technology can change that. There is nothing, in this view, that can increase the rate of production of oil to overcome the declines that are appearing in more and more countries around the world. Only Saudi Arabia claims to have the ability to increase production, but Peak Oilers generally believe that Saudi Arabia is lying. Oil analyst Matt Simmons published a book this year, Twilight in the Desert, analyzing Saudi oil fields in detail and arguing that they are near their own peak. This supposedly inexorable decline in oil production levels runs head-on into rapidly growing world demand for oil. China in particular, but also other countries like India, are expanding their oil consumption at a rapid rate. And of course Western countries, especially the U.S., are also continuing to use more and more oil every year. Although the West has improved its oil efficiency in many ways, the current economy is fundamentally dependent on oil for growth, and in the present situation, economic growth will be impossible without increasing the supply of oil. The collision of these two trends will, it is claimed, produce catastrophe. Oil prices will skyrocket to unheard-of levels, hundreds of dollars per barrel. Most people will simply be unable to afford gasoline or heating oil. Airlines and other forms of transport will go bankrupt and business failures will be widespread. The economy will enter a permanent state of decline that will make the Great Depression look mild. Worse, even essentials like food and pharmaceuticals are highly dependent on oil, and with the explosion in the price of this crucial commodity, the world will see a rapid spread of famine and disease. This produces what Peak Oilers call the "great die-off" and many of them expect it within a few years. Once things stabilize, in a decade or so, we will have a permanently poor world, reduced to an early 19th century level of technology and productivity, subsistence farming without the benefit of modern fertilizers or equipment. This may seem like an astonishingly implausible scenario, but it is widely believed among the Peak Oil community. See sites such as dieoff.org or lifeaftertheoilcrash.net for more details about the impending disaster. BTW, Matt Savinar, author of the latter web site, will be on the Coast to Coast AM radio show tonight, syndicated in many cities across the U.S. He's one of the most extreme Peak Oilers and a big supporter of this apocalyptic scenario. Of course, not everyone concerned with Peak Oil buys into this whole picture. There are a range of beliefs. Some see this scenario playing out, but not for a decade or more. Others think that the impact will be limited to a permanent state of economic depression, and don't accept the great die-off. People also disagree about just when the peak will occur. Some see it as 10 to 15 years off, others out 5 years or 2 years, and yet others think it's already happened and we are beginning to feel the first effects. Needless to say, this is not a very Extropian image of the future! And if you look closely you can see some inconsistencies and flaws in the assumptions that this scenario is based on. Nevertheless the Peak Oil community devotes enormous efforts to analyzing every scrap of news about oil supply and demand levels all over the world, and in fact their predictions do hold up pretty well against recent trends. As oil reaches each new price level, Peak Oilers take it as vindication and confirmation of their views. There was a time when $50 oil was unimaginable. Then $60 oil was unimaginable, then $70. Today $80 or $90 oil is unimaginable. What will we be saying by the end of this year? I will write more about this soon... Hal From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 00:56:50 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 17:56:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050903233218.1925F57EF5@finney.org> Message-ID: <20050904005650.9929.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote:> > As oil reaches each new price level, Peak Oilers take it as > vindication and confirmation of their views. There was a time when > $50 oil was unimaginable. Then $60 oil was unimaginable, then $70. > Today $80 or $90 oil is unimaginable. What will we be saying by the > end of this year? What do they say about the fact that once you take into account price shifts solely due to changes in the value of the dollar caused by banking policy, oil prices of $56/bbl today are essentially no different from $40/bbl prices two years ago. Todays spot price of $69 is equal to $49/bbl prices two years ago, when prices were $30/bbl. So it appears that half of the present high prices vs. two years ago is solely due to fluctuations in the dollar markets due to banking policy. The other half can be attributed to multiple things: middle east instability, the current Katrina crisis, as well as growth in Chinese demand. It all depends on what currency you value the oil by. How has the price of oil in Euros changed over the last several years? Not nearly as much. While the Chinese Yuan price for oil has followed the dollar up until last month, it is currently dropping. Looking at oil and gasoline futures on Bloomberg today, prices are all headed down by significant percentages, primarily due to this: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10001099&sid=arESneY6CKik&refer=energy The US has 700 million barrels in its Strategic Oil Reserve and can tap it at 4.4 million barrels per day (giving a 154 day supply at the maximum rate). It is currently going to sell about a million barrels a day of it as part of the IEA action described above. Given this action, prices should be back below $60/bbl within a month or two. I should also note that President Bush ordered the Reserve filled to capacity shortly after 9/11, when oil prices shot up from the mid $25 range to the $35-38 range on the spot markets. Depending on what prices it obtained these reserves at, the gov't could realize a significant windfall on these sales. Assuming they sell a million a day for two months, they should see profits of about $1.5 billion, which should help offset some of the $10.5 billion being authorized by Congress for the Katrina recovery efforts. As this oil is oil that has already been purchased from the originating nations and put into old salt mines, or domestic wells that have been mothballed for the reserve, this effort should also bring world oil prices down by creating a bit of a glut, especially considering the short term lack of refinery facitilies in operation here in the US. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Sep 4 00:59:22 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 17:59:22 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050903233218.1925F57EF5@finney.org> References: <20050903233218.1925F57EF5@finney.org> Message-ID: <41B4557E-0042-4712-9ABA-5319C438ED7F@mac.com> On Sep 3, 2005, at 4:32 PM, Hal Finney wrote: > Here are a few more thoughts about Peak Oil. > > For those who have not run into it, although there are many variants, > the most virally virulent version of Peak Oil says that we are within > two or three years of the fall of Western civilization. This may seem > absurd on its face but I will lay out the argument briefly. > > It is suggested that we are reaching a peak in oil production such > that > no reasonable amount of money, or perhaps no amount of money > whatsoever, > can increase production levels. While the world's oil wells still > have > lots of oil, it is becoming harder and harder to extract. Existing > technologies to increase the rate of extraction work for a few years > but then the fields "die" and the rate of production begins to fall > by 10 to 20 percent per year, and no known technology can change that. > There is nothing, in this view, that can increase the rate of > production > of oil to overcome the declines that are appearing in more and more > countries around the world. Only Saudi Arabia claims to have the > ability > to increase production, but Peak Oilers generally believe that Saudi > Arabia is lying. Oil analyst Matt Simmons published a book this year, > Twilight in the Desert, analyzing Saudi oil fields in detail and > arguing > that they are near their own peak. As I used to work in (or at least on the outskirts of) the industry I can attest that this is more or less correct. There are no known technologies that can significantly increase the productivity of a field without shortening its productive lifetime or prevent its eventual decline in production. Some of this is simple common sense. It is not a "view". What is a view is the notions portrayed of what the consequences of world wide oil demand outstripping supply will likely be. But that demand will outstrip supply is incontestable. > > This supposedly inexorable decline in oil production levels runs > head-on > into rapidly growing world demand for oil. China in particular, but > also other countries like India, are expanding their oil > consumption at > a rapid rate. And of course Western countries, especially the U.S., > are also continuing to use more and more oil every year. Although the > West has improved its oil efficiency in many ways, the current > economy is > fundamentally dependent on oil for growth, and in the present > situation, > economic growth will be impossible without increasing the supply of > oil. > > The collision of these two trends will, it is claimed, produce > catastrophe. Oil prices will skyrocket to unheard-of levels, > hundreds of > dollars per barrel. Most people will simply be unable to afford > gasoline > or heating oil. Airlines and other forms of transport will go > bankrupt > and business failures will be widespread. The economy will enter a > permanent state of decline that will make the Great Depression look > mild. I don't know about hundreds of dollars per barrel but as it stands we are certainly headed for a very real energy crisis. There are many factors that lead me to belief that we are also in for an exceedingly dangerous and painful economic crisis other than peak oil. > > Worse, even essentials like food and pharmaceuticals are highly > dependent > on oil, and with the explosion in the price of this crucial commodity, > the world will see a rapid spread of famine and disease. This > produces > what Peak Oilers call the "great die-off" and many of them expect it > within a few years. You are talking about one particular fringe group of people who believe peak oil is real. Implying that all people who believe Peak Oil is real have the same beliefs is dishonest. Let us see and address the real problem instead of disowning it. > > This may seem like an astonishingly implausible scenario, but it is > widely > believed among the Peak Oil community. Not really. > > Of course, not everyone concerned with Peak Oil buys into this whole > picture. There are a range of beliefs. Some see this scenario > playing > out, but not for a decade or more. Others think that the impact > will be > limited to a permanent state of economic depression, and don't > accept the > great die-off. Others including myself believe that new technolgies will take up the slack. Unfortunately the deniers of the problem and the real inertia of how long it takes to bring alternatives fully online means there will be some harsh consequences before the problem is sufficiently addressed. > People also disagree about just when the peak will occur. > Some see it as 10 to 15 years off, others out 5 years or 2 years, and > yet others think it's already happened and we are beginning to feel > the > first effects. It is difficult to say without much more impartial and complete data on the state of existing fields. But my guess would be no more than 5 years. My suspicion is that it has already begun among those in power who see it coming. > > Needless to say, this is not a very Extropian image of the future! Being Extropian does not include living in denial of real problems! Extropianism is not simply wearing high tech rose-colored glasses. > And if you look closely you can see some inconsistencies and flaws in > the assumptions that this scenario is based on. Nevertheless the Peak > Oil community devotes enormous efforts to analyzing every scrap of > news > about oil supply and demand levels all over the world, and in fact > their > predictions do hold up pretty well against recent trends. Yes. > As oil reaches > each new price level, Peak Oilers take it as vindication and > confirmation > of their views. There was a time when $50 oil was unimaginable. > Then $60 > oil was unimaginable, then $70. Today $80 or $90 oil is unimaginable. Non-fringe major financial sources have talked about spikes to $100 per barrel. When that happens will you believe the problem is real? What would constitute enough evidence to convince you that we face a very real problem? - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From extropy at unreasonable.com Sun Sep 4 01:02:10 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 21:02:10 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight? In-Reply-To: <20050903223011.41481.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20050903122424.05046528@unreasonable.com> <20050903223011.41481.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050903200248.0579cea8@unreasonable.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >The tough problem is that when you are mass producing something, you >are doing so in order to earn a profit by doing so. Making space >science pay for itself, such as geological assays and surveys do, is >the key to doing what you want. Part of that answer could be communications-relay spacecraft. There's a group that's adapting the Internet protocols for the specific characteristics involved with an environment where even a ping will take hours and an aging host may have too little remaining power to waste resending mangled packets. Perhaps they should look at (if they aren't already) adapting the routing protocols and building a space-worthy router that can become a standard module included in every spacecraft, manned or unmanned, regardless of mission. I'd also love to see more standards for describing and merging sensor data, so that we can gradually build a grid of multi-purpose buoys-cum-lighthouses throughout the system and then extending beyond, perhaps one every light-hour for starters. (The standards are, in part, to make it easy to combine data from different generations of buoys, so the grid can be upgraded piecewise or have better equipment in the areas we care more about.) -- David. From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Sep 4 01:39:45 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 20:39:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ARTICLE: French magazine looking for scientists/tech for article Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050903202416.04a5d3e0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Request from french magazine regarding science, scientific research and technology questions about human augmentation French journalist is looking for experts, preferably affiliated with universities,: "... interested especially in "enhancement technologies". I mean, technologies for better ear, eye, muscles, brain...betterhuman to sum up. We would need to talk with University scientists who work on that kind of project and could explain us their theory and experiments. Scientist who has futuristic and ethical reflexion about that research, also." "Added to that we are very interested by work on cryopreservation." The journalist would like to interview experts located in France, Belgium and/or Switzerland; although the US would be good as well, but most likely as a second choice. If you are interested or can suggest experts, please send information to me at your earliest convenience. Many thanks, Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist, Designer President, Extropy Institute Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Studies of the Future, University of Houston Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 03:45:14 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 20:45:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <41B4557E-0042-4712-9ABA-5319C438ED7F@mac.com> Message-ID: <20050904034514.4011.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > As I used to work in (or at least on the outskirts of) the industry I > can attest that this is more or less correct. There are no known > technologies that can significantly increase the productivity of a > field without shortening its productive lifetime or prevent its > eventual decline in production. Some of this is simple common > sense. It is not a "view". Not quite. We recover an amazingly small percent of oil from any given field. It used to max out at about 10% of what was in the ground. Today its about 30% if the drillers drill out multiple holes from the wellhead and turn them to parallel the surface to capture more of the area of the field. Newer technologies to get more oil out of the ground won't reduce the fields useful life, because the extra oil was never gotten before. What is more, new technologies to extract more oil from a given field means that older fields that were assumed to be spent under old technology can be reopened and drilled with newer technologies to extract oil that could not be gotten before. Furthermore, your 'view' also ignores utterly the well documented phenomenon of reservoir refilling. A wildcatter friend of mine makes lots of money opening up old spent wells to find a lot more oil there than the engineers once said was there. It is percolating up from deep deep reserves and likely from inorganic sources, as the Russian inorganic oil theory is gaining more ground and acceptance (the Vietnamese Tiger fields would not function if inorganic oil was not a reality). > What is a view is the notions portrayed > of what the consequences of world wide oil demand outstripping supply > will likely be. But that demand will outstrip supply is > incontestable. If it is assumed that technology is not going to advance and lead to more efficient consumption (as happened in the 80's). Thinking otherwise is also unextropic. > > > > > Needless to say, this is not a very Extropian image of the future! > > Being Extropian does not include living in denial of real problems! > Extropianism is not simply wearing high tech rose-colored glasses. Extropianism also does not deny that technology increases resource utilization efficiency and that resources always get cheaper over time. It doesn't take rose colored glasses to be optimistic, only a lack of denial about future technological advances. > Non-fringe major financial sources have talked about spikes to $100 > per barrel. When that happens will you believe the problem is real? > What would constitute enough evidence to convince you that we face a > very real problem? Considering in real dollars the 1979 prices were over $80/bbl in current dollars, it would have to be significantly more. $80/bbl prices today would trigger a market backlash as was seen in the 1980's of econoboxes and hybrid/electric/fuelcell technologies. That price level will also attract the capital to bring tar sand derived oil and gas to market. Once the capital is invested in that infrastructure, prices will remain stable for another century at a minimum. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail for Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 04:33:33 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 21:33:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050903200248.0579cea8@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <20050904043333.74280.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- David Lubkin wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > >The tough problem is that when you are mass producing something, you > >are doing so in order to earn a profit by doing so. Making space > >science pay for itself, such as geological assays and surveys do, is > >the key to doing what you want. > > Part of that answer could be communications-relay spacecraft. > > There's a group that's adapting the Internet protocols for the > specific characteristics involved with an environment where even a > ping will take hours and an aging host may have too little remaining > power to waste resending mangled packets. > > Perhaps they should look at (if they aren't already) adapting the > routing protocols and building a space-worthy router that can become > a standard module included in every spacecraft, manned or unmanned, > regardless of mission. Well, spin-off technologies is nice, but I'm talking about space science making its data valuable to the market. Discovering whether a compound is present somewhere is nice, but doing an assay of how much of it is there and exactly where and in what form is a long way to doing a business case for recovering that compound for economic use for industry, colonists, etc. For example, figuring out how much He3 is on the moon is great info, except while theoretically its a great fusion fuel, there is no fusion industry as yet, or even proven fusion technology. However, figuring out how much water there is on the moon, and where, or on Mars, is of immense economic value. The latest Mars probe being sent of last week or so is going to generate data of immense economic value: a global survey of the presence of water to a significant depth using radar. That data is going to decide the feasibility of colonizing and even terraforming Mars. Probes surveying asteroids and comets for water, potential rocket fuels, iron, etc will also be of immense value, but the probes must be designed by a group intent on surveying them as if they were planning on mining the object. Right now probe design is dictated by those who are not industrially oriented. > > I'd also love to see more standards for describing and merging sensor > data, so that we can gradually build a grid of multi-purpose > buoys-cum-lighthouses throughout the system and then extending > beyond, perhaps one every light-hour for starters. With miniaturization, putting out hundreds or thousands of nano-probes operating in a network should be as expensive as launching one big probe like Cassini. However, more than the computers need to be miniaturized. Thrusters (this is happening), reaction wheels less than 3" dia. (haven't seen mini-sized ones yet), and instruments, like spectrometers, etc. that are hand held or smaller. Ideally you want to pack a dozen instruments, a supercomputer, a solar electric propulsion system, tracking, guidance, maneuvering systems, and communications into a volume of less than a cubic foot at launch, weighing less than 30 lbs. If you want to mass produce them, they need to be VCR sized made of similar scale components. You want to launch them and disperse them in space just like cluster bombs disperse anti-personnel weapons. Taking a Proton launcher as an example, which has a 26 foot long by 12 foot dia payload fairing, should be able to fit 2600 of such probes in it, though its load limit is 44,100 lbs to LEO, that would limit us to about 1470 30 lb probes. As the Proton costs an estimated $30 million per launch, the per probe share of launch costs would be merely $20,048.00. If we could reduce probe mass to under 16.8 lbs, the maximum volume could be used to launch all 2600 probes for a per probe launch cost of just over $11,538.00. If probe volume can be reduced to a 6 inch cube (w/ proportionate mass reduction), per probe launch cost would be under $1460.00. Then the question becomes how costly would the probes be to make? A production run of thousands is significantly less than what PC or router makers are used to. All components would need to be standardized units off the shelf, like PC components, yet be space-ratable. I'm thinking of a PC maker I know of that sells industrial and EMI shielded PC systems and components. His prices are typically two to four times the prices of consumer grade units. On a rough guestimate, I'd say each probe would cost no less than $10k each and no more than $50k each. Know any angels that want to help out with such a project? Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Sep 4 05:22:50 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 22:22:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050904034514.4011.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200509040523.j845N1w24524@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey > Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 8:45 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game > theorystandpoint ? > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > > > As I used to work in (or at least on the outskirts of) the industry I > > can attest that this is more or less correct. There are no known > > technologies that can significantly increase the productivity of a > > field without shortening its productive lifetime ... > > Not quite. We recover an amazingly small percent of oil from any given > field. It used to max out at about 10% of what was in the ground... This whole discussion of peak oil seems too focused on the production side and not enough on reduced demand. To cite just one example, there is the use of the term hybrid in transportation. Current hybrids are all parallel hybrids, which means that the IC engine and the electric motors run in parallel. But this isn't much more efficient than IC only. Car makers decided the hybrids would be introduced with no performance compromises, perhaps to encourage their acceptance. Series hybrids work like a Diesel train: the IC engine turns a generator which powers the electric motors at the wheels. This has the potential of enormously higher efficiency, but at the cost of performance. They are slower, both in acceleration and in top speed. We can survive that. My own vision of the next three to five decades does not include starvation or overly dire consequences, but it is slower, with less transportation of humans. We compensate by smarter use of communications, more working at home, probably some downscaling in some areas, perhaps less meat eating for instance, fewer big entertainment events such as football games and New Years Eve bashes in Times Square, that kinda stuff. We will live. Poor people will suffer, as they always have, but even they get something out of the deal: motorhomes, campers and travel trailers would be converted into low cost housing, very low cost, nearly free. My extropian view of the future is one that is way cool still, even if it takes a little longer to get places. spike From nanogirl at halcyon.com Sun Sep 4 06:39:40 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 23:39:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Golly References: <6.2.3.4.2.20050903122424.05046528@unreasonable.com><20050903223011.41481.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050903200248.0579cea8@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <009801c5b11b$746cfc20$0200a8c0@Nano> Hello everyone, perhaps you will like this one... it's 50s style comic strip... http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/golly.htm Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org 3D/Animation http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm Microscope Jewelry http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robgobblin at aol.com Sun Sep 4 08:14:08 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 22:14:08 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050904005650.9929.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050904005650.9929.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2fb1c191ab708e25f7cc011f20412322@aol.com> On Sep 3, 2005, at 2:56 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > --- Hal Finney wrote:> >> As oil reaches each new price level, Peak Oilers take it as >> vindication and confirmation of their views. There was a time when >> $50 oil was unimaginable. Then $60 oil was unimaginable, then $70. >> Today $80 or $90 oil is unimaginable. What will we be saying by the >> end of this year? > > What do they say about the fact that once you take into account price > shifts solely due to changes in the value of the dollar caused by > banking policy, oil prices of $56/bbl today are essentially no > different from $40/bbl prices two years ago. Todays spot price of $69 > is equal to $49/bbl prices two years ago, when prices were $30/bbl. So > it appears that half of the present high prices vs. two years ago is > solely due to fluctuations in the dollar markets due to banking policy. > The other half can be attributed to multiple things: middle east > instability, the current Katrina crisis, as well as growth in Chinese > demand. I'd say your scenario contradicts itself since you say below: > I should also note that President Bush ordered the Reserve filled to > capacity shortly after 9/11, when oil prices shot up from the mid $25 > range to the $35-38 range on the spot markets. Depending on what prices > it obtained these reserves at, the gov't could realize a significant > windfall on these sales. Assuming they sell a million a day for two > months, they should see profits of about $1.5 billion, which should > help offset some of the $10.5 billion being authorized by Congress for > the Katrina recovery efforts. Well, how much is it? Anyway, at two years at 5% inflation, from $49, you get $54, not $56 and the prices are not $56. Anyway, this is mostly irrelevant since the underlying theory is obvious and simple: There are no new sources of fossil fuels. We have already tapped the "easy to get to" ones (for the most part, I've heard recently that Vietnam has a major reserve but I'm not aware of the reliability of the source...) and the easy-to-get-to portions of the easy-to-get-to ones. This leaves the harder to get to ones dwindling down to the impossible to get to ones and finally to the no more left scenario. The alternative - that the core of the earth is filled with nothing but fossil fuels and we'll be able to run on unleaded gasoline for the next 100 years at our current rate of consumptive growth is absurd. Consequently the obvious conclusion for those with half-a-brain-left is that it's just a matter of time - 10 years, 2 years, 50 years, 100 years. In any case, the US economy in particular will have to undergo a major change in order to survive the removal of our primary energy source and it's the kind of thing it's better to prepare for earlier rather than later lest we find ourselves fossil fuels one day. Robbie Lindauer From pharos at gmail.com Sun Sep 4 09:27:00 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 10:27:00 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] ARTICLE: French magazine looking for scientists/tech for article In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050903202416.04a5d3e0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050903202416.04a5d3e0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: On 9/4/05, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > Request from french magazine regarding science, > scientific research and technology questions > about human augmentation > > Scientist who has futuristic and ethical reflexion > about that research, also." > The french word 'reflexion' means 'considered thoughts or speculations' A better translation might be: Researchers who have futuristic and ethical speculations about human augmentation also. BillK From benboc at lineone.net Sun Sep 4 09:38:03 2005 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 10:38:03 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: extropy-chat Digest, Vol 24, Issue 8 In-Reply-To: <200509040523.j845NNw24575@tick.javien.com> References: <200509040523.j845NNw24575@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <431AC07B.9020408@lineone.net> David Lubkin wrote: "Watching the analysis of how the flooding of New Orleans resulted from two small breaks, it struck me that a group opposed to *us* might pick ordinary stress points in *our* system and attack them at times of peak stress. Wouldn't causing those breaks be a lot simpler than orchestrating 9/11? Yet the human and economic ripples are comparable or greater. No particular PR value, but there are other goals an enemy might have, and some foes might want to hurt *us* without exposure. It also might be a great first blow in a one-two punch. Divert *our* attention while they can get their main mission in place." [emphasis is mine] Hmm, interesting. So just what are the ordinary stress points in the worldwide community of Transhumanists' systems? Or have i strayed onto the wrong list? ben From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 12:00:14 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 05:00:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <200509040523.j845N1w24524@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050904120014.8869.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > My own vision of the next three to five decades does > > not include starvation or overly dire consequences, > but > it is slower, with less transportation of humans. > We > compensate by smarter use of communications, more > working at home, probably some downscaling in some > areas, perhaps less meat eating for instance, fewer > big entertainment events such as football games and > New Years Eve bashes in Times Square, that kinda > stuff. We will live. I don't know, Spike. My vision is pretty nice. Our economy goes nuke/hydrogen. We build a bunch of really enlightened nuclear power plants with multiply redundant safety-systems to generate electricy and hydrogen. We use electric and matrix absorption-desorption hydrogen fuel cell cars to go as fast as we do now and a lot quieter too for those who live on busy streets. We use fission as a crutch till we get fusion in a bottle. Then we have our own miniture suns to power stuff. Its not unbelievable, just unpopular, because people are afraid of the N word. http://www.ans.org/pi/matters/hydrogen/points.html The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From extropy at unreasonable.com Sun Sep 4 13:48:32 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 09:48:32 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight? In-Reply-To: <20050904043333.74280.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20050903200248.0579cea8@unreasonable.com> <20050904043333.74280.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050904093107.073ed528@unreasonable.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- David Lubkin wrote: > > > Part of that answer could be communications-relay spacecraft. > > > > There's a group that's adapting the Internet protocols for the > > specific characteristics involved with an environment where even a > > ping will take hours and an aging host may have too little remaining > > power to waste resending mangled packets. > > > > Perhaps they should look at (if they aren't already) adapting the > > routing protocols and building a space-worthy router that can become > > a standard module included in every spacecraft, manned or unmanned, > > regardless of mission. > >Well, spin-off technologies is nice, but I'm talking about space >science making its data valuable to the market. > > > I'd also love to see more standards for describing and merging sensor > > data, so that we can gradually build a grid of multi-purpose > > buoys-cum-lighthouses throughout the system and then extending > > beyond, perhaps one every light-hour for starters. > >With miniaturization, putting out hundreds or thousands of nano-probes >operating in a network How do you think that network would work without the routing protocols and hardware I'm talking about? Command and data relay is not a spin-off. I'm not talking about earth-orbit. I'm saying that any mission anywhere, manned or unmanned, is going to need command and data relay. Whether it's that asteroid retrieval, your nano-probe network, or a manned Mars-or-Bust, every craft needs it and every craft can provide it for others. And your nano-probe network becomes even more economically justifiable if, beyond its data acquisition mission, its packet relay mission improves the reliability and performance of everything else we do in space. -- David. From riel at surriel.com Sun Sep 4 14:03:41 2005 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 10:03:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <20050903162312.1099.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050903162312.1099.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: > Your improper assumption was that New Orleans wasn't a third world > country before this disaster. I don't know how many times I've heard > that people like to go there specifically because it has third world > country characteristics without having to leave the US. When making our way from the New Orleans airport to the city center (earlier this year), my wife and I had exactly that feeling. New Orleans looks and feels like a poorer city in Brazil. Richer cities in Brazil appear to be better off than New Orleans was before Katrina. -- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan From riel at surriel.com Sun Sep 4 14:16:51 2005 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 10:16:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Halliburton gets Katrina Contract In-Reply-To: <004201c5b09f$7dd38530$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <20050903151746.33179.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <004201c5b09f$7dd38530$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, kevinfreels.com wrote: > Is there a company out there that is more capable and better at handling > the job and is willing to do it for less? Also, would you want disaster recovery work done by companies that cut corners in order to be cheaper than competitors ? -- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan From megao at sasktel.net Sun Sep 4 13:25:57 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 08:25:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] very large distance array In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050904093107.073ed528@unreasonable.com> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20050903200248.0579cea8@unreasonable.com> <20050904043333.74280.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050904093107.073ed528@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <431AF5E5.4020903@sasktel.net> such a system might also function as a very large distance array "telescope" if each sensor had a continuous gps like way of correcting data for relative position/and movement. From megao at sasktel.net Sun Sep 4 13:41:02 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 08:41:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Halliburton and world-scale operations In-Reply-To: References: <20050903151746.33179.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <004201c5b09f$7dd38530$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <431AF96E.100@sasktel.net> Rik van Riel wrote: >On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, kevinfreels.com wrote: > > > >>Is there a company out there that is more capable and better at handling >>the job and is willing to do it for less? >> >> > >Also, would you want disaster recovery work done by companies >that cut corners in order to be cheaper than competitors ? > > > The question is how do you determine when value for money spent has been achieved and when has a service been over compensated, not precisely who is delivering it. So long as there is a way to benchmark this the function of a competitive bid system has been duplicated. The problem is that there is a lack of world scale operators. China or other nations are lacking in this world scale enterprise I am assuming. The only world scale enterprises outside the USA might only be military in nature which makes their bidding on USA domestic contracts unthinkable for the world-view of North America. The answer would be for the military forces of countries to have a commerical activities function. Perhaps a new role for a consortium of multinational forces? Will we soon become mature enough as a species to think this way? It seems evident to me that expending resources on conflict-wars etc is dragging down the potential of humanity to make the singularity a reality. The core question is: Does conflict serve any useful purpose in a technologically advanced society or is is merely a disease lingering from more primative times? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun Sep 4 14:39:25 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 10:39:25 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: References: <20050903162312.1099.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > Your improper assumption was that New Orleans wasn't a third world > > country before this disaster. I don't know how many times I've heard > > that people like to go there specifically because it has third world > > country characteristics without having to leave the US. > > When making our way from the New Orleans airport to the > city center (earlier this year), my wife and I had exactly > that feeling. > > New Orleans looks and feels like a poorer city in Brazil. > Richer cities in Brazil appear to be better off than New > Orleans was before Katrina. > > A friend of mine visited NO in 1999. He got turned around somehow while out walking/sightseeing and found himself off the main track. He is not a small or easily intimidated person, but he was *very* glad to get back to "civilization". A young man who worked near me said, after his trip to NO some years ago, that he would never go there again... he'd never seen such behaviour anywhere in his life before and was glad to leave. I do not recall whether he was there for MardiGras or not; that could certainly explain his reaction though, IMHO! :))) As I'm not a party animal or heavy drinker, NO has had no attraction for me; good seafood is available other places! There was a website at one time: http://www.acadiacom.net/nopd/tips.htm "NEW ORLEANS POLICE DEPARTMENT "Street Smart" Tips for Working, Living & Playing Downtown" The safety suggestions there were not unusual, but it seemed odd to be sent to such a site as a tourist... Somewhat disconcerting. Regards, MB From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 15:32:20 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 08:32:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <2fb1c191ab708e25f7cc011f20412322@aol.com> Message-ID: <20050904153220.20432.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Robert Lindauer wrote: > > On Sep 3, 2005, at 2:56 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > > > --- Hal Finney wrote:> > >> As oil reaches each new price level, Peak Oilers take it as > >> vindication and confirmation of their views. There was a time > when > >> $50 oil was unimaginable. Then $60 oil was unimaginable, then $70. > >> Today $80 or $90 oil is unimaginable. What will we be saying by > the > >> end of this year? > > > > What do they say about the fact that once you take into account > price > > shifts solely due to changes in the value of the dollar caused by > > banking policy, oil prices of $56/bbl today are essentially no > > different from $40/bbl prices two years ago. Todays spot price of > $69 > > is equal to $49/bbl prices two years ago, when prices were $30/bbl. > So > > it appears that half of the present high prices vs. two years ago > is > > solely due to fluctuations in the dollar markets due to banking > policy. > > The other half can be attributed to multiple things: middle east > > instability, the current Katrina crisis, as well as growth in > Chinese > > demand. > > I'd say your scenario contradicts itself since you say below: > > > I should also note that President Bush ordered the Reserve filled > to > > capacity shortly after 9/11, when oil prices shot up from the mid > $25 > > range to the $35-38 range on the spot markets. Depending on what > prices > > it obtained these reserves at, the gov't could realize a > significant > > windfall on these sales. Assuming they sell a million a day for two > > months, they should see profits of about $1.5 billion, which should > > help offset some of the $10.5 billion being authorized by Congress > for > > the Katrina recovery efforts. > > Well, how much is it? > > Anyway, at two years at 5% inflation, from $49, you get $54, not $56 > and the prices are not $56. Inflation is not the change in the international value of the dollar. The dollar has dropped in value by about 40% over the last two years, compared to other currencies. That is not reflected in our CPI because only a small percent of our overall economic activity is priced on foreign currencies. So, no, you are the one that is wrong. > > Anyway, this is mostly irrelevant since the underlying theory is > obvious and simple: > > There are no new sources of fossil fuels. We have already tapped the > "easy to get to" ones (for the most part, I've heard recently that > Vietnam has a major reserve but I'm not aware of the reliability of > the source...) and the easy-to-get-to portions of the easy-to-get-to > ones. The Vietnamese reserve you speak of is actually a proven inorganic oil source. The "White Tiger" field offshore was drilled by Russian teams from Yukos after American oil companies declared the field to be non-existent and abandoned the area. The Russians drilled 17,000 feet deep into and through basaltic layers for each well, producing 6,000 bbl/day/well. http://reactor-core.org/peak-oil.html The Vietnamese resources would not exist under your malthusian paradigm of limited resources. According to the biotic oil 'experts', oil doesn't exist that deep, and doesn't exist under the continental basalt. The biotic theory is that it is a sedimentary deposit of biological material. If so, it can only exist above the continental basaltic bedrock. Once again, it is you who are wrong. > This leaves the harder to get to ones dwindling down to the > impossible to get to ones and finally to the no more left scenario. And as each is exploited, new technologies will be developed that will be able to get at them easier and cheaper. At the same time, energy conserving technologies will enter the market and help reduce demand per dollar of GDP. > > The alternative - that the core of the earth is filled with nothing > but fossil fuels and we'll be able to run on unleaded gasoline for the > next 100 years at our current rate of consumptive growth is absurd. On the contrary, the Athabascan oil tar sands of Alberta has enough oil for centuries of consumption. http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=1mhi35m1go3h3?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Athabasca+Oil+Sands&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc01a&linktext=Athabasca%20Tar%20Sands "Although not proven, and not even considered within the oil industry, according to the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, the Athabasca tar sands is the largest oil deposit in the world, with a claimed estimation of 1.6 trillion barrels (254 km?) of oil, of which at most 315 billion barrels (50 km?) are claimed to be recoverable by the oil companies given current technology. Syncrude (http://www.syncrude.com/who_we_are/01_06.html), one of the oil companies involved in mining the tar sands, states that the entire tar sand deposit is twice the size of Lake Ontario. It is estimated the Venezuelan Orinoco tar sands deposit is slightly larger than Athabasca (see tar sands article). See [1] (http://www.energybulletin.net/4385.html) for more accurate estimations of about 174.5 billion barrels (28 km?)." So, at current technology and global consumption rates, if all the rest of the oil in the world ended in the near future, the Athabascan sands could supply about ten years of total global oil consumption. With advances in technology, the sands could potentially supply 50 years or more of global oil needs. The Orinoco tar sands have similar capacity. The Athabascan deposits equal 1/3 of all global reserves. > > Consequently the obvious conclusion for those with half-a-brain-left > is that it's just a matter of time - 10 years, 2 years, 50 years, 100 > years. In any case, the US economy in particular will have to > undergo > a major change in order to survive the removal of our primary energy > source and it's the kind of thing it's better to prepare for earlier > rather than later lest we find ourselves fossil fuels one day. On the contrary, the market will signal when the need occurs. As with articles previously cited by Hal, it is clear that the oil oligopolists won't pass up expensive prices tomorrow for cheap prices today. Instead, they will drive up current day prices by delaying exploitation of unused reserves or other means of expanding production beyond current capacity. In a market of rising demand, simply delaying expansion of production drives up prices automatically to send the price signals that will trigger consumer conservation. Your abject lack of faith in the market explains a lot why you are not a libertarian. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 15:44:33 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 08:44:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Are dwarfs better for long duration spaceflight? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050904093107.073ed528@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <20050904154433.22290.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- David Lubkin wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > >--- David Lubkin wrote: > > > > > Part of that answer could be communications-relay spacecraft. > > > > > > There's a group that's adapting the Internet protocols for the > > > specific characteristics involved with an environment where even > a > > > ping will take hours and an aging host may have too little > remaining > > > power to waste resending mangled packets. > > > > > > Perhaps they should look at (if they aren't already) adapting the > > > routing protocols and building a space-worthy router that can > become > > > a standard module included in every spacecraft, manned or > unmanned, > > > regardless of mission. > > > >Well, spin-off technologies is nice, but I'm talking about space > >science making its data valuable to the market. > > > > > I'd also love to see more standards for describing and merging > sensor > > > data, so that we can gradually build a grid of multi-purpose > > > buoys-cum-lighthouses throughout the system and then extending > > > beyond, perhaps one every light-hour for starters. > > > >With miniaturization, putting out hundreds or thousands of > nano-probes > >operating in a network > > How do you think that network would work without the routing > protocols and hardware I'm talking about? I don't, but I don't consider income from spinning such technology off to the Earth market to be the major value-adder that justifies mass production of space probes. What the probes produce themselves (science data) must be of marketable value to justify mass producing them. > Command and data relay is not a spin-off. I'm not talking about > earth-orbit. I'm saying that any mission anywhere, manned or > unmanned, is going to need command and data relay. Whether it's that > asteroid retrieval, your nano-probe network, or a manned > Mars-or-Bust, every craft needs it and every craft can provide it for > others. > > And your nano-probe network becomes even more economically > justifiable if, beyond its data acquisition mission, its packet relay > mission improves the reliability and performance of everything else > we do in space. Ah, so you want it to operate as a backbone for other spacecraft and installations, as a space ISP? Okay, I get it, though in this you are competing against a zero priced competitor: all the radio dishes that are routinely used to directly receive data from probes. There is also the problem of signal strength. Even with thousands of probes in solar system space, the average space between probes will, at minimum, be in the hundreds of thousands of miles if not millions of miles. Receiving signals at that distance requires directional dishes of significant size that will take up a large part of the mass of any such probe, if not be in excess of total probe mass, even if you use a phased array. What dispersion distance are you expecting to be reasonable? Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From outlawpoet at gmail.com Sun Sep 4 17:09:34 2005 From: outlawpoet at gmail.com (justin corwin) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 10:09:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050904153220.20432.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <2fb1c191ab708e25f7cc011f20412322@aol.com> <20050904153220.20432.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3ad827f305090410091633345@mail.gmail.com> Sorry for the levity, my serious friends, but listening to you two argue about this has a faint tinge of the ridiculous. On 9/4/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > --- Robert Lindauer wrote: > > In any case, the US economy in particular will have to > > undergo a major change in order to survive the removal of our primary energy > > source and it's the kind of thing it's better to prepare for earlier > > rather than later lest we find ourselves fossil fuels one day. > > Your abject lack of faith in the market explains a lot why you are not a libertarian. MIKELORREY: I find your lack of faith... disturbing. ROBERTLINDAUER: (his eyes go wide, and he scrabbles at his throat as the Invisible Hand closes around him) -- apologies to Adam Smith. -- Justin Corwin outlawpoet at hell.com http://outlawpoet.blogspot.com http://www.adaptiveai.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 17:35:01 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 10:35:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] OIL: Albertan tar sands, was Peak Oil? In-Reply-To: <20050904153220.20432.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050904173501.38861.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://wired-vig.wired.com/wired/archive/12.07/oil.html Wired had this article last year. Furthermore, it turns out that the Athabascan sands are only one oil sand deposit in Alberta: http://www.osern.rr.ualberta.ca//Images/old/AOSD_Full.gif In total, Albertan oil sands amount to over 2.54 trillion barrels. At a 10% recovery factor, thats 254 billion barrels, or about nine years of total global oil supply (at an 84 million bbl/day rate of production). With current technology, 30% should be feasible, giving 27 years, and with nanotechnology to be developed in the next 27 years, recovery percentage should grow to over 70% or more. Now, lets look at its exploitation from a more realistice point of view. Lets say oil companies invest enough to create a daily output of 6 million bbl/day. The US imports 13.12 million bbl/day from 15 countries. Of these, I'd say we'd want to keep importing oil from eight or nine of them, representing 42-46% of our oil imports. Ending imports from all African nations, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia, possibly Iraq, would free us from terrorism profiting on oil prices. 6 million bbl/day from Alberta would replace all of our imports from troublesome nations. Currently, according to Syncrude, its recovery costs for the heavy crude they get out of their extraction process, is $10/bbl, far less than what they used to be, and there are technologies for reducing this more. One alone will drop it by $1.50/bbl. So lets assume $8.50/bbl within a few years. While its 4.5 times more than Saudi's $2/bbl recovery costs, its still eight times less than the current spot price, which should give ample room for refineries to refine even this heavy crude instead of lighter crudes from foreign sources. At a 6 million bbl/day production rate in Alberta, the oil sands would last 42333 days of production at a constant rate and recovering only 10% of the bitumen. That is 115 years of freedom from muslim extremist oil per 10% of bitumen deposits extracted from Albertan oil sands at a current dollar cost of $8.50/bbl. If we were to make an assumption that each additional 10% would cost 50% more to extract than the previous 10%, the 70th percentile would cost $96.00/bbl to extract. The 80th would cost $145.00, the 90th would be $217.00, and the last percentile would cost $326 in current year dollars. The last percentile would be extracted in 1150 years, assuming a constant rate of extraction. With a 3% average inflation rate and a 4% average growth rate, the real cost of this oil in 1150 years should be about $0.32/bbl relative to the current cost of living. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From pharos at gmail.com Sun Sep 4 18:02:18 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 19:02:18 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] OIL: Albertan tar sands, was Peak Oil? In-Reply-To: <20050904173501.38861.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050904153220.20432.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20050904173501.38861.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/4/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > Now, lets look at its exploitation from a more realistice point of > view. Lets say oil companies invest enough to create a daily output of > 6 million bbl/day. > > The US imports 13.12 million bbl/day from 15 countries. Of these, I'd > say we'd want to keep importing oil from eight or nine of them, > representing 42-46% of our oil imports. Ending imports from all African > nations, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia, possibly Iraq, would free us from > terrorism profiting on oil prices. > > 6 million bbl/day from Alberta would replace all of our imports from > troublesome nations. Currently, according to Syncrude, its recovery > costs for the heavy crude they get out of their extraction process, is > $10/bbl, far less than what they used to be, and there are technologies > for reducing this more. One alone will drop it by $1.50/bbl. So lets > assume $8.50/bbl within a few years. While its 4.5 times more than > Saudi's $2/bbl recovery costs, its still eight times less than the > current spot price, which should give ample room for refineries to > refine even this heavy crude instead of lighter crudes from foreign > sources. > Latest news is that 6 million bbl/day from Alberta is not expected until 2030. Current production is around 1 million bbl/day and even by 2012 they only expect 1.6 million bbl/day. Quote: A 15-year-long decline in oil reserves and crude-oil prices of more than $70 a barrel are pushing companies such as Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. to spend $76 billion in the next decade to boost supplies of oil from tar sands and diesel fuel from Qatari natural gas. Output at the Alberta fields, which cover an area about the size of Belgium, will probably approach 1.6 million barrels a day in 2012 and 2.8 million barrels by 2016, Drzymala said. Production costs will fall to about $7 a barrel from $11 in the next five years because of new technological developments, he said. ------------------------------- I would recommend economising on your oil usage. BillK From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Sep 4 18:13:20 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 11:13:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <3ad827f305090410091633345@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200509041813.j84IDMw07177@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of justin corwin > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game > theorystandpoint ? > > Sorry for the levity, my serious friends, but listening to you two > argue about this has a faint tinge of the ridiculous. > ... > > MIKELORREY: I find your lack of faith... disturbing. > > ROBERTLINDAUER: (his eyes go wide, and he scrabbles at his throat as > the Invisible Hand closes around him) > > -- > > apologies to Adam Smith. > > -- > Justin Corwin Let them say their piece Justin. I have learned a lot by listening to this particular debate. Here's an ethical question for you guys. Suppose I am a skeptic regarding the sillier stuff we hear about global warming: that it was the cause of the snowstorms in Los Angeles this past winter, that it makes more and bigger hurricanes, that it causes the genitals of the children of outer Mongolia to mature at the age of four, whatever. Suppose I am in a position to make money off of that hype. Would that be unethical? If I don't actually *contribute* to the silliness, but rather take advantage of that which is already out there, entirely thru free market reaction. Do you see anything wrong with that? I don't. I put it in the same category as farm subsidies: I oppose them on principle, but will cheerfully collect them if I qualify, without a hint of shame. Why not? My substantial tax bill helped pay for them, right? Besides, global warming *might* contribute to hurricanes, a century or two from now, so my profiting in reducing that today is OK, right? spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of justin corwin > Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 10:10 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game > theorystandpoint ? > > Sorry for the levity, my serious friends, but listening to you two > argue about this has a faint tinge of the ridiculous. > ... > > MIKELORREY: I find your lack of faith... disturbing. > > ROBERTLINDAUER: (his eyes go wide, and he scrabbles at his throat as > the Invisible Hand closes around him) > > -- > > apologies to Adam Smith. > > -- > Justin Corwin From eugen at leitl.org Sun Sep 4 19:17:10 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 21:17:10 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <200509041813.j84IDMw07177@tick.javien.com> References: <3ad827f305090410091633345@mail.gmail.com> <200509041813.j84IDMw07177@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050904191710.GE2249@leitl.org> On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 11:13:20AM -0700, spike wrote: > Besides, global warming *might* contribute to > hurricanes, a century or two from now, so my > profiting in reducing that today is OK, right? While I'm not sufficiently interested in global warming theory and modelling to have an informed opinion whether we're only seeing random fluctuations (the climate has been known to have extreme excursions, ranging from Iceball Earth to steaming global jungle and desert) it could very well be that the recorded water surface warming is driving the peak wind velocities in the hurricane, and that that surface water warming is anthropogenic. Meaning, we're already reaping the storm we sow, paying for the damage in human lives and cold hard cash. It's immaterial either way, however: we now abundantly know that climate nonlinearities are the norm, and have been a major contributor to extinctions of multiple past high cultures. As a precaution, we need to minimize the amount of climate forcing (reduce anthropogenic aerosols/greenhouse gase emission), build better climate models and sensor networks, and prepare for potential unpleasantness (drought/flooding, loss of crop and large scale starvation, infrastructure damage and loss of life through catastrophic damage events). Would this be expensive? Probably. But the potential damage would be far more expensive, and it's not that we don't have the cash, given the amount of frivolous wars and other stupid pasttimes we've been lately engaging in. To do none of the above would be foolish, suicidally so. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1099102,00.html Is Global Warming Fueling Katrina? Warm ocean temperatures are a key ingredient for monster hurricanes, prompting some scientists to believe that global warming is exacerbating our storm troubles By JEFFREY KLUGER SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR Posted Monday, Aug. 29, 2005 The people of New Orleans are surely not thinking about wind vortices, the coriolis effect or the dampness of the troposphere as they hunker down during hurricane Katrina this morning. They.re mostly thinking about the savage rains and 140 mph winds that have driven them from their homes. But it.s that meteorological arcana that.s made such a mess of the bayou, and to hear a lot of people tell it, we have only ourselves.and our global-warming ways.to blame. One thing.s for sure: hurricanes were around a long, long time before human beings began chopping down rainforests and fouling the atmosphere. To get such a tempest going, you don.t need much more than ocean temperatures above 80 degrees Fahrenheit; a cool, wet atmosphere above and a warm, wet one near the surface; and a preexisting weather disturbance with a bit of spin to it far enough from the equator (at least 300 miles) so that the rotation of the Earth amplifies the rotation of the storm. The more intense the storm becomes, the more the temperature of its core climbs, accelerating the spin, exacerbating the storm, and leading to the meteorological violence we call a hurricane. And violent it can be: The heat released in an average hurricane can equal the electricity produced by the U.S. in a single year. So is global warming making the problem worse? Superficially, the numbers say yes.or at least they seem to if you live in the U.S. From 1995 to 1999, a record 33 hurricanes struck the Atlantic basin, and that doesn.t include 1992.s horrific Hurricane Andrew, which clawed its way across south Florida in 1992, causing $27 billion dollars worth of damage. More-frequent hurricanes are part of most global warming models, and as mean temperatures rise worldwide, it.s hard not to make a connection between the two. But hurricane-scale storms occur all over the world, and in some places.including the North Indian ocean and the region near Australia.the number has actually fallen. Even in the U.S., the period from 1991 to 1994 was a time of record hurricane quietude, with the dramatic exception of Andrew. Just why some areas of the world get hit harder than others at different times is impossible to say. Everything from random atmospheric fluctuations to the periodic warming of the Pacific Ocean known as El Nino can be responsible. But even if all these variables have combined to keep the number of hurricanes worldwide about the same, the storms do appear to be more intense. One especially sobering study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that hurricane wind speeds have increased about 50% in the past 50 years. And since warm oceans are such a critical ingredient in hurricane formation, anything that gets the water warming more could get the storms growing worse. Global warming, in theory at least, would be more than sufficient to do that. While the people of New Orleans may not see another hurricane for years, the next one they do see could make even Katrina look mild. NOAA National Hurricane Center New Orleans Web Cams New Orleans Hurricane Impact Study Area BACK TO TOP PRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR Related Stories From The TIME ARCHIVE * HURRICANE ONSLAUGHT THE WORST STORM SEASON SINCE 1933 COULD BE THE START OF A DANGEROUS TREND [9/11/1995] * The Great Whirlwind The weathermen first spotted the hurricane when it towered up off the West Indies, at about lat. 16? N., long. 60? W. It was a monstrous specimen.a spinning funnel of black storm with... [9/25/1944] * Wait Till Next Time If a little heated water in the Atlantic can create Floyd, what storms will global warming bring? [9/27/1999] 14.10.2004 A Reinsurer's "Master of Disaster" Paying out hundreds of millions in insurance claims after natural disasters each year, German reinsurer Munich Re relies on a scientist to help monitor climate and prepare the company for the future. The "Master of Disaster" is not the name of a heavyweight wrestler: It's the unofficial title of Gerd Berz, who heads the geo-risk research department at German insuring giant Munich Re, the world's largest. For 30 years, Berz's job has been to study meteorological and environmental climate changes for the world's largest reinsurer. His research helps Munich Re decide how to react in the marketplace. While hurricanes, tropical storms and heat waves are known to the masses by charming names like "Isabel", "Queenie" or "Michaela", in the insurance industry they are simply referred to as "basic damage events." Such weather-related natural catastrophes have caused $333 billion (.271 billion) in damage in the past 10 years -- six times more than 50 years ago. And costs for insured damages have risen tenfold in the same time. One reason for the increase in natural catastrophes is global warming, which has led to a rise in weather-related catastrophes, according to scientists. Global warming is thought to be caused by increased greenhouse emissions. According to a UN report on global warming, by the end of this century the mean global temperature will have risen by somewhere between 1.5 and 6 degrees centigrade. "That means, we'll have temperatures on the earth that mankind has never experienced, combined with a strong increase in extreme temperatures," Berz told Deutsche Welle. Mankind to blame? But climate change isn't the only thing responsible for the increase in damages -- mankind has had a hand in the affair as well. A disaster today tends to hit more people because of overall greater population. The world population has more than doubled in the past fifty years and most people now live in cities -- which are not only more densely populated, but also more spread out, Berz said. So when a "basic damage event" strikes, "the probability of it hitting a big town is getting greater and greater," he said. "In addition, many cities are particularly exposed -- think of the coastal areas. And this trend goes worldwide." And because our society has become so reliant on infrastructure we are particularly vulnerable, Berz added. "We are on a 24-hour drip of functioning infrastructure," Berz said. "A disturbance like a natural catastrophe, means necessities like gas, electricity or oil are disturbed, as well as traffic and communication. All these things are necessary for the economy to function, and individuals as well." Big business About one fifth of all weather-related damages are paid for by insurance. Some 6,000 primary insurers are then re-insured by Munich Re. As a business, then, Munich Re says it has to take the current trend of global warming into account. One way to do this is to passing some of the risk on to the customer. "Premiums will have to be increased relatively," Berz said. "And we have to let our customers know that we, as reinsurer, also have to take more big catastrophes into account, and thus need greater cash reserves. That is our main problem." Not only do the reinsurers take measures to gird their wallets, they also work on the prevention angle. In order to keep damages low, Munich Re is involved in initiatives in areas from infrastructure to city planning. The company would for instance try to influence decisions on things like building codes in earthquake areas, or land-use regulations in flood zones. Local initiatives important Risk-analyst Berz said local initiatives are key in these areas, which can be influenced by individual cities and countries. But local action is less relevant when it comes to a world-wide issue like the weather. A global phenomenon requires global climate protection, Berz said. If industrial nations cut their greenhouse emissions, then developing nations will be able to expand theirs without causing an overall further imbalance. "The industrial nations have done most of the development to this point, and have also gained the most from it," he said. "So in my opinion, we should have the responsibility of doing everything in our power not to increase development, but to stabilize it." Author DW staff (jen) http://www.dw-world.de ? Deutsche Welle -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From fortean1 at mindspring.com Sun Sep 4 19:27:54 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 12:27:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] "Dream Elementals" (toxic mold, ASP, lucid dreaming) Message-ID: <431B4ABA.9070205@mindspring.com> Leslie Ellen Jones wrote: > Don't know about the poltergeist thing, but I can say that the period > of my life when I was having the most vivid dreams (not ASP, but > extremely lucid) was when I was living in Oregon in a house where the > landlady had used cheap paint in the bathroom and there was mold I > just couldn't get rid of, even with bleach (mostly because I couldn't > get up to get it on the ceiling without the bleach coming straight > back down into my face). I kept pestering her to repaint the bathroom > because I'm allergic to mold and mildew and in addition to the dreams, > I was having constant, debilitating sinus headaches, and when she > finally did, the headaches abated and the dreams got less intense. So > I definitely think there's a relationship between mold and dream > states. Hey Leslie! Like you, I was always a dreamer and had some normal ASP episodes but it wasn't until I worked in that government building that the ASP went to new and horrific levels. At the time, I wondered if it was my apartment, you know, that it was haunted. During the time I worked there I had one cold after another and so did everybody who worked there. It was awful. And they weren't ordinary colds. I can remember once phoning in sick because I had such a bad cold. I used a box of kleenex in two hours. When I look back on my dream journals of that time - I used to write about ASP then trying to figure out what was going on - I now see that often wrote: "I've got a headache". Also, I remember going to my doctor because I figured out I had a sinus infection in the sinus cavity in the forehead - I had had a dull headache for months. She agreed and gave me antibiotics, which interestingly helped the ASP subside. I figure that I transferred the mold from the office to my apartment, although I never saw mold in my apartment. Two things happened at once - I moved out of my apartment and I left working in that building and the ASP dramatically stopped. At the time I thought it was because my apartment was somehow haunted. But in retrospect, I think it was because I got away from the mold in that office building. It was years later that I read about mold and how it can make a person sick with sinus infections and cold-like symptoms that aren't really a cold but an allergic reaction to mold. So, maybe I was stoned on an LSD-type mold for those three years. I remember a workman coming into my office one day and he took the top off of the heating/cooling system and stuck his arm down and when he pulled it up his arm was covered in pure black slime to his elbow. I was only thinking about colds at the time, and I said: "No wonder I've been sick!" He told me that there were *mushrooms* growing throughout the air conditioning/heating system. At that time, I don't think the powers that be really knew the effect of toxic mold on people. I've sorta been piecing this story together for years now. Because I could never figure out why I hit with such intense ASP dreams for a three-year period. I thought there must be some environmental reason, whether that be electromagnetism or even a virus that caused hyper-dreaming, as I call it. < %>< > But, on the bright side, Leslie, maybe we've solved the ASP/lucid dreaming mystery! Kelly -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From fortean1 at mindspring.com Sun Sep 4 19:29:06 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 12:29:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (TLC-Brotherhood) Disaster Aid [a military perspective] Message-ID: <431B4B02.1000508@mindspring.com> Forwarding from another list... Terry I live in the Florida panhandle and we were the bulls-eye early on (again). The refined prediction (12 hours out) was almost correct. Had Katrina hit as predicted (just to the west of NO with the winds blowing due north at the peak and falling off to westerly) it would have been less destructive because the winds would have blown the Lake P waters away from NO instead of towards it and probably not broken the levies. A sudden sidestep caused Katrina to hit just east of NO, allowing the winds to push Lake P water over and break the levies. Had forces been positioned close, they could have been clobbered and been part of the problem instead of part of the solution. Remember that the hurricane force winds extended out a long way. Mobile was flattened too. Hurricanes, like women, go where they will, and do what they want. Hind-sight is always 20/20. Speed of Response - Let's look at the time line here: Sunday - Katrina hits late Sunday evening. Monday and the winds are still strong and nobody (even the Weather Channel and FOX) has a handle on just how bad the situation is. People are looking and trying to assess the scope of the problem - At some point the levies break. Tuesday - the size is becoming apparent and the order goes to a National Guard unit (pick any unit) to activate. This is sent to 3 or 4 technicians who are the only full time people at the local Armory. They activate the call roster which requires a 24 hour response. Depending on the time - the technicians also start the loading or positioning of equipment for loading. Wednesday - troops begin to report. They find that the loading or positioning of equipment is underway and get involved while also accomplishing the activation paperwork required. At best they are dead tired by now but loaded and ready to go. Thursday - a convoy pulls out and heads to the stricken area. Time of arrival will depend on distance to be covered but most will do it in a day. Otherwise they would probably be deployed on aircraft. However, not all units have aircraft available and some will be on the road for more than one day. Friday - boots on the ground and relief efforts underway. Supplies and more troops will be arriving with more following the next few days. Obviously air assets can move much more quickly but still require ground support, fuel, maintenance troops, spare parts and a secure landing strip. Their time line looks much the same - only difference is their "boots on the ground" is Thursday instead of Friday. Unreasonable? IMHO, no. I'd rather see everyone (on both sides) quit trying to blame someone and realize that this thing is bigger than anyone (right or left) ever thought it would be. This is real life, not some 2 hour disaster movie where the hero wins through in the end. We should be encouraging the survivors and working to get them cared for, not nit-picking or trying to cast blame. Using a National natural disaster as an excuse to bash someone of either party is incredibly small minded and I'm ashamed that we have "leaders" that think it's the best thing to do. Dusty, Jim Henthorn 21st S.O.S. Nov. '67 - May '69 Knife/Dusty NKP RTAFB -- "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 hal at finney.org Sun Sep 4 20:56:36 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 13:56:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? Message-ID: <20050904205636.2E08657EF5@finney.org> Spike asks: > Here's an ethical question for you guys. Suppose I am a skeptic regarding > the sillier stuff we hear about global warming: that it was the cause > of the snowstorms in Los Angeles this past winter, that it makes more > and bigger hurricanes, that it causes the genitals of the children of > outer Mongolia to mature at the age of four, whatever. > > Suppose I am in a position to make money off of that hype. Would that > be unethical? If I don't actually *contribute* to the silliness, but > rather take advantage of that which is already out there, entirely thru > free market reaction. Do you see anything wrong with that? I think the main ethical question would be whether your actions cause harm, from your perspective. If you don't agree with this theory about global warming, yet you are, say, selling products that tie into the theory somehow, then your actions would arguably increase belief in what you view as a false idea. So I think that would be ethically wrong. If your product or service, on the other hand, somehow would show or demonstrate to people the falsehood of their beliefs, then your actions would be more likely to be ethical. Suppose your product were useless. Suppose it was a ghost repellant and you sold it to people who foolishly believe in ghosts. Then you might argue that you are implicitly punishing a false belief and indirectly rewarding people who believe correctly. However I would say that you are doing harm to people who already suffer from their false beliefs, without really doing anything to lead them to the truth. So this would in my opinion be unethical. Do you have a specific idea in mind to make money off global warming hype? Hal From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sun Sep 4 23:00:00 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: <20050902141024.25653.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050902141024.25653.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/2/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > --- Dirk Bruere wrote:> > > Well, the 100kW aint it. > > I've worked on lasers putting out 1kW onto 10 mm square carbon fibre > > mat and it does zilch. Dry hardwood is almost as good. > > Now work out the power density of the 100kW laser compared to beam > > size on target. > > 100 kW is qualitatively different from 1 kW just as a microwave oven is > different from a radar gun. > > The power density is identical between what I tested and a 100kW beam with a width of approx 12cm No new phenomena. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sun Sep 4 23:27:55 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 00:27:55 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (TLC-Brotherhood) Disaster Aid [a military perspective] In-Reply-To: <431B4B02.1000508@mindspring.com> References: <431B4B02.1000508@mindspring.com> Message-ID: On 9/4/05, Terry W. Colvin wrote: > > Forwarding from another list... > > Terry > > Thursday - a convoy pulls out and heads to the stricken area. Time of > arrival will depend on distance to be covered but most will do it in a > day. > Otherwise they would probably be deployed on aircraft. However, not all > units have aircraft available and some will be on the road for more than > one > day. > > Friday - boots on the ground and relief efforts underway. Supplies and > more troops will be arriving with more following the next few days. > > Obviously air assets can move much more quickly but still require ground > support, fuel, maintenance troops, spare parts and a secure landing strip. > Their time line looks much the same - only difference is their "boots on > the > ground" is Thursday instead of Friday. > > Unreasonable? IMHO, no. > > > In Britain we have at least one air-mobile brigade on 24 hr standby to go anywhere in the world. Why couldn't the US have dropped one into NO the day after the storm? The stadium would have been the prime choice. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 23:44:56 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 16:44:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050904205636.2E08657EF5@finney.org> Message-ID: <20050904234456.44619.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > Spike asks: > > > Here's an ethical question for you guys. Suppose I am a skeptic > > regarding the sillier stuff we hear about global warming: that it > > was the cause of the snowstorms in Los Angeles this past winter, > > that it makes more and bigger hurricanes, that it causes the > > genitals of the children of outer Mongolia to mature at the age > > of four, whatever. > > > > Suppose I am in a position to make money off of that hype. Would > > that be unethical? If I don't actually *contribute* to the > > silliness, but rather take advantage of that which is already > > out there, entirely thru > > free market reaction. Do you see anything wrong with that? > > I think the main ethical question would be whether your actions cause > harm, from your perspective. If you don't agree with this theory > about global warming, yet you are, say, selling products that tie > into the theory somehow, then your actions would arguably increase > belief in what you view as a false idea. So I think that would be > ethically wrong. On the contrary, holding others to their own beliefs, having them put their money where their minds are, and gaining or suffering the consequences as a result, is evolution in action. Are you saing evolution is unethical? > If your product or service, on the other hand, somehow would show or > demonstrate to people the falsehood of their beliefs, then your > actions would be more likely to be ethical. > > Suppose your product were useless. Suppose it was a ghost repellant > and you sold it to people who foolishly believe in ghosts. Then you > might argue that you are implicitly punishing a false belief and > indirectly rewarding people who believe correctly. However I would > say that you are doing harm to people who already suffer from their > false beliefs, without really doing anything to lead them to the > truth. So this would in my opinion be unethical. I recall a Dr. Suess tale that resembles this remark, about a society of two sorts of people, with attendant strife between them, and an entrepreneur that sold one group a machine to make them look like the other group, and sold the other group a machine to make them look like the first group. Everybody got in a tizzy going from machine to machine, changing back and forth, until they were all broke (except for the entrepreneur), suffered the cognitive shock I've occasionally spoken of, and realized it didn't matter what people looked like. I would say the entrepreneur is selling not a machine, but an education. There are some lessons that people have to learn the hard way. > > Do you have a specific idea in mind to make money off global warming > hype? Selling appalachian backwoods land at 200 meters altitude as future ocean front property... selling Canadian tundra as future prairie farmland... selling solar power panels with an ROI of 25 years... selling electric cars that produce more toxic waste in batteries than a normal car does in CO2.... Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 23:47:09 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 16:47:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050904234709.29811.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > On 9/2/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > 100 kW is qualitatively different from 1 kW just as a microwave > > oven is different from a radar gun. > > > The power density is identical between what I tested and a 100kW > beam with a width of approx 12cm > No new phenomena. What makes you think the beam width of the weapon is 12 cm? You are fudging the numbers to make yourself right. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 00:08:51 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 17:08:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050904191710.GE2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20050905000851.73811.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The problem with this is that the record does NOT show that the atlantic hurricane pattern has been impacted by any alleged global warming. In fact, quite the contrary, the period from 1930 to 1960 had 50% more hurricane activity than the next 30 years. The North Atlantic Occillation is the predominant weather pattern of atlantic hurricanes. According to alleged global warming 'experts', the period after 1970 has seen the most warming, yet it was this period that saw the fewest hurricanes since the 1920's. http://www.bbsr.edu/rpi/meetpart/092195summary/MJfig4.html http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4830071 In this link, Dr. Chris Landsea of NOAA does a good job of debunking some of the unsupported claims of Kerry Emanuel who is the main proponent of linking severe hurricanes with alleged global warming in his book "Divine Wind". --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 11:13:20AM -0700, spike wrote: > > > Besides, global warming *might* contribute to > > hurricanes, a century or two from now, so my > > profiting in reducing that today is OK, right? > > While I'm not sufficiently interested in global > warming theory and modelling to have an informed opinion > whether we're only seeing random fluctuations (the climate has > been known to have extreme excursions, ranging from Iceball Earth > to steaming global jungle and desert) it could very well > be that the recorded water surface warming is driving > the peak wind velocities in the hurricane, and that that surface > water > warming is anthropogenic. Meaning, we're already reaping the > storm we sow, paying for the damage in human lives > and cold hard cash. > > It's immaterial either way, however: we now abundantly know > that climate nonlinearities are the norm, and have been > a major contributor to extinctions of multiple past > high cultures. As a precaution, we need to minimize > the amount of climate forcing (reduce anthropogenic > aerosols/greenhouse gase emission), build better climate > models and sensor networks, and prepare for potential unpleasantness > (drought/flooding, loss of crop and large scale starvation, > infrastructure damage and loss of life through catastrophic > damage events). > > Would this be expensive? Probably. But the potential damage > would be far more expensive, and it's not that we don't have > the cash, given the amount of frivolous wars and other stupid > pasttimes we've been lately engaging in. > > To do none of the above would be foolish, suicidally so. > > http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1099102,00.html > > Is Global Warming Fueling Katrina? > Warm ocean temperatures are a key ingredient for monster hurricanes, > prompting some scientists to believe that global warming is > exacerbating our storm troubles > > By JEFFREY KLUGER > SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR > > Posted Monday, Aug. 29, 2005 > The people of New Orleans are surely not thinking about wind > vortices, the coriolis effect or the dampness of the troposphere as > they hunker down during hurricane Katrina this morning. They.re > mostly thinking about the savage rains and 140 mph winds that have > driven them from their homes. But it.s that meteorological arcana > that.s made such a mess of the bayou, and to hear a lot of people > tell it, we have only ourselves.and our global-warming ways.to blame. > > One thing.s for sure: hurricanes were around a long, long time before > human beings began chopping down rainforests and fouling the > atmosphere. To get such a tempest going, you don.t need much more > than ocean temperatures above 80 degrees Fahrenheit; a cool, wet > atmosphere above and a warm, wet one near the surface; and a > preexisting weather disturbance with a bit of spin to it far enough > from the equator (at least 300 miles) so that the rotation of the > Earth amplifies the rotation of the storm. The more intense the storm > becomes, the more the temperature of its core climbs, accelerating > the spin, exacerbating the storm, and leading to the meteorological > violence we call a hurricane. And violent it can be: The heat > released in an average hurricane can equal the electricity produced > by the U.S. in a single year. > > So is global warming making the problem worse? Superficially, the > numbers say yes.or at least they seem to if you live in the U.S. From > 1995 to 1999, a record 33 hurricanes struck the Atlantic basin, and > that doesn.t include 1992.s horrific Hurricane Andrew, which clawed > its way across south Florida in 1992, causing $27 billion dollars > worth of damage. More-frequent hurricanes are part of most global > warming models, and as mean temperatures rise worldwide, it.s hard > not to make a connection between the two. But hurricane-scale storms > occur all over the world, and in some places.including the North > Indian ocean and the region near Australia.the number has actually > fallen. Even in the U.S., the period from 1991 to 1994 was a time of > record hurricane quietude, with the dramatic exception of Andrew. > > Just why some areas of the world get hit harder than others at > different times is impossible to say. Everything from random > atmospheric fluctuations to the periodic warming of the Pacific Ocean > known as El Nino can be responsible. But even if all these variables > have combined to keep the number of hurricanes worldwide about the > same, the storms do appear to be more intense. One especially > sobering study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found > that hurricane wind speeds have increased about 50% in the past 50 > years. And since warm oceans are such a critical ingredient in > hurricane formation, anything that gets the water warming more could > get the storms growing worse. Global warming, in theory at least, > would be more than sufficient to do that. While the people of New > Orleans may not see another hurricane for years, the next one they do > see could make even Katrina look mild. > > NOAA National Hurricane Center > > New Orleans Web Cams > > New Orleans Hurricane Impact Study Area > > BACK TO TOP PRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR > Related Stories From The TIME ARCHIVE > > * HURRICANE ONSLAUGHT THE WORST STORM SEASON SINCE 1933 COULD BE > THE START OF A DANGEROUS TREND [9/11/1995] > * The Great Whirlwind The weathermen first spotted the hurricane > when it towered up off the West Indies, at about lat. 16? N., long. > 60? W. It was a monstrous specimen.a spinning funnel of black storm > with... [9/25/1944] > * Wait Till Next Time If a little heated water in the Atlantic > can create Floyd, what storms will global warming bring? [9/27/1999] > > > 14.10.2004 > A Reinsurer's "Master of Disaster" > Paying out hundreds of millions in insurance claims after natural > disasters each year, German reinsurer Munich Re relies on a scientist > to help monitor climate and prepare the company for the future. > > > > > The "Master of Disaster" is not the name of a heavyweight wrestler: > It's the unofficial title of Gerd Berz, who heads the geo-risk > research department at German insuring giant Munich Re, the world's > largest. > > For 30 years, Berz's job has been to study meteorological and > environmental climate changes for the world's largest reinsurer. His > research helps Munich Re decide how to react in the marketplace. > > While hurricanes, tropical storms and heat waves are known to the > masses by charming names like "Isabel", "Queenie" or "Michaela", in > the insurance industry they are simply referred to as "basic damage > events." > > Such weather-related natural catastrophes have caused $333 billion > (.271 billion) in damage in the past 10 years -- six times more than > 50 years ago. And costs for insured damages have risen tenfold in the > same time. > > One reason for the increase in natural catastrophes is global > warming, which has led to a rise in weather-related catastrophes, > according to scientists. Global warming is thought to be caused by > increased greenhouse emissions. According to a UN report on global > warming, by the end of this century the mean global temperature will > have risen by somewhere between 1.5 and 6 degrees centigrade. > > "That means, we'll have temperatures on the earth that mankind has > never experienced, combined with a strong increase in extreme > temperatures," Berz told Deutsche Welle. > > Mankind to blame? > > But climate change isn't the only thing responsible for the increase > in damages -- mankind has had a hand in the affair as well. > > A disaster today tends to hit more people because of overall greater > population. The world population has more than doubled in the past > fifty years and most people now live in cities -- which are not only > more densely populated, but also more spread out, Berz said. > > So when a "basic damage event" strikes, "the probability of it > hitting a big town is getting greater and greater," he said. "In > addition, many cities are particularly exposed -- think of the > coastal areas. And this trend goes worldwide." > > And because our society has become so reliant on infrastructure we > are particularly vulnerable, Berz added. > > "We are on a 24-hour drip of functioning infrastructure," Berz said. > "A disturbance like a natural catastrophe, means necessities like > gas, electricity or oil are disturbed, as well as traffic and > communication. All these things are necessary for the economy to > function, and individuals as well." > > Big business > > About one fifth of all weather-related damages are paid for by > insurance. Some 6,000 primary insurers are then re-insured by Munich > Re. > > As a business, then, Munich Re says it has to take the current trend > of global warming into account. One way to do this is to passing some > of the risk on to the customer. > > "Premiums will have to be increased relatively," Berz said. "And we > have to let our customers know that we, as reinsurer, also have to > take more big catastrophes into account, and thus need greater cash > reserves. That is our main problem." > > Not only do the reinsurers take measures to gird their wallets, they > also work on the prevention angle. In order to keep damages low, > Munich Re is involved in initiatives in areas from infrastructure to > city planning. The company would for instance try to influence > decisions on things like building codes in earthquake areas, or > land-use regulations in flood zones. > > Local initiatives important > > Risk-analyst Berz said local initiatives are key in these areas, > which can be influenced by individual cities and countries. But local > action is less relevant when it comes to a world-wide issue like the > weather. > > A global phenomenon requires global climate protection, Berz said. > > If industrial nations cut their greenhouse emissions, then developing > nations will be able to expand theirs without causing an overall > further imbalance. > "The industrial nations have done most of the development to this > point, and have also gained the most from it," he said. "So in my > opinion, we should have the responsibility of doing everything in our > power not to increase development, but to stabilize it." > > Author DW staff (jen) > http://www.dw-world.de ? Deutsche Welle > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Sep 5 00:21:45 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 01:21:45 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: <20050904234709.29811.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050904234709.29811.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/5/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > On 9/2/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > > 100 kW is qualitatively different from 1 kW just as a microwave > > > oven is different from a radar gun. > > > > > The power density is identical between what I tested and a 100kW > > beam with a width of approx 12cm > > No new phenomena. > > What makes you think the beam width of the weapon is 12 cm? You are > fudging the numbers to make yourself right. > > I'm being very generous. The real beam dia is almost certainly larger http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/fog01/ Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neptune at superlink.net Mon Sep 5 00:48:40 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 20:48:40 -0400 Subject: Ethics and evolution/was Re: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a gametheorystandpoint ? References: <20050904234456.44619.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004701c5b1b3$8fdfd340$87893cd1@pavilion> On Sunday, September 04, 2005 7:44 PM Mike Lorrey mlorrey at yahoo.com wrote: > > > Here's an ethical question for you guys. Suppose I am a skeptic > > > regarding the sillier stuff we hear about global warming: that it > > > was the cause of the snowstorms in Los Angeles this past winter, > > > that it makes more and bigger hurricanes, that it causes the > > > genitals of the children of outer Mongolia to mature at the age > > > of four, whatever. > > > > > > Suppose I am in a position to make money off of that hype. Would > > > that be unethical? If I don't actually *contribute* to the > > > silliness, but rather take advantage of that which is already > > > out there, entirely thru > > > free market reaction. Do you see anything wrong with that? > > > > I think the main ethical question would be whether your actions cause > > harm, from your perspective. If you don't agree with this theory > > about global warming, yet you are, say, selling products that tie > > into the theory somehow, then your actions would arguably increase > > belief in what you view as a false idea. So I think that would be > > ethically wrong. > > On the contrary, holding others to their own beliefs, having them put > their money where their minds are, and gaining or suffering the > consequences as a result, is evolution in action. Are you saing > evolution is unethical? Evolution is not ethical; it just is. Ethics only comes in when there's a choice made and an agent can be held to that choice. Evolution is just the way the world is. It furnishes ethical beings with a context in which to make choices. Evolution gave you a brain and a set of hands, but it's up to you to use them ethically. To say, of anything, that it's "evolution in action" is no different than allowing anything to be justified -- theft, murder, lying, rape, whatever, or their opposites. In this case, too, by "selling" the view, might not Spike be bringing a lot of bad consequences on himself? After all, if he reinforces wrong views and then these same people, e.g., support bad policies doesn't that, ultimately, hurt him? Yes, he might make a quick buck now, but what about the wider implications. The world has enough foolish ideas in it already, why add to the mess?:) Regards, Dan See "Family, Social Order, and Government" at: http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/FamilySOG.html From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Sep 5 01:56:27 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 18:56:27 -0700 Subject: Ethics and evolution/was Re: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debateframed from a gametheorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <004701c5b1b3$8fdfd340$87893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <200509050156.j851uVw19667@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Technotranscendence ... > > In this case, too, by "selling" the view, might not Spike be bringing a > lot of bad consequences on himself? After all, if he reinforces wrong > views and then these same people, e.g., support bad policies doesn't > that, ultimately, hurt him? Yes, he might make a quick buck now, but > what about the wider implications. The world has enough foolish ideas > in it already, why add to the mess?:) > > Regards, > > Dan Hmmm, this seems a little extreme. What I had in mind is to put some farm land to work producing fuel crops, stuff that can be converted to ethanol or biodiesel. To make it pay, I would need to collect subsidies on it, or at least take full advantage of the tax breaks that may be available. I don't feel that subsidizing that kind of stuff is a good idea, but hey, I could be wrong. I might have been wrong about freon: they tell me the ozone hole is decreasing. I never did see how human use of freon could have that much impact, but perhaps it did. I had a job in the early 90s phasing out freon in aerospace manufacturing processes, so in that sense I was cashing in on something I thought was bogus. But perhaps it wasn't so I suppose farming fuel crops today is analogous. spike From robgobblin at aol.com Mon Sep 5 02:13:04 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 16:13:04 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Halliburton gets Katrina Contract In-Reply-To: References: <20050903151746.33179.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <004201c5b09f$7dd38530$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <2ea613c8c5c2a8d032655811dfe92a07@aol.com> That clinches it. Thank God there are people available to take advantage of the misfortunes of others effectively and expensively. Robbie Lindauer PS - there was a time, pre FEMA, when disaster relief was performed in the US usually by a combination of the national guard and red cross, both of which were NON PROFIT organizations very effective at doing what they do. On Sep 4, 2005, at 4:16 AM, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, kevinfreels.com wrote: > >> Is there a company out there that is more capable and better at >> handling >> the job and is willing to do it for less? > > Also, would you want disaster recovery work done by companies > that cut corners in order to be cheaper than competitors ? > > -- > "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. > Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, > by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From megao at sasktel.net Mon Sep 5 01:51:21 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 20:51:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics of contrarianism In-Reply-To: <200509050156.j851uVw19667@tick.javien.com> References: <200509050156.j851uVw19667@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <431BA499.6050805@sasktel.net> That is like when the options trader phones as the BSE was first anounced and me going out and putting 100,000 into options on the down side of beef so I could be 400,000 richer in a week, Ethically I know that the market will be drained of liquidity for the producer and that the consumer will probably never benefit from the beef market crash and I will know that in some small way I have contributed to both these things by taking a quick rake from someone else's disaster. Ditto with options trading on heating oil futures, natural gas futures , unleaded gasoline futures the day of the hurricane. Frankly the ethical thing for Bush would have been to freeze the options markets on those commodities and put a 1/2 to 1 cent ceiling on moves for the month afterward. Not the free market thing to do but the ethical thing to do. The farming subsidy game is just that a game. Farm subsidies are more like farm welfare. USA farmers make as much by farming the program in net terms as farming the farm some years, for some crops. Where ethics comes in is if a large group of farmers secretly conspire to raise or not raise a particular crop and deliberately bid the opposite side of the market with a bait and switch approach leaving non-farming speculators holding the bag. Of course , one of the merits of the farm programs is that they prevent that very thing from happening by making farmers more predictable. I still see options and derivatives markets as more parasitic (in their everyday use) than enhancing the true market valuation of goods(as is the commonly purported purpose for their existance). spike wrote: >>bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Technotranscendence >> >> >... > > >>In this case, too, by "selling" the view, might not Spike be bringing a >>lot of bad consequences on himself? After all, if he reinforces wrong >>views and then these same people, e.g., support bad policies doesn't >>that, ultimately, hurt him? Yes, he might make a quick buck now, but >>what about the wider implications. The world has enough foolish ideas >>in it already, why add to the mess?:) >> >>Regards, >> >>Dan >> >> > >Hmmm, this seems a little extreme. What I had in mind >is to put some farm land to work producing fuel crops, >stuff that can be converted to ethanol or biodiesel. To >make it pay, I would need to collect subsidies on it, or >at least take full advantage of the tax breaks that may >be available. > >I don't feel that subsidizing that kind of stuff is a >good idea, but hey, I could be wrong. I might have been >wrong about freon: they tell me the ozone hole is >decreasing. I never did see how human use of freon >could have that much impact, but perhaps it did. I >had a job in the early 90s phasing out freon in >aerospace manufacturing processes, so in that sense >I was cashing in on something I thought was bogus. But >perhaps it wasn't so I suppose farming fuel crops today >is analogous. > >spike > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robgobblin at aol.com Mon Sep 5 02:49:38 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 16:49:38 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050904153220.20432.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050904153220.20432.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sep 4, 2005, at 5:32 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote: >> I'd say your scenario contradicts itself since you say below: >> ... >> Well, how much is it? >> >> Anyway, at two years at 5% inflation, from $49, you get $54, not $56 >> and the prices are not $56. > > Inflation is not the change in the international value of the dollar. In what drug-induced hallucination did you hear that it was? I just corrected your "new math". > The dollar has dropped in value by about 40% over the last two years, > compared to other currencies. Duh, I wonder why THAT might be. > That is not reflected in our CPI because > only a small percent of our overall economic activity is priced on > foreign currencies. So, no, you are the one that is wrong. Economics are for people able to read with comprehension. I believe they still have adult literacy courses in most states, although for you to attend one you'd probably have a lot of pride to swallow about them being socialist drains on our economy. > The Vietnamese reserve you speak of is actually a proven inorganic oil > source. Great. > The Vietnamese resources would not exist under your malthusian paradigm > of limited resources. According to the biotic oil 'experts', oil > doesn't exist that deep, and doesn't exist under the continental > basalt. The biotic theory is that it is a sedimentary deposit of > biological material. If so, it can only exist above the continental > basaltic bedrock. Once again, it is you who are wrong. Sure, if you completely ignore what I said - which is again - that unless the core of the earth is filled surprisingly with easy-to-get-to oil in unlimited supply, the peak oil problem is a question of time not a question of whether. That is, by the way, what I said, whatever you might imagine I said during one of your psychotic episodes. >> This leaves the harder to get to ones dwindling down to the >> impossible to get to ones and finally to the no more left scenario. > > And as each is exploited, new technologies will be developed that will > be able to get at them easier and cheaper. At the same time, energy > conserving technologies will enter the market and help reduce demand > per dollar of GDP. Including renewable clean energy sources, like alcohol. >> The alternative - that the core of the earth is filled with nothing >> but fossil fuels and we'll be able to run on unleaded gasoline for > the >> next 100 years at our current rate of consumptive growth is absurd. > > On the contrary, the Athabascan oil tar sands of Alberta has enough oil > for centuries of consumption. .... > the Athabascan sands > could supply about ten years of total global oil consumption. With > advances in technology, the sands could potentially supply 50 years or > more of global oil needs. The Orinoco tar sands have similar capacity. > The Athabascan deposits equal 1/3 of all global reserves. Okay, so as I SAID, at our current rate of CONSUMPTIVE GROWTH, the idea that there's 100 years of easy-to-get oil is ridiculous even with your incredible unproved oil reserve. Also, you contradicted yourself again. I let you figure out how. >> Consequently the obvious conclusion for those with half-a-brain-left >> is that it's just a matter of time - 10 years, 2 years, 50 years, 100 > >> years. In any case, the US economy in particular will have to >> undergo >> a major change in order to survive the removal of our primary energy >> source and it's the kind of thing it's better to prepare for earlier >> rather than later lest we find ourselves fossil fuels one day. > > On the contrary, the market will signal when the need occurs. Like, uh, now. > As with > articles previously cited by Hal, it is clear that the oil oligopolists > won't pass up expensive prices tomorrow for cheap prices today. > Instead, they will drive up current day prices by delaying exploitation > of unused reserves or other means of expanding production beyond > current capacity. In a market of rising demand, simply delaying > expansion of production drives up prices automatically to send the > price signals that will trigger consumer conservation. Your abject lack > of faith in the market explains a lot why you are not a libertarian. Faith in "the market" is less forthcoming than faith in God since at least for God reasons (however absurd to some) can be adduced for belief. Faith in a third-order metapoesis to provide good and well-being for the majority of people in a predatory adversarial setting is exactly like believing that Ivan Boesky wouldn't sell junk bonds to retirees without full disclosure or accepting his word that he won't do it again. But that's not the reason I'm not a Libertarian. I actually do believe that -if- there were a free market people would be able and inclined to defend themselves from predatory forces in the market and that it would consequently and miraculously work itself out serendipitously (in particular what we currently call "the market" just wouldn't exist - no stock market, no money market, no commodities market, etc., there'd just be the farmer's market on wednesday and sundays). What I don't believe is that there is or could be a poltically-caused free market. Really free markets are natural outgrowths of human interaction wherein one person has something that someone else wants and is willing to trade to their mutual benefit. They are not subsidized by 401k plans, taxation, social engineering and zoning restrictions. -----Begin RANT--------- The -real- reason I'm not a Libertarian is that the Libertarian Leadership is full of esteemed politicians like yourself, unable to get a vote that matters to save their lives because on top of cow-towing to they that should be their opponents on every issue that might actually promote freedom and justice in this country, they've got the combined political savvy of the ferrets whose freedom to climb up someone's @ss they so desperately want to preserve. For starters, they should stop running Druids in primarily Christian/Catholic/Jewish areas, stop backing the NAMBLA crowd and perhaps cut their fingernails occasionally between D&D rounds (no offense meant to the D&D crowd or people with long fingernails or Druids for associating them with Libertarian scum, they've leached on to your coolness, rock on dudes and dudettes, but face facts the Libertarians are not suddenly going to make Druidism the state religion NOR turn D&D into the national game and suddenly make women appear naked at your doors in abundance). -------End RANT---------- If Libertarians were -real- they'd call for the simple dissolution of the IRS and national standing armed forces and be working with the rest of the progressives to put an end to the current despotic regime of war-profiteering criminal federalists instead of applauding and saluting every time Bush leaves a steamer on Condoleeza's chest. Robbie Lindauer From fauxever at sprynet.com Mon Sep 5 02:49:32 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 19:49:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Halliburton gets Katrina Contract References: <20050903151746.33179.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com><004201c5b09f$7dd38530$0100a8c0@kevin> <2ea613c8c5c2a8d032655811dfe92a07@aol.com> Message-ID: <016c01c5b1c4$722634a0$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Robert Lindauer" > > Thank God there are people available to take advantage of the misfortunes > of others effectively and expensively. > > PS - there was a time, pre FEMA, when disaster relief was performed in > the US usually by a combination of the national guard and red cross, both > of which were NON PROFIT organizations very effective at doing what they > do. Ah, yes ... I remember it well. But, hey, it's not every day that we get such an experienced ... er, ousted ... er, "czar" of sorts ... of, er ... Arabian horses handling things there at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, no sir.: http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/politics/12554958.htm Posted on Sat, Sep. 03, 2005 Head of FEMA has an unlikely background BY MATT STEARNS AND SETH BORENSTEIN Knight Ridder Newspapers WASHINGTON - (KRT) - From failed Republican congressional candidate to ousted "czar" of an Arabian horse association, there was little in Michael D. Brown's background to prepare him for the fury of Hurricane Katrina. But as the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Brown now faces furious criticism of the federal response to the disaster that wiped out New Orleans and much of the Gulf Coast. He provoked some of it himself when he conceded that FEMA didn't know that thousands of refugees were trapped at New Orleans' convention center without food or water until officials heard it on the news. "He's done a hell of a job, because I'm not aware of any Arabian horses being killed in this storm," said Kate Hale, former Miami-Dade emergency management chief. "The world that this man operated in and the focus of this work does not in any way translate to this. He does not have the experience." Brown ran for Congress in 1988 and won 27 percent of the vote against Democratic incumbent Glenn English. He spent the 1990s as judges and stewards commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association. His job was to ensure that horse-show judges followed the rules and to investigate allegations against those suspected of cheating. "I wouldn't have regarded his position in the horse industry as a platform to where he is now," said Tom Connelly, a former association president. Brown's ticket to FEMA was Joe Allbaugh, President Bush's 2000 campaign manager and an old friend of Brown's in Oklahoma. When Bush ran for president in 2000, Brown was ending a rocky tenure at the horse association. Brown told several association officials that if Bush were elected, he'd be in line for a good job. When Allbaugh, who managed Bush's campaign, took over FEMA in 2001, he took Brown with him as general counsel. "He's known Joe Allbaugh for quite some time," said Andrew Lester, an Oklahoma lawyer who's been a friend of Brown's for more than 20 years. "I think they know each other from school days. I think they did some debate type of things against each other, and worked on some Republican politics together." Brown practiced law in Enid, Okla., a city of about 45,000, during the 1980s and was counsel to a group of businesses run by a well-known Enid family. Before that, he worked for the city of Edmond, Okla., and was an aide in the state legislature. From 1991 until 2000, Brown earned about $100,000 a year as the chief rules enforcer of the Arabian horse association. He was known as "The Czar" for the breadth of his power and the enthusiasm with which he wielded it, said Mary Anne Grimmell, a former association president. The suspensions Brown delivered to those suspected of cheating resulted in several lawsuits. Although the association won the suits, they were expensive to defend, and Brown became a controversial figure. "It was positive controversy," Connelly said. "It got word out that we were serious about enforcing our rules." But he said Brown could be "abrasive." Others were less charitable. "He just wouldn't follow instruction," said Bill Pennington, another former association president. "Mike was bullheaded and he was gonna do it his way. Period." At FEMA, Brown rose from general counsel to deputy director within a year. Bush named him to succeed Allbaugh in February 2003. With FEMA now part of the Department of Homeland Security, Brown's title is undersecretary for emergency preparedness and response. Brown's old friend Lester said the progression from horse shows to hurricanes was natural. "A lot of what he had to do was stand in the breach in difficult, controversial situations," Lester said. "Which I think would well prepare him for his work at FEMA." Despite the withering criticism and a promised congressional investigation of FEMA's performance, Brown still has the support of his most important constituent. In Mobile, Ala., on Friday, Bush said the response to Katrina was unsatisfactory. But he had nothing but praise for his FEMA director. "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job," the president said. --- (Stearns reports from Washington for The Kansas City Star.) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: spacer.gif Type: image/gif Size: 43 bytes Desc: not available URL: From hal at finney.org Mon Sep 5 02:56:21 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 19:56:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? Message-ID: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> Samantha asks a good question: what would it take to persuade me, as a skeptic, of the truth of the Peak Oil theory? And for that matter, why am I skeptical? The first thing I can say is, it's a complicated issue. I have spent probably hundreds of hours in the past few months reading and thinking about Peak Oil. I've read two books about it, one pro and one con, many web pages, and I closely follow such web sites as theoildrum.com and energybulletin.net. But I honestly can't say that I have a good understanding of the matter even after that much study. When will the peak happen? And what will be the consequences? There are an enormous number of unknowns. Probably the biggest question mark is the state of the Saudi Arabian oil fields. The Saudis are quite secretive about their oil situation, but publicly they claim that they can pump oil and increase the quantity as much as the world needs, for many years to come. Some experts are skeptical, but no one has access to the details necessary to get a firm answer to the question. That fact alone, in my opinion, renders any firm statements about when any peak will occur nonsensical. There is simply not enough public information to make a well founded judgement of the potential oil supply over the next decade or two. There are other complications as well. Chinese demand has grown incredibly fast the past few years, but this year its growth has fallen off precipitously. What will happen in the future? The Peak Oil situation is highly sensitive to what happens in the Chinese economy the next few years. How on earth can a layman claim to have expertise in such an esoteric subject? The Chinese government is another secretive and opaque institution; again there are no strong grounds for making firm predictions about what will happen there. As I have written before in other contexts, I don't believe it is practical or feasible for the lay person to come up with a well founded judgement on such difficult matters, where even the experts can't agree. My approach is not to try to learn all the details of a difficult subject and try to become enough of an "instant expert" to make a judgement myself. Instead, I look elsewhere and try to learn from the expertise of others. The best institution for such purposes, in my opinion, is academia. It has a good track record of success and strong institutional incentives to seek out and correct errors. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to determine an academic consensus on the Peak Oil situation. There doesn't seem to be much study of the issue. It combines aspects of geology, international finance, economic modelling, and other fields in a complex way. Cross disciplinary questions like these seem to be difficult for academics to handle. There are a few professors who have published opinions that generally favor the Peak Oil scenario, but most of them are elderly and/or retired. In my experience, retired professors are less reliable as a source of informed opinion than ones who are still actively engaged in the intellectual life of their academic communities. We can also look at other institutions, those more directly involved in the oil business, such as oil companies and the governments that regulate and in many cases nationalize them. Generally, these groups downplay Peak Oil scenarios. Their public statements recognize that there are challenges ahead in meeting the growth in oil demand but express confidence that these challenges can be met. Unfortunately these assurances seem in some cases to be largely a matter of public relations. Internally these organizations are quite opaque and it is hard to know if they are being frank in their actions. The U.S. government does publish a number of analyses and predictions of oil supply and demand issues, and they generally forecast adequate supplies for at least the next several years. As far as I can tell, these are good faith estimates, but ultimately they rely on public sources of information which, as I noted above, are highly unreliable. I do put considerable faith in one other institution, which is the market. When people are putting their own money behind what they say I am much more inclined to listen and believe them than when they are making empty statements. Fortunately we have a number of commodities markets in the energy field, including crude oil of different grades, gasoline, natural gas and heating oil. The crude oil market goes out six years or so and is in my opinion the best source of unbiased information about the beliefs of the "smart money" as to the future course of oil supply and demand. If Peak Oil were widely seen as a likely scenario in that time frame, we would see increasing oil prices out in the 2008 to 2011 time frame. For technical reasons, these markets tend not to have large price differentials across the delivery years (basically because it is easy to move oil deliveries backwards and forwards in time), so we would expect high future prices to drag up present-day prices. This is actually one of the great services of commodity markets, that they make the high prices of future shortages felt in the present day, encouraging conservation and searches for alternatives well in advance of an actual supply/demand mismatch. But this is not what we see. While oil prices have risen steadily for the past few years, they have not been led up by future prices. Rather, future prices three to six years ahead have consistantly lagged. Those future prices are being dragged up by high present-day prices, rather than vice versa. This is exactly the opposite of what we would expect to see in a Peak Oil scenario. Another great feature of futures markets is that they encourage insiders to bet on the basis of their private information. This rewards them with healthy profits while informing the marketplace indirectly of their information through its effects on prices. Even if such insiders as oil companies, or the Saudi and other national governments, were forced for P.R. reasons to put on a happy face about a future oil supply problem, they would be able to make enormous profits in the commodity markets by betting (through proxies if necessary) on the high prices they would know were ahead. This would drive up those future prices and we would see the phenomenon I described above, the situation futures traders call "contango" where future prices are higher than present day ones. To sum up, the answer to Samantha's question is that I am skeptical about Peak Oil because none of these institutions seem to show the signs of an impending shortage. There is no academic consensus on the issue; industry and government seem to be downplaying the problem even when it would seemingly be to their advantage to make people see that there is a good reason for high prices; and market prices don't have the structure we would expect if insiders knew about a shortage ahead. And I would become more convinced of the reality of the Peak Oil scenario if these various institutions started showing the signs I have outlined. There are of course limitations to this analysis; for one thing, the commodities markets only go out six years or so. While the markets are forward looking and they will anticipate shortages even beyond that time frame, to some degree, the effect is somewhat weak. The current data can't rule out a significant Peak Oil scenario much past the 2010 to 2015 time frame. Of course the further out we go, the more the chances that some kind of wild card will appear, a new technology or some such, that could change the nature of the situation we face. Hal From neptune at superlink.net Mon Sep 5 03:56:43 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 23:56:43 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution References: <200509050156.j851uVw19667@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <003201c5b1cd$d4fa1b60$5b893cd1@pavilion> On Sunday, September 04, 2005 9:56 PM spike spike66 at comcast.net wrote: >> In this case, too, by "selling" the view, might not >> Spike be bringing a lot of bad consequences on >> himself? After all, if he reinforces wrong views >> and then these same people, e.g., support bad >> policies doesn't that, ultimately, hurt him? Yes, >> he might make a quick buck now, but what about >> the wider implications. The world has enough >> foolish ideas in it already, why add to the mess?:) > > Hmmm, this seems a little extreme. Just giving you my opinion on the matter. How are you going to make the world a better place? > What I had in mind is to put some farm land to work > producing fuel crops, stuff that can be converted to > ethanol or biodiesel. To make it pay, I would need > to collect subsidies on it, or at least take full > advantage of the tax breaks that may be available. Subsidies would be a form of theft, no? > I don't feel that subsidizing that kind of stuff is a > good idea, but hey, I could be wrong. I might have > been wrong about freon: they tell me the ozone hole > is decreasing. I never did see how human use of freon > could have that much impact, but perhaps it did. I > had a job in the early 90s phasing out freon in > aerospace manufacturing processes, so in that sense > I was cashing in on something I thought was bogus. But > perhaps it wasn't so I suppose farming fuel crops today > is analogous. I've heard about that too, but the data on the ozone hole seems ambiguous. However, in that case, were you knowingly lying to people about it or just saying, "Well, they pay me to convert these systems, but I really think it's a crock."? Regards, Dan See "Family, Social Order, and Government" at: http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/FamilySOG.html From neptune at superlink.net Mon Sep 5 04:04:30 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 00:04:30 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics of contrarianism References: <200509050156.j851uVw19667@tick.javien.com> <431BA499.6050805@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <004b01c5b1ce$eb5199a0$5b893cd1@pavilion> I disagree. I see derivatives, including options, as ways of dealing with risk and there's nothing parasitic about that in my eyes. Yes, some people are deluded and are basically giving their money away, but, used correctly, I see nothing unethical about them. In fact, in a sense, this is no different from how many people accept a job as an employee for a salary versus going into business for themselves. The latter involves much more risk, but the rewards are often much higher. The former involves much less risk, but at the cost of lower pay. (Perhaps what's being left out here is ex ante psychic profit -- using "psychic" to mean "of the mind" rather than some spooky mumbo jumbo. People who take the lower risk when they know they'll get less pay are still obtaining a psychic profit in terms of lowered risk.) Regards, Dan From: Lifespan Pharma Inc. To: ExI chat list Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 9:51 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics of contrarianism I still see options and derivatives markets as more parasitic (in their everyday use) than enhancing the true market valuation of goods(as is the commonly purported purpose for their existance). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 04:29:42 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 21:29:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050905042942.80406.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Firstly, your ciaonet reference page is login access only. Secondly, any weapon small enough to fit on a fighter aircraft, which is what HELLADS is intended for in its final version, would not have an aperture or beam size of 12 cm. Aerodynamics and airframe space limitations wouldn't allow it. The point of the weapon is something that replaces the 20 mm vulcan cannon currently standard equipment on US fighters and is typically mounted within one or the other wing root. A laser weapons caliber/beam width should be of similar dimensions, thus 20 mm would be about .80 caliber. Beam size between .50-1.50", or 12-37mm are what the application would call for. If you can't fit the weapon inside the cavity reserved for the vulcan cannon, don't waste your time. Especially if it winds up being some add-on pod that takes up bomb/missile/fuel tank rack space, and detracts from vehicle aerodynamics. --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > On 9/5/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > > On 9/2/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > > > > 100 kW is qualitatively different from 1 kW just as a microwave > > > > oven is different from a radar gun. > > > > > > > The power density is identical between what I tested and a 100kW > > > beam with a width of approx 12cm > > > No new phenomena. > > > > What makes you think the beam width of the weapon is 12 cm? You are > > fudging the numbers to make yourself right. > > > > > I'm being very generous. > The real beam dia is almost certainly larger > http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/fog01/ > > Dirk > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From fauxever at sprynet.com Mon Sep 5 06:11:58 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 23:11:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Week of Horror Message-ID: <021a01c5b1e0$b9d0d9b0$6600a8c0@brainiac> The whole world was watching. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/opinion/05krugman.html http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/opinion/05herbert.html Is it possible we still have Bush apologists on this list ...? Olga From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Sep 5 06:40:31 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 23:40:31 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: <003201c5b1cd$d4fa1b60$5b893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <200509050640.j856eTw14347@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Technotranscendence ... > > I've heard about that too, but the data on the ozone hole seems > ambiguous. However, in that case, were you knowingly lying to people > about it or just saying, "Well, they pay me to convert these systems, > but I really think it's a crock."? In our case, we were losing access to freon, since they were halting production. So regardless of its effect on the ozone or my opinion of it, we faced a very real-life situation where we needed to redo a buuuunch of industrial processes. No one was arguing that we needed to find new ways to do old tasks. We all realized, regardless of our attitude toward ozone depleting chemicals, that freon is great stuff. Most of the replacements never worked as well as freon, which is a terrific solvent, clean, non toxic, predictable, good stuff. Remember cars from years about 1988 to 1991? The paint didn't stick right for those years. Many of the American cars from then have needed repainting. Here is the punchline: freon was used in the insulation on the space shuttle external tank. There have been rumblings that the foam has been peeling off to a greater extent since freon was phased out of the process. It is possible that phasing out freon is what caused the loss of Columbia. spike From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Sep 5 07:37:03 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 00:37:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: References: <20050903162312.1099.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sep 4, 2005, at 7:39 AM, MB wrote: > > > As I'm not a party animal or heavy drinker, NO has had no attraction > for me; good seafood is available other places! > I loved it for the music, the food (certainly not limited to seafood!), its many out of the way shops containing things I've seen nowhere else. I didn't care for Bourbon Street except for the music. Some things were so tawdry that I remarked to my companion that only certain Baptist could make "sin" s tawdry and utterly banal. :-) I thought the jazz send-offs at funerals were utterly wonderful. But what is the point? Are we trying to lessen what has happened by denigrating the city and its people? - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Sep 5 08:34:20 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:34:20 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: <200509050640.j856eTw14347@tick.javien.com> References: <003201c5b1cd$d4fa1b60$5b893cd1@pavilion> <200509050640.j856eTw14347@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On 9/5/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > On the contrary, holding others to their own beliefs, having them put > their money where their minds are, and gaining or suffering the > consequences as a result, is evolution in action. Are you saying > evolution is unethical? Yes. Evolution is the cruelest, most savage method of improving species ever devised. Heard of 'nature red in tooth and claw'? We can do better. > I would say the entrepreneur is selling not a machine, but an > education. There are some lessons that people have to learn the hard > way. This is why Libertarians have little concern with the billions of dollars of fraud and snake-oil in the free market system and the resulting misery and unhappiness for millions of people. Libs come across as 'Never give a sucker an even break' types. And 'They deserve all they get' is common also. If you are not as smart. well-educated, healthy, fit and capable as a Lib then '**ck you, you're on your own'. BillK From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Sep 5 09:16:36 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 02:16:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: References: <003201c5b1cd$d4fa1b60$5b893cd1@pavilion> <200509050640.j856eTw14347@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Sep 5, 2005, at 1:34 AM, BillK wrote: > > This is why Libertarians have little concern with the billions of > dollars of fraud and snake-oil in the free market system and the > resulting misery and unhappiness for millions of people. > Libs come across as 'Never give a sucker an even break' types. > And 'They deserve all they get' is common also. > Where is this blatant and unjustified attack coming from? Libertarians stand firmly against fraud. Fraud is not a natural by product of the free market (that we don't remotely have). Do you believe that aur Big Government is causing no "misery and unhappiness of millions of people"? You silly characterization may come across any old way you constructed it to come across. So what? > If you are not as smart. well-educated, healthy, fit and capable as a > Lib then '**ck you, you're on your own'. The strength of your argument stands alone. No further comment is needed. - s From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Mon Sep 5 10:40:19 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 12:40:19 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: References: <003201c5b1cd$d4fa1b60$5b893cd1@pavilion> <200509050640.j856eTw14347@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Sep 5, 2005, at 1:34 AM, BillK wrote: > >> If you are not as smart. well-educated, healthy, fit and capable as a >> Lib then '**ck you, you're on your own'. > > The strength of your argument stands alone. No further comment is needed. Actually, further comments are needed, because I often have the same doubts as Bill. For example, how would cope someone with an IQ of 80 or less and no education worth its name, when the available grunt jobs are automated away, and his market value is less and less? How can he afford a private health insurance? Charitable organizations would probably exists in a libertarian environment like they exist in the current, mostly socialist one, but relying on those for everything not profitable isn't a good strategy. Pure libertarian free-market environments to my eyes resemble too much an evolution-like "survival of the fittest" game, where you'll do great if you are good (or better, if you have marketable skills/assets), and suffer a lot if you aren't. Alfio From megao at sasktel.net Mon Sep 5 11:47:56 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 06:47:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics of contrarianism In-Reply-To: <004b01c5b1ce$eb5199a0$5b893cd1@pavilion> References: <200509050156.j851uVw19667@tick.javien.com> <431BA499.6050805@sasktel.net> <004b01c5b1ce$eb5199a0$5b893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <431C306C.4050407@sasktel.net> What I mean is that there are times when options can act so fast to arbitrage such large values of price change that they can act not as a risk managment tool but push the market to extremes of high or low. The beef market experienced this at the time of BSE announcements. I have not checked the exact timing of options moves in relation to the combination of rigs offline, refinery shutdown and general chaos surrounding the New Orleans hurricane but that case would be a good test to see if these risk management tools manage risk in a responsible way or act to gouge value from the market. I can tell you the telemarketers for brokers who market the options sure sell them as ambulance chasing moneymakers even at the best of times. Technotranscendence wrote: > I disagree. I see derivatives, including options, as ways of dealing > with risk and there's nothing parasitic about that in my eyes. Yes, > some people are deluded and are basically giving their money away, > but, used correctly, I see nothing unethical about them. In fact, in > a sense, this is no different from how many people accept a job as an > employee for a salary versus going into business for themselves. The > latter involves much more risk, but the rewards are often much > higher. The former involves much less risk, but at the cost of lower > pay. (Perhaps what's being left out here is ex ante psychic profit -- > using "psychic" to mean "of the mind" rather than some spooky mumbo > jumbo. People who take the lower risk when they know they'll get less > pay are still obtaining a psychic profit in terms of lowered risk.) > > Regards, > > Dan > > From: Lifespan Pharma Inc. > To: ExI chat list > Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 9:51 PM > Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics of contrarianism > > I still see options and derivatives markets as more parasitic (in > their everyday use) than enhancing the true market valuation of > goods(as is the commonly purported purpose for their existance). > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Sep 5 12:45:18 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 13:45:18 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: <20050905042942.80406.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050905042942.80406.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/5/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > Firstly, your ciaonet reference page is login access only. > > Secondly, any weapon small enough to fit on a fighter aircraft, which > is what HELLADS is intended for in its final version, would not have an > aperture or beam size of 12 cm. Aerodynamics and airframe space > limitations wouldn't allow it. The point of the weapon is something > that replaces the 20 mm vulcan cannon currently standard equipment on > US fighters and is typically mounted within one or the other wing root. > A laser weapons caliber/beam width should be of similar dimensions, > thus 20 mm would be about .80 caliber. Beam size between .50-1.50", or > 12-37mm are what the application would call for. > > If you can't fit the weapon inside the cavity reserved for the vulcan > cannon, don't waste your time. Especially if it winds up being some > add-on pod that takes up bomb/missile/fuel tank rack space, and > detracts from vehicle aerodynamics. > > From what I've heard, it fits in a weapons pod. It's not internal. Second, data I extrapolated from was the airborne MIRACL system http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/asat/miracl.htm Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Mon Sep 5 12:53:53 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 08:53:53 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: References: <20050903162312.1099.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Sep 4, 2005, at 7:39 AM, MB wrote: > > > > > > As I'm not a party animal or heavy drinker, NO has had no attraction > > for me; good seafood is available other places! > > [...] > > But what is the point? Are we trying to lessen what has happened by > denigrating the city and its people? > In no way. This whole situation is horrific. Merely that NO has had, for many years, a reputation for lawless behaviour, so why is it shocking now to see, in this crisis, lawless behaviour in those who had been left behind? I wish I had a love for the music, but jazz music is associated personally with a long bad sad time in my life. The funeral musical send-off meme is a fine one. Regards, MB From neptune at superlink.net Mon Sep 5 13:24:46 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:24:46 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution References: <003201c5b1cd$d4fa1b60$5b893cd1@pavilion><200509050640.j856eTw14347@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <002c01c5b21d$2ffaf9e0$7b893cd1@pavilion> On Monday, September 05, 2005 4:34 AM BillK pharos at gmail.com wrote: >> On the contrary, holding others to their own beliefs, >> having them put their money where their minds are, >> and gaining or suffering the consequences as a >> result, is evolution in action. Are you saying >> evolution is unethical? > > Yes. Evolution is the cruelest, most savage method > of improving species ever devised. Heard of 'nature > red in tooth and claw'? We can do better. I don't think it's "the cruelest, most savage method of improving the species..." There are far worse methods and I'm not sure that would improve the species -- unless one can show that there's a genetic basis for holding wrong opinions. Also, elsewhere, I've tried to point out that evolution is not ethical -- meaning it's ethically neutral. It just is. Saying it's ethical (or unethical) is just like claiming that the law of physics are ethical (or unethical). >> I would say the entrepreneur is selling not a machine, >> but an education. There are some lessons that >> people have to learn the hard way. > > This is why Libertarians have little concern with the > billions of dollars of fraud and snake-oil in the free > market system and the resulting misery and > unhappiness for millions of people. This is a broad generalization. First off, not all libertarians or even Libertarians agree with Mike here. I certainly don't. Second, fraud is considered a crime -- a property rights violation, to be specific -- by most forms of libertarianism. As such, it is an initiation of force and can be, within the ambit of libertarian rights theory, retaliated against. Third, it's not the free market system per se, but human cupidity and stupidity that causes these problems. (The free market is, after all, just a way of people interacting with each other. There really are only two basic ways for people to interact: through free choice or through some form of command.) > Libs come across as 'Never give a sucker an even > break' types. And 'They deserve all they get' is > common also. While true, this is not necessarily a libertarian view. The real problem is what to do in cases of human stupidity. It's immoral to take advantage of it, but it's not always easy to prove that any seeming case of taking advantage of it is actually one. There's also the problem that people should just have common sense and we can't expect the state to hold everyone's hand through life. In that case, it's not a matter of letting fools come to harm, but letting people learn from their mistakes -- as opposed to creating a state that can try to prevent bad things from happening but gets out of control and starts regulating everything AND creates incentives not to learn. > If you are not as smart. well-educated, healthy, fit > and capable as a Lib then '**ck you, you're on > your own'. Nope. There's private charity and people helping each other out. These are, too, widespread tendencies and any libertarian society I'd care to live in would be people by individuals who are decent and looking to create wealth rather than take wealth from the ignorant or the stupid. (Quite a few libertarians I know including yours truly, for example, donated money to relief efforts for the victims of Katrina.) But this should be true of any society and people typically develop, when given the chance, ways of spotting the charlatans. E.g., word of mouth works wonders when it comes to auto mechanics. Why is that? It's not an example of the state coming in or of anti-fraud activists. It's just people naturally not wanting to be cheated and also realizing that everyone is not an automotive genius, yet finding ways to spread information in a spontaneous fashion. Regards, Dan See "Comments on Pancritical Rationalism" at: http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/PCR.html From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Sep 5 13:28:44 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 14:28:44 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: On 9/2/05, kevinfreels.com wrote: > > Is it my imagination or is someone bumbling this entire rescue effort in > New Orleans? I cannot believe for a second that FEMA just found out this > morning that thousands of people were at the convention center and 8 hours > later the best they could do was a single Blackhawk helicopter with bottled > water. This is 4 days after this event. I am certain there are supplies all > around that area just waiting to get to people. Why aren't there C130s > flying out of Baton Rouge dropping water and MREs? Where is the command and > control center? > > You missed the best bit - where Bush has asked for aid from the EU and NATO. A truly Third World response. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neptune at superlink.net Mon Sep 5 13:31:11 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:31:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution References: <003201c5b1cd$d4fa1b60$5b893cd1@pavilion><200509050640.j856eTw14347@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <005901c5b21e$15585280$7b893cd1@pavilion> On Monday, September 05, 2005 5:16 AM Samantha Atkins sjatkins at mac.com wrote: >> If you are not as smart. well-educated, healthy, >> fit and capable as a Lib then '**ck you, you're >> on your own'. > > The strength of your argument stands alone. No > further comment is needed. Actually, further comment is almost always necessary. In order to correct misconceptions, one of the worst strategies is to ignore them, especially when one believes the people holding them are ignorant (no offense, Bill, but you are making sweeping generalizations). Instead, imagine this as a case of someone who believes in Aristotelean physics or that the Earth is flat -- and someone you want to help, if not come to the correct view, at least move away from the wrong view. Regards, Dan See "A Dialogue On Happiness" at: http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/Dialogue.html From neptune at superlink.net Mon Sep 5 13:58:07 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:58:07 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution References: <003201c5b1cd$d4fa1b60$5b893cd1@pavilion><200509050640.j856eTw14347@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <007601c5b221$d8b2f980$7b893cd1@pavilion> On Monday, September 05, 2005 6:40 AM Alfio Puglisi puglisi at arcetri.astro.it wrote: >> The strength of your argument stands alone. No >> further comment is needed. > > Actually, further comments are needed, because I > often have the same doubts as Bill. For example, > how would cope someone with an IQ of 80 or less > and no education worth its name, when the available > grunt jobs are automated away, and his market value > is less and less? How can he afford a private health > insurance? Well, that's a made up scenario because there are plenty of "available grunt jobs" still available. Also, there's the law of association. It's almost always of benefit for people to associate with people who overall have less skills or talents. Ludwig von Mises demonstrated this in _Human Action_ with his subchapter on "The Ricardian Law of Association," which is online at: http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap8sec4.asp (In fact, the whole book is online for those who want to read it. It's long, so it might be better to just dip into it instead.) > Charitable organizations would probably exists in > a libertarian environment like they exist in the > current, mostly socialist one, but relying on those > for everything not profitable isn't a good strategy. Two points here. First, private charity, whether individual or collective, predates current welfare states. So, it's not like it has to be rediscovered in a libertarian society. It seems a near universal human tendency. Second, there is more to profit than just money. Elsewhere I brought up the concept of psychic profit -- meaning not telepathy or stuff like that, but the benefits derived which are purely mental, such as feeling good about something. This has a huge impact on human behavior. After all, some people will choose to work in a lower paying job if it provides psychic benefits. This is why, e.g., someone might work in an art gallery over becoming a corporate lawyer. It's also why people volunteer to help others. I don't see why the scope of this wouldn't be wide enough to cover all the problem cases. In fact, me guess is, were people allowed to freely choose in the first place, they would create more wealth to begin with and probably give more away. Of course, it's anyone's guess what will happen, but my guess lines up more with economic theory and the history of societies with a wider latitude for free interaction. This higher level of wealth creation generally drives down costs, so health insurance and the like will, all other things being equal, become better, more efficient, and less costly. It's actually state intervention that has driven up health costs in modern societies. If you want to talk about free markets, let's have a free market in this one important area, which is too vital, IMHO, to leave to the whims of bureaucrats or legislatures. > Pure libertarian free-market environments to my > eyes resemble too much an evolution-like "survival > of the fittest" game, where you'll do great if you are > good (or better, if you have marketable skills/assets), > and suffer a lot if you aren't. The problem is thinking that the welfare state and socialism somehow escape evolution. They don't. On a pure free market, people freely interact to choose what they believe are most profitable means and ends. This goes for everyone, low or high IQ; low skill or highly talented; impoverished or richly endowed. In a welfare state or under socialism, it's still survival of the fittest, but it's just a different way of interacting. Now, political usefulness and political connections become much more important. Those with the connections or with the usefulness get the loot. Those without them get marginalized. Notably, under welfare states and under socialism, overall productivity is lower (and more production moves to a black market), so less people overall can be supported at as a high a standard of living. All sorts of bad behaviors are encouraged because few people feel the full costs of their bad activities and each person begins to see other people are either victims or predators. Envy reigns supreme and more activity overall gets devoted to taking wealth than to making it. Regards, Dan See "Freedom Above or Tyranny Below" at: http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/SpaceFreedom.html From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Sep 5 15:31:58 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 08:31:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509051531.j85FVuw18002@tick.javien.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins ... But what is the point? Are we trying to lessen what has happened by denigrating the city and its people? - samantha No, we are trying to figure out where we are going to put that city's replacement. Surely calmer heads will realize we cannot have an entire city that can be destroyed by either a hurricane or a single truck filled with fertilizer. Especially not one that enjoys its sin as much as we do. spike From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Mon Sep 5 15:41:43 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 17:41:43 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: <007601c5b221$d8b2f980$7b893cd1@pavilion> References: <003201c5b1cd$d4fa1b60$5b893cd1@pavilion><200509050640.j856eTw14347@tick.javien.com> <007601c5b221$d8b2f980$7b893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Technotranscendence wrote: > On Monday, September 05, 2005 6:40 AM Alfio Puglisi > puglisi at arcetri.astro.it wrote: >> >> Actually, further comments are needed, because I >> often have the same doubts as Bill. For example, >> how would cope someone with an IQ of 80 or less >> and no education worth its name, when the available >> grunt jobs are automated away, and his market value >> is less and less? How can he afford a private health >> insurance? > > Well, that's a made up scenario because there are plenty of "available > grunt jobs" still available. Also, there's the law of association. > It's almost always of benefit for people to associate with people who > overall have less skills or talents. Ludwig von Mises demonstrated this > in _Human Action_ with his subchapter on "The Ricardian Law of > Association," which is online at: > > http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap8sec4.asp > Thanks, I'll read it. > Two points here. First, private charity, whether individual or > collective, predates current welfare states. So, it's not like it has > to be rediscovered in a libertarian society. It seems a near universal > human tendency. Second, there is more to profit than just money. > Elsewhere I brought up the concept of psychic profit -- meaning not > telepathy or stuff like that, but the benefits derived which are purely > mental, such as feeling good about something. This has a huge impact on > human behavior. After all, some people will choose to work in a lower > paying job if it provides psychic benefits. This is why, e.g., someone > might work in an art gallery over becoming a corporate lawyer. It's > also why people volunteer to help others. I would extend it further, it's also why some people choose to purchase a more expensive product instead of cheaper one, on the basis that, e.g., the first one wasn't produced by enslaving children and the second was. Or, that the first one was produced in a less polluting way than the second. That's a meaning of "value" that goes beyond the pure material value of the product. Still, I've heard people complaining that choosing products in such a way would make an "inefficent" market because it's not optimizing for prices. I would instead say that it's simply a different meaning of "value", and that a consumer can choose whatever definition of "value" he wants. > I don't see why the scope of this wouldn't be wide enough to cover all > the problem cases. In fact, me guess is, were people allowed to freely > choose in the first place, they would create more wealth to begin with > and probably give more away. Of course, it's anyone's guess what will > happen, but my guess lines up more with economic theory and the history > of societies with a wider latitude for free interaction. Communism (the economic system) fails largely because it relies on human altruism. Capitalism works because it relies on human greediness. While the previous two sentences are oversimplifications, they tell something about which human tendence can be relied upon :-) > This higher level of wealth creation generally drives down costs, so > health insurance and the like will, all other things being equal, become > better, more efficient, and less costly. It's actually state > intervention that has driven up health costs in modern societies. If > you want to talk about free markets, let's have a free market in this > one important area, which is too vital, IMHO, to leave to the whims of > bureaucrats or legislatures. There aren't too many data points on what happens with state intervention in health care. But there are some. The OECD Health Data (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/20/2789777.pdf, first table) shows that the United States has the highest percentage of GDP (about 13%) spent on health care of all the Western world. Traditional socialized health-care nations like Germany and Switzerland only spend 10%, and I believe that the health care is of comparable quality. All OECD nations show a slow rising of the GDP % spent on health care. The second table in the paper shows that the American and German government spend about the same amount per capita, but American citizens need to spend a much larger amount for additional private health care. The wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared looks at the differences in detail, and notes that only 9.5% of Canadian GDP is spent on health care. So the availble data suggests that socialized health care is 30% cheaper than the US model, which I consider more marketized given the prevalence of private insurance. Of course this data should be corrected for the quality of health care, life styles, etc. but I believe the countries are similar enough. >> Pure libertarian free-market environments to my >> eyes resemble too much an evolution-like "survival >> of the fittest" game, where you'll do great if you are >> good (or better, if you have marketable skills/assets), >> and suffer a lot if you aren't. > > The problem is thinking that the welfare state and socialism somehow > escape evolution. They don't. On a pure free market, people freely > interact to choose what they believe are most profitable means and ends. > This goes for everyone, low or high IQ; low skill or highly talented; > impoverished or richly endowed. > > In a welfare state or under socialism, it's still survival of the > fittest, but it's just a different way of interacting. Now, political > usefulness and political connections become much more important. With this reason of thinking, everything is survival of the fittest. Which could be true in a sense :-) But each system can direct evolution towards its goal. Markets are probably more flexible, because they can adapt quickly to changes and different wills, but there's the question of how long they'll take to optimize things, how much they oscillate around the equilibrium, and how stable is the point of equilibrium itself. Alfio From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 15:56:53 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 08:56:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050905155653.21309.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- BillK wrote: > On 9/5/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > On the contrary, holding others to their own beliefs, having them > put > > their money where their minds are, and gaining or suffering the > > consequences as a result, is evolution in action. Are you saying > > evolution is unethical? > > Yes. Evolution is the cruelest, most savage method of improving > species ever devised. Heard of 'nature red in tooth and claw'? We can > do better. > > > I would say the entrepreneur is selling not a machine, but an > > education. There are some lessons that people have to learn the > > hard way. > > This is why Libertarians have little concern with the billions of > dollars of fraud and snake-oil in the free market system and the > resulting misery and unhappiness for millions of people. > Libs come across as 'Never give a sucker an even break' types. > And 'They deserve all they get' is common also. > On the contrary, Libertarians are against all forms of fraud on principle. Problem is that the population has conditional ethics toward fraud. Fraud is okay in the form of social security, income taxes, "election reform", flouridated drinking water, public sale of coal plant fly ash and 'ground based radon', "global warming", "peak oil", whole math, outcome based public education and school district property taxes, among other things from the large to the mundane. Like, for instance, that expensive wart removal patch sold at drug stores: the active ingredient is a fraction of a cent's worth of aspirin. Based on the above frauds which are occuring daily everywhere, what is the difference between fraud for the sake of profit versus fraud for the sake of a true education? Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 16:03:32 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:03:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050905160332.62366.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Alfio Puglisi wrote: > On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > The strength of your argument stands alone. No further comment is > needed. > > Actually, further comments are needed, because I often have the same > doubts as Bill. For example, how would cope someone with an IQ of 80 > or less and no education worth its name, when the available grunt jobs > are automated away, and his market value is less and less? How can he > afford a private health insurance? > > Charitable organizations would probably exists in a libertarian > environment like they exist in the current, mostly socialist one, but > relying on those for everything not profitable isn't a good strategy. > Actually, charitable organizations would be much larger, well funded, and staffed by cheerful volunteer do-gooders who are much more effective than career do-gooders who are more interested in their public service jobs than the public. > Pure libertarian free-market environments to my eyes resemble too > much an evolution-like "survival of the fittest" game, where you'll > do great if you are good (or better, if you have marketable > skills/assets), and suffer a lot if you aren't. And those who are properly compensated for their skills will have a lot more disposable income with which to put toward truly charitable work by groups that operate with volunteer staff. Charities typically spend 5-15% of their money on overhead, the rest going to the people who need it. Welfare bureaucracies waste 40-45% of their money, at a minimum, on civil servant positions that are wasteful, unnecessary make-work that are claimed to be necessary to make sure that money isn't wasted or defrauded. Wasting money to prevent waste? A private person who keeps their income can do twice as much good through private charities as through government welfare systems with the same amount of money. Government creates poverty. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 16:05:28 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:05:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050905160528.56829.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > On 9/5/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > Firstly, your ciaonet reference page is login access only. > > > > Secondly, any weapon small enough to fit on a fighter aircraft, > which > > is what HELLADS is intended for in its final version, would not > have an > > aperture or beam size of 12 cm. Aerodynamics and airframe space > > limitations wouldn't allow it. The point of the weapon is something > > that replaces the 20 mm vulcan cannon currently standard equipment > on > > US fighters and is typically mounted within one or the other wing > root. > > A laser weapons caliber/beam width should be of similar dimensions, > > thus 20 mm would be about .80 caliber. Beam size between .50-1.50", > or > > 12-37mm are what the application would call for. > > > > If you can't fit the weapon inside the cavity reserved for the > vulcan > > cannon, don't waste your time. Especially if it winds up being some > > add-on pod that takes up bomb/missile/fuel tank rack space, and > > detracts from vehicle aerodynamics. > > > > From what I've heard, it fits in a weapons pod. Sources, please. > It's not internal. > Second, data I extrapolated from was the airborne MIRACL system > http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/asat/miracl.htm Miracl was a large 10-20 year old technology. Your assumptions are groundless. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 16:09:48 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:09:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050905160948.94055.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- MB wrote: > On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > > On Sep 4, 2005, at 7:39 AM, MB wrote: > > > > > > > > > As I'm not a party animal or heavy drinker, NO has had no > attraction > > > for me; good seafood is available other places! > > > > [...] > > > > But what is the point? Are we trying to lessen what has happened > by > > denigrating the city and its people? > > > > In no way. This whole situation is horrific. > > Merely that NO has had, for many years, a reputation for lawless > behaviour, so why is it shocking now to see, in this crisis, lawless > behaviour in those who had been left behind? Moreover, when we see that those police 'guarding' stores from looters were only doing so while tv cameras were there, and then joined in the looting themselves (if they were not already before the cameras arrived), when we see NO police firing on US Army Corps of Engineers people who were armed, simply because they were armed? FEMA does not operate in a mode of sweeping into a location and replacing all the locals there. While it is obvious the current leadership is incompetent, FEMAs job is to come in to coordinate the efforts of locals with help coming in from other states. When local police are too busy looting to give good information, it is no wonder FEMA doesn't know what is going on. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 16:17:57 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:17:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: <002c01c5b21d$2ffaf9e0$7b893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <20050905161757.66333.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Technotranscendence wrote: > On Monday, September 05, 2005 4:34 AM BillK pharos at gmail.com wrote: > > > Libs come across as 'Never give a sucker an even > > break' types. And 'They deserve all they get' is > > common also. > > While true, this is not necessarily a libertarian view. The real > problem is what to do in cases of human stupidity. It's immoral to > take advantage of it, but it's not always easy to prove that any > seeming case of taking advantage of it is actually one. There's > also the problem that people should just have common sense and we > can't expect the state to hold everyone's hand through life. Don't people have a right to stupidity? To eat fat laden burgers, drink too much alcohol, take too much drugs, not exercise, smoke cigars, chew tobacco, have casual sex? By BillK's ethics, selling sugar laden lemonade at a street corner, or couches and wide screen televisions, is not morally different from selling anti-ghost pills or land along the east side of the San Andreas fault. It is not your place to judge what other people want to buy and consume. It isn't the place of the state to stop them. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 16:27:20 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:27:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050905162720.65220.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Alfio Puglisi wrote: > > There aren't too many data points on what happens with state > intervention in health care. But there are some. The OECD Health Data > (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/20/2789777.pdf, first table) shows > that the United States has the highest percentage of GDP (about 13%) > spent on health care of all the Western world. Traditional socialized > health-care nations like Germany and Switzerland only spend 10%, and > I believe that the health care is of comparable quality. All OECD > nations show a slow rising of the GDP % spent on health care. Reasons for this are as follows: 1) The US is experiencing its health care baby boom crisis first. 2) Socialized nations are exporting their most expensive patients to the US. They do this by rationing expensive procedures with waiting lists that are longer than the life expectancy of the patients on the lists. This drives patients to travel to the US to buy the procedures with their own money, while at the same time driving up demand for the procedures here, and thus driving up price with demand as the free market laws dictate. 3) Free health care given to millions of illegals who do not pay for their services, skip on the bills, etc and don't even pay taxes because they are paid under the table. Literally billions of dollars nationwide are spent on this, which would not be tolerated in Germany or Switzerland. 4) To be fair the US is not doing enough to protect US workers from corporations defrauding their retirees of their health plans they already paid for, especially by abusing bankruptcy law to do so. > > The second table in the paper shows that the American and German > government spend about the same amount per capita, but American > citizens > need to spend a much larger amount for additional private health > care. > > The wikipedia article > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared > looks at the differences in detail, and notes that only 9.5% of > Canadian > GDP is spent on health care. > > So the availble data suggests that socialized health care is 30% > cheaper > than the US model, which I consider more marketized given the > prevalence of private insurance. Of course this data should be > corrected > for the quality of health care, life styles, etc. but I believe the > countries are similar enough. > > >> Pure libertarian free-market environments to my > >> eyes resemble too much an evolution-like "survival > >> of the fittest" game, where you'll do great if you are > >> good (or better, if you have marketable skills/assets), > >> and suffer a lot if you aren't. > > > > The problem is thinking that the welfare state and socialism > somehow > > escape evolution. They don't. On a pure free market, people > freely > > interact to choose what they believe are most profitable means and > ends. > > This goes for everyone, low or high IQ; low skill or highly > talented; > > impoverished or richly endowed. > > > > In a welfare state or under socialism, it's still survival of the > > fittest, but it's just a different way of interacting. Now, > political > > usefulness and political connections become much more important. > > With this reason of thinking, everything is survival of the fittest. > Which > could be true in a sense :-) But each system can direct evolution > towards > its goal. Markets are probably more flexible, because they can adapt > quickly to changes and different wills, but there's the question of > how > long they'll take to optimize things, how much they oscillate around > the > equilibrium, and how stable is the point of equilibrium itself. > > Alfio > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From extropy at unreasonable.com Mon Sep 5 16:44:40 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 12:44:40 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: <002c01c5b21d$2ffaf9e0$7b893cd1@pavilion> References: <003201c5b1cd$d4fa1b60$5b893cd1@pavilion> <200509050640.j856eTw14347@tick.javien.com> <002c01c5b21d$2ffaf9e0$7b893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050905123559.05a24150@unreasonable.com> Technotranscendence wrote: >But this should be true of any society and people typically develop, >when given the chance, ways of spotting the charlatans. E.g., word >of mouth works wonders when it comes to auto mechanics. Why is >that? It's not an example of the state coming in or of anti-fraud >activists. It's just people naturally not wanting to be cheated and >also realizing that everyone is not an automotive genius, yet >finding ways to spread information in a spontaneous fashion. Gas prices have soared. The government response was (in part) to decry "price-gouging," and encourage people to report "artificially inflated" gas prices at http://gaswatch.energy.gov/ . This is an evil concept. Government should stay out of prices. Government attempts to manage prices don't work and are inherently immoral. In a free market, "inflated" prices are self-correcting. On the other hand, some clever mind devised and rapidly implemented http://www.gasbuddy.com/ , which is a simple and effective way of accelerating price-correction. -- David Lubkin. From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Sep 5 16:51:40 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 17:51:40 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: <20050905160528.56829.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050905160528.56829.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/5/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > On 9/5/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > > Firstly, your ciaonet reference page is login access only. > > > > > > Secondly, any weapon small enough to fit on a fighter aircraft, > > which > > > is what HELLADS is intended for in its final version, would not > > have an > > > aperture or beam size of 12 cm. Aerodynamics and airframe space > > > limitations wouldn't allow it. The point of the weapon is something > > > that replaces the 20 mm vulcan cannon currently standard equipment > > on > > > US fighters and is typically mounted within one or the other wing > > root. > > > A laser weapons caliber/beam width should be of similar dimensions, > > > thus 20 mm would be about .80 caliber. Beam size between .50-1.50", > > or > > > 12-37mm are what the application would call for. > > > > > > If you can't fit the weapon inside the cavity reserved for the > > vulcan > > > cannon, don't waste your time. Especially if it winds up being some > > > add-on pod that takes up bomb/missile/fuel tank rack space, and > > > detracts from vehicle aerodynamics. > > > > > > From what I've heard, it fits in a weapons pod. > > Sources, please. > > > It's not internal. > > Second, data I extrapolated from was the airborne MIRACL system > > http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/asat/miracl.htm > > Miracl was a large 10-20 year old technology. Your assumptions are > groundless. > > Well, here's some up to date stuff http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=163 "The beam is only a few inches in diameter" http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/thel.html "The beam itself is only a few inches in diameter" Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Mon Sep 5 16:57:02 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 18:57:02 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: <20050905162720.65220.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050905162720.65220.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > --- Alfio Puglisi wrote: >> >> There aren't too many data points on what happens with state >> intervention in health care. But there are some. The OECD Health Data > >> (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/20/2789777.pdf, first table) shows >> that the United States has the highest percentage of GDP (about 13%) >> spent on health care of all the Western world. Traditional socialized >> health-care nations like Germany and Switzerland only spend 10%, and >> I believe that the health care is of comparable quality. All OECD >> nations show a slow rising of the GDP % spent on health care. > > Reasons for this are as follows: > 1) The US is experiencing its health care baby boom crisis first. If I understand correctly what a "baby boom crisis" is, this is not true. European nations have on average older populations, so that health care and pension costs are higher. For example a full 19% of Italy's pupulation is over 65 years old, compared to only 12.5% of the US. > 2) Socialized nations are exporting their most expensive patients to > the US. They do this by rationing expensive procedures with waiting > lists that are longer than the life expectancy of the patients on the > lists. This drives patients to travel to the US to buy the procedures > with their own money, while at the same time driving up demand for the > procedures here, and thus driving up price with demand as the free > market laws dictate. > 3) Free health care given to millions of illegals who do not pay for > their services, skip on the bills, etc and don't even pay taxes because > they are paid under the table. Literally billions of dollars nationwide > are spent on this, which would not be tolerated in Germany or > Switzerland. Fair points, but they should be quantified to see how relevant they are. Point 3) is partially true for european nations too, albeit much smaller. > 4) To be fair the US is not doing enough to protect US workers from > corporations defrauding their retirees of their health plans they > already paid for, especially by abusing bankruptcy law to do so. >> >> Alfio >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat >> > > > Mike Lorrey > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: > http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com > Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 17:09:14 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 10:09:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050905170914.22470.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > On 9/5/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > > > > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > > On 9/5/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > > > > Firstly, your ciaonet reference page is login access only. > > > > > > > > Secondly, any weapon small enough to fit on a fighter aircraft, > > > which > > > > is what HELLADS is intended for in its final version, would not > > > have an > > > > aperture or beam size of 12 cm. Aerodynamics and airframe space > > > > limitations wouldn't allow it. The point of the weapon is > something > > > > that replaces the 20 mm vulcan cannon currently standard > equipment > > > on > > > > US fighters and is typically mounted within one or the other > wing > > > root. > > > > A laser weapons caliber/beam width should be of similar > dimensions, > > > > thus 20 mm would be about .80 caliber. Beam size between > .50-1.50", > > > or > > > > 12-37mm are what the application would call for. > > > > > > > > If you can't fit the weapon inside the cavity reserved for the > > > vulcan > > > > cannon, don't waste your time. Especially if it winds up being > some > > > > add-on pod that takes up bomb/missile/fuel tank rack space, and > > > > detracts from vehicle aerodynamics. > > > > > > > > From what I've heard, it fits in a weapons pod. > > > > Sources, please. > > > > > It's not internal. > > > Second, data I extrapolated from was the airborne MIRACL system > > > http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/asat/miracl.htm > > > > Miracl was a large 10-20 year old technology. Your assumptions are > > groundless. > > > > Well, here's some up to date stuff > http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=163 > > "The beam is only a few inches in diameter" > > http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/thel.html > > "The beam itself is only a few inches in diameter" Okay, 1) MIRACL was vastly larger system than the current MTHEL system. 2) you've got two quotes there saying "a few inches" NOT "twelve inches". "A few" is taken as two or three in colloquial US english, which is far closer to my estimate than to yours. 3) the THEL system is significantly larger than what is intended for HELLADS. THEL takes up three trailers of equipment, while HELLADS is intended to be carried by a tactical fighter aircraft or UCAV, which would be at least two orders of magnitude reduction in equipment volume. 4) the THEL technology is a deuterium fluoride laser technology, while HELLADS uses diode pumping of an optical fluid, a completely different technology. It therefore follows that if THEL, a three trailer technology, has a beam of 'a few inches', a HELLADS system for tactical fighters that is two orders of magnitude smaller would produce a beam even smaller than that, likely within the range I've specified, if not smaller. Now that we've disposed with that objection, lets do some realistic calculations of the effects of 150 kW hitting a missile casing in an area of less than 20 mm radius. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Sep 5 17:28:27 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 18:28:27 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: <20050905170914.22470.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050905170914.22470.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/5/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > On 9/5/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > > > > On 9/5/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Firstly, your ciaonet reference page is login access only. > > > > > > > > > > Secondly, any weapon small enough to fit on a fighter aircraft, > > > > which > > > > > is what HELLADS is intended for in its final version, would not > > > > have an > > > > > aperture or beam size of 12 cm. Aerodynamics and airframe space > > > > > limitations wouldn't allow it. The point of the weapon is > > something > > > > > that replaces the 20 mm vulcan cannon currently standard > > equipment > > > > on > > > > > US fighters and is typically mounted within one or the other > > wing > > > > root. > > > > > A laser weapons caliber/beam width should be of similar > > dimensions, > > > > > thus 20 mm would be about .80 caliber. Beam size between > > .50-1.50", > > > > or > > > > > 12-37mm are what the application would call for. > > > > > > > > > > If you can't fit the weapon inside the cavity reserved for the > > > > vulcan > > > > > cannon, don't waste your time. Especially if it winds up being > > some > > > > > add-on pod that takes up bomb/missile/fuel tank rack space, and > > > > > detracts from vehicle aerodynamics. > > > > > > > > > > From what I've heard, it fits in a weapons pod. > > > > > > Sources, please. > > > > > > > It's not internal. > > > > Second, data I extrapolated from was the airborne MIRACL system > > > > http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/asat/miracl.htm > > > > > > Miracl was a large 10-20 year old technology. Your assumptions are > > > groundless. > > > > > > Well, here's some up to date stuff > > http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=163 > > > > "The beam is only a few inches in diameter" > > > > http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/thel.html > > > > "The beam itself is only a few inches in diameter" > > Okay, > 1) MIRACL was vastly larger system than the current MTHEL system. > 2) you've got two quotes there saying "a few inches" NOT "twelve > inches". "A few" is taken as two or three in colloquial US english, > which is far closer to my estimate than to yours. Or as I said, 12cm ie around 4 inches. Still, the figures would apply even if it were only 3 inches. And since we're being picky the power density I was working with was 1320W per sq cm. Now that we've disposed with that objection, lets do some realistic > calculations of the effects of 150 kW hitting a missile casing in an > area of less than 20 mm radius. > > No, let's do a realistic calculation of a power density of 1kW per sq cm. Oh... I've already done it. A coat of carbon fibre matt on a katyusha warhead will effectively prevent the laser from shooting it down before it impacts. That's my claim. *http://tinyurl.com/7rdzp* Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Mon Sep 5 18:02:40 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 13:02:40 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need References: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <004201c5b244$02630050$0100a8c0@kevin> I don;t know about that. The EU and NATO are always asking for our help. WHat's wrong with asking for them to return the favor? ----- Original Message ----- From: Dirk Bruere To: ExI chat list Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 8:28 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need On 9/2/05, kevinfreels.com wrote: Is it my imagination or is someone bumbling this entire rescue effort in New Orleans? I cannot believe for a second that FEMA just found out this morning that thousands of people were at the convention center and 8 hours later the best they could do was a single Blackhawk helicopter with bottled water. This is 4 days after this event. I am certain there are supplies all around that area just waiting to get to people. Why aren't there C130s flying out of Baton Rouge dropping water and MREs? Where is the command and control center? You missed the best bit - where Bush has asked for aid from the EU and NATO. A truly Third World response. Dirk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Mon Sep 5 18:06:39 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 13:06:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution References: <003201c5b1cd$d4fa1b60$5b893cd1@pavilion><200509050640.j856eTw14347@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <005101c5b244$90592a10$0100a8c0@kevin> You are assuming a great leap forward on automation where robots can roof houses, pour concrete, and hang siding. There's lots of "grunt" jobs out there that will not be replaced for a long time. Of course, that day will come, but when it does, I would like to think we will also have the ability to "cure" such IQ problems with a cost small enough to justify making the person a productive member of society. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alfio Puglisi" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 5:40 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution > On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > On Sep 5, 2005, at 1:34 AM, BillK wrote: > > > >> If you are not as smart. well-educated, healthy, fit and capable as a > >> Lib then '**ck you, you're on your own'. > > > > The strength of your argument stands alone. No further comment is needed. > > Actually, further comments are needed, because I often have the same > doubts as Bill. For example, how would cope someone with an IQ of 80 or > less and no education worth its name, when the available grunt jobs are > automated away, and his market value is less and less? How can he afford > a private health insurance? > > Charitable organizations would probably exists in a libertarian > environment like they exist in the current, mostly socialist one, but > relying on those for everything not profitable isn't a good strategy. > > Pure libertarian free-market environments to my eyes resemble too much an > evolution-like "survival of the fittest" game, where you'll do great if > you are good (or better, if you have marketable skills/assets), and suffer > a lot if you aren't. > > Alfio > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Sep 5 18:14:28 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 19:14:28 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: <004201c5b244$02630050$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> <004201c5b244$02630050$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: On 9/5/05, kevinfreels.com wrote: > > I don;t know about that. The EU and NATO are always asking for our help. > WHat's wrong with asking for them to return the favor? > The fact that you shouldn't need it? Is there a big blanket shortage in the US? Out of water trucks? Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From extropy at unreasonable.com Mon Sep 5 18:29:18 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 14:29:18 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: <005101c5b244$90592a10$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <003201c5b1cd$d4fa1b60$5b893cd1@pavilion> <200509050640.j856eTw14347@tick.javien.com> <005101c5b244$90592a10$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050905142115.057e9fd0@unreasonable.com> kevinfreels wrote: >You are assuming a great leap forward on automation where robots can roof >houses, pour concrete, and hang siding. There's lots of "grunt" jobs out >there that will not be replaced for a long time. Of course, that day will >come, but when it does, I would like to think we will also have the ability >to "cure" such IQ problems with a cost small enough to justify making the >person a productive member of society. Ah, but the goalposts keep moving. The nootropic technology to move someone from IQ 70 to 100 can also move everyone who's already farther up the bell curve. Indeed, I'd expect that the SD of the IQ curve will increase, not decrease, as enabling technologies appear, until we approach ultimate limits on per-entity cognition. -- David Lubkin. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 19:18:50 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 12:18:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050905191850.47136.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > Okay, > > 1) MIRACL was vastly larger system than the current MTHEL system. > > 2) you've got two quotes there saying "a few inches" NOT "twelve > > inches". "A few" is taken as two or three in colloquial US english, > > which is far closer to my estimate than to yours. > > > Or as I said, 12cm ie around 4 inches. > Still, the figures would apply even if it were only 3 inches. > And since we're being picky the power density I was working with was > 1320W per sq cm. Sorry, I thought you had said 12 inches, not 12 cm. However, you still need to scale your 12 cm by one to two orders of magnitude downward for a fighter portable unit, which should be 12 mm or less. > > > Now that we've disposed with that objection, lets do some realistic > > calculations of the effects of 150 kW hitting a missile casing in > > an area of less than 20 mm radius. > > > > No, let's do a realistic calculation of a power density of 1kW per > > sq cm. Once again, you are cooking the books and spreading the butter thin. Firstly, you are ignoring the fact that the HELLADS system is said to be utilizing dynamic focusing technology, and applying THEL scaling to a device two orders of magnitude smaller. A 12 mm beam would be a power density of 1326 kW/ sq mm, not centimeter. Another issue is pulse length. Watts measures beam power in Joules/second. However beam pulses are generally fractions of seconds. If, for example, the laser is 150 kW with a pulse time of 0.1 sec, the energy is delivered at a rate of 1500 kJ/s. The determinant of ballistic effect of a laser is more properly expressed by its Joules/sec rating. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Sep 5 19:38:28 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 20:38:28 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] LASER: DARPA's HELLADS small laser weapon makes headway In-Reply-To: <20050905191850.47136.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050905191850.47136.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/5/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > > > Okay, > > > 1) MIRACL was vastly larger system than the current MTHEL system. > > > 2) you've got two quotes there saying "a few inches" NOT "twelve > > > inches". "A few" is taken as two or three in colloquial US english, > > > which is far closer to my estimate than to yours. > > > > > > Or as I said, 12cm ie around 4 inches. > > Still, the figures would apply even if it were only 3 inches. > > And since we're being picky the power density I was working with was > > 1320W per sq cm. > > Sorry, I thought you had said 12 inches, not 12 cm. However, you still > need to scale your 12 cm by one to two orders of magnitude downward for > a fighter portable unit, which should be 12 mm or less. That's not possible. I can't be bothered to list all the problems involved so you'll have to wait for some official statement on beam dia. > > > > Now that we've disposed with that objection, lets do some realistic > > > calculations of the effects of 150 kW hitting a missile casing in > > > an area of less than 20 mm radius. > > > > > > No, let's do a realistic calculation of a power density of 1kW per > > > sq cm. > > Once again, you are cooking the books and spreading the butter thin. > Firstly, you are ignoring the fact that the HELLADS system is said to > be utilizing dynamic focusing technology, and applying THEL scaling to > a device two orders of magnitude smaller. A 12 mm beam would be a power > density of 1326 kW/ sq mm, not centimeter. Again, very unlikely. There are fundamental problems with the optics at that power density. Another issue is pulse length. Watts measures beam power in > Joules/second. However beam pulses are generally fractions of seconds. > If, for example, the laser is 150 kW with a pulse time of 0.1 sec, the > energy is delivered at a rate of 1500 kJ/s. The determinant of > ballistic effect of a laser is more properly expressed by its > Joules/sec rating. You need to pulse at much higher power densities than that to get an explosive ablation effect. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neptune at superlink.net Mon Sep 5 20:35:02 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 16:35:02 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution References: <20050905161757.66333.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001f01c5b259$4b9952a0$d1893cd1@pavilion> On Monday, September 05, 2005 12:17 PM Mike Lorrey mlorrey at yahoo.com wrote: >>> Libs come across as 'Never give a sucker an even >>> break' types. And 'They deserve all they get' is >>> common also. >> >> While true, this is not necessarily a libertarian view. >> The real problem is what to do in cases of human >> stupidity. It's immoral to take advantage of it, but >> it's not always easy to prove that any seeming case >> of taking advantage of it is actually one. There's >> also the problem that people should just have >> common sense and we can't expect the state to >> hold everyone's hand through life. > > Don't people have a right to stupidity? You're confusing morality with legal rights. Also, in this case, yes, people have right to stupidity, but that does not make it _right_ -- in moral, not legal sense -- to take advantage of their stupidity. It's also not wrong, either morally or legally, to criticize people for being stupid -- i.e., to point out their stupidity and try to help them to overcome it. (To disarm you in advance, I'm not saying there's an obligation to do so or that those engaging in activities you disagree with or think stupid -- after all, they might get more enjoyment out of them than you would -- don't have the right to ignore you.) > To eat fat laden burgers, drink too much alcohol, take > too much drugs, not exercise, smoke cigars, chew > tobacco, have casual sex? But are these examples of human stupidity or just differences in values? Maybe some people just like to eat burgers, get drunk, get high, have a good time, and do things you would disapprove of. So? My point was more about when you lie to other people for gain because they are too ignorant or stupid to see through the lie. That's far different than disagreeing with their preferences. > By BillK's ethics, selling sugar laden lemonade at a > street corner, or couches and wide screen televisions, is > not morally different from selling anti-ghost pills or > land along the east side of the San Andreas fault. I don't know enough about BillK to say... The difference, of course, is that selling lemonade, couches, and wide screen TV sets is not done, anywhere that I've seen, by appealing to their health values. In fact, I doubt anyone who tried to sell them based on that would get very far on that. Yes, people will still buy them, but not because they actually believe they're healthy. > It is not your place to judge what other people want > to buy and consume. It isn't the place of the state to > stop them. Actually, I can judge whatever I want. The libertarian position is not one against judgment but against forcing people to adhere to my (or anyone else's) judgment. I can judge as I please and remain a libertarian -- just as you made judgments above about people engaging in certain activities being stupid -- as long as I don't violate anyone else's rights. In fact, freedom of expression includes the right to express disapproval. To put this into a concrete case, if you were selling bona fide snake oil I'd find nothing wrong with telling people that, in fact, your folk remedy is just snake oil. Now, I'm sure you wouldn't disapprove of this. One of the problems I find, too, is that many people who want the state to step in work under the assumption that most people are either too stupid to figure out this stupid or too callous to care enough to help others out. At the same time, they seem to assume that while most people suffer in this fashion, the members of the state have somehow managed to transcend these cognitive and moral failings. The truth seems to be this. If society were really chocked full of those people a powerful regulatory state would be even less likely to help them out because its members would come from the same mass of stupid or morally depraved individuals. Thus, unless they can show that somehow the state can get above this -- exactly how is never stated -- it's merely wishful thinking and common sense would be not to give one group of people (which is what the state is: one group of people) more power than the rest of society. (I'm not even talking about libertarianism here or rights theory and all that -- just plain good sense. Hopefully, people don't need to become full-fledged libertarians to have that in this one small area.) Regards, Dan See "Freedom Above or Tyranny Below" at: http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/SpaceFreedom.html From neptune at superlink.net Mon Sep 5 20:59:18 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 16:59:18 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution References: <003201c5b1cd$d4fa1b60$5b893cd1@pavilion><200509050640.j856eTw14347@tick.javien.com><002c01c5b21d$2ffaf9e0$7b893cd1@pavilion> <6.2.3.4.2.20050905123559.05a24150@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <005a01c5b25c$af1743c0$d1893cd1@pavilion> On Monday, September 05, 2005 12:44 PM David Lubkin extropy at unreasonable.com wrote: >> But this should be true of any society and people >> typically develop, when given the chance, ways of >> spotting the charlatans. E.g., word of mouth works >> wonders when it comes to auto mechanics. Why is >> that? It's not an example of the state coming in or >> of anti-fraud activists. It's just people naturally not >> wanting to be cheated and also realizing that >> everyone is not an automotive genius, yet finding >> ways to spread information in a spontaneous fashion. > > Gas prices have soared. Yes, they have. Why this is so is a matter for speculation. Partly, it has to do with inflation finally catching up with oil prices. (The Fed has been extensively devaluing the dollar over the last several years as the increases in the money supply itself shows. However, such increases do not lead to uniform increases in prices across the board. Were they to do that, no one would ever inflation the money supply as it would reap no gains for anyone.) Partly, it has to do with increased demand for oil overall. And partly, in the US, it has to do with government interference in the energy industry ranging from extensive regulations on building new refineries, pipelines, and exploiting oil resources to taxes on gas at the pump. > The government response was (in part) to decry > "price-gouging," and encourage people to report >"artificially inflated" gas prices at > http://gaswatch.energy.gov/ . > > This is an evil concept. Government should stay out > of prices. Government attempts to manage prices > don't work and are inherently immoral. In a free market, > "inflated" prices are self-correcting. The problem is getting people to see that it's not evil businesses per se but the overall economic situation that gives rise to these increases. That's hard to see because it involves thinking beyond, "Hey, gas is up ten cents over yesterday!" Most people are, sadly, unwilling to make that jump and many people seem to love price controls. In this case, though, I don't think the price rises are a local phenomenon or due to gouging. I think they are a systemic problem and one caused partly by devaluing the dollar. That can only be corrected, in a sense, by either allowing market prices to adjust (i.e., rise) or by stopping the devaluation (e.g., by abolishing the Fed and getting government out of the money supply). Gas stations and oil companies are not really behind that. > On the other hand, some clever mind devised and > rapidly implemented http://www.gasbuddy.com/ , > which is a simple and effective way of > accelerating price-correction. That's a good idea. Other things that are possible too are for people to just economize more -- make fewer unnecessary trips, use A/C less, carpool where possible, and walk if it's a short trip. Regards, Dan See "Freedom Above or Tyranny Below" at: http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/SpaceFreedom.html From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Sep 5 21:08:03 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 14:08:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] culture shock in the big difficult In-Reply-To: <001f01c5b259$4b9952a0$d1893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <200509052108.j85L86f24838@tick.javien.com> The floods in Fargo North Dakota in 1997 resulted in a number of housing areas that had to be ceded back to the river. In New Orleans, we can see that most likely there will be some sections that can never be rebuilt, not only because they are prone to natural disaster but also because they will remain ever vulnerable to terrorists. A couple cases of dynamite can take out a city that many on the fringe have never liked: the muslim extremists see the drinking and sin going on there, the local Baptists have never been comfortable with the frequency in which the head deacon goes down to Bourbon Street to minister to the harlots, etc. If large sections of the poorest areas of New Orleans cannot be rebuilt, then the people there must go somewhere else. But once they leave the Big Easy, everywhere else is by comparison the Big Difficult. Looking around the Silicon Valley, I realized this is the Biggest Difficultest, for so many reasons. Even rich people are poor here, since there is almost no low-income housing and there is little prospect of any being built in this century. The powerful environmental lobby would need to be defeated, which would be quite a task in itself. But for sheer culture shock to displaced Big Easiers, the Silicon Valley is unsurpassed. Just try to imagine it: the whole go-go attitude here, the work your ass off in hopes of one day owning a tract shack mindset, the suspicious looks for anyone who is actually home on a working day, the whole package, I just don't think it would work to bring poor displaced Louisianans here. So where will they go? spike From robgobblin at aol.com Mon Sep 5 21:17:02 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 11:17:02 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Week of Horror In-Reply-To: <021a01c5b1e0$b9d0d9b0$6600a8c0@brainiac> References: <021a01c5b1e0$b9d0d9b0$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <26ad9c8d88dc4de479816d064545d939@aol.com> Sorry to bring it up, but it is a major piece of good luck for the bush administration that they no longer have to deal with the Rove scandal as a result of this utter nincomposity. On Sep 4, 2005, at 8:11 PM, Olga Bourlin wrote: > The whole world was watching. > > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/opinion/05krugman.html > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/opinion/05herbert.html > > Is it possible we still have Bush apologists on this list ...? > Olga > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Sep 5 23:57:54 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 16:57:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] whales discover new technology: fishing for birds In-Reply-To: <001f01c5b259$4b9952a0$d1893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <200509052357.j85Nvrf10237@tick.javien.com> Check this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168456,00.html From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Sep 6 00:24:57 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 17:24:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Are dwarfs better for longduration spaceflight?] In-Reply-To: <200509010601.j8161kw31304@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050906002457.64049.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > "Terry W. Colvin" fnarded: > > Designing for absolute minimum weight aerospace vehicles is fraught > > with problems... > > Granted, however we are discussing only *scaling* as a function > of the needs of the astronaut. This exercise is not about shaving > close to the margin; the margin is the same for the smaller > vehicle as it is for the larger. Actually, considering how small a fraction makes up the crew and crew support - the "payload" - of any manned space vehicle to date...yes, we are talking about shaving close to the margin. Relative to, say, making a more efficient propulsion method so we don't have to cram the payload and vehicle structure into a few percent of the total vehicle weight. > My notion is that under these extreme conditions, Getting to orbit already requires fairly extreme performance from the rocket. How 'bout we pursue technologies, like laser launch or mass drivers (for cargo only) or nuclear engines (the ones with nonradioactive exhaust, please) and so forth, that mitigate that requirement instead? > > ... While a measure of weight as saved, it made the vehicle > > so difficult to manufacture that the cost increases by far > outweighed > > any operational savings... > > Of course, but manufacturing constraints in aircraft, > where you are making many, are not directly comparable > to manufacturing constraints in spacecraft where you > are making one or two. If we're to make space access affordable, then spacecraft will likely have to become at least as mass-produced as aircraft. (Granted, 777s don't have nearly the production volume of most things coming out of a Ford plant, but the processes used to make the two - including the existence of practical cost controls - are far similar than the practices used to make most spacecraft today.) Besides, even in a one-off/unique craft, there are redundant components that can themselves be set up for bulk manufacture if the craft is designed right, thus saving much cost of the overall craft. (Imagine, for example, the cost savings if the Shuttle's thermal tiles could be swapped around with each other as needed. Most of them are apparently specially shaped for their particular location, though.) > Ja I should have defined this mission more carefully. That's another problem: trying to do extreme engineering for just one scenario of limited appeal (no landing? Habitat design suitable for a very small number of people?), rather than trying to find ways to save money for everyone. Refusing to reuse what's out there, and insisting that your performance needs mean you can't design stuff for any other mission, will itself make your mission far more unaffordable - and wasteful. The cost savings of commodity hardware - which other people pay for the design and much of the manufacture of - trump almost *ANY* cost savings you can get from any degree of specialty engineering when it comes to missions like this. Which means that, while you might be right that you would get cost savings on some element of your project, that doesn't mean that it would be the overall ideal way to accomplish even that specific mission. From dgc at cox.net Tue Sep 6 00:23:51 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:23:51 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fill it in a pave it over In-Reply-To: References: <20050901104237.GS2249@leitl.org> <4318D6A6.6000508@cox.net> Message-ID: <431CE197.7050000@cox.net> What would the logistics be to just fill New Orleans in with gravel and build on top? Get the level higher than the maximum level of Lake Ponchartrain. Gravel would ship by barge from the entire Mississippi basin. The max depth is quoted at 20 feet. The city was 80% flooded to an average depth of 6 feet I think. Is that more volume or less volume than the Hoover Dam? Yes this approach would require writing off the existing infrastructure in most of New Orleans (roads, sewers, utilities.) But it's often cheaper to start from scratch than it is to repair old infrastructure. From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Sep 6 00:37:18 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 19:37:18 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fill it in a pave it over In-Reply-To: <431CE197.7050000@cox.net> References: <20050901104237.GS2249@leitl.org> <4318D6A6.6000508@cox.net> <431CE197.7050000@cox.net> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050905193606.01db6a20@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 08:23 PM 9/5/2005 -0400, Dan C wrote: >What would the logistics be to just fill New Orleans in with gravel and >build on top? Get the level higher than the maximum level of Lake >Ponchartrain. Gravel would ship by barge from the entire Mississippi basin. Cf. David Brin's blog suggestions (sorry for the code tags): =============== On my "Modernism" blog http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/ we're discussing this. Here's an excerpt. How best to rebuild after a long-awaited disaster... part I Last time I wrote: What is the most practical and beneficial way to help the people and the great city of New Orleans? ... What should be done with a below-sea-level isthmus of soggy, termite-ridden ground that lies between a Gulf bay called Lake Pontchartrain and a river that's become its worst enemy? As at 9/11 Ground Zero, this needs some pondering of alternatives. And yet... how can we not rebuild a city that was so grand and wonderful and fun... . Well, first off, something must happen, and fast, for our fellow citizens. All of the displaced residents must receive generous help from their countrymen, to rebuild their lives and livelihoods. And to enter decent homes. To rebuild jobs and savings. Moreover, the cultural gift that was New Orleans should be saved for us all. And then? The city itself? Suggestion #1: Use the same zone to rebuild a smaller urban center. Certain parts of NoLA can be restored for historical cultural and tourist reasons. With new INTERNAL dike systems to protect what's rebuilt. Some other areas can be raised, as they did with Galveston after a similar disaster. But much could also be turned into low-lying parkland. As for the dispossessed, remake whole neighborhoods in more suitable areas above flood level. Do it well. Really well. So well that they'll be happy. Suggestion #2: Listen to Nature and accept her adamant plan. Read EARTH, where I describe how desperately the Mississippi wants to change its course. Every year, it strains harder against the Army Corps of Engineers' magnificent - but someday doomed - Achafalaya Control Dam. Look at a map and ponder. Is it possible that NOW may be the right time to let the river go? Think. There have always been benefits and drawbacks to this idea, with the political balance deciding to leave things as they were, spending hundreds of millions to keep forcing Ol' Miss down its old channel, which continues silting and rising. (Today, the river's BOTTOM now lies above the second floor of some NoLa buildings.) This obstinacy has had huge, expensive and destructive effects. For example, artificially lengthening the one official channel, hampering shipping and robbing the barrier islands and swamps of silt, until Louisiana's delta is almost gone... the old natural hurricane barrier that might have saved the city from Katrina. Benefits of opening the gates: a new, straight and fast channel to the Gulf - especially if it were prepared and then water-scoured - would require little in the way of ongoing dredging or levees. Carried swiftly to the Gulf, silt would spread wide, rebuilding wetlands and islands, recreating the natural storm barriers. After an adjustment period, river commerce should be more efficient. And finally, the prospect may partly be paid off by nongovernmental money, attracted to an entirely new rivermouth zone. Drawbacks: This would require finally buying out a chain of farms - and some villages - that have long known the river would someday come a-calling. Some will kick and scream while others will relish new riverfront views. But the real opposition has come from NoLa itself, which took pride and identity from being America's greatest River City. Only now it may be ready to accept a different role. Please, I am not offering this suggestion in order to kick New Orleans while it's down. Indeed, this may be a very good idea, helping make it possible to rebuild ALL of this great town... and more. For example, if the Mississipi moves away, NoLa will remain a GULF city, with Pontchartrain right next door. Its port could stay valuable, though much traffic would be diverted to new trans-shipment facilities at the new Achafalaya outlet. In any event, this would cut in HALF the number of dikes that New New Orleans will have to maintain. That savings, alone, might pay for the diversion. And picture this. Today's riverbed would then become this lovely raised plateau, winding through town. A perfect place to build view-rich housing for many of the displaced, so high that even a future break in the Ponchartrain dikes would never touch them. And the sogginess that rots every beam and timber... presumably that would decline, as well. Indeed, this may be the one way to ensure that even old neighborhoods can be rebuilt, without the nation worrying that it's all for nothing. Seriously, with a year's warning, the Achafalaya valley could be warned and a new path for the Mississippi prepared (the one it wants to take and WILL take, sooner or later). If done carefully, the new river will be healthier, better for commerce, and the whole region ecologically improved. What's more, it's probably much cheaper than any other plan, as well. The alternative? Spend billions restoring then maintaining an impossible situation... and keep chaining up an adamant river that pushes harder every year against the artificial bonds that enslave it to our shortsighted will... until the Dam eventually does give way, releasing ther Father of Waters to come sweeping down upon unprepared farms and villages... ...leaving NoLa high and dry anyway. . PS. Again here's my standard warning. Especially for any angry riverfolk. I am paid to be interesting. I am not paid to be right. From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Sep 6 00:56:31 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 17:56:31 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: References: <003201c5b1cd$d4fa1b60$5b893cd1@pavilion> <200509050640.j856eTw14347@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Sep 5, 2005, at 3:40 AM, Alfio Puglisi wrote: > On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Samantha Atkins wrote: > >> >> On Sep 5, 2005, at 1:34 AM, BillK wrote: >> >> >>> If you are not as smart. well-educated, healthy, fit and capable >>> as a >>> Lib then '**ck you, you're on your own'. >>> >> >> The strength of your argument stands alone. No further comment is >> needed. >> > > Actually, further comments are needed, because I often have the > same doubts as Bill. For example, how would cope someone with an IQ > of 80 or less and no education worth its name, when the available > grunt jobs are automated away, and his market value is less and > less? How can he afford a private health insurance? I myself have made the same argument. But an irrational attack on libertarians on the basis of a near complete straw man will not answer such questions, > > Charitable organizations would probably exists in a libertarian > environment like they exist in the current, mostly socialist one, > but relying on those for everything not profitable isn't a good > strategy. Long term the fix requires moving to an abundance economy not just economically but psycohologically and sociologicically as well. I don't know yet out to get there. But technically we should arrive at a world, at least post MNT, where it is trivial to supply everyone with the necessities of life at nearly no cost. Medical nanotech could conceivably make much of the health insurance question moot. There are possible technological and social solutions that are possible without big government or government violating the rights of the people. > > Pure libertarian free-market environments to my eyes resemble too > much an evolution-like "survival of the fittest" game, where you'll > do great if you are good (or better, if you have marketable skills/ > assets), and suffer a lot if you aren't. This has been exploded so many times that I haven't the patience to deal with it again. - samantha From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Sep 6 01:02:54 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 18:02:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Fill it in a pave it over In-Reply-To: <431CE197.7050000@cox.net> Message-ID: <20050906010255.5031.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dan Clemmensen wrote: > Yes this approach would require writing off the > existing > infrastructure in most of New Orleans (roads, sewers, utilities.) But > it's often cheaper to start from scratch than it is to repair old > infrastructure. Assuming you could buy out the entire city, or most of it. While the government may have the legal right to force the sales (see recent eminent domain cases), even the US federal government might have a hard time coming up with that much money (without giving many people so little that it could credibly be called far below fair value/market price). From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Sep 6 01:06:31 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 18:06:31 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: <005101c5b244$90592a10$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <003201c5b1cd$d4fa1b60$5b893cd1@pavilion> <200509050640.j856eTw14347@tick.javien.com> <005101c5b244$90592a10$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: Concrete is not poured by hand but by skilled machine operators. Roofers and hangers of siding are not considered grunt labor either. There are not "lots of such jobs" for everyone displaced. The continued insistence that there are and always will be is cruel and false. Also in many parts of the country it is increasingly difficult to survive on true grunt labor wages. You may like to think a lot of things are so as do I. But we can't just assume that what we would like to believe is true. - s On Sep 5, 2005, at 11:06 AM, kevinfreels.com wrote: > You are assuming a great leap forward on automation where robots > can roof > houses, pour concrete, and hang siding. There's lots of "grunt" > jobs out > there that will not be replaced for a long time. Of course, that > day will > come, but when it does, I would like to think we will also have the > ability > to "cure" such IQ problems with a cost small enough to justify > making the > person a productive member of society. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alfio Puglisi" > To: "ExI chat list" > Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 5:40 AM > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution > > > >> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Samantha Atkins wrote: >> >>> >>> On Sep 5, 2005, at 1:34 AM, BillK wrote: >>> >>> >>>> If you are not as smart. well-educated, healthy, fit and capable >>>> as a >>>> Lib then '**ck you, you're on your own'. >>>> >>> >>> The strength of your argument stands alone. No further comment is >>> > needed. > >> >> Actually, further comments are needed, because I often have the same >> doubts as Bill. For example, how would cope someone with an IQ of >> 80 or >> less and no education worth its name, when the available grunt >> jobs are >> automated away, and his market value is less and less? How can he >> afford >> a private health insurance? >> >> Charitable organizations would probably exists in a libertarian >> environment like they exist in the current, mostly socialist one, but >> relying on those for everything not profitable isn't a good strategy. >> >> Pure libertarian free-market environments to my eyes resemble too >> much an >> evolution-like "survival of the fittest" game, where you'll do >> great if >> you are good (or better, if you have marketable skills/assets), >> and suffer >> a lot if you aren't. >> >> Alfio >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Sep 6 02:01:07 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 11:31:07 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: <005101c5b244$90592a10$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <003201c5b1cd$d4fa1b60$5b893cd1@pavilion> <200509050640.j856eTw14347@tick.javien.com> <005101c5b244$90592a10$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <710b78fc050905190111007e86@mail.gmail.com> On 06/09/05, kevinfreels.com wrote: > You are assuming a great leap forward on automation where robots can roof > houses, pour concrete, and hang siding. There's lots of "grunt" jobs out > there that will not be replaced for a long time. Of course, that day will > come, but when it does, I would like to think we will also have the ability > to "cure" such IQ problems with a cost small enough to justify making the > person a productive member of society. This is a bit old, but check it out: http://www.discover.com/issues/apr-05/features/whole-house-machine/ "With a soft whir, the contour crafter's head lays down inch-high extrusions of viscous concrete, one atop another, as a pie-shaped trowel smooths the surface. The head moves at 5 inches per second, which would create a 2,000-square-foot house in 24 hours. " etc -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Sep 6 02:29:32 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 19:29:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050905123559.05a24150@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <200509060230.j862Uef26447@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of David Lubkin ... > > Gas prices have soared. > > The government response was (in part) to decry "price-gouging," and > encourage people to report "artificially inflated" gas prices at > http://gaswatch.energy.gov/ . -- David Lubkin. Artificially inflated? What is that, where prices are raised by an AI? I would argue: these prices are not artificially inflated. The human who runs the gas station did it. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Sep 6 02:34:51 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 19:34:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] labor day In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050905123559.05a24150@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <200509060243.j862hDf27522@tick.javien.com> In the states we have a holiday which we observed today called Labor Day. The term once meant jobs that required muscle: hoist and tote. Few of those exist any more. Our labor unions have been in decline for 40 years. Just this past year several of them have come apart, with breakaway subgroups, unions striking with no sympathetic strikes anywhere else, etc. I wonder what we will call Labor Day when most people get no closer to labor than the Jetsons. spike From neptune at superlink.net Tue Sep 6 02:46:40 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 22:46:40 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution References: <200509060230.j862Uef26447@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <007901c5b28d$35d7dfc0$5f893cd1@pavilion> On Monday, September 05, 2005 10:29 PM spike spike66 at comcast.net wrote: >> Gas prices have soared. >> >> The government response was (in part) to decry "price-gouging," and >> encourage people to report "artificially inflated" gas prices at >> http://gaswatch.energy.gov/ . -- David Lubkin. > > Artificially inflated? What is that, where prices are > raised by an AI? I would argue: these prices are > not artificially inflated. The human who runs the > gas station did it. I think it's better not to call prices "inflated." Prices rise or fall and usually not together. In this case, though, the important thing to ask is why did the human raise the price? It's not usually based on caprice -- and were it based on that, we'd expect to see people raising prices all the time for the heck of it. Regards, Dan From kevin at kevinfreels.com Tue Sep 6 02:57:55 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 21:57:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need References: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin><004201c5b244$02630050$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <004a01c5b28e$c83d2e00$0100a8c0@kevin> No. But they cost money. And I know we have given plenty to the UN and EU in the past. The fact is that this is going to cost a LOT and there's nothing wrong with calling on some people to return some favors. ----- Original Message ----- From: Dirk Bruere To: ExI chat list Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 1:14 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need On 9/5/05, kevinfreels.com wrote: I don;t know about that. The EU and NATO are always asking for our help. WHat's wrong with asking for them to return the favor? The fact that you shouldn't need it? Is there a big blanket shortage in the US? Out of water trucks? Dirk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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: From extropy at unreasonable.com Tue Sep 6 02:52:36 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:52:36 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: <200509060230.j862Uef26447@tick.javien.com> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20050905123559.05a24150@unreasonable.com> <200509060230.j862Uef26447@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050905224133.05510100@unreasonable.com> spike wrote: >Artificially inflated? What is that, where prices are >raised by an AI? I would argue: these prices are >not artificially inflated. The human who runs the >gas station did it. Not my expression. Still -- artifice: a clever trick or stratagem. Cunning; ingenuity; guile; craftiness. Although up here it doesn't seem very clever. Twenty feet after a gas station is another that's charging thirty cents a gallon more. A driver can see both stations' signs with sufficient time to choose the cheaper alternative. -- David. From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Sep 6 04:01:01 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 21:01:01 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: <007901c5b28d$35d7dfc0$5f893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <200509060401.j8640xf01832@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Technotranscendence ... > > I think it's better not to call prices "inflated." Prices rise or fall > and usually not together. In this case, though, the important thing to > ask is why did the human raise the price? ... In order to make more money. I expect every businesshuman to work towards maximizing profits. >... It's not usually based on > caprice -- and were it based on that, we'd expect to see people raising > prices all the time for the heck of it. > > Regards, > > Dan They would raise prices if they were not afraid of losing sales to competitors. The gas stations are speculating that they will sell every drop, even with inflated prices. I see no foul in that. I am always wary of any suggestion that excess profit is somehow unethical or unreasonable, unless there are actual lives at stake. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Sep 6 04:07:25 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 21:07:25 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050905224133.05510100@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <200509060407.j8647Of02511@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of David Lubkin > Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 7:53 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution > > spike wrote: > > >Artificially inflated? What is that, where prices are > >raised by an AI? ... > > artifice: a clever trick or stratagem. Cunning; ingenuity; guile; > craftiness. > > Although up here it doesn't seem very clever. Twenty feet after a gas > station is another that's charging thirty cents a gallon more. A > driver can see both stations' signs with sufficient time to choose > the cheaper alternative. > > > -- David They price raisers also run the risk of driving away clientele permanently. I saw this when a station went to 3 bucks a gallon the day the shock and awe campaign started. I was out of fuel and needed to buy some there, but fortunately I was on a motorcycle so I bought only half a gallon, drove twenty miles on that and filled up. The locals wouldn't buy gas there anymore. All pricing is a calculated risk. I don't criticize the business owner, I just take my trade elsewhere. Gasoline is not different than other consumables. spike From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 6 05:16:13 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 22:16:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: <200509060230.j862Uef26447@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050906051613.54830.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > The government response was (in part) to decry > "price-gouging," and > > encourage people to report "artificially inflated" > gas prices at > > http://gaswatch.energy.gov/ . -- David Lubkin. > > > Artificially inflated? What is that, where prices > are > raised by an AI? I would argue: these prices are > not artificially inflated. The human who runs the > gas station did it. Don't be silly, Spike. They mean artificial as opposed to natural. Naturally occuring gas stations always charge much less for gas. After all, no grizzly bear in its right mind would ever pay 3 bucks a gallon for regular. ;) 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 ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Sep 6 05:47:03 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 22:47:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Are dwarfs better forlongduration spaceflight?] In-Reply-To: <20050906002457.64049.qmail@web81608.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200509060547.j865l1f12971@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes > To: ExI chat list > Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Are dwarfs better > forlongduration spaceflight?] > ... > > Actually, considering how small a fraction makes up the crew and crew > support - the "payload" - of any manned space vehicle to date...yes, we > are talking about shaving close to the margin... Ja, ok I see now where is the disconnect. Assume the surface-landing manufacturing machinery is launched separately, sent on ahead. It can go with slow, highly efficient ion drives, all the tricky stuff, since it has no consumables. The hab module is in a hurry, so it will likely use chemical rockets on a Hohmann transfer orbit. All the astronaut does is to inject into Mars synchronous orbit for a couple years in order to guide the machine real time. The design exercise is now just the human hab module. In that scenario, I imagine the vehicle as a spherical shell about 4 times her height. The propulsion system scales with the mass of that shell, which scales as the cube of the diameter. The heating system scales approximately as the square of the diameter, since heat loss is a function of surface area. The antenna that sends signals to the surface of Mars and to Earth does not scale with the size of the orbit vehicle. The system needed to deal with waste processing scales linearly with the amount of food and water she devours. Given these things, try to determine what is the function of weight as a function of the astronaut's height. Assume a minimum crew, one person. I have pointed out the mass of the shell and the mass of the air inside scale as the cube, heater as the square, waste processing some unknown function and communications gear no scaling. Does the weight scale approximately as the 2.4 power of the height of the astronaut? How much? I kinda jumped into this assuming the participants were up on the previous, more detailed treatment we did on this about 4 or 5 yrs ago. We messed up this time by not defining the mission up front, so everyone was going on different initial assumptions. I think I have a scenario where one human could go to Mars orbit and return with a single heavy launch, plus another heavy launch to carry the landing machinery. That wouldn't break the bank. spike From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Sep 6 06:46:08 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 23:46:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Are dwarfs better forlongduration spaceflight?] In-Reply-To: <200509060547.j865l1f12971@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050906064608.92290.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > Actually, considering how small a fraction makes up the crew and > crew > > support - the "payload" - of any manned space vehicle to > date...yes, we > > are talking about shaving close to the margin... > > Ja, ok I see now where is the disconnect. Assume the > surface-landing manufacturing machinery is launched > separately, sent on ahead. It can go with slow, highly > efficient ion drives, all the tricky stuff, since it > has no consumables. The hab module is in a hurry, so > it will likely use chemical rockets on a Hohmann > transfer orbit. Doesn't help enough. Even if we're just talking a one-person spacecraft to Mars and back, the constant thrust of a nuclear rocket would beat out the higher ISP but lower total thrust of chemical rockets. > The design exercise is now just the human > hab module. In that scenario, I imagine the > vehicle as a spherical shell about 4 times her height. > The propulsion system scales with the mass of that shell, > which scales as the cube of the diameter. The scaling factor of different propulsion systems trumps the difference in crew dimensions. For example: calculate how much rocket you would need to make the trip in a few months (one way) on hydrazine. Then calculate how much you would need for nuclear propulsion. But you're still missing the non-physics objection: the economics and practicality of finding and training that one perfect (by your guidelines) person, not to mention the cost of specializing habitat manufacture (which would ordinarily be partially borne by other missions hoping to send their own people up, but could not because your habitat rules out the people they wish to send), would seem to impose costs that at first would grossly outweigh the savings you'd gain by slightly reducing the mass. Physics is not the only determiner of economics, but economics is quite often the determiner of whether you can or can not pull off a project of this nature. Remember: *practical* optimism! ;) From pharos at gmail.com Tue Sep 6 07:11:44 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 08:11:44 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fill it in a pave it over In-Reply-To: <20050906010255.5031.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> References: <431CE197.7050000@cox.net> <20050906010255.5031.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/6/05, Adrian Tymes wrote: > Assuming you could buy out the entire city, or most of it. While the > government may have the legal right to force the sales (see recent > eminent domain cases), even the US federal government might have a hard > time coming up with that much money (without giving many people so > little that it could credibly be called far below fair value/market > price). > What's fair market value for land under six foot of water? The other factor that I haven't seen mentioned is that so far the discussions assume that Nature is going to play fair. That could very well not happen. There is no rule that says natural disasters must happen five or ten years apart. There will be more hurricanes this season and more again in following years. NO could well be hit again soon, maybe with a cat 5 this time. Or Florida might be hit as well. San Francisco and LA could be hit by a bigger than usual quake, Mount St. Helens is still rumbling and might blow again, or the Yellowstone volcano might blow. There might be a string of floods, tornadoes or other disasters that would leave little available to rebuild NO. Since 9/11 FEMA has been made part of Dept of Homeland Security and only spends about 25% of what it used to on disaster planning and recovery. As more people are now living in places 'in the way of harm' the US probably needs a permanent disaster recovery army which moves on from one site to the next. BillK From megao at sasktel.net Tue Sep 6 06:52:50 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 01:52:50 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] fill it in pave it over..... In-Reply-To: <431CE197.7050000@cox.net> References: <20050901104237.GS2249@leitl.org> <4318D6A6.6000508@cox.net> <431CE197.7050000@cox.net> Message-ID: <431D3CC2.90403@sasktel.net> We were talking about this tonight and I said that there should be zoning to only allow large structures that could withstand flooding, wind and other natural catastrophes No single family residential housing, put retail space on the ground floors. Redesign the entire city from scratch. This would be the opportunity to build a 21st century city. Some parts of the city will be suited to become a memorial/museum but most would have to be a piece of history. I am speaking out of some ignorance never being there in person and not having nostalgic or emotional ties to the cultural aspects either. From eugen at leitl.org Tue Sep 6 10:01:28 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 12:01:28 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Are dwarfs better forlongduration spaceflight?] In-Reply-To: <20050906064608.92290.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> References: <200509060547.j865l1f12971@tick.javien.com> <20050906064608.92290.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050906100128.GR2249@leitl.org> On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 11:46:08PM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote: > Doesn't help enough. Even if we're just talking a one-person > spacecraft to Mars and back, the constant thrust of a nuclear rocket > would beat out the higher ISP but lower total thrust of chemical > rockets. Nuclear power in space is a very hard sell politically. The technology doesn't exist yet in the first place, and needs to be developed and tested. It would be probably easier to put the reactor on a long boom, with some staggered shields for the crew module. Some water interim would shield, too. Nuke-powered ion/plasma drive would be probably an optimal combination even for manned flight. It would be easier to assemble and fuel up the craft in orbit, and go chemical all the way, with a minimum-mass crew module (with robots sent ahead preparing the habitat, and the fuel still) by remote control. > The scaling factor of different propulsion systems trumps the > difference in crew dimensions. For example: calculate how much rocket > you would need to make the trip in a few months (one way) on hydrazine. What is wrong with using cryogenic fuel, e.g. methane/oxygen? > Then calculate how much you would need for nuclear propulsion. > > But you're still missing the non-physics objection: the economics and > practicality of finding and training that one perfect (by your > guidelines) person, not to mention the cost of specializing habitat > manufacture (which would ordinarily be partially borne by other > missions hoping to send their own people up, but could not because your > habitat rules out the people they wish to send), would seem to impose > costs that at first would grossly outweigh the savings you'd gain by > slightly reducing the mass. Physics is not the only determiner of > economics, but economics is quite often the determiner of whether you > can or can not pull off a project of this nature. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Tue Sep 6 10:42:47 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 06:42:47 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: <200509060407.j8647Of02511@tick.javien.com> References: <200509060407.j8647Of02511@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, spike wrote: > > > They price raisers also run the risk of driving > away clientele permanently. I saw this when a > station went to 3 bucks a gallon the day the > shock and awe campaign started. I was out of > fuel and needed to buy some there, but fortunately > I was on a motorcycle so I bought only half a > gallon, drove twenty miles on that and filled > up. The locals wouldn't buy gas there anymore. > Ha! We have that here - one station went up $1 more than all the others. I heard over and over from local folks that *those* people had lost their business - one even told the person at the station. > All pricing is a calculated risk. I don't criticize > the business owner, I just take my trade elsewhere. > Gasoline is not different than other consumables. > I'm never quite sure how much it is the owner - it may be the oil company prices were different? Say, Exxon charges the station more than Chevron does, so the prices at the pump are quite different? No matter, the place that went so high was next to the interstate - and a national brand - it will catch the tourists. Fine. Let them have the tourists. The locals, year-in year-out regulars, the bread-and-butter of any business, will go elsewhere. :) Regards, MB From eugen at leitl.org Tue Sep 6 10:41:12 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 12:41:12 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution In-Reply-To: <200509060401.j8640xf01832@tick.javien.com> References: <007901c5b28d$35d7dfc0$5f893cd1@pavilion> <200509060401.j8640xf01832@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050906104112.GV2249@leitl.org> On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 09:01:01PM -0700, spike wrote: > They would raise prices if they were not afraid of > losing sales to competitors. The gas stations are They won't lose sales if the competition doesn't do the same. Mandatory algorithms used by station operators (not owners) compute their prices to adapt to their competitors. The delay is usually a day, or less. Most people cannot skip refuelling, and most won't go broke over the increase, so they keep buying. > speculating that they will sell every drop, even > with inflated prices. I see no foul in that. I Do you think monopolies are good for customer? The market has an intrinsic drive to favour monopolies. > am always wary of any suggestion that excess profit > is somehow unethical or unreasonable, unless there > are actual lives at stake. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From maxm at mail.tele.dk Tue Sep 6 10:53:32 2005 From: maxm at mail.tele.dk (Max M) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:53:32 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need In-Reply-To: References: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> <004201c5b244$02630050$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <431D752C.5050306@mail.tele.dk> Dirk Bruere wrote: >On 9/5/05, kevinfreels.com >wrote: > > >>I don;t know about that. The EU and NATO are always asking for our help. >>WHat's wrong with asking for them to return the favor? >> >> >> > >The fact that you shouldn't need it? >Is there a big blanket shortage in the US? >Out of water trucks? > From what I could see, you did need help. But it might be better to let the victims die for the pride? Getting help in an emergency is not a shame. For every country to have all the resources to cover any disaster is a waste of resources. In international rapid response force makes far more sense. -- hilsen/regards Max M, Denmark http://www.mxm.dk/ IT's Mad Science From neptune at superlink.net Tue Sep 6 11:20:24 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 07:20:24 -0400 Subject: FEMA/was Re: [extropy-chat] Fill it in a pave it over References: <431CE197.7050000@cox.net><20050906010255.5031.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004001c5b2d4$fa966ba0$48893cd1@pavilion> On Tuesday, September 06, 2005 3:11 AM BillK pharos at gmail.com wrote: > Since 9/11 FEMA has been made part of Dept > of Homeland Security and only spends about > 25% of what it used to on disaster planning and > recovery. FEMA is part of the problem. Here's a blast from the past on them: http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=213&sortorder=articledate and, especially, here: http://www.mises.org/story/227 > As more people are now living in places 'in the > way of harm' the US probably needs a permanent > disaster recovery army which moves on from one > site to the next. Part of the reason this is so is because the costs of living in these places have been made artificially low by government intervention. Creating a "disaster recovery army" will only increase such incentives. Regards, Dan http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Sep 6 12:22:43 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 05:22:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Are dwarfs better forlongduration spaceflight?] In-Reply-To: <20050906064608.92290.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050906122243.40052.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- spike wrote: > > > Actually, considering how small a fraction makes up the crew and > > crew > > > support - the "payload" - of any manned space vehicle to > > date...yes, we > > > are talking about shaving close to the margin... > > > > Ja, ok I see now where is the disconnect. Assume the > > surface-landing manufacturing machinery is launched > > separately, sent on ahead. It can go with slow, highly > > efficient ion drives, all the tricky stuff, since it > > has no consumables. The hab module is in a hurry, so > > it will likely use chemical rockets on a Hohmann > > transfer orbit. > > Doesn't help enough. Even if we're just talking a one-person > spacecraft to Mars and back, the constant thrust of a nuclear rocket > would beat out the higher ISP but lower total thrust of chemical > rockets. You are backwards here. Chem doesn't have higher Isp, it has lower. LH2/LOX is typically 400-450 sec, nuke is typically 600-800 sec, ion/plasma ranges from 1500 to 10000 sec. Nor would a nuclear rocket have constant thrust the whole trip, they'd thrust for the first couple weeks or less of the trip, then thrust again at orbital insertion. Only with Ion would constant thrusting be used. > > > The design exercise is now just the human > > hab module. In that scenario, I imagine the > > vehicle as a spherical shell about 4 times her height. > > The propulsion system scales with the mass of that shell, > > which scales as the cube of the diameter. > > The scaling factor of different propulsion systems trumps the > difference in crew dimensions. For example: calculate how much > rocket you would need to make the trip in a few months (one way) on > hydrazine. > Then calculate how much you would need for nuclear propulsion. And how long each takes will tell you how much supplies, oxygen, etc you need. You trade off hab space for fuel bulk or vice versa one way or the other. > > But you're still missing the non-physics objection: the economics and > practicality of finding and training that one perfect (by your > guidelines) person, not to mention the cost of specializing habitat > manufacture (which would ordinarily be partially borne by other > missions hoping to send their own people up, but could not because > your > habitat rules out the people they wish to send), would seem to impose > costs that at first would grossly outweigh the savings you'd gain by > slightly reducing the mass. Physics is not the only determiner of > economics, but economics is quite often the determiner of whether you > can or can not pull off a project of this nature. Astronaut selection and training is ALREADY this way: they seek perfect physical specimins with the requisite education and training. Spike is looking for a specific type of *imperfect* specimin. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From giogavir at yahoo.it Tue Sep 6 12:30:07 2005 From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 14:30:07 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:katrina opportunity In-Reply-To: <004001c5b2d4$fa966ba0$48893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <20050906123007.80645.qmail@web26207.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> the recent new orleans disaster must be considered as an alrm bell of things to come during this century. natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, mudslides , fires, and others re becoming more frequent nd more dsmaging. Katrina , beyond the tragedy and loss of people's life, is giving us the big opportunity to rethink and rebuild human habitas, cities and all other buildings, must be designed and built with new concepts that will allow: -independence from land situation and changes (ie at a controlled height) -completely connected by transportation networks utilizing energy locally generated from renewable and clean sources -multistory structures for separate activities in controlled environmental conditions -maximum respect for the natural ecosystem with conservation of natural landscape nd animal life -optimizing human activities with minimum space utilization, waste recycling, energy conservation concepts the cities of the future design concepts, must be addressed today. Let's not forget that our cities reflect the after the cave technology for human beings, they need a complete replanning and consideration to be in sinthony wity the new human and technological requiremets since roman times nothing has really changed in city planning and architecture Is about time that also this sector is addressed with the new attitude that has allowed the advances in biotechnology, information and communication systems. the rebuilding of new orleans , while necessary and urgent, should be an opportunity to rethink our citie and our relationship wit the environment, utilizing new technologies, new concep. You would not dressed like an ancient roman, why are you still living in a similar habitat?ts and new approaches let not waste it --- Technotranscendence ha scritto: > On Tuesday, September 06, 2005 3:11 AM BillK > pharos at gmail.com wrote: > > Since 9/11 FEMA has been made part of Dept > > of Homeland Security and only spends about > > 25% of what it used to on disaster planning and > > recovery. > > FEMA is part of the problem. Here's a blast from > the past on them: > > http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=213&sortorder=articledate > > and, especially, here: > > http://www.mises.org/story/227 > > > As more people are now living in places 'in the > > way of harm' the US probably needs a permanent > > disaster recovery army which moves on from one > > site to the next. > > Part of the reason this is so is because the costs > of living in these > places have been made artificially low by government > intervention. > Creating a "disaster recovery army" will only > increase such incentives. > > Regards, > > Dan > http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > ___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it From pharos at gmail.com Tue Sep 6 12:54:04 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 13:54:04 +0100 Subject: FEMA/was Re: [extropy-chat] Fill it in a pave it over In-Reply-To: <004001c5b2d4$fa966ba0$48893cd1@pavilion> References: <431CE197.7050000@cox.net> <20050906010255.5031.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> <004001c5b2d4$fa966ba0$48893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: On 9/6/05, Technotranscendence wrote: > FEMA is part of the problem. Here's a blast from the past on them: > http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=213&sortorder=articledate > > and, especially, here: > http://www.mises.org/story/227 > > Part of the reason this is so is because the costs of living in these > places have been made artificially low by government intervention. > Creating a "disaster recovery army" will only increase such incentives. > Mises have the luxury of being able to criticize everything as they don't actually have to do the job. As all opposition parties well know. The vote-catching slogans soon change if they get voted into power. I am no great supporter of FEMA, but they do seem to have been virtually crippled by Bush since 9/11. (An action mises would presumably have supported??). See: September 5, 2005 KATRINA'S AFTERMATH Why FEMA Was Missing in Action # Most of the agency's preparedness budget and focus are related to terrorism, not disasters. The Federal Emergency Management Agency once speedily delivered food, water, shelter and medical care to disaster areas, and paid to quickly rebuild damaged roads and schools and get businesses and people back on their feet. Like a commercial insurance firm setting safety standards to prevent future problems, it also underwrote efforts to get cities and states to reduce risks ahead of time and plan for what they would do if calamity struck. But in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, FEMA lost its Cabinet-level status as it was folded into the giant new Department of Homeland Security. And in recent years it has suffered budget cuts, the elimination or reduction of key programs and an exodus of experienced staffers. etc...... BillK From megao at sasktel.net Tue Sep 6 15:48:40 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 10:48:40 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] katrina opportunity Message-ID: <431DBA58.1060105@sasktel.net> Maybe this would be a consulting opportunity. There might be a similar rebuilding grand scheme similar to 9-11 to come out of all this. If the USA wants to build a model city from scratch in a location that historically supported a city this would be a golden opportunity. If there are 280 square miles of affected city that is way past a Donald Trump development scale and a global mega-city potential and it is able to start from a clean slate. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:katrina opportunity Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 14:30:07 +0200 (CEST) From: giorgio gaviraghi Reply-To: ExI chat list To: ExI chat list the recent new orleans disaster must be considered as an alrm bell of things to come during this century. natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, mudslides , fires, and others re becoming more frequent nd more dsmaging. Katrina , beyond the tragedy and loss of people's life, is giving us the big opportunity to rethink and rebuild human habitas, cities and all other buildings, must be designed and built with new concepts that will allow: -independence from land situation and changes (ie at a controlled height) -completely connected by transportation networks utilizing energy locally generated from renewable and clean sources -multistory structures for separate activities in controlled environmental conditions -maximum respect for the natural ecosystem with conservation of natural landscape nd animal life -optimizing human activities with minimum space utilization, waste recycling, energy conservation concepts the cities of the future design concepts, must be addressed today. Let's not forget that our cities reflect the after the cave technology for human beings, they need a complete replanning and consideration to be in sinthony wity the new human and technological requiremets since roman times nothing has really changed in city planning and architecture Is about time that also this sector is addressed with the new attitude that has allowed the advances in biotechnology, information and communication systems. the rebuilding of new orleans , while necessary and urgent, should be an opportunity to rethink our citie and our relationship wit the environment, utilizing new technologies, new concep. You would not dressed like an ancient roman, why are you still living in a similar habitat?ts and new approaches let not waste it --- Technotranscendence ha scritto: > On Tuesday, September 06, 2005 3:11 AM BillK > pharos at gmail.com wrote: > > Since 9/11 FEMA has been made part of Dept > > of Homeland Security and only spends about > > 25% of what it used to on disaster planning and > > recovery. > > FEMA is part of the problem. Here's a blast from > the past on them: > > http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=213&sortorder=articledate > > and, especially, here: > > http://www.mises.org/story/227 > > > As more people are now living in places 'in the > > way of harm' the US probably needs a permanent > > disaster recovery army which moves on from one > > site to the next. > > Part of the reason this is so is because the costs > of living in these > places have been made artificially low by government > intervention. > Creating a "disaster recovery army" will only > increase such incentives. > > Regards, > > Dan > http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/ > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.3 - Release Date: 4/25/05 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giogavir at yahoo.it Tue Sep 6 17:45:15 2005 From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 19:45:15 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] katrina opportunity In-Reply-To: <431DBA58.1060105@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <20050906174515.67178.qmail@web26207.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> the opportunity is more historical and of major magnitude than the 9\11 there it was only a few blocks here we may have a new global city with advanced design, technology and environmental related concepts that could be built and bring wealth as well as renovation to an entire region I hope that this opportunity don't get wasted with quick and non planned fixes, but the problem , while addressed urgently, can follow a long range step by step plan that can take care of most issues. An international ideas competition could be the beginning --- "Lifespan Pharma Inc." ha scritto: > Maybe this would be a consulting opportunity. > There might be a similar rebuilding grand scheme > similar to 9-11 to come > out of all this. > If the USA wants to build a model city from scratch > in a location that > historically supported a city > this would be a golden opportunity. > > If there are 280 square miles of affected city that > is way past a Donald > Trump development scale > and a global mega-city potential and it is able to > start from a clean slate. > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:katrina opportunity > Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 14:30:07 +0200 (CEST) > From: giorgio gaviraghi > Reply-To: ExI chat list > > To: ExI chat list > > > > the recent new orleans disaster must be considered > as > an alrm bell of things to come during this century. > natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, > tsunamis, earthquakes, mudslides , fires, and others > re becoming more frequent nd more dsmaging. > Katrina , beyond the tragedy and loss of people's > life, is giving us the big opportunity to rethink > and > rebuild human habitas, cities and all other > buildings, > must be designed and built with new concepts that > will > allow: > -independence from land situation and changes (ie at > a > controlled height) > -completely connected by transportation networks > utilizing energy locally generated from renewable > and > clean sources > -multistory structures for separate activities > in controlled environmental conditions > -maximum respect for the natural ecosystem with > conservation of natural landscape nd animal life > -optimizing human activities with minimum space > utilization, waste recycling, energy conservation > concepts > the cities of the future design concepts, must be > addressed today. > Let's not forget that our cities reflect the after > the cave technology for human beings, they need a > complete replanning and consideration to be in > sinthony wity the new human and technological > requiremets > since roman times nothing has really changed in city > planning and architecture > Is about time that also this sector is addressed > with > the new attitude that has allowed the advances in > biotechnology, information and communication > systems. > the rebuilding of new orleans , while necessary and > urgent, should be an opportunity to rethink our > citie > and our relationship wit the environment, utilizing > new technologies, new concep. > You would not dressed like an ancient roman, why > are > you still living in a similar habitat?ts and new > approaches > let not waste it > --- Technotranscendence ha > scritto: > > > On Tuesday, September 06, 2005 3:11 AM BillK > > pharos at gmail.com wrote: > > > Since 9/11 FEMA has been made part of Dept > > > of Homeland Security and only spends about > > > 25% of what it used to on disaster planning and > > > recovery. > > > > FEMA is part of the problem. Here's a blast from > > the past on them: > > > > > http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=213&sortorder=articledate > > > > and, especially, here: > > > > http://www.mises.org/story/227 > > > > > As more people are now living in places 'in the > > > way of harm' the US probably needs a permanent > > > disaster recovery army which moves on from one > > > site to the next. > > > > Part of the reason this is so is because the costs > > of living in these > > places have been made artificially low by > government > > intervention. > > Creating a "disaster recovery army" will only > > increase such incentives. > > > > Regards, > > > > Dan > > http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > -- > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.3 - > Release Date: 4/25/05 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > ___________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger: chiamate gratuite in tutto il mondo http://it.beta.messenger.yahoo.com From ml at gondwanaland.com Tue Sep 6 18:01:42 2005 From: ml at gondwanaland.com (Mike Linksvayer) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 14:01:42 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> Message-ID: <20050906180142.GC39652@or.pair.com> On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 07:56:21PM -0700, "Hal Finney" wrote: > Probably the biggest question mark > is the state of the Saudi Arabian oil fields. [...] > The Peak Oil > situation is highly sensitive to what happens in the Chinese economy the > next few years. [...] > Of course the further out we go, the more the chances > that some kind of wild card will appear, a new technology or some such, > that could change the nature of the situation we face. Nice summary of three big unknowns. I suspect that radical peak oilers will claim that the first two don't really matter, as they only change the date of the doomsday scenario, and the third is irrelevant, as technology can't save us, can't make up for the depletion of our free energy endowment built up over billions of years, and wouldn't be allowed by the oil company conspiracy anyway. It will be interesting to see if and how quickly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-conventional_oil sources ramp up (an interesting idea future claim might be whether each of these produce some level of oil-barrel-equivalent output by some year) and how quickly hybrid and other drastic oil-conserving technologies are deployed (another interesting claim may be something about % of new cars sold in some year that use one of these). However, the reason I'm writing here is this: > If Peak Oil were widely seen as a likely scenario in that time frame, > we would see increasing oil prices out in the 2008 to 2011 time frame. > For technical reasons, these markets tend not to have large price > differentials across the delivery years (basically because it is easy to > move oil deliveries backwards and forwards in time), so we would expect > high future prices to drag up present-day prices. This is actually > one of the great services of commodity markets, that they make the > high prices of future shortages felt in the present day, encouraging > conservation and searches for alternatives well in advance of an actual > supply/demand mismatch. I'm not sure I understand how deliveries are moved backwards and forwards and how this affects present day prices. Put another way, if futures markets have a levelling effect on prices over time, I don't grok the mechanism. Anyone have a brief explanation or pointer to a non-brief explanation? My guess is that a change in future prices changes the expected return on holding on to current deliveries and selling at a later date, increasing or decreasing current supply if future prices are lower or higher than current prices respectively. -- Mike Linksvayer http://gondwanaland.com/ml/ From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Sep 6 18:09:32 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 13:09:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] John Cramer on dark energy stars Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050906130909.01cad318@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://www.analogsf.com/0510/altview.shtml From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Tue Sep 6 20:03:42 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 16:03:42 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] TV: "Fantastic Plastic: A Future Near Your" Message-ID: <380-2200592620342609@M2W110.mail2web.com> The "Back to the Future" script offered one key word to remember - "Plastics." Today plastics is getting a makeover. It's new applications are entering the industry of body replacement parts, as well as other futuristic transhuman applications. "Fantastic Plastic: A Future Near Your" aired yesterday on National Geographics TV progam. I highly recommend watching this program later this month. (It also airs in October.) Here is a short blurb: "Plastics were once considered cheap and tacky, but these magic molecules are now pushing back the boundaries of science to reveal amazing possibilities few could have imagined. From aviation to military warfare and medicine to space exploration, these extraordinary synthetic materials are playing an ever-increasing role in shaping our future. But what does the remarkable world of plastics have in store for us? Find out when Fantastic Plastic investigates the potential new territories waiting to be explore" Air dates: Monday, September 26, 9:00A Monday, October 24, 9:00A Natasha Vita-More -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Sep 6 21:23:24 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 14:23:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: FEMA/was Re: [extropy-chat] Fill it in a pave it over In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050906212324.96018.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> One thing to consider is that FEMA has been successfully dealing with a large number of hurricanes in other parts of the country all year. Why is it that the one that hits NOLA is blamed on FEMA? Might as well blame it on HAARP, as some of the bunkertarian black helicopter nutters are doing. --- BillK wrote: > On 9/6/05, Technotranscendence wrote: > > FEMA is part of the problem. Here's a blast from the past on them: > > > http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=213&sortorder=articledate > > > > and, especially, here: > > http://www.mises.org/story/227 > > > > Part of the reason this is so is because the costs of living in > these > > places have been made artificially low by government intervention. > > Creating a "disaster recovery army" will only increase such > incentives. > > > > Mises have the luxury of being able to criticize everything as they > don't actually have to do the job. As all opposition parties well > know. The vote-catching slogans soon change if they get voted into > power. > > I am no great supporter of FEMA, but they do seem to have been > virtually crippled by Bush since 9/11. (An action mises would > presumably have supported??). > > See: > > > September 5, 2005 > KATRINA'S AFTERMATH > Why FEMA Was Missing in Action > # Most of the agency's preparedness budget and focus are related to > terrorism, not disasters. > > The Federal Emergency Management Agency once speedily delivered food, > water, shelter and medical care to disaster areas, and paid to > quickly > rebuild damaged roads and schools and get businesses and people back > on their feet. Like a commercial insurance firm setting safety > standards to prevent future problems, it also underwrote efforts to > get cities and states to reduce risks ahead of time and plan for what > they would do if calamity struck. > > But in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, FEMA lost its > Cabinet-level status as it was folded into the giant new Department > of > Homeland Security. And in recent years it has suffered budget cuts, > the elimination or reduction of key programs and an exodus of > experienced staffers. > > etc...... > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Sep 6 21:27:23 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 14:27:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Are dwarfs better forlongduration spaceflight?] In-Reply-To: <20050906100128.GR2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20050906212724.1028.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > Nuclear power in space is a very hard sell politically. Not as hard as selling a dwarf-only mission. > The technology doesn't exist yet in the first place, and needs > to be developed and tested. Development and testing are needed, but it does exist. Then again, dev & test are needed for this mission anyway: there does not presently exist a rocket capable of sustaining one human life, even a dwarf's, while going to Mars and returning under its own power. > Nuke-powered ion/plasma drive would be probably an optimal > combination even for manned flight. It would be easier to > assemble and fuel up the craft in orbit, and go chemical > all the way, with a minimum-mass crew module (with robots > sent ahead preparing the habitat, and the fuel still) by > remote control. Easier in some respects, harder in others. The more money and resources a project requires, the harder it inherently is: you have to spend effort to gain said money and resources. I suspect this may be part of what you overlooked. > > The scaling factor of different propulsion systems trumps the > > difference in crew dimensions. For example: calculate how much > rocket > > you would need to make the trip in a few months (one way) on > hydrazine. > > What is wrong with using cryogenic fuel, e.g. methane/oxygen? *shrugs* Nothing, for the sake of this discussion. Just pick a fuel so you can work the numbers. Nuclear/ion propulsion beats any chemcal fuel by a sufficiently large margin that focusing the finite dev/test resources on that, rather than spending effort on minimizing the crew (and taking the resulting benefits), will achieve optimal payoffs. (Remember, any mission always has a finite budget. Some potentially marginally beneficial ideas almost always have to tossed to the side in order to focus on the best paying off ideas. The marginal and very mission-specific payoffs from the dwarf proposal would seem to be an example of this.) From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Sep 6 21:32:08 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 14:32:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Fill it in a pave it over In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050906213208.2398.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> --- BillK wrote: > On 9/6/05, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > Assuming you could buy out the entire city, or most of it. While > the > > government may have the legal right to force the sales (see recent > > eminent domain cases), even the US federal government might have a > hard > > time coming up with that much money (without giving many people so > > little that it could credibly be called far below fair value/market > > price). > > What's fair market value for land under six foot of water? Potentially pretty good, if there's a general assumption that the water will soon be pumped out - which does exist, and I don't think it can be shaken unless the levees collapse much furthre, beyond all hope of repair. > There will be more hurricanes this season and more again in following > years. NO could well be hit again soon, maybe with a cat 5 this time. It would probably take something along those lines to do it. Which means that cloud (no pun intended) would have a definite silver lining. From hal at finney.org Tue Sep 6 20:42:34 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 13:42:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? Message-ID: <20050906204234.BEAE657EF5@finney.org> Mike Linksvayer writes: > I'm not sure I understand how deliveries are moved backwards and > forwards and how this affects present day prices. Put another way, > if futures markets have a levelling effect on prices over time, I > don't grok the mechanism. Anyone have a brief explanation or pointer > to a non-brief explanation? My guess is that a change in future > prices changes the expected return on holding on to current deliveries > and selling at a later date, increasing or decreasing current supply > if future prices are lower or higher than current prices respectively. Econbrowser has an explanation of the effect at http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/06/contango_backwa_1.html which may help. Briefly, if prices for future delivery are much higher than the present day, you could buy oil today on the spot market and store it, locking in the future price by selling a futures contract. That would increase today's prices (by increasing demand) and moderate future prices (by increasing selling pressure in the futures market). In the other direction, if people thought the future value of a commodity was going to be much less than today, purchasers would postpone consumption and use temporary substitutes while waiting for prices to go down. Meanwhile there are always people who hold stores of oil to deal with temporary changes in demand, and these would be drawn down as well to protect against future price drops. All these tend to drive down prices in the present. The first effect is stronger and is more relevant for evaluating the Peak Oil scenario. As described in this and the other Econbrowser postings I pointed to, an expectation of future high prices would drive up today's prices. And that's exactly what you would hope to happen, as it would cushion the impact of a future shortage, get people to start conserving ahead of time, and encourage investment in alternatives. The bottom line is that for a storable commodity like oil, price is not just a function of present-day supply and demand. Rather, the market extrapolates future supply and demand, and those effects show up in present day prices. It's a clever system, and the fact that it happens automatically is always amazing to me. Hal From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Sep 6 21:38:28 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 14:38:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] PEAK OIL: Alternate laptop fuel for you buffalo tech-nomads....(Spike, this means you) Message-ID: <20050906213828.13208.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://blogs.siliconvalley.com/gmsv/2005/09/it_might_not_be.html >From GOOD MORNING SILICON VALLEY: "Next generation laptop features slot-loading cow-pie tray: It might not be the most aromatic of approaches, but scientists at Ohio State University say the cow manure fuel cell they've developed proves there are ways to generate renewable electricity that are both cheap and plentiful. Apparently, some of the microorganisms found in cow dung are quite proficient at generating electricity while they break down the cellulose that forms a large portion of the cow's diet. Throw some cow dung in a makeshift fuel cell and presto: electricity. Not a lot, mind you, but something. "The students put a few of these cells together and were able to fuel their rechargeable batteries over and over again," researcher Ann Christy explained. "We've run some of these trials well over 30 days without a decrease in the voltage output. The study suggests that cow waste is a promising fuel source. It's cheap and plentiful, and it may someday be a useful source of sustainable energy in developing parts of the world." http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/050901_cow_battery.html Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Tue Sep 6 21:55:14 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 22:55:14 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] PEAK OIL: Alternate laptop fuel for you buffalo tech-nomads....(Spike, this means you) In-Reply-To: <20050906213828.13208.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050906213828.13208.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/6/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > http://blogs.siliconvalley.com/gmsv/2005/09/it_might_not_be.html > > >From GOOD MORNING SILICON VALLEY: > "Next generation laptop features slot-loading cow-pie tray: It might > not be the most aromatic of approaches, but scientists at Ohio State > University say the cow manure fuel cell they've developed proves there > are ways to generate renewable electricity that are both cheap and > plentiful. Apparently, some of the microorganisms found in cow dung are > quite proficient at generating electricity while they break down the > cellulose that forms a large portion of the cow's diet. Throw some cow > dung in a makeshift fuel cell and presto: electricity. Not a lot, mind > you, but something. "The students put a few of these cells together and > were able to fuel their rechargeable batteries over and over again," > researcher Ann Christy explained. "We've run some of these trials well > over 30 days without a decrease in the voltage output. The study > suggests that cow waste is a promising fuel source. It's cheap and > plentiful, and it may someday be a useful source of sustainable energy > in developing parts of the world." > http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/050901_cow_battery.html > > Brings back memories. I tried to do that when I was a kid following exactly the same 'breakthrough'. That was 40yrs ago. There's certainly money to be made in recycling... Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Sep 6 22:12:27 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 23:12:27 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] PEAK OIL: Alternate laptop fuel for you buffalo tech-nomads....(Spike, this means you) In-Reply-To: <20050906213828.13208.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050906213828.13208.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/6/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > "The students put a few of these cells together and > were able to fuel their rechargeable batteries over and over again," > researcher Ann Christy explained. "We've run some of these trials well > over 30 days without a decrease in the voltage output. The study > suggests that cow waste is a promising fuel source. It's cheap and > plentiful, and it may someday be a useful source of sustainable energy > in developing parts of the world." Peter Ash of Lawford, Somerset invented a hamster-powered mobile phone charger, as part of his GCSE science project. The boy attached a generator to his pet's exercise wheel and connected it to his phone charger. While Elvis the hamster does the legwork, Peter charges his phone according to all environmental and economical laws. "I thought the wheel could be made to do something useful so I connected a system of gears and a turbine", Peter said. "Every two minutes Elvis spends on his wheel gives me about thirty minutes talk time on my phone", he proudly explained. BillK From kevin at kevinfreels.com Tue Sep 6 23:23:17 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:23:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need References: <001f01c5af5d$f72f78f0$0100a8c0@kevin> <004201c5b244$02630050$0100a8c0@kevin> <431D752C.5050306@mail.tele.dk> Message-ID: <04c501c5b339$f6c96a30$0100a8c0@kevin> Yes! THUNDERBIRDS ARE GO!!!!!! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Max M" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 5:53 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Getting AId to people in need > Dirk Bruere wrote: > > >On 9/5/05, kevinfreels.com > >wrote: > > > > > >>I don;t know about that. The EU and NATO are always asking for our help. > >>WHat's wrong with asking for them to return the favor? > >> > >> > >> > > > >The fact that you shouldn't need it? > >Is there a big blanket shortage in the US? > >Out of water trucks? > > > > From what I could see, you did need help. But it might be better to let > the victims die for the pride? > > Getting help in an emergency is not a shame. > > For every country to have all the resources to cover any disaster is a > waste of resources. In international rapid response force makes far more > sense. > > -- > > 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 > From dgc at cox.net Tue Sep 6 23:39:50 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:39:50 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fill it in a pave it over In-Reply-To: <20050906010255.5031.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050906010255.5031.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <431E28C6.9040204@cox.net> Adrian Tymes wrote: >--- Dan Clemmensen wrote: > > >>Yes this approach would require writing off the >>existing >>infrastructure in most of New Orleans (roads, sewers, utilities.) But >>it's often cheaper to start from scratch than it is to repair old >>infrastructure. >> >> > >Assuming you could buy out the entire city, or most of it. While the >government may have the legal right to force the sales (see recent >eminent domain cases), even the US federal government might have a hard >time coming up with that much money (without giving many people so >little that it could credibly be called far below fair value/market >price). > > No need to buy out anything. title for each parcel remains with each property holder. The government just piles somewhere between three and twenty feet of gravel on top. You lose the value of your improvements, but in a great many cases you already lost most of the value due to flood damage. The really big buildings will lose the lower floor. Most residences will be destroyed and rebuilt on top of the gravel. In a few cases, it will be cost-effective to jack a house up and fill under it. In a few other cases, it will be cost-effective for a home owner to build a private 3-foot levee and run a private pump: this would be a decision made by the owner and the owner's insurer. But the government would be out of the business of maintaining pumps and levees. From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Sep 7 00:02:34 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:02:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Fill it in a pave it over In-Reply-To: <431E28C6.9040204@cox.net> Message-ID: <20050907000234.45223.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dan Clemmensen wrote: > Adrian Tymes wrote: > >Assuming you could buy out the entire city, or most of it. While > the > >government may have the legal right to force the sales (see recent > >eminent domain cases), even the US federal government might have a > hard > >time coming up with that much money (without giving many people so > >little that it could credibly be called far below fair value/market > >price). > > > No need to buy out anything. title for each parcel remains with each > property holder. > The government just piles somewhere between three and twenty feet of > gravel on top. > You lose the value of your improvements, but in a great many cases > you > already lost > most of the value due to flood damage. Altering property without the property owners' permission seems even more legally objectionable. Which is not to say it wouldn't otherwise be a good idea; I'm just worried it might be rejected by the courts (and liability for it would prevent the government from doing it). From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 00:44:33 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:44:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Applications for mass produced spacecraft In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050903200248.0579cea8@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <20050907004433.3014.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Continuing our earlier conversation on another thread, I have found an application which is pure science that really requires being mass produced, even more than the interferometer proposal. It is another terrestrial planet finder, the Kepler telescope, http://kepler.nasa.gov/sci/basis/fov.html which will use a massive photometer to stare at one patch of sky for several years looking for planetary transits across 100,000 stars at once. It promises to be very effective, but has a weakness: it looks at only one field of view, about 29 degrees across, its whole life. What is really needed with this sort of telescope, which would find candidates for the interferometer program to study in closer detail, are a large number of these to cover the entire night sky, particularly other areas of our own local neighborhood, the Orion Arm of the galaxy. Such a constellation would require somewhere about 82 Kepler-class telescopes to cover the entire sky, though we might exclude 12 that would cover the plane of the ecliptic, so about 70 ought to do the job, though putting the other 12 on high angle long duration cometary orbits would help them observe the stars in the plane of the ecliptic while avoiding the planets, the sun, and many KBOs. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 00:51:07 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:51:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Fill it in a pave it over In-Reply-To: <20050907000234.45223.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050907005107.95036.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > Altering property without the property owners' permission seems even > more legally objectionable. Which is not to say it wouldn't > otherwise > be a good idea; I'm just worried it might be rejected by the courts > (and liability for it would prevent the government from doing it). The way the eminent domain law is now in this country under Kelo v. New London, the entirety of the delta region can be classified as blighted and seized by the state and given away to any developer willing to bring it above sea level. I am hearing that FEMA is talking about paying people large sums to move elsewhere permanently in exchange for their destroyed property. I suspect that within a year we'll be seeing a federally funded public works and development project in the Big Soup that will make the Big Dig look like a minor highway ramp alteration, to remake NOLA into an amusement park of a city along the lines of Las Vegas, with embedded Big Brother technologies throughout, as the 'city of the future'. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From mail at harveynewstrom.com Wed Sep 7 02:54:56 2005 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 22:54:56 -0400 Subject: FEMA/was Re: [extropy-chat] Fill it in a pave it over In-Reply-To: <20050906212324.96018.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050906212324.96018.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8598564670124e045faa941b461971e0@HarveyNewstrom.com> On Sep 6, 2005, at 5:23 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > One thing to consider is that FEMA has been successfully dealing with a > large number of hurricanes in other parts of the country all year. Why > is it that the one that hits NOLA is blamed on FEMA? Might as well > blame it on HAARP, as some of the bunkertarian black helicopter nutters > are doing. I don't know why you say FEMA has been successful in dealing with other hurricanes. I doubt anyone in Florida would say that, including our governor. Their service has been abismal. They still have not responded to 20% of the disaster requests from over a year ago! Many people still have no homes and have still gotten no response from FEMA. They have been greatly criticized for not being able to respond. They are understaffed and underfunded. They simply did not have any supplies, staff or plans with which to respond. They were created to respond mostly to hurricanes, but their funding and staff have been cut to a quarter of what it once was. Now they are burdened with Homeland Security responsibilities. There is no Federal Emergency Management ability left in this former agency. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From megao at sasktel.net Wed Sep 7 02:28:46 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 21:28:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fill it in a pave it over In-Reply-To: <20050906213208.2398.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050906213208.2398.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <431E505E.4010501@sasktel.net> I don't know Louisiana law but here in Saskatchewan anything under permanent water reverts back to the crown (province) so if it were Saskatchewan the levees are not rebuilt all the property rights revert back to the state. And the state would determine what it would settle with any previous owners prior to pumping out water or allowing any new rebuilding. Adrian Tymes wrote: >--- BillK wrote: > > >>On 9/6/05, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> >> >>>Assuming you could buy out the entire city, or most of it. While >>> >>> >>the >> >> >>>government may have the legal right to force the sales (see recent >>>eminent domain cases), even the US federal government might have a >>> >>> >>hard >> >> >>>time coming up with that much money (without giving many people so >>>little that it could credibly be called far below fair value/market >>>price). >>> >>> >>What's fair market value for land under six foot of water? >> >> > >Potentially pretty good, if there's a general assumption that the water >will soon be pumped out - which does exist, and I don't think it can be >shaken unless the levees collapse much furthre, beyond all hope of >repair. > > > >>There will be more hurricanes this season and more again in following >>years. NO could well be hit again soon, maybe with a cat 5 this time. >> >> > >It would probably take something along those lines to do it. Which >means that cloud (no pun intended) would have a definite silver lining. >_______________________________________________ >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: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Sep 7 06:43:49 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 08:43:49 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Are dwarfs better forlongduration spaceflight?] In-Reply-To: <20050906212724.1028.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050906100128.GR2249@leitl.org> <20050906212724.1028.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050907064349.GI2249@leitl.org> On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 02:27:23PM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > Nuclear power in space is a very hard sell politically. > > Not as hard as selling a dwarf-only mission. Who is selling a dwarf-only mission?! Has the thread gone nuts? > > The technology doesn't exist yet in the first place, and needs > > to be developed and tested. > > Development and testing are needed, but it does exist. Then again, Does http://www.fas.org/nuke/space/c04rover.htm strike you as mature technology? Have you noticed that it has been never designed for nor tested in space, officially? Few people even ever operated nuclear reactors in space, on unmanned missions. Do you think you can resume such tests, today? Not in the current policitical climate. Not with current funding. > dev & test are needed for this mission anyway: there does not presently > exist a rocket capable of sustaining one human life, even a dwarf's, > while going to Mars and returning under its own power. Rockets don't sustain life. Rockets are there to move mass. The technology to sustain a couple of canned primates in space for more than a year exists. It is primitive, and it will a lot of mass for the crew module. Because larger Energiya and Ariane models capable of lifting 100 t to LEO have been scrapped because there's no market, you'll need a lot of missions, and docking in orbit to assemble the craft. > > Nuke-powered ion/plasma drive would be probably an optimal > > combination even for manned flight. It would be easier to > > assemble and fuel up the craft in orbit, and go chemical > > all the way, with a minimum-mass crew module (with robots > > sent ahead preparing the habitat, and the fuel still) by > > remote control. > > Easier in some respects, harder in others. The more money and Chemical all the way would not require any new technologies, with the exception of maybe a large lifter, to minimize the number of missions. But Russia and Ukraine have already the lowest LEO lift costs, and you probably can't beat that. > resources a project requires, the harder it inherently is: you have to > spend effort to gain said money and resources. I suspect this may be > part of what you overlooked. I personally think any funds allocated to a manned Mars mission are completely wasted. At this stage, even a manned Moon mission is quite premature. If I would be sending anything, that be a teleoperated polar factory. After the entire Luna is mapped thoroughly, and a 24/7/365 rotating mission control distributed across time zones, with a wide TCP/IP pipe to LLO has been established. > > > The scaling factor of different propulsion systems trumps the > > > difference in crew dimensions. For example: calculate how much > > rocket > > > you would need to make the trip in a few months (one way) on > > hydrazine. > > > > What is wrong with using cryogenic fuel, e.g. methane/oxygen? > > *shrugs* Nothing, for the sake of this discussion. Just pick a fuel I was just curious, why people were sticking to (tried and true, admittedly) assymetric dimethylhydrazine/NOx fuel. With a large mission, cryogenic fuels are not a problem. > so you can work the numbers. Nuclear/ion propulsion beats any chemcal > fuel by a sufficiently large margin that focusing the finite dev/test > resources on that, rather than spending effort on minimizing the crew > (and taking the resulting benefits), will achieve optimal payoffs. You can't minimize the crew. But if you could build a small-footprint closed-loop ecosystem to recycle waste and produce food, you could certainly minimize mass. (If it was unstable, that'd be one dangerous mission). > (Remember, any mission always has a finite budget. Some potentially > marginally beneficial ideas almost always have to tossed to the side in > order to focus on the best paying off ideas. The marginal and very > mission-specific payoffs from the dwarf proposal would seem to be an > example of this.) I did not realize there was such a thing as a dwarf proposal. The only way I could see it happen in an alternative universe, where technology can't develop further, and you have to rely on engineered people as prime factor in the expansion into deep space. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Sep 7 10:21:24 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 03:21:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> Message-ID: <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> On Sep 4, 2005, at 7:56 PM, Hal Finney wrote: > When will the peak happen? And what will be the consequences? > There are > an enormous number of unknowns. Probably the biggest question mark > is the state of the Saudi Arabian oil fields. The Saudis are quite > secretive about their oil situation, but publicly they claim that they > can pump oil and increase the quantity as much as the world needs, for > many years to come. Some experts are skeptical, but no one has access > to the details necessary to get a firm answer to the question. > Yep. Lately they seem to have toned down those claims a bit and the degree of skepticism and concern is rising in mainstream circles. > That fact alone, in my opinion, renders any firm statements about when > any peak will occur nonsensical. There is simply not enough public > information to make a well founded judgement of the potential oil > supply > over the next decade or two. It is a good bit more better than nonsensical. It is possible and desirable to make reasonable guesstimates. We do know how lod the main fields are and can extapolate a ballpark guess form other large fields worked in similar manner in the past. We also have some information on the likely reserves in new fields In light of what information we do have we can make a guesstimate without it being nonsensical. For decision on policy that take years to unfold it is mandatory that educated guesses of this kind are made. It is also prudent to do so when making many investment decisions. > > There are other complications as well. Chinese demand has grown > incredibly fast the past few years, but this year its growth has > fallen > off precipitously. What will happen in the future? The Peak Oil > situation is highly sensitive to what happens in the Chinese > economy the > next few years. China is not going to disappear. Even with zero growth demand will still outstrip supply, just less quickly. > How on earth can a layman claim to have expertise in > such an esoteric subject? The Chinese government is another secretive > and opaque institution; again there are no strong grounds for making > firm predictions about what will happen there. Considering its huge and growing manufacturing predominance and dependency on those goods by the US and many other countries it is pretty unlikely that China or its thirst for energy will go away. There are stronger grounds for expecting continued growth in demand from China than for the opposite expectation by quite a margin. > > As I have written before in other contexts, I don't believe it > is practical or feasible for the lay person to come up with a well > founded judgement on such difficult matters, where even the experts > can't agree. I don't believe being an expert is required to form an intelligent opinion. Nor do I believe that waiting for a consensus of experts before acting is prudent. The experts will be accused of being bought or having an agenda by this party or that. We will need more experts to sort out the charges. Recurse at will. When the smoke clears oil is through the roof and their is no time to create meaningful alternatives before we are in great trouble. > > The U.S. government does publish a number of analyses and predictions > of oil supply and demand issues, and they generally forecast adequate > supplies for at least the next several years. As far as I can tell, > these are good faith estimates, but ultimately they rely on public > sources of information which, as I noted above, are highly unreliable. > Since you have done the research I don't have to point out all the reasons that what the government says on the subject cannot be trusted at face value. > I do put considerable faith in one other institution, which is the > market. > When people are putting their own money behind what they say I am much > more inclined to listen and believe them than when they are making > empty > statements. Fortunately we have a number of commodities markets in > the > energy field, including crude oil of different grades, gasoline, > natural > gas and heating oil. The crude oil market goes out six years or so > and > is in my opinion the best source of unbiased information about the > beliefs > of the "smart money" as to the future course of oil supply and demand. > > If Peak Oil were widely seen as a likely scenario in that time frame, > we would see increasing oil prices out in the 2008 to 2011 time frame. > For technical reasons, these markets tend not to have large price > differentials across the delivery years (basically because it is > easy to > move oil deliveries backwards and forwards in time), so we would > expect > high future prices to drag up present-day prices. This is actually > one of the great services of commodity markets, that they make the > high prices of future shortages felt in the present day, encouraging > conservation and searches for alternatives well in advance of an > actual > supply/demand mismatch. > > But this is not what we see. While oil prices have risen steadily > for the past few years, they have not been led up by future prices. > Rather, future prices three to six years ahead have consistantly > lagged. > Those future prices are being dragged up by high present-day prices, > rather than vice versa. This is exactly the opposite of what we would > expect to see in a Peak Oil scenario. I am not sure that analysis is valid although I don't see an immediate flaw. But I do not find it a convincing arugmunt that Peak Oil is not at hand. Look back in time to how unanmiously rosy most of the market was right up to and even int the dot com bust. The Street can be fooled or its truthfulness seriously compromised. There is also evidence that many parts of the Market are grossly manipulated. See the Sprott report for some of this evidence at http://www.sprott.com/pdf/pressrelease/TheVisibleHand.pdf > > To sum up, the answer to Samantha's question is that I am skeptical > about Peak Oil because none of these institutions seem to show the > signs > of an impending shortage. There is no academic consensus on the > issue; > industry and government seem to be downplaying the problem even > when it > would seemingly be to their advantage to make people see that there > is a > good reason for high prices; and market prices don't have the > structure > we would expect if insiders knew about a shortage ahead. And I would > become more convinced of the reality of the Peak Oil scenario if these > various institutions started showing the signs I have outlined. > I don't believe academia has enough data or real interest to fully decide such an issue. I expect government and industry to downplay the problem. I do not believe the Market is sufficiently free or accurate to make a tight analytical case regarding the extent of the problem based on current and futures prices. Thank you for your detailed answer. It does provide food for thought. I hope I am wrong. If I am right I will be in no mood to gloat in a few years. It will be rather sad. > There are of course limitations to this analysis; for one thing, the > commodities markets only go out six years or so. While the markets > are > forward looking and they will anticipate shortages even beyond that > time > frame, to some degree, the effect is somewhat weak. The current data > can't rule out a significant Peak Oil scenario much past the 2010 to > 2015 time frame. Of course the further out we go, the more the > chances > that some kind of wild card will appear, a new technology or some > such, > that could change the nature of the situation we face. > You said it in the beginning. We have no real idea of the state of the crucial Saudi fields. A fairly sudden decline could topple your argument immediately. The current dat can not rule out Peak Oil at all much less after 2010. -- samantha From maxm at mail.tele.dk Wed Sep 7 13:02:33 2005 From: maxm at mail.tele.dk (Max M) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:02:33 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <4317A96A.6070800@aol.com> References: <2583795.1125623737536.JavaMail.root@ccprodapp12> <4317A96A.6070800@aol.com> Message-ID: <431EE4E9.2060607@mail.tele.dk> Robert Lindauer wrote: > A green point here: > > If everyone had their own ethanol still it wouldn't be half the > problem it is now - and there wouldn't be the polution problem either. It is big news today in Denmark that scientists has just finished patent procedures on safe and compacts hydrogen storage. The technology is working, and they have started a company to develope it further. http://www.amminex.com/ -- hilsen/regards Max M, Denmark http://www.mxm.dk/ IT's Mad Science From eugen at leitl.org Wed Sep 7 13:21:02 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:21:02 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <431EE4E9.2060607@mail.tele.dk> References: <2583795.1125623737536.JavaMail.root@ccprodapp12> <4317A96A.6070800@aol.com> <431EE4E9.2060607@mail.tele.dk> Message-ID: <20050907132102.GN2249@leitl.org> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 03:02:33PM +0200, Max M wrote: > Robert Lindauer wrote: > > >A green point here: > > > >If everyone had their own ethanol still it wouldn't be half the > >problem it is now - and there wouldn't be the polution problem either. > > > It is big news today in Denmark that scientists has just finished patent > procedures on safe and compacts hydrogen storage. The technology is > working, and they have started a company to develope it further. > > > http://www.amminex.com/ That site is completely content-free. I see solid pellets, which is already bad. Is this reversible hydride storage? Temperature or pressure loading? Looks white, which could sodium borohydride or Lithium/aluminum hydrides, which would be useless. Can you provide additional details on the 'proprietary' material? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Sep 7 13:35:56 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 06:35:56 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Are dwarfs betterforlongduration spaceflight?] In-Reply-To: <20050907064349.GI2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200509071335.j87DZpf23549@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl ... > > I was just curious, why people were sticking to (tried and true, > admittedly) > assymetric dimethylhydrazine/NOx fuel. With a large mission, cryogenic > fuels are not a problem. ... > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl I don't follow your reasoning here. To have fuel keep for seven months, use a little, then keep for another two years after that, hydrazine and NOx would be hard to beat. It isn't clear to me how you would store your LOX that long, even out there at 1.5 AU. The disadvantage of hydrazine and NOx, the lower specific impulse, is compensated by the fact that you don't need all that terribly much delta V to get out of Mars synchronous orbit to an earthbound Hohmann transfer orbit, then you might be able to use aerobraking to reenter. spike From pgptag at gmail.com Wed Sep 7 13:47:12 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:47:12 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] IFTF's Future Now: Michael Chorost on Cochlear Implants and Transhumanism Message-ID: <470a3c5205090706477a31a736@mail.gmail.com> It is true that technology cannot match biology yet for whole bodies, but give time to time - someday bionics may do better than "naturally" evolved biology. I think restoration is considered feasible already and enhancement is not, so "ordinary people" do not think of enhancement yet. However, this article is interesting: IFTF Future Now blog : On August 31st, Michael Chorost , author of Rebuilt : How Becoming Part Computer Made Me More Human, spoke at the Institute... [He] talked a bit about the transhumanist literature. He describes himself as trying to stake out a middle ground between enthusiasts like Kevin Warwick and critics like Francis Fukuyama; he sees his work emphasizing the complexity of the human body, and the necessity of soft approaches such as training and social infrastructure to gain maximum benefit from whatever technology is developed. (I thought he was the first transhumanist author to really emphasize the "human" over the "trans.") He's also more skeptical of claims that new technologies will transform humans. Almost all current technologies are used to restore senses or sensory capabilities, rather than extend or enhance. Restoration is the goal of most ordinary people, and is difficult enough: "I am skeptical of potential for enhancement via bionics," on the grounds that our natural sensory organs are fantastically sophisticated, and reproducing them-- or completely new things-- will be very hard to create. Further, in the pre-nanotech state of the art, "bionics is big and clunky: it works on the scale of millimeters. The body works at the level of nanometers. We're not even close" to matching the body's capabilities and scale. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Sep 7 13:56:10 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:56:10 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Are dwarfs betterforlongduration spaceflight?] In-Reply-To: <200509071335.j87DZpf23549@tick.javien.com> References: <20050907064349.GI2249@leitl.org> <200509071335.j87DZpf23549@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050907135610.GR2249@leitl.org> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 06:35:56AM -0700, spike wrote: > I don't follow your reasoning here. To have fuel keep > for seven months, use a little, then keep for another Wouldn't you want to minimize the transfer time for the crew module, which asks for a large rocket, if it's a chemical drive? If we assemble (dock) and refuel in orbit, we can have a pretty large rocket at the very least in one direction. I'm assuming we have sent an automatic facility ahead, which is preparing the fuel, both on ground, and in orbit (Phobos/Deimos), verifying it's enough before we commit the people. > two years after that, hydrazine and NOx would be hard > to beat. It isn't clear to me how you would store your > LOX that long, even out there at 1.5 AU. If we're making LOX/methane on Mars, we'll need a liquification plant and a cryogenic tank there. > The disadvantage of hydrazine and NOx, the lower > specific impulse, is compensated by the fact that > you don't need all that terribly much delta V to > get out of Mars synchronous orbit to an earthbound > Hohmann transfer orbit, then you might be able to > use aerobraking to reenter. You're not sending much ahead to Mars, are you? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Sep 7 14:06:26 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:06:26 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050907132102.GN2249@leitl.org> References: <2583795.1125623737536.JavaMail.root@ccprodapp12> <4317A96A.6070800@aol.com> <431EE4E9.2060607@mail.tele.dk> <20050907132102.GN2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 9/7/05, Eugen Leitl wrote: > That site is completely content-free. I see solid pellets, > which is already bad. > > Is this reversible hydride storage? Temperature or pressure > loading? Looks white, which could sodium borohydride or > Lithium/aluminum hydrides, which would be useless. > > Can you provide additional details on the 'proprietary' material? > After keeping their project a secret for the past six months while waiting for international patent protection, the researchers plan to publicly reveal their invention at a scientific conference in Chicago, reports national daily Jyllands-Posten. The DTU team has worked for a year and a half to develop a method to store hydrogen, a lighter-than-air, inflammable gas, in a compact, solid form. 'Before, the amount of hydrogen needed to fuel a passenger vehicle for 500km occupied the same space as nine passenger vehicles. With our pill, the same amount of energy can be contained in a normal 50 litre tank,' said Christensen. BillK From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 14:29:58 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 07:29:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> Message-ID: <20050907142958.92704.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > I don't believe being an expert is required to form > an intelligent > opinion. Nor do I believe that waiting for a > consensus of experts > before acting is prudent. The experts will be > accused of being > bought or having an agenda by this party or that. > We will need more > experts to sort out the charges. Recurse at will. > When the smoke > clears oil is through the roof and their is no time > to create > meaningful alternatives before we are in great > trouble. I have thinking a lot lately about the different forms of luddism and how they apply to situations like the "peak oil" controversy. There are generally two well recognized forms of luddism. The first is the conservative form of luddism typified by Kass et al. This form of luddism seems to be reliant on religious doctrine and makes the claim that there are certain technologies that infringe on "God's domain" or are otherwise "immoral". This is apparently the justification for luddite behavior that is the most popular amongst social conservatives. The second recognized form of ludditism is the liberal variety of luddism. This form of luddism, also called "green" luddism, centers on the belief that certain technologies pose a danger to the enviroment and should thus be banned. This brand of luddism exploits the left's concerns for the environment and an exagerated belief in the fragility of nature, to oppose certain technologies. This is apparently the rationale of choice for liberal luddites. But the actual historical record of luddism seems to follow economic patterns independantly of any political coloring or slant. Instead historical luddism seems to be primarily economic in nature and by extrapolation, it occured to me that all luddism seems to be economic in nature. Many are aware of the early history of luddism begining with Ned Ludd and his early industrial era saboteurs. Now the motive for these saboteurs, whatever their rhetoric, was definately economic in nature. The wool and cotton mills represented "competition" that threatened to undercut Ned and his gang's market niche of hand knitted fabrics. They therefore responded with drafting of manifestos, sabotage of the mill machinery, and attempts to dissuade the adoption of the milling technology. This sole instance would seem to implicate a correlation between populist movements and luddism, but other historic examples disprove this presumed association. The next example to consider is the luddism faced by Thomas Edison in his attempt to change the public street lighting from old-fashioned gas lamps to electric incandescent lighting. That there was much controversy ellicited by this and that "experts" lined up on both sides to both support and oppose the development of elctrical lighting is very telling. It firmly demonstrates that luddism is not always associated with populist movements. Indeed as the industrial revolution came into full force, luddism seemed far more often driven by one industry's defense of its market niche against the encroachment of new technolgies. The relevance of the foregoing to the peak-oil debate is that if historic models of this economically driven luddism are accurate, then clearly there is an incentive on the part of oil companies to keep the truth behind "peak oil", if there is any truth to it, under wraps. Not for purposes of price fixing, gouging, or other form of market abuse but instead, in simple defense of the oil industry's market niche against encroachment of alternative energy technologies. The oil companies would most likely underplay any perceived scarcity of oil the same way that the gas-light industry of Edison's time underplayed the diminishing reliability of gas-lighting at farther distances from the gas generating plants. Both industries would likely attempt to use "experts" to gloss over shortcomings of their respective technologies both performance-wise and supply-wise. Although I had originally thought about it terms of the peak-oil debate, now that I have glimpsed the economic forces underlying luddism, I am starting to see it everywhere. I even see the insidious tendrils of econonomic luddism much closer to home in the HIV antiviral pharmaceutical industry. It's the only way I can explain why after so many billions of dollars spent and so much knowledge gained regarding HIV, there is still no cure. Its because the current market emphasis and economic inertia is toward "treatment" and not cure. The drugs that turn HIV into a chronic condition that can be kept at bay with daily doses for the rest of ones life, are a firmly entrenched profitable niche-industry. One that competes for resources with vaccines and other potential "cures". So long as there is so much profit to be made by treating HIV, there is little incentive (at least in wealthy industrial countries) to actually cure it. Keep in mind that in none of these instances is there a "conspiracy" to suppress the threatening new technology, merely a great many independant players all making independent moves designed to protect their market niches. Thus one can see the hidden undercurrents of luddism are, more often than not, driven by self-interested competive market forces even though the propaganda espoused by luddites seems to be that of a "higher calling". 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 ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From eugen at leitl.org Wed Sep 7 15:19:13 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 17:19:13 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: References: <2583795.1125623737536.JavaMail.root@ccprodapp12> <4317A96A.6070800@aol.com> <431EE4E9.2060607@mail.tele.dk> <20050907132102.GN2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20050907151913.GZ2249@leitl.org> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 03:06:26PM +0100, BillK wrote: > On 9/7/05, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > That site is completely content-free. I see solid pellets, > > which is already bad. > > > > Is this reversible hydride storage? Temperature or pressure > > loading? Looks white, which could sodium borohydride or > > Lithium/aluminum hydrides, which would be useless. > > > > Can you provide additional details on the 'proprietary' material? > > > > > > After keeping their project a secret for the past six months while > waiting for international patent protection, the researchers plan to > publicly reveal their invention at a scientific conference in Chicago, > reports national daily Jyllands-Posten. > > The DTU team has worked for a year and a half to develop a method to > store hydrogen, a lighter-than-air, inflammable gas, in a compact, > solid form. > > 'Before, the amount of hydrogen needed to fuel a passenger vehicle for > 500km occupied the same space as nine passenger vehicles. With our > pill, the same amount of energy can be contained in a normal 50 litre > tank,' said Christensen. This is still 100% content-free press babble. I've spent a few minutes with Google, and found references to metal amine (spelled ammine, maybe they do that in Denmark but it's sloppy) hydrogen complexes in Amminex context. I've worked with alane amines and metal hydrides for a couple months. Even if that stuff doesn't age with loading/unloading cycles, loading time with pressurized hydrogen will be in about hour range. They claim they can store ~9% of hydrogen by weight, or 13 MJ/l (if it's anything like magnesium hydride it will be about 1.5 the density of water). Hydrocarbon fuel is about 40-50 MJ/kg, and that's at density lower than water -- a familiar liquid at RT. Methanol is about 22 MJ/kg. Here's some overview article http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-10/iss-1/p20.html All in all sounds about as practical as the PowerBalls guy. Overhyped at best, midly fraudulent at worst. We'll see. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed Sep 7 15:36:31 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 11:36:31 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate Message-ID: <380-22005937153631984@M2W110.mail2web.com> From: The Avantguardian >Keep in mind that in none of these instances is there >a "conspiracy" to suppress the threatening new >technology, merely a great many independant players >all making independent moves designed to protect their >market niches. Thus one can see the hidden >undercurrents of luddism are, more often than not, >driven by self-interested competive market forces even >though the propaganda espoused by luddites seems to be >that of a "higher calling". I am reading Michael E. Porter's writing on strategic formulation and the barriers established by entities/enterprises that are established in the market to keep out newly formed entities/enterprises. This competitive strategy for protecting market nitches can be used anywhere. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From rhanson at gmu.edu Wed Sep 7 15:50:42 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 11:50:42 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050907114729.03043b18@mail.gmu.edu> At 06:21 AM 9/7/2005, Samantha Atkins wrote: >>If Peak Oil were widely seen as a likely scenario in that time frame, >>we would see increasing oil prices out in the 2008 to 2011 time frame. >>For technical reasons, these markets tend not to have large price >>differentials across the delivery years (basically because it is >>easy to move oil deliveries backwards and forwards in time), so >>we would expect high future prices to drag up present-day prices. ... >>But this is not what we see. While oil prices have risen steadily >>for the past few years, they have not been led up by future prices. > >I am not sure that analysis is valid although I don't see an >immediate flaw. But I do not find it a convincing arugmunt that Peak >Oil is not at hand. Look back in time to how unanmiously rosy most >of the market was right up to and even int the dot com bust. The >Street can be fooled or its truthfulness seriously compromised. >There is also evidence that many parts of the Market are grossly >manipulated. See the Sprott report for some of this evidence at >http://www.sprott.com/pdf/pressrelease/TheVisibleHand.pdf So why are you not speculating in these markets to make all the money you think is there to be taken. Or are you also one of those fools? 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 Wed Sep 7 16:24:17 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 09:24:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) 1.1 trillion recoverable barrels--in the US Message-ID: <431F1431.7030709@mindspring.com> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002463368_oilstudy01.html Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 12:00 AM Study reveals huge U.S. oil-shale field By Jennifer Talhelm The Associated Press WASHINGTON - The United States has an oil reserve at least three times that of Saudi Arabia locked in oil-shale deposits beneath federal land in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, according to a study released yesterday. But the researchers at the RAND think tank caution the federal government to go carefully, balancing the environmental and economic impacts with development pressure to prevent an oil-shale bust later. "We've got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East," said James Bartis, RAND senior policy researcher and the report's lead author. He added, "If we go faster, there's a good chance we're going to end up at a dead end." For years, the industry and the government considered oil shale - a rock that produces petroleum when heated - too expensive to be a feasible source of oil. However, oil prices, which spiked above $70 a barrel this week, combined with advances in technology could soon make it possible to tap the estimated 500 billion to 1.1 trillion recoverable barrels, the report found. The study, sponsored in part by the U.S. Department of Energy, comes about a month after the president signed a new energy policy dramatically reversing the nation's approach to oil shale and opening the door within a few years to companies that want to tap deposits on public lands. The report also says oil-shale mining, above-ground processing and disposing of spent shale cause significant adverse environmental impacts. Shell Oil is working on a process that would heat the oil shale in place, which could have less effect on the environment. -- "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 brian at posthuman.com Wed Sep 7 16:27:28 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 11:27:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050907114729.03043b18@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907114729.03043b18@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <431F14F0.8020202@posthuman.com> Robin Hanson wrote: > > So why are you not speculating in these markets to make all the money > you think is there to be taken. Or are you also one of those fools? > I'm sure there are plenty of "peak oilers" who are indeed already spending their own money on futures, although I bet they also are stocking up on gold and other end-of-the-world items. However, they seem to still be a small minority of the overall market. The key question in my mind is: how useful really is it to look to the current futures markets as key predictors of peak oil when it seems that the majority (or "big money") players seem to trade based on a six month or at most year out view? Looking at the stock markets, it is often said that they lead recessions by six to nine months. There are few players, and not enough to influence the overall level of the market, who buy and sell based on views much farther out. Sure they may say they are buying based on far future earnings in some cases such as during the bubble, but as soon as near-term real world data screws up those views then the majority players finally act. So are we going to see the majority of the futures market sit around and not really drive up prices until we are within 6 months or less of a real energy crunch? -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 16:44:51 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 09:44:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <431EE4E9.2060607@mail.tele.dk> Message-ID: <20050907164451.5141.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Max M wrote: > Robert Lindauer wrote: > > > A green point here: > > > > If everyone had their own ethanol still it wouldn't be half the > > problem it is now - and there wouldn't be the polution problem > either. > > > It is big news today in Denmark that scientists has just finished > patent > procedures on safe and compacts hydrogen storage. The technology is > working, and they have started a company to develope it further. > > > http://www.amminex.com/ This is very interesting. Volumetric density of 0.11 is 50% higher than cryogenic storage as liquid H2. The energy density is 32% higher as well, at 13 MJ/l, vs 9.83 MJ/l for LH2. This looks like a great potential solid rocket fuel, perhaps to be used in a hybrid rocket engine. Is this some form of solid ammonia? Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From eugen at leitl.org Wed Sep 7 16:54:31 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 18:54:31 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050907114729.03043b18@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907114729.03043b18@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <20050907165431.GG2249@leitl.org> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 11:50:42AM -0400, Robin Hanson wrote: > So why are you not speculating in these markets to make all the money > you think is there to be taken. Or are you also one of those fools? I'm one of those fools who think that gaming the market for personal gain, *while making the actual problem worse* is kinda unethical. Some sticky residuals of communist upbringing, no doubt. "Learn some real trade, son!". (It is also quite easy to be ethical, if one has no Monopoly money to play, of course). Still, if I did I'd invest in companies selling photovoltaics, aeolean, solar thermal, and the like. As far as I know these companies which have good products are doing very well. Now investing in fuel cell startups, and all kind of lunatic-fringe companies is far more hasardeur. Big potential payoff, big risk. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 17:03:15 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 10:03:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Are dwarfs betterforlongduration spaceflight?] In-Reply-To: <20050907135610.GR2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20050907170315.29920.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 06:35:56AM -0700, spike wrote: > > > two years after that, hydrazine and NOx would be hard > > to beat. It isn't clear to me how you would store your > > LOX that long, even out there at 1.5 AU. > > If we're making LOX/methane on Mars, we'll need a > liquification plant and a cryogenic tank there. > > > The disadvantage of hydrazine and NOx, the lower > > specific impulse, is compensated by the fact that > > you don't need all that terribly much delta V to > > get out of Mars synchronous orbit to an earthbound > > Hohmann transfer orbit, then you might be able to > > use aerobraking to reenter. > > You're not sending much ahead to Mars, are you? Actually, Zubrin's plan was to send landers with a full fuel load of boranes, and produce the oxidizer in situ. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From rhanson at gmu.edu Wed Sep 7 17:05:01 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:05:01 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050907165431.GG2249@leitl.org> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907114729.03043b18@mail.gmu.edu> <20050907165431.GG2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050907130339.03068a80@mail.gmu.edu> At 12:54 PM 9/7/2005, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > So why are you not speculating in these markets to make all the money > > you think is there to be taken. Or are you also one of those fools? > >I'm one of those fools who think that gaming the market for personal >gain, *while making the actual problem worse* is kinda unethical. But as Hal explained, betting that oil prices will rise will raise oil prices, and higher oil prices is exactly what the world needs if in fact we will soon have less oil than we expect to have. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 17:09:09 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 10:09:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050907151913.GZ2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20050907170909.1360.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > I've spent a few minutes with Google, and found references to metal > amine (spelled ammine, maybe they do that in Denmark but it's sloppy) > hydrogen complexes in Amminex context. > > I've worked with alane amines and metal hydrides for a couple months. > Even if that > stuff doesn't age with loading/unloading cycles, loading time > with pressurized hydrogen will be in about hour range. They > claim they can store ~9% of hydrogen by weight, or 13 MJ/l (if it's > anything like magnesium hydride it will be about 1.5 the density of > water). > Hydrocarbon fuel is about 40-50 MJ/kg, and that's at density lower > than water -- a familiar liquid at RT. Methanol is about 22 MJ/kg. > > Here's some overview article > http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-10/iss-1/p20.html > > All in all sounds about as practical as the PowerBalls guy. > Overhyped at best, midly fraudulent at worst. We'll see. Pay attention to your units. The amminex appears to have a volumetric density of 0.11 kg/l, which is 55% higher than LH2. Given 13 MJ/l, this comes out to about 140 MJ/l, which is almost three times the other hydrocarbon fuels. This is a significant breakthrough. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From eugen at leitl.org Wed Sep 7 17:12:07 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 19:12:07 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050907130339.03068a80@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907114729.03043b18@mail.gmu.edu> <20050907165431.GG2249@leitl.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907130339.03068a80@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <20050907171207.GI2249@leitl.org> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 01:05:01PM -0400, Robin Hanson wrote: > >I'm one of those fools who think that gaming the market for personal > >gain, *while making the actual problem worse* is kinda unethical. > > But as Hal explained, betting that oil prices will rise will raise oil > prices, and higher oil prices is exactly what the world needs if in fact > we will soon have less oil than we expect to have. Er. Disregard my last message, then. I was dumping straight from /dev/ass (What next? We should actually know about what we post? I thought this was the list for ad hominems and non-sequiturs...). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From rhanson at gmu.edu Wed Sep 7 17:14:12 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:14:12 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <431F14F0.8020202@posthuman.com> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907114729.03043b18@mail.gmu.edu> <431F14F0.8020202@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050907131059.030c0390@mail.gmu.edu> At 12:27 PM 9/7/2005, Brian Atkins wrote: >>So why are you not speculating in these markets to make all the money >>you think is there to be taken. Or are you also one of those fools? > >I'm sure there are plenty of "peak oilers" who are indeed already >spending their own money on futures, although I bet they also are >stocking up on gold and other end-of-the-world items. > >However, they seem to still be a small minority of the overall >market. The key question in my mind is: how useful really is it to >look to the current futures markets as key predictors of peak oil >when it seems that the majority (or "big money") players seem to >trade based on a six month or at most year out view? The percentage of traders who think about a certain issue is just not an indication of how well market prices reflect that issue. That is just not how these things work. All it takes is for a small minority to think about the issue, and for everyone else to have no opinion on the issue. Almost all relevant issues are only considered by a small fraction of traders. That is good - it allows a division of intellectual labor. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 17:33:41 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 10:33:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050907171207.GI2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20050907173341.630.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > Er. Disregard my last message, then. I was dumping straight from > /dev/ass > > (What next? We should actually know about what we post? I thought > this was the list for ad hominems and non-sequiturs...). Don't forget all the other latin phrases (ad absurdum, non pariel, etc, et al, you name it). What next? Send a Digicash quarter to Hal and Robin, each, for the education. Then follow Suze Ormon's advice of paying yourself first, and put $10 a week into oil futures, betting whichever way you think the Peak Oil debate is going to play out. I see that Canada, in a fit of generosity, has released all production limits on its Alberta fields, to help keep the US supplied. Rather than worrying so much about Saudi oil, we should pay more attention to our good friends north of the border. They are, in fact, our largest oil suppliers, and given the price situation, and a little encouragement, they could become much larger with faster expansion of the tar sands deposits. On a related subject, smart strategists in the US gov't, or private groups concerned about US energy security, should be supporting efforts by existing groups in the western provinces to legislatively break Canada up and become states of the US..... Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From brian at posthuman.com Wed Sep 7 18:02:09 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:02:09 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050907131059.030c0390@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907114729.03043b18@mail.gmu.edu> <431F14F0.8020202@posthuman.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907131059.030c0390@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <431F2B21.1070900@posthuman.com> Robin Hanson wrote: > At 12:27 PM 9/7/2005, Brian Atkins wrote: > >>> So why are you not speculating in these markets to make all the money >>> you think is there to be taken. Or are you also one of those fools? >> >> >> I'm sure there are plenty of "peak oilers" who are indeed already >> spending their own money on futures, although I bet they also are >> stocking up on gold and other end-of-the-world items. >> >> However, they seem to still be a small minority of the overall market. >> The key question in my mind is: how useful really is it to look to the >> current futures markets as key predictors of peak oil when it seems >> that the majority (or "big money") players seem to trade based on a >> six month or at most year out view? > > > The percentage of traders who think about a certain issue is just not an > indication of how well market prices reflect that issue. That is just > not how these things work. All it takes is for a small minority to > think about the issue, and for everyone else to have no opinion on the > issue. Almost all relevant issues are only considered by a small > fraction of traders. That is good - it allows a division of > intellectual labor. > Well, my question was more like: I don't think everyone else is opinion-less; rather, I think they have an opinion based on current data and near term projections going out maybe a year, but after that they aren't using farther out guesses to significantly alter their current opinion/trading. Essentially, they have a strong opinion that they aren't interested in trying to trade based on guesstimates that are that far out in time. They may rightfully decide that information that far out in time (12 months+) is too unreliable to use for trading. Therefore the market may potentially "wait" until closer to an event before significantly pricing it in. Is there any economic research to support such a market hypothesis? If not, what causes the typical 6 to 9 month limitation on the stock/bond markets pricing in a recession? -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From rhanson at gmu.edu Wed Sep 7 18:12:14 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:12:14 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <431F2B21.1070900@posthuman.com> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907114729.03043b18@mail.gmu.edu> <431F14F0.8020202@posthuman.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907131059.030c0390@mail.gmu.edu> <431F2B21.1070900@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050907140850.030e5930@mail.gmu.edu> At 02:02 PM 9/7/2005, Brian Atkins wrote: >>>>So why are you not speculating in these markets to make all the money >>>>you think is there to be taken. Or are you also one of those fools? >>> >>>I'm sure there are plenty of "peak oilers" who are indeed already >>>spending their own money on futures, although I bet they also are >>>stocking up on gold and other end-of-the-world items. >>> >>>However, they seem to still be a small minority of the overall >>>market. The key question in my mind is: how useful really is it to >>>look to the current futures markets as key predictors of peak oil >>>when it seems that the majority (or "big money") players seem to >>>trade based on a six month or at most year out view? >> >>The percentage of traders who think about a certain issue is just >>not an indication of how well market prices reflect that >>issue. That is just not how these things work. All it takes is >>for a small minority to think about the issue, and for everyone >>else to have no opinion on the issue. Almost all relevant issues >>are only considered by a small fraction of traders. That is good - >>it allows a division of intellectual labor. > >Well, my question was more like: I don't think everyone else is >opinion-less; rather, I think they have an opinion based on current >data and near term projections going out maybe a year, but after >that they aren't using farther out guesses to significantly alter >their current opinion/trading. > >Essentially, they have a strong opinion that they aren't interested >in trying to trade based on guesstimates that are that far out in >time. They may rightfully decide that information that far out in >time (12 months+) is too unreliable to use for trading. Therefore >the market may potentially "wait" until closer to an event before >significantly pricing it in. Having an opinion that you aren't interested in trading on a topic is very different from having an opinion on a topic and choosing to trade on that opinion. >Is there any economic research to support such a market hypothesis? There are surely hundreds and probably thousands of paper on this topic. It is one of the favorite topics in finances for many decades. >If not, what causes the typical 6 to 9 month limitation on the >stock/bond markets pricing in a recession? I don't know what limitation you mean. You said before that stocks "lead recessions by six to nine months." Don't know why you think this is problematic. 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 aiguy at comcast.net Wed Sep 7 18:26:05 2005 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 14:26:05 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Resveratrol oral effectiveness confirmed in animals In-Reply-To: <20050907000234.45223.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200509071826.j87IQCf19062@tick.javien.com> >> SOURCE:International Journal Molecular Medicine 16:533-540, 2005 Dealcoholized red wine containing known amounts of resveratrol suppresses atherosclerosis in hypercholesterolemic rabbits without affecting plasma lipid levels. Wang Z, Zou J, Cao K, Hsieh TC, Huang Y, Wu JM. Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210029, P.R. China. Moderate consumption of red wine is associated with a reduced risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). This phenomenon is based on data from epidemiological observations known as the French paradox, and has been attributed to CHD-protective phytochemicals, e.g. resveratrol in red wine. Since red wine also contains alcohol, it is conceivable that alcohol interacts with resveratrol to elicit the observed cardioprotective effects. >> Has anyone found any human trials published or underway? The supplement is a bit expensive and I don't want to be wasting money on the next magic bullet unless it has a good probability of being effective. I'd also like to see a study on animals/humans with existing blockage to see if there's any reversal. Sounds like a study on humans would be difficult ethically to run because you'd have to deprive the participents from statins which lower cholesterol or you'd contaminate the results. People like myself who have tried all the statins and were taken off due to danger indicators in the subsequent blood tests, could potentially benefit greatly from such a supplement. From mail at harveynewstrom.com Wed Sep 7 18:36:37 2005 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (mail at harveynewstrom.com) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:36:37 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050907151913.GZ2249@leitl.org> References: <2583795.1125623737536.JavaMail.root@ccprodapp12> <4317A96A.6070800@aol.com> <431EE4E9.2060607@mail.tele.dk> <20050907132102.GN2249@leitl.org> <20050907151913.GZ2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: Eugen Leitl writes: > Overhyped at best, midly fraudulent at worst. We'll see. There is a definite problem with scientific hype right now. A great number of companies are making announcements about various breakthroughs in AI, nanotech, biotech, computers, genetics, technology, etc. Many of them are just media hype meant to boost their stock to get money so they can really try to invent something. I wish there was a better way to really get the facts to evaluate all these new reports. It is almost to the point that I hesitate to read [>Htech] because I don't believe half of it. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From maxm at mail.tele.dk Wed Sep 7 18:54:36 2005 From: maxm at mail.tele.dk (Max M) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:54:36 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050907132102.GN2249@leitl.org> References: <2583795.1125623737536.JavaMail.root@ccprodapp12> <4317A96A.6070800@aol.com> <431EE4E9.2060607@mail.tele.dk> <20050907132102.GN2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <431F376C.9040200@mail.tele.dk> Eugen Leitl wrote: >>http://www.amminex.com/ >> >> > >That site is completely content-free. I see solid pellets, >which is already bad. > >Is this reversible hydride storage? Temperature or pressure >loading? Looks white, which could sodium borohydride or >Lithium/aluminum hydrides, which would be useless. > > Just after I posted, it appeared on Slashdot. A bit more info there: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/07/1215256&tid=232 I should note however that DTU is a very respectable Danish University, so I don't expect it to be all hype. They don't expect it to be in cars anytime soon though. -- hilsen/regards Max M, Denmark http://www.mxm.dk/ IT's Mad Science From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed Sep 7 19:03:43 2005 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 12:03:43 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:katrina opportunity In-Reply-To: <20050906123007.80645.qmail@web26207.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <004001c5b2d4$fa966ba0$48893cd1@pavilion> <20050906123007.80645.qmail@web26207.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050907190343.GA28427@ofb.net> On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 02:30:07PM +0200, giorgio gaviraghi wrote: > the recent new orleans disaster must be considered as > an alrm bell of things to come during this century. > natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, > tsunamis, earthquakes, mudslides , fires, and others > re becoming more frequent nd more dsmaging. I've read this is more because more people are moving to disaster prone areas such as California and Florida and Seattle. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050905/ap_on_sc/katrina_unsafe_planet In the 1970s, only 11 percent of earthquakes affected human settlements, researchers at Belgium's University of Louvain report. That soared to 31 percent in 1993-2003, including a quake in 2003 that killed 26,000 people in Iran, whose population has doubled since the '70s. The expanding U.S. population "has migrated to hazard-prone areas -- to Florida, the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, particularly barrier islands, to California," noted retired U.S. government seismologist Robert M. Hamilton, a disaster-prevention specialist. "Several decades ago we didn't have wall-to-wall houses down the coast as we do now." -xx- Damien X-) From megao at sasktel.net Wed Sep 7 18:19:23 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:19:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Resveratrol oral effectiveness confirmed in animals In-Reply-To: <200509071826.j87IQCf19062@tick.javien.com> References: <200509071826.j87IQCf19062@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <431F2F2B.5020906@sasktel.net> You can buy grape tannin powder for about 20$/pound. Any idea about the resveratrol content of this material? If it is not desireable to consume the tannins wholus bolsus some simple extractive fractionation might do just the thing to create a resveratrol concentrate? I just mixed a teaspoon of grape tannins and a couple bags of green tea in some ginger ale to drink this afternoon. Gary Miller wrote: >>>SOURCE:International Journal Molecular Medicine 16:533-540, 2005 >>> >>> > >Dealcoholized red wine containing known amounts of resveratrol suppresses >atherosclerosis in hypercholesterolemic rabbits without affecting plasma >lipid levels. >Wang Z, Zou J, Cao K, Hsieh TC, Huang Y, Wu JM. > >Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Nanjing Medical >University, Nanjing 210029, P.R. China. > >Moderate consumption of red wine is associated with a reduced risk of >coronary heart disease (CHD). This phenomenon is based on data from >epidemiological observations known as the French paradox, and has been >attributed to CHD-protective phytochemicals, e.g. resveratrol in red wine. >Since red wine also contains alcohol, it is conceivable that alcohol >interacts with resveratrol to elicit the observed cardioprotective effects. > > > >Has anyone found any human trials published or underway? > >The supplement is a bit expensive and I don't want to be wasting money on >the next magic bullet unless it has a good probability of being effective. > >I'd also like to see a study on animals/humans with existing blockage to see >if there's any reversal. > >Sounds like a study on humans would be difficult ethically to run because >you'd have to deprive the participents from statins which lower cholesterol >or you'd contaminate the results. > >People like myself who have tried all the statins and were taken off due to >danger indicators in the subsequent blood tests, could potentially benefit >greatly from such a supplement. > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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: From brian at posthuman.com Wed Sep 7 19:24:30 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:24:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050907140850.030e5930@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907114729.03043b18@mail.gmu.edu> <431F14F0.8020202@posthuman.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907131059.030c0390@mail.gmu.edu> <431F2B21.1070900@posthuman.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907140850.030e5930@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <431F3E6E.1040807@posthuman.com> Ok let me simplify and just ask you and/or Hal this: If we are to accept that longer term crude futures contracts have any worthwhile prediction capabilities, how do we explain the fact that the current October 2005 contract (CLV5): essentially just has mirrored over its lifetime the spot cash price: If it truly had some predictive power shouldn't it already have jumped up closer to $60 when it started off? As recently as May of this year it was below $50, and back as late as June 2004 it was below $40. If the market is so intelligent, or moved by the opinionated, why didn't it forsee yet more worldwide demand, continuing strained supply etc.? And is Hal's analysis that we should look to the 2008-2011 future prices as proof of no upcoming oil price spike really worth considering? All I see from those two charts is a market dominated by shorter term analysis, perhaps as short as 3 months or less, with no significant deviation of the longer term contracts from the immediate consensus at any given time. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed Sep 7 19:25:54 2005 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 12:25:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050907142958.92704.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> References: <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <20050907142958.92704.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050907192554.GB28427@ofb.net> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 07:29:58AM -0700, The Avantguardian wrote: > see it everywhere. I even see the insidious tendrils > of econonomic luddism much closer to home in the HIV > antiviral pharmaceutical industry. It's the only way I > can explain why after so many billions of dollars > spent and so much knowledge gained regarding HIV, > there is still no cure. Its because the current market You can't believe that the fastest evolving virus I've ever heard of, which targets the immune system directly, is a tough nut to crack? > So long as there is so much profit to be made by > treating HIV, there is little incentive (at least in > wealthy industrial countries) to actually cure it. How much of the relevant research is done by corps vs. academics? -xx- Damien X-) From pharos at gmail.com Wed Sep 7 19:36:41 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 20:36:41 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050907142958.92704.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> References: <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <20050907142958.92704.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/7/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > I even see the insidious tendrils > of econonomic luddism much closer to home in the HIV > antiviral pharmaceutical industry. It's the only way I > can explain why after so many billions of dollars > spent and so much knowledge gained regarding HIV, > there is still no cure. Its because the current market > emphasis and economic inertia is toward "treatment" > and not cure. More than 20 million people have died of AIDS since 1981. AIDS deaths in 2004, estimated at 3.1 million. You *really* think some people are deciding not to bother finding a cure because they can make a bit of money on the deal? I'm glad I don't live in your alternate universe. BillK From megao at sasktel.net Wed Sep 7 18:40:45 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:40:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <431F3E6E.1040807@posthuman.com> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907114729.03043b18@mail.gmu.edu> <431F14F0.8020202@posthuman.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907131059.030c0390@mail.gmu.edu> <431F2B21.1070900@posthuman.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907140850.030e5930@mail.gmu.edu> <431F3E6E.1040807@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <431F342D.5000106@sasktel.net> Brian Atkins wrote: > Ok let me simplify and just ask you and/or Hal this: > > If we are to accept that longer term crude futures contracts have any > worthwhile prediction capabilities, how do we explain the fact that > the current October 2005 contract (CLV5): > > > > > essentially just has mirrored over its lifetime the spot cash price: > > > > > If it truly had some predictive power shouldn't it already have jumped > up closer to $60 when it started off? As recently as May of this year > it was below $50, and back as late as June 2004 it was below $40. If > the market is so intelligent, or moved by the opinionated, why didn't > it forsee yet more worldwide demand, continuing strained supply etc.? > And is Hal's analysis that we should look to the 2008-2011 future > prices as proof of no upcoming oil price spike really worth considering? > > All I see from those two charts is a market dominated by shorter term > analysis, perhaps as short as 3 months or less, with no significant > deviation of the longer term contracts from the immediate consensus at > any given time. Isn't that because the profit is taken by those willing to buy 90day options and bet on increases during that period. Risk and profit are in 90 day cycles. You have to keep investing in options and hedge them against spot prices to make or loose money. The market doesn't care what happens beyond that, right? From brian at posthuman.com Wed Sep 7 19:53:50 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:53:50 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <431F342D.5000106@sasktel.net> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907114729.03043b18@mail.gmu.edu> <431F14F0.8020202@posthuman.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907131059.030c0390@mail.gmu.edu> <431F2B21.1070900@posthuman.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907140850.030e5930@mail.gmu.edu> <431F3E6E.1040807@posthuman.com> <431F342D.5000106@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <431F454E.50008@posthuman.com> Well for starters, futures and options are two completely different things. We're talking about crude oil futures specifically here. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Sep 7 20:15:50 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 13:15:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050907201550.23800.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> --- BillK wrote: > More than 20 million people have died of AIDS since 1981. > AIDS deaths in 2004, estimated at 3.1 million. > > You *really* think some people are deciding not to bother finding a > cure because they can make a bit of money on the deal? Some people really are that callous. However, some people != all people. It's one thing to direct the research efforts of an individual company. It's quite another to make sure that all concerns, which otherwise would be capable of effectively coming up with a cure for AIDS, have callous individuals directing them. There do exist some organizations, especially private ones (where the lack of shareholders means far fewer owners), which make money despite having no executives or owners for whom moneymaking is the primary goal. From robgobblin at aol.com Wed Sep 7 20:17:24 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 10:17:24 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <431F3E6E.1040807@posthuman.com> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907114729.03043b18@mail.gmu.edu> <431F14F0.8020202@posthuman.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907131059.030c0390@mail.gmu.edu> <431F2B21.1070900@posthuman.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907140850.030e5930@mail.gmu.edu> <431F3E6E.1040807@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <431F4AD4.4090104@aol.com> Brian Atkins wrote: > Ok let me simplify and just ask you and/or Hal this: > > If we are to accept that longer term crude futures contracts have any > worthwhile prediction capabilities, how do we explain the fact that > the current October 2005 contract (CLV5): > > > > > essentially just has mirrored over its lifetime the spot cash price: > > > > > If it truly had some predictive power shouldn't it already have jumped > up closer to $60 when it started off? Not necessarily. Your model of gambling intelligence is naive. People are smarter than that. Let's say I KNOW that prices are going up simply because cost of production is going up (that is to say, there are OBJECTIVE FACTORS affecting prices contrary to some models of pricing). Let's say I know that I'm not the only one who knows, some other people know. I also know that some other people have an inkling but don't actually KNOW and I know that some other people in the market have more money than I do and could affect the value of my investment in other ways. Now say I think - okay, I'll buy short term oil futures. So I start buying big time - some other conglomerate - say a purely financial concern - picks up on my buying behavior and starts shorting me. And then someone else sees them moving in and the market becomes chaotic. Then, say, lots of people pick up and start selling short or buying long, etc. In short, the only thing buying LOTS of a commodities futures is likely to do is to cause chaos. Smart investors know this and so try to buy indirectly into industries likey to profit from long-term oil price increases. But even here, moderation is always wise. There's simply too much information for a single bet to be a good idea and certainly it's never a good idea to play your hand. Robbie Lindauer From megao at sasktel.net Wed Sep 7 19:21:48 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:21:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: References: <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <20050907142958.92704.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <431F3DCC.3090302@sasktel.net> I do have a good example of how this actually happens. We raise hemp in Canada Hemp is regarded much like marijuana in the USA for growing by farmers by USDA , DEA and FDA so is disallowed. DEA and FDA prevent USDA from letting farmers from growing hemp because it might be the thin edge of the wedge to break marijuana prohibition. So if you are a USA farmer you want both things relaxed so you can grow a profitable crop. (cure the disease) If you are an Canadian farmer you want the status quo because you can supply finished product of a type acceptable to export to the USA into a captive market, and continue to do so without domestic competition. (treat the disease) Similar with some disease drug development, you want to treat the disease so it does not kill but your efforts to simply give a one time treatment that forever cures and eliminates the long term market for a treatment that curbs but does not quickly cure has market disincentives built in. Investors won't spend 300 million to for example cure diabetes with a one time treatment when a drug that emeliorates 90% of the damage without reversing the disease is a wonderful investment. Wish human nature was more ethical but I really think money takes precedant over ethics in the marketplace which by its basic nature is sociopathic and not socialistic. BillK wrote: >On 9/7/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > >>I even see the insidious tendrils >>of econonomic luddism much closer to home in the HIV >>antiviral pharmaceutical industry. It's the only way I >>can explain why after so many billions of dollars >>spent and so much knowledge gained regarding HIV, >>there is still no cure. Its because the current market >>emphasis and economic inertia is toward "treatment" >>and not cure. >> >> > >More than 20 million people have died of AIDS since 1981. >AIDS deaths in 2004, estimated at 3.1 million. > >You *really* think some people are deciding not to bother finding a >cure because they can make a bit of money on the deal? > >I'm glad I don't live in your alternate universe. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rhanson at gmu.edu Wed Sep 7 21:14:09 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 17:14:09 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <431F3E6E.1040807@posthuman.com> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907114729.03043b18@mail.gmu.edu> <431F14F0.8020202@posthuman.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907131059.030c0390@mail.gmu.edu> <431F2B21.1070900@posthuman.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907140850.030e5930@mail.gmu.edu> <431F3E6E.1040807@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050907170947.0311d3c8@mail.gmu.edu> At 03:24 PM 9/7/2005, Brian Atkins wrote: >Ok let me simplify and just ask you and/or Hal this: > >If we are to accept that longer term crude futures contracts have >any worthwhile prediction capabilities, how do we explain the fact >that the current October 2005 contract (CLV5): > > > >essentially just has mirrored over its lifetime the spot cash price: > > > >If it truly had some predictive power shouldn't it already have >jumped up closer to $60 when it started off? Not necessarily, no. The futures prices may well have no *more* predictive power than spot prices. Even so, they could still be the best forecast available. 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 sjatkins at mac.com Wed Sep 7 21:16:27 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 14:16:27 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050907114729.03043b18@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20050905025621.34EC857EF5@finney.org> <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907114729.03043b18@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <7C5F900B-7255-4A79-8C3A-3EC54C5567D2@mac.com> The market is too irrational and likely highly manipulated in my opinion to risk much capital in it at this time. Also I do not have the requisite knowledge to responsibly engage in oil futures trading nor the time required to obtain it. That I am not so investing doesn't say anything at all about my position on the question except that I am unable to take advantage of it in this matter. However. I have gained 20% in the last few months simply by following my prediction that any dip in certain oil stocks will be more than regained in short order. Nothing spectacular or very sophisticated, just following the bouncing ball. - samantha On Sep 7, 2005, at 8:50 AM, Robin Hanson wrote: > At 06:21 AM 9/7/2005, Samantha Atkins wrote: > >>> If Peak Oil were widely seen as a likely scenario in that time >>> frame, >>> we would see increasing oil prices out in the 2008 to 2011 time >>> frame. >>> For technical reasons, these markets tend not to have large price >>> differentials across the delivery years (basically because it is >>> easy to move oil deliveries backwards and forwards in time), so >>> we would expect high future prices to drag up present-day >>> prices. ... >>> But this is not what we see. While oil prices have risen steadily >>> for the past few years, they have not been led up by future prices. >>> >> >> I am not sure that analysis is valid although I don't see an >> immediate flaw. But I do not find it a convincing arugmunt that Peak >> Oil is not at hand. Look back in time to how unanmiously rosy most >> of the market was right up to and even int the dot com bust. The >> Street can be fooled or its truthfulness seriously compromised. >> There is also evidence that many parts of the Market are grossly >> manipulated. See the Sprott report for some of this evidence at >> http://www.sprott.com/pdf/pressrelease/TheVisibleHand.pdf >> > > So why are you not speculating in these markets to make all the money > you think is there to be taken. Or are you also one of those fools? > > > 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 pharos at gmail.com Wed Sep 7 22:11:34 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 23:11:34 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <431F3DCC.3090302@sasktel.net> References: <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <20050907142958.92704.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> <431F3DCC.3090302@sasktel.net> Message-ID: On 9/7/05, Lifespan Pharma Inc. wrote: > > Similar with some disease drug development, you want to treat the disease > so it does not kill but your efforts to > simply give a one time treatment that forever cures and eliminates the long > term market for a treatment that > curbs but does not quickly cure has market disincentives built in. > Investors won't spend 300 million to for example > cure diabetes with a one time treatment when a drug that emeliorates 90% of > the damage without reversing > the disease is a wonderful investment. > > Wish human nature was more ethical but I really think money takes precedant > over ethics in the marketplace which > by its basic nature is sociopathic and not socialistic. > Hang on a minute! Are you and Adrian saying that businesses really do decide to harm people so they can make a profit?? I thought this was the Libertarian market supporters club here. ;) We'd better put a stop to this free market nonsense then! :) BillK From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 22:17:42 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:17:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <431F3E6E.1040807@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <20050907221742.53671.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Brian Atkins wrote: > Ok let me simplify and just ask you and/or Hal this: > > If we are to accept that longer term crude futures contracts have any > worthwhile prediction capabilities, how do we explain the fact that > the current October 2005 contract (CLV5): > > > > essentially just has mirrored over its lifetime the spot cash price: > > > > If it truly had some predictive power shouldn't it already have > jumped up closer to $60 when it started off? As recently as May of > this year it was below $50, and back as late as June 2004 it was > below $40. The reason futures prices lag current spot prices is that a large percent of current prices is seen by much of the market as caused by crisis events, political instability, etc. The Iraq war, Afghanistan, WOT, the multiple severe hurricanes, the civil war in Nigeria, the political situation in Venezuela, terrorist attacks in Europe, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Mexico's oil problems, all add up to a very "interesting" year, particularly since November 04, when prices started going up significantly. Market experts likely believe that once all of these crises are past, and assuming no more crop up, that the price of oil will settle down. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 22:33:26 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:33:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050907192554.GB28427@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20050907223326.58010.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Damien Sullivan wrote: > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 07:29:58AM -0700, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > see it everywhere. I even see the insidious tendrils > > of econonomic luddism much closer to home in the HIV > > antiviral pharmaceutical industry. It's the only way I > > can explain why after so many billions of dollars > > spent and so much knowledge gained regarding HIV, > > there is still no cure. Its because the current market > > You can't believe that the fastest evolving virus I've ever heard of, > which targets the immune system directly, is a tough nut to crack? HIV is not the fastest evolving virus, the common cold is, followed by the flu virus. HIV is surprisingly fragile, as evinced by the fact that it cannot survive outside of blood. The hard part is killing it in the blood without killing its victim. Stopping it from spreading is easy, provided you can stick every drug addict and promiscuous person in a barrel, test them all, and isolate the infected ones. The victims are, for the most part, comparatively negligent in their own infection. > > So long as there is so much profit to be made by > > treating HIV, there is little incentive (at least in > > wealthy industrial countries) to actually cure it. > > How much of the relevant research is done by corps vs. academics? The problem is that most people who have it can't afford to be treated and generally are uninsured. If you were a for-profit you'd invest in illnesses that afflict a lot of wealthy or fully insured people. The market for HIV vaccines has not really hit that point yet, which is why per unit costs for most HIV treatments run in the thousands to tens of thousands of dollars per dose. Economies of scale for mass production are not feasible. You may justly complain that a lot of infected people live in countries with socialized medicine. You are right. The problem is that such countries socialized medical systems fix drug pricing and refuse to let drug companies amortize the cost of R&D&T, which dumps all those costs on the American patients and their insurance companies, which are wise to the game now, and since HIV patients wind up on medicaid or medicare pretty rapidly, the US Gov't is wise to it too... Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Sep 7 22:38:05 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:38:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050907223805.24294.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- BillK wrote: > Hang on a minute! > Are you and Adrian saying that businesses really do decide to harm > people so they can make a profit?? > > I thought this was the Libertarian market supporters club here. ;) > > We'd better put a stop to this free market nonsense then! :) That is a strong statement to make. After all, you are against going to war to free people, so why should you make companies produce unprofitable drugs at gunpoint, or even pay them to do it with money taken at gunpoint from others? Its the same ethical situation. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From aiguy at comcast.net Wed Sep 7 22:44:11 2005 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 18:44:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509072244.j87MiOf14214@tick.javien.com> Actually a vaccine that prevents the disease in the first place would be the bigger money maker and result in the least risk of the disease continuing it's spread. In that way you don't limit your customers to those who already have the disease but rather a much larger group of the general population that would have reason to fear accidently contracting the disease. More importantly the larger potential earnings serves as a larger financial incentive to the drug companies to perform research. -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 6:12 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate On 9/7/05, Lifespan Pharma Inc. wrote: > > Similar with some disease drug development, you want to treat the > disease so it does not kill but your efforts to simply give a one > time treatment that forever cures and eliminates the long term market > for a treatment that curbs but does not quickly cure has market > disincentives built in. > Investors won't spend 300 million to for example cure diabetes with a > one time treatment when a drug that emeliorates 90% of the damage > without reversing the disease is a wonderful investment. > > Wish human nature was more ethical but I really think money takes > precedant over ethics in the marketplace which by its basic nature is > sociopathic and not socialistic. > Hang on a minute! Are you and Adrian saying that businesses really do decide to harm people so they can make a profit?? I thought this was the Libertarian market supporters club here. ;) We'd better put a stop to this free market nonsense then! :) BillK _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From megao at sasktel.net Wed Sep 7 21:57:52 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:57:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <200509072244.j87MiOf14214@tick.javien.com> References: <200509072244.j87MiOf14214@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <431F6260.4090006@sasktel.net> The profit per product is based upon the willingness and ability of the patient or the HMO to pay. So one would have to research the willingness of the bulk clients HMO's and National health plans to pay before deciding which is more profitable to develop or market on a specific product by product basis ... It is not quite as simple as make it then sell it as I see it. Gary Miller wrote: > >Actually a vaccine that prevents the disease in the first place would be the >bigger money maker and result in the least risk of the disease continuing >it's spread. > >In that way you don't limit your customers to those who already have the >disease but rather a much larger group of the general population that would >have reason to fear accidently contracting the disease. > >More importantly the larger potential earnings serves as a larger financial >incentive to the drug companies to perform research. > >-----Original Message----- >From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org >[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK >Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 6:12 PM >To: ExI chat list >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate > >On 9/7/05, Lifespan Pharma Inc. wrote: > > >> >> Similar with some disease drug development, you want to treat the >>disease so it does not kill but your efforts to simply give a one >>time treatment that forever cures and eliminates the long term market >>for a treatment that curbs but does not quickly cure has market >>disincentives built in. >>Investors won't spend 300 million to for example cure diabetes with a >>one time treatment when a drug that emeliorates 90% of the damage >>without reversing the disease is a wonderful investment. >> >> Wish human nature was more ethical but I really think money takes >>precedant over ethics in the marketplace which by its basic nature is >>sociopathic and not socialistic. >> >> >> > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Sep 7 23:32:59 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:32:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050907233259.79414.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> --- BillK wrote: > Are you and Adrian saying that businesses really do decide to harm > people so they can make a profit?? Some less-ethical ones do. Not quite as many as certain genres of fiction imply, but there are unquestionably examples of them out there. > I thought this was the Libertarian market supporters club here. ;) No, this is the Extropian discussion list. Many libertarian principles are compatible with the Extropian ones, but they're far from identical. > We'd better put a stop to this free market nonsense then! :) Nah. No need to go to extremes in all cases. From dgc at cox.net Thu Sep 8 00:30:12 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:30:12 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fill it in a pave it over In-Reply-To: <20050907000234.45223.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050907000234.45223.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <431F8614.7070309@cox.net> Adrian Tymes wrote: >--- Dan Clemmensen wrote: > > >>Adrian Tymes wrote: >> >> >>>Assuming you could buy out the entire city, or most of it. While >>> >>> >>the >> >> >>>government may have the legal right to force the sales (see recent >>>eminent domain cases), even the US federal government might have a >>> >>> >>hard >> >> >>>time coming up with that much money (without giving many people so >>>little that it could credibly be called far below fair value/market >>>price). >>> >>> >>> >>No need to buy out anything. title for each parcel remains with each >>property holder. >>The government just piles somewhere between three and twenty feet of >>gravel on top. >>You lose the value of your improvements, but in a great many cases >>you >>already lost >>most of the value due to flood damage. >> >> > >Altering property without the property owners' permission seems even >more legally objectionable. Which is not to say it wouldn't otherwise >be a good idea; I'm just worried it might be rejected by the courts >(and liability for it would prevent the government from doing it). >_______________________________________________ > > Does the government have any legal obligation to turn the pumps back on? If not, then the property owner is free to use his submerged property as he wishes. At least at the seashore, after the ocean has permanently inundated your property, your property rights cease. It's not the government that "altered" your rights: it's mother nature. You can't have it both ways. If you want minimal government involvement, the pumps stop. If you want the pumps to keep running, you must agree to a role for government (or for some other collective with coercive powers,) Filling the place with gravel replaces active civil engineering (pumps) with passive civil engineering. Passive civil engineering, done correctly, can endure for thousands of years without maintanence, and is therefore a much better bet. From hal at finney.org Thu Sep 8 00:01:04 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 17:01:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? Message-ID: <20050908000104.AEBC457EF5@finney.org> The problem with the predictive ability of futures markets isn't with the markets, it's with that darn future. It's just hard to predict. Right now, for example, who knows what oil prices will be, say, at the end of next year? The futures market estimates $65.65, about the same as today. By looking at options prices we can get an idea of the degree of uncertainty, and I have recently learned this art. The market sees about a 21% chance that it will be at 80 or above, and about a 22% chance that it will be 50 or below. That's a pretty broad range, with lots of uncertainty. The future is inherently uncertain, so we should not be surprised that that institution which specializes in extracting and consolidating all available information in the form of prices, also reflects this uncertainty. One way to think of it is that we live in one of many possible worlds. There is a world where oil will be $80 at the end of 2006. There is a world where oil will be $50 at that time. Which world are we in? We don't have enough information to know. Are we even in a specific world where that future price is effectively pre-ordained? Maybe our consciousness effectively spans multiple worlds, each with very different future prices of oil. In that case there is not even any meaning to the question of what the future price will be. We can only describe the future with a probability distribution. Well, that's just a personal speculation of my own. Brian Atkins points out that futures prices often mirror present day events. When Katrina hit, futures prices as far out as 2011 went up and then down just like spot prices did, although to a lesser degree. On the surface, this might seem irrational. How could Katrina affect what the price of oil would be six years from now? The effects will be long gone by that time. The way I would explain this is that this does not reflect the impact of Katrina on the coastline, but rather the impact of Katrina on people's minds. Futures prices reflect our best guesses at the future. Every experience that we have informs our minds and changes our opinions about the future. When Katrina hit and we saw that devastation, it made us realize how vulnerable our oil infrastructure is, and how easily it can be disrupted. This knowledge and realization caused us to revise upwards our estimates of a fair price for oil, as far out as the markets go. Then, a few days later, spot prices were back down, and so were futures prices. It was learned that despite the devastation, crude oil supplies were not badly impacted. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and similar reserves overseas, were available to make up a temporary shortfall. This calmed the markets and brought down spot prices. And it also provided new information which affected futures prices. Traders learned that even a devastating hurricane can have only moderate affects, that there are measures in place for remediation and cushioning the blow, and that these measures work. This caused them to revise downwards their estimates of the damage even a devastating hurricane like Katrina can cause, and so prices of 2011 oil come back down. It might seem strange that new facts like these, that come in on a day to day basis, can cause the markets to revise their opinion about the most likely future to a considerable degree. But that is just a reflection of the tremendous uncertainty inherent in the future. The markets continually aggregate all of the information that is available and extrapolate it forward. This process tends to cause future prices to move up and down in synchrony with present day prices. That is the explanation for the phenomenon Brian noticed. One final point: my skepticism about Peak Oil is not due to a belief that markets are always right. It is easy to find cases where markets are wrong. Rather, my point is that markets are more likely to be right than Peak Oil enthusiasts. One of the biggest marks against Peak Oilers is that they believe that their case is obvious. They tend not to say that the future is extremely uncertain and hard to predict, and that they merely see a certain risk of Peak Oil among other alternatives. Instead, most of them are quite certain that Peak Oil is a serious risk and that the evidence in favor of it is very plain and obvious. The often resort to conspiracy theories to explain the absence of wider support for what is to them an open and shut case. The government knows and is covering it up to prevent panic, or Big Oil is afraid to let people know that they will be out of business in a few years. But if Peak Oil were really that obvious, market traders would know about it. Further, insiders would know about it and that would be reflected in market prices. The links I provided earlier to the Econbrowser blog elaborate on this point. Whatever else Peak Oil may be, it is not obvious! The more specific point I made with regard to markets (which are, after all, up by a factor of two in the past year or so) is that the price structure you would expect for a Peak Oil driven price increase is different from what you see today. You would see future prices being higher than present day prices rather than vice versa. Instead, if you draw a graph of oil prices over time (I have never seen any such graph but it would be easy to draw one) you would see prices rise gradually until mid to late 2006 and then fall to considerably lower than present day prices. If market participants believed in a Peak Oil scenario, the consensus would not be that oil in 2010 is going to be cheaper than today. So I think it is clear that the futures markets, as they work to aggregate all available information about the possible course of future prices, are not considering the Peak Oil scenario as very likely. Hal Finney From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Sep 8 00:57:55 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 17:57:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Fill it in a pave it over In-Reply-To: <431F8614.7070309@cox.net> Message-ID: <20050908005755.35051.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dan Clemmensen wrote: > Does the government have any legal obligation to turn the pumps back > on? Maybe not, but it's a suicidal (career-wise) mayor who ignores the very vocal wishes of a majority of the city's voters. Or maybe the pumps are controlled by the county or state - either of whom has similar motivation to do so. > You can't have it both ways. If you want minimal government > involvement, > the pumps > stop. If you want the pumps to keep running, you must agree to a role > for government > (or for some other collective with coercive powers,) Few if any of us are New Orleans residents. Most of them don't want minimal government involvement - they might like lower taxes, but they *definitely* want the pumps running. Quite a few of them disagree with logic, too: they want stuff they don't have to pay for, and strongly resist any attempts to impose reality on their fantasy (and tend to suffer the consequences thereof, quite unwillingly). From robgobblin at aol.com Thu Sep 8 01:13:37 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:13:37 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ? In-Reply-To: <20050908000104.AEBC457EF5@finney.org> References: <20050908000104.AEBC457EF5@finney.org> Message-ID: <431F9041.3030203@aol.com> Hal Finney wrote: >The problem with the predictive ability of futures markets isn't with >the markets, it's with that darn future. It's just hard to predict. > > A future devoid of people is usually pretty easy to predict. It's when you have chaotic factors that it becomes near impossible, especially when greed, fear, stupidity, wisdom and force interact in the 'free market'. As a consequence, the only sure things are the things that everybody knows. All the people you just had to meet without your clothes... R From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 01:15:40 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 18:15:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Fill it in a pave it over In-Reply-To: <20050908005755.35051.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050908011540.62622.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Dan Clemmensen wrote: > > Does the government have any legal obligation to turn the pumps > back > > on? > > Maybe not, but it's a suicidal (career-wise) mayor who ignores the > very > vocal wishes of a majority of the city's voters. Or maybe the pumps > are controlled by the county or state - either of whom has similar > motivation to do so. > Ah, well, you are assuming that he still has a city to get reelected in, and that he isn't maneuvering for multiple tens of billions of dollars of federal reconstruction aid to be at his disposal to give contracts and jobs to anybody willing to support his candidacy. Can you say 'slush fund', or 'kick-back', or 'cronyism'? He's simply following the pattern established by dozens of third world thugs receiving foreign aid from Uncle Sugar. > > Few if any of us are New Orleans residents. Most of them don't want > minimal government involvement - they might like lower taxes, but > they *definitely* want the pumps running. Quite a few of them disagree > with > logic, too: they want stuff they don't have to pay for, and strongly > resist any attempts to impose reality on their fantasy (and tend to > suffer the consequences thereof, quite unwillingly). Particularly wrt the NOLA levee boards, which have a well established reputation of corruption, cronyism, nepotism, and other off political activities and little in the way of actual accomplishments. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Sep 8 01:28:06 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:28:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: References: <8631C3BC-B475-4279-BDBA-814FDA41291A@mac.com> <20050907142958.92704.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> <431F3DCC.3090302@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050907202554.04596c70@pop-server.austin.rr.com> >I thought this was the Libertarian market supporters club here. ;) I have no tolerance for this. While it may be a wink to you, for those of us who are trying to clean up the politicizing of ExI and extropians as any one political force, this type of comment is unacceptable. Natasha Vita-More Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist, Designer Studies of the Future, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Sep 8 02:33:18 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 19:33:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050907202554.04596c70@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <20050908023318.14418.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> --- Natasha Vita-More wrote: > >I thought this was the Libertarian market supporters club here. ;) > > I have no tolerance for this. While it may be a wink to you, for > those of > us who are trying to clean up the politicizing of ExI and extropians > as any > one political force, this type of comment is unacceptable. He meant it in jest, but yeah. We do need to get the word out: "Extropian" is not a blanket synonym for "Libertarian". From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Sep 8 03:29:03 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 20:29:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050908023318.14418.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050908023318.14418.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5C9BBC55-CD72-40DB-8F07-FA59B13DEA20@mac.com> And it sure as hell better not be a blanket synonym for anti- libertarian. -s On Sep 7, 2005, at 7:33 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Natasha Vita-More wrote: > >>> I thought this was the Libertarian market supporters club here. ;) >>> >> >> I have no tolerance for this. While it may be a wink to you, for >> those of >> us who are trying to clean up the politicizing of ExI and extropians >> as any >> one political force, this type of comment is unacceptable. >> > > He meant it in jest, but yeah. We do need to get the word out: > "Extropian" is not a blanket synonym for "Libertarian". > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Sep 8 04:17:53 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 14:17:53 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate References: <20050908023318.14418.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002601c5b42c$48842e30$0d98e03c@homepc> Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Natasha Vita-More wrote: >> >I thought this was the Libertarian market supporters club here. ;) >> >> I have no tolerance for this. While it may be a wink to you, for >> those of >> us who are trying to clean up the politicizing of ExI and extropians >> as any >> one political force, this type of comment is unacceptable. > > He meant it in jest, but yeah. We do need to get the word out: > "Extropian" is not a blanket synonym for "Libertarian". Perhaps rather than just getting the word, A is not equal to B out, when clearly some see A as like B, a worked example might be produced that shows how a person applying the philosophy of extropy would, or could, come to a different solution to a particular problem than a person who was a libertarian. Once produced the worked example could then be pointed at. I'm not sure how either the philosophy of extropy or a libertarian world-view would actually stack up if they were applied to truly global problems, that is, to the actual real world. Both seem to me to be more about peoples (the worldview holders) commitments to certain values. How those different value sets (if they are different) would translate into policy differences in the real world I'm not sure. Two people can hold the same values in theory and yet act differently in practice because in practice values come into conflict with each other and people then prioritise differently between them. Brett Paatsch From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Sep 8 06:10:51 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 23:10:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <002601c5b42c$48842e30$0d98e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20050908061051.65601.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > Perhaps rather than just getting the word, A is not equal to B out, > when clearly some see A as like B, a worked example might be > produced that shows how a person applying the philosophy of > extropy would, or could, come to a different solution to a particular > problem than a person who was a libertarian. > > Once produced the worked example could then be pointed at. Ironically, the thing that sparked this part of the thread was one such example. It was pointed out that some corporations put their own profits far ahead of human life, and indicated that government regulation - like requiring practices that make honest business a lot easier than murder for hire - could be a more effective mediator against the negative effects of this than pure free markets and reputations. This is not the libertarian way, but it is compatible with extropian principles. From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Sep 8 07:12:46 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 17:12:46 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate References: <20050908061051.65601.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001201c5b444$b6bad300$0d98e03c@homepc> Adrian Tymes wrote: To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 4:10 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate > --- Brett Paatsch wrote: >> Perhaps rather than just getting the word, A is not equal to B out, >> when clearly some see A as like B, a worked example might be >> produced that shows how a person applying the philosophy of >> extropy would, or could, come to a different solution to a particular >> problem than a person who was a libertarian. >> >> Once produced the worked example could then be pointed at. > > Ironically, the thing that sparked this part of the thread was one such > example. It was pointed out that some corporations put their own > profits far ahead of human life, and indicated that government > regulation - like requiring practices that make honest business a lot > easier than murder for hire - could be a more effective mediator > against the negative effects of this than pure free markets and > reputations. This is not the libertarian way, but it is compatible > with extropian principles. So you see using government to mitigate market forces as something a person that holds to the philosophy of extropy might support whereas a libertarian would not? That seems like a reasonable example of a difference. Forced to choose between a libertarian mindset that would have no government at all on high principle and another mindset that would accept the need for a government of some type, I'd tend to look at the second as being more realistic in 2005. All else being equal the charge of utopianism would seem easier to level at the first standpoint than the second. Brett Paatsch From hal at finney.org Thu Sep 8 06:26:00 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 23:26:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism Message-ID: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> I know this is a controversial topic, and this may be an unwelcome contribution, but I suggest that it is reasonable and appropriate to look at the Principles of Extropy and consider what they say about various political systems. My reading of the principles of Open Society and Self-Direction is that they point very much towards a libertarian approach to political life. What is it that distinguishes libertarianism from other political systems? As I use the term, I see it as that political system which minimizes the use of coercion and compulsion and allows individuals the maximum freedom to make their own decisions about their lives. In a libertarian society, people are free to make mutual volutary agreements about social and economic matters. For example, there is no minimum wage, because that prevents people from agreeing to work for less than a centrally-defined pay rate. People are not taxed to pay for social insurance or welfare systems, because again that interferes with people's freedom to make mutual agreements as they see fit. Now, I think we have a number of participants here who would object to the formation of a society organized around these principles. They would view such a society, without the economic protections which have become nearly ubiquitous in the modern world, as barbaric, primitive and unfair. They would, in particular, consider it inconsistent with the principles of Extropy. It is this question which I want to address. The current version of the Principles of Extropy at http://extropy.org/principles.htm is in my opinion a well written document that lays out an attractive philosophy which is highly appropriate for our fast changing world. Max More has done a great job at creating a framework for dealing with issues in a dynamic and flexible way, while holding to the concept of maximizing human potential which has always been the core of Extropian beliefs. Some readers have suggested that the Principles have been "watered down" or altered to minimize a supposed excessive degree of libertarianism, but I don't see that at all. In my reading the Principles are in fact strongly libertarian and amply demonstrate the commitment to freedom and voluntary, non-coercive arrangements that are the core of libertarianism. The Principles are long and I don't have room to take them apart sentence by sentence. I would invite those who disagree to look through the Principles and find support for minimum wage restrictions and welfare taxation, or other forms of social coercion and control. Here are a few quotes which demonstrate the libertarian flavor of the Principles, followed by my comments. From Open Society: "The freedom of expression of an open society is best protected by a social order characterized by voluntary relationships and exchanges." This is essentially the defining principle of libertarianism. "Within an open society individuals, through their voluntary consent, may choose to submit themselves to more restrictive arrangements in the form of clubs, private communities, or corporate entities. Open societies allow more rigidly organized social structures to exist so long as individuals are free to leave." Free to leave is the operative word here. Coercive government restrictions cannot be escaped. "Even where we find some of those choices mistaken or foolish, open societies affirm the value of a system that allows all ideas to be tried with the consent of those involved." A good example would be someone who chooses to work for less than what we think he should, or without the health and safety protections we think he should demand. The libertarian perspective endorsed here calls on us to restrain our tendency to enforce limits on people who choose to make what such foolish choices. "Extropic thinking conflicts with the technocratic idea of coercive central control by insular, self-proclaimed experts." And yet that is exactly what we have with economic regulations of the type I am discussing. The minimum wage is set on the basis of some economist's or sociologists ideas of what constitutes a just amount. It is set via coercive central control, exactly what Max warns against. "In open societies people seek neither to rule nor to be ruled. Individuals should be in charge of their own lives." A perfect capsule summary of libertarianism. But let me quote the end of this paragraph, which strikes a different tone: "But for individuals and societies to flourish, liberty must come with personal responsibility. The demand for freedom without responsibility is an adolescent's demand for license." I certainly do not read this as an endorsement of coercive, centralized government control! That would be utterly inconsistent with the points which are made again and again throughout. Rather, Max is observing that philosophically, society will flourish when people behave responsibly. He is not saying therefore that society should force people to behave according to some centralized definition of responsible behavior. Now for some quotes from the discussion of Self-Direction: "Each individual should be free and responsible for deciding for themselves in what ways to change or to stay the same." While this does not directly address the economic issues above, it is a further reiteration of the libertarian goal of non-coercion. "It is extropic to take responsibility for the consequences of our choices, refusing to blame others for the results of our own free actions." Again this is a fundamental principle of libertarianism. When people make mistakes, they take responsibility for them, they do not look to a paternalistic government to fix the problem for them. "Personal responsibility and self-determination are incompatible with authoritarian centralized control, which stifles the choices and spontaneous ordering of autonomous persons." "Coercion of mature, sound minds outside the realm of self-protection, whether for the purported 'good of the whole' or for the paternalistic protection of the individual, is unacceptable." Again, two very strong statements of libertarian principles. The kinds of economic regulations I listed above are imposed for precisely these reasons, coercing people who are attempting to engage in voluntary relationships either for the good of the whole (as in welfare state taxation) or for paternalistic protection (as in the minimum wage). These comments perfectly exemplify the libertarianism which is implicit in these Principles. "We act benevolently not by acting under obligation to sacrifice personal interests; we embody benevolence when we have a disposition to help others." Taxation to help the poor is not a benevolent policy under this analysis. Forcing people to act under obligation to sacrifice their personal interests does not promote benevolence. Only voluntary giving, the personal disposition to help others, is true benevolence and a true value to society. I think these quotes are enough to make an initial case. Please, read the Principles yourself, especially these two, and see if you don't see the libertarianism which is present in virtually every part of the analysis and discussion. I can't account for the beliefs people have that this version of the Principles of Extropy has turned away from libertarianism or is somehow inconsistent with that philosophy. To me, the philosophy of non-coercion is such a fundamental and pervasive part of the foundations of Extropian thinking that it is hard to imagine how people could see it otherwise. Hal Finney From giogavir at yahoo.it Thu Sep 8 07:31:04 2005 From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 09:31:04 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:katrina opportunity In-Reply-To: <20050907190343.GA28427@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20050908073105.72681.qmail@web26210.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> wwe are all living in dangerous areas planet Earth an asteroid impact, which can happen at anytime can destry our civilization if only the expected 2029 close call deflects slightly from its trajectory we are doomed I don't see anything been done about that we have enough early warning to prepare a deflection or destruction system for such asteroid in case something gets out of control but nothing is been done --- Damien Sullivan ha scritto: > On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 02:30:07PM +0200, giorgio > gaviraghi wrote: > > the recent new orleans disaster must be considered > as > > an alrm bell of things to come during this > century. > > natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, > > tsunamis, earthquakes, mudslides , fires, and > others > > re becoming more frequent nd more dsmaging. > > I've read this is more because more people are > moving to disaster prone areas > such as California and Florida and Seattle. > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050905/ap_on_sc/katrina_unsafe_planet > > In the 1970s, only 11 percent of earthquakes > affected human settlements, > researchers at Belgium's University of Louvain > report. That soared to 31 > percent in 1993-2003, including a quake in 2003 > that killed 26,000 people > in Iran, whose population has doubled since the > '70s. > > The expanding U.S. population "has migrated to > hazard-prone areas -- to > Florida, the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, > particularly barrier islands, to > California," noted retired U.S. government > seismologist Robert M. > Hamilton, a disaster-prevention specialist. > "Several decades ago we didn't > have wall-to-wall houses down the coast as we do > now." > > -xx- Damien X-) > _______________________________________________ > 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 sjatkins at mac.com Thu Sep 8 07:39:55 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 00:39:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050908061051.65601.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050908061051.65601.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: There are actually non-government regulation ways of dealing with fraudulent or harmful businesses. A system of laws against fraud and various forms of aggression on the rights and well-being of others would seem sufficient. So this is probably not a meaningful example. Is it just me or does the point seem rather strained in any case? - samantha On Sep 7, 2005, at 11:10 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > >> Perhaps rather than just getting the word, A is not equal to B out, >> when clearly some see A as like B, a worked example might be >> produced that shows how a person applying the philosophy of >> extropy would, or could, come to a different solution to a particular >> problem than a person who was a libertarian. >> >> Once produced the worked example could then be pointed at. >> > > Ironically, the thing that sparked this part of the thread was one > such > example. It was pointed out that some corporations put their own > profits far ahead of human life, and indicated that government > regulation - like requiring practices that make honest business a lot > easier than murder for hire - could be a more effective mediator > against the negative effects of this than pure free markets and > reputations. This is not the libertarian way, but it is compatible > with extropian principles. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Sep 8 07:42:34 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 00:42:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <001201c5b444$b6bad300$0d98e03c@homepc> References: <20050908061051.65601.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> <001201c5b444$b6bad300$0d98e03c@homepc> Message-ID: Excuse me but libertarianism is compatible with various answers to how much government is useful. It is not a position of "no government" although one faction of libertarian thought does have that answer for the question. Please use labels responsibly or not at all. On Sep 8, 2005, at 12:12 AM, Brett Paatsch wrote: > Adrian Tymes wrote: > > To: "ExI chat list" > Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 4:10 PM > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate > > > >> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: >> >>> Perhaps rather than just getting the word, A is not equal to B out, >>> when clearly some see A as like B, a worked example might be >>> produced that shows how a person applying the philosophy of >>> extropy would, or could, come to a different solution to a >>> particular >>> problem than a person who was a libertarian. Once produced the >>> worked example could then be pointed at. >>> >> Ironically, the thing that sparked this part of the thread was one >> such >> example. It was pointed out that some corporations put their own >> profits far ahead of human life, and indicated that government >> regulation - like requiring practices that make honest business a lot >> easier than murder for hire - could be a more effective mediator >> against the negative effects of this than pure free markets and >> reputations. This is not the libertarian way, but it is compatible >> with extropian principles. >> > > So you see using government to mitigate market forces as something > a person that holds to the philosophy of extropy might support whereas > a libertarian would not? > That seems like a reasonable example of a difference. Forced to choose > between a libertarian mindset that would have no government at all on > high principle and another mindset that would accept the need for a > government of some type, I'd tend to look at the second as being > more realistic in 2005. > > All else being equal the charge of utopianism would seem easier to > level > at the first standpoint than the second. > Brett Paatsch > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Thu Sep 8 08:32:29 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 18:32:29 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate References: <20050908061051.65601.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com><001201c5b444$b6bad300$0d98e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <004401c5b44f$d9a5e070$0d98e03c@homepc> Samantha Atkins wrote: > Excuse me but libertarianism is compatible with various answers to how > much government is useful. It is not a position of "no government" > although one faction of libertarian thought does have that answer for the > question. Please use labels responsibly or not at all. I don't know *how* :-) How, that is, to have a discussion about labels like libertarian and to be sure that I am doing so responsibly by all the possible meanings of the word others may have put on it. When I think of libertarian thought I think of the ideas of Bentham and James and John Stuart Mills (who wrote _On Liberty_) and a bunch of others that followed afterward. I think I could do a reasonable job of placing the idea (meme) into some sort of historical context and follow its development but I don't know that I can do much of a job at all of using the word responsibly when the point is really to find out what the word means to other people that identify with it. Its helpful for me to know what libertarianism means to individual people who identify with the term. Its also interesting to see why people identify with the Principles of Extropy. Wouldn't you be interested in hearing how people who do or do not identify with the term libertarian identify with the principles of extropy? Seems to me that there is unlikely to be a single correct answer but there might be a number of *interesting* answers. Brett Paatsch From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Sep 8 10:53:20 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 03:53:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <004401c5b44f$d9a5e070$0d98e03c@homepc> References: <20050908061051.65601.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> <001201c5b444$b6bad300$0d98e03c@homepc> <004401c5b44f$d9a5e070$0d98e03c@homepc> Message-ID: You are much to erudite for me to believe that you are unaware that libertarianism is not defined by "no government at all on high principle" as you earlier this evening put it. I guess a poor libertarian minarchist like myself should go bond with socialists. :-) - samantha On Sep 8, 2005, at 1:32 AM, Brett Paatsch wrote: > Samantha Atkins wrote: > > >> Excuse me but libertarianism is compatible with various answers >> to how much government is useful. It is not a position of "no >> government" although one faction of libertarian thought does have >> that answer for the question. Please use labels responsibly or >> not at all. >> > > I don't know *how* :-) > > How, that is, to have a discussion about labels like libertarian > and to > be sure that I am doing so responsibly by all the possible meanings > of the word others may have put on it. > > When I think of libertarian thought I think of the ideas of Bentham > and > James and John Stuart Mills (who wrote _On Liberty_) and a bunch > of others that followed afterward. I think I could do a reasonable > job of > placing the idea (meme) into some sort of historical context and > follow its > development but I don't know that I can do much of a job at all of > using > the word responsibly when the point is really to find out what the > word > means to other people that identify with it. > > Its helpful for me to know what libertarianism means to individual > people who identify with the term. Its also interesting to see why > people identify with the Principles of Extropy. > > Wouldn't you be interested in hearing how people who do or do not > identify with the term libertarian identify with the principles of > extropy? > > Seems to me that there is unlikely to be a single correct answer but > there might be a number of *interesting* answers. > > Brett Paatsch > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From pgptag at gmail.com Thu Sep 8 10:58:20 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 12:58:20 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> References: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> Message-ID: <470a3c520509080358787e868c@mail.gmail.com> Thanks Hal for this very good post which, I am sure, will be discussed a lot. I am one of those who "would view such a society, without the economic protections which have become nearly ubiquitous in the modern world, as barbaric, primitive and unfair." Why? First let me say that I am very keen of libertarianism as a lifestyle, and believe in live and let live: my sexual preferences are not your business, and your religious preferences are not my business. I think interfering in someone's private sphere should be tolerated, if at all, only in exceptional cases. The problem, of course, is that at times what you wish to consider as part of your private sphere can have an objective impact on my private sphere. Then I also become a stakeholder. Short of shooting each other and the winner takes all, we then need to find a mutually agreeable solution. I think the heart of the issue is, as you quote: "In open societies people seek neither to rule nor to be ruled. Individuals should be in charge of their own lives." But the unfortunate thing is that, some people DO seek to rule others and to impose their views and ways on others. This is a fact. Someone who tries to rule me is also trying to prevent me from being in charge of my own life, so I will oppose him. In our world power is something that you buy with money. The more money you have, the more power you can buy. I have no lust power and no lust for more money than I can use. So I do not really envy those who have much more money than I - they are welcome to live their lives, as long as they let me live mine. But suppose all those with power (= money) decide to pool their power (= money) to control my life. Then I cannot live my life without accepting their rule. Please don't tell me that this is consistent with Extropy. Money and power can easily go into runaway mode: the more you have, the more you get. The result of this runaway process can be a world where a few feudal warlords have absolute power over the lives of "their" people. We may not like living under their rule, but they have all the money, all the power and all the guns. Is this consistent with Extropy? No. The only solution that I can see is fine-tuning the system to permit people living their life as they want to live it, while at the same time preventing power runaway. In other words, I want to live in a system where you are in complete control of your life, but *cannot* achieve control of mine. We have not found yet the ideal mechanism to achieve this objective, but it is difficult for me to imagine one which works without involving some kind of welfare state concept, some kind of safety nets and some kind of taxation. G. On 9/8/05, "Hal Finney" wrote: > I know this is a controversial topic, and this may be an unwelcome > contribution, but I suggest that it is reasonable and appropriate > to look at the Principles of Extropy and consider what they say about > various political systems. My reading of the principles of Open Society > and Self-Direction is that they point very much towards a libertarian > approach to political life. From deimtee at optusnet.com.au Thu Sep 8 20:08:10 2005 From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (david) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 21:08:10 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: References: <20050908061051.65601.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43209A2A.2030209@optusnet.com.au> Samantha Atkins wrote: > There are actually non-government regulation ways of dealing with > fraudulent or harmful businesses. A system of laws against fraud and > various forms of aggression on the rights and well-being of others > would seem sufficient. A non-government system of laws against fraud, harmful practices and agression ? Who writes them? Who enforces them? -David. From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Sep 8 12:14:20 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 07:14:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <5C9BBC55-CD72-40DB-8F07-FA59B13DEA20@mac.com> References: <20050908023318.14418.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> <5C9BBC55-CD72-40DB-8F07-FA59B13DEA20@mac.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050908071311.04506150@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Yes, I agree with Samantha. It better not be a blanket synonym for any one political viewpoint! In order for transhumanism to succeed we need to watch these types of political positioning and make sure that all the positive, extropic voices of transhumanism are heard! Think about our future! Natashas At 10:29 PM 9/7/2005, you wrote: >And it sure as hell better not be a blanket synonym for anti- libertarian. > >-s > >On Sep 7, 2005, at 7:33 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > >>--- Natasha Vita-More wrote: >> >>>>I thought this was the Libertarian market supporters club here. ;) >>> >>>I have no tolerance for this. While it may be a wink to you, for >>>those of >>>us who are trying to clean up the politicizing of ExI and extropians >>>as any >>>one political force, this type of comment is unacceptable. >> >>He meant it in jest, but yeah. We do need to get the word out: >>"Extropian" is not a blanket synonym for "Libertarian". >>_______________________________________________ >>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 Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist, Designer Studies of the Future, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Sep 8 12:17:06 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 07:17:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> References: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050908071524.04635d40@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Okay, Hal. Let's see how Max answers. But for myself, the principles are in direct alignment with extropic thinking, critical thinking and rational optimism. NOT any political viewpoint. And that is my 2 cents. If you want to fire me, go ahead. But I will not change my course of thinking because I believe it is extropic, not bogged down by any one political. Natasha Vita-More At 01:26 AM 9/8/2005, you wrote: >I know this is a controversial topic, and this may be an unwelcome >contribution, but I suggest that it is reasonable and appropriate >to look at the Principles of Extropy and consider what they say about >various political systems. My reading of the principles of Open Society >and Self-Direction is that they point very much towards a libertarian >approach to political life. > >What is it that distinguishes libertarianism from other political systems? >As I use the term, I see it as that political system which minimizes the >use of coercion and compulsion and allows individuals the maximum freedom >to make their own decisions about their lives. In a libertarian society, >people are free to make mutual volutary agreements about social and >economic matters. For example, there is no minimum wage, because that >prevents people from agreeing to work for less than a centrally-defined >pay rate. People are not taxed to pay for social insurance or welfare >systems, because again that interferes with people's freedom to make >mutual agreements as they see fit. > >Now, I think we have a number of participants here who would object to >the formation of a society organized around these principles. They would >view such a society, without the economic protections which have become >nearly ubiquitous in the modern world, as barbaric, primitive and unfair. >They would, in particular, consider it inconsistent with the principles >of Extropy. It is this question which I want to address. > >The current version of the Principles of Extropy at >http://extropy.org/principles.htm is in my opinion a well written document >that lays out an attractive philosophy which is highly appropriate for >our fast changing world. Max More has done a great job at creating a >framework for dealing with issues in a dynamic and flexible way, while >holding to the concept of maximizing human potential which has always >been the core of Extropian beliefs. > >Some readers have suggested that the Principles have been "watered down" >or altered to minimize a supposed excessive degree of libertarianism, >but I don't see that at all. In my reading the Principles are in fact >strongly libertarian and amply demonstrate the commitment to freedom and >voluntary, non-coercive arrangements that are the core of libertarianism. > >The Principles are long and I don't have room to take them apart sentence >by sentence. I would invite those who disagree to look through the >Principles and find support for minimum wage restrictions and welfare >taxation, or other forms of social coercion and control. Here are a >few quotes which demonstrate the libertarian flavor of the Principles, >followed by my comments. From Open Society: > >"The freedom of expression of an open society is best protected by a >social order characterized by voluntary relationships and exchanges." > >This is essentially the defining principle of libertarianism. > >"Within an open society individuals, through their voluntary consent, >may choose to submit themselves to more restrictive arrangements in >the form of clubs, private communities, or corporate entities. Open >societies allow more rigidly organized social structures to exist so >long as individuals are free to leave." > >Free to leave is the operative word here. Coercive government >restrictions cannot be escaped. > >"Even where we find some of those choices mistaken or foolish, open >societies affirm the value of a system that allows all ideas to be tried >with the consent of those involved." > >A good example would be someone who chooses to work for less than what we >think he should, or without the health and safety protections we think >he should demand. The libertarian perspective endorsed here calls on >us to restrain our tendency to enforce limits on people who choose to >make what such foolish choices. > >"Extropic thinking conflicts with the technocratic idea of coercive >central control by insular, self-proclaimed experts." > >And yet that is exactly what we have with economic regulations of the >type I am discussing. The minimum wage is set on the basis of some >economist's or sociologists ideas of what constitutes a just amount. >It is set via coercive central control, exactly what Max warns against. > >"In open societies people seek neither to rule nor to be >ruled. Individuals should be in charge of their own lives." > >A perfect capsule summary of libertarianism. But let me quote the end >of this paragraph, which strikes a different tone: > >"But for individuals and societies to flourish, liberty must come with >personal responsibility. The demand for freedom without responsibility >is an adolescent's demand for license." > >I certainly do not read this as an endorsement of coercive, centralized >government control! That would be utterly inconsistent with the points >which are made again and again throughout. Rather, Max is observing that >philosophically, society will flourish when people behave responsibly. >He is not saying therefore that society should force people to behave >according to some centralized definition of responsible behavior. > >Now for some quotes from the discussion of Self-Direction: > >"Each individual should be free and responsible for deciding for >themselves in what ways to change or to stay the same." > >While this does not directly address the economic issues above, it is >a further reiteration of the libertarian goal of non-coercion. > >"It is extropic to take responsibility for the consequences of our >choices, refusing to blame others for the results of our own free >actions." > >Again this is a fundamental principle of libertarianism. When people >make mistakes, they take responsibility for them, they do not look to >a paternalistic government to fix the problem for them. > >"Personal responsibility and self-determination are incompatible >with authoritarian centralized control, which stifles the choices and >spontaneous ordering of autonomous persons." > >"Coercion of mature, sound minds outside the realm of self-protection, >whether for the purported 'good of the whole' or for the paternalistic >protection of the individual, is unacceptable." > >Again, two very strong statements of libertarian principles. The kinds >of economic regulations I listed above are imposed for precisely these >reasons, coercing people who are attempting to engage in voluntary >relationships either for the good of the whole (as in welfare state >taxation) or for paternalistic protection (as in the minimum wage). >These comments perfectly exemplify the libertarianism which is implicit >in these Principles. > >"We act benevolently not by acting under obligation to sacrifice personal >interests; we embody benevolence when we have a disposition to help >others." > >Taxation to help the poor is not a benevolent policy under this analysis. >Forcing people to act under obligation to sacrifice their personal >interests does not promote benevolence. Only voluntary giving, the >personal disposition to help others, is true benevolence and a true >value to society. > > >I think these quotes are enough to make an initial case. Please, read >the Principles yourself, especially these two, and see if you don't >see the libertarianism which is present in virtually every part of the >analysis and discussion. > >I can't account for the beliefs people have that this version of the >Principles of Extropy has turned away from libertarianism or is somehow >inconsistent with that philosophy. To me, the philosophy of non-coercion >is such a fundamental and pervasive part of the foundations of Extropian >thinking that it is hard to imagine how people could see it otherwise. > >Hal Finney >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist, Designer Studies of the Future, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 12:18:19 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 05:18:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> Message-ID: <20050908121819.86478.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > > I can't account for the beliefs people have that this version of the > Principles of Extropy has turned away from libertarianism or is > somehow inconsistent with that philosophy. To me, the philosophy of > non-coercion is such a fundamental and pervasive part of the > foundations of Extropian thinking that it is hard to imagine how > people could see it otherwise. The criticism is generally regarding a softening of terms and mealy mouthing. Getting rid of 'dynamic optimism' for 'pragmatic optimism', and the like. The real 'watering down' is the degree to which policies endorsed by ExI or advocated by other transhumanist groups (such as supporting corporate welfare subsidies for stem cell research) which do not hold to the extropian principles (such as WTA) and hold anti-libertarian leadership (such as a certain well known socialist) or policies (such as pro-borg agendas), and hold their annual conferences in nations controlled by fasco-socialist thugs (Venezuela). Such people forget that some policies we advocate were once advocated by socialist/centralist statists before, and as a result were totally discredited when those statists naturally were corrupted by power and committed greivous wrongs as a result. Technologies we advocate can only pass ethical muster if they are strictly in the control of individuals who use them for their own benefit, and not by states or other organizations. Furthermore, the claim to hold to the principles, which as you amply demonstrated are quite plainly libertarian in meaning and intent, which is contradicted by the weasle word denial of Extropy being libertarian in a mealy mouthed attempt to appeal to a broader base of membership among those with an aversion to liberty, is a 'watering down' that is semantically no different from the Klan claiming it is no longer racist, or various socialist parties claiming they are no longer pro-communist. You only gain respect by standing strongly for what you believe, stating what you believe, and sticking to it, not let the marxists, socialists, and other infiltrators dilute or divert your intent with their entryist tactics. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 12:34:34 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 05:34:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <43209A2A.2030209@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <20050908123434.98255.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- david wrote: > Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > There are actually non-government regulation ways of dealing with > > fraudulent or harmful businesses. A system of laws against fraud > and > > various forms of aggression on the rights and well-being of others > > would seem sufficient. > > > > > A non-government system of laws against fraud, harmful practices and > agression ? > Who writes them? > Who enforces them? Ah, perhaps you have heard about a thing called Common Law. It is a set of legal precedent established over centuries of near-anarchical living in England prior to the conquest of William the Conqueror up to the present day. It was created by no government, it just happened. It is possibly the finest example of the paleo-extropian principle of Spontaneous Order (I prefer the older ExI principles myself). Common Law is 'written' by every judge who issues opinions in judgements in any common law system. Government is not necessary for this system to operate. Prior to the information age, government was deemed necessary to establish some form of final arbiter in the system of Common Law (and other legal systems, such as Civil Law, Equity Law, and Admiralty Law), because vetting persons wise enough to judge the judges and judge those who judge the judges was seen as of enough import to get right that a governmental system of consensus building (or simply martial ordering by divine right) and enforcement was thought necessary. Today, however, individual humans have far greater information processing capabilities than was once held by entire nations. For more thoughts on this, I'd point you to a few articles I've written at Neal Stephenson's Metaweb, http://www.metaweb.com, particularly on FOQNE's, the Common Economic Protocol, Protocol Enforcement, and Final Arbiters. I also suggest a look at ICA's implementation of the Common Economic Protocol: http://ica.citystateinc.com/library/CEP1_0.html, as well as the writings of David Friedman, such as his book "The Machinery of Freedom". Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 12:50:11 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 05:50:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <200509072244.j87MiOf14214@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050908125011.39050.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> --- Gary Miller wrote: > > Actually a vaccine that prevents the disease in the > first place would be the > bigger money maker and result in the least risk of > the disease continuing > it's spread. > > In that way you don't limit your customers to those > who already have the > disease but rather a much larger group of the > general population that would > have reason to fear accidently contracting the > disease. > > More importantly the larger potential earnings > serves as a larger financial > incentive to the drug companies to perform research. > You would think so wouldn't you? The truth, however, from an insider's POV, is that nobody in the U.S. that I am aware of is working on a prophylactic vaccine. The vaccines which are out and being tested (none are that impressive) are all therapeutic vaccines for use with people who are already infected. There was a some buzz a few years ago about european vaccine that used an attenuated virus with a deleted nef gene, but apparently it was still capable of causing AIDS. But like I said, in the U.S., I am unaware of any at all. Aside from the economic luddism I metioned, I am not sure why this is the case. But another large factor has to do with the technical challenge of testing it. Apparently, the day that you can grab some kid at risk of infection off the street and test your experimental vaccine on him as Louis Pasteur did is long gone. 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 nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Sep 8 13:34:20 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 09:34:20 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism Message-ID: <380-22005948133420240@M2W098.mail2web.com> Mike wrote: "The real 'watering down' is the degree to which policies endorsed by ExI or advocated by other transhumanist groups (such as supporting corporate welfare subsidies for stem cell research) which do not hold to the extropian principles (such as WTA) and hold anti-libertarian leadership (such as a certain well known socialist) or policies (such as pro-borg agendas), and hold their annual conferences in nations controlled by fasco-socialist thugs (Venezuela)." It is true that WTA intentionally tries to discredit ExI by positioning it politically in order to make itself appear to be more worthy of membership and support by making extropians to be libertarian and appear to not care about people and the world. And it is true that the anti-libertarian leadership of WTA has been public about discrediting ExI and extropians. But it is not true that all extropians are libertarian. To claim this, Mike, would be a disservice to other extropians and members of ExI who are not libertarian. This is the main reason why I think it is important not to push any one political viewpoint on extropians and ExI. I recognize your passion, and the passions of others. And I must be fair-minded. "You only gain respect by standing strongly for what you believe, stating what you believe, and sticking to it, not let the marxists, socialists, and other infiltrators dilute or divert your intent with their entryist tactics." Yes, but I would not put so much emphasis on WTA. In fact, I think that WTA does not really matter. I?m not interested in what the Smiths gossip about. I care about what I am doing and the future. What does matter is thinking strategically and passionately about what we want to achieve, not what others are doing. I believe that too much reliance on a 21st Century political viewpoint is insufficient. And in this regard I will not wavier. My view about the future is not bogged down by political viewpoints which are intended to attack and discredit others who are working toward developing a future that is beneficial for humanity. I also value individuality and the right to freedom of choice too much. Just as the socialists try their best to make fools out of those who do not agree with them, libertarians often do the same. Your name calling is unacceptable and you have been asked in the past not to do this. I trust you can carry on a conversation and a debate on this topic without blaming and name calling. So, where do we stand? We need to develop a political mindset that is inclusive of critical thinking and progress. AND is intelligent enough to recognize the benefits diversity when diverse thinking adds to the substantiality of a mindset. There are many strategic models that ExI can use to develop the type of future we foresee as being of the highest potential for resolving conflicts of society in reaching our vision and goals. I hasten to add that unless and until we find this, transhumanity cannot succeed. Natasha Natasha Vita-More President, Extropy Institute -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 14:01:47 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 07:01:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050908140147.29421.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> --- BillK wrote: > > More than 20 million people have died of AIDS since > 1981. > AIDS deaths in 2004, estimated at 3.1 million. > > You *really* think some people are deciding not to > bother finding a > cure because they can make a bit of money on the > deal? Well, Bill, I wish I could think differently. I will tell you one thing for certain. Reverse transcriptase inhibitors like AZT were invented about 19 years ago, protease inhibitors like Sequinovir were invented 10 years ago. Since then about the most anyone has done is when David Ho figured out you can slow down the evolution of drug resitant virus within a patient by giving them both at once. Hardly a leap of genius but he got Time's "man of year " award and lots of grant funding out of it. Every couple of years, the pharmaceuticals tweak their RT and protease inhibitors a bit to overcome drug resistance and that's about it. HIV is just 9.8 kilobases of RNA that contains 8 genes that encode a little over a dozen protein products. Of those, only reverse transcriptase and protease, both of which operate AFTER infection takes place, have been targeted by drugs. The end result of these drugs is that the virus goes into latency, and hides in the patient's cells. It remains hidden away until the person stops taking the drug and voila out pops the virus, left unchecked will go on to kill the person. The AIDS patient is now hostage to his drugs. There are plenty of other HIV proteins that COULD be targeted with drugs. There are several inhibitors of the virus integrase protein in the pipeline, but apparently they have some bad side effects because they have been in the pipeline for about 5 yrs now and I don't know when or if they will ever become available. Integrase however is another example of a virus protein that operates AFTER the virus infects a cell. HIV makes a little over a dozen protein products (which is amazing considering that it is a single 9.8kb RNA, making it the most informationally dense organism that has been sequenced to date) including some that operate BEFORE or DURING infection. Yet nobody in the U.S. is trying to target any of these despite the fact that they would kill the virus BEFORE the virus can hijack the host cell. If these other proteins had been tried and failed due to technical problems that would be one thing, but nobody in the U.S. is apparently even curious about inhibiting any of these. I would not believe it myself except that for the last 7 yrs (essentially my entire career) I have been studying both HIV virology and immunology and I have a pretty thorough understanding of the virus. I think I have identified its Achilles` heel and have computer models of a potential inhibitor for an essential viral protein that not only allows the virus to get into cells, but also sows chaos and confusion amongst the antibodies and whiteblood cells that are supposed to kill the virus. Yet unbelievably, I have had several rejections from different university labs without the professor so much as wanting to see my model. That is when it hit me. You can't give hundreds of millions of dollars to a bunch of "experts" to poke and prod the virus and expect them to cure it because they know that if they do, the grant money stops. We've poked and prodded the virus for over 20 years now. We know every bit of its genome, we know what all its proteins are and what cellular proteins they interact with, we know its life cycle, we know how it evades the immune system, and we can even take the virus apart and reverse engineer the thing into a gene-therapy vector. We have over 1500 publications regarding mechanism for every gene the virus has, which is an order of magnitude more than we have for the genome of any other organism on earth. Yet amazingly we can't KILL this one piece of RNA? You do the math. I went into AIDS research hoping to cure the virus. Instead what I found is that wracking ones mind to figure out new and innovative ways to poke and prod at the virus are rewarded and sincere ideas aimed at just plain killing it are shunned. Its a lesson, I hope my career can recover from. 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 max at maxmore.com Thu Sep 8 14:39:46 2005 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 09:39:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: <20050908121819.86478.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> <20050908121819.86478.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050908092119.02ca9408@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 07:18 AM 9/8/2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Hal Finney wrote: > > > > I can't account for the beliefs people have that this version of the > > Principles of Extropy has turned away from libertarianism or is > > somehow inconsistent with that philosophy. To me, the philosophy of > > non-coercion is such a fundamental and pervasive part of the > > foundations of Extropian thinking that it is hard to imagine how > > people could see it otherwise. I'll reply to Hal's lengthy and thoughtful post later today. >The criticism is generally regarding a softening of terms and mealy >mouthing. Getting rid of 'dynamic optimism' for 'pragmatic optimism', >and the like. Explain how "pragmatic" is more mealy than "dynamic". I made the change (with encouragement from others who commented) precisely because it was thought that "dynamic" sounded New Agey and vague. "Pragmatic" isn't as *fun* as "dynamic", but how is it more mealy? >The real 'watering down' is the degree to which policies endorsed by >ExI or advocated by other transhumanist groups (such as supporting >corporate welfare subsidies for stem cell research) which do not hold >to the extropian principles (such as WTA) and hold anti-libertarian >leadership (such as a certain well known socialist) or policies (such >as pro-borg agendas), and hold their annual conferences in nations >controlled by fasco-socialist thugs (Venezuela). This is a confused paragraph. By saying "policies endorsed by ExI or advocated by other transhumanist groups", you're not saying anything useful. What if I said "Murders committed by Mike Lorrey or other males called "Mike"? The issue is whether the Principles of Extropy have been "watered down" (whatever that means), not what other groups do. ExI has never supported "corporate welfare subsidies for stem cell research", so don't suggest otherwise, then try to weasel out of it by saying "I only said ExI OR other groups." >Furthermore, the claim to hold to the principles, which as you amply >demonstrated are quite plainly libertarian in meaning and intent, which >is contradicted by the weasle word denial of Extropy being libertarian >in a mealy mouthed attempt to appeal to a broader base of membership >among those with an aversion to liberty, is a 'watering down' that is >semantically no different from the Klan claiming it is no longer >racist, or various socialist parties claiming they are no longer >pro-communist. It's hard to know how to respond when people like you thick-headed repeat the same stuff, failing to respond to my previous detailed explanations (as in the NeoFiles interview: http://www.life-enhancement.com/NeoFiles/default.asp?ID=39). Clearly the Principles of Extropy are highly *compatible* with a libertarian view of politics -- more so than with any other identifiable viewpoint that I know of. It doesn't follow that they are *restricted* to only that one, exact political philosophy. A dogmatic view of political and economic systems would be incompatible with the principles of rational thinking and perpetual progress. As I've said many times, the Principles are *not* compatible with socialism, but do not rule out *possible* exceptions to strict libertarian answers. The ultimate goal is not adherence to libertarian doctrine, but to advancing our lives in *all* the ways described in the Principles. As far as I'm concerned, that *might* mean, for example, some government funding of basic research. And it might not -- I'm not at all sure on this issue at the moment. It *might* mean some laws limiting private property rights -- such as might be needed to conduct inspections of research labs working with extremely dangerous materials (nanostuff, AI, whatever). >You only gain respect by standing strongly for what you believe, >stating what you believe, and sticking to it, not let the marxists, >socialists, and other infiltrators dilute or divert your intent with >their entryist tactics. I've already replied to this kind of slanderous rubbish when Perry Metzger blew a gasket. I'm not going to repeat myself. _______________________________________________________ Max More, Ph.D. max at maxmore.com or max at extropy.org http://www.maxmore.com Strategic Philosopher Chairman, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org _______________________________________________________ From megao at sasktel.net Thu Sep 8 13:57:57 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 08:57:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite In-Reply-To: <20050908125011.39050.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050908125011.39050.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43204365.2040704@sasktel.net> The Avantguardian wrote: >--- Gary Miller wrote: > > > >> >>Actually a vaccine that prevents the disease in the >>first place would be the >>bigger money maker and result in the least risk of >>the disease continuing >>it's spread. >> >>In that way you don't limit your customers to those >>who already have the >>disease but rather a much larger group of the >>general population that would >>have reason to fear accidently contracting the >>disease. >> >>More importantly the larger potential earnings >>serves as a larger financial >>incentive to the drug companies to perform research. >> >> >> > >You would think so wouldn't you? The truth, however, >from an insider's POV, is that nobody in the U.S. that >I am aware of is working on a prophylactic vaccine. >The vaccines which are out and being tested (none are >that impressive) are all therapeutic vaccines for use >with people who are already infected. There was a some >buzz a few years ago about european vaccine that used >an attenuated virus with a deleted nef gene, but >apparently it was still capable of causing AIDS. But >like I said, in the U.S., I am unaware of any at all. > >Aside from the economic luddism I metioned, I am not >sure why this is the case. But another large factor >has to do with the technical challenge of testing it. >Apparently, the day that you can grab some kid at risk >of infection off the street and test your experimental >vaccine on him as Louis Pasteur did is long gone. > > In my business we are going about our way to commercialize 2 main nutraceutical ingredients. One has ethnobotanical history but no current usage in humans, excluding myself and current consumers of a minor use food product containing it. The other cannabis has had a hiatus of usage since 1930 in North America. Some of its components are back in use but most are not. How does one get large scale use to warrant human consumption but at a cost that is not one of 5-10 years of corporation subsidized trials? One goes to the animal nutrition/supplementation market and commercializes it. Thousands of horses, dogs and cats populate North America. Wellness in animals creates an affinity market over time in their owners. In the horse business there are lots of owners who sneak a scoop of their animals meds because they see that these things are cheap , effective and many times unavailable in the human market. After 5-10 years of this, a commercial market supported data package is ready to put to the herbal/natural health practitioner field. They utilize the loyalty and trust bond they have with customers to recommend things that may or may not be mainstream. So , you can get pretty close to the Louis Pasteur way. Of course the other way is to commercialize your wares in China or India where the marketplace is more willing to put novel science into full commercialization. ex- http://www.Sibiono.com 's GMO adenovirus grown on stem cell tissue cultures for cancer treatment. Yes , you must shun or pass by North America for its paternalistic protectionist system which wants to provide total risk free lives. No risk=no change. Hyperbaric hydrogen cancer treatment was killed 30 years ago for that very reason and noneother. Ethics say commercialize in North American humans first, reality is the disincentives law and economics make you say F**K it... its not worth the trouble. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From megao at sasktel.net Thu Sep 8 14:18:44 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 09:18:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite- risk and compliance/IT convergence Message-ID: <43204844.8060606@sasktel.net> On the other hand government through HIPPA and IT integration of the economic food chain is strangling risk taking such as I mentioned on my last post. Nigh to illegal in the formal med delivery system..... I was telemarketed by someone doing the 60million pre IPO raise for expansion of ( http://www.singlesourcetechnology.com ) a company whose software, computer service contracts and audit services will make an iron clad barrier to voluntary risk taking/off-label prescriptive practice by medical practitioners. Cut the money and tie non-compliance to law enforcement and you choke off the ability to even consider development of non-staus quo technologies. I think Stuart's points are well worth considering in this context: The Convergence of Risk and Compliance September 13, 2005 @ 4 p.m. Eastern/ 1 p.m. Pacific Duration: 45 minutes Register & Attend Online http://ct.eletters.eseminarslive.com/rd/cts?d=187-1087-1-1419-644019-19039-0-0-0-1 If you are unable to attend the live event you may still register and will receive an e-mail when the on-demand version becomes available. Event Overview: Many regulatory and governance factors influence business and IT department activities. Regulations such as Sarbanes-Oxley, Basel II, GLBA, HIPAA and others have raised the bar for accountability and credibility standards. The pressure is on executive management to conduct all aspects of the business efficiently and with complete transparency, and IT must supply the tools. As corporate officers and board members demand well-orchestrated operations, the process becomes more and more complex for IT. The areas of risk, compliance and governance are beginning to merge, and the burden rests on an IT manager's shoulders to leverage compliance efforts to reduce costs and provide valuable benefits to the business process owners. Do your executives have the necessary visibility into the business risks and performance measures? Do your executives have the information they need to prioritize business risks and make informed, intelligent decisions? To achieve these goals, several disciplines must work in concert. An integrated risk and compliance (IRC) platform enables an organization to respond to the needs for business efficiency and provide both management and IT with the tools and information they need to be successful. Join this live, interactive eSeminar, sponsored by Computer Associates, as our panel of experts discuss: * The challenges faced by both business and IT managers * Building and implementing an integrated risk and compliance strategy * Tools to help you leverage compliance efforts and help your organization excel in business and IT governance Featured Speakers: Margaret Brooks, Vice-President, Strategic Solutions, HQ Research - Computer Associates International, Inc. Michael Dortch , Principal Analyst - Robert Frances Group Frank Derfler, VP, Market Experts Group - Ziff Davis Media -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aiguy at comcast.net Thu Sep 8 16:58:12 2005 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 12:58:12 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050908140147.29421.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200509081658.j88GwKf26869@tick.javien.com> I can see how the major drug companies who currently have anti aids drugs on the market may not have the management backing to pursue lines of research that may disrupt their lifetime cash cow but surely there must be other drug companies who currently do not have income from the protease inhibitors and reverse transcriptase inhibitors. If so then these companies would seem to be the logical entry point for your research. Also as these drugs begin to enter into the point of their patent process where they go begin to go generic most of the profit will be squeezed out by their generic competition if they don't have improved drugs waiting in the wings. I don't doubt what you're saying about the difficulty of getting neglected areas of research investigated. Sometimes it might require winning over a respected researcher in the field who has the credibility to champion your research and get it the attention it deserves. Also have you tried publishing a paper about your model? Even if you don't get published, just the process of going through the peer review process of publishing may help you shore up your arguments enough to get them considered seriously. -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 10:02 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate --- BillK wrote: > > More than 20 million people have died of AIDS since 1981. > AIDS deaths in 2004, estimated at 3.1 million. > > You *really* think some people are deciding not to bother finding a > cure because they can make a bit of money on the deal? Well, Bill, I wish I could think differently. I will tell you one thing for certain. Reverse transcriptase inhibitors like AZT were invented about 19 years ago, protease inhibitors like Sequinovir were invented 10 years ago. Since then about the most anyone has done is when David Ho figured out you can slow down the evolution of drug resitant virus within a patient by giving them both at once. Hardly a leap of genius but he got Time's "man of year " award and lots of grant funding out of it. Every couple of years, the pharmaceuticals tweak their RT and protease inhibitors a bit to overcome drug resistance and that's about it. HIV is just 9.8 kilobases of RNA that contains 8 genes that encode a little over a dozen protein products. Of those, only reverse transcriptase and protease, both of which operate AFTER infection takes place, have been targeted by drugs. The end result of these drugs is that the virus goes into latency, and hides in the patient's cells. It remains hidden away until the person stops taking the drug and voila out pops the virus, left unchecked will go on to kill the person. The AIDS patient is now hostage to his drugs. There are plenty of other HIV proteins that COULD be targeted with drugs. There are several inhibitors of the virus integrase protein in the pipeline, but apparently they have some bad side effects because they have been in the pipeline for about 5 yrs now and I don't know when or if they will ever become available. Integrase however is another example of a virus protein that operates AFTER the virus infects a cell. HIV makes a little over a dozen protein products (which is amazing considering that it is a single 9.8kb RNA, making it the most informationally dense organism that has been sequenced to date) including some that operate BEFORE or DURING infection. Yet nobody in the U.S. is trying to target any of these despite the fact that they would kill the virus BEFORE the virus can hijack the host cell. If these other proteins had been tried and failed due to technical problems that would be one thing, but nobody in the U.S. is apparently even curious about inhibiting any of these. I would not believe it myself except that for the last 7 yrs (essentially my entire career) I have been studying both HIV virology and immunology and I have a pretty thorough understanding of the virus. I think I have identified its Achilles` heel and have computer models of a potential inhibitor for an essential viral protein that not only allows the virus to get into cells, but also sows chaos and confusion amongst the antibodies and whiteblood cells that are supposed to kill the virus. Yet unbelievably, I have had several rejections from different university labs without the professor so much as wanting to see my model. That is when it hit me. You can't give hundreds of millions of dollars to a bunch of "experts" to poke and prod the virus and expect them to cure it because they know that if they do, the grant money stops. We've poked and prodded the virus for over 20 years now. We know every bit of its genome, we know what all its proteins are and what cellular proteins they interact with, we know its life cycle, we know how it evades the immune system, and we can even take the virus apart and reverse engineer the thing into a gene-therapy vector. We have over 1500 publications regarding mechanism for every gene the virus has, which is an order of magnitude more than we have for the genome of any other organism on earth. Yet amazingly we can't KILL this one piece of RNA? You do the math. I went into AIDS research hoping to cure the virus. Instead what I found is that wracking ones mind to figure out new and innovative ways to poke and prod at the virus are rewarded and sincere ideas aimed at just plain killing it are shunned. Its a lesson, I hope my career can recover from. 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 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Sep 8 17:24:27 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 10:24:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050908092119.02ca9408@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <20050908172427.78205.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Max More wrote: > At 07:18 AM 9/8/2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: > >--- Hal Finney wrote: > > > > > > I can't account for the beliefs people have that this version of > the > > > Principles of Extropy has turned away from libertarianism or is > > > somehow inconsistent with that philosophy. To me, the philosophy > of > > > non-coercion is such a fundamental and pervasive part of the > > > foundations of Extropian thinking that it is hard to imagine how > > > people could see it otherwise. > > I'll reply to Hal's lengthy and thoughtful post later today. > > > >The criticism is generally regarding a softening of terms and mealy > >mouthing. Getting rid of 'dynamic optimism' for 'pragmatic > optimism', > >and the like. > > Explain how "pragmatic" is more mealy than "dynamic". I made the > change (with encouragement from others who commented) precisely > because it was thought that "dynamic" sounded New Agey and vague. > "Pragmatic" isn't as *fun* as "dynamic", but how is it more mealy? Because it bows and surrenders to folks of limited vision and who have a tendency toward armchair do-nothingism. Dynamic optimism expects them to take action, to be proactive, to make the future they wish to see. Pragmatic optimism means they can sit around and yak about it ad nauseum until the issue isn't of consequence anymore, or it is too late to do anything effective about it. It is a neutering. > >The real 'watering down' is the degree to which policies endorsed by > >ExI or advocated by other transhumanist groups (such as supporting > >corporate welfare subsidies for stem cell research) which do not > hold > >to the extropian principles (such as WTA) and hold anti-libertarian > >leadership (such as a certain well known socialist) or policies > (such > >as pro-borg agendas), and hold their annual conferences in nations > >controlled by fasco-socialist thugs (Venezuela). > > This is a confused paragraph. By saying "policies endorsed by ExI or > advocated by other transhumanist groups", you're not saying anything > useful. What if I said "Murders committed by Mike Lorrey or other > males called "Mike"? The issue is whether the Principles of Extropy > have been "watered down" (whatever that means), not what other groups > do. ExI has never supported "corporate welfare subsidies for stem > cell research", so don't suggest otherwise, then try to weasel out of > it by saying "I only said ExI OR other groups." Okay, here is a point blank question: is ExI for or against President Bush's ban on federal funding of stem cell research beyond the limited number of cell lines he recognised in 2001? So far as I've been able to tell, I'm the only person here who backs Bush's stand, and I do so for solid libertarian reasons that also hew closest to the extropian principles. Forcing someone at gun point to pay for something they are morally opposed to, particularly if it has no bearing on their personal safety or risk, is against the extropian principles. Where does ExI stand on this issue, and if it opposes Bush's policy, how can it justify it in light of its own principles against coersion? > >Furthermore, the claim to hold to the principles, which as you amply > >demonstrated are quite plainly libertarian in meaning and intent, > which > >is contradicted by the weasle word denial of Extropy being > libertarian > >in a mealy mouthed attempt to appeal to a broader base of membership > >among those with an aversion to liberty, is a 'watering down' that > is > >semantically no different from the Klan claiming it is no longer > >racist, or various socialist parties claiming they are no longer > >pro-communist. > > It's hard to know how to respond when people like you thick-headed > repeat the same stuff, failing to respond to my previous detailed > explanations (as in the NeoFiles interview: > http://www.life-enhancement.com/NeoFiles/default.asp?ID=39). Clearly > the Principles of Extropy are highly *compatible* with a libertarian > view of politics -- more so than with any other identifiable > viewpoint that I know of. It doesn't follow that they are > *restricted* to only that one, exact political philosophy. A dogmatic > view of political and economic systems would be incompatible with the > principles of rational thinking and perpetual progress. I've run into this very problem with public questions about the stance of the FSP, which claims to be 'non-partisan' and is only interested in migrating people. The FSP only says that its principle is most compatible with libertarianism, but refuses to take a stand on anything for fear of limiting its potential member base. The public doesn't buy it, they can tell you are trying to snow them, and they want to know where you actually stand. There is a difference between being dogmatic and being principled. Dogma is rote theology of philosophy. Principled means applying a consistent principle to changing circumstances. It would be dogmatically extropian to insist upon stem cell research by any means necessary. It is principled to apply all the extropian principles, including the one against coersion, in limiting how one conducts and/or funds such research. > As I've said many times, the Principles are *not* compatible with > socialism, but do not rule out *possible* exceptions to strict > libertarian answers. The ultimate goal is not adherence to > libertarian doctrine, but to advancing our lives in *all* the ways > described in the Principles. As far as I'm concerned, that *might* > mean, for example, some government funding of basic research. And it > might not -- I'm not at all sure on this issue at the moment. It > *might* mean some laws limiting private property rights -- such as > might be needed to conduct inspections of research labs working with > extremely dangerous materials (nanostuff, AI, whatever). I am satisfied that the principle that allows for coercive organizations to exist so long as membership is voluntary covers this, but your stance here does not cover the right of individuals, under the principles, to not belong to coercive organizations, to not have their funds taken at gunpoint for research they don't like, or to engage in research that voluntary coercive organizations oppose. However, libertarian principles allow for such organizations to exist within a greater libertarian societal plenum under the same circumstances as the extropian principles do. Retorting that the principles are not libertarian is like saying, "The sky is not blue (because surveys show that most people don't like blue), it is azure." > > >You only gain respect by standing strongly for what you believe, > >stating what you believe, and sticking to it, not let the marxists, > >socialists, and other infiltrators dilute or divert your intent with > >their entryist tactics. > > I've already replied to this kind of slanderous rubbish when Perry > Metzger blew a gasket. I'm not going to repeat myself. Perry takes a distinctly intolerant view toward libertarians tolerating POVs that are not absolutist bunkertarian do-it-now-or-I'm-going-home anarcho-capitalist. I differ distinctly from his view in that regard, but do not waver in insisting that ExI hold to its own principles, no matter what label it chooses to disguise them under for PR purposes. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From sentience at pobox.com Thu Sep 8 18:30:00 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 11:30:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: <20050908172427.78205.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050908172427.78205.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43208328.6010601@pobox.com> Personally, the part that turns me off is the attempt to insist that Extropianism *never was* libertarian. I've made mistakes, and I've publicly repudiated them and gotten on with my life. The difficulty would arise if I tried to insist that the Singularity Institute *never had* been in favor of just throwing together any AI system that worked without care for FAI. Everyone is allowed to change. No one can force you to go on believing what you believed five years ago. But part of that is coming out and publicly admitting that, yes, an actual disruptive update has occurred in your beliefs. If I refused to say, "By my present standards, Eliezer-1996 was a fool," if from pride I tried to avoid the appearance that my past self had made a mistake, then people would justly hold me to account for my past self's opinions. Maybe I'm wrong, and it really is the case that ExI never was a libertarian organization. But personally, I'd like to see ExI come out and say: "We used to be a libertarian organization. That was a mistake and we admit it. From now on we're going to be a transhumanism organization that is not explicitly tied to any political viewpoint except where it infringes on transhumanist issues, although our philosophy of self-reliance and distaste for coercion is highly compatible with libertarianism as philosophy." So far as I'm concerned, that would settle everything, and anyone who wanted to accuse the modern ExI of libertarianism would have to produce modern evidence. If you want to stand on principle, strongly and forthrightly, you must forthrightly announce changes in your principles *as changes*. Otherwise you'll try to simultaneously satisfy your old principles and your new principles, and in the process water down everything you say. That's what happens when people try to say things that satisfy multiple principles simultaneously. For the record: I used to be a libertarian. Now I am not a libertarian, but I'm readily recognizable as someone who's a heck of a lot closer to being a libertarian than to any other standard political position. In other words, my opinions actually changed from one time to another. Anyone who objects to my modern opinions can take it up with my modern self, and anyone who wants to argue with my past self is out of luck unless they invent a time machine. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Sep 8 18:49:42 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 11:49:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050908184942.18749.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > There are actually non-government regulation ways of dealing with > fraudulent or harmful businesses. A system of laws against fraud and > various forms of aggression on the rights and well-being of others > would seem sufficient. ...? Laws = government. Regulations = government. A body that imposes laws and regulations upon others is a government, whether or not it is called one. (And regardless of its means of selection, in particular regardless of whether it's elected; whether it co-exists with something else that everyone calls "the government" and which does the same; et cetera. Consumer Reports and Underwriters' Laboratories are examples of these, focussing on ensuring product quality: these organizations can be and have been sued in the official government's courts over this, but their stamps of approval are theirs - not the official government's, nor anybody else's - to give or not, regardless of the fact that witholding it might in practice completely prevent someone from selling their wares.) Now, if you're saying that it is possible for a government to regulate against aggression and so forth without specifically regulating against harmful business practices, that I'll agree with. That would be a matter of artfully drafting the laws to regulate behaviors without explicitly mentioning (or even necessarily specifically anticipating) them. (Example: while there are no laws against file-sharing networks per se, existing laws can be applied against organizations that specifically advocate violating copyright, even if their primary means happens to be employing certain technologies towards that end. Of course, the state of the copyright laws themselves is a different matter, but if they are of net ill effect then they should be overturned on their own demerits.) But that's still a government of some form that's doing the regulation. From robgobblin at aol.com Thu Sep 8 18:50:57 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 08:50:57 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> References: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> Message-ID: <43208811.9060909@aol.com> Hal: The Philosophy of Liberty is fundamental. People should be essentially free to choose their own actions - economic and otherwise. No one should use force to assert their will to coerce someone to do something that they don't want to do. In this sense, like I think most people, I am a libertarian. That is, in the abstract philosophical sense. That's "libertarian" with a small 'l'. Not "Libertarian" with a big "L". I was a Libertarian in the concrete political sense. I am no longer. Why? Because the Libertarian Party (which, BTW, is not the only party that has as a primary ideal personal and economic freedom) has significantly failed at even showing a good faith effort at promoting those ideals within the government. Instead it has become a repository for Reagan-style Randians interested only in reducing taxation for the rich while hawkishly protecting our foreign interests with imperialistic foreign wars and policies. Note that this program - reducing taxes for the rich and protecting our foreign interests with force - has NOTHING WHATEVER to do with Liberty for ALL. Let me clarify. If one was -really- interested in liberty for everyone and against violent political coersion, here's the natural stand one would take on a variety of issues: 1) You would be against a national military since (a) it is a political force mechanism used to enforce the political will of one group against another and (b) it necessitates taxation and bloated government which again are political force mechanisms used to enforce the poltical will of one group against another.. 2) You would be working to systematically disentangle the economic system from coercive political control - abolishing the IRS, the Federal Reserve System, etc. 3) You would be actively trying to remove all restrictions on personal use of land and property - including zoning restrictions, land-use policies, etc. 4) You would be actively working to stop American military presence in foreign countries as it necessitates large government and taxation,etc. 5) You would be working actively to promote openness in the government by demanding that every action of the government be As we've seen in this forum alone, the Libertarians (and by that I mean people who politically identify with the Libertarian Party - the Big-L people, not people who believe in Freedom) don't, in general, support these concrete positions, and instead act as status-quo appologists for a particularly viciously anti-freedom wing of the Republican Party. Finally, having lived in California for many years, I'm just tired of seeing the Libertarian Party run people who's platforms are Druidism, Ferret-ownership-freedom, NAMBLA and Marijuana freedom (all of which are just fine with me, to each their own!) while working nefariously in the background to undermine the Democratic Party and support the Republican Party. The combination of these two factors make the Libertarian Party (and not libertarianism) variously a joke and a sham, making true believers in liberty unable to support them. With kind regards as an ex-Political Libertarian and current libertarian, Robbie Lindauer PS - there seems to be some question as to whether I'm an extropian. I believe that human technology -could- one day conquer most of humanities problems ASSUMING political and economic problems can be solved but I am skeptical as to whether those political and economic problems can be solved in light of a small problem usually called "human nature" which includes "greed, stupidity, foolishness, foolhardiness, cowardice, etc." alongside "ingenuity, hope, bravery, wisdom, etc." Remembering that post-human nature will be mostly of human design, it's likely to carry over many flaws as well as many virtues. From kevin at kevinfreels.com Thu Sep 8 19:01:45 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 14:01:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Comet Temple 1 Fragile and porous Message-ID: <01a001c5b4a7$c2785010$0100a8c0@kevin> http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/09/08/deep.impact.reut/index.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Sep 8 18:58:23 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 13:58:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Katrina as a test of social theories and models In-Reply-To: <43208328.6010601@pobox.com> References: <20050908172427.78205.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <43208328.6010601@pobox.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050908135424.01e17cf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Everyone's a critic. Here is some material to work with: http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/006754.html#006754 Note that they say this up front: < Warning: I'm about to link to a page that has a little "sfsocialists" logo in the upper left corner. If that makes you twitch, skip this post. You'll be doing yourself a disservice, though. The piece is descriptive. What the authors are writing about is what happened to them during the time they were stuck in the city after the storm passed. The authors, Larry Bradshaw and Lorrie Beth Slonsky, were attending a paramedics' conference in New Orleans, staying in the French Quarter, when the hurricane hit. Afterward, they were in the same situation as other survivors in the city: no food, no water, no transportation, and no help from the outside world > etc. Frightening and encouraging all at once (to this old anarcho-communitarian, anyway). Damien Broderick From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Sep 8 19:01:28 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 12:01:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <001201c5b444$b6bad300$0d98e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20050908190128.26038.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > That seems like a reasonable example of a difference. Forced to > choose > between a libertarian mindset that would have no government at all on > high principle and another mindset that would accept the need for a > government of some type, I'd tend to look at the second as being > more realistic in 2005. I'm not sure it would be accurate to say that the libertarian mindset would prefer no government at all - that is more strictly an anarchic mindset. But it is certainly the case that many (though not all) libertarians would argue against regulating for (and thus, when necessary, initiating force to compel) honest business practices, even if this did in effect - albeit quite a few steps removed - cause businesses to less often initiate force against people (because, in part, honest businesses are less inclined and less able to do so). An extropian mindset, however, might advocate said regulations (and enforcement of same) due to the eventual benefits (which, granted, would inherently be spread around to everyone: everyone personally benefits from not having force applied to them). From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Sep 8 19:32:11 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 15:32:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism Message-ID: <380-22005948193211531@M2W118.mail2web.com> Eli, There are three separate issues: 1. Extropy Institute 2. Extropians 3. Philosophy of Extropy No. 1 was never Libertarian; No. 2 was mostly Libertarian and libertarian in the 1990s, but not exclusively and it was never required of members; No. 3 was influenced by libertarian ideals (not necessarily American. In short, Extropy Institute is a 501(c)3 non-profit educational organization. As such, the IRS does not allow alignment with a political party. As a educational organization, its purpose is to network people and to pursue the education of the philosophy of Extropy and extropic thinking, not promote a political viewpoint or support a political party. Natasha Vita-More Original Message: ----------------- From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky sentience at pobox.com Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 11:30:00 -0700 To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism Personally, the part that turns me off is the attempt to insist that Extropianism *never was* libertarian. I've made mistakes, and I've publicly repudiated them and gotten on with my life. The difficulty would arise if I tried to insist that the Singularity Institute *never had* been in favor of just throwing together any AI system that worked without care for FAI. Everyone is allowed to change. No one can force you to go on believing what you believed five years ago. But part of that is coming out and publicly admitting that, yes, an actual disruptive update has occurred in your beliefs. If I refused to say, "By my present standards, Eliezer-1996 was a fool," if from pride I tried to avoid the appearance that my past self had made a mistake, then people would justly hold me to account for my past self's opinions. Maybe I'm wrong, and it really is the case that ExI never was a libertarian organization. But personally, I'd like to see ExI come out and say: "We used to be a libertarian organization. That was a mistake and we admit it. From now on we're going to be a transhumanism organization that is not explicitly tied to any political viewpoint except where it infringes on transhumanist issues, although our philosophy of self-reliance and distaste for coercion is highly compatible with libertarianism as philosophy." So far as I'm concerned, that would settle everything, and anyone who wanted to accuse the modern ExI of libertarianism would have to produce modern evidence. If you want to stand on principle, strongly and forthrightly, you must forthrightly announce changes in your principles *as changes*. Otherwise you'll try to simultaneously satisfy your old principles and your new principles, and in the process water down everything you say. That's what happens when people try to say things that satisfy multiple principles simultaneously. For the record: I used to be a libertarian. Now I am not a libertarian, but I'm readily recognizable as someone who's a heck of a lot closer to being a libertarian than to any other standard political position. In other words, my opinions actually changed from one time to another. Anyone who objects to my modern opinions can take it up with my modern self, and anyone who wants to argue with my past self is out of luck unless they invent a time machine. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Sep 8 19:56:01 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 15:56:01 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism Message-ID: <380-2200594819561328@M2W110.mail2web.com> Eli wrote: >Maybe I'm wrong, and it really is the case that ExI never was a >libertarian organization. But personally, I'd like to see ExI come out >and say: "We used to be a libertarian organization. That was a mistake >and we admit it. From now on we're going to be a transhumanism >organization that is not explicitly tied to any political viewpoint You are mixing apples and oranges. ExI was always a transhumanist organization, thus "Extropy: The Journal of Transhumanist Thought" way back in the early 90s. Since Max defined transhumanism before it grew into the culture it is today, the philosophy of Extropy has always been transhumanist and a philosophy of transhumanism. >except where it infringes on transhumanist issues, although our >philosophy of self-reliance and distaste for coercion is highly >compatible with libertarianism as philosophy." So far as I'm concerned, >that would settle everything, and anyone who wanted to accuse the modern >ExI of libertarianism would have to produce modern evidence." The second part of this paragraph is more apt and applies nicely. We tried this years ago, but there are die-hards that insist that things cannot change and that if you once said something or did something that it is written in stone and can never change. It seems that there were many discussions about progressive ideas, but then there was that political essay that Hughes wrote which ignored the communications. The point is that if someone wants to position you they will not accept any explanation, no matter how articulately and honorably stated, and will refuse to provide the requested evidence. But, as I said previously, I am not interested in this type of antagonism. What we need to do is to establish what we are now and what we want to become. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Sep 8 19:58:07 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 12:58:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <43209A2A.2030209@optusnet.com.au> References: <20050908061051.65601.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> <43209A2A.2030209@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Read more carefully. Remember that I am a minarchist. I believe there are some tasks best performed by government but that the set of such tasks is small. I am against government regulation of business. I am not against a government whose job it is to protect the rights of the people and formulate laws protecting the people from various forms of aggression on their rights. I am not against a government that runs enforcement and judiciary of those laws. I am against a government that attempts to regulate heavily most aspects of our lives and interactions. There is a world of difference. It is not a legitimate task of government to regulate business. It is a legitimate task of government to formulate and enforce laws against business fraud and harm to the people. See the difference? - s On Sep 8, 2005, at 1:08 PM, david wrote: > Samantha Atkins wrote: > > >> There are actually non-government regulation ways of dealing with >> fraudulent or harmful businesses. A system of laws against fraud >> and various forms of aggression on the rights and well-being of >> others would seem sufficient. >> > > > > > A non-government system of laws against fraud, harmful practices > and agression ? > Who writes them? > Who enforces them? > > > -David. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Sep 8 20:02:09 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 13:02:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050908125011.39050.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050908125011.39050.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sep 8, 2005, at 5:50 AM, The Avantguardian wrote: > > You would think so wouldn't you? The truth, however, > from an insider's POV, is that nobody in the U.S. that > I am aware of is working on a prophylactic vaccine. > The vaccines which are out and being tested (none are > that impressive) are all therapeutic vaccines for use > with people who are already infected. There was a some > buzz a few years ago about european vaccine that used > an attenuated virus with a deleted nef gene, but > apparently it was still capable of causing AIDS. But > like I said, in the U.S., I am unaware of any at all. > > Aside from the economic luddism I metioned, I am not > sure why this is the case. But another large factor > has to do with the technical challenge of testing it. > Apparently, the day that you can grab some kid at risk > of infection off the street and test your experimental > vaccine on him as Louis Pasteur did is long gone. > I believe I can easily find more than a few people in high risk groups who would happily volunteer. - s From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Sep 8 20:17:38 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 13:17:38 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050908190128.26038.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050908190128.26038.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sep 8, 2005, at 12:01 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > >> That seems like a reasonable example of a difference. Forced to >> choose >> between a libertarian mindset that would have no government at all on >> high principle and another mindset that would accept the need for a >> government of some type, I'd tend to look at the second as being >> more realistic in 2005. >> > > I'm not sure it would be accurate to say that the libertarian mindset > would prefer no government at all - that is more strictly an anarchic > mindset. But it is certainly the case that many (though not all) > libertarians would argue against regulating for (and thus, when > necessary, initiating force to compel) honest business practices, even > if this did in effect - albeit quite a few steps removed - cause > businesses to less often initiate force against people (because, in > part, honest businesses are less inclined and less able to do so). Business has no way of legally initiating force against anyone. Governments do. This is the crucial and often overlooked difference in a nutshell. > An > extropian mindset, however, might advocate said regulations (and > enforcement of same) due to the eventual benefits (which, granted, > would inherently be spread around to everyone: everyone personally > benefits from not having force applied to them). A mindset that doesn't understand the above difference might. But the initiation of force in the affairs of human beings to regulate everything that might harm or to regulate the economy can and historically often has very serious and dire unintended consequences. The assumption that ever larger and more vigilant government control is necessary to our well being is extremely pernicious to our well being and our extopian dreams. Remember please how government decisions and policies really are made and by what forces. Ask yourself honestly if you want your progress toward an extropic future under the thumb of that sort of process. Progress comes from the outliers and the small minority. It does not come from the democratic majority or out of a huge all-powerful bureaucracy. Choke of a critical level of freedom of that minority and only stagnation and decay will prevail. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robgobblin at aol.com Thu Sep 8 20:20:38 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 10:20:38 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: References: <20050908061051.65601.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> <43209A2A.2030209@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <43209D16.6060200@aol.com> What about the freedom to use other forms of monetary exchange? What about taxation? I believe once you have control of a form of exchange and enable taxation, the rest of ills of statist society follow. You need a (self-serving) administration to enforce the taxation laws. You need a (self-serving) defense department to protect the economic interests of the country as a whole. You need a (self-serving) polity to govern the taxation and military groups. Remembering that (self-serving) individuals will, at a rate of at least 50%, abuse their positions of power to gain more of it, you're guaranteed to have more and more regulation and control concentrated at those positions which are the focus of the alienation of the power of the people to govern. Then you need an opposition party to watch the power-party. Then you need separate branches of government to watch each other. Then you need oversight and independant auditing (which the US doesn't have, but probably should given the rest of the stuff we already have). Pretty soon, you end up with laws regulating the presence of Elephants in bars enforced by the same county-sheriffs that steal cocaine from the evidence locker. In short, you need a government and for big countries like the US, you need a BIG Government. Robbie Lindauer Samantha Atkins wrote: > Read more carefully. Remember that I am a minarchist. I believe > there are some tasks best performed by government but that the set of > such tasks is small. I am against government regulation of > business. I am not against a government whose job it is to protect > the rights of the people and formulate laws protecting the people > from various forms of aggression on their rights. I am not against a > government that runs enforcement and judiciary of those laws. I am > against a government that attempts to regulate heavily most aspects > of our lives and interactions. There is a world of difference. It > is not a legitimate task of government to regulate business. It is a > legitimate task of government to formulate and enforce laws against > business fraud and harm to the people. See the difference? > > - s > > On Sep 8, 2005, at 1:08 PM, david wrote: > >> Samantha Atkins wrote: >> >> >>> There are actually non-government regulation ways of dealing with >>> fraudulent or harmful businesses. A system of laws against fraud >>> and various forms of aggression on the rights and well-being of >>> others would seem sufficient. >>> >> >> >> >> >> A non-government system of laws against fraud, harmful practices and >> agression ? >> Who writes them? >> Who enforces them? >> >> >> -David. >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat >> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From robgobblin at aol.com Thu Sep 8 20:11:20 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 10:11:20 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: References: <20050908061051.65601.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> <43209A2A.2030209@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <43209AE8.20103@aol.com> What about the freedom to use other forms of monetary exchange? What about taxation? I believe once you have control of a form of exchange and enable taxation, the rest of ills of statist society follow. You need a (self-serving) administration to enforce the taxation laws. You need a (self-serving) defense department to protect the economic interests of the country as a whole. You need a (self-serving) polity to govern the taxation and military groups. Remembering that (self-serving) individuals will, at a rate of at least 50%, abuse their positions of power to gain more of it, you're guaranteed to have more and more regulation and control concentrated at those positions which are the focus of the alienation of the power of the people to govern. Then you need an opposition party to watch the power-party. Then you need separate branches of government to watch each other. Then you need oversight and independant auditing (which the US doesn't have, but probably should given the rest of the stuff we already have). Pretty soon, you end up with laws regulating the presence of Elephants in bars enforced by the same county-sheriffs that steal cocaine from the evidence locker. In short, you need a government and for big countries like the US, you need a BIG Government. Robbie Lindauer Samantha Atkins wrote: > Read more carefully. Remember that I am a minarchist. I believe > there are some tasks best performed by government but that the set of > such tasks is small. I am against government regulation of > business. I am not against a government whose job it is to protect > the rights of the people and formulate laws protecting the people > from various forms of aggression on their rights. I am not against a > government that runs enforcement and judiciary of those laws. I am > against a government that attempts to regulate heavily most aspects > of our lives and interactions. There is a world of difference. It > is not a legitimate task of government to regulate business. It is a > legitimate task of government to formulate and enforce laws against > business fraud and harm to the people. See the difference? > > - s > > On Sep 8, 2005, at 1:08 PM, david wrote: > >> Samantha Atkins wrote: >> >> >>> There are actually non-government regulation ways of dealing with >>> fraudulent or harmful businesses. A system of laws against fraud >>> and various forms of aggression on the rights and well-being of >>> others would seem sufficient. >>> >> >> >> >> >> A non-government system of laws against fraud, harmful practices and >> agression ? >> Who writes them? >> Who enforces them? >> >> >> -David. >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat >> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Sep 8 21:04:50 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 17:04:50 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Seminar Course: Smart Mobs - UC Berkeley Message-ID: <380-2200594821450713@M2W051.mail2web.com> >From Boing Boing 9/2/05 "Rheingold launches 'Smartmob Media 101' class at UC Berkeley Howard 'Smartmobs' Rheingold sez, 'The class schedule and syllabus are now available for the UC Berkeley SIMS course on 'Participatory Media and Collective Action' that I will be teaching with Xiao Qiang, every Tuesday evening, 7-9 PM (we'll make arrangements for pizza or other easy dinners) starting September 20. You can think of it as 'Smart Mob Media 101.'" http://www.seedwiki.com/wiki/participatory_media_and_collective_action/parti cipatory_media_and_collective_action.cfm -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Sep 8 22:38:48 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 15:38:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050908223848.88328.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > Business has no way of legally initiating force against anyone. > Governments do. This is the crucial and often overlooked difference > in a nutshell. Ah, but is it force to lie to someone and sell them poison when they think they are purchasing food? Is it force to make sure that customers have access to complete (or as complete as possible) information about a company before doing business with them? What if most companies view it in their self-interest not to give out information, such that mass refusal to do business with the secretive (the market's way of punishing this) is not a practical option? And if businesses then initiated force, but made sure the general public never knew about it, hiding it in the generally-accepted secrecy... This is the kind of situation we were discussing. From rhanson at gmu.edu Thu Sep 8 22:51:56 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 18:51:56 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Katrina as a test of social theories and models In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050908135424.01e17cf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <20050908172427.78205.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <43208328.6010601@pobox.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050908135424.01e17cf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050908185049.02f7cab0@mail.gmu.edu> At 02:58 PM 9/8/2005, Damien Broderick wrote: >Everyone's a critic. Here is some material to work with: >http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/006754.html#006754 Wow. That is a really disturbing description. I have no reason not to believe them - does anyone have a reason to doubt the truth of this story? Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From robgobblin at aol.com Thu Sep 8 23:23:36 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 13:23:36 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050908223848.88328.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050908223848.88328.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4320C7F8.4030403@aol.com> Adrian Tymes wrote: >--- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > >>Business has no way of legally initiating force against anyone. >>Governments do. This is the crucial and often overlooked difference >>in a nutshell. >> >> Samantha has never heard of the Protection Racket. Robbie From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Sep 8 23:23:34 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 16:23:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050908223848.88328.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050908223848.88328.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43EA833C-0B97-4013-AA4B-A05D3537D29C@mac.com> On Sep 8, 2005, at 3:38 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > >> Business has no way of legally initiating force against anyone. >> Governments do. This is the crucial and often overlooked difference >> in a nutshell. >> > > Ah, but is it force to lie to someone and sell them poison when they > think they are purchasing food? Yes. it is fraud. Which is illegal. Again. business has no mans of *legally* initiating force. That is the sole province of government. That is why it behooves us to carefully delimit government. > Is it force to make sure that > customers have access to complete (or as complete as possible) > information about a company before doing business with them? That depends on the type of informaiton and how it was gathered and is neither here no there for what I was attempting to communicate. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Sep 8 23:42:42 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 18:42:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Katrina as a test of social theories and models In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050908185049.02f7cab0@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20050908172427.78205.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <43208328.6010601@pobox.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050908135424.01e17cf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050908185049.02f7cab0@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050908183920.01c87108@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 06:51 PM 9/8/2005 -0400, Robin wrote: >>http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/006754.html#006754 > >Wow. That is a really disturbing description. I have no reason not to >believe them - does anyone have a reason to doubt the truth of this story? If you go down through the comments under the Nielsen Hayden post, there's lots of corroborative material of that kind of thing happening. Watch this without crying: http://www.wafb.com/Global/SearchResults.asp?qu=charmaine+neville&x=13&y=10 Damien Broderick From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Sep 9 00:13:35 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 17:13:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <43EA833C-0B97-4013-AA4B-A05D3537D29C@mac.com> Message-ID: <20050909001335.12849.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > On Sep 8, 2005, at 3:38 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > >> Business has no way of legally initiating force against anyone. > >> Governments do. This is the crucial and often overlooked > difference > >> in a nutshell. > > > > Ah, but is it force to lie to someone and sell them poison when > they > > think they are purchasing food? > > Yes. it is fraud. Which is illegal. Again. business has no mans of > *legally* initiating force. That is the sole province of > government. That is why it behooves us to carefully delimit > government. Businesses, and other entities, can still initiate force even if it's illegal. The question then becomes one of degree of enforcement. Can the government prosecute businesses for threatening to initiate force, in lieu of evidence of actual force? Some businesses get really good at hiding up any actual incidents. "Jimmy, ah, sleeps with da fishes. Yeah. Really unfortunate accident he had. We's selling insurance against accidents." What about prohibiting businesses from accumulating enough arms that they could initiate force against the government and win, even if they have not yet actually started? "Just because we have detailed maps of all your bases, artillery solutions including tomorrow's wind to neutralize all your armor, and friends with guns in strike positions doesn't mean we scrubthemission were going to conquer you, honest!" A government that failed to do that would soon cease to exist. And then there are incidents like Katrina, where the Earth itself initiates force against people...and then some people are in turn forced to initiate force against others to survive. "We need food and water! Sell it to us at prices we can afford - and we can't afford much - or we'll take it, legal or illegal. We're dead otherwise." One could argue that a government trying to maintain its monopoly on force has a vested interest in making sure that situation never arises - for example, by providing search and rescue, medical treatment, and other resources after a disaster, and by taking action to minimize or prevent damage from foreseeable disasters (and a Katrina-like problem in NO was foreseen way in advance). Said actions including maintaining the roads to allow emergency response teams quick access after a disaster, enforcing building codes, et cetera. Which is not to defend everything the government does. Just that quite a lot of its functions arguably stem from making sure no one else ever initiates force. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 02:01:30 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 19:01:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050908223848.88328.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050909020130.73543.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Business has no way of legally initiating force against anyone. > > Governments do. This is the crucial and often overlooked > difference > > in a nutshell. > > Ah, but is it force to lie to someone and sell them poison when they > think they are purchasing food? Poisoning is illegal. We are talking about LEGAL FORCE. Try another strawman. > Is it force to make sure that > customers have access to complete (or as complete as possible) > information about a company before doing business with them? Depends on what information you are trying to give them. If your claims about a company you make in disclosures to the public meet the legal definition of libel, slander, or contractual violation of confidentiality agreements, it is you who are illegally using force. > What if > most companies view it in their self-interest not to give out > information, such that mass refusal to do business with the secretive > (the market's way of punishing this) is not a practical option? Depends on what information you are looking for. If you are fishing for the intellectual property of a competitor, you have no standing to make demands, and any attempt to get their information is theft. > And > if businesses then initiated force, but made sure the general public > never knew about it, hiding it in the generally-accepted secrecy... If a customer of a business is initiated against, he has standing to pursue redress through the legal process for the tort committed against him. If the customer chose to not inform the rest of the public about his or her private commercial relationship with the company and its legal fallout, that is their business, not yours. Caveat emptor. > > This is the kind of situation we were discussing. You have yet to provide a convincing case. Try again. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From rhanson at gmu.edu Fri Sep 9 02:05:55 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 22:05:55 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Katrina as a test of social theories and models In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050908183920.01c87108@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <20050908172427.78205.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <43208328.6010601@pobox.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050908135424.01e17cf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050908185049.02f7cab0@mail.gmu.edu> <6.2.1.2.0.20050908183920.01c87108@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050908220449.03008db8@mail.gmu.edu> At 07:42 PM 9/8/2005, you wrote: >At 06:51 PM 9/8/2005 -0400, Robin wrote: > >>>http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/006754.html#006754 >> >>Wow. That is a really disturbing description. I have no reason >>not to believe them - does anyone have a reason to doubt the truth >>of this story? > >If you go down through the comments under the Nielsen Hayden post, >there's lots of corroborative material of that kind of thing happening. > >Watch this without crying: > >http://www.wafb.com/Global/SearchResults.asp?qu=charmaine+neville&x=13&y=10 Or this: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/09/02.html#a4763 Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 02:11:14 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 19:11:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Katrina as a test of social theories and models In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050908185049.02f7cab0@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <20050909021114.13163.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Robin Hanson wrote: > At 02:58 PM 9/8/2005, Damien Broderick wrote: > >Everyone's a critic. Here is some material to work with: > >http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/006754.html#006754 > > Wow. That is a really disturbing description. I have no reason not > to believe them - does anyone have a reason to doubt the truth of > this story? Nope, as I expected, local government is responsible for the early screw-ups and callousness, FEMA made it worse by demanding people leave the city for help, that the sheriffs outside the city wouldn't let them leave, but none of the locals were likely telling FEMA they were keeping people in the city. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From fortean1 at mindspring.com Fri Sep 9 02:29:17 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 19:29:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] After New Orleans Message-ID: <4320F37D.2060205@mindspring.com> [What a twit! He sounds like a socialist gone mad. These artsy fartsy folks just don't get it. The best defense is a good offense. -Terry] [sorry for the crossposting of this one... since I have some fairly specific predictions towards the end, I wanted to get it out on record... /t] 1. the lead up Two EMS paramedics and their experiences in New Orleans. http://www.emsnetwork.org/artman/publish/article_18337.shtml Forwarded to me by many sources. There has been some independent fact checking on this story and it's all come up positive (the authors exist, are who they say they are, were in New Orleans and did write this story). Words fail me. This next video is very harsh. Ms. Neville is extremely intelligent and well-spoken and this really hurts. http://www.wafb.com/global/video/popup/pop_playerLaunch.asp?clipid1=516003&at1=News+%2D+Special+Coverage&vt1=v&h1=Charmaine+Neville%3A+New+Orleans+Evacuee&d1=363667&redirUrl=www.wafb.com&activePane=info&LaunchPageAdTag=homepage Charmaine Neville [windows media] is the daughter of Charles Neville of the Neville Bros. http://www.charmainenevilleband.com/ posted by quonsar 07 September | 12:45 I'm still crying with despair and pity and God help us all, shaking with helpless rage. (salon.com) 'That night, at the White House, Bush met with congressional leaders of both parties, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi urged Bush to fire Brown. "Why would I do that?" the president replied. "Because of all that went wrong, of all that didn't go right last week," she explained. To which he answered, "What didn't go right?"' That these insane criminals rule the country is already beyond belief. That about half of all Americans apparently think Bush is doing a good job (but three quarters of them think he should be working on *lowering gas prices*) makes me feel I'm in a country filled with psychopaths. 2. predictions I fear the shit is really going to hit the fan, and soon. -- al Qaeda clearly wishes to strike again at some point. -- the resistance movement in Iraq is about ready for a "Tet offensive" to cause serious damage to the (distracted by mutinies!) US forces -- I'm less familiar with the war in Afghanistan but I'll bet they'd like to get some headlines too. -- China wishes to take Taiwan and doesn't care about headlines. -- there are many other evil forces that want to take on the United States now that it has moved to the dark side. and September 11 approaches. If I were one of these parties and I had a nefarious scheme hatched, I'd be racing to get it going just at the point where the US's resources are most tied up with disaster recovery -- Sunday, September 11. I'd hit people at a vacation center or some similar relaxation place -- they've already made people feel unsafe at work, why not make them feel unsafe at play? If I were bold I'd hit the Patriot Day parade in DC. (Did you know 9/11 is now called Patriot Day?) And once ONE of those fuckers pops off, it's a great time for another one to pop off too. Say there were another terrorist attack in the US. That'd be a perfect signal for a huge assault on demoralized, distracted US troops in Iraq -- what about suicide bombers with planes full of explosives onto barracks? Or, nerve gas? Why not, we know the US makes this shit and we know that they don't take good care of their stock of weapons of mass destruction (Hey, was anyone else surprised when the anthrax in the attack turned out to be US "weapons-grade" anthrax? Who knew we had "weapons-grade anthrax" just lying around? Use of germs as warfare is considered a "crime against humanity," y'know...) Or nerve gas could be used in the US. Spraying or otherwise putting a lot of nerve gas into a Six Flags Amusement Park or Disneyland/world could result in thousands of horrible fatalities and dreadful injuries -- think of the images, they'd be almost as memorable as the World Trade Center getting hit. Sprawled comic book figures lying beside dead children.... The 9/11 terrorists knew about nerve gas, they'd talked about renting crop dusters. (One of the amazing pieces of luck we've had so far is that in the current war against terror is that there hasn't been one really clever terrorist. There are SO many clever ways to do people in en masse, methods that would almost certainly wreak havoc the first time and still be hard to defend against the second time. I deleted a description of one really simple reliable plausible nerve gas delivery system using early 20th century technology, there are a thousand other possibilities. Be glad I'm on the good guys' side!) Ladies and gentlemen, we are in a very frightening position. There is a madman in the White House. In four years, he's managed to turn much of the rest of the world sour on the United States and made more than a few mortal enemies. As a direct consequence of his madness, Americans are dying right now in Afghanistan, Iraq and New Orleans. New Orleans showed America's enemies that our four years of "Homeland Security" buildup was a fraud -- that we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars that we don't have on jackbooted thugs who aren't making honest Americans one whit safer. These enemies will feel empowered to strike, and soon. And each new attack makes the next attack more possible. The question is this -- would Bush, if pushed into a corner by multiple attackers, really push the button? But, is that not his dream, the Apocalypse? Isn't that what Christians ARE anticipating with great joy: the Rapture, Armageddon? Rice told her church to prepare for Christ's imminent arrival just a few days ago! Let us pray that reason will somehow ring out at the end of this, that perhaps our elected Representatives who wish their children to live will rise up, or that our senior Generals (who are career officers who have experienced war) would refuse the fatal commands from an obviously mad President. Or that Chaney has a heart attack and Bush's cognitive disorders get so bad that he can't speak in public any more and he has to retire in favour of some non-entity and we lose Taiwan and Iraq but it's OK, not EVERYONE dies, and there are trials and a lot of people go to jail and a reform President (Howard Dean!!!) is elected in 2008 and we can make peace in the world and start trying to adapt as best we can to a changing environment (and hopefully figure out ways to reverse the damage we are causing!) -- /t -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From robgobblin at aol.com Fri Sep 9 03:05:48 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:05:48 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050909020130.73543.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050909020130.73543.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4320FC0C.4020108@aol.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >If a customer of a business is initiated against, he has standing to >pursue redress through the legal process for the tort committed against >him. If the customer chose to not inform the rest of the public about >his or her private commercial relationship with the company and its >legal fallout, that is their business, not yours. Caveat emptor. > > Why not just take revenge? The Legal process is slanted toward those who can afford to fight legal battles. Robbie From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Fri Sep 9 03:24:46 2005 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 11:24:46 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism - a search for meaning... Message-ID: <005a01c5b4ee$0b109760$0201a8c0@JPAcer> Hi, I'm Jack. I have been reading the posts to this forum for some time with somewhat mixed emotions regarding the political point-scoring. As I see it, the extropian viewpoint has no precise congruence with any political system - rather it subsumes them all (or should do so) with a philosophical view point which is flexible enough to allow for any kind of government - but should enshrine some core human values to dictate (or at least privede guidance benchmarks on) the way any government conducts its affairs. Some OED political definition should be enough to demonstrate that political words per se carry no stigma (I'm not denying the cultural/semantic baggage that sticks to buzzwords over time - I'm just trying to drill down to core meanings): 1. Socialism: a society in which things are held or used in common 2. Liberal: Free in bestowing; bountiful, generous, open-hearted. Originally, the distinctive epithet of those arts or sciences that were considered worthy of a free man; opposed to servile or mechanical. In later use, of condition, pursuits, occupations: Pertaining to or suitable to persons of superior social station; becoming a gentleman... 3. Libertarian: One who holds the doctrine of the freedom of the will, as opposed to that of necessity. These are ALL wonderful ideas - each born of the very best of motives - each idealistically promoted as a (often 'THE!") universal panacea. But ideology and actual practice are two wildly different things: Socialism often breeds apathy, wishy-washy liberalism inspires contempt, libertarian free markets are - at least potentially - just a playground for amoral rich kids... These comments are not meant to be offensive to the well-meaning proponents of these systems in their ideal forms. There is no such thing as a bad political system - there are only bad politicians. Capitalism is wonderful - if you control capital, or at least make it possible for someone of reasonable intelligence to 'make good'. It is just a form of slavery - with all mod-cons - for those perpetually in hock and struggling to survive. A benign dictatorship is probably the most effective political system - and the cheapest and most efficient as well... Problem is - the power ultimately devolves to the dictator's inbred off-spring - who have none of the original ideals, but all the egocentric rapacity of indulged privilege... I would like to submit the following brief critique of political doctrine in general: By way of explanation, I live currently in southeastern China, and my ideas are tinged somewhat with my interpretations of Daoist ideas of totality. True wisdom, Daoist style, means adopting the big picture view. This in turn means accepting that one must always take into account the limitations of conventional wisdom and its assumptions. 'Conventional wisdom' is used here as a generic term to include all the prevalent beliefs and ideas that motivate individuals, organisations and governments - all the 'isms'. Conventional wisdom is cyclic; it fosters 'theories' and 'solutions' (the 'isms') that gain widespread popular support and acceptance - for a while. Some of the propositions may be quite good and some quite bad. What differentiates and separates these passing conceptions from 'true' wisdom (and from the Daoist ideal of wholeness) is their ambit. Without exception the fashionable trends in 'conventional' thought fail to be holistic - they invariably propose action based on some innovative analysis of what is always only a subset of the available data. It is often fashionably trendy to speak of thinking 'laterally' and to consider 'innovative solutions - to have thoughts that are 'outside the square' and by inference 'big picture.' But it only takes a quick glance at governmental and corporate/organisational policies anywhere and everywhere throughout recorded history to see that shortsighted, Band-Aid solutions are - everywhere - generally the order of the day. It may be that we expect and hope that humanity will be around for millennia - but our forward planning rarely extends much further than the next local election. With rare exceptions (major natural disasters, well publicised tragedies...), 'caring' stops at a clearly defined local border, and few would argue that despite much talk of 'global community' the nations that make up that community represent a fragmented 'whole' that is a very long way from any reconciliation and always includes some elements in bitter opposition to each other. Measured against any philosophic/political vision of harmony and wholeness - we (humanity) suffer critical failures of community. The modern Daoist vision (ok my interpretation) is of an integrated vision of totality. And this totality is something that ALL conventional wisdom in practical application generally lacks the necessary scope to tackle. Conventional wisdom (aka a political system) is usually for the benefit of privileged interest groups - and is never fully comprehensive in tackling the real needs of the people. Like the medicine given to terminally ill patients, it eases the immediate pain - but provides no prospect of curing the malaise. In treating symptoms rather than causes, conventional wisdom is always eventually found lacking - there is short-term gain, but usually at someone else's expense - there is no integrated big picture solution, that addresses all the criteria of need. This sounds a little esoteric and woolly, so consider for a moment one contemporary example of the type of conventional wisdom that apparently offers big-picture solutions for society at large - the much-promoted and much-implemented cleverness of 'the market economy.' That is, regulation of society based wholly on considerations of market forces and driven by profit and loss forecasting. This model of capitalist society employs a limited subset of those attributes that make us human (ie: what is currently defined as logical/rational) - but then seeks to impose the 'economic' model on every aspect of our lives. The healing of the sick, the acquisition of knowledge, the dispensing of justice - all become contingent on considerations of profit. Could this kind of niche thinking really embody some universally applicable truth? I think that a good Daoist would frown, walk away quietly and have nothing further to do with this inferior idea. By deliberating excluding and denying the legitimacy of any other consideration of people's needs, wants and feelings - by packing everything into a box marked 'commerce' the bigger human picture is forever excluded and the whole thereby denied. There is no fulfillment for anyone for whom 'the economic model' has no particular resonance - and the Dao ideal remains unattainable... If we really want free trade - we don't need ANY government. Anyone could set up shop, do what they like - market forces rule, zero trade barriers... The true purpose of human is not commerce! This is something we do, not something we are... True community is surely not difficult to grasp. From time immemorial people have huddled together for protection. Safety in numbers. The community can temporarily compensate for an individuals inability to cope with sickness, childbirth, infirmity... Old age is not really a marketing opportunity. Disease is not a treasure chest for big pharma, the poor are not consumables to be forced to labor below the poverty line until they expire. We are not a market! We are a people! With this in mind shouldn't the first concern be to draft a manifesto of individual liberties which will admit of any kind of political system - but will curb the tendency of elite groups to gather all resources and prerogatives to themselves? Sorry this is such a long initial post! But I view governments the same way you might view AI - we create them, but we don't neccessarily control them. If they are unfriendly, they are powerful enough to destroy us or enslave us. A good first step might be to make politicians personally accountable for their errors... Jack Jack Parkinson EF - English First Qunzhong Donglu 35 Fuzhou, Peoples Republic of China. isthatyoujack at icqmail.com jack.parkinson at englishfirst.com.cn tel: fax: mobile: +86 591-83399808 (China) +86 591-83399908 (China) +86 13055419794 (China) Add me to your address book... Want a signature like this? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 04:14:47 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 21:14:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <4320FC0C.4020108@aol.com> Message-ID: <20050909041447.4067.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Robert Lindauer wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > >If a customer of a business is initiated against, he has standing to > >pursue redress through the legal process for the tort committed > against > >him. If the customer chose to not inform the rest of the public > about > >his or her private commercial relationship with the company and its > >legal fallout, that is their business, not yours. Caveat emptor. > > > > > > Why not just take revenge? The Legal process is slanted toward those > who can afford to fight legal battles. This is bull. If your claim were true, then lawyers would not feel the need to advertise with cheaply done ads on television in the wee hours of the evening. The lack of a loser pays standard here in the US actually puts the advantage in the court of those who are willing to take their chances with a contingency lawyer, as those with the money are always paying 'go away' money to frivolous suers... The only disadvantage is the mental reticence by so many against engaging in legal action. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Sep 9 04:16:03 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 21:16:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050909020130.73543.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050909041603.86034.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > > Ah, but is it force to lie to someone and sell them poison when > they > > think they are purchasing food? > > Poisoning is illegal. I didn't ask if it was legal. > We are talking about LEGAL FORCE. No, we're talking about force. Assuming people don't do things if they're legal requires 100% effective enforcement - which not even the strictest, most draconian law enforcement agency in the world has achieved over any large group of people. Besides, history shows that if you try to screw over a body of people long enough, hard enough, they will start tending to ignore any laws you write for them. They will, inevitably, initiate force - and if your economy depends on exploiting their labor (as often happens in these situations), you will fall (once whatever stockpiles you have run out, without their production to renew said stockpiles), and everyone involved will suffer. It's happened again and again, and human nature has not changed in that regard. The government monopoly on force is supposed to prevent that, but of course that assumes the government is one that the people can stand. People can stand for a lot (see the crap that the USA is currently putting up with), but there is a limit. > > Is it force to make sure that > > customers have access to complete (or as complete as possible) > > information about a company before doing business with them? > > Depends on what information you are trying to give them. If your > claims > about a company you make in disclosures to the public meet the legal > definition of libel, slander, or contractual violation of > confidentiality agreements, it is you who are illegally using force. How about if companies don't allow, by contract, any agency with access to their food to call it poison? (Note that some companies are trying equivalent tactics today, using contracts to shut down any and all negative reviews of their products.) The only information available to anyone else is that the company's product is good and wholesome. > > What if > > most companies view it in their self-interest not to give out > > information, such that mass refusal to do business with the > secretive > > (the market's way of punishing this) is not a practical option? > > Depends on what information you are looking for. If you are fishing > for > the intellectual property of a competitor, you have no standing to > make > demands, and any attempt to get their information is theft. Who decides what is and what is not intellectual property? Certain companies would claim that all of your memories about them - or even the entire contents of any brain that has had any interaction with their products whatsoever (and thus been indelibly altered by the experience) - are their IP if they were the sole arbiter of what they could claim as their IP. > > And > > if businesses then initiated force, but made sure the general > public > > never knew about it, hiding it in the generally-accepted secrecy... > > If a customer of a business is initiated against, he has standing to > pursue redress through the legal process for the tort committed > against > him. If the customer chose to not inform the rest of the public about > his or her private commercial relationship with the company and its > legal fallout, that is their business, not yours. And if they don't have a choice? From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Sep 9 04:19:04 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 21:19:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Are dwarfsbetterforlongduration spaceflight?] In-Reply-To: <20050907135610.GR2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200509090418.j894Ivf22070@tick.javien.com> Eugen Leitl: ... > > You're not sending much ahead to Mars, are you? NOOOOO that's right, you are correct! Now I know why we kept talking past each other. I am looking at the absolute minimal Mars mission, where we have a few thousand kilogram manufacturing facility, very small, a bulldozer the size of an end table, a toy really. A very expensive sophisticated toy, but a small thing. The stuff it builds is small by the human scale. It is sent ahead, carried by one heavy lifter, Delta class. Then later the human is carried to Mars orbit with one heavy lifter. The whole minimal mission is accomplished with two heavies. We can afford that. This is the classic weights engineer approach to something like this: we intuitively look for the lightest and cheapest arrangement that will do the job. On another subject you wrote: > I was dumping straight from /dev/ass... {8^D Gene this comment made me laugh my /dev/ass off. {8^D spike From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 04:24:40 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 21:24:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism - a search for meaning... In-Reply-To: <005a01c5b4ee$0b109760$0201a8c0@JPAcer> Message-ID: <20050909042440.15775.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> --- Jack Parkinson wrote: > Hi, I'm Jack. > > I have been reading the posts to this forum for some > time with somewhat > mixed emotions regarding the political > point-scoring. As I see it, the > extropian viewpoint has no precise congruence with > any political system - > rather it subsumes them all (or should do so) with a > philosophical view > point which is flexible enough to allow for any kind > of government - but > should enshrine some core human values to dictate > (or at least privede > guidance benchmarks on) the way any government > conducts its affairs. Yes, Jack, this is precisely the point that Max, Natasha, and Spike have been trying so hard to make clear on the list and that is that Extropy, like Taoism or any other philosophy is larger than any single political system or movement. > Some OED political definition should be enough to > demonstrate that political > words per se carry no stigma (I'm not denying the > cultural/semantic > baggage that sticks to buzzwords over time - I'm > just trying to drill down > to core meanings): > 1. Socialism: a society in which things are held or > used in common > 2. Liberal: Free in bestowing; bountiful, generous, > open-hearted. > Originally, > the distinctive epithet of those arts or sciences > that were considered > worthy of a free man; opposed to servile or > mechanical. In later use, of > condition, pursuits, occupations: Pertaining to or > suitable to persons of > superior social station; becoming a gentleman... > 3. Libertarian: One who holds the doctrine of the > freedom of the will, as > opposed to that of necessity. > > These are ALL wonderful ideas - each born of the > very best of motives - each > idealistically promoted as a (often 'THE!") > universal panacea. But ideology > and actual practice are two wildly different things: > Socialism often breeds > apathy, wishy-washy liberalism inspires contempt, > libertarian free markets > are - at least potentially - just a playground for > amoral rich kids... Agreed. Most idealists fall short in practice of their ideals. > A benign dictatorship is probably the most effective > political system - > and the cheapest and most efficient as well... > Problem is - the power > ultimately devolves to the dictator's inbred > off-spring - who have none of > the original ideals, but all the egocentric rapacity > of indulged > privilege... Yes. A benevolent dictatorship is the most extropic (lowest entropy) government. Decisions are swift, rational, and efficient. The heriditary power thing, however, IS a problem. But it is a problem that applies to laissez-faire capitalist system as well. That is why I am proponent of meritocracy. There should be at the very least exams and other methods of testing that politicians should have to pass before being allowed to take high office. Much like there was in ancient China. I agree there are problems with an unrestrained free market that puts all considerations of humanity behind that of making a profit. It is precisely such a plutocratic ideal that the Ferenghi on Star Trek were supposed to parody. It is certainly not the best of all possible systems. It is just better than anything else that is currently understood and available. I for one am a poster child for Socialism. My father died when I was 8 and my mother when I was 12. If it wasn't for the social security checks that I was getting until I turned 18, I would probably be dead or in jail by now as there is no legal way for a 12 year old child to make a living in the U.S. Instead however, because of Roosevelt's liberal gesture, I have managed to go to college and have prospects for a respectable productive career ahead of me. Any ways, Jack, great first post. I look forward to reading more of 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 ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 04:47:53 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 21:47:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050909041603.86034.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050909044754.49853.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > > --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > > > Ah, but is it force to lie to someone and sell them poison when > > they > > > think they are purchasing food? > > > > Poisoning is illegal. > > I didn't ask if it was legal. > > > We are talking about LEGAL FORCE. > > No, we're talking about force. Assuming people don't do things if > they're legal requires 100% effective enforcement - which not even > the > strictest, most draconian law enforcement agency in the world has > achieved over any large group of people. Incorrect. People tend to not do illegal things if there is a significant risk of it costing them more than they will gain. Criminals tend to stay out of jurisdictions that let their people walk around armed, for instance, preferring jurisdictions that don't, because police are far more effective in protecting criminals from the people than in protecting the people from the criminals. > > Besides, history shows that if you try to screw over a body of people > long enough, hard enough, they will start tending to ignore any laws > you write for them. They will, inevitably, initiate force - and if > your economy depends on exploiting their labor (as often happens in > these situations), you will fall (once whatever stockpiles you have > run out, without their production to renew said stockpiles), and > everyone involved will suffer. It's happened again and again, and > human nature has not changed in that regard. Well, no, this isn't true. This shibboleth that 'violence never solves anything' is a fake philosophy. The US revolution certainly solved something, and a lot of people were better off for it. I could name many others, but you get the point. You, and many others, have been taught by government schools and government teachers that violence never solves anything because the truth is that violence in the hands of the people tends to not solve things in the favor of governments and their leaders/controllers, who, as far as government teachers are concerned, are the only people who matter anyways. > > The government monopoly on force is supposed to prevent that, but of > course that assumes the government is one that the people can stand. > People can stand for a lot (see the crap that the USA is currently > putting up with), but there is a limit. Certainly, so long as they feel their own toast is getting buttered, why should they care how dry and stale it is for people, say, in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Waco, etc...? > > How about if companies don't allow, by contract, any agency with > access to their food to call it poison? If you as a consumer cannot take such a demand by any organization as a significant sign you should not do business with them, then that is your own fault. Stupid is as stupid does. > (Note that some companies are trying > equivalent tactics today, using contracts to shut down any and all > negative reviews of their products.) The only information available > to anyone else is that the company's product is good and wholesome. And anyone who lets themselves get sucked into that deserves what they get. > > Depends on what information you are looking for. If you are fishing > > for the intellectual property of a competitor, you have no standing > > to make demands, and any attempt to get their information is theft. > > Who decides what is and what is not intellectual property? Certain > companies would claim that all of your memories about them - or even > the entire contents of any brain that has had any interaction with > their products whatsoever (and thus been indelibly altered by the > experience) - are their IP if they were the sole arbiter of what they > could claim as their IP. They don't decide who their final arbiter is. If you'd read the articles I've pointed to, you'd understand this. > > > > If a customer of a business is initiated against, he has standing > > to pursue redress through the legal process for the tort committed > > against him. If the customer chose to not inform the rest of the > > public about > > his or her private commercial relationship with the company and its > > legal fallout, that is their business, not yours. > > And if they don't have a choice? Everyone has a choice. Not everyone has the resolve and self discipline to see things through. If a company offers you and your lawyer a settlement on condition of non-disclosure, it is your choice to accept the settlement or not. Nobody is twisting your arm. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 04:52:06 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 21:52:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism - a search for meaning... In-Reply-To: <20050909042440.15775.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050909045206.96942.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > > I for one am a poster child for Socialism. My father > died when I was 8 and my mother when I was 12. If it > wasn't for the social security checks that I was > getting until I turned 18, I would probably be dead or > in jail by now as there is no legal way for a 12 year > old child to make a living in the U.S. Instead > however, because of Roosevelt's liberal gesture, I > have managed to go to college and have prospects for a > respectable productive career ahead of me. On the contrary, you have no idea who might have adopted you through private adoption. Given what I know about DCYF agencies, I dare say that a private orphanage could have found you better parents than the public foster care system today. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Fri Sep 9 04:54:32 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 14:54:32 +1000 Subject: Common law without govt? Re: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate References: <20050908123434.98255.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <018201c5b4fa$91889c00$0d98e03c@homepc> Mike Lorrey wrote: > Common Law is 'written' by every judge who issues opinions in > judgements in any common law system. Government is not > necessary for this system to operate. But forms of government from monarchies to republics did produce the common law (by appointing judges). The notion of their being a common wealth, some common ground to which all had a minimal stake, minimal rights, goes back at least as far as Hobbes Leviathan. Without government of some form how would you maintain or further develop a common law system? Where would the judges come from and from where would their authority derive ? Brett Paatsch From extropy at unreasonable.com Fri Sep 9 05:25:25 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 01:25:25 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Common law without govt? In-Reply-To: <018201c5b4fa$91889c00$0d98e03c@homepc> References: <20050908123434.98255.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <018201c5b4fa$91889c00$0d98e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050909011449.0727dbd0@unreasonable.com> Brett wrote: >But forms of government from monarchies to republics did produce >the common law (by appointing judges). The notion of their being >a common wealth, some common ground to which all had a minimal >stake, minimal rights, goes back at least as far as Hobbes Leviathan. >Without government of some form how would you maintain or further >develop a common law system? Where would the judges come from >and from where would their authority derive ? The judges who began common law were not appointed, and existed independent of any government. They were chosen by the parties or by the community to judge disputes because of their personal reputations. Equivalents still exist today. The pattern has recurred throughout history. The Jews, for instance, would choose a wise and learned man to decide or to arbitrate. Even after a couple of thousand years, it is still the practice in some communities to go ask the rebbe. It is a spontaneous order. -- David. From eugen at leitl.org Fri Sep 9 06:43:26 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 08:43:26 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Katrina as a test of social theories and models In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050908183920.01c87108@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <20050908172427.78205.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <43208328.6010601@pobox.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050908135424.01e17cf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050908185049.02f7cab0@mail.gmu.edu> <6.2.1.2.0.20050908183920.01c87108@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20050909064326.GC2249@leitl.org> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 06:42:42PM -0500, Damien Broderick wrote: > http://www.wafb.com/Global/SearchResults.asp?qu=charmaine+neville&x=13&y=10 Does anyone have a direct URL to the video? Their web monkeys are incompetent. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Sep 9 11:11:25 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 13:11:25 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050909041603.86034.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050909020130.73543.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20050909041603.86034.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050909111125.GJ2249@leitl.org> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 09:16:03PM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote: > No, we're talking about force. Assuming people don't do things if > they're legal requires 100% effective enforcement - which not even the > strictest, most draconian law enforcement agency in the world has > achieved over any large group of people. Fortunately. However, the situation has been changing quite noticeably. For one, we have potentially realtime automatic surveillance of subjects and communication channels, as well as data mining to identify potential trouble-makers (remote bugging of mobile phones is e.g. possible, and location services are subpoenable in realtime). Human forces will rebel if deployed against their own citizens, but automation (e.g. UAVs, military robotics) do not have compassion, or conscience. The Emergents could very well be our future. Let's try not going there. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 11:45:56 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 04:45:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism - a search for meaning... In-Reply-To: <20050909045206.96942.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050909114556.4169.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > --- The Avantguardian > wrote: > > > > I for one am a poster child for Socialism. My > father > > died when I was 8 and my mother when I was 12. If > it > > wasn't for the social security checks that I was > > getting until I turned 18, I would probably be > dead or > > in jail by now as there is no legal way for a 12 > year > > old child to make a living in the U.S. Instead > > however, because of Roosevelt's liberal gesture, I > > have managed to go to college and have prospects > for a > > respectable productive career ahead of me. > > On the contrary, you have no idea who might have > adopted you through > private adoption. Given what I know about DCYF > agencies, I dare say > that a private orphanage could have found you better > parents than the > public foster care system today. Well those agencies should advertise better as there was period of time where my foster parents were seriously discussing sending me to South America to do missionary work converting the heathens of the rain forest. 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 mail at harveynewstrom.com Fri Sep 9 12:42:23 2005 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (mail at harveynewstrom.com) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 08:42:23 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Katrina as a test of social theories and models In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050908185049.02f7cab0@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20050908172427.78205.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <43208328.6010601@pobox.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050908135424.01e17cf0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050908185049.02f7cab0@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: Robin Hanson writes: > At 02:58 PM 9/8/2005, Damien Broderick wrote: >> Everyone's a critic. Here is some material to work with: >> http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/006754.html#006754 > > Wow. That is a really disturbing description. I have no reason not to > believe them - does anyone have a reason to doubt the truth of this story? This matches reports I have been getting from all different sources. Sadly, these stories don't prove anything. Every political position will claim how this vindicated their viewpoint. Anti-Government types will point out the government failure. Pro-Government types will point out how cutting government didn't work. Privateers will point out that the private sector could do better. Anti-Privateers will point out that the private sector didn't solve the problems either. Socialists will say that the cooperative commune arrangements were working until the government dispersed them. Libertarians will say that individual efforts trumped groups. Pro-Gunners will point out why guns are needed for these occasions. Anti-Gunners will point out how guns were used to take pot shots at rescue workers and prevent supplies from being delivered. Nobody will change their position. No mutual conclusions will be observed. In the end, we are still a bunch of monkeys. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 14:01:29 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 07:01:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Common law without govt? Re: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <018201c5b4fa$91889c00$0d98e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20050909140129.58427.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > Common Law is 'written' by every judge who issues opinions in > > judgements in any common law system. Government is not > > necessary for this system to operate. > > But forms of government from monarchies to republics did produce > the common law (by appointing judges). The notion of their being > a common wealth, some common ground to which all had a minimal > stake, minimal rights, goes back at least as far as Hobbes Leviathan. Further back to the Danelaw. Kings appointing judges was an authority seized by the Conqueror in order to have control over judgements issued in cases brought against him. Look to medieval Iceland and its judge-priests for a good example that was stable for a few centuries. > Without government of some form how would you maintain or further > develop a common law system? Where would the judges come from > and from where would their authority derive ? Judges would come from the market. The private arbitration system is well developed here in the US, more law gets practiced outside of courtrooms than in them these days here. The courts call this "Alternate Dispute Resolution" and there are private arbitration organizations available. Like the UL, ETL, Consumer Reports, etc., each relies for its income upon its reputation in the market for fairness and objectivity. There are also some that do not, because they are tools of mercantilist corporations (like the banks, etc) and they get away with this because the federal government has distorted the market with its socialized justice system, such that most people are not aware of alternatives and don't look into alternatives because they figure they can go to the government courts if need be. By the time a consumer figures out they get screwed, because they didn't read the contract they signed, it is too late, but that is one more example of caveat emptor. In any event, in a non-distorted justice market, arbitrators would be rated by the parties involved, as well as by legal consumer reports issuers. Justices with higher ratings would be able to command higher fees to judge, AND would constitute higher courts than rulings by lower ranked justices, thus the market would create an automatic, and self regulating, system of appeals and final arbiter. The problem of access to justice for the poor would be solved by the fact that the best justices would be able to command the highest fees, they would have the financial wherewithal to do more pro-bono work than less qualified justices. Because the justices are not beholden to any political party, there would not be a limited supply of justices, and no judicial immunity from the market, any one justice would not be able to get away with giving bad rulings without a significant price being paid by them personally for their lack of wisdom. Such a justice system could be easily administered by an eBay-type system of reputation brokerage. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From megao at sasktel.net Fri Sep 9 15:17:51 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 10:17:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] law and Justice without govt? In-Reply-To: <20050909140129.58427.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050909140129.58427.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4321A79F.50708@sasktel.net> The biggest hinderance to effective government and justice is secrecy. With complete transparancy no one could hide their activities and long after government and law and justice were done their thing the court of public opinion would continue on. Case in point#1- OJ Simpson- The law made a ruling the opinion of the public given widely public dissemination of the same facts before the court allowed each person to judge how to deal with and remember the actions of this individual. For so long as this person is alive he will be judged individually by each and every person he has to meet, irregardless of how any formal court event was settled. Contrast this with anyone who does his legal dealings behind doors , with layers of privacy and confidentiality held by multiple persons, and institutions. Full transparency is the best way to put honesty and integrity into society. Especially if you can't duck out by dying in a prison in 25 years but must answer to all who you come in contact with for perhaps hundreds of years or longer. In some cases that would translate to a true meaning for the term hell; to be accountable forever for everything you have ever done with full transparency of all your past life for anyone anywhere anytime to see. From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Sep 9 16:23:05 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 09:23:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050909111125.GJ2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20050909162305.8408.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > Human forces will rebel if deployed against their own citizens, but > automation (e.g. UAVs, military robotics) do not have compassion, or > conscience. They do, however, have controllers and programmers. The military is being *extremely* careful to make sure that a human commander can always stop a robot soldier from doing harm - and even with the video screen distancing effect, those commanders will still know who they're going against. Even if the military did come up with a SAI, the military's SAI would not be free to self-enhance or otherwise trigger the Singularity, at least at first. Ironically, they're one of the safer bets to come up with a Friendly AI eventually - if only out of paranoid self-interest. From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Sep 9 17:06:21 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 10:06:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050909044754.49853.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050909170621.35895.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > > No, we're talking about force. Assuming people don't do things if > > they're legal requires 100% effective enforcement - which not even > > the > > strictest, most draconian law enforcement agency in the world has > > achieved over any large group of people. > > Incorrect. People tend to not do illegal things if there is a > significant risk of it costing them more than they will gain. "Tend to not do" and "do not do" are two different things. Some people do pursue the illegal path - and some of those suceed, gaining enough of an advantage to specialize and reduce their risk. Corruption happens when someone manages to reduce the risk to close enough to zero, and starts teaching others how to beat the system. > > Besides, history shows that if you try to screw over a body of > people > > long enough, hard enough, they will start tending to ignore any > laws > > you write for them. They will, inevitably, initiate force - and if > > your economy depends on exploiting their labor (as often happens in > > these situations), you will fall (once whatever stockpiles you have > > run out, without their production to renew said stockpiles), and > > everyone involved will suffer. It's happened again and again, and > > human nature has not changed in that regard. > > Well, no, this isn't true. This shibboleth that 'violence never > solves > anything' is a fake philosophy. The US revolution certainly solved > something, and a lot of people were better off for it. I could name > many others, but you get the point. Actually, we're in agreement here. My point is that violence will eventually be resorted to as a solution, if non-violent solutions do not work. > And anyone who lets themselves get sucked into that deserves what > they > get. I'm talking about situations where it's not a matter of choice. You need their product (to live, or just to be functional when practically everybody else is using an equivalent), and those are the only terms available. > Everyone has a choice. Not everyone has the resolve and self > discipline > to see things through. If a company offers you and your lawyer a > settlement on condition of non-disclosure, it is your choice to > accept > the settlement or not. Nobody is twisting your arm. What if it's the only way to get food? What if all the food manufacturers require the same? You don't have to purchase food from them - except that you have to get your food somewhere, and not everyone can grow their own food. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 17:13:49 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 10:13:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] law and Justice without govt? In-Reply-To: <4321A79F.50708@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <20050909171349.15425.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "Lifespan Pharma Inc." wrote: > The biggest hinderance to effective government and justice is > secrecy. > With complete transparancy no one could hide their activities and > long after government and law and justice were > done their thing the court of public opinion would continue on. > > Case in point#1- OJ Simpson- The law made a ruling the opinion of the > public given widely public dissemination of the > same facts before the court allowed each person to judge how to deal > with and remember the actions of this individual. > For so long as this person is alive he will be judged individually by > each and every person he has to meet, irregardless > of how any formal court event was settled. Which is the problem. Did anyone judge Ito badly? No. How about the jurors? They are all hometown heroes to the people that matter to them. The public got a media distorted view of Mark Fuhrman, the prosecution, etc, and everybody who is white is sure OJ is guilty, while everybody who is black is sure he's innnocent, or deserved to get away with it. > > Contrast this with anyone who does his legal dealings behind doors , > with layers of privacy and confidentiality > held by multiple persons, and institutions. However, private justice does not mean secrecy of rulings. In fact, to contribute to the common law, caselaw must be public, and always has been, even when there were no governments choosing judges. Government control of judge selection came about so the aristocracy could gain the upper hand over the commoners in court. True democrats, liberals, or libertarians should thusly be opposed to the practice. In the sort of market-based justice system I've described, public openness of all rulings would be necessary for the system to work. I call it the Open Law Market. As a market, its openness is necessary to its function. Individuals are still free to settle their differences privately if they wish, their settlements do not become caselaw. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Sep 9 17:27:10 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 10:27:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050909170621.35895.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050909172710.12043.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > > > Everyone has a choice. Not everyone has the resolve and self > > discipline > > to see things through. If a company offers you and your lawyer a > > settlement on condition of non-disclosure, it is your choice to > > accept the settlement or not. Nobody is twisting your arm. > > What if it's the only way to get food? What if all the food > manufacturers require the same? You don't have to purchase food from > them - except that you have to get your food somewhere, and not > everyone can grow their own food. It would be extremely stupid for ALL food makers to do that, because it automatically creates a market for non-secret food if consumers want it, and thus opens the door to competition. Everyone CAN grow their own food, if they so choose. There are, even in cities, many public spaces for gardeners to have their own personal plots. The question is whether they choose to grow their own food. There is not a lack of arable land in the world. Many countries have a surplus of it. If you choose to live someplace without such available, that is your choice. There are no laws preventing you from moving someplace else. Stop making excuses. Nor is there any monolithic soylent green corporation, nor is there any likelihood there will be. Commodity production industries tend to not conglomerate very well. There are limits. Monsanto, even, is limited to producing seed. If they went into business of buying up all farmland, they'd have to not just buy up all farmland currently in use, but all arable, unused land, AND not use the arable unused land WHILE PAYING PROPERTY TAXES ON IT, in order to keep that unused land out of use by others. The amount of land they'd have to buy would be in the tens of trillions of dollars in value. Even if Monsanto bought up all the seed companies in the world, new competitors would spring up every day, because seeds cannot be monopolized. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mail at harveynewstrom.com Fri Sep 9 18:45:22 2005 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (mail at harveynewstrom.com) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:45:22 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050909162305.8408.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050909162305.8408.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Adrian Tymes writes: > They do, however, have controllers and programmers. The military is > being *extremely* careful to make sure that a human commander can > always stop a robot soldier from doing harm - and even with the video > screen distancing effect, those commanders will still know who they're > going against. I doubt this. We saw examples in the Iraq war where we would bomb far-away targets based on an anonymous tip only to find out that the tip was false and that we just bombed friendlies. I also doubt that any smarts will be given to a robot to keep it from disobeying a direct order to attack just because it thinks the targets are not the enemy. The military mindset is more on enforcing the chain of command than allowing every soldier to think for themselves. This will even be more so when humans are commanding machines. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From extropy at unreasonable.com Fri Sep 9 18:49:30 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:49:30 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050909172710.12043.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050909170621.35895.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> <20050909172710.12043.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050909144200.07559670@unreasonable.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >It would be extremely stupid for ALL food makers to do that, because it >automatically creates a market for non-secret food if consumers want >it, and thus opens the door to competition. Indeed, as we see with OPEC attempts to control the price of oil, this market makes it very attractive for cartel members to secretly break the cartel agreement. >Everyone CAN grow their own food, if they so choose. There are, even >in cities, many public spaces for gardeners to have their own personal plots. In the USSR, where all food production was ostensibly collectivized, many people grew food on their own, to eat or to sell, even in Moscow. As with many black markets, the government ignored this, because it was the only way to sustain the regime. -- David. From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Fri Sep 9 19:02:36 2005 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 12:02:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: <43208811.9060909@aol.com> References: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> <43208811.9060909@aol.com> Message-ID: <20050909190236.GA5831@ofb.net> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 08:50:57AM -1000, Robert Lindauer wrote: > Why? Because the Libertarian Party (which, BTW, is not the only party > that has as a primary ideal personal and economic freedom) has > significantly failed at even showing a good faith effort at promoting > those ideals within the government. Instead it has become a repository > for Reagan-style Randians interested only in reducing taxation for the > rich while hawkishly protecting our foreign interests with imperialistic This may be true of many people calling themselves l/Libertarian; the official positions of the LP are different, I think. The Party had statements opposing the war on Iraq -- I checked, at a time when many net.libertarians were backing Bush to the hilt -- and the current platform, like all the other ones I've seen, calls for no intervention in other countries. As well as no nukes and no immigration restrictions. http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml -xx- Damien X-) From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Sep 9 19:11:04 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 12:11:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050909191104.59427.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> --- mail at harveynewstrom.com wrote: > Adrian Tymes writes: > > They do, however, have controllers and programmers. The military > is > > being *extremely* careful to make sure that a human commander can > > always stop a robot soldier from doing harm - and even with the > video > > screen distancing effect, those commanders will still know who > they're > > going against. > > I doubt this. We saw examples in the Iraq war where we would bomb > far-away > targets based on an anonymous tip only to find out that the tip was > false > and that we just bombed friendlies. Not what I was talking about. It's one thing to bomb an Iraqi target and unintentionally wind up bombing friendlies. It's quite another to unleash bombs in the USA for any reason whatsoever (if you're US military, atl least). > I also doubt that any smarts > will be > given to a robot to keep it from disobeying a direct order to attack > just > because it thinks the targets are not the enemy. You're probably correct - but you miss the point. It'll be a human who gives the order, because the human will make judgements as to whether the targets are or are not the enemy. Humans do make mistakes, but they can also disobey, or at least complain (even if they are of a mindset to follow orders), if they think they are doing the wrong thing. Even in the modern US military, each soldier is personally responsible for not following obviously illegal orders. From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Fri Sep 9 19:12:48 2005 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 12:12:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: References: <20050908061051.65601.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> <43209A2A.2030209@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <20050909191248.GB5831@ofb.net> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 12:58:07PM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: > government that runs enforcement and judiciary of those laws. I am > against a government that attempts to regulate heavily most aspects > of our lives and interactions. There is a world of difference. It > is not a legitimate task of government to regulate business. It is a > legitimate task of government to formulate and enforce laws against > business fraud and harm to the people. See the difference? What if the regulating gov't ended up smaller than the pure enforcement gov't? E.g. some clever regulations which were easy to enforce and resulted in little faurd to police, vs. an expensive effort to hunt down and prosecute fraud or force after the fact? The first has a bit more intrusion, but the latter has more taxes. Or, perhaps, the taxes might be the same, but the latter gov't was less effective in its function, since it was using (in this hypothesis) less effective means. Would you still oppose the regulation, on principle? -xx- Damien X-) From megao at sasktel.net Fri Sep 9 18:19:43 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 13:19:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050909172710.12043.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050909172710.12043.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4321D23F.9050208@sasktel.net> Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Adrian Tymes wrote: > > >>>Everyone has a choice. Not everyone has the resolve and self >>>discipline >>>to see things through. If a company offers you and your lawyer a >>>settlement on condition of non-disclosure, it is your choice to >>>accept the settlement or not. Nobody is twisting your arm. >>> >>> >>What if it's the only way to get food? What if all the food >>manufacturers require the same? You don't have to purchase food from >>them - except that you have to get your food somewhere, and not >>everyone can grow their own food. >> >> > >It would be extremely stupid for ALL food makers to do that, because it >automatically creates a market for non-secret food if consumers want >it, and thus opens the door to competition. > > Anybody who screws with the regulatory system risks proscecution, and seizure of commodities, or worse. I have had experience with this. I gave another farmer some lupin seed in 1984 and before the gov't was done with me it cost me 500$ and a day in court. >Everyone CAN grow their own food, if they so choose. There are, even in >cities, many public spaces for gardeners to have their own personal >plots. The question is whether they choose to grow their own food. >There is not a lack of arable land in the world. Many countries have a >surplus of it. If you choose to live someplace without such available, >that is your choice. There are no laws preventing you from moving >someplace else. Stop making excuses. > > > My opinion is that simple food will not cut it if you want to live beyond your 3 score and ten unless you have above average genes. Designer foods will not be public domain and you certainly will not be able to transport your seed from one jurasdiction to another without 3rd party permissions. >Nor is there any monolithic soylent green corporation, nor is there any >likelihood there will be. Commodity production industries tend to not >conglomerate very well. There are limits. Monsanto, even, is limited to >producing seed. If they went into business of buying up all farmland, >they'd have to not just buy up all farmland currently in use, but all >arable, unused land, AND not use the arable unused land WHILE PAYING >PROPERTY TAXES ON IT, in order to keep that unused land out of use by > > John Deere and others have systems onboard equipment that with a few minor alterations would like onstar keep a third party ever aware of where you were and exactly what use you are putting all your equipment to. Of course this is for nearly new stuff, but in time the old stuff will be gone and those new systems will be all anyone has to work with. >others. The amount of land they'd have to buy would be in the tens of >trillions of dollars in value. > >Even if Monsanto bought up all the seed companies in the world, new >competitors would spring up every day, because seeds cannot be monopolized. > > Not so, they are. Ever hear of plant breeder's rights.To grow hemp I need a police criminal records check, a multipage app form, GPSmaps, all signed and done to exacting specs. I must buy certified seed from a licenced, approved, inspected grower, I must pay for inspection and lab testing of my crop and by law I must grow no less than 10 acres of crop. Just plug that one into your backyard urban survival garden for size. Let me tell you, This year for one of my fields I had the crop seeded and cut down in swaths waiting for the combine before I got the actual permit to seed the crop into my hands, it's just that fussy. Seeds are becoming very closely held properties. Very soon you will need a licence and more to grow or even possess a lot of them. Agriculture is changing, and with recent radical move in energy costs will likely change dramatically over the next 48 months. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Fri Sep 9 19:22:13 2005 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 12:22:13 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: References: <20050909162305.8408.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050909192213.GC5831@ofb.net> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 02:45:22PM -0400, mail at harveynewstrom.com wrote: > because it thinks the targets are not the enemy. The military mindset is > more on enforcing the chain of command than allowing every soldier to think > for themselves. This will even be more so when humans are commanding > machines. This contradicts a lot of what I've heard about the US military, where smart soldiers are allegedly an asset and have been for a long time. Not just not obeying illegal orders, but being innovative in the field. One of the SF newsgroups was talking about WWII recently, and a claim came up that the Germans were rather more dependent on a particular line of command, and the Americans better at regrouping, finding a new line, and going back into battle. -xx- Damien X-) From eugen at leitl.org Fri Sep 9 19:33:51 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 21:33:51 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: References: <20050909162305.8408.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050909193351.GS2249@leitl.org> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 02:45:22PM -0400, mail at harveynewstrom.com wrote: > I doubt this. We saw examples in the Iraq war where we would bomb far-away > targets based on an anonymous tip only to find out that the tip was false > and that we just bombed friendlies. I also doubt that any smarts will be > given to a robot to keep it from disobeying a direct order to attack just I understand with best current systems (which are distinct from a mere waldo) there's still a human in the loop go give ACK/NACK to a fire request. (Do they have a fire-at-will mode already? I hope not). While it is easy enough to patch over, it is clear that the future brings more and more autonomy to military hardware. Ultimatively, the systems will actively seek out and terminate targets specified by the command. Without further checks and balances, whatever gets propagated down the chain (tree) of command will be executed (pun intended), no questions asked. From a certain point onwards, a fully automated state does no longer need the citizens. It is perhaps fortunate that the private sector has an edge in technology so that particular scenario is overwhelmingly improbable. Times change, though, when I discussed this 1987 while in the army, people thought I was on crack. > because it thinks the targets are not the enemy. The military mindset is > more on enforcing the chain of command than allowing every soldier to think > for themselves. This will even be more so when humans are commanding > machines. One thing the world doesn't need: executive automation. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From extropy at unreasonable.com Fri Sep 9 19:42:50 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:42:50 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050909192213.GC5831@ofb.net> References: <20050909162305.8408.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> <20050909192213.GC5831@ofb.net> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050909152401.071ba8a8@unreasonable.com> Damien Sullivan wrote: >This contradicts a lot of what I've heard about the US military, where smart >soldiers are allegedly an asset and have been for a long time. Not just not >obeying illegal orders, but being innovative in the field. One of the SF >newsgroups was talking about WWII recently, and a claim came up that the >Germans were rather more dependent on a particular line of command, and the >Americans better at regrouping, finding a new line, and going back into >battle. It's certainly traditionally been true in Zahal. The Israeli presumption is that battles are fluid, and the commander in the field may have a better read on the situation than his superior officers. He may disobey his orders, but he'd better be right. This was Arik Sharon's trademark in his military career, similar to Patton but even more successful. He would tremendously exceed orders. Occasionally get smacked for it, but always called back again. As an admirer of his military genius, it's been interesting for me to watch his political career. It's not surprising to see how well he and Bush reportedly get along. They both like to take big risks. Neither are caretakers. They push the envelope. -- David Lubkin. From eugen at leitl.org Fri Sep 9 19:47:44 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 21:47:44 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050909192213.GC5831@ofb.net> References: <20050909162305.8408.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> <20050909192213.GC5831@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20050909194744.GV2249@leitl.org> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:22:13PM -0700, Damien Sullivan wrote: > This contradicts a lot of what I've heard about the US military, where smart > soldiers are allegedly an asset and have been for a long time. Not just not > obeying illegal orders, but being innovative in the field. One of the SF I am quite ready to believe that. The point of automation trying to get "the boys" out of harm's way has an unfortunate side effect of amplifying potential insanities up the chain of command. Ultimatively, at the root of the tree. Which might be quite rotten. Another side effect of teleoperation is that it's just like terminating non-player characters in Half Life. Plays great, less killing. Uh, disregard this fortune cookie. > newsgroups was talking about WWII recently, and a claim came up that the > Germans were rather more dependent on a particular line of command, and the > Americans better at regrouping, finding a new line, and going back into > battle. I am not sure we have much to learn from a conflict happened 60 years ago. Surgery may owe a lot to the Gatling (pace, Dr Requa) gun, but what will be our lesson? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From robgobblin at aol.com Fri Sep 9 19:48:42 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 09:48:42 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050909041447.4067.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050909041447.4067.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4321E71A.9070807@aol.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >>> >>> >>Why not just take revenge? The Legal process is slanted toward those >>who can afford to fight legal battles. >> >> > >This is bull. If your claim were true, then lawyers would not feel the >need to advertise with cheaply done ads on television in the wee hours >of the evening. > For instance. Recently Walmart prosecuted two retirees for "shoplifting" a bag of manure costing around $100. They had purchased the rest of the things in their cart and had apparently inadvertently forgotten the manure under the cart (it happens). The couple offered to pay for and/or return the items when it was discovered by walmart security. Walmart asked for criminal prosecution which they lost. Walmart filed a claim in civil court, asking for damages in excess of $10,000 bringing the matter out of the reach of small claims. The couple caved and settled with Walmart for $2000 because it would have cost them more to defend themselves than just settle, they didn't consider themselves competent to defend themselves - EVEN THOUGH THEY WOULD HAVE WON. > The lack of a loser pays standard here in the US >actually puts the advantage in the court of those who are willing to >take their chances with a contingency lawyer, > Oh good, so you want to punish people for even thinking about suing. As though there wasn't enough stopping them as it is. > as those with the money >are always paying 'go away' money to frivolous suers... > Actually, for the most part, people walk away from actionable causes because it takes too much time and money to pursue them. This is by far the majority of violent and illegal cases in the US where the idea of suing is simply too strenuous. The major causes are equipment failure, criminal negligence, fraud, false advertising. These cases are badly underpursued and that fact is capitalized on by large businesses to the detriment of consumers. On the other hand, businesses actively pursue shoplifting and theft cases often frivolously knowing that people will usually succumb knowing that defending themselves in court is too hard to pay for for someone unemployed or working at near subsistence levels. >The only >disadvantage is the mental reticence by so many against engaging in >legal action. > You're crazy. Thank God you'll never make it in politics. Robbie From eugen at leitl.org Fri Sep 9 20:04:43 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 22:04:43 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <4321E71A.9070807@aol.com> References: <20050909041447.4067.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4321E71A.9070807@aol.com> Message-ID: <20050909200443.GA2249@leitl.org> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:48:42AM -1000, Robert Lindauer wrote: > >The only > >disadvantage is the mental reticence by so many against engaging in > >legal action. > > > > You're crazy. Thank God you'll never make it in politics. I'm always still surprised that those people who don't have anything left to lose don't recourse to tit for tat shortcut through the legal jungle. (Enough milk of kindness to run a large dairy). What's a baseline legal insurance/month in a fairly litigious society such as e.g. the US, please? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From robgobblin at aol.com Fri Sep 9 21:36:02 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 11:36:02 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: <20050909190236.GA5831@ofb.net> References: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> <43208811.9060909@aol.com> <20050909190236.GA5831@ofb.net> Message-ID: <43220042.8050805@aol.com> So what do you think of our resident Libertarian Party Chairman, then? R Damien Sullivan wrote: >On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 08:50:57AM -1000, Robert Lindauer wrote: > > > >>Why? Because the Libertarian Party (which, BTW, is not the only party >>that has as a primary ideal personal and economic freedom) has >>significantly failed at even showing a good faith effort at promoting >>those ideals within the government. Instead it has become a repository >>for Reagan-style Randians interested only in reducing taxation for the >>rich while hawkishly protecting our foreign interests with imperialistic >> >> > >This may be true of many people calling themselves l/Libertarian; the official >positions of the LP are different, I think. The Party had statements opposing >the war on Iraq -- I checked, at a time when many net.libertarians were >backing Bush to the hilt -- and the current platform, like all the other ones >I've seen, calls for no intervention in other countries. As well as no nukes >and no immigration restrictions. > >http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml > >-xx- Damien X-) >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Sep 9 21:53:32 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 14:53:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] law and Justice without govt? In-Reply-To: <4321A79F.50708@sasktel.net> References: <20050909140129.58427.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4321A79F.50708@sasktel.net> Message-ID: On Sep 9, 2005, at 8:17 AM, Lifespan Pharma Inc. wrote: > The biggest hinderance to effective government and justice is secrecy. The biggest protection against draconian government power is secrecy. Lets have a bit of balance. Lack of secrecy/privacy enables full implementation of the horrific as well as the good. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Sep 9 21:56:57 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 14:56:57 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050909191248.GB5831@ofb.net> References: <20050908061051.65601.qmail@web81609.mail.yahoo.com> <43209A2A.2030209@optusnet.com.au> <20050909191248.GB5831@ofb.net> Message-ID: <905D570B-98F9-432A-95E4-9CEC5E73A93A@mac.com> On Sep 9, 2005, at 12:12 PM, Damien Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 12:58:07PM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > >> government that runs enforcement and judiciary of those laws. I am >> against a government that attempts to regulate heavily most aspects >> of our lives and interactions. There is a world of difference. It >> is not a legitimate task of government to regulate business. It is a >> legitimate task of government to formulate and enforce laws against >> business fraud and harm to the people. See the difference? >> > > What if the regulating gov't ended up smaller than the pure > enforcement gov't? What if pigs could fly? Historically this has never been the pattern. I see no reason to believe ti can be. - samantha From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Sep 10 00:20:33 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 17:20:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <4321D23F.9050208@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <20050910002033.75300.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "Lifespan Pharma Inc." wrote: > > > >Even if Monsanto bought up all the seed companies in the world, new > >competitors would spring up every day, because seeds cannot be > monopolized. > > > > > > Not so, they are. Ever hear of plant breeder's rights.To grow hemp I > need a police criminal records check, > a multipage app form, GPSmaps, all signed and done to exacting specs. > I must buy certified seed from > a licenced, approved, inspected grower, I must pay for inspection and > lab testing of my crop and by law > I must grow no less than 10 acres of crop. Just plug that one into > your backyard urban survival garden for size. So glad to see you making my case for me even better than I can. My argument is that no government would be better, and you are proving my point: it is government that is protecting the power of the corporations over you with all its paperwork and background checks and GPS data, etc etc etc in triplicate, filed annually, on time if you please, sessir.... Without government, corporations have no power. They have no ability to tell you what you can grow or how or where you grow it. Now, if you feel you need the corporations IP in its seeds to live beyond your three score and ten, you either pay them and hold to your contract, or you find a competitor. Without a government patent office, there is nothing stopping anyone else from inventing the same invention. If the corps are smart, they'll not push the issue, else some well intentioned individual will launch an Open Seed Movement to spread seed technology far and wide, as it once was. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Sep 10 00:32:17 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 17:32:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050909200443.GA2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20050910003217.61858.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:48:42AM -1000, Robert Lindauer wrote: > > > >The only > > >disadvantage is the mental reticence by so many against engaging > in > > >legal action. > > > > > > > You're crazy. Thank God you'll never make it in politics. > > I'm always still surprised that those people who don't have anything > left to lose don't recourse to tit for tat shortcut through > the legal jungle. > > (Enough milk of kindness to run a large dairy). > > What's a baseline legal insurance/month in a fairly > litigious society such as e.g. the US, please? You mean liability insurance? Automotive insurance varies from state to state, depending on whether your state requires you to be insured or not. Mandatory insurance states see much higher premiums. NH, where I live, does not mandate auto insurance, so premiums are lower. Last time I checked, straight liability and collision here was about $200/yr for an accident free educated non-smoking, non-drinking white male over 35 driving a non-sportscar. Don't know the split between the liability and collision parts. Other legal insurance is generally rolled up in a homeowners insurance policy, which I don't have so I can't tell you. What you might want to do is go to Progressive Insurance's website and enter some hypotheticals to get quotes from them and three other competitors. Note that states like CA, MA, and other socialist paradises have extremely high insurance rates. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 10 03:50:30 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 20:50:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <20050909170621.35895.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050910035030.84259.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > "Tend to not do" and "do not do" are two different > things. Some people > do pursue the illegal path - and some of those > suceed, gaining enough > of an advantage to specialize and reduce their risk. > Corruption > happens when someone manages to reduce the risk to > close enough to > zero, and starts teaching others how to beat the > system. This is true, Adrian. The question we have to ask is why does the system portray itself as a "game" that must be beaten? Why are those that beat the system glorified by the media? The system is the very fabric of our continued existense and we continually try to beat it rather than maximizing the entire system of which we are part? Economics is so well-described by game-theory because it IS a game. Like all games the economy is defined by a set of rules, too many if you are a libertarian and too few if you are a socialist. But what one has to realize that we as free-willed beings have a choice as to what games we play. Thus we have choice of what rules we play by, if any. Therefore the definition of the game itself should change. We choose to play a zero sum game with each other, and the only rules that exist do so to firmly maintain the winners from the losers, when in reality we should be playing cooperative solitaire for survival points. To a large extent the economy exists solely in the minds of we the people, and on digital "paper" and does not change the orbits of heavenly bodies. Ironically, to stand any chance of SURVIVING for the long term, those very same people will have to develop an techno-economic system powerful enough to deflect asteroids and import resources at least inter-planetarily. We shouldn't play a game whose rules exist solely as an economic wedge to perpetuate the socioeconomic stratification of society. The easiest way to win such a game is to break the rules. What we should do is model the economy as a non-zerosum game whose end result is to maximize the stability of the economy itself. Instead of rewarding those who minumize individual risk at the expense of increasing aggregate risk to society, the rules should be such that those that lower aggregate risk to society should be rewarded the most. Since we get to CHOOSE the rules of games we CHOOSE to play, surely we should change the rules of the game to sustain the length of the game, like good old fashioned Space Invaders rather than a game on par Russian Roullete. To have no rules at all as the libertarians want to do would be for all of us to play the game based on rules that are defined by happenstance and at the whim of nature. Just because one believes that nature was not intelligently designed does not mean that one has to settle for spending ones whole life playing an economic game that was simililarly not intelligently designed. So what would be some good rules that would help accurate assessment of aggregate risk? 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 ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From fdck34 at yahoo.es Sat Sep 10 10:43:03 2005 From: fdck34 at yahoo.es (Alberto Juaristi Mendicute) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:43:03 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] chat's fellow introduction Message-ID: <20050910104303.3353.qmail@web26409.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Donostia-San sebasti?n, 10-09-2005 Hallo!: My name is Alberto Juaristi. I am from Donostia-San Sebast?an. I began in the worl of the transhumanism without to be conscious of it, while I wrote my novel "Twenty Fifty", an utopia about postbiological humanity and self-evolution systems. Later, by means of Internet, I knew the existance of transhumanist organizations, like Extropy Institute, Fastra, etc. I will begin reading your mail, and later, when I consider suitable, will take part in the chat. Best wishes Alberto Juaristi Pd.: I am sorry if some incorret use of the English. --------------------------------- Correo Yahoo! Comprueba qu? es nuevo, aqu? http://correo.yahoo.es -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sat Sep 10 11:53:57 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:53:57 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050908092119.02ca9408@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> <20050908121819.86478.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050908092119.02ca9408@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: On 9/8/05, Max More wrote: > > Clearly > the Principles of Extropy are highly *compatible* with a libertarian > view of politics -- more so than with any other identifiable > viewpoint that I know of. It doesn't follow that they are > *restricted* to only that one, exact political philosophy. A dogmatic > view of political and economic systems would be incompatible with the > principles of rational thinking and perpetual progress. > > As I've said many times, the Principles are *not* compatible with > socialism, but do not rule out *possible* exceptions to strict > libertarian answers. The ultimate goal is not adherence to > libertarian doctrine, but to advancing our lives in *all* the ways > described in the Principles. As far as I'm concerned, that *might* > mean, for example, some government funding of basic research. And it > might not -- I'm not at all sure on this issue at the moment. It > *might* mean some laws limiting private property rights -- such as > might be needed to conduct inspections of research labs working with > extremely dangerous materials (nanostuff, AI, whatever). IMO ExI Principles are a matter of *interpretation*, only one such being Uber Libertarianism. If this is not so then you can kiss much future membership goodbye. As Transhumanism moves from the perceived lunatic fringe populated by fanatical True Believers into the cultural mainstream populated by people a lot less committed to any single political POV this is going to be even more apparent. Trying to maintain ideological purity is a recipe for internicene squabbling, witch hunts and heretic bashing reminiescent of the history of 'pure' Socialism with its petty factions and interminable cry of 'splitter!'. ExI, and its membership, must decide soon if it is going to be a bastion of purity or whether it is going to set itself up to attract mainstream support. We certainly know what the WTA has decided. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Sep 10 13:22:53 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 08:22:53 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space Elevator Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050910082209.0291e4f0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> http://www.elevator2010.org/site/index.html Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist, Designer Studies of the Future, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Sep 10 13:31:25 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 08:31:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: References: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> <20050908121819.86478.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050908092119.02ca9408@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050910082551.02920120@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Dirk, I think it would be best if you respected the communications already sent to this list and published elsewhere regarding Extropy Institute. Thank you. Natasha Vita-More At 06:53 AM 9/10/2005, you wrote: >On 9/8/05, Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote: > Clearly >the Principles of Extropy are highly *compatible* with a libertarian >view of politics -- more so than with any other identifiable >viewpoint that I know of. It doesn't follow that they are >*restricted* to only that one, exact political philosophy. A dogmatic >view of political and economic systems would be incompatible with the >principles of rational thinking and perpetual progress. > >As I've said many times, the Principles are *not* compatible with >socialism, but do not rule out *possible* exceptions to strict >libertarian answers. The ultimate goal is not adherence to >libertarian doctrine, but to advancing our lives in *all* the ways >described in the Principles. As far as I'm concerned, that *might* >mean, for example, some government funding of basic research. And it >might not -- I'm not at all sure on this issue at the moment. It >*might* mean some laws limiting private property rights -- such as >might be needed to conduct inspections of research labs working with >extremely dangerous materials (nanostuff, AI, whatever). > > >IMO ExI Principles are a matter of *interpretation*, only one such being >Uber Libertarianism. >If this is not so then you can kiss much future membership goodbye. > >As Transhumanism moves from the perceived lunatic fringe populated by >fanatical True Believers into the cultural mainstream populated by people >a lot less committed to any single political POV this is going to be even >more apparent. Trying to maintain ideological purity is a recipe for >internicene squabbling, witch hunts and heretic bashing reminiescent of >the history of 'pure' Socialism with its petty factions and interminable >cry of 'splitter!'. > >ExI, and its membership, must decide soon if it is going to be a bastion >of purity or whether it is going to set itself up to attract mainstream >support. We certainly know what the WTA has decided. > >Dirk > > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist, Designer Studies of the Future, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robgobblin at aol.com Sat Sep 10 19:01:28 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 09:01:28 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: References: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> <20050908121819.86478.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050908092119.02ca9408@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <685f92032f2d7580f95799e34fe02e64@aol.com> On Sep 10, 2005, at 1:53 AM, Dirk Bruere wrote: > Trying to maintain ideological purity is a recipe for internicene > squabbling,?witch hunts and heretic bashing reminiescent of the > history of 'pure' Socialism with its petty factions and interminable > cry of 'splitter!'. > Or, of course, modern day Conservatism. Robbie From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Sep 11 00:27:23 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 10:27:23 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism - a search formeaning... References: <005a01c5b4ee$0b109760$0201a8c0@JPAcer> Message-ID: <032f01c5b667$947af520$0d98e03c@homepc> Jack Parkinson wrote: > ... shouldn't the first concern be to draft a manifesto > of individual liberties which will admit of any kind of political system > - but will curb the tendency of elite groups to gather all resources > and prerogatives to themselves? Are you suggesting a tranhumanist bill of rights? I think there is some merit in such a suggestion. If someone makes a reasonable first draft of it, I'd be interested in checking it out and maybe giving feedback. I think it is possible to establish virtual countries on top of the existing countries by first getting right the concept of virtual citizenship. I'm not personally keen to make the running on a transhumanist bill of rights because although I have friends that think of themselves as transhumanists I don't think a virtual country needs people who understand the principles of good citizenship (reciprocosity) more than it needs people who just happen to call themselves transhumanists. Get the mix of rights and responsibilities right and there is no logical impassible barrier that I can see to founding a virtual country using contract law, on top of the legal infrastructure of existing countries. Its legally permissible to contract, to form associations, to trade (including internationally) and to minimise tax, and to share knowledge of local opportunities and conditions. > Sorry this is such a long initial post! But I view governments the > same way you might view AI - we create them, but we don't > neccessarily control them. Sorry this initial post didn't get a response earlier. > A good first step might be to make politicians personally > accountable for their errors... That's not a bad idea. But you can't have a first step that is not operationalisable. Holding all politicians as a class accountable for their collective errors isn't operationalisable for you or me or indeed any one person. Because they don't operate as a class. They take individual oaths of office and to the extent that they can individually avoid being held to account for breaking their oath, then of course they will (on average) try to do just that. If you want to hold any one politician accountable and set an example of holding accountable to the others you have to go after the highest profile one. You have to make sure the US President, the highest profile politician in the world is held accountable. There is absolutely nothing wrong or immoral in holding a person accountable for upholding what they have promised to do. And if it turns out that you or I am mistaken in thinking that they haven't breached their oath or promise but we have sought to hold them to account only by lawful, honourable means, then nothing is lost. To harm is done. Another area where accountability might be considered is in the area of corporations. Are corporations doing more harm than good in 2005 by allowing human decision makers inside them to decouple anti-social (sometimes) individual actions from the social consequences of those individual actions? I don't know the answer to this. I haven't thought it through properly but perhaps whatever reasons there were for corporations historically are no longer as true today as they were when corporations were first formed. Brett Paatsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Sep 11 00:44:12 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 10:44:12 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism - a search formeaning... References: <005a01c5b4ee$0b109760$0201a8c0@JPAcer> <032f01c5b667$947af520$0d98e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <034a01c5b669$ede694a0$0d98e03c@homepc> Sorry some sloppy typing and lack of proofreading in my reply. I meant a virtual country would need people who understand the principles of reciprocality as citizens rather than people who just happen to think of themselves as transhumanist because the coupling of rights with responsibilities is crucial. There can be no rights given that are not matched by responsibilities accepted. Instead of "To harm is done", I meant "No harm is done". ----- Original Message ----- From: Brett Paatsch To: Jack Parkinson ; ExI chat list Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 10:27 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism - a search formeaning... Jack Parkinson wrote: > ... shouldn't the first concern be to draft a manifesto > of individual liberties which will admit of any kind of political system > - but will curb the tendency of elite groups to gather all resources > and prerogatives to themselves? Are you suggesting a tranhumanist bill of rights? I think there is some merit in such a suggestion. If someone makes a reasonable first draft of it, I'd be interested in checking it out and maybe giving feedback. I think it is possible to establish virtual countries on top of the existing countries by first getting right the concept of virtual citizenship. I'm not personally keen to make the running on a transhumanist bill of rights because although I have friends that think of themselves as transhumanists I don't think a virtual country needs people who understand the principles of good citizenship (reciprocosity) more than it needs people who just happen to call themselves transhumanists. Get the mix of rights and responsibilities right and there is no logical impassible barrier that I can see to founding a virtual country using contract law, on top of the legal infrastructure of existing countries. Its legally permissible to contract, to form associations, to trade (including internationally) and to minimise tax, and to share knowledge of local opportunities and conditions. > Sorry this is such a long initial post! But I view governments the > same way you might view AI - we create them, but we don't > neccessarily control them. Sorry this initial post didn't get a response earlier. > A good first step might be to make politicians personally > accountable for their errors... That's not a bad idea. But you can't have a first step that is not operationalisable. Holding all politicians as a class accountable for their collective errors isn't operationalisable for you or me or indeed any one person. Because they don't operate as a class. They take individual oaths of office and to the extent that they can individually avoid being held to account for breaking their oath, then of course they will (on average) try to do just that. If you want to hold any one politician accountable and set an example of holding accountable to the others you have to go after the highest profile one. You have to make sure the US President, the highest profile politician in the world is held accountable. There is absolutely nothing wrong or immoral in holding a person accountable for upholding what they have promised to do. And if it turns out that you or I am mistaken in thinking that they haven't breached their oath or promise but we have sought to hold them to account only by lawful, honourable means, then nothing is lost. To harm is done. Another area where accountability might be considered is in the area of corporations. Are corporations doing more harm than good in 2005 by allowing human decision makers inside them to decouple anti-social (sometimes) individual actions from the social consequences of those individual actions? I don't know the answer to this. I haven't thought it through properly but perhaps whatever reasons there were for corporations historically are no longer as true today as they were when corporations were first formed. Brett Paatsch ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 11 01:49:58 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 18:49:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism - a search formeaning... In-Reply-To: <032f01c5b667$947af520$0d98e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20050911014958.33720.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > > > A good first step might be to make politicians > personally > > accountable for their errors... > > That's not a bad idea. But you can't have a first > step that is not > operationalisable. Holding all politicians as a > class accountable for > their collective errors isn't operationalisable for > you or me or indeed > any one person. Because they don't operate as a > class. They take > individual oaths of office and to the extent that > they can individually > avoid being held to account for breaking their oath, > then of course > they will (on average) try to do just that. How would one keep politicians accountable? California has recall elections as a provision and there is impeachment. As far as impeachment goes, I was amazed during the Clinton fiasco as to how time-consuming and expensive it is. It seems much more straight forward as it is described in the Constitution. It doesn't seem all that efficient a way to hold politicians accountable, at least in the manner it is practiced. The constitution does not mention expensive armies of lawyers on both sides. Most politicans ARE lawyers so they should not need lawyers, at least not more than one, to defend themselves against accusations. I wonder if a case could be made for politicans to be held accountable for broken campaign promises under contract law. Under commonlaw oral contracts are binding are they not? Moreover most politicans making their false promises do so on the record of the media, so there is ample evidence of the "oral contract". If a politician promises to do something for me on TV in exchange for my vote, but then fails to fulfill his end of the bargain, is that not breach of contract? Could someone file a civil lawsuit against a former holder of high office for breach of contract? > If you want to hold any one politician accountable > and set an example > of holding accountable to the others you have to go > after the highest > profile one. You have to make sure the US President, > the highest > profile politician in the world is held accountable. Well he WAS, if you are talking about Clinton. Apparently duplicitous warmongering is acceptable but duplicitous oral sex is not. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Sep 11 04:11:35 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 14:11:35 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism - a search formeaning... References: <20050911014958.33720.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <037101c5b686$e6a0add0$0d98e03c@homepc> The Avantguardian wrote: > --- Brett Paatsch wrote: >> >> > A good first step might be to make politicians >> personally >> > accountable for their errors... >> >> That's not a bad idea. But you can't have a first >> step that is not >> operationalisable. Holding all politicians as a >> class accountable for >> their collective errors isn't operationalisable for >> you or me or indeed >> any one person. Because they don't operate as a >> class. They take >> individual oaths of office and to the extent that >> they can individually >> avoid being held to account for breaking their oath, >> then of course >> they will (on average) try to do just that. > > How would one keep politicians accountable? To answer your question. I think you can only keep them accountable one at a time. I think we have to make things personal. This is the same way we keep each other accountable. We don't take issue with the whole class of politicians we take issue with particular politicians one at a time. This is hard work. This costs us something personal because it takes personal time away form things we'd probably rather do. I would like to see impeachment proceedings brought against George W Bush. I would like to see them brought even if ultimately they fail because I would like to see the principle of accountability return to world politics. I don't think citizens are holding their elected leaders to personal account enough. Why are not George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard struggling to fight off legal challenges from outraged citizens in the courts? I don't think it is because there are not a very large number of people who think they have legal cases to answer. I think it is because hardly anyone is willing to take the personal trouble and risk to try to make their legal cases and to make charges that are valid and will stick. I think politicians are learning something new in the west and that is that for some of them they can expect to escape accountability for doing and saying almost anything because they can use wedge politics to defray any opposition and rely on party political flunkies to support them regardless of whether they personally deserve support. I don't argue that this is greatly different to what has happened in recent world history but I do think the trend is perhaps more dangerous now with power consolidated so much in one place. Bush got reelected. So far as I can see he got reelected fair and square. But the avenue of bringing him to account for breaking his presidential oath is theoretically open to each and every US citizen and isn't being pursued. I ask myself why. And the answer has two parts. Only a relatively few understand the systems they live in well enough to use those systems well. And of those few most are capable enough to have plenty of other things to do with their time and savvy enough to prefer that others do the heavy lifting when it comes to grandiose notions like standing up for civilization. >California > has recall elections as a provision and there is > impeachment. As far as impeachment goes, I was amazed > during the Clinton fiasco as to how time-consuming and > expensive it is. It seems much more straight forward > as it is described in the Constitution. It doesn't > seem all that efficient a way to hold politicians > accountable, at least in the manner it is practiced. It would have to be done right. Most of those in the US with even my level of understanding, I suspect, are waiting to see if the political weight shifts enough to allow the legal stuff to get a run. Perhaps they are positioning themselves to jump on the bandwagon of impeachment if they think it has a good chance of being successful. Impeachment is about law but it is also inevitably about politics as well. Bush is getting more and more unpopular. And I suspect a lot of people are content to just wait for him to go rather than take the trouble of help him leave early. > The constitution does not mention expensive armies of > lawyers on both sides. Most politicans ARE lawyers so > they should not need lawyers, at least not more than > one, to defend themselves against accusations. Obviously not all lawyers are equal. > I wonder if a case could be made for politicans to be > held accountable for broken campaign promises under > contract law. That would be silly. Contract law (as understood by the courts, I am not taliking about the social contract) is subordinate to constitutional law. One cannot contract outside the law and the constitution is the foundation of civil law. If Bush isn't impeached I think all politicians downstream will be harder to impeach in future. >Under commonlaw oral contracts are > binding are they not? They are if they can shown to in fact BE contracts. The reason they are problematic is that undocumented contracts have unclear terms. I say to a judge, Stu breached a promise, he broke a contract with me. The judge says what promise, show me. I say he said blah. You say you didn't I misunderstood you. The judge can't decide without looking at the facts. The rules of evidence come in and them documents are better facts than hearsay. Chances are if you are I are not a lawyer we are going to need one to push our claim or to defend our case. Lawyers are people whose time matters to them. What lawyer has so little regard for their own time that they want to get involved in a contract dispute where the parties weren't savvy enough to have laid down a trail of checkable facts? > their false promises do so on the record of the media, > so there is ample evidence of the "oral contract". If > a politician promises to do something for me on TV in > exchange for my vote, but then fails to fulfill his > end of the bargain, is that not breach of contract? > Could someone file a civil lawsuit against a former > holder of high office for breach of contract? > >> If you want to hold any one politician accountable >> and set an example >> of holding accountable to the others you have to go >> after the highest >> profile one. You have to make sure the US President, >> the highest >> profile politician in the world is held accountable. > > Well he WAS, if you are talking about Clinton. Clinton as President is history. I don't care about Clinton one way or the other. > Apparently duplicitous warmongering is acceptable but > duplicitous oral sex is not. There is a social psychology phenomenon called bystander calculus which basically shows that the more people watching something wrong (and aware that others too are watching) the less any one of them is likely to intervene personally to stop or correct it. If you are going to have a stroke in a subway you are probably better off doing it with only one other person around. That person knows that your only chance of getting help is them and they won't be able to rationalise that someone more capable then them can intervene. Its obvious there isn't anyone more capable. As an individual if you don't like a politician you have three choices. Do nothing. Act lawfully. Act unlawfully. If you do the first nothing will happen. If you do either of the next two you have entered the realm of politics yourself. If you act unlawfully and I (or any third party) see you doing it you are likely, in this climate, to be labelled a terrorist (perhaps accurately) and likely be opposed as a terrorist or lawbreaker especially if you are less politically powerful and/or savvy than the person you are acting against. But if you act lawfully, you look like a person of principle and people may support you. I'm not really aiming this at you though. I'm largely verbalising internal dialogue ;-) I know that if the world goes to shit on my watch it will be *in part* because of what I don't bother to do. I'll also know it wasn't entirely my fault. Perhaps its not just not bothering its about prioritising other things higher. And I think the same is true for a lot of people. We are living in a world where Bush is President rather than Donald Duck or some other republican or democrat because, in part, we didn't do enough to actively create a better alternative. If oathbreaking gets worse it will because the penalties for doing it are discovered to be negligible. Whether we didn't do enough because we couldn't or because we made other things a priority is a matter that will vary for each of us. But doing something effective involves learning how and what to do. That too is a choice or a priority we each make or fail to make. I'm still conflicted about posting *this*. It represents far from the best work I could do, (I hope). Yet I want to reply to you and I don't feel like I have the time to do the best I could do unless I cut back on other things like studying biotech. Then I remember the political problems I have seen in biotech, and I notice some of your recent concerns about HIV etc and I wonder if I'm being a dill by going back into science and leaving politics alone. We have to work with uncertainty, including uncertainty about whether we are spending our time intelligently. Maybe one day I'll find myself in a situation like that described in the posts by Damien and Robin in relation to the people suffering in New Orleans and then I'll wonder why I didn't push harder on the political stuff. When, if, the system blatantly fails me, will I look to others to blame or will I wonder if I priorised my own time poorly and learnt the wrong things and spoke with and cooperated with the wrong people? Brett Paatsch From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Sun Sep 11 04:54:16 2005 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 12:54:16 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism - a search fo rmeaning... References: <005a01c5b4ee$0b109760$0201a8c0@JPAcer><032f01c5b667$947af520$0d98e03c@homepc> <034a01c5b669$ede694a0$0d98e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <003601c5b68c$e3414770$0801a8c0@EF02jack> Brett Paatsch wrote >Are you suggesting a tranhumanist bill of rights? I think there is some >merit in such a suggestion. If someone makes a reasonable first draft >of it, I'd be interested in checking it out and maybe giving feedback. What I really had in mind was not actually a transhuman bill of rights - but a sort of rubric if you will - couched in philosophic/moral rather than procedural terms. I have an inherent distrust of codified 'law' - we have way too much of it and I have seen estimates that statute law has burgeoned in some western nations by 200% or more in the last two generations or so. At present we employ vast numbers of people to formulate written legislation and then yet greater numbers to pick holes in the laws, circumvent them, evade them or otherwise invalidate them. If all that vast repository of law was abolished overnight - I wonder - would it really matter? Probably not IF you could still go to court, plead your case, and be judged by good people in your society on the basis of what is right and wrong... This in essence is the argument for common law. It is flexible and reflects current mores and attitudes, England got by for centuries on it. Codification and statutes are well-meaning but too often fail in delivering genuine justice: In the beginning was the word, then the word was twisted... The letter of the law is not the same as it's spirit (which allows no loopholes and technical acquittals of wrongdoers). Perhaps it should also be said that legislation is used at least as much to oppress as it is to protect.... >> A good first step might be to make politicians personally >> accountable for their errors... >That's not a bad idea. But you can't have a first step that is not >operationalisable. Holding all politicians as a class accountable for >their collective errors isn't operationalisable for you or me or indeed >any one person. Because they don't operate as a class. They take >individual oaths of office and to the extent that they can individually >avoid being held to account for breaking their oath, then of course >they will (on average) try to do just that. It should not be too difficult - one simple practice would do it: every executive decision/promise has an executive sponsor who signs off on the order/pledge and takes full responsibility for it. No sponsor = no order/pledge, no matter how strong the wording it - becomes just a suggestion/hope... A committee need not be jointly responsible - but they must have one member who is prepared to 'carry the can' for the rest. Where multiple members DO sign, retribution is not mitigated by membership of the group - they are jointly and severally liable. The same system would work as well for corporations as for politicians. No more limited liability! no more decoupling of action from adverse consequence! We might expect a lot less frivolity, self-serving decision-making and empty promises if such a system were in place... Jack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From megao at sasktel.net Sun Sep 11 04:45:32 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 23:45:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] National Sovereignty question Message-ID: <4323B66C.2030300@sasktel.net> Not to drag out another piece of politics into this arena but it does seem to make a good case study relative to some of the recent discussion. The USA has declared Marc Emery an Enemy of the State much as it would a foreign terrorist. Marc Emery has asked the world to be his judge. Here we have a real example of actions meant for terrorists and murderers being applied to the act of "conspiring" to promote the production of cannabis in the USA being applied to a 10 year period retroacatively. The response the USA Goverment will get is being done tit for tat. The question is, will all nations publicly state that they will subjugate their citizens rights to laws that are under dispute even in the nation state taking extra-national action in an executive fashion to enforce them. The question has been called. *************************************** Pot activist Marc Emery rallies supporters in front of U.S. consulate by AMY CARMICHAEL Saturday, September 10, 2005 http://www.recorder.ca/cp/National/050910/n091039A.html VANCOUVER (CP) - Marc Emery took a hit from a joint as his fans smoked and screamed for his freedom in front of the U.S. consulate. The King of Pot, as he is described by American prosecutors, faces extradition for seed sales - a crime that isn't prosecuted in Canada - and up to life in prison if convicted by a U.S. court. In the same breath, supporters gathered around him demanded sovereignty for Canada and the worldwide legalization of pot. People everywhere are outraged and scared it could happened to them, declared 47-year-old Emery. "I want to tell you," he shouted above the yells, "You are part of a great awareness. Today, 40 cities around the world, from Warsaw, Moscow, Russia, London, Paris, Madrid, Italy, they are rallying at Canadian consulates around the world. In Melbourne, Australia, and Sydney, Canadian embassies are being picketed!" Emery said there are about 50 pot seed companies in Canada selling seeds every day. The businesses, people who buy from them, people who smoke pot, believe in Canadian sovereignty, are all appalled he said. Emery also referred to a poll by a daily newspaper that showed the majority of Canadians are opposed to his extradition. "People understand if it happens to me, it can happened to a New Zealander, a Mexican person. It can happen to an Australian or a person in England or Paris. Police officers looked on as Emery spoke and clouds of pot smoke billowed above the crowd. One officer commented that it was a nice day and that he was glad it didn't rain. A number of parents stood in the crowd with babies in strollers. Greg Popler had his two-year-old son with him as he joined in to support Emery. "For me this is more about Canadian sovereignty. I support the legalization of all street drugs, but I'm most against the idea of the U.S. being able to take Canadians down to face their brand of justice, which is different from ours." Emery's extradition hearing starts Sept. 16 in B.C. Supreme Court. The longtime pot activist is accused of selling marijuana seeds to Americans through the Internet and the mail, conspiracy to manufacture marijuana and conspiracy to engage in money laundering. His co-accused are Michelle Rainey-Fenkarek and Gregory Keith Smith. The trio was arrested in July after Vancouver police raided Emery's pot paraphernalia store following an 18-month investigation by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. Emery was picked up in Lawrencetown, N.S., while speaking at a music festival to raise funds for a medical marijuana organization. He was detained in a Halifax-area jail cell for several days before being transferred to Vancouver. During his brief tour and incarceration on the East coast, Emery made quite an impression. Supporters rallied for him in Halifax in front of city hall Saturday. "Halifax is important for this demonstration because this is where Marc Emery was arrested originally . . . and this whole procedure started," said Marc-Boris St-Maurice. St-Maurice, who founded the Marijuana Party before jumping to the federal Liberals, said if Emery broke the law he should be prosecuted in Canada. ? The Canadian Press, 2005 http://www.recorder.ca/cp/National/050910/n091039A.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS * Visit your group "medusers " on the web. * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: medusers-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service . ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: file:///C|/WINDOWS/TEMP/nsmail-1.txt URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 11 09:50:07 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 02:50:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] National Sovereignty question In-Reply-To: <4323B66C.2030300@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <20050911095007.26908.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> --- "Lifespan Pharma Inc." wrote: > Not to drag out another piece of politics into this > arena but it does > seem to make a good case study > relative to some of the recent discussion. > > The USA has declared Marc Emery an Enemy of the > State much as it would > a foreign terrorist. > Marc Emery has asked the world to be his judge. > > Here we have a real example of actions meant for > terrorists and > murderers being applied to > the act of "conspiring" to promote the production of > cannabis in the USA > being applied > to a 10 year period retroacatively. > > The response the USA Goverment will get is being > done tit for tat. > The question is, will all nations publicly state > that they will > subjugate their citizens rights > to laws that are under dispute even in the nation > state taking > extra-national action > in an executive fashion to enforce them. > > The question has been called. This is OUTRAGEOUS! Life in prison for sellings SEEDS? And he didn't even come to the U.S.? How many foreigners has American Tobacco killed? Ok... I will just leave it at that, although I feel a rant coming on. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson ______________________________________________________ Yahoo! for Good Watch the Hurricane Katrina Shelter From The Storm concert http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/shelter From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Sep 11 13:37:32 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 23:37:32 +1000 Subject: On HIV Re: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate References: <20050908140147.29421.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <048801c5b6d5$f631df40$0d98e03c@homepc> The Avantguardian wrote: > --- BillK wrote: > >> >> More than 20 million people have died of AIDS since >> 1981. AIDS deaths in 2004, estimated at 3.1 million. >> >> You *really* think some people are deciding not to >> bother finding a cure because they can make a bit of >> money on the deal? > > Well, Bill, I wish I could think differently. I will > tell you one thing for certain. Reverse transcriptase > inhibitors like AZT were invented about 19 years ago, > protease inhibitors like Sequinovir were invented 10 > years ago. Since then about the most anyone has done > is when David Ho figured out you can slow down the > evolution of drug resitant virus within a patient by > giving them both at once. Hardly a leap of genius but > he got Time's "man of year " award and lots of grant > funding out of it. > > Every couple of years, the pharmaceuticals tweak their > RT and protease inhibitors a bit to overcome drug > resistance and that's about it. Couldn't that be legitimate? You do want existing treatments to keep working, ie, you do want to overcome the drug resistance while better solutions, if any, are not yet available don't you? >HIV is just 9.8 > kilobases of RNA that contains 8 genes that encode a > little over a dozen protein products. Okay, so how long has that been known. Not 19 years I'd bet you. Not even 9 years, for all the genes, I'd still be inclined to give you odds without checking ;-). > Of those, only > reverse transcriptase and protease, both of which > operate AFTER infection takes place, have been > targeted by drugs. Okay. > The end result of these drugs is that the virus goes > into latency, and hides in the patient's cells. It > remains hidden away until the person stops taking the > drug and voila out pops the virus, left unchecked will > go on to kill the person. The AIDS patient is now > hostage to his drugs. Say you are right. The AIDS patient is only hostage until a better drug comes along, correct? In the meantime he or she has a reprieve from dying which is different from facing a threat to being killed by another person for ransom. > There are plenty of other HIV proteins that COULD be > targeted with drugs. There are several inhibitors of > the virus integrase protein in the pipeline, but > apparently they have some bad side effects because > they have been in the pipeline for about 5 yrs now and > I don't know when or if they will ever become > available. Do you understand how the pharmaceutical development pipeline works from a commercialisation standpoint? Do you understand why it might take 5 years or more? Do you understand what hoops might have to be gone through to get FDA approval for a treatment and perhaps approval for even testing in human tissue? I don't in detail but I've got some idea and 5 years doesn't surprise me. Its disappointing that things take that long but not surprising. > Integrase however is another example of a > virus protein that operates AFTER the virus infects a > cell. > > HIV makes a little over a dozen protein products > (which is amazing considering that it is a single > 9.8kb RNA, making it the most informationally dense > organism that has been sequenced to date) including > some that operate BEFORE or DURING infection. Yet > nobody in the U.S. is trying to target any of these > despite the fact that they would kill the virus BEFORE > the virus can hijack the host cell. > > If these other > proteins had been tried and failed due to technical > problems that would be one thing, but nobody in the > U.S. is apparently even curious about inhibiting any > of these. Aren't you in the US and curious about it? Don't you really mean know one else that you know? > I would not believe it myself except that for the last > 7 yrs (essentially my entire career) I have been > studying both HIV virology and immunology and I have a > pretty thorough understanding of the virus. Well thats gotta be good. But how thorough is "pretty thorough"? > I think I > have identified its Achilles` heel and have computer > models of a potential inhibitor for an essential viral > protein that not only allows the virus to get into > cells, but also sows chaos and confusion amongst the > antibodies and whiteblood cells that are supposed to > kill the virus. You *think* you've identified a computer model of a protease inhibitor for an essential protein? What would it take to prove that you have? Does your HIV protein have an equivalent in an animal virus? If so do you know that they aren't even now trying to demonstrate in an animal model what you only have on computer? > Yet unbelievably, I have had several > rejections from different university labs without the > professor so much as wanting to see my model. Perhaps I am not understanding. But there is a lot of hype about how fast things are moving in terms of genomes and proteomes etc that perhaps the people you are talking to aren't impressed because they think there are more promising things about to impress them. > That is when it hit me. You can't give hundreds of > millions of dollars to a bunch of "experts" to poke > and prod the virus and expect them to cure it because > they know that if they do, the grant money stops. I don't think you can rely on scientists to hold some sort of solidarity to keep milking the funding line. Scientists are people with egos, and increasingly with aspirations to make money as well. If there is a buck or some kudos in finding a better way I think some scientists will try to find it. Perhaps they just may not be making a fuss about it because they are trying to scoop their competitors in a commerical context. Or perhaps things have moved so quickly in the generation of genomes and proteomes and bioinformatics in the last few years that the research scientists are themselves finding it difficult to pick up the new ways of doing science and also commercialising any innovation. Scientists and venture capitalists typically come from different knowledge domains. Even very smart people are likely to have found it hard to be confident that they were ahead of their competitors in the lab, and also able to commericalise. Its hard to do everything well at the same time. > We've poked and prodded the virus for over 20 years > now. We know every bit of its genome, we know what all > its proteins are and what cellular proteins they > interact with, we know its life cycle, we know how it > evades the immune system, and we can even take the > virus apart and reverse engineer the thing into a > gene-therapy vector. But isn't it the case that it is extremely difficult even today to work with the actual virus in human tissue. Because human tissue isn't available to work with it in? > We have over 1500 publications regarding mechanism for > every gene the virus has, which is an order of > magnitude more than we have for the genome of any > other organism on earth. Yet amazingly we can't KILL > this one piece of RNA? > You do the math. > I went into AIDS research hoping to cure the virus. Good. > Instead what I > found is that wracking ones mind to figure out new and > innovative ways to poke and prod at the virus are > rewarded and sincere ideas aimed at just plain killing > it are shunned. Its a lesson, I hope my career can > recover from. As a retrovirus isn't there a lot of legitimate interest in using it as a viral vector? This doesn't seem unreasonable to me. I wonder if you are being *more* disillusioned than you need to be. Perhaps you might be underestimating some of the difficulties in the adjoining knowledge domains that are required to turn research into products because you are still relatively young and haven't seen those problems yet? Brett Paatsch From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Sep 11 15:59:27 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 08:59:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] National Sovereignty question In-Reply-To: <4323B66C.2030300@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <20050911155928.2744.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Emery is a wanted fugitive, but not a war criminal or illegal combatant. Even though there is a 'war on drugs', if he hasn't engaged in violence, then he's not a combatant, illegal or otherwise. As to whether Canada will extradite him, that is a question for Canadian courts to decide. Given the way Canada has treated our friend, Mr. Hansen, with an attitude that US courts are fair and just so he shouldn't get asylum, that policy would be weighed against the long standing Canadian tradition of manufacturing for export products the US has banned, as was done during Prohibition, when Canadian breweries and distilleries made many millions off of the US black market. I suspect he may have a fight, but would likely win in court. The US would likely not engage in a clandestine rendition of him, given he is not a terrorist. --- "Lifespan Pharma Inc." wrote: > Not to drag out another piece of politics into this arena but it does > > seem to make a good case study > relative to some of the recent discussion. > > The USA has declared Marc Emery an Enemy of the State much as it > would > a foreign terrorist. > Marc Emery has asked the world to be his judge. > > Here we have a real example of actions meant for terrorists and > murderers being applied to > the act of "conspiring" to promote the production of cannabis in the > USA > being applied > to a 10 year period retroacatively. > > The response the USA Goverment will get is being done tit for tat. > The question is, will all nations publicly state that they will > subjugate their citizens rights > to laws that are under dispute even in the nation state taking > extra-national action > in an executive fashion to enforce them. > > The question has been called. > > *************************************** > > Pot activist Marc Emery rallies supporters in front of U.S. consulate > > by AMY CARMICHAEL > Saturday, September 10, 2005 > http://www.recorder.ca/cp/National/050910/n091039A.html > > VANCOUVER (CP) - Marc Emery took a hit from a joint as his fans > smoked and > screamed for his freedom in front of the U.S. consulate. > > The King of Pot, as he is described by American prosecutors, faces > extradition for seed sales - a crime that isn't prosecuted in Canada > - and > up to life in prison if convicted by a U.S. court. > > In the same breath, supporters gathered around him demanded > sovereignty for > Canada and the worldwide legalization of pot. > > People everywhere are outraged and scared it could happened to them, > declared 47-year-old Emery. > > "I want to tell you," he shouted above the yells, "You are part of a > great > awareness. Today, 40 cities around the world, from Warsaw, Moscow, > Russia, > London, Paris, Madrid, Italy, they are rallying at Canadian > consulates > around the world. In Melbourne, Australia, and Sydney, Canadian > embassies > are being picketed!" > > Emery said there are about 50 pot seed companies in Canada selling > seeds > every day. The businesses, people who buy from them, people who smoke > pot, > believe in Canadian sovereignty, are all appalled he said. > > Emery also referred to a poll by a daily newspaper that showed the > majority > of Canadians are opposed to his extradition. > > "People understand if it happens to me, it can happened to a New > Zealander, > a Mexican person. It can happen to an Australian or a person in > England or > Paris. > > Police officers looked on as Emery spoke and clouds of pot smoke > billowed > above the crowd. One officer commented that it was a nice day and > that he > was glad it didn't rain. > > A number of parents stood in the crowd with babies in strollers. Greg > Popler > had his two-year-old son with him as he joined in to support Emery. > > "For me this is more about Canadian sovereignty. I support the > legalization > of all street drugs, but I'm most against the idea of the U.S. being > able to > take Canadians down to face their brand of justice, which is > different from > ours." > > Emery's extradition hearing starts Sept. 16 in B.C. Supreme Court. > > The longtime pot activist is accused of selling marijuana seeds to > Americans > through the Internet and the mail, conspiracy to manufacture > marijuana and > conspiracy to engage in money laundering. > > His co-accused are Michelle Rainey-Fenkarek and Gregory Keith Smith. > > The trio was arrested in July after Vancouver police raided Emery's > pot > paraphernalia store following an 18-month investigation by the U.S. > Drug > Enforcement Administration. > > Emery was picked up in Lawrencetown, N.S., while speaking at a music > festival to raise funds for a medical marijuana organization. > > He was detained in a Halifax-area jail cell for several days before > being > transferred to Vancouver. > > During his brief tour and incarceration on the East coast, Emery made > quite > an impression. Supporters rallied for him in Halifax in front of city > hall > Saturday. > > "Halifax is important for this demonstration because this is where > Marc > Emery was arrested originally . . . and this whole procedure > started," said > Marc-Boris St-Maurice. > > St-Maurice, who founded the Marijuana Party before jumping to the > federal > Liberals, said if Emery broke the law he should be prosecuted in > Canada. > > > ? The Canadian Press, 2005 > > http://www.recorder.ca/cp/National/050910/n091039A.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > * Visit your group "medusers > " on the web. > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > medusers-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com > > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service . > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.3 - Release Date: 4/25/05 > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Yahoo! for Good Watch the Hurricane Katrina Shelter From The Storm concert http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/shelter From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Sep 11 16:02:40 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 09:02:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism - a search fo rmeaning... In-Reply-To: <003601c5b68c$e3414770$0801a8c0@EF02jack> Message-ID: <20050911160240.13902.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I would suggest folks go over ICA's Common Economic Protocol that I linked to previously. Based on the concept that Neal Stephenson used in his novel The Diamond Age, it is a consensual international legal code of personal and property rights for a world of individualists, distributed polities, corporate states, sovereign individuals, and consensual phyles. --- Jack Parkinson wrote: > Brett Paatsch wrote >Are you suggesting a tranhumanist bill of > rights? I think there is some > >merit in such a suggestion. If someone makes a reasonable first > draft > >of it, I'd be interested in checking it out and maybe giving > feedback. > > What I really had in mind was not actually a transhuman bill of > rights - but a sort of rubric if you will - couched in > philosophic/moral rather than procedural terms. I have an inherent > distrust of codified 'law' - we have way too much of it and I have > seen estimates that statute law has burgeoned in some western nations > by 200% or more in the last two generations or so. > > At present we employ vast numbers of people to formulate written > legislation and then yet greater numbers to pick holes in the laws, > circumvent them, evade them or otherwise invalidate them. If all that > vast repository of law was abolished overnight - I wonder - would it > really matter? Probably not IF you could still go to court, plead > your case, and be judged by good people in your society on the basis > of what is right and wrong... > > This in essence is the argument for common law. It is flexible and > reflects current mores and attitudes, England got by for centuries on > it. Codification and statutes are well-meaning but too often fail in > delivering genuine justice: In the beginning was the word, then the > word was twisted... > > The letter of the law is not the same as it's spirit (which allows no > loopholes and technical acquittals of wrongdoers). > > Perhaps it should also be said that legislation is used at least as > much to oppress as it is to protect.... > > >> A good first step might be to make politicians personally > >> accountable for their errors... > > >That's not a bad idea. But you can't have a first step that is not > >operationalisable. Holding all politicians as a class accountable > for > >their collective errors isn't operationalisable for you or me or > indeed > >any one person. Because they don't operate as a class. They take > >individual oaths of office and to the extent that they can > individually > >avoid being held to account for breaking their oath, then of course > >they will (on average) try to do just that. > > It should not be too difficult - one simple practice would do it: > every executive decision/promise has an executive sponsor who signs > off on the order/pledge and takes full responsibility for it. No > sponsor = no order/pledge, no matter how strong the wording it - > becomes just a suggestion/hope... A committee need not be jointly > responsible - but they must have one member who is prepared to 'carry > the can' for the rest. Where multiple members DO sign, retribution is > not mitigated by membership of the group - they are jointly and > severally liable. The same system would work as well for corporations > as for politicians. > No more limited liability! no more decoupling of action from adverse > consequence! We might expect a lot less frivolity, self-serving > decision-making and empty promises if such a system were in place... > Jack > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Yahoo! for Good Watch the Hurricane Katrina Shelter From The Storm concert http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/shelter From megao at sasktel.net Sun Sep 11 15:12:28 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 10:12:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] National Sovereignty question In-Reply-To: <20050911155928.2744.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050911155928.2744.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4324495C.5020006@sasktel.net> Mike Lorrey wrote: >Emery is a wanted fugitive, but not a war criminal or illegal >combatant. Even though there is a 'war on drugs', if he hasn't engaged >in violence, then he's not a combatant, illegal or otherwise. > >As to whether Canada will extradite him, that is a question for >Canadian courts to decide. Given the way Canada has treated our friend, >Mr. Hansen, with an attitude that US courts are fair and just so he >shouldn't get asylum, that policy would be weighed against the long >standing Canadian tradition of manufacturing for export products the US >has banned, as was done during Prohibition, when Canadian breweries and >distilleries made many millions off of the US black market. I suspect >he may have a fight, but would likely win in court. > >The US would likely not engage in a clandestine rendition of him, given >he is not a terrorist. > >--- "Lifespan Pharma Inc." wrote: > > > The DEA did copy all customer records from his operations in Vancouver and launch a sting operation. They masqueraded as Marc Emery's operation and solicited seed and pot sales to any and all who would bite in an effort to create evidence for future use in a USA based prosecution. This was done with the full cooperation of Canadian authorities who were ever so happy to let the DEA do their work for them. If only such cooperation would have been there for pre-9-11 and storm-ravaged New Orleans see my point? Wrong target right methodology. From megao at sasktel.net Sun Sep 11 15:03:47 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 10:03:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] CLA and Omega3 stabilizes bone density by anti-inflammatory mechanisms/Ruminant Bioreactors Message-ID: <43244753.6010705@sasktel.net> I searched with kartoo "food science" +epigenetic =pdf and found this very interesting paper http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/abstract/19/4/478S Combining hemp oil with supplemental CLA may enhance the benefits of both to bone density. For you Lana, note that in ruminants got microbial action produces CLA so omega 3's are quite multifunctional. If you were an aboriginal in pre-history times and consumed the paunch material of your kills you would get some these benefits from the rumen of early spring grazed bison/deer etc quite likely. Perhaps , in spite of this seeming a bit disgusting, we could create valuable medical food materials by carefully modifying the diets of ruminants before slaughter and saving those rumen contents. There is a vast potential for microbial bio-processing in vivo if we begin to understand exactly what the secondary rumen bioproducts can become. For the extropians in this mailing, instead of a factory to grow slabs of meat, how about a factory with rumens as bioreactors. Right idea before, wrong part of the cow to work with? Maybe bossy could donate a few pounds of rumen materials daily just like a cow donates milk now???? This would certainly be GRAS and provably not a biohazard as the living proof of a healthy host would attest????? For those on the medusers and medpot list ditto with cannabis/hemp biomass to create nutraceutical meat and naturally "fermented hemp biomass". From paul_illich at yahoo.com Sun Sep 11 16:57:02 2005 From: paul_illich at yahoo.com (paul illich) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 09:57:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: <200509111609.j8BG94f21838@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050911165702.48690.qmail@web52707.mail.yahoo.com> I posted on this at the bluegreenearth yahoogroup (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bluegreenearth/) and received the reply posted a coupla para below, which is quirky to say the least. I googled the SF Eye mag and the issue Tim comments on was described thus - "Charles Platt took a hard look at the Extropians; John Shirley turned in an essay assessing violence from the point of view of one who had spent his career writing about it; Don Webb wrote about the mysterious in fiction; Gary Westfahl a refreshing essay about teaching SF; Ken Jopp a controversial piece concerning the positive aspects of arrested infantilism and human future; and Steve Kelner contributed a fascinating look at the mind/brain dichotomy both in reality and as portrayed in SF." Actually sounds interesting, but I couldn't find the text online. I believe the Jopp parts might be about this guy - http://www.starlarvae.org/ Paul From: "tim_decenter" Date: Sat Sep 10, 2005 Subject: Re: fwd: Extropy and libertarianism I feel obliged to respond to this one. I can see the glamour of extropy and the attraction, too, of the rugged individualism of American libertarianism. But I have serious reservations as well. As a kid I read much SF, so the idea of a futuristic new breed of man is interesting to me. I studied history and philosophy too, and so I distrust such ideas as well. I have commented before on the differences between European social-anarchist positions and American individualist positions. I won't belabour the point again. However, I think that what is positive in my idea of what libertarian should be (and that includes things that are nominally 'opposed' to _absolute_ libertarianism, such as community), is endangered by extropianism. Way back in the early 90's I regularly read the magazine Science Fiction Eye. They ran some extropian material, and I wrote in a response which they printed (I think it was '93?). Much of it relates to exactly this point, so I am copying in that letter below (the original, which I have a print copy of, not the slightly edited one from the mag, which I can't lay my hands on right now): "Ken Jopp, in his article Cyberfetus Rising (Eye #13), puts forward a scenario for future human development. My own perception of where we're at has some basic similarities with Jopp's. We both see space migration as a likely necessity [2005 comment - 'errm?!']. We are both inclined to perceive 'tools as extensions of man'. And we both conceive electronic media as creating a new environment within which the species may evolve in unique and unprecedented ways. "Yet where I see the possibility of an ethically and ecologically balanced, holistic unification of man of the sort that Marshall McLuhan, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, or Murray Bookchin might envisage, Jopp predicts a devolution of the species, though he seems to believe it to be the opposite. The development of a biotechnology that not only emphasises the female, but empowers women to replicate withiout the maleof the species at all, implies a technology- dependent society. Our proposed evolution into amorphous and cancerous blobs, our skeletons replaced with prosthetics and our only viable environment a somewhat specialised gravity-less techno-space- yacht also implies our future dependency (a more elegant vesion was to be found in Bruce Sterling's Shaper-Mechanist tales). "While modern man may be a tad unable to easily survive in the wilds, we have evolved as generalists, not as specialists. This has allowed us to evolve in ways fundamentally different to the rest of the creatures that we share the biosphere called Earth with. Our ability to adapt is a function of this evolution. This evolved ability to adapt to many environments is seen, apparently, by Jopp as unnecessary. He simply flushes it down the septic tank of history. After all, his Techneotenous man could surely not survive without his hyper-technic environment. "The concern Jopp has that the only alternative to escape to space is a global National Security Agency (since that is what America is becoming) is incredibly short-sighted. As Andre Gorz would no doubt say, if your organisational construct is inherently hierarchical and dominatory - as western capitalism undeniably is - then efforts to channel energies more ecologically (or more extra-planetarily) are doomed to the same ultimate self-destruction. The ida that a society that forces a balance with the environment, but that is itself not ecologially balanced internally, can resolve our conflicts, whether on or off planet, is misguided. If we cannot change our method of organisation towards non-hierarchical, participatory democracy (any who says we are already _any_ kind of democracy is blind) across the globe, then we are doomed wherever we are. "Saying that 'unfortunately, we may have to wait until eight million people clamouriong for VCRs and Hondas prove the Earth is inadequate for human needs before the institutions with the resources to initiate space colonisation do so', shows tow major flaws of perception. One is the equation of VCRs and Hindas with human 'needs' - we need to recalibrate our global demands, not continue to regard luxuries as necessities. The second is the implication that we will _have_ the resources to do anything at all, leat of all colonise outer space, if wwe wait for the collapse that wil occcur through resource-depletion before we act. "Jopp then asks what his insane scenario might mean for the future evolution of human consciousness, but leaves the answer 'to the mystics'. "Well, I am no mystic. But I have a sort of answer for him. If he is igh about the direction of our evolution, then it will be seen that, to paraphrase Jopp himself, with the invention of the frying pan we embarked upon a path that leads eventually to the fire. "This article follows an equally insane piece on 'Extropy'. The ignorance that leads the 'Extropians' to find the ubermensch a positive ideal (Hitler cannot really be seen as a perversion of the concept, more an inevitiable consequence - see Wagner, Neitzsche, Spengler), and that lords neo-fascists like Ayn Rand (Abnal Gland is more appropriate), is quite frightening. "The Extropian viewpoint is best illustrated by glancing at it sideways. This is simply done, since the necessary tools are furnished by one Extropians view of his own family's response to his beliefs. He gleefully describes socialism as being 'just about the opposite' of the Extropian view, which is why he is at loggerheads with one of his brothers. His other brother is more able to acceopt the Extropian ideas - why? Well, happily oblivious (or, God help us, aware) of what it says about his own beliefs, our tame Extropian tells us that the brother who is able to sympathise is a fundamentalist christian, loves the 'free' market, like anarcho- capitalism, and loves guns! I suspect the Extropians themselves are merely slightly more sophisticated versions of the ignorant propagand- fed red-neck hick that the interviewees brother is. "Both these articles smack a little too much of right-wing libertarianism (why can't these people understand that capitalist economics and the liberty of men are irreconcilable), and I wonder why a magazine that has done so much in the past to fight unreason - see the attacks of [Orson Scott] Card, and, most especially, on Scientology - is so willing to give space to people that will soon enough be setting up their own cultish little religion, persecuting those who disagree with them (mark my words)? "Even the ever-reliable John Shirley seems to be slowly evolving into a religious type. Unable to accept a sadistic God, he embraces instead a massively fallible one. The God he envisages seems an unnecessary addiction to our universe - surely the only God that we should bother to fear, or follow, is an omnipotemt one? Thus you do not choose between two types of God, but look at our history to see that (if you accept an omnipotent deity as the only likely / necessary kind) either God _is_ a sadist, or God has no meaningful existence in the world. "I think Shirley is too hard on himself in limiting his options to, i) '...I sold out, in the new climate of doubt about violent media', or ii) '...I developed a conscience about the violence in the imagery I create for the public's entertainment'. "The clue to a third option, and one I feel may be more rational, is given to the reader when Shirley quotes Enerson and Asimov; 'Emerson said that violent men are actually demonstrationg thier powerlessness; Isaac Asimov said that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.' Here, maturity and empowerment (the incompetent can be seen as disempowered by their own failings) are the routes out of violent culture. here I would agree with Jopp about infantilism in TV- land - children perceive the world without subtlety, where everything is alien and thier own lack of knowledge and smaller physical scale fill them with fear and, through the peception that they are powerless, this leads them to either adopt an attitude of apathy or to try as hard as possible to find a way to fight back. Since sophisticated use of passive communication tools requires a high degree of self- and world- awareness they are only available to adults, and in our hierarchical and embattled culture even adults are not properly furnished with the necessary equipment to resolve conflict peacefully (few break out of tis mainstream of our society). Chilren, adolescents, and ill-equipped adults see the world in black- and-white. Violence is the only tool they can see yielding an immediate imposition of their selfhod upon the world around them. "To reject this is not a sell-out. Nor is it the development of a conscience [I was aluding here to the concepts mystical and 'god- given' overtones - 2005]. It is simply an evolutionary step in an individual's development - he 'grows out' of the polarising world- view. In a world where everyone who disagrees with you is the enemy _everyone_ is the enemy, since none are identical to you as an individual. Seeing things in black-and-white can only, therefore, lead to force majeure against everyone around you (this extreme of teen neurosis/paranoia is, thnakfully, rarely found in the raw). Learning that the disagreeable views of those around you are sourced in someone else (TV, books, teachers, fathers...) is the first step to seeing the world as a subtler place, necessitiating an unequal apportion of blame. It can also lead you to question some of your own unconscious presuppositions. "This process of socialisation (growing up) is not something we do overnight. It takes many years. And in a culture such as America, Britain, and, to a lesser extent, continental Europe, many never really get to fully do it - growing up is actively discouraged (it depends on your ideology whether you choose to see this as an unconscious consequence of the system or a more deliberate function of it). Perhaps all this is happening to Shirley is that he is maturing, and in doing so seeing the solutions to problems in an increasingly sophisticated way. If you blow away people who are effectively brainwashed minions of the real 'bad guys' they fail to understand why you wish to kill them, and redouble their efforts to reciprocate - this game plan is, therefore, a non-starter, and as you mature you may see this as such a fundamental reality that you pull back from such resolutions even in works of fantasy. "Please, John, don't break out of one overly subjective mental universe into another - the perception of developed conscience invariably leads to a new self-righteousness, and, unfortunately, often to religion as well. "I find it disturbing that a magazine like the Eye should seem to be so consistently evolving away from its previous hyper-rationalist stance. Has Stephen P. Brown been going through these changes, too? Are we _all_ doomed to worship at the alter of cyberspace or deterministic bio-technology?" All this and the Matrix trilogy a decade away... ;-) The division of this letter into the extropian half and the development and maturation of world view half are not so divided as they may seem a first glance. The latter informs the critique in the former. If this had been an article, the riffing off of the excellent SF Eye magazines previous issue would have had to be stripped out, and if I had the time right now, I'd tidy the above up and change a few points. But I guess it stands as an artifact of the 'stream-of-consciousness and a manual typewriter with only Tippex paper to amand it' era, now long subsumed by the era of the word processor... erm, actually, the development of discussion groups like Yahoo!Groups seems to have bypassed the word-processor as tool for self-censure! The early references to Bookchin and Gorz would be elaborated too. Tim --- In bluegreenearth at yahoogroups.com, "paul illich" wrote: > From: hal at f... ("Hal Finney") > > > I know this is a controversial topic, and this may be an unwelcome > contribution, but I suggest that it is reasonable and appropriate > to look at the Principles of Extropy and consider what they say about > various political systems. My reading of the principles of Open Society > and Self-Direction is that they point very much towards a libertarian > approach to political life. > > What is it that distinguishes libertarianism from other political systems? > As I use the term, I see it as that political system which minimizes the > use of coercion and compulsion and allows individuals the maximum freedom > to make their own decisions about their lives. In a libertarian society, > people are free to make mutual volutary agreements about social and > economic matters. For example, there is no minimum wage, because that > prevents people from agreeing to work for less than a centrally- defined > pay rate. People are not taxed to pay for social insurance or welfare > systems, because again that interferes with people's freedom to make > mutual agreements as they see fit. ______________________________________________________ Yahoo! for Good Watch the Hurricane Katrina Shelter From The Storm concert http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/shelter From megao at sasktel.net Sun Sep 11 16:52:59 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:52:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] National Sovereignty in a global village Message-ID: <432460EB.9080507@sasktel.net> The term conspiracy has a broad stroke and use of that term reverts many things back to the cold war days of the 1950-65 era when spying involving technology used in business could land you in jail for 20-40 years for "benchmarking" another country's technology. The global village does include afganis, arabs, indians , chinese, who do have some pretty different ingrained world views. Where does integration cause conflict, struggle and worse. How can diversity and individual rights to worldviews become the source of international conflict and what mechanisms can manage to keep a global village from becoming a global blood bath or in the below example a cross border "situation"? One day it is cannabis, another it might be interspecies transfer of organ self-regenerative capacity from mice to willing human subjects as a fee based commercial service. Managing the products change is a mighty challenging task. Just imaging as the singularity ramps up how different nation states with differing economic , social, religeous and political views will react to it as a prospect or to the actual thing. ****************************************************** AB: PUB LTE: Pot Heads More Dangerous Than Osama Bin Laden URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n1455/a07.html Newshawk: Herb Votes: 0 Pubdate: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 Source: Leduc Representative (CN AB) Copyright: 2005 Leduc Representative Contact: leducrep at ccinet.ab.ca Website: http://www.leducrepresentative.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2265 Author: Russell Barth POT HEADS MORE DANGEROUS THAN OSAMA BIN LADEN Dear Editor: U.S. officials had Canadian officers arrest internet marijuana seed dealer Marc Emery. It seems clear the U.S. thinks Emery and his seeds are a much bigger threat to the status quo than, say, Osama Bin Laden. While police in the U.K. are rounding up Pakistani-born bombing suspects, the U.S. is rounding up Canadian-born marijuana-law-reform activists. When they searched the home and business of Mr. Emery, by the way, they failed to find any weapons of mass destruction, or Osama. Does this mean the U.S. can also extradite Canadians for speaking out against the Bush Administration? Bush made it clear that 'You are either with us, or with the terrorists.' Since most Canadians are against both, exactly what qualifies as being 'criminal' in the eyes of the White House? Can publicly disagreeing with certain U.S. laws and policies get Canadians sent to Gitmo? Just how far does their Patriot Act reach, and why do their laws reach into our country? Should Canadians be more careful what we say on the phone, over the Internet, or too our friends in public? Could we be extradited for things we have written or said publicly? Could having anti-U.S. thoughts be considered an 'act of terrorism?' How soon before the U.S. extradites Carolyn Parrish for her comments? Will we see U.S. police or military personnel walking around Vancouver like they do in Iraq, searching for suspects ? I have been an outspoken drug-law-reform activist who has publicly criticized the Bush administration, their illegal war, and their insane foreign polices. Could I be extradited for that? It looks like the time has finally come where we should just take down all the Canadian flags from courthouses and Parliament Hill and all government buildings, and put Old Glory up in its place. If U.S. officials can just come to Canada and arrest people for something that may or may not even be a crime here, our sovereignty is now officially gone. Russell Barth Federal Medical Marijuana License Holder Educators For Sensible Drug Policy http://www.efsdp.org Ottawa, Ont. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Sep 11 18:03:38 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 13:03:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050910082551.02920120@pop-server.austin.rr.com > References: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> <20050908121819.86478.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050908092119.02ca9408@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050910082551.02920120@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050911125654.04989d58@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Dirk and everyone, I think that my response to Dirk came off as too harsh. Please forgive me if this is so. Sometimes I am not fully confident that I understand Dirk, and could have miscalculated. My response is that if Dirk thinks that extropy can be interpreted in a myriad of ways, this is off the mark because extropy = extropy. Interpretations of an ideological outcome from extropy can indeed be interpreted in a number of ways that authentically reflect the principles. What we are striving for a viewpoint that is extropic and which reflects the most advantageous outcomes for transhumanity. Best, Natasha At 08:31 AM 9/10/2005, you wrote: >Dirk, > >I think it would be best if you respected the communications already sent >to this list and published elsewhere regarding Extropy Institute. > >Thank you. > >Natasha Vita-More > > >At 06:53 AM 9/10/2005, you wrote: > > >>On 9/8/05, Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote: >> Clearly >>the Principles of Extropy are highly *compatible* with a libertarian >>view of politics -- more so than with any other identifiable >>viewpoint that I know of. It doesn't follow that they are >>*restricted* to only that one, exact political philosophy. A dogmatic >>view of political and economic systems would be incompatible with the >>principles of rational thinking and perpetual progress. >>As I've said many times, the Principles are *not* compatible with >>socialism, but do not rule out *possible* exceptions to strict >>libertarian answers. The ultimate goal is not adherence to >>libertarian doctrine, but to advancing our lives in *all* the ways >>described in the Principles. As far as I'm concerned, that *might* >>mean, for example, some government funding of basic research. And it >>might not -- I'm not at all sure on this issue at the moment. It >>*might* mean some laws limiting private property rights -- such as >>might be needed to conduct inspections of research labs working with >>extremely dangerous materials (nanostuff, AI, whatever). >> >> >>IMO ExI Principles are a matter of *interpretation*, only one such being >>Uber Libertarianism. >>If this is not so then you can kiss much future membership goodbye. >> >>As Transhumanism moves from the perceived lunatic fringe populated by >>fanatical True Believers into the cultural mainstream populated by people >>a lot less committed to any single political POV this is going to be even >>more apparent. Trying to maintain ideological purity is a recipe for >>internicene squabbling, witch hunts and heretic bashing reminiescent of >>the history of 'pure' Socialism with its petty factions and interminable >>cry of 'splitter!'. >> >>ExI, and its membership, must decide soon if it is going to be a bastion >>of purity or whether it is going to set itself up to attract mainstream >>support. We certainly know what the WTA has decided. >> >>Dirk >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>extropy-chat mailing list >>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat >Natasha Vita-More >Cultural Strategist, Designer >Studies of the Future, University of Houston >President, Extropy Institute >Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture > >Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler >Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist, Designer Studies of the Future, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Sun Sep 11 18:42:34 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:42:34 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism - a search fo rmeaning... In-Reply-To: <20050911160240.13902.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <003601c5b68c$e3414770$0801a8c0@EF02jack> <20050911160240.13902.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <470a3c5205091111421a7591d5@mail.gmail.com> Very interesting! The immediate question that comes to my mind is that, suppose you and I register a contract with ICA and accept that it will be regulated by the CEP, then we have a disagreement, resort to their arbitrations services, and they decide that I have to pay you 1000 bucks, and I don't want to pay, how do you get your money? I just love the idea, but how does it work in practice??? G. On 9/11/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > I would suggest folks go over ICA's Common Economic Protocol that I > linked to previously. Based on the concept that Neal Stephenson used in > his novel The Diamond Age, it is a consensual international legal code > of personal and property rights for a world of individualists, > distributed polities, corporate states, sovereign individuals, and > consensual phyles. > > --- Jack Parkinson wrote: > > > Brett Paatsch wrote >Are you suggesting a tranhumanist bill of > > rights? I think there is some > > >merit in such a suggestion. If someone makes a reasonable first > > draft > > >of it, I'd be interested in checking it out and maybe giving > > feedback. > > > > What I really had in mind was not actually a transhuman bill of > > rights - but a sort of rubric if you will - couched in > > philosophic/moral rather than procedural terms. I have an inherent > > distrust of codified 'law' - we have way too much of it and I have > > seen estimates that statute law has burgeoned in some western nations > > by 200% or more in the last two generations or so. > > > > At present we employ vast numbers of people to formulate written > > legislation and then yet greater numbers to pick holes in the laws, > > circumvent them, evade them or otherwise invalidate them. If all that > > vast repository of law was abolished overnight - I wonder - would it > > really matter? Probably not IF you could still go to court, plead > > your case, and be judged by good people in your society on the basis > > of what is right and wrong... > > > > This in essence is the argument for common law. It is flexible and > > reflects current mores and attitudes, England got by for centuries on > > it. Codification and statutes are well-meaning but too often fail in > > delivering genuine justice: In the beginning was the word, then the > > word was twisted... > > > > The letter of the law is not the same as it's spirit (which allows no > > loopholes and technical acquittals of wrongdoers). > > > > Perhaps it should also be said that legislation is used at least as > > much to oppress as it is to protect.... > > > > >> A good first step might be to make politicians personally > > >> accountable for their errors... > > > > >That's not a bad idea. But you can't have a first step that is not > > >operationalisable. Holding all politicians as a class accountable > > for > > >their collective errors isn't operationalisable for you or me or > > indeed > > >any one person. Because they don't operate as a class. They take > > >individual oaths of office and to the extent that they can > > individually > > >avoid being held to account for breaking their oath, then of course > > >they will (on average) try to do just that. > > > > It should not be too difficult - one simple practice would do it: > > every executive decision/promise has an executive sponsor who signs > > off on the order/pledge and takes full responsibility for it. No > > sponsor = no order/pledge, no matter how strong the wording it - > > becomes just a suggestion/hope... A committee need not be jointly > > responsible - but they must have one member who is prepared to 'carry > > the can' for the rest. Where multiple members DO sign, retribution is > > not mitigated by membership of the group - they are jointly and > > severally liable. The same system would work as well for corporations > > as for politicians. > > No more limited liability! no more decoupling of action from adverse > > consequence! We might expect a lot less frivolity, self-serving > > decision-making and empty promises if such a system were in place... > > Jack > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > > Mike Lorrey > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: > http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com > Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > > > > ______________________________________________________ > Yahoo! for Good > Watch the Hurricane Katrina Shelter From The Storm concert > http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/shelter > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sun Sep 11 21:12:15 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 22:12:15 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050910082551.02920120@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> <20050908121819.86478.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050908092119.02ca9408@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050910082551.02920120@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: On 9/10/05, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > Dirk, > > I think it would be best if you respected the communications already sent > to this list and published elsewhere regarding Extropy Institute. > > Thank you. > > Natasha Vita-More So, what are you saying? That in your *opinion* I should not air *my* opinions concerning ExI on the ExI list? Or is that an order? Dirk At 06:53 AM 9/10/2005, you wrote: > > > On 9/8/05, *Max More* wrote: > Clearly > the Principles of Extropy are highly *compatible* with a libertarian > view of politics -- more so than with any other identifiable > viewpoint that I know of. It doesn't follow that they are > *restricted* to only that one, exact political philosophy. A dogmatic > view of political and economic systems would be incompatible with the > principles of rational thinking and perpetual progress. > > As I've said many times, the Principles are *not* compatible with > socialism, but do not rule out *possible* exceptions to strict > libertarian answers. The ultimate goal is not adherence to > libertarian doctrine, but to advancing our lives in *all* the ways > described in the Principles. As far as I'm concerned, that *might* > mean, for example, some government funding of basic research. And it > might not -- I'm not at all sure on this issue at the moment. It > *might* mean some laws limiting private property rights -- such as > might be needed to conduct inspections of research labs working with > extremely dangerous materials (nanostuff, AI, whatever). > > > IMO ExI Principles are a matter of *interpretation*, only one such being > Uber Libertarianism. > If this is not so then you can kiss much future membership goodbye. > > As Transhumanism moves from the perceived lunatic fringe populated by > fanatical True Believers into the cultural mainstream populated by people a > lot less committed to any single political POV this is going to be even more > apparent. Trying to maintain ideological purity is a recipe for internicene > squabbling, witch hunts and heretic bashing reminiescent of the history of > 'pure' Socialism with its petty factions and interminable cry of > 'splitter!'. > > ExI, and its membership, must decide soon if it is going to be a bastion > of purity or whether it is going to set itself up to attract mainstream > support. We certainly know what the WTA has decided. > > Dirk > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > Natasha Vita-More Cultural > Strategist, Designer Studies of the Future, University of Houston President, > Extropy Institute Founder, Transhumanist Arts & > Culture > > *Knowledge is the most democratic source of power.* Alvin Toffler *Random > acts of kindness... *Anne Herbet > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sun Sep 11 21:14:51 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 22:14:51 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050911125654.04989d58@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> <20050908121819.86478.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050908092119.02ca9408@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050910082551.02920120@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050911125654.04989d58@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: On 9/11/05, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > Dirk and everyone, > > I think that my response to Dirk came off as too harsh. Please forgive me > if this is so. Sometimes I am not fully confident that I understand Dirk, > and could have miscalculated. My response is that if Dirk thinks that > extropy can be interpreted in a myriad of ways, this is off the mark because > extropy = extropy. Interpretations of an ideological outcome from extropy > can indeed be interpreted in a number of ways that authentically reflect the > principles. What we are striving for a viewpoint that is extropic and which > reflects the most advantageous outcomes for transhumanity. > > And that's where the problem may lie. What if the extropic is *not* the most efficacious path to Transhumanity? Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sun Sep 11 21:17:24 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 22:17:24 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: <380-22005948133420240@M2W098.mail2web.com> References: <380-22005948133420240@M2W098.mail2web.com> Message-ID: On 9/8/05, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > Mike wrote: > > It is true that WTA intentionally tries to discredit ExI by positioning it > politically in order to make itself appear to be more worthy of membership > and support by making extropians to be libertarian and appear to not care > about people and the world. And it is true that the anti-libertarian > leadership of WTA has been public about discrediting ExI and extropians. > > I seem to recall being slapped down for saying something about the WTA that was far less extreme than that statement. What's changed in the past 6 months? Last I heard, the party line was "we are all comrades together". Dirk Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Sep 11 22:11:52 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:11:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050910082551.02920120@pop-server.austin.rr.com > References: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> <20050908121819.86478.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050908092119.02ca9408@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050910082551.02920120@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050911170713.01e43d68@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 08:31 AM 9/10/2005 -0500, Natasha Vita-More wrote: >Dirk, > >I think it would be best if you respected the communications already sent >to this list and published elsewhere regarding Extropy Institute. Coming in late on this, I find myself baffled by what Natasha meant. Is that sentence to be read as: A) I think it would be best if you respected (the communications already sent to this list and published elsewhere regarding Extropy Institute). Or B) I think it would be best if you (respected the communications already sent to this list) and published elsewhere regarding Extropy Institute. The second reading -- which is how I read it originally -- suggests that he should go elsewhere with his opinions. Perhaps this was not intended? Damien Broderick From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 11 22:24:57 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:24:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: On HIV Re: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate In-Reply-To: <048801c5b6d5$f631df40$0d98e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20050911222457.78657.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > Couldn't that be legitimate? You do want existing > treatments > to keep working, ie, you do want to overcome the > drug > resistance while better solutions, if any, are not > yet available > don't you? Of course it is legitimate. It's essential we keep existing drugs working while we develop novel ones. It's only when we become satisfied with this to the exclusion of researching BETTER avenues, that I have a problem. > > >HIV is just 9.8 > > kilobases of RNA that contains 8 genes that encode > a > > little over a dozen protein products. > > Okay, so how long has that been known. Not 19 years > I'd bet you. Not even 9 years, for all the genes, > I'd still > be inclined to give you odds without checking ;-). Good point. :) > Say you are right. The AIDS patient is only hostage > until > a better drug comes along, correct? In the meantime > he or > she has a reprieve from dying which is different > from facing > a threat to being killed by another person for > ransom. Yes, of course. HIV drug manufacturers are not as cavalier about human life as are tobacco companies. > Do you understand how the pharmaceutical development > pipeline works from a commercialisation standpoint? Since it is a long-term career interest of mine, I have a second hand appreciation for its complexity. Your points are valid. It is difficult working with human tissues for purposes of research. Five years is relatively short-time span for this sort of thing. The reported toxicity of the new drugs was why I was disappointed. > You *think* you've identified a computer model of a > protease inhibitor for an essential protein? > > What would it take to prove that you have? Well the first thing that needs to be done is that I learn more organic chemistry techniques or have a good organic chemist assist me. Its much easier to push atoms around on a computer than in meat space. Does your > > HIV protein have an equivalent in an animal virus? > If so > do you know that they aren't even now trying to > demonstrate in an animal model what you only have > on computer? The lack of a convenient animal model in HIV research has always been a frustrating problem. The best are macques with SIV although it is not a perfect system. As far as whether "they" are onto my alleged HIV Achilles Heel, if "they" are U.S. scientists, I highly doubt it. On the other hand if "they" are French they are but may not realize it. I suppose I could save up and move to France, to try to help, but I am not sure what the French would think of that. But you are probably right. I am being a little overly-disillusioned by things. Its just that HIV is a problem that needs to be solved, but I didn't want to have to spend my whole life doing it. It seems to be tying up a lot resources timewise, especially mine, and moneywise, that could be used on cancer, diabetes, and other aging related illnesses- the SENS stuff- but only after more immediate problem gets solved. 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! for Good Watch the Hurricane Katrina Shelter From The Storm concert http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/shelter From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sun Sep 11 22:39:51 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 23:39:51 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050911170713.01e43d68@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> <20050908121819.86478.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050908092119.02ca9408@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050910082551.02920120@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050911170713.01e43d68@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 9/11/05, Damien Broderick wrote: > > At 08:31 AM 9/10/2005 -0500, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > >Dirk, > > > >I think it would be best if you respected the communications already sent > >to this list and published elsewhere regarding Extropy Institute. > > Coming in late on this, I find myself baffled by what Natasha meant. Is > that sentence to be read as: > > A) I think it would be best if you respected (the communications already > sent to this list and published elsewhere regarding Extropy Institute). > > Or > > B) I think it would be best if you (respected the communications already > sent to this list) and published elsewhere regarding Extropy Institute. > > The second reading -- which is how I read it originally -- suggests that > he > should go elsewhere with his opinions. Perhaps this was not intended? > > A) Respecting opinions does not mean agreeing with them or stiffling dissent B) Who really things the ExI list is an inappropriate forum for opinions concerning ExI? Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Sep 11 23:11:14 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:11:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: References: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> <20050908121819.86478.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050908092119.02ca9408@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050910082551.02920120@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050911125654.04989d58@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sep 11, 2005, at 2:14 PM, Dirk Bruere wrote:o > > And that's where the problem may lie. > What if the extropic is *not* the most efficacious path to > Transhumanity? > Others are of course welcome to their own opinions. Where is the problem in that? - s From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sun Sep 11 23:34:01 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:34:01 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: References: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> <20050908121819.86478.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050908092119.02ca9408@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050910082551.02920120@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050911125654.04989d58@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: On 9/12/05, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > On Sep 11, 2005, at 2:14 PM, Dirk Bruere wrote:o > > > > > And that's where the problem may lie. > > What if the extropic is *not* the most efficacious path to > > Transhumanity? > > > > Others are of course welcome to their own opinions. Where is the > problem in that? No problem, as long as they don't try to force their opinions on me or shut me up when I don't toe the party line. That seemed to be what Natasha was trying to do. Reminiscent of the WTA dictatorship. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Sep 11 23:43:34 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:43:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: <20050911165702.48690.qmail@web52707.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050911234334.11752.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- paul illich wrote: > > "This article follows an equally insane piece on 'Extropy'. The > ignorance that leads the 'Extropians' to find the ubermensch a > positive ideal (Hitler cannot really be seen as a perversion of the > concept, more an inevitiable consequence - see Wagner, Neitzsche, > Spengler), and that lords neo-fascists like Ayn Rand (Abnal Gland is > more appropriate), is quite frightening. What universe is this Decenter guy operating in? Firstly, the association with Hitler clearly ignores the fact that Hitler was a socialist fascist and we are individualist (this sort of smear is EXACTLY the sort of thing I warn of when I warn against ExI encompassing collectivist memes, as Nazi's racial supremacy theories are quite clearly a collectivist ideal, not an individualist one). His smear of Rand is similarly ignorant. She was hardly a fascist, clearly anti-fascist (fascism of all stripes, including left and right), but that he labels it such is indicative of his bias. > > "The Extropian viewpoint is best illustrated by glancing at it > sideways. This is simply done, since the necessary tools are > furnished by one Extropians view of his own family's response to his > beliefs. He gleefully describes socialism as being 'just about the > opposite' of the Extropian view, which is why he is at loggerheads > with one of his brothers. His other brother is more able to acceopt > the Extropian ideas - why? Well, happily oblivious (or, God help us, > aware) of what it says about his own beliefs, our tame Extropian > tells us that the brother who is able to sympathise is a > fundamentalist christian, loves the 'free' market, like anarcho- > capitalism, and loves guns! Note the 'free' in quotes, as if to express doubt that the free market is free or evinces freedom. > I suspect the Extropians themselves are > merely slightly more sophisticated versions of the ignorant > propagand-fed red-neck hick that the interviewees brother is. Is calling him a left propaganda-fed yellow bellied city slicker cocktail liberal any more or less bigoted, ignorant, or narrow minded? > > "Both these articles smack a little too much of right-wing > libertarianism (why can't these people understand that capitalist > economics and the liberty of men are irreconcilable) Because they aren't, as anyone who has actually studied economics can tell you. Why is it that the quiche eating elitist leftists so sure of the truth of their socialist beliefs have rarely, if ever, taken an economics course that wasn't taught by an avowed marxist? > and I wonder > why a magazine that has done so much in the past to fight unreason - > see the attacks of [Orson Scott] Card, and, most especially, on > Scientology - is so willing to give space to people that will soon > enough be setting up their own cultish little religion, persecuting > those who disagree with them (mark my words)? Soon enough, when? Haven't seen one yet. Of course the cloyingly cynical always call any belief a cult. > > "Even the ever-reliable John Shirley seems to be slowly evolving into > a religious type. Unable to accept a sadistic God, he embraces > instead a massively fallible one. The God he envisages seems an > unnecessary addiction to our universe - surely the only God that we > should bother to fear, or follow, is an omnipotemt one? Thus you do > not choose between two types of God, but look at our history to see > that (if you accept an omnipotent deity as the only likely / > necessary kind) either God _is_ a sadist, or God has no meaningful > existence in the world. Ah, a recovering theist is what we have here, whose saccharine simplistic altar boy religious ideas were let down by reality and is put out that god would be so cruel as to disappoint him. Sounds like the boy never got over his oedipal complex. > > "I think Shirley is too hard on himself in limiting his options to, > i) '...I sold out, in the new climate of doubt about violent media', > or ii) '...I developed a conscience about the violence in the imagery > I create for the public's entertainment'. > > "The clue to a third option, and one I feel may be more rational, is > given to the reader when Shirley quotes Enerson and Asimov; 'Emerson > said that violent men are actually demonstrationg thier > powerlessness; Isaac Asimov said that violence is the last refuge of > the incompetent.' Here, maturity and empowerment (the incompetent can > be seen as disempowered by their own failings) are the routes out of > violent culture. Rather, the incompetent and powerless are made incompetent and powerless by a socialist/collectivist state in its intended course of disempowering the individual in favor of the collective. > here I would agree with Jopp about infantilism in > TV- > land - children perceive the world without subtlety, where everything > is alien and thier own lack of knowledge and smaller physical scale > fill them with fear and, through the peception that they are > powerless, this leads them to either adopt an attitude of apathy or > to try as hard as possible to find a way to fight back. Or rather, that they are alienated by a future denied and opportunity stripped by a system intent on making them cogs in a social machine. > Since > sophisticated use of passive communication tools requires a high > degree of self- and world- awareness they are only available to > adults, and in our hierarchical and embattled culture even adults are > not properly furnished with the necessary equipment to resolve > conflict peacefully (few break out of tis mainstream of our society). > Chilren, adolescents, and ill-equipped adults see the world in black- > and-white. Violence is the only tool they can see yielding an > immediate imposition of their selfhod upon the world around them. Particularly they are denied access to the tools of contributing to the community consensus through barriers to entry into the electoral system, vote fraud, and manipulation of media by powers that be to smear those who overcome the barriers with various labels of reverse bigotry. > "To reject this is not a sell-out. Nor is it the development of a > conscience [I was aluding here to the concepts mystical and 'god- > given' overtones - 2005]. It is simply an evolutionary step in an > individual's development - he 'grows out' of the polarising world- > view. In a world where everyone who disagrees with you is the enemy > _everyone_ is the enemy, since none are identical to you as an > individual. The assumption that confluence of identity creates alliance or confluence of interest is not supported by facts. > Seeing things in black-and-white can only, therefore, > lead to force majeure against everyone around you (this extreme of > teen neurosis/paranoia is, thnakfully, rarely found in the raw). In a typically leftist confusion of the facts and seeing black as white, the individualists goal of avoiding force majeure used against one is taken by the leftist collectivist as the use of force majeure against everyone else. > Learning that the disagreeable views of those around you are sourced > in someone else (TV, books, teachers, fathers...) is the first step > to seeing the world as a subtler place, necessitiating an unequal > apportion of blame. It can also lead you to question some of your own > unconscious presuppositions. Far be if for me to assert that the self-sure leftist secure in his leftist deconstructionist dogma may have some unconcious presuppositions he is unaware of or refusing to question. > > "This process of socialisation (growing up) is not something we do > overnight. It takes many years. And in a culture such as America, > Britain, and, to a lesser extent, continental Europe, many never > really get to fully do it - growing up is actively discouraged (it > depends on your ideology whether you choose to see this as an > unconscious consequence of the system or a more deliberate function > of it). Perhaps all this is happening to Shirley is that he is > maturing, and in doing so seeing the solutions to problems in an > increasingly sophisticated way. If you blow away people who are > effectively brainwashed minions of the real 'bad guys' they fail to > understand why you wish to kill them, and redouble their efforts to > reciprocate - this game plan is, therefore, a non-starter, and as you > mature you may see this as such a fundamental reality that you pull > back from such resolutions even in works of fantasy. Which explains why left wing terrorist groups always release a manifesto, to ensure that the world understands why they feel they were pushed to use violence against society, because even though the left has a greater record of engaging in infantile and incompetent violence, it never ceases to come up with new excuses for why its past actions were justified, or denials that those who took them were actually leftists (since it is tautologically obvious that someone who engages in violence was not sufficiently 'sophisticated' enough to be a leftist). The fact is that some bad actors do not need to have their sins explained to them, some people and ideas are just evil, and if they will not give them up, well, there's no point trying. Its not my job to give then a chance at redemption or make them understand why I, or any other individualist, does what they do or resists their collectivism. Someone so wedded to their collectivist philosophy as to refuse to ever give it up is a waste of breath. > > "Please, John, don't break out of one overly subjective mental > universe into another - the perception of developed conscience > invariably leads to a new self-righteousness, and, unfortunately, > often to religion as well. > > "I find it disturbing that a magazine like the Eye should seem to be > so consistently evolving away from its previous hyper-rationalist > stance. Has Stephen P. Brown been going through these changes, too? > Are we _all_ doomed to worship at the alter of cyberspace or > deterministic bio-technology?" The idea that leftist socialism/collectivism has a monopoly on any kind of truth about what is 'hyper-rational' is as poorly supported as the idea that the right has any monopoly on what god wants. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Sep 12 00:12:24 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:12:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism - a search fo rmeaning... In-Reply-To: <470a3c5205091111421a7591d5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20050912001224.23986.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > Very interesting! > The immediate question that comes to my mind is that, suppose you and > I register a contract with ICA and accept that it will be regulated > by > the CEP, then we have a disagreement, resort to their arbitrations > services, and they decide that I have to pay you 1000 bucks, and I > don't want to pay, how do you get your money? > I just love the idea, but how does it work in practice??? Either ICA pursues action against you on my behalf in whatever geographic jurisdiction they find you in, or else you get a black mark on your reputation, so that any other ICA signatory you seek to contract with would see that you are a bad actor, so you wind up imposing economic sanctions on yourself, at least with other ICA/CEP signatories. Granted in a world where there are few people who are CEP signatories, it doesn't mean much unless you are in a jurisdiction that recognises the CEP. Now, it helps immeasurably that the CEP is a significant simplification of the common law (yet more objective and fair than the UCC), so any common law nation should theoretically be able to interpret our contract and enforce it in a similar manner. Generally speaking, any nation with a UCC or similar recognition of contract law is going to regard the fact that you have a contract with me, that specifies ICA as our arbitrator, as legally binding you to pay me. If you refuse to pay a judgement, and I have to pursue legal action in whatever jurisdiction I find you in, most systems let me recover my costs from you when they decide that the judgement against you is good. As soon as they do so, I can take that judgement of the original judgement to whatever sheriff or other similar functionary wherever you are, and, given they are the chief enforcer of judgements for the courts in their jurisdiction, will find your assets, seize them, and auction them off unless you immediately pay me what you owe me. The sheriff can keep seizing your stuff until I get fully paid. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Yahoo! for Good Watch the Hurricane Katrina Shelter From The Storm concert http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/shelter From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Sep 12 00:15:07 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:15:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050912001507.14797.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > So, what are you saying? > That in your *opinion* I should not air *my* opinions concerning ExI > on the ExI list? > Or is that an order? I think what she is saying is that you are making statements about ExI that are not supported by the published statements of ExI. As when leftists deconstruct individualists and label them fascists as a result, you are exhibiting a lot of transference. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Sep 12 00:17:27 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:17:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050912001727.96891.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > I seem to recall being slapped down for saying something about the > WTA that was far less extreme than that statement. > What's changed in the past 6 months? > Last I heard, the party line was "we are all comrades together". The WTA had its First International People's Congress in the workers paradise of Venezuela. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Yahoo! for Good Watch the Hurricane Katrina Shelter From The Storm concert http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/shelter From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Sep 12 00:21:39 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 01:21:39 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: <20050912001507.14797.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050912001507.14797.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/12/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > > So, what are you saying? > > That in your *opinion* I should not air *my* opinions concerning ExI > > on the ExI list? > > Or is that an order? > > I think what she is saying is that you are making statements about ExI > that are not supported by the published statements of ExI. As when > leftists deconstruct individualists and label them fascists as a > result, you are exhibiting a lot of transference. > The opinions of orgs, and their founding principles, inevitably change over time. If they do not evolve the org loses its relevance. This change is usually defined as a 'reinterpretation'. I wouldn't mind betting that I could do a reasonable job of 'reinterpreting' ExI Principles in a manner that the founders may well object to and which they did not foresee and still stay within the letter of the law. What ExI will become is to be determined by its members. What I do rather dislike is the attitude that "This is it - take it and shut up or get out - no discussion". ExI is not the personal property of any one individual. Correct me if I'm wrong. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Mon Sep 12 02:59:15 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:59:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] National Sovereignty question In-Reply-To: <4323B66C.2030300@sasktel.net> Message-ID: <20050912025915.76412.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> --- "Lifespan Pharma Inc." wrote: > Not to drag out another piece of politics into this arena but it does > seem to make a good case study > relative to some of the recent discussion. > > The USA has declared Marc Emery an Enemy of the State much as it > would > a foreign terrorist. > Marc Emery has asked the world to be his judge. IIRC, that is incorrect. The USA has declared Mr. Emery a criminal, of the type that existed long before 9/11/2001. Specifically, it accused him of doing business within the bounds of the USA (which implies travel into the USA) that is in violation of the laws of the USA. Canada has, by long standing practice, agreed to repatriate the accused for trial - presumably after reviewing sufficient evidence that he did indeed break laws inside the USA. There are plenty of real examples of the USA extending its laws where it has no jurisdiction. It harms the cause of pointing them out, to bring up examples where it actually is justified, especially when you call them by the same labels. Look closely before you leap on the bandwagon: not everything is the outrage it seems at first glance. From fauxever at sprynet.com Mon Sep 12 03:15:21 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:15:21 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism References: <20050911234334.11752.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <01d501c5b748$38746e50$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Mike Lorrey" > His smear of Rand is similarly ignorant. She was hardly a fascist, clearly > anti-fascist (fascism of all stripes, including left and right), but that > he labels it such is indicative of his bias. Ayn Rand was not known in her little enclave of objectivists to support ANYONE who had even a teensy differing viewpoint. And outright opposition to the objectivist manifesto earned one excommunication from her esteemed group faster than you can say "parasite." Aside from "state control" (as opposed to Ayn control) and to some degree "extreme pride in country and race" (as opposed to extreme pride in Ayn and Ayn), here is the first Google link I got for for "fascist" (... and it has Ayn Rand written all over its face): noun {U} a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed fascist adjective (ALSO fascistic) - fascist groups - a fascist dictator/regime fascist noun {C} 1 someone who supports fascism 2 a person of the far right in politics 3 DISAPPROVING someone who does not allow any opposition From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon Sep 12 06:33:49 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 16:03:49 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] chat's fellow introduction In-Reply-To: <20050910104303.3353.qmail@web26409.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20050910104303.3353.qmail@web26409.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc050911233333dfbc3e@mail.gmail.com> On 10/09/05, Alberto Juaristi Mendicute wrote: > > Donostia-San sebasti?n, 10-09-2005 > > Hallo!: Hi, It's always good to have another fellow traveller on the list! -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From robgobblin at aol.com Mon Sep 12 06:54:21 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robbie Lindauer) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:54:21 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism - a search fo rmeaning... In-Reply-To: <20050912001224.23986.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050912001224.23986.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: The best thing about living in a fantasy world is that you get to make things up as you go. On Sep 11, 2005, at 2:12 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > >> Very interesting! >> The immediate question that comes to my mind is that, suppose you and >> I register a contract with ICA and accept that it will be regulated >> by >> the CEP, then we have a disagreement, resort to their arbitrations >> services, and they decide that I have to pay you 1000 bucks, and I >> don't want to pay, how do you get your money? >> I just love the idea, but how does it work in practice??? > > Either ICA pursues action against you on my behalf in whatever > geographic jurisdiction they find you in, or else you get a black mark > on your reputation, so that any other ICA signatory you seek to > contract with would see that you are a bad actor, so you wind up > imposing economic sanctions on yourself, at least with other ICA/CEP > signatories. > > Granted in a world where there are few people who are CEP signatories, > it doesn't mean much unless you are in a jurisdiction that recognises > the CEP. Now, it helps immeasurably that the CEP is a significant > simplification of the common law (yet more objective and fair than the > UCC), so any common law nation should theoretically be able to > interpret our contract and enforce it in a similar manner. > > Generally speaking, any nation with a UCC or similar recognition of > contract law is going to regard the fact that you have a contract with > me, that specifies ICA as our arbitrator, as legally binding you to pay > me. If you refuse to pay a judgement, and I have to pursue legal action > in whatever jurisdiction I find you in, most systems let me recover my > costs from you when they decide that the judgement against you is good. > > > As soon as they do so, I can take that judgement of the original > judgement to whatever sheriff or other similar functionary wherever you > are, and, given they are the chief enforcer of judgements for the > courts in their jurisdiction, will find your assets, seize them, and > auction them off unless you immediately pay me what you owe me. The > sheriff can keep seizing your stuff until I get fully paid. > > Mike Lorrey > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: > http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com > Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > > > > ______________________________________________________ > Yahoo! for Good > Watch the Hurricane Katrina Shelter From The Storm concert > http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/shelter > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Sep 12 10:12:42 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 03:12:42 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: <01d501c5b748$38746e50$6600a8c0@brainiac> References: <20050911234334.11752.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <01d501c5b748$38746e50$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <80A654BF-8DF1-450F-80E7-42CD3035B710@mac.com> On Sep 11, 2005, at 8:15 PM, Olga Bourlin wrote: > From: "Mike Lorrey" > > >> His smear of Rand is similarly ignorant. She was hardly a fascist, >> clearly anti-fascist (fascism of all stripes, including left and >> right), but that he labels it such is indicative of his bias. >> > > Ayn Rand was not known in her little enclave of objectivists to > support ANYONE who had even a teensy differing viewpoint. And > outright opposition to the objectivist manifesto earned one > excommunication from her esteemed group faster than you can say > "parasite." As the group was all about objectivism that is hardly something to condemn her for. Removing people from a group who are opposed to the very goals of the group is hardly a sin. > > Aside from "state control" (as opposed to Ayn control) and to some > degree "extreme pride in country and race" (as opposed to extreme > pride in Ayn and Ayn), here is the first Google link I got for for > "fascist" (... and it has Ayn Rand written all over its face): > > noun {U} a political system based on a very powerful leader, state > control and extreme pride in country and race, and in which > political opposition is not allowed > fascist adjective (ALSO fascistic) > This is MUCH worse than ignorant. This is malicious slander. I deeply admire many things about you but your rabid anti-Ayn diatriibes are certainly not one of them. - samantha From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Sep 12 12:19:11 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 07:19:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050911170713.01e43d68@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> <20050908121819.86478.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050908092119.02ca9408@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050910082551.02920120@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050911170713.01e43d68@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050912071635.02b87db8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 05:11 PM 9/11/2005, Damien wrote: >At 08:31 AM 9/10/2005 -0500, Natasha Vita-More wrote: >>Dirk, >> >>I think it would be best if you respected the communications already sent >>to this list and published elsewhere regarding Extropy Institute. > >Coming in late on this, I find myself baffled by what Natasha meant. Is >that sentence to be read as: > >A) I think it would be best if you respected (the communications already >sent to this list and published elsewhere regarding Extropy Institute). > >Or > >B) I think it would be best if you (respected the communications already >sent to this list) and published elsewhere regarding Extropy Institute. > >The second reading -- which is how I read it originally -- suggests that >he should go elsewhere with his opinions. Perhaps this was not intended? No you are incorrect. The first is the proper reading. I think that if Dirk should reread what Max has written on the topic, and the links Max provided in one of his posts about the topic in an interview he did this year. Best, Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist, Designer Studies of the Future, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Sep 12 12:20:41 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 07:20:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropic (was: Extropy and libertarianism) In-Reply-To: References: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> <20050908121819.86478.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050908092119.02ca9408@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050910082551.02920120@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050911125654.04989d58@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050912071940.02b87958@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 04:14 PM 9/11/2005, Dirk wrote: >On 9/11/05, Natasha Vita-More ><natasha at natasha.cc> wrote: >Dirk and everyone, > >I think that my response to Dirk came off as too harsh. Please forgive me >if this is so. Sometimes I am not fully confident that I understand Dirk, >and could have miscalculated. My response is that if Dirk thinks that >extropy can be interpreted in a myriad of ways, this is off the mark >because extropy = extropy. Interpretations of an ideological outcome from >extropy can indeed be interpreted in a number of ways that authentically >reflect the principles. What we are striving for a viewpoint that is >extropic and which reflects the most advantageous outcomes for transhumanity. > > >And that's where the problem may lie. >What if the extropic is *not* the most efficacious path to Transhumanity? Good question. Let's discuss extropic then. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist, Designer Studies of the Future, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paul_illich at yahoo.com Mon Sep 12 12:40:43 2005 From: paul_illich at yahoo.com (paul illich) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 05:40:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: extropy-chat Digest, Vol 24, Issue 25 In-Reply-To: <200509121015.j8CAF6f02465@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050912124043.78238.qmail@web52712.mail.yahoo.com> From: Mike Lorrey Subject: __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From paul_illich at yahoo.com Mon Sep 12 12:43:11 2005 From: paul_illich at yahoo.com (paul illich) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 05:43:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: <200509121015.j8CAF6f02465@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050912124311.47910.qmail@web52703.mail.yahoo.com> Hi all, Sorry about the (almost) empty post... A note to Mike Lorrey - I knew you'd like Tim's views, s'why I posted them here! I think he's wrong on several points, but I too have my doubts about Rand, and have read much of her work. I wouldn't put my doubts about Rand in the same terms as he does though! (or as Olga does). Paul __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Sep 12 13:03:26 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:03:26 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050912071635.02b87db8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <20050908062600.1670357EF7@finney.org> <20050908121819.86478.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050908092119.02ca9408@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050910082551.02920120@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050911170713.01e43d68@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050912071635.02b87db8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: On 9/12/05, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > At 05:11 PM 9/11/2005, Damien wrote: > > At 08:31 AM 9/10/2005 -0500, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > Dirk, > > I think it would be best if you respected the communications already sent > to this list and published elsewhere regarding Extropy Institute. > > > Coming in late on this, I find myself baffled by what Natasha meant. Is > that sentence to be read as: > > A) I think it would be best if you respected (the communications already > sent to this list and published elsewhere regarding Extropy Institute). > > Or > > B) I think it would be best if you (respected the communications already > sent to this list) and published elsewhere regarding Extropy Institute. > > The second reading -- which is how I read it originally -- suggests that > he should go elsewhere with his opinions. Perhaps this was not intended? > > > > No you are incorrect. The first is the proper reading. I think that if > Dirk should reread what Max has written on the topic, and the links Max > provided in one of his posts about the topic in an interview he did this > year. > > I'm less interested in Max's views than about the scope for disagreement within ExI and here. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Mon Sep 12 14:08:15 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 10:08:15 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI - Discussing Ideas and Debating them Message-ID: <380-22005911214815517@M2W040.mail2web.com> Can anyone offer a suggestion about how to effectively discuss/debate ideas on the list and within ExI virtually? Since we are scattered around the world, it is impossible to have a well-defined formal format. At formal meetings we have a facilitator and an open mic where people line and state their points and then have audience participation. How can we provide an open mic, a timeframe for making a statement, and a civil environment on the list? Here's an idea: We could turn the list into an Extropic Discussion/Debate Center for a week to a month. List members would send their topics to the list moderator for scheduling. A schedule would go out daily announcing what the topic is for the day and who the topic's lead poster is and everyone would have an opportunity to reply. The weekly schedule would be avilable at extropy.org. There would probably need to be a limit on the number of posts in response to the topic's lead poster. (But if we limit the number of posts, we could miss out on new ideas.) Or we could just do a blog, or we could take this to www.transcolloquium.org which is being moved to extropy.org. Whatever we do, we need to have as many people as possible participate, not just the frequent list posters. We need an open environment where people feel free to voice their ideas and discuss them. This is just one idea - I welcome others. Natasha Natasha Vita-More -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Sep 12 15:06:35 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 08:06:35 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism In-Reply-To: References: <20050912001507.14797.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <22360fa1050912080670141069@mail.gmail.com> On 9/11/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > The opinions of orgs, and their founding principles, inevitably change > over time. > If they do not evolve the org loses its relevance. > This change is usually defined as a 'reinterpretation'. Yes, and a more enlightened group might build-in a foundational principle of growth, embracing change that leads to furtherance of the group's evolving values within a co-evolving environment. Taking a look at the ExI page at http://www.extropy.org/principles.htm my expectations were confirmed by examples such as the following: ...to consider the Principles of Extropy as an evolving framework of attitudes, values, and standards... Headings of Perpetual Progress, followed by Self-Transformation seem to make the point unmistakeably clear. Dirk, did you read (or refresh your reading of) the principles before making your earlier statements? - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Sep 12 18:19:02 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 11:19:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism - a search fo rmeaning... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050912181902.69726.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Robbie Lindauer wrote: > The best thing about living in a fantasy world is that you get to > make things up as you go. The problem with walking around with your foot in your mouth is everything tastes like dog crap. Now that we are done trading insults, I invite you to study a bit before showing what a fool you are once more. The areas of private law, alternative dispute resolution, and arbitration are well established, widely practiced, and constitute more of the legal work of the lawyers in the US today than of work in government courts. ICA is no different from any other private arbitration group. I, in fact, have experience in these settings, dealing with service of process to and from major corporations, such as Discover, TRW, and the major credit reporting agencies. In fact, anybody here can confirm some of what I'm saying, if they have a Discover credit card. If you do, you can dig up your contract with Discover, and go into the fine print about dispute resolution. Discover specifies two arbitration organizations it agrees to have disputes resolved through. As with any contract law, those are the two they want, because they never lose with those arbitrators. This is a big issue with those who dispute the validity of the fabrication of money out of nothing, and they try to maneuver the credit companies into accepting other arbitration groups that are more fair to the consumer. Who you accept as an arbitrator determines what sort of justice you get. If the credit companies truly want your business, they'll accept one more to your agreement. > > > On Sep 11, 2005, at 2:12 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > > > > --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > > >> Very interesting! > >> The immediate question that comes to my mind is that, suppose you > and > >> I register a contract with ICA and accept that it will be > regulated > >> by > >> the CEP, then we have a disagreement, resort to their arbitrations > >> services, and they decide that I have to pay you 1000 bucks, and I > >> don't want to pay, how do you get your money? > >> I just love the idea, but how does it work in practice??? > > > > Either ICA pursues action against you on my behalf in whatever > > geographic jurisdiction they find you in, or else you get a black > mark > > on your reputation, so that any other ICA signatory you seek to > > contract with would see that you are a bad actor, so you wind up > > imposing economic sanctions on yourself, at least with other > ICA/CEP > > signatories. > > > > Granted in a world where there are few people who are CEP > signatories, > > it doesn't mean much unless you are in a jurisdiction that > recognises > > the CEP. Now, it helps immeasurably that the CEP is a significant > > simplification of the common law (yet more objective and fair than > the > > UCC), so any common law nation should theoretically be able to > > interpret our contract and enforce it in a similar manner. > > > > Generally speaking, any nation with a UCC or similar recognition of > > contract law is going to regard the fact that you have a contract > with > > me, that specifies ICA as our arbitrator, as legally binding you to > pay > > me. If you refuse to pay a judgement, and I have to pursue legal > action > > in whatever jurisdiction I find you in, most systems let me > recover my > > costs from you when they decide that the judgement against you is > good. > > > > > > As soon as they do so, I can take that judgement of the original > > judgement to whatever sheriff or other similar functionary wherever > you > > are, and, given they are the chief enforcer of judgements for the > > courts in their jurisdiction, will find your assets, seize them, > and > > auction them off unless you immediately pay me what you owe me. The > > sheriff can keep seizing your stuff until I get fully paid. > > > > Mike Lorrey > > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > > Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: > > http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com > > Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________ > > Yahoo! for Good > > Watch the Hurricane Katrina Shelter From The Storm concert > > http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/shelter > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Yahoo! for Good Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Sep 12 18:24:39 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 19:24:39 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI - Discussing Ideas and Debating them In-Reply-To: <380-22005911214815517@M2W040.mail2web.com> References: <380-22005911214815517@M2W040.mail2web.com> Message-ID: On 9/12/05, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > Can anyone offer a suggestion about how to effectively discuss/debate > ideas > on the list and within ExI virtually? Since we are scattered around the > world, it is impossible to have a well-defined formal format. > > At formal meetings we have a facilitator and an open mic where people line > and state their points and then have audience participation. How can we > provide an open mic, a timeframe for making a statement, and a civil > environment on the list? > > Here's an idea: We could turn the list into an Extropic Discussion/Debate > Center for a week to a month. List members would send their topics to the > list moderator for scheduling. A schedule would go out daily announcing > what the topic is for the day and who the topic's lead poster is and > everyone would have an opportunity to reply. The weekly schedule would be > avilable at extropy.org . There would probably need to > be a limit on the > number of posts in response to the topic's lead poster. (But if we limit > the number of posts, we could miss out on new ideas.) Or we could just do > a blog, or we could take this to www.transcolloquium.orgwhich is being > moved to extropy.org . > > Whatever we do, we need to have as many people as possible participate, > not > just the frequent list posters. We need an open environment where people > feel free to voice their ideas and discuss them. > > This is just one idea - I welcome others. > > How about scrapping ExI-Chat and replacing it with: ExI-Society ExI-Technology ExI-Debate etc? Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Mon Sep 12 18:36:57 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:36:57 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI - Discussing Ideas and Debating them Message-ID: <380-220059112183657267@M2W082.mail2web.com> From: Dirk >How about scrapping ExI-Chat and replacing it with: >ExI-Society >ExI-Technology >ExI-Debate >etc? How about: ExI-transhumanist-society, etc.? The problem is that when ExI formed I do not believe that it anticipated aother transhumanist organization coming along and discounting its origination of the philosophy of transhumanism and it major contributions to the transhumanist movement. BIG disappointment. Natasha Natasha Vita-More -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From pgptag at gmail.com Mon Sep 12 18:50:12 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:50:12 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI - Discussing Ideas and Debating them In-Reply-To: References: <380-22005911214815517@M2W040.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <470a3c52050912115078ea905c@mail.gmail.com> Nooo please, let's not split the list in sublists. The big value of this list is the synergy between society, science, tech, policy, SF... The occasional rounds of insult trading are a fair price for this I think. A mailing list is not suitable for structured discussion I think, but there are some content management system that provide at least some features. For example, Scoop permits showing first the posts which more readers like, which is a neat feature. G. On 9/12/05, Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > On 9/12/05, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > Can anyone offer a suggestion about how to effectively discuss/debate > ideas > > on the list and within ExI virtually? Since we are scattered around the > > world, it is impossible to have a well-defined formal format. > > > > At formal meetings we have a facilitator and an open mic where people line > > and state their points and then have audience participation. How can we > > provide an open mic, a timeframe for making a statement, and a civil > > environment on the list? > > > > Here's an idea: We could turn the list into an Extropic Discussion/Debate > > Center for a week to a month. List members would send their topics to the > > list moderator for scheduling. A schedule would go out daily announcing > > what the topic is for the day and who the topic's lead poster is and > > everyone would have an opportunity to reply. The weekly schedule would be > > avilable at extropy.org. There would probably need to be a limit on the > > number of posts in response to the topic's lead poster. (But if we limit > > the number of posts, we could miss out on new ideas.) Or we could just do > > a blog, or we could take this to www.transcolloquium.org which is being > > moved to extropy.org. > > > > Whatever we do, we need to have as many people as possible participate, > not > > just the frequent list posters. We need an open environment where people > > feel free to voice their ideas and discuss them. > > > > This is just one idea - I welcome others. > > > > > How about scrapping ExI-Chat and replacing it with: > ExI-Society > ExI-Technology > ExI-Debate > etc? > > Dirk From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Sep 12 19:08:30 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:08:30 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI - Discussing Ideas and Debating them In-Reply-To: <380-220059112183657267@M2W082.mail2web.com> References: <380-220059112183657267@M2W082.mail2web.com> Message-ID: On 9/12/05, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > > From: Dirk > > >How about scrapping ExI-Chat and replacing it with: > >ExI-Society > >ExI-Technology > >ExI-Debate > >etc? > > How about: > > ExI-transhumanist-society, etc.? > > The problem is that when ExI formed I do not believe that it anticipated > aother transhumanist organization coming along and discounting its > origination of the philosophy of transhumanism and it major contributions > to the transhumanist movement. BIG disappointment. > > Well, the origins of Transhumanism go back before ExI. Back in the mid-70s we referred to ourselves as "Immortalists" and were talking about such technologies as computer interfacing to the brain and uploading. I doubt we were the first to do so. Was ExI the first org that could call itself Transhumanist (and no, just renaming something does not count). And to answer another comment on my suggestion for splitting the list, I just threw it in as a possibility. If sub-categories were created I don't believe they would work simply because ExI-Chat would undermine their effectiveness. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robgobblin at aol.com Mon Sep 12 19:16:03 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 09:16:03 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism - a search fo rmeaning... In-Reply-To: <20050912181902.69726.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050912181902.69726.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4325D3F3.1070007@aol.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Robbie Lindauer wrote: > > > >>The best thing about living in a fantasy world is that you get to >>make things up as you go. >> >> > >The problem with walking around with your foot in your mouth is >everything tastes like dog crap. > >Now that we are done trading insults, I invite you to study a bit >before showing what a fool you are once more. The areas of private law, >alternative dispute resolution, and arbitration are well established, >widely practiced, and constitute more of the legal work of the lawyers >in the US today than of work in government courts. > > Arbitration costs money. In an adversarial situation where a large company is suing a small consumer or vice versa, the party with the more money will try to force upon the party with the lesser amount of money the more expensive option(s) in hopes that this will force them to settle on their terms and/or force them out of business. This is the nature of adversarial court situations. This was the point I meant to illustrate in the Walmart example, perhaps you didn't understand what happened? Say you and I are in a court conflict and I know that my court-costs are fixed (because I employ lawyers full time). And I know that yours are not. I regard your chance of winning in direct proportion to your ability to plead your case and bring the matter to a decision. I will do everything in my power to make sure that doesn't happen - I'll file motion upon motion, hold conference upon conference, withhold discovery, appeal rulings, hold arbitration sessions for the specific purpose of making you and your lawyers attend at their hourly rate - simply in order to make it obvious that it's going to be very expensive for you to pursue your case against me. Assuming I'm simultaneously rich and intelligent, I'll employ better lawyers than you can afford anyway.... Court is war, the ones with the bigger guns win. Arbitration, the mandatory settlement conference, preliminary settlement conferences, etc., are all just steps along the way for the wealthier party to simply force their opponents to spend more money. Only in cases where there is a parity of resources on both sides are those conferences relevant since the threat on both sides is equivalent. But when one side has more money in a legal battle, they're more likely to win NO MATTER WHAT the cause of their case - witness criminal cases against wealthy people where the states' limited resources are put up against billionaires and the obvious cases where a poor person wronged by a wealthy person simply hasn't got the resources to take them to court at all. The your la-la-land where people can afford medical and legal insurance and the legal insurance that will be -good- (better than our current medical insurance situation?) and where the legal insurance that wealthy people carry is on par with legal insurance that the poor carry, is simply an impossibility, a pipe dream. ON THE OTHER HAND. Were legal restrictions on revenge lifted, you could pretty much guarantee that businesses would fulfill their promises and that buyers would pay since just about anyone can afford a pipe bomb or even a ground-to-air missile if needed. You'd also be much less likely to see spurious cases taken to the absolute court of revenge - only if you were really wronged would you go and blow up someone's place of business and/or someone's house. Robbie Lindauer From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Sep 12 19:35:31 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 12:35:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism - a search fo rmeaning... In-Reply-To: <4325D3F3.1070007@aol.com> Message-ID: <20050912193531.9576.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Robert Lindauer wrote: > Arbitration costs money. In an adversarial situation where a large > company is suing a small consumer or vice versa, the party with the > more money will try to force upon the party with the lesser amount of > money the more expensive option(s) in hopes that this will force them > to settle on their terms and/or force them out of business. This is > the nature of adversarial court situations. This was the point I meant > to illustrate in the Walmart example, perhaps you didn't understand > what happened? What makes you think that government courts are not adversarial? If you admit they are, then you have no point of dispute here, because there is no distinction on that detail. Furthermore, government court proceedings are more expensive than alternative dispute resolution, which is why they are encouraged by the overburdened government courts. The reason for this is that arbitrators tend to look poorly on snow-job tactics and are more agressive at finding out the facts and issuing a ruling than in pussyfooting around on technicalities, since the arbitrator is paid on his case rate, not a lifetime salary as government judges are. Additionally, if you are a wealthy corp who has wronged me, a consumer or employee, there are plenty of lawyers with deep pockets who take on cases on a contingency basis. Contingency fee representation ensures quality lawyering, as your lawyer only gets paid if you win. A salary attorney on the company payroll doesn't have the same degree of incentive. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Mon Sep 12 19:42:58 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:42:58 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI - Discussing Ideas and Debating them Message-ID: <380-220059112194258763@M2W055.mail2web.com> From: Dirk >Well, the origins of Transhumanism go back before ExI. >Back in the mid-70s we referred to ourselves as "Immortalists" and were >talking about such technologies as computer interfacing to the brain and >uploading. I doubt we were the first to do so. Yah, but immortalists called themselves immortalists. >Was ExI the first org that could call itself Transhumanist (and no, just >renaming something does not count). Yes indeed it was. >And to answer another comment on my suggestion for splitting the list, I >just threw it in as a possibility. >If sub-categories were created I don't believe they would work simply >because ExI-Chat would undermine their effectiveness. I think Giulio is right. And, the transcolloquium could be used for formal meetings on topics. Natasha Natasha Vita-More -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From robgobblin at aol.com Mon Sep 12 20:26:03 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 10:26:03 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism - a search fo rmeaning... In-Reply-To: <20050912193531.9576.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050912193531.9576.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4325E45B.9010500@aol.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >--- Robert Lindauer wrote: > > > >>Arbitration costs money. In an adversarial situation where a large >>company is suing a small consumer or vice versa, the party with the >>more money will try to force upon the party with the lesser amount of >>money the more expensive option(s) in hopes that this will force them >>to settle on their terms and/or force them out of business. This is >>the nature of adversarial court situations. This was the point I >> >> >meant > > >>to illustrate in the Walmart example, perhaps you didn't understand >>what happened? >> >> > >What makes you think that government courts are not adversarial? If you >admit they are, then you have no point of dispute here, because there >is no distinction on that detail. > > Your constant lack of understanding is astounding. >Furthermore, government court proceedings are more expensive than >alternative dispute resolution, > Not really, ADR generally is just a step along the way to the more expensive proceeding BECAUSE they are just another weapon used by the powerful in their quest to mitigate their losses against the weak. > which is why they are encouraged by the >overburdened government courts. The reason for this is that arbitrators >tend to look poorly on snow-job tactics and are more agressive at >finding out the facts and issuing a ruling than in pussyfooting around >on technicalities, since the arbitrator is paid on his case rate, not a >lifetime salary as government judges are. > > Remember that arbitrators CAN'T resolve a matter. Even with an existing binding arbitration clause, a good lawyer can wind the matter up in court. Then they'll use ADR as a means of running up the cost of their opponents. It's a pure and simple war-tool, nothing more. >Additionally, if you are a wealthy corp who has wronged me, a consumer >or employee, there are plenty of lawyers with deep pockets who take on >cases on a contingency basis. > Not for $500 of damages, it's not worth their time. Most causes are like this - someone sells a faulty saw and refuses to take it back or someone sells a lemon to someone and refuses to give the money back or take an exchange, etc. Lawyers don't take these cases until there's a decent class action in it for them. So, if you have that list of lawyers who'll take contingency cases for less than $500, please forward their names to the list. > Contingency fee representation ensures >quality lawyering, as your lawyer only gets paid if you win. A salary >attorney on the company payroll doesn't have the same degree of incentive. > > It ensures it for big-money cases, not little-money cases. Lawyers scrounging for half a $500 settlement are not likely to be as good as 300,000/year salaried lawyers or retainer-based law firms that a large corporation -should- and usually does employ. Big-money lawyers like the corporate attorneys for WalMart aren't making chump change and they're practically guaranteed to be among the best lawyers in the country, unless WalMart is stupid. Do you think the people who run WalMart are stupid? Robbie From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 12 20:52:43 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 13:52:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropic (was: Extropy and libertarianism) In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050912071940.02b87958@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <20050912205243.29311.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> --- Natasha Vita-More wrote: > At 04:14 PM 9/11/2005, Dirk wrote: > > >What if the extropic is *not* the most efficacious > path to Transhumanity? > > Good question. Let's discuss extropic then. Well Dirk, if extropy is the opposite of entropy, then suggesting there are other paths to transhumanity other than the extropic path suggests there is an entropic path to transhumanity. Can you envision one and describe it. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Sep 12 21:07:39 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:07:39 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropic (was: Extropy and libertarianism) In-Reply-To: <20050912205243.29311.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050912071940.02b87958@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <20050912205243.29311.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/12/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > > --- Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > > At 04:14 PM 9/11/2005, Dirk wrote: > > > > >What if the extropic is *not* the most efficacious > > path to Transhumanity? > > > > Good question. Let's discuss extropic then. > > Well Dirk, if extropy is the opposite of entropy, then > suggesting there are other paths to transhumanity > other than the extropic path suggests there is an > entropic path to transhumanity. Can you envision one > and describe it. A Chinese National Socialist dictatorship dedicated to creating Transhumanity. Will that do? Or is that still Extropic? Extropic (in your definition) does not imply freedom, nor free markets, nor anything really if that is the only definition used. In fact, the opposite of Extropic then becomes Entropic - tending towards disorder. Hence the most Extropic (in your definition) form of govt is the collective dictatorship which provides the most order (ie the opposite of disorder). Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Mon Sep 12 21:58:58 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:58:58 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] New Orleans - A 40 Year Disaster Message-ID: <380-220059112215858715@M2W094.mail2web.com> THE TRUTH ABOUT NEW ORLEANS An Unnatural Disaster: A Hurricane Exposes the Man-Made Disaster of the Welfare State by Robert Tracinski Sep 02, 2005 "It has taken four long days for state and federal officials to figure out how to deal with the disaster in New Orleans. I can't blame them, because it has also taken me four long days to figure out what is going on there. The reason is that the events there make no sense if you think that we are confronting a natural disaster. " Read on ... http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-9_4_05_RT.html http://tiadaily.com/php-bin/news/showArticle.php?id=1026 -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From robgobblin at aol.com Mon Sep 12 22:11:21 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 12:11:21 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropic (was: Extropy and libertarianism) In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050912071940.02b87958@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <20050912205243.29311.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4325FD09.4040706@aol.com> Dirk Bruere wrote: > > > On 9/12/05, *The Avantguardian* > wrote: > > > > --- Natasha Vita-More > wrote: > > > At 04:14 PM 9/11/2005, Dirk wrote: > > > > >What if the extropic is *not* the most efficacious > > path to Transhumanity? > > > > Good question. Let's discuss extropic then. > > Well Dirk, if extropy is the opposite of entropy, then > suggesting there are other paths to transhumanity > other than the extropic path suggests there is an > entropic path to transhumanity. Can you envision one > and describe it. > > > A Chinese National Socialist dictatorship dedicated to creating > Transhumanity. > Will that do? > Or is that still Extropic? Aren't the early science fiction visions of AI "accidental" - where either some mad scientist kind of lucks out and makes a super-being (Frankenstein or Metropolis) OR where some odd conglomeration of computer-networks combine to "accidentally" create something artificially super-intelligent. Here we have a kind of disorderly thing (consciousness) arising from a disorderly state of affairs (e.g. the net or something). The mad-scientist vision is compelling, though - one can imagine the -final mile- being pulled off by an outsider - some hacker bent on creating a system to break into the IRS or something uses some open-source AI system to do it and accidentally modifies it in just the right way, etc. The stuff of good books, anyway. R From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Sep 12 22:32:27 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:32:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropic (was: Extropy and libertarianism) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050912223227.40366.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > On 9/12/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > > Well Dirk, if extropy is the opposite of entropy, then > > suggesting there are other paths to transhumanity > > other than the extropic path suggests there is an > > entropic path to transhumanity. Can you envision one > > and describe it. > > > A Chinese National Socialist dictatorship dedicated to creating > Transhumanity. > Will that do? > Or is that still Extropic? > > Extropic (in your definition) does not imply freedom, nor free > markets, nor anything really if that is the only definition used. > In fact, the opposite of Extropic then becomes Entropic - tending > towards disorder. Hence the most Extropic (in your definition) form > of govt is the collective dictatorship which provides the most order > (ie the opposite of disorder). This represents a poor understanding of both entropy and extropy. While it is a common gutter definition that entropy is a measure of disorder, more accurate definitions are: a) the amount of energy in a closed thermodynamic system that is unavailable to do work. Typically because it is degraded to an ultimate ground state of inert uniformity. b) the amount of information loss in communication. Stating that extropy is the opposite of any of these is a bit off, as well as a misunderstanding of the thermodynamic idea of disorder or ground state. Firstly your idea that a fascist/socialist tyranny would impose the most order and is therefore the most extropic is both simplistic and false because such a supposition would only be at least partly true if all human beings were exactly alike. As they are not, the supposition falls. Given the genetic, phsychological and intellectual diversity of human beings (and other future intelligent entities), it is an inescapable truth that a one-size fits all policy typical of socialist/fascist tyranny, applied by force on such a diverse population, would cause the most waste of energy and resources, and therefore create the most entropy. Secondly, given the tendency of humanity toward genetic and other diversity, the proper systemic way to minimize entropy is to maximize the number of solutions that each individual can choose to implement to their own unique situations. Complexity is not entropy, it does not cause entropy. Complexity generates spontaneous order in many unique and unforseeable ways, and through those spontaneous structures of order, makes maximum use of energy and resources and information. The presumption of central planning is that one brain or subset of brains can think more creatively and with more complexity than a greater quantity of brains, that a monolithic mind can centrally plan the work of all other minds than by allowing a chaotic system to create spontaneous orders and temporary equilibria of maximum efficiency. Information experts can clearly tell you that the closer you get to a perfect simulation of a system, the closer you get to requiring the same amount of processing that a natural system requires in reality, but due to Heisenberg, will never perfectly simulate it. This obviously leads to the logical conclusion that central planning of any kind cannot work for a sufficiently large or complex population of unique individuals. This chain of reasoning explains why central planning works pretty well for a group as small as a family, tribe or neighborhood, not as well for a community, poorly for a region or state, and terribly for a whole nation or planet. As Jonah Goldberg is quoted as saying, "This is why I'm an anarchist internationally, a libertarian nationally, a republican at the state level and a fascist in my community." In the future, the degree of diversity and complexity in humanity, genetically, psychologically, intellectually, and technologically, is only going to expand exponentially. Those on the bleeding edge will accelerate faster into the future than those further back in the wave. Following the great extinction of natural species caused by industrialization, there will be a response of an explosion of diversity in human speciation in the coming centuries. For this reason, there will be less and less room for fascism/socialism in the lives of the average person: such philosophies cannot continue to provide solutions for people even at the local level. How can one polity decide fairly such things as land and water use issues for intelligent species of water dwellers, plant people, homo sapiens ruminatus, cat people, human birds, rock people, nano people, space people, and energy people? It can't. The only solution to such vast and diverse conflicts of interest are open and free markets, to allow all types of people to peacefully determine the best and fairest use of all resources according to their needs and capabilities, thereby minimizing entropy in the human social system deep into the future. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Sep 12 22:36:47 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:36:47 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] New Orleans - A 40 Year Disaster In-Reply-To: <380-220059112215858715@M2W094.mail2web.com> References: <380-220059112215858715@M2W094.mail2web.com> Message-ID: On 9/12/05, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > THE TRUTH ABOUT NEW ORLEANS > An Unnatural Disaster: A Hurricane Exposes the Man-Made Disaster of the > Welfare State > > by Robert Tracinski > Sep 02, 2005 > > "It has taken four long days for state and federal officials to figure out > how to deal with the disaster in New Orleans. I can't blame them, because > it has also taken me four long days to figure out what is going on there. > The reason is that the events there make no sense if you think that we are > confronting a natural disaster. " > > Read on ... > > http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-9_4_05_RT.html > http://tiadaily.com/php-bin/news/showArticle.php?id=1026 > > And here's my succinct analysis New Orleans = Mogadishu Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon Sep 12 22:53:58 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 08:53:58 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Richer more human communications - who uses what tech? Message-ID: <00a701c5b7ec$dc5acbf0$8998e03c@homepc> I've often thought that it would be good to be able to easily communicate with folks on this list in a way that is more natural, more like face to face communication. I'd like to be able to talk to some of the folk that post to this list in such a way without having to actually leave home to do it. I don't use any sort of video conferencing, or voice over IP, or similar technologies yet myself simply because, I suspect the effort involved in my setting them up for myself to use hasn't been obviously worthwhile yet. Part of that assessment has been based on a sense that there isn't much use having even a telephone before it achieves some degree of standardisation in technology or unless you know that there is at least someone or someones that you'd *really* like to talk to enough to bother with the tech setup. Anyway to the point, how useable, affordable, standard are the options for face to face communication between people from their homes with each other internationally at present? Does anyone here make use of these technologies already? I'd obviously like to communicate cheaply and efficiently with friends in Australia, the US, Europe, Canada, not to give an exhaustive list of countries but just because I suspect that there are people in those countries that I'd already "chat" too if the tech was easy, and cheap enough. Brett Paatsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Sep 13 00:33:28 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:33:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] New Orleans - A 40 Year Disaster In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050913003328.74666.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > On 9/12/05, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > > > THE TRUTH ABOUT NEW ORLEANS > > An Unnatural Disaster: A Hurricane Exposes the Man-Made Disaster of > the > > Welfare State > > > > by Robert Tracinski > > Sep 02, 2005 > > > > "It has taken four long days for state and federal officials to > figure out > > how to deal with the disaster in New Orleans. I can't blame them, > because > > it has also taken me four long days to figure out what is going on > there. > > The reason is that the events there make no sense if you think that > we are > > confronting a natural disaster. " > > > > Read on ... > > > > http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-9_4_05_RT.html > > http://tiadaily.com/php-bin/news/showArticle.php?id=1026 > > > > > And here's my succinct analysis > New Orleans = Mogadishu Worse. Imagine if Mogadishans had come to expect food aid shipments from the west as their right. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 13 05:25:30 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:25:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropic (was: Extropy and libertarianism) In-Reply-To: <20050912223227.40366.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050913052530.71283.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > This represents a poor understanding of both entropy > and extropy. While > it is a common gutter definition that entropy is a > measure of disorder, > more accurate definitions are: > > a) the amount of energy in a closed thermodynamic > system that is > unavailable to do work. Typically because it is > degraded to an ultimate > ground state of inert uniformity. > b) the amount of information loss in communication. I understand what you are saying, Mike, in that the popular definition of entropy is NOT thermodynamic entropy. But I would not go so far as to say that it is the gutter definition of entropy anymore than I would say that calling gravity a force is a gutter definition of gravity. In doing so, you are succumbing to a historical revisionism of science, that you would not condone in regards to politics. The concept of entropy was a mathematical abstraction invented by a 19th century mathemetician named Boltzmann. He defined entropy as a number proportional to the natural logarithm of a virtually infinite (and thus unmeasurable) number of possible arrangements of the microscopic constituents (microstates)of a system that correspond to an actually measurable macrostate of a system. This is the MATHEMATICAL definition of entropy in statistical mechanics. Since disordered states are much more likely to spontaneously occur than ordered states because there simply are MORE disordered states than ordered states, this mathematical definition of entropy is self consistent and still valid. Scientists that came after Boltzmann applied Boltmann's mathematical abstraction to the physical concepts of energy, heat, and work and formulated the laws of thermodynamics. Thus thermodynamic entropy is the application of the mathematical abstraction known as entropy to describe the energy of a chemical process that becomes unavailable to do work. To say that simply because our modern understanding this "unavailable work" has become more sophisticated than Boltzmann's simple mathematical abstraction, that Boltzmann was therefore wrong is grossly unfair. After all mathematics is its own self-consistent truth regardless of any applicability to physical processes. While gravity, similarly, may be more accurately described as a curvature of spacetime, this does render Newton's description of universal gravity, based on the calculus he invented, wrong . . . just less accurate. After all, Newton's law of universal gravitation is still rather reliable in regards to gravity as it is encountered by most people in day to day life. Boltzmann's mathematical description of entropy was further applied to information theory and thus Shannon's entropy, which you also describe, came about. That Shannon's entropy and thermodynamic entropy are not the same thing, does not change the fact that both are derived from a mathematical abstraction that Boltzmann called entropy. And Boltzmann's contribution was way too valuable to be thrown in the gutter at the hands of some guys that like to stroke their egos because they know more about thermodynamics today than some genius that lived 150 years ago. So IMHO the "gutter" definition of entropy as "disorder" was actually the orginal conception of entropy and the two conceptions of entropy you speak of came about later. I for one am a proponent of considering those that first define a concept to be the highest authority on that concept. Thus to say that Boltzmann was wrong about entropy is like saying Marx's definition of communism was wrong or that Lucas` portrayal of Darth Vader was wrong. Thus I for one think that Max More's definition of extropy is the "true" definition because he came up with it in the first place. Most revisionists at least have the courtesy to wait until the creator of a concept dies before they start pissing in it. > For this reason, there will be less and less room > for fascism/socialism > in the lives of the average person: such > philosophies cannot continue > to provide solutions for people even at the local > level. How can one > polity decide fairly such things as land and water > use issues for > intelligent species of water dwellers, plant people, > homo sapiens > ruminatus, cat people, human birds, rock people, > nano people, space > people, and energy people? It can't. The only > solution to such vast and > diverse conflicts of interest are open and free > markets, to allow all > types of people to peacefully determine the best and > fairest use of all > resources according to their needs and capabilities, > thereby minimizing > entropy in the human social system deep into the > future. All that I have said in defense of Boltzmann and More notwithstanding, I agree with you that thermodynamics is not an appropriate way to describe polities and social systems. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From pgptag at gmail.com Tue Sep 13 07:36:20 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 09:36:20 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropic (was: Extropy and libertarianism) In-Reply-To: <20050913052530.71283.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050912223227.40366.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20050913052530.71283.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <470a3c5205091300361fc4651f@mail.gmail.com> Well... I wish to define the concept "bababology". It is the science of that planet they discovered last week around a nearby star. I don't remember what they called it, but it doesn't matter because I am hereby renaming it bababa. My first bababology statement is "bababa is made of blue cheese". Seriously, I think regardless of whether one is or is not the originator of a concept, what matters most is saying things which make sense. G. On 9/13/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > I for one am a proponent of considering those that > first define a concept to be the highest authority on > that concept. Thus to say that Boltzmann was wrong > about entropy is like saying Marx's definition of > communism was wrong or that Lucas` portrayal of Darth > Vader was wrong. Thus I for one think that Max More's > definition of extropy is the "true" definition because > he came up with it in the first place. Most > revisionists at least have the courtesy to wait until > the creator of a concept dies before they start > pissing in it. From max at maxmore.com Tue Sep 13 16:56:46 2005 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 11:56:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Prophet of Unintended Consequences Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050913115423.02cb5c68@pop-server.austin.rr.com> The new issue of strategy+business has an interesting and substantial article on Jay Forrester, founder of system dynamics and source of the (bad) model that informed the 70's book, Limits to Growth. Here's my commentary with link to the article (and other relevant pieces): "The Prophet of Unintended Consequences" http://www.manyworlds.com/exploreCO.aspx?coid=CO980516254398 Max _______________________________________________________ Max More, Ph.D. max at maxmore.com or max at extropy.org http://www.maxmore.com Strategic Philosopher Chairman, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org _______________________________________________________ From patrickfallon at gmail.com Tue Sep 13 21:35:04 2005 From: patrickfallon at gmail.com (Pat Fallon) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:35:04 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] OIL: Albertan tar sands, was Peak Oil? In-Reply-To: References: <20050904153220.20432.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20050904173501.38861.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3ea7740d05091314354772a2ce@mail.gmail.com> then there's oil shale.... Since 1981, Shell researchers at the company's division of "unconventional resources" have been spending their own money trying to figure out how to get usable energy out of oil shale. Judging by the presentation the Rocky Mountain News heard this week, they think they've got it. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_405\ 1709,00.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Sep 14 06:49:03 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 08:49:03 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] OIL: Albertan tar sands, was Peak Oil? In-Reply-To: <3ea7740d05091314354772a2ce@mail.gmail.com> References: <20050904153220.20432.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20050904173501.38861.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3ea7740d05091314354772a2ce@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20050914064903.GB2249@leitl.org> On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:35:04PM -0400, Pat Fallon wrote: > then there's oil shale.... > Since 1981, Shell researchers at the company's division of "unconventional > resources" have been spending their own money trying to figure out how to > get usable energy out of oil shale. Judging by the presentation the Rocky > Mountain News heard this week, they think they've got it. It is a really dumb idea to try extracting usable energy from oil shale. It is a somewhat less dumb idea to extract hydrocarbons from oil shale using thermal output of specially designed nuclear reactors. If there weren't any coal, gas, or biomass anywhere else in the world it'd be an option. > > http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_405\ > 1709,00.html -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From discwuzit at yahoo.com Wed Sep 14 13:21:32 2005 From: discwuzit at yahoo.com (John B) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 06:21:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: wta-talk Digest, Vol 21, Issue 27 In-Reply-To: <200509141100.j8EB03RO021364@mx1a.bltc.net> Message-ID: <20050914132132.48336.qmail@web54508.mail.yahoo.com> Pardon the double post, but seemed most appropriate as both ExI and WTA are being discussed. > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 19:25:47 -0500 > From: Natasha Vita-More > Subject: RE: [wta-talk] Re: "libertarian jerks" > At 03:01 PM 9/13/2005, James wrote: > > (quoting JohnB) > > > transhumanist camps - 'socialist' WTA and > > > 'libertarian' ExI - > > > > Just to point out again: > > > > 1) Neither organization defines itself politically. > > ExI now specifically disavows libertarianism. > > "Disavows" is not the best word to use. It is true, > however, that ExI is now aggressively pursuing and > dealing with unhealthy misinformation that > has been used against it to position it politically. Folks, say what you will. I can only call 'em as I see 'em, and to me the proof's in the mail traffic. I have seen very little about the problems of trashumanism within socialism from WTA, and (until recently) very little about the problems of transhumanism within libertarianism from ExI. Instead, I *do* see a lot of advocacy for policies that fit into the stereotypes regarding each organization. Typically - from what I've seen - the WTA is behind large gov't solutions and ExI behind 'free market' solutions. Oversimplifying a bit, but in general, there's a pretty clear trend - still in my opinion. Honestly, these organizations are yours. If your organizations like a libertarian or socialist slant to transhumanistic thought, by all means go for it. If not, not. I'm just asking, still as an interested third-party, that you refrain from taking potshots back and forth. Discuss? Please do! Concepts tend to grow better the further they get distributed. But that's discussion, looking for solutions together, not stabbing the other guy in the back. Sincerely, John B. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Sep 14 16:02:21 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:02:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] OIL: Albertan tar sands, was Peak Oil? In-Reply-To: <20050914064903.GB2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20050914160221.83512.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:35:04PM -0400, Pat Fallon wrote: > > then there's oil shale.... > > Since 1981, Shell researchers at the company's division of > "unconventional > > resources" have been spending their own money trying to figure out > how to > > get usable energy out of oil shale. Judging by the presentation the > Rocky > > Mountain News heard this week, they think they've got it. > > It is a really dumb idea to try extracting usable energy from oil > shale. > It is a somewhat less dumb idea to extract hydrocarbons from oil > shale > using thermal output of specially designed nuclear reactors. If there > weren't any coal, gas, or biomass anywhere else in the world it'd > be an option. Umm...you state your opinion, but you don't give any facts to back it up. The article specifically contradicts you on this point, if you mean it's dumb because of the economics - and the people actually working on this have far more credibility. Or do you mean something else? > > http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_4051709,00.html From eugen at leitl.org Wed Sep 14 16:25:10 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:25:10 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] OIL: Albertan tar sands, was Peak Oil? In-Reply-To: <20050914160221.83512.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050914064903.GB2249@leitl.org> <20050914160221.83512.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050914162510.GD2249@leitl.org> On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 09:02:21AM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote: > Umm...you state your opinion, but you don't give any facts to back it > up. The article specifically contradicts you on this point, if you "The energy balance is favorable; under a conservative life-cycle analysis, it should yield 3.5 units of energy for every 1 unit used in production." =Let's burn some fossil hydrocarbons so we have process heat to extract fossil hydrocarbons so we can burn those fossil hydrocarbons, too. This is not very good. Using nuclear process heat to extract fossil hydrocarbons just for chemical feedstock is only moderately better. Also: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=oil+shale+problem&btnG=Google+Search > mean it's dumb because of the economics - and the people actually > working on this have far more credibility. Or do you mean something I don't have any credibility whatsoever. I just saw if on the internets. > else? Else. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Sep 14 17:02:04 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 10:02:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] OIL: Albertan tar sands, was Peak Oil? In-Reply-To: <20050914162510.GD2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20050914170204.68862.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > "The energy balance is favorable; under a conservative life-cycle > analysis, it should yield 3.5 units of energy for every 1 unit used > in production." > > =Let's burn some fossil hydrocarbons so we have process heat to > extract > fossil hydrocarbons so we can burn those fossil hydrocarbons, too. > This is not very good. Using nuclear process heat to extract fossil > hydrocarbons just for chemical feedstock is only moderately better. Ah. True - but it strikes me that solar heaters would be ideal for this sort of thing. Easy to port from field to field (moreso than nuclear or even fossil fueled, with no reactor or combustion chamber), no waste products (after the solar panels have been manufactured), et cetera and so forth. > Also: > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=oil+shale+problem&btnG=Google+Search This wouldn't necessarily reflect very recent advances, such as the one in the article, which might not yet have been widely written up (or at least made it into Google's cache yet). From John-C-Wright at sff.net Wed Sep 14 17:34:31 2005 From: John-C-Wright at sff.net (John-C-Wright at sff.net) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 12:34:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public! Film at eleven. Message-ID: <200509141734.j8EHYZf08446@tick.javien.com> The esteemed Mr. Stross writes: "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 hope it would not be improper for me to wonder whether, until the technology is available, I might suggest avoiding unwanted conception can be addressed, at least in part, by normative and legal considerations. In so far as human behavior can be modified to make prudent provision for the human sexual process, all human societies have adopted, with minor variations, the same rule: no sex outside of marriage. In the heritage of the West, we have (until recently) enjoyed a strict version of this rule: no sexual behavior that defies reproductive purposes. (The reasoning for this rule was to habituate the society to check the sexual appetite, which, if led unchecked, leads to tragedy.) While it may be possible, with contraceptives, to engage in the reproductive act without purposing reproduction, it is not possible, when following a rule of chastity, to bear a child without a socially-recognized father. Even these days, in Anglo-American law it is still a recognized principle (albeit under attack in some jurisdictions) that a husband cannot call into question the paternity of his wife?s children. Chastity, hence, has the social effect of protecting women, in so far as possible, from shouldering the cost and care of childrearing alone. Since I was raised during the height of the sexual revolution, the idea that prudent provision should be made for the human sexual process was an idea so despised that I never once heard it expressed, not by anyone. Mr. Stross also comments: ?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.? At the risk of sounding like a Christian, let me say: Amen, brother. It is embarrassing to say this, but the majority of reactions to my comments on this list seem to be based on worries about my sinister (or contemptible) Christian faith. I have been bored to tears by one too many replies which are ad Hominem and utterly irrelevant to the argument at hand. Therefore allow me to allay this worries with a personal aside: I rejected the philosophy of the sexual revolution not long after I got married. For purely secular and prudential reasons, I realized what a foolish risk to a man?s happiness is even the attempt at non-marital sex, and how demeaning to women: it draws her most profound instincts out of alignment with her prudence, and urges her to love a man who will not vow his love faithful. I cannot think of a greater insult to the feminine spirit. The only other option is to coarsen and eventually deaden that idea that ties love and sex together, the mystery called romance. I became an anti-abortion partisan when I became a father, and these events happened years and decades before my conversion to Christianity. The logic I used to support the decisions in both cases was entirely secular. To make the worries of my anti-Christian friends seem all the more unwarranted, allow me a second personal aside: My adored wife until quite recently was pro-choice. Her reasoning was this: (1) the question of when human life or ?personhood? begins is a religious rather than a scientific question (2) the laws of the land should be neutral toward religion insofar as is the need to maintain public order permits (3) outlawing abortion would be an imposition of a religious doctrine, and hence would not be neutral. My wife was and is a church-going God-fearing woman, born and raised in the faith. She also was a proponent of free love: she thought sex was permitted between couples truly in love, despite any lack of formal celebration of that love, or any exchange of vows. To join her local church, she had to sign a document denouncing pre-marital sex, which she could not in good conscience sign. It was not until her cold-hearted secular husband talked her into seeing the old-hearted logic of chastity, that she could bring herself to sign. I wish someone had been there to witness the irony of a zealous atheist arguing with his Christian wife that premarital sex was immoral. John C. Wright From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 14 18:07:52 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:07:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] OIL: Albertan tar sands, was Peak Oil? In-Reply-To: <20050914170204.68862.qmail@web81607.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050914180752.40820.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > "The energy balance is favorable; under a > conservative life-cycle > > analysis, it should yield 3.5 units of energy for > every 1 unit used > > in production." > > > > =Let's burn some fossil hydrocarbons so we have > process heat to > > extract > > fossil hydrocarbons so we can burn those fossil > hydrocarbons, too. > > This is not very good. Using nuclear process heat > to extract fossil > > hydrocarbons just for chemical feedstock is only > moderately better. > > Ah. True - but it strikes me that solar heaters > would be ideal for > this sort of thing. Easy to port from field to > field (moreso than > nuclear or even fossil fueled, with no reactor or > combustion chamber), > no waste products (after the solar panels have been > manufactured), et > cetera and so forth. I like the idea of solar powered heaters better for getting oil out shale, but every advance that aids in the burning of yet more hydrocarbons is an advance to the rear. That is, to say, a step backward. We know the health and environmental impact of burning hyrocarbons, yet we do it any way. And the oil companies are probably not going to rest until, we have burned every last drop of oil on the planet. All the carbon that has gone to ground over a billion years released back into the atmosphere in less than a millenium. And with all the deforestation it will be a long time before all that carbon gets scrubbed back out of our atmosphere. And if there are abiotic oil sources, we will end up with more carbon in the atmosphere than was ever there before. All in all a losing proposition as hydrocarbons will never get us to the stars. 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 - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From John-C-Wright at sff.net Wed Sep 14 18:08:28 2005 From: John-C-Wright at sff.net (John-C-Wright at sff.net) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 13:08:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Famous author self destructs in public! Film at eleven. Message-ID: <200509141808.j8EI8Wf11903@tick.javien.com> Mr. Paatsch writes: "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." Sir, where do you get the impression that I have not studied this matter? I have looked at your pictures: they don't show me anything I didn't learn in High School biology. I know the difference between the animal and vegetable pole of a developing organism. I even know the name of the glycoprotein, created at the two-cell stage, which aids the compaction process at the 8-cell stage (the process by which the blastomeres glue themselves together, flattening and defining their inside-outside. This is the earliest move from totipotency to multipotency). It is called Uvomorulin. The scientific question here is merely whether you picture shows an organism (living, self-regulating, unity) and whether is it of the species homo sapiens. The scientific question is settled. The metaphysical dimension of the question comes in only when we attempt to differentiate the metaphysical properties of homo sapien (his right to be protected by laws, his "personhood") from the biological characteristics. No matter how long I stare at a picture, I will not see a metaphysical property like 'personhood'. It is not as if the 'right to life' were a cluster of molecules we can detect with a microscope forming in the notocord. The idea that this debate can be settled by looking at a photograph is a mischaracterization as to what the debate is about. You greatly underestimate your opposition if you assume his position cannot be held by anyone save the ignorant and the willfully ignorant. John C. Wright From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Sep 14 19:37:40 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 12:37:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] OIL: Albertan tar sands, was Peak Oil? In-Reply-To: <20050914160221.83512.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050914193740.29091.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > > It is a really dumb idea to try extracting usable energy from oil > > shale. > > It is a somewhat less dumb idea to extract hydrocarbons from oil > > shale > > using thermal output of specially designed nuclear reactors. If > there > > weren't any coal, gas, or biomass anywhere else in the world it'd > > be an option. > > Umm...you state your opinion, but you don't give any facts to back it > up. The article specifically contradicts you on this point, if you > mean it's dumb because of the economics - and the people actually > working on this have far more credibility. Or do you mean something > else? > > > > > http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_4051709,00.html Well, $30/bbl production cost American oil certainly isn't quite the same as $2/bbl production cost Saudi oil. On the plus side most of that $30 is going into the bank accounts of Americans and not being profligately squandered by Saudi sheiks with too much theology and not enough motivation to get a life. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Sep 14 19:52:01 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 12:52:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] OIL: Albertan tar sands, was Peak Oil? In-Reply-To: <20050914180752.40820.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050914195202.5360.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > > I like the idea of solar powered heaters better for > getting oil out shale, but every advance that aids in > the burning of yet more hydrocarbons is an advance to > the rear. That is, to say, a step backward. We know > the health and environmental impact of burning > hyrocarbons, yet we do it any way. Firstly, it may not be a retreat of any kind. Solar heating efficiencies tend to 50-80%, primarily because it captures a much broader spectrum of solar flux, while PV ranges only from 10-36% efficient due to its narrow band energy capture. Sunlight falling on an oil shale field is going to waste just hitting the ground, warming the air, and radiating back into space. Instead, using that energy as a sort of catalyst to release even more energy from the ground not only puts that sunlight to work, but acts as an amplifier. For example: lets say we have a 66% efficient solar heater system heating the shale. For every square meter of sunlight collected (at 1 kW/m^2), we recover 3.5 kW worth of natural gas and light crude from the ground. Putting the recovered oil through a reformer process to produce H2 for transport with the natural gas produces additional excess heat to put back into oil shale heating, plus carbon which can be pumped back into the well at retirement, or catalyzed with O2 for energy, with the resulting CO2 being retained for pumping into deep tar sands for further oil recovery. There is no reason these processes cannot be used to recover a lot of clean energy and fuel from previously unexploitable deposits. > And the oil > companies are probably not going to rest until, we > have burned every last drop of oil on the planet. All > the carbon that has gone to ground over a billion > years released back into the atmosphere in less than a > millenium. And with all the deforestation it will be a > long time before all that carbon gets scrubbed back > out of our atmosphere. And if there are abiotic oil > sources, we will end up with more carbon in the > atmosphere than was ever there before. All in all a > losing proposition as hydrocarbons will never get us > to the stars. > > > 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 - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From John-C-Wright at sff.net Wed Sep 14 19:53:57 2005 From: John-C-Wright at sff.net (John-C-Wright at sff.net) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:53:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Famous author self destructs in public! Film at eleven. Message-ID: <200509141954.j8EJsNf21753@tick.javien.com> Mr. Smigrodzki asks a proper and difficult question: "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." I respectfully decline to agree. Once the child exists, obviously, the duty is immediate rather than theoretical: before conception, the child is theoretical?he may or may not ever be conceived. Even if you and I were to decide that theoretical duties do not yet attach, it would have no necessary bearing on whether or not the duties exist once they attach. The question here is twofold: first, whether a man has duties linking him to his children even before they are conceived (pre-prenatal, I suppose we can call it), and second, what degree of attention and care need be paid to those duties? I submit to your judgment that the answer to the second question depends on the answer to the first. Do you agree that the negligence of a man who takes no provision for the future is less the more unlikely is that future? For example, in my judgment, I would say that it shows a reckless disregard of human life to fire a loaded weapon into a house that may or may not be empty; It is negligent not to wear a helmet before mounting a motorcycle; it is careless, but not negligent not to wear a helmet before mounting a bicycle; it is not careless for a Virginian to walk abroad without his elephant gun. This is because that a house might contain persons is likely, and the damage from gunfire severe; motorcycle accidents are likely and the damage is severe; bicycle spills are likely, but the damage far less severe; elephant attacks in Virginia are unheard-of. So we have a rough spectrum of recklessness to negligence, to carelessness. If a young woman with no prospect of marriage elects not to smoke because she fears for the health of children she has not yet conceived, this strikes me a careful, though I would not say a maiden has a duty to avoid cigarettes just based on that likelihood. A pregnant woman runs a greater risk of harm to the child if she smokes: I would call it negligent of her not to foreswear her habit for nine months. A pregnant woman who does not give up her crack habit for nine months, and runs the risk of birthing an addicted baby, shows a recklessness toward the young life in her care. Applying this same line of reasoning, I would conclude that it would be careful and prudent to avoid those things likely to cause harm even to generations not yet conceived. I would say it only becomes a matter of duty when the carelessness is so great, or the danger so large, to make it negligence. I will also point out that most moral systems make some provision for the claims of generations yet to come, and say we should make reasonable provision for them. Anyone who contributes to a museum or to a sober conservationist movement, anyone who wishes to grant our great-grandchildren the benefit of life under his nation?s laws and institutions, is acting from a similar consideration. ?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.? This depends on what we mean by ?material?. In the first case the child exists and in the second it does not. The difference is between theoretical and actual. A man who joins the priesthood is not imprudent if he makes no provision in his will for his heirs, because, in the normal course of events, he will have none. A man whose child is in the womb of his trollop is dishonorable if he does not marry her. What is unlikely in one case is actual in the other. Somewhere along the spectrum of possible to probable to likely to inevitable there is a material difference in the degree of care required to attend to our duties. Let me put it to you this way: is there a ?material? difference between prenatal and postnatal duties of care? If you say yes, I will ask you why it is acceptable to ignore my baby?s needs five minutes before he emerges from the womb, and unacceptable to ignore them five minutes after? If you say no, I will ask you whether this means both prenatal and postnatal babies must be cared-for, or whether his means both prenatal and postnatal babies may be neglected? ?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.? It would certainly be a more intuitively obvious vocabulary, if we all agreed that the creatures which has ?personhood? (that is, rights properly defended at law), had ?souls? and those that did not, did not. Then we could suppose that souls were manifested by brain-activity, and argue that abortion and euthanasia were allowable either before or after brain-activity is detected, and capital punishment allowed when the actions of the convict showed his brain activity malign, and thus his soul corrupt beyond hope of human penance. However, these metaphysical speculations are beyond the scope of my present argument. I am not arguing that children have souls when they are blastocysts and therefore must be protected: I am arguing that destroying the blastocyst, or exposing it to disease or any agency that might result in a birth defect, is incompatible with a duty of prenatal care. ?So, the situation does not materially change once two cells fuse to form a zygote - the child is still a thing of the future.? Again, I suppose that depends on what you mean by ?child.? The organism we are discussing has the genetic compliment of both parents. It is either one sex or the other, XX or XY. It is clearly homo sapiens. When compaction starts, he is already differentiating from totipotency into specialized functions, i.e. therefore it is an organism. So, to recap: it has parents, it is either a ?he? or a ?she?, and it is a member of the kingdom, class, phylum, order and genus of its parents. It has various other real properties such as mass, duration and extension. You can take a photograph of him or her. It also is either healthy or unhealthy: in other words, qualitative statements which can only be made of living things can be made about it. If there is such as thing as healthy and unhealthy, then normative statements can be made: certain things can literally be said to be ?good? or ?bad? for it. In what possible sense of the word can you call this ?still a thing of the future?? Do you mean to say that that human organism, which is the child of its parents exists in a physical and normative sense, having both mass and duration, and having relationships of healthy and unhealthy, good and bad, lacks that some immaterial and metaphysical essence known as ?child-ness?? That sounds like you are saying the organism is a child only in the biological and material sense, not in the spiritual sense: in other words, you are claiming it is not a child until he gets a soul. This seems to be against the spirit of your earlier sentence. ?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.? You will excuse me if I cannot agree. We care for our children because we love them. We have a duty to care for them because some people do not love them, or their passions are in some sense disordered from nature. I would care for my child even if he were dying of an incurable disease, and certain to suffer pain that smothering him now with a pillow would prevent. Regarding only the consequences of actions is not a proper basis for moral reasoning, as it leads to absurd results. The ends do not justify the means. ?But without the capacity to suffer and anticipate death, a zygote cannot be by itself the focus of duties so defined.? I cannot agree with the standard. Are sensitive people granted a higher duty of care than insensitive people? I will remind all loyal readers of science fiction, that our hero Buck Rogers fell into suspended animation sometime in the late 1920?s while spelunking in a cave, and will not wake until the Twenty-Fifth century. He is utterly insensate. While in suspended animation, he suffers neither pain nor has he any current capacity to anticipate death. It is permissible to kill him at any point before he wakes? What about just break his leg or put out his eye? Your standard says yes. Besides, you neglect the main thrust of my argument. Nothing in my argument says the child?s humanity, awareness or personhood has any bearing on our duties of prenatal care. Do you agree that mothers have a duty of prenatal care? If so, you should regard it as negligent for a pregnant woman to expose herself to known toxins or agents that cause birth defects or miscarriage. If negligent aborticide is a breech of prenatal duties, ergo, a fortiori, deliberate aborticide is also. That is the argument you must address. Loyal science fiction readers might recall the epsilons of BRAVE NEW WORLD, who are injected while still in the womb with chemical agents to see to it that they are born severely retarded. If the retardation is sufficient, then the child will never be aware of the intelligence that was stolen from him. By the standard you have announced, this would be a morally neutral, or even acceptable act. ?Therefore, in general a parent may be held responsible for failing to fulfill his (pre-, per- or post-conception) duties only if the child is actually formed.? This depends on what we mean by ?actually formed.? You are pointing to an identifiable and individual living organism which neither sprang into being out of nothing, nor has it the capacity, if it develops, to develop into anything save a mature homo sapiens. Therefore it is an immature homo sapiens. I admit it is not manifesting its potential development at an early stage of development, but I would say that about a teenager also. ?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 anyone die naturally, there is no discussion at all. The discussion is about deaths caused by negligence or caused deliberately. The argument I put forth is that one cannot simultaneously condemn negligent miscarriage while excusing deliberate miscarriage of the same duty. ?Should the embryo be destroyed by an intentional action, again, no duties have been breached, since the victimized person never existed at all.? This is a non-sequitur. You are conflating intentional and unintentional actions. Should my house be picked up by a twister and dropped on the Wicked Witch of the East, I am in nowise responsible for the death. Should I falsely accuse my neighbor Tabitha to the Witch-finder, so that she is burned at the stake, I am complicit in her death. I welcome you comments, which seem refreshingly well mannered, considering the delicate nature of the subject matter. John C. Wright From megao at sasktel.net Wed Sep 14 19:05:42 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:05:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] OIL: Albertan tar sands, was Peak Oil? In-Reply-To: <20050914180752.40820.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050914180752.40820.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43287486.7030907@sasktel.net> Like a solar power satellite focusing its gathered energy at the site which heats the tarsands materials and extracts the hydrocarbon materials. >> >> >>Ah. True - but it strikes me that solar heaters >>would be ideal for >>this sort of thing. Easy to port from field to >>field (moreso than >>nuclear or even fossil fueled, with no reactor or >>combustion chamber), >>no waste products (after the solar panels have been >>manufactured), et >>cetera and so forth. >> >> > >I like the idea of solar powered heaters better for >getting oil out shale, but every advance that aids in >the burning of yet more hydrocarbons is an advance to >the rear. That is, to say, a step backward. We know >the health and environmental impact of burning >hyrocarbons, yet we do it any way. And the oil >companies are probably not going to rest until, we >have burned every last drop of oil on the planet. All >the carbon that has gone to ground over a billion >years released back into the atmosphere in less than a >millenium. And with all the deforestation it will be a >long time before all that carbon gets scrubbed back >out of our atmosphere. And if there are abiotic oil >sources, we will end up with more carbon in the >atmosphere than was ever there before. All in all a >losing proposition as hydrocarbons will never get us >to the stars. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Sep 14 20:30:19 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 13:30:19 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Famous author self destructs in public! Film at eleven. In-Reply-To: <200509141954.j8EJsNf21753@tick.javien.com> References: <200509141954.j8EJsNf21753@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: John, Why are you resurfacing this tired "discussion" months and months after it originally was brought up in a completely different context? Unless you are somewhere really far away and thus light speed lagged I see no reason for this rather boorish behavior. - s On Sep 14, 2005, at 12:53 PM, John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote: > Mr. Smigrodzki asks a proper and difficult question: "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." > > I respectfully decline to agree. Once the child exists, obviously, > the duty is > immediate rather than theoretical: before conception, the child is > theoretical?he may or may not ever be conceived. Even if you and I > were to > decide that theoretical duties do not yet attach, it would have no > necessary > bearing on whether or not the duties exist once they attach. > > The question here is twofold: first, whether a man has duties > linking him to his > children even before they are conceived (pre-prenatal, I suppose we > can call > it), and second, what degree of attention and care need be paid to > those duties? > > I submit to your judgment that the answer to the second question > depends on the > answer to the first. Do you agree that the negligence of a man who > takes no > provision for the future is less the more unlikely is that future? > > For example, in my judgment, I would say that it shows a reckless > disregard of > human life to fire a loaded weapon into a house that may or may not > be empty; It > is negligent not to wear a helmet before mounting a motorcycle; it > is careless, > but not negligent not to wear a helmet before mounting a bicycle; > it is not > careless for a Virginian to walk abroad without his elephant gun. > This is > because that a house might contain persons is likely, and the > damage from > gunfire severe; motorcycle accidents are likely and the damage is > severe; > bicycle spills are likely, but the damage far less severe; elephant > attacks in > Virginia are unheard-of. So we have a rough spectrum of > recklessness to > negligence, to carelessness. > > If a young woman with no prospect of marriage elects not to smoke > because she > fears for the health of children she has not yet conceived, this > strikes me a > careful, though I would not say a maiden has a duty to avoid > cigarettes just > based on that likelihood. A pregnant woman runs a greater risk of > harm to the > child if she smokes: I would call it negligent of her not to > foreswear her habit > for nine months. A pregnant woman who does not give up her crack > habit for nine > months, and runs the risk of birthing an addicted baby, shows a > recklessness > toward the young life in her care. > > Applying this same line of reasoning, I would conclude that it > would be careful > and prudent to avoid those things likely to cause harm even to > generations not > yet conceived. I would say it only becomes a matter of duty when the > carelessness is so great, or the danger so large, to make it > negligence. > > I will also point out that most moral systems make some provision > for the claims > of generations yet to come, and say we should make reasonable > provision for > them. Anyone who contributes to a museum or to a sober > conservationist movement, > anyone who wishes to grant our great-grandchildren the benefit of > life under his > nation?s laws and institutions, is acting from a similar > consideration. > > ?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.? > > This depends on what we mean by ?material?. In the first case the > child exists > and in the second it does not. The difference is between > theoretical and actual. > > A man who joins the priesthood is not imprudent if he makes no > provision in his > will for his heirs, because, in the normal course of events, he > will have none. > A man whose child is in the womb of his trollop is dishonorable if > he does not > marry her. What is unlikely in one case is actual in the other. > Somewhere along > the spectrum of possible to probable to likely to inevitable there > is a material > difference in the degree of care required to attend to our duties. > > Let me put it to you this way: is there a ?material? difference > between prenatal > and postnatal duties of care? If you say yes, I will ask you why it is > acceptable to ignore my baby?s needs five minutes before he emerges > from the > womb, and unacceptable to ignore them five minutes after? If you > say no, I will > ask you whether this means both prenatal and postnatal babies must > be cared-for, > or whether his means both prenatal and postnatal babies may be > neglected? > > ?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.? > > It would certainly be a more intuitively obvious vocabulary, if we > all agreed > that the creatures which has ?personhood? (that is, rights properly > defended at > law), had ?souls? and those that did not, did not. Then we could > suppose that > souls were manifested by brain-activity, and argue that abortion > and euthanasia > were allowable either before or after brain-activity is detected, > and capital > punishment allowed when the actions of the convict showed his brain > activity > malign, and thus his soul corrupt beyond hope of human penance. > However, these > metaphysical speculations are beyond the scope of my present > argument. I am not > arguing that children have souls when they are blastocysts and > therefore must be > protected: I am arguing that destroying the blastocyst, or exposing > it to > disease or any agency that might result in a birth defect, is > incompatible with > a duty of prenatal care. > > ?So, the situation does not materially change once two cells fuse > to form a > zygote - the child is still a thing of the future.? > > Again, I suppose that depends on what you mean by ?child.? The > organism we are > discussing has the genetic compliment of both parents. It is either > one sex or > the other, XX or XY. It is clearly homo sapiens. When compaction > starts, he is > already differentiating from totipotency into specialized > functions, i.e. > therefore it is an organism. So, to recap: it has parents, it is > either a ?he? > or a ?she?, and it is a member of the kingdom, class, phylum, order > and genus of > its parents. It has various other real properties such as mass, > duration and > extension. You can take a photograph of him or her. > > It also is either healthy or unhealthy: in other words, qualitative > statements > which can only be made of living things can be made about it. If > there is such > as thing as healthy and unhealthy, then normative statements can be > made: > certain things can literally be said to be ?good? or ?bad? for it. > > In what possible sense of the word can you call this ?still a thing > of the future?? > > Do you mean to say that that human organism, which is the child of > its parents > exists in a physical and normative sense, having both mass and > duration, and > having relationships of healthy and unhealthy, good and bad, lacks > that some > immaterial and metaphysical essence known as ?child-ness?? That > sounds like you > are saying the organism is a child only in the biological and > material sense, > not in the spiritual sense: in other words, you are claiming it is > not a child > until he gets a soul. This seems to be against the spirit of your > earlier sentence. > > ?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.? > > You will excuse me if I cannot agree. We care for our children > because we love > them. We have a duty to care for them because some people do not > love them, or > their passions are in some sense disordered from nature. I would > care for my > child even if he were dying of an incurable disease, and certain to > suffer pain > that smothering him now with a pillow would prevent. Regarding only > the > consequences of actions is not a proper basis for moral reasoning, > as it leads > to absurd results. The ends do not justify the means. > > ?But without the capacity to suffer and anticipate death, a zygote > cannot be by > itself the focus of duties so defined.? > > I cannot agree with the standard. Are sensitive people granted a > higher duty of > care than insensitive people? I will remind all loyal readers of > science > fiction, that our hero Buck Rogers fell into suspended animation > sometime in the > late 1920?s while spelunking in a cave, and will not wake until the > Twenty-Fifth > century. He is utterly insensate. While in suspended animation, he > suffers > neither pain nor has he any current capacity to anticipate death. > It is > permissible to kill him at any point before he wakes? What about > just break his > leg or put out his eye? Your standard says yes. > > Besides, you neglect the main thrust of my argument. Nothing in my > argument says > the child?s humanity, awareness or personhood has any bearing on > our duties of > prenatal care. Do you agree that mothers have a duty of prenatal > care? If so, > you should regard it as negligent for a pregnant woman to expose > herself to > known toxins or agents that cause birth defects or miscarriage. If > negligent > aborticide is a breech of prenatal duties, ergo, a fortiori, > deliberate > aborticide is also. That is the argument you must address. > > Loyal science fiction readers might recall the epsilons of BRAVE > NEW WORLD, who > are injected while still in the womb with chemical agents to see to > it that they > are born severely retarded. If the retardation is sufficient, then > the child > will never be aware of the intelligence that was stolen from him. > By the > standard you have announced, this would be a morally neutral, or > even acceptable > act. > > ?Therefore, in general a parent may be held responsible for failing > to fulfill > his (pre-, per- or post-conception) duties only if the child is > actually formed.? > > This depends on what we mean by ?actually formed.? You are pointing > to an > identifiable and individual living organism which neither sprang > into being out > of nothing, nor has it the capacity, if it develops, to develop > into anything > save a mature homo sapiens. Therefore it is an immature homo > sapiens. I admit it > is not manifesting its potential development at an early stage of > development, > but I would say that about a teenager also. > > ?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 anyone die naturally, there is no discussion at all. The > discussion is > about deaths caused by negligence or caused deliberately. The > argument I put > forth is that one cannot simultaneously condemn negligent > miscarriage while > excusing deliberate miscarriage of the same duty. > > ?Should the embryo be destroyed by an intentional action, again, no > duties have > been breached, since the victimized person never existed at all.? > > This is a non-sequitur. You are conflating intentional and > unintentional > actions. Should my house be picked up by a twister and dropped on > the Wicked > Witch of the East, I am in nowise responsible for the death. Should > I falsely > accuse my neighbor Tabitha to the Witch-finder, so that she is > burned at the > stake, I am complicit in her death. > > I welcome you comments, which seem refreshingly well mannered, > considering the > delicate nature of the subject matter. > > John C. Wright > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Wed Sep 14 23:01:09 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 09:01:09 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Famous author self destructs in public! Filmat eleven. References: <200509141954.j8EJsNf21753@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <023701c5b980$31eaefc0$8998e03c@homepc> Samantha Atkins wrote: > John, > > Why are you resurfacing this tired "discussion" months and months > after it originally was brought up in a completely different > context? Unless you are somewhere really far away and thus light > speed lagged I see no reason for this rather boorish behavior. I don't agree with you here Samantha. John C Wright has obviously spent considerable time putting his words and thoughts together. I don't agree with what I have read that he has most recently written but I respect his obvious effort and his concentration span. I don't find his continued interest boorish at all. I think its actually a good thing for people to be able to pull out posts from the past and pick up, or try to, where the conversation left off. I often wonder if many people can even remember what they have said a few days after they have said it. It makes it hard to get much depth in conversations with them. By doing what John has done he invites deeper consideration. His invitation for others to rejoin a conversation may of course be declined but it isn't boorish of him to make it as he has done. Brett Paatsch From amara at amara.com Wed Sep 14 23:31:48 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 01:31:48 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Deep Impact on comet Tempel 1, DPS presentations Message-ID: I saw someone recently post a link to an article about Deep Impact findings on comet Tempel 1. Since I was at that meeting of the article: the American Astronomical Society Division of Planetary Sciences (DPS), Cambridge, England: http://www-outreach.phy.cam.ac.uk/dps2005/ I can a say a little bit more. The meeting gave many Deep Impact posters and presentations last Wednesday, so I will first summarize by using the article in New Scientist this week: Tales of the Unexpected" by Stuart Clark. The article begins: "The Deep Impact team had hoped that when the impactor spacecraft hit Tempel 1, it would kick up a relatively small cloud of dust, expose an area of pristine icy material underneath, and instigate some spectacular jet activity. This is exactly what didn't happen. The dust cloud was more than 10 times larger than expected, and the effect on Tempel 1's activity was almost nil." The article proceeds to compare the four close encounter of comets, which are each very different from the other. Halley: S/C: Giotto Encounter date: March 1986 Nucleus: 16x8x8 km Distinguising features: Intense activity, no large craters Borrelly: S/C: Deep Space One Encounter date: September 2001 Nucleus: 8x3x3 km Distinguising features: Smooth plains, no large craters Wild 2: S/C: Stardust Encounter date: January 2004 Nucleus: 5x5x5 km Distinguishing features: Large surface depressions, nightside activity Tempel 1: S/C: Deep Impact Encounter date: July 2005 Nucleus: 7x5x5 km Distinguishing features: two impact craters, smooth plains Brownlee of University of Washington says: "It's a mystery to me how comets work at all. I think that some process is allowing heat to get down below the surface of a comet and drive the activity from the inside out, " he says. The article says: "The NASA scientists hoped their impactor would not only eject material from them to analyse but also kick-start a new area of research by exposing an area of pristine, icy material inside the comet, and maybe that would provide a few clues to what drives comet activity. Unfortunately, things didn't quite go according to plan. The Deep Impact team thought their 370-kilogram impactor would liberate about a month's worth of dust, based on normal emission rates, but it now seems more likely that a whole year's worth escaped the comet. One of the project scientists: Peter Schultz said: "If I had to choose just one surprising result from this encounter, it would be the amount of material thrown up," says Schultz. The article also describes the material. Michael A'Hearn says: "The surface material can have no more strength than lightly packed snow, otherwise we would not have seen that amount of dust." Another surprise is the two craters. Although craters seem to be ubiquitous on every other solid surface in the solar system, craters have never before been seen on a comet. The article goes on to say that they might not be impact craters, however. The depressions have flat floors and their walls appear like staircases, suggesting that they were caused by an explosion within the comet. Because of the porous structure, light might penetrate beneath the surface and heat the interior (Brownlee thinks). The dark layers stop heat escaping, and pressure builds up, eventually resulting in an explosion, and an unusually shaped crater. Unfortunately, the amount of dust released, combined with a focusing fault on Deep Impact's high-resolution camera means that the images the team hoped to take of the newly formed crater may now elude them. There might be no way to confirm what happened. Now from the talks and posters: some stated observations. (O'Hearn) 800 s window to observe everything Evidence of layers Large smooth surfaces Scarps Stripped terrain Outburst seen before from ground-based, jets not yet associated with specific surface features First thermal map of a nucleus, consistent with standard thermal model. Primarily small particles in ejecta <<10 microns Total ejected mass: ~1-2x10^7 kg, consistent with observed dust Total mass of volatiles: ~3-6x10^6 kg Composition: mix of silicates and volatiles, H20, CO2, CH-X, HCN First ice from comet detected IN-SITU Ejecta showed a large increase in organics relative to water (Belton) Spin period: 1.7 day Outbursts are frequent, no correlation with any particular region (Schultz) The calculated crater size (not seen yet) is diameter 150 to 200 m, but also could be 100 m, but deep. Thirteen min after impact: ejecta plume 300-500 m across, composition: H20, Ch-X, HCN, shadow on comet nucleus, which indicates an attached curtain. Density of material: 0.62 +/- 0.47 gr/cm^3 Temperature of nucleus: 285K Near-surface water ice detected (near surface because it was the first thing seen from the ejecta. Tempel 1 is layered (Groussin) Temperature Map of Tempel 1 nucleus: 260-330K, temperature matches the topography No active areas have been detected. (Meech) Earth-based Observations: At time of Deep Impact: 40 observatories, 130 observers Prior to 2005, 229 nights of observations. Dust expanded outward to ~30,000 km, 0.2 km/sec acceleration Chemistry consistent with Oort cloud Almost no radio activity Dramatic change in mid-IR dust: pre to post impact Dust size distribution peaked near 0.5-1.0 micron Ejected dust consistent with small dust: submicron to micron Mass of ejected material 10^6-10^7 kg (Keller) "Deep Impact Observations from OSIRIS of Rosetta Water production: 4.6 x 10^6 kg Variability up to one week -> Large particles (Sugita) poster 44.12 "Mid-IR Observations of Dust Plume induced by Deep Impact Collision (SUBURU) DI excavated fresh cometary material containing fine silicate grains with high crystallinity, very similar to active Oort cloud comets. It probably reached a volatile-rich layer. Dust size distribution peaked around sub-micron to micron size. Total dust mass in plume ~10^6 kg -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI) Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF), Adjunct Assistant Professor Astronomy, AUR, Roma, ITALIA Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Sep 15 02:25:17 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:25:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Famous author self destructs in public! Filmat eleven. In-Reply-To: <023701c5b980$31eaefc0$8998e03c@homepc> References: <200509141954.j8EJsNf21753@tick.javien.com> <023701c5b980$31eaefc0$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <047695B2-D019-48A2-AF89-29015CE3A813@mac.com> I consider it boorish because: a) It is a way of getting the last word long after anyone much is still interested in the topic or has the relevant chain at hand or interest in digging it up; b) the prose is dense enough that considerable energy is needed to deconstruct it; c) such deconstruction and response will likely again be responded to only after too long a period. Recurse at will; d) the topic matter is largely irrelevant to this list; e) the manner of discussing it is largely sectarian. - samantha On Sep 14, 2005, at 4:01 PM, Brett Paatsch wrote: > Samantha Atkins wrote: > > >> John, >> Why are you resurfacing this tired "discussion" months and months >> after it originally was brought up in a completely different >> context? Unless you are somewhere really far away and thus >> light speed lagged I see no reason for this rather boorish behavior. >> > > I don't agree with you here Samantha. John C Wright has obviously > spent considerable time putting his words and thoughts together. I > don't agree with what I have read that he has most recently written > but I respect his obvious effort and his concentration span. I > don't find his continued interest boorish at all. > I think its actually a good thing for people to be able to pull out > posts > from the past and pick up, or try to, where the conversation left off. > I often wonder if many people can even remember what they have > said a few days after they have said it. It makes it hard to get much > depth in conversations with them. > By doing what John has done he invites deeper consideration. His > invitation for others to rejoin a conversation may of course be > declined but it isn't boorish of him to make it as he has done. > Brett Paatsch > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 04:39:45 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:39:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] NANO: self assembling carbon nano-rods harder than diamond Message-ID: <20050915043945.76305.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://www.spacedaily.com/news/materials-05zq.html Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Sep 15 07:13:26 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:43:26 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Robotic Vehicles Race, but Innovation Wins Message-ID: <710b78fc0509150013739c73a1@mail.gmail.com> Here's something that isn't boring for a change. -- Robotic Vehicles Race, but Innovation Wins By JOHN MARKOFF Published: September 14, 2005 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/14/business/14robot.html?th=&adxnnl=1&oref=login&emc=th&adxnnlx=1126767823-TcJVmYICUMUVZBSCe+Dj8w FLORENCE, Ariz. - Cresting a hill on a gravel road at a brisk 20 miles an hour, a driverless, computer-controlled Volkswagen Touareg plunges smartly into a swale. When its laser guidance system spots an overhanging limb, it lurches violently left and right before abruptly swerving off the road. With their robotic Touareg, known as Stanley, impaled in the brush, the two passengers - Sebastian Thrun and Michael Montemerlo, both Stanford computer scientists - pull off their crash helmets and scramble out to untangle the machine. A quick survey reveals that the sport utility vehicle is covered with debris, but the bug-eyed laser, radar and optical vision system on top of the vehicle is undamaged. So Stanley and its passengers continue on their way, over 50 miles of dirt road through a cactus-covered landscape, in the final weeks of preparation for the second round of the Pentagon's great race. It has been almost 18 months since the Pentagon's research arm, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, first attracted a motley array of autonomous vehicles with a prize of $1 million for the first to complete a 142-mile desert course from Barstow, Calif., to Las Vegas. The most successful robot, developed by a Carnegie Mellon University team, managed all of seven miles. With the next running scheduled for Oct. 8 - and this time a $2 million purse for the winner among 43 entries - it is clear that many of the participants have made vast progress. For some researchers, it is an indication of a significant transformation in what has been largely a science fiction fantasy. "Computers are starting to sprout legs and move around in the environment," said Andy Rubin, a Silicon Valley technologist and a financial backer of this year's Stanford Racing Team, which produced Stanley. Mr. Rubin, who tinkers with robots himself, was the co-founder of Danger Inc., which created the Sidekick hand-held. The Pentagon agency, known as Darpa, struck upon the idea of a race - calling it the Grand Challenge - as a way to stimulate innovations useful in battlefield applications like unmanned logistics vehicles. For the two Stanford scientists, however, the Grand Challenge is about something larger. "The military are interested in more potent weapons, and by itself that's a bad answer," said Mr. Thrun, a roboticist and director of the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. His broader goal is to advance robotics as a science and explore applications ranging from aids for the elderly to basic advances in intelligent computerized systems. Several years ago, when Mr. Thrun was a professor at Carnegie Mellon and Mr. Montemerlo was a graduate student, they helped develop a prototype of a mobile robotic companion for the home that used natural-language voice commands and was able to provide useful information taken from the Internet like weather and television schedules. There are a myriad of other possible applications for their software, which can reason about the immediate environment; distinguish sky from ground, road and trees; and make lightning-quick decisions. Already in the automotive industry, intelligent cruise control has become more adept at automatically maintaining the spacing between cars, and intelligent lane-change and collision-avoidance software is close to being a reality. Robots are routinely used in manufacturing, and in Japan a three-foot-tall "house sitter" robot that can recognize 10,000 words and 10 different faces will go on sale in September, offered by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. In the Darpa contest, though, the proving ground is not the home but the desert. And several of the contestants, who range from garage hackers to teams from giant automotive and aerospace corporations, say this year's course is expected to be even more difficult than last year's. The exact course will be secret until just hours before the event begins, but Darpa officials are said to believe that the original test was too much an exercise in automatically following global positioning satellite "bread crumbs" - the data points outlining the route that are given to the contestants shortly before the race begins. So this year the course is likely to include unexpected man-made obstacles and other hurdles that would be trivial for a human driver, but vexing for the computer-controlled navigational systems that are at the heart of the technical challenge the Pentagon has laid out. Despite the added complexity, there is a widespread expectation among robotics researchers that this time the course will be completed. The machines, many of which wandered seemingly randomly in the desert last year, have benefited from more than a year's experience as well as a significant rush in improvement in every aspect of robotic vehicle technology. And on a hot August day in the desert here, it was clear that the field of artificial intelligence has made significant strides. The increasing power of the technology was evident during the testing of the Stanford Racing Team's robotic Touareg, which looks unexceptional from the outside except for a festoon of sensors and the slogan "Drivers Not Required" on its side, a play on Volkswagen's "Drivers Needed" slogan. Stanley was able to complete a 47-mile dirt-road course here - strewn with potholes, tight turns, puddles and lined with boulders, foot-high berms and cactuses - with only two "incidents," which in Mr. Thrun's scientific vernacular is when his robot does something unplanned, like leaving the road. When their Touareg swerved abruptly in a roadside thicket, the team was quite certain why. The previous evening Mr. Thrun had persuaded Mr. Montemerlo to remove an irritating software module, which forced the car to brake rapidly after swerving to avoid an obstacle. Without the module, at speed the Touareg fishtailed on the desert road and plunged into the brush before Mr. Thrun, sitting in the driver's seat with his hand on a large red "E-Stop" button, could react. Back inside the Touareg, Mr. Montemerlo, seated in the rear seat with a laptop computer that is networked to the seven mobile Intel Pentium processors that comprise Stanley's control logic, fiddles with the software and reinserts the problematic code. Now the vehicle will behave more cautiously, although the hard braking will be a little uncomfortable for its human passengers. [After fixing two software bugs, the Stanford team managed to put Stanley through the entire test course on Sept. 7 without crashing.] In the actual race, of course, there will be no passengers along for the ride. The teams will be able to follow a short distance behind, but will have no communication with their vehicles. For the two researchers, who have been leading a team of 60 developers from Stanford and Volkswagen, the hiccup is all part of the process of trying to create machines that can mimic what human drivers do effortlessly. The challenge is heightened by the obvious rivalry that the two scientists feel with their alma mater, Carnegie Mellon. This year, the Carnegie Mellon Red Team - led by the roboticist William L. Whittaker, known to all as Red - is testing two robotic vehicles, Sandstorm and H1ghlander, in the Nevada desert. With an array of sponsors including Caterpillar, Intel, Boeing, Harris, Google, and Hummer's manufacturer, AM General, Mr. Whittaker's team is once again the favorite. For decades Mr. Whittaker has been one of the most passionate advocates of robotic vehicles. Despite being bitterly disappointed last year, when Sandstorm edged off the course after almost completing the most difficult section of the route, he is confident that more than one team will succeed this year. "I would love it if the high school kids won this year," he said, in a reference to a team from Palos Verdes High School in California, which is backed by Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Analog Devices, Goodyear and others. Whether or not one of the vehicles arrives at the finish line this year, Mr. Whittaker says the credibility problems that have dogged the field are largely in the past. Of the event, which will begin this year near a rough-and-tumble bar south of Barstow, he said, "I don't know whether it's going to be more like Lindbergh landing in Paris or more like Woodstock." -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au Thu Sep 15 08:17:15 2005 From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 18:17:15 +1000 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Irritated, frustrated and fed up with messageboards Message-ID: <20050915081715.49666.qmail@web35508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> What a load of old cobblers regularly gets posted on the messageboards of transhumanist organizations! I am totally fed with with messageboards. (By the way this messageboard is about the only transhumanist board left I haven't pissed everyone off enough to get moderated yet.) The biggest load of tosh I've ever seen came out of the SL4 lists and 'Singularity Institute': Philosophical absurdity after philosophical absurdity piled up on SL4....like the claim that you have general intelligence without sentience, like the claim that a paper-clip maximizer can recursively self-improve, like the inability to see that just because high-level concepts are *dependent on* i.e supervene on low-level physics this doesn't mean these high level concepts are completely *reducible* to low-level physics, like the idea that a complete causal description is the same as complete understanding, like the inability to see the difference between a theoretical ideal and what practically works, like lack of the most rudimentary awareness of mathematics... infinite set atheism for instance.... *sigh* .... the list of brazen fallacies posted on SL4 has almost driven me insane with frustration. And then there's all the political tripe. Libertarian and Socialist ideology just makes me want to puke by now. That's all I wanted to say. Thanks. --- Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Movies: Check out the Latest Trailers, Premiere Photos and full Actor Database. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neptune at superlink.net Thu Sep 15 11:43:44 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 07:43:44 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: FEMA References: <431CE197.7050000@cox.net><20050906010255.5031.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com><004001c5b2d4$fa966ba0$48893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <012701c5b9ea$bb085b20$38893cd1@pavilion> On Tuesday, September 06, 2005 8:54 AM BillK pharos at gmail.com wrote: >> FEMA is part of the problem. Here's a blast >> from the past on them: >> http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=213&sortorder=articledate >> >> and, especially, here: >> http://www.mises.org/story/227 >> >> Part of the reason this is so is because the >> costs of living in these places have been >> made artificially low by government intervention. >> Creating a "disaster recovery army" will >> only increase such incentives. > > Mises have the luxury of being able to criticize > everything as they don't actually have to do the > job. Whoa! They're a think tank devoted to Austrian economics and the like. Their job is to analyze stuff, make recommendations, and offer opinions -- not to effect hurricane rescue. > As all opposition parties well know. The vote- > catching slogans soon change if they get > voted into power. Since they're mostly anarchists, I don't think they want to get "voted into power." In fact, many of them -- Hoppe, for instance -- are strictly anti-democratic. > I am no great supporter of FEMA, but they do > seem to have been virtually crippled by Bush > since 9/11. (An action mises would > presumably have supported??). Seems like the broken window fallacy. Yeah, FEMA does some good stuff. Yeah, the current regime is messing with that. But all the good stuff is predicated on a lot of bad stuff. Regards, Dan http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/ From support at imminst.org Thu Sep 15 21:09:39 2005 From: support at imminst.org (Immortality Institute) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:09:39 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Life Extension Conference (Nov 5 Atlanta) Message-ID: Dear Extropy-chat at extropy.org, You are cordially invited to a science and life extension conference Hosted at Georgia Tech's modern Conference Center in downtown Atlanta, GA, the Immortality Institute?s inaugural one-day Life Extension Conference will be held on Sat. Nov. 5, 2005. With a focus on anti-aging, artificial intelligence, cryobiology and brain-computer interfacing, speakers will address the question: --What technologies can protect and enhance the human brain for extreme life extension? Growing to more than 2,500 members worldwide, the non-profit, Immortality Institute, was founded in 2002 with the mission to overcome the "blight of involuntary death." The Institute?s first book published in 2004, The Scientific Conquest of Death, includes essays from leading scientists Dr. Ray Kurzweil, Dr. Marvin Minsky and Dr. Michael West. During the conference, the Institute?s film, Exploring Life Extension, will have its first screening. CONFERENCE SPEAKERS: ? Martine Rothblatt, Ph.D., J.D., M.B.A. - Conscious Computers & Legal Right ? James J. Hughes, Ph.D. - Neurological Remediation ? Brad F. Mellon, Ph.D. - Ethical and Theological Considerations ? Sonia Arrison - Technology Studies ? Natasha Vita-More BFA, MA, - Design for Change ? Peter A. Passaro - Brain-computer Interfacing ? Eliezer Yudkowsky - Artificial Intelligence ? Ben Goertzel, Ph.D. - Immortalizing Brains ? Max More, Ph.D. - Diachronous Self ? Ralph C. Merkle, Ph.D. - Cryonics ? Brian Wowk, Ph.D. - Suspended Animation by Vitrification ? Ben Best - Cryopreserving the Brain ? Rudi Hoffman, CFP - Cryonics Affordability ? Michael R. Rose, Ph.D. - Biological Immortality ? Peter Haughton - Artificial Heart ? Christopher B. Heward, Ph.D. - Optimal Health Medicine ? Aubrey D.N.J. de Grey, Ph.D. ? Anti-aging Science, Cambridge University researcher presents the ?Seven Deadly Sins? of aging. CONFERENCE SPONSORS: ? Gold :: Brian Cartmell - CEO & Pres Cartmell Holdings LLC ? Silver :: Gary C. Hudson, CEO, HMX Inc. ? Bronze :: Canaca.com, Web Hosting CONFERENCE LOCATION Georgia Tech's Hotel & Conference Center 800 Spring St NW, Atlanta, GA, 30308 1 (404) 347-9440 CONFERENCE DATE Saturday, November 5, 2005, 7:30 AM ? 8:00 PM CONFERENCE REGISTRATION Use code 88LEF to secure the following discount conference rates: (ImmInst Member rates are even lower) $210 Employed $155 Unemployed $45 Student REGISTER ON-LINE: http://www.imminst.org/conference/#reg (Limited to 400) Or send your check payable to the ?Immortality Institute? (Include your discount code 88LEF) to: Immortality Institute 5801 Nicholson Ln #909 N Bethesda, MD 20852 See you in Atlanta! Bruce J. Klein - bjk at imminst.org ImmInst Conference Chair http://www.imminst.org/bjklein PS: The day after the conference (Sun Nov 6 at 10 AM), all conference participants are welcome to meet at the spacious CNN Center to talk, eat lunch and/or take the 50 min. CNN Studio Tour ($10). Want to UN-Subscribe from this email list? Please Paste following link to Un-subscribe : http://www.imminst.org/maillist/unsubscribe.php?mail=Extropy-chat at extropy.org&id=2 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 15 21:22:26 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:22:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Sheiks and sex (was OIL: Albertan tar sands) In-Reply-To: <20050914193740.29091.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050915212226.5270.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > Well, $30/bbl production cost American oil certainly > isn't quite the > same as $2/bbl production cost Saudi oil. On the > plus side most of that > $30 is going into the bank accounts of Americans and > not being > profligately squandered by Saudi sheiks with too > much theology and not > enough motivation to get a life. The sheiks can't have too much theology because that theology is one of the pillars that support their power. The whole point of Mohammedist theocracy is that Mohammed was both a prophet of Allah AND a secular ruler, so the distinction between the two roles of religion and state is highly intertwined and integrated in Muslim society. If anyone has too much theology, it is those Islamic men who are not sheiks and don't have tons of oil money, 4 wives, and 50 concubines. Those are the guys who have no life, which is why they can focus their sexual frustration into acts of suicidal mass-destruction. Thus the sheiks are the "winners" of Muslim sexual politics, the wankers are "martyrs" (a win-win situation if you believe in Paradise), and the big "losers" are the masses of kept women who are treated like chattel and have to compete with each other for the attentions of their husband. Obviously this is a wonderful system . . . if you are a sheik. 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 - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From emlynoregan at gmail.com Fri Sep 16 00:51:22 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:21:22 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Race to Linux Message-ID: <710b78fc0509151751427a4aa6@mail.gmail.com> A link to this turned up in my email today, and may interest some people here: http://www.codeproject.com/racetolinux/ "Join the Race to Linux for a chance to win an XBox 360" The Race to Linux challenges Visual Studio developers to port existing ASP.NET applications to Linux using their cross-platform tool of choice (e.g. Grasshopper, Mono, PHP, Macromedia, etc.). The applications to be ported to run on Linux will be announced at the start of each race. The hardware used for judging will be IBM xSeries. The winners of each of the three races will win an Xbox 360. In addition, contestants using Grasshopper will also qualify to win an Xbox 360 game of their choice. Limit one Xbox 360 and one game per participant. (etc) --- I've been checking this stuff out recently, so I have a bit of an idea about these technologies. Grasshopper is a free Visual Studio plugin (For the uninitiated, Visual Studio is Microsoft's development environment for Windows). It compiles .Net IL code (native output of Visual Studio) to Java bytecode, so that you can apparently run .Net applications as Java apps. IIRC, they also (necessarily) provide an implementation of the .Net framework for Java - on looking it up, I see that they use grasshopper to recompile Mono as java bytecode. Mono is an open source implementation of the .Net framework, which works on Linux. Mac OS X, Solaris, BSD and Windows, so a much greater reach than Microsoft's own .Net framework. I'm currently rebuilding my website as an ASP.Net application, developing using Visual Studio 2003 on Windows 2003 server using IIS, but deploying to some Linux based webspace using Mono and Apache. I'm using MySQL for the database. It's early days, but this cockamamie approach actually seems to be working :-) So from the site above, it seems that the race is about porting a C# .net application to Linux, any way that you deem fit; you can rewrite it entirely in PHP if you want to, but it is a race! Using Grasshopper to make it a Java application is different to using Mono to run your IL code as-is on Linux, but both approaches are likely to be the most promising. Will I enter the competition? Not sure... I might give it a try... -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 14:43:59 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 07:43:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] PING In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0509151751427a4aa6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20050916144359.68331.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Haven't received a message since 10:22 am yesterday. Is the list broken? Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 14:52:35 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 07:52:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Sheiks and sex (was OIL: Albertan tar sands) In-Reply-To: <20050915212226.5270.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050916145235.55693.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > > > --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > > Well, $30/bbl production cost American oil certainly > > isn't quite the > > same as $2/bbl production cost Saudi oil. On the > > plus side most of that > > $30 is going into the bank accounts of Americans and > > not being > > profligately squandered by Saudi sheiks with too > > much theology and not > > enough motivation to get a life. > > The sheiks can't have too much theology because that > theology is one of the pillars that support their > power. The whole point of Mohammedist theocracy is > that Mohammed was both a prophet of Allah AND a > secular ruler, so the distinction between the two > roles of religion and state is highly intertwined and > integrated in Muslim society. Kinda the point of what I'm saying. If they can't afford to keep buying off the people, much less fund scion like bin Laden, they are going to need to reform lest their house of cards collapse. > > If anyone has too much theology, it is those Islamic > men who are not sheiks and don't have tons of oil > money, 4 wives, and 50 concubines. Those are the guys > who have no life, which is why they can focus their > sexual frustration into acts of suicidal > mass-destruction. Thus the sheiks are the "winners" of > Muslim sexual politics, the wankers are "martyrs" (a > win-win situation if you believe in Paradise), and the > big "losers" are the masses of kept women who are > treated like chattel and have to compete with each > other for the attentions of their husband. Obviously > this is a wonderful system . . . if you are a sheik. You still need to break the power of the rulers to effect change, or at least put a good wind up their backs. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Sep 16 15:57:28 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 11:57:28 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] PING Message-ID: <380-2200595161557283@M2W083.mail2web.com> Not to my knowledge. Natasha Original Message: ----------------- From: Mike Lorrey mlorrey at yahoo.com Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 07:43:59 -0700 (PDT) To: emlynoregan at gmail.com, extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: [extropy-chat] PING Haven't received a message since 10:22 am yesterday. Is the list broken? Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From xander25 at adelphia.net Fri Sep 16 12:49:16 2005 From: xander25 at adelphia.net (Jacob) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:49:16 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Famous author self destructs in public! Filmat eleven. In-Reply-To: <047695B2-D019-48A2-AF89-29015CE3A813@mac.com> References: <200509141954.j8EJsNf21753@tick.javien.com> <023701c5b980$31eaefc0$8998e03c@homepc> <047695B2-D019-48A2-AF89-29015CE3A813@mac.com> Message-ID: <432ABF4C.3000606@adelphia.net> a) Can you be sure that was his intent? Technology hasn't yet developed to the point of being able to read minds. I consider the topic to be an intriguing one myself, and is more interesting than some of the other threads on this list. b) I would choose to consider it a challenge and opportunity to better myself. c) Not one of us knows what the future may hold. d) This I flat out disagree with, it is quite the opposite really. The discussion is about: does an unborn child have a right to live? What is life? More specifically what is human life? Who has the right to live or die? What about AI's? What kind of rights (or rather, would have) do they have? What values do we teach them? Are they "alive"? What is right? Does "right" exist? That is the one thing we have yet to establish...and so far what I've seen are attacks on his choice of religion and/or character...neither of which are relevent to the discussion. e) Please elaborate. --Jacob Bennett Samantha Atkins wrote: > I consider it boorish because: > > a) It is a way of getting the last word long after anyone much is > still interested in the topic or has the relevant chain at hand or > interest in digging it up; > b) the prose is dense enough that considerable energy is needed to > deconstruct it; > c) such deconstruction and response will likely again be responded to > only after too long a period. Recurse at will; > d) the topic matter is largely irrelevant to this list; > e) the manner of discussing it is largely sectarian. > > - samantha > > On Sep 14, 2005, at 4:01 PM, Brett Paatsch wrote: > >> Samantha Atkins wrote: >> >> >>> John, >>> Why are you resurfacing this tired "discussion" months and months >>> after it originally was brought up in a completely different >>> context? Unless you are somewhere really far away and thus light >>> speed lagged I see no reason for this rather boorish behavior. >>> >> >> I don't agree with you here Samantha. John C Wright has obviously >> spent considerable time putting his words and thoughts together. I >> don't agree with what I have read that he has most recently written >> but I respect his obvious effort and his concentration span. I don't >> find his continued interest boorish at all. >> I think its actually a good thing for people to be able to pull out >> posts >> from the past and pick up, or try to, where the conversation left off. >> I often wonder if many people can even remember what they have >> said a few days after they have said it. It makes it hard to get much >> depth in conversations with them. >> By doing what John has done he invites deeper consideration. His >> invitation for others to rejoin a conversation may of course be >> declined but it isn't boorish of him to make it as he has done. >> Brett Paatsch >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat >> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From robgobblin at aol.com Fri Sep 16 19:42:47 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 09:42:47 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sheiks and sex (was OIL: Albertan tar sands) In-Reply-To: <20050916145235.55693.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050916145235.55693.qmail@web30715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <432B2037.1010708@aol.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >>>. >>> >>> >>The sheiks can't have too much theology because that >>theology is one of the pillars that support their >>power. The whole point of Mohammedist theocracy is >>that Mohammed was both a prophet of Allah AND a >>secular ruler, so the distinction between the two >>roles of religion and state is highly intertwined and >>integrated in Muslim society. >> >> > >Kinda the point of what I'm saying. If they can't afford to keep buying >off the people, much less fund scion like bin Laden, they are going to >need to reform lest their house of cards collapse. > > Well, thank goodness we didn't invade a sheikdom or even a religious-state - THAT might have had some effect on the overall funding of Al Quaeda. But invading Iraq has done nothing but shake the bees nest. >You still need to break the power of the rulers to effect change, or at >least put a good wind up their backs. > > How can a -LIBERTARIAN- be backing an invasive foreign policy? Isn't this specifically AGAINST the libertarian ideals? R From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 16 21:11:44 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:11:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan In-Reply-To: <432ABF4C.3000606@adelphia.net> Message-ID: <20050916211144.11687.qmail@web60016.mail.yahoo.com> http://www.fas.org/main/content.jsp?formAction=297&contentId=367 The info blurb on the linked page says: Nuclear Weapon Effects Calculator This interactive tool is intended to give an idea of the devastating blast effects of ground-level, shallow subsurface, and low-altitude nuclear weapon detonations. It is relevant to traditional nuclear weapons, potential terrorist attacks, and next generation nuclear weapons such as "Bunker Busters" or ?Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrators? (RNEPs). (Despite the name, ?Earth Penetrators? will not penetrate far into hard rock and can be considered ?surface? bursts when using the bomb calculator.) High definition aerial maps of selected U.S. cities have been provided. The size of the bomb can be chosen by selecting the weapon?s yield, as measured in kilotons (KT) or megatons (MT) of TNT equivalent. There is also the option of having the bomb delivered using an automobile at ground level or using an aircraft flying at an altitude that produces the widest area of destruction. ********************************* I hope no one will be offended, but I found this nifty little site provided by the Federation of American Scientists. Unfortunately, those who would prefer fantasizing about the nuclear obliteration of say, France or Iran or (insert name of preferred non-US victim country) will have to bear up under a certain degree of disappointment. Also, there's no NY, NY. A clear oversight. So, red state or blue, rich or poor, black or white, muslim/atheist/christian/jew, ethnic cleansers all, "go tribal!" and pick your targets. Also, if there are any programmers out there who could help tweak the Java thingie that makes this work, I would really like to add a "Neutron Weapons" option so that I could enjoy the lasting pleasure of toying with the pure lethality and duration/intensity of suffering to be expected from a honkin' big pulse of neutron radiation. You know, how may people will die, how long they will take depending on exposure, plus the not-immediately-lethal outcomes and, of course, the post-event cancer forecast. All the gruesome details. Have a nice day. Best, Jeff Davis "No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the sources of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power." - P. J. O'Rourke __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From nanogirl at halcyon.com Fri Sep 16 21:26:47 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:26:47 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Galaxy References: Message-ID: <009d01c5bb05$609c1700$0200a8c0@Nano> Our place in the galaxy: http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/galaxymap.htm Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nanogirl at halcyon.com Fri Sep 16 21:38:24 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:38:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] James Lewis PHd update References: <009d01c5bb05$609c1700$0200a8c0@Nano> Message-ID: <00b201c5bb06$ff72d200$0200a8c0@Nano> For those of you who have been following Jims progress, he will be needing a second stem cell transplant. We are hanging in there. The Jim blog - http://ginamiller.blogspot.com/ Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Sat Sep 17 00:04:13 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:04:13 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] SpaceX announces Falcon 9, private EELV-class rocket Message-ID: (I've recently returned to the internet after disappearing for a while due to grad qualifying exams (which I passed!), and realized that nobody had posted about the following here yet) http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/09/spacex-launches-falcon-9-with-a-customer/index.php http://www.spacex.com/falcon_9.php http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17763 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9 "*SpaceX initially intended to follow its first vehicle development, Falcon 1, with the intermediate class Falcon 5 launch vehicle. However, in response to customer requirements for low cost enhanced launch capability, SpaceX accelerated development of an EELV-class vehicle, upgrading Falcon 5 to Falcon 9. SpaceX has sold a Falcon 9 launch to a US government customer, and still plans to make Falcon 5 available in late 2007. Their efforts are worth watching, and could affect the military satellite launch market." "**With up to a 17 ft (5.2 m) diameter fairing, Falcon 9 is capable of launching approximately 21,000 lbs (9,500 kg) to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) in its medium configuration and 55,000 lbs (25,000 kg) to LEO in its heavy configuration, a lift capacity greater than any other launch vehicle. In the medium configuration, Falcon 9 is priced at $27 million per flight with a 12 ft (3.6 m) fairing and $35 million with a 17 ft fairing. Prices include all launch range and third party insurance costs, and SpaceX claims that this makes Falcon 9 the most cost efficient vehicle in its class worldwide." *So, Boeing's Delta IV Heavy lifts 25,000 kg for $254 million. The SpaceX Falcon 9 S9 will be able to lift the same amount for a starting price of $78 million. Wow. Since it's based on the Falcon 5, the Falcon 9 will probably also be man-rated. >From the press release: *A recent study performed by the Futron Corporation, concluded that Falcon 5 was superior in design reliability to other vehicles in its class, due to engine redundancy. Falcon 9, by extension, has even higher reliability with increased propulsion redundancy. Falcon 5 and Falcon 9 will be the world's first launch vehicles where all stages are designed for reuse. The Falcon 1 has a reusable first stage, but an expendable upper stage. Reuse is not factored into launch prices. When the economics of stage recovery and checkout are fully understood, SpaceX will make further reductions in launch prices. * Meanwhile, NASA has recently announcedthat it will be spending $5.5 billion on developing the Crew Exploration Vehicle, $4.5 billion on the Crew Launch Vehicle, and between $5 and $10 billion on a new heavy-lift vehicle. Who wants to bet that by the time NASA's new rockets are ready, SpaceX will already have a similar rocket available at a tiny fraction of the price? Granted, SpaceX still needs to pull off a successful launch of the Falcon I, scheduled for later this year. I wish them the best of luck. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 02:15:01 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:15:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Sheiks and sex (was OIL: Albertan tar sands) In-Reply-To: <432B2037.1010708@aol.com> Message-ID: <20050917021501.42200.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Robert Lindauer wrote: > > How can a -LIBERTARIAN- be backing an invasive foreign policy? > > Isn't this specifically AGAINST the libertarian ideals? A libertarian is for liberty for everybody, everywhere, all the time. Libertarians are not against force, merely the initiation of force against those who have not done so. Self defense and defense of others is not initiation. With the restriction being that you don't pay for it with money stolen from other people at gunpoint (and assuming it wasn't already being stolen and wasted on something even less libertarian, like welfare or social security), WHO DIDN'T ALREADY BELIEVE IN PAYING TAXES individuals are free to engage in private efforts to defend others and liberate others who are not free if that is what floats their boat. For example, the Lincoln Brigades and the Lafayette Escadrille were pretty libertarian means of Americans pursuing their personal, libertarian, foreign policy. Those of you who don't want to engage in freedom-spreading are free to sit on their thumbs if they so choose, and not be forced to pay for the liberation work of others, but they shouldn't expect those who do to give much of a damn when some thug puts a gun in their backs. If you want to armadillo, that is your get out, but don't cry out at the injustice when some thug outguns you and nobody else is around to lend a hand. You also can't complain about taxes taken from those who believe in taxes. Statists do not enjoy the protection of the non-initiation principle. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Sep 17 02:28:09 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:28:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] SpaceX announces Falcon 9, private EELV-class rocket In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050917022809.54663.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I've been watching it. I'm finding the NASA funds for the CEV interesting. Billions to develop a Apollo-class capsule technology they already had 30 years ago and tried to burn the blueprints for when the shuttle came along. What are the funds really being blown on? Did you know that the Apollo command and service modules had the greatest altitude and cross-range capabilities (even without an S-IVb) of any spacecraft in history? Meanwhile the US drove Andrew Beal's venture under after he'd spent 200 million, Lockheed lied to NASA in order to get the Venturestar funds and blew it all just to keep the money away from Boeing. Boeing has been sitting on annular aerospike technology since the 60's capable of 350,000 lb thrust fully capable of launching a S-IVb/Phoenix class SSTO into orbit with 10,000 lb cargo, NASA threw away billions more on various lifting body and mini-shuttle contracts they then cancelled. I am very hopeful for SpaceX, but it appears that Lockheed is trying to strongarm them as well, bullshitting their way into kicking SpaceX out of Vandenberg after making a major investment, which is why SpaceX has been delayed for the last year. I'm waiting for the other shoe to fall. The business of NASA is wasting money, and the business of Lockheed and Boeing is doing it effectively. --- "Neil H." wrote: > (I've recently returned to the internet after disappearing for a > while due > to grad qualifying exams (which I passed!), and realized that nobody > had > posted about the following here yet) > > http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/09/spacex-launches-falcon-9-with-a-customer/index.php > http://www.spacex.com/falcon_9.php > http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17763 > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9 > > "*SpaceX initially intended to follow its first vehicle development, > Falcon > 1, with the intermediate class Falcon 5 launch vehicle. However, in > response > to customer requirements for low cost enhanced launch capability, > SpaceX > accelerated development of an EELV-class vehicle, upgrading Falcon 5 > to > Falcon 9. SpaceX has sold a Falcon 9 launch to a US government > customer, and > still plans to make Falcon 5 available in late 2007. Their efforts > are worth > watching, and could affect the military satellite launch market." > > "**With up to a 17 ft (5.2 m) diameter fairing, Falcon 9 is capable > of > launching approximately 21,000 lbs (9,500 kg) to Low Earth Orbit > (LEO) in > its medium configuration and 55,000 lbs (25,000 kg) to LEO in its > heavy > configuration, a lift capacity greater than any other launch vehicle. > In the > medium configuration, Falcon 9 is priced at $27 million per flight > with a 12 > ft (3.6 m) fairing and $35 million with a 17 ft fairing. Prices > include all > launch range and third party insurance costs, and SpaceX claims that > this > makes Falcon 9 the most cost efficient vehicle in its class > worldwide." > > *So, Boeing's Delta IV Heavy lifts 25,000 kg for $254 million. The > SpaceX > Falcon 9 S9 will be able to lift the same amount for a starting price > of $78 > million. Wow. > > Since it's based on the Falcon 5, the Falcon 9 will probably also be > man-rated. > > >From the press release: > > *A recent study performed by the Futron Corporation, concluded that > Falcon 5 > was superior in design reliability to other vehicles in its class, > due to > engine redundancy. Falcon 9, by extension, has even higher > reliability with > increased propulsion redundancy. > > Falcon 5 and Falcon 9 will be the world's first launch vehicles where > all > stages are designed for reuse. The Falcon 1 has a reusable first > stage, but > an expendable upper stage. Reuse is not factored into launch prices. > When > the economics of stage recovery and checkout are fully understood, > SpaceX > will make further reductions in launch prices. * > > Meanwhile, NASA has recently > announcedthat it > will be spending $5.5 billion on developing the Crew Exploration > Vehicle, $4.5 billion on the Crew Launch Vehicle, and between $5 and > $10 > billion on a new heavy-lift vehicle. Who wants to bet that by the > time > NASA's new rockets are ready, SpaceX will already have a similar > rocket > available at a tiny fraction of the price? > > Granted, SpaceX still needs to pull off a successful launch of the > Falcon I, > scheduled for later this year. I wish them the best of luck. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From robgobblin at aol.com Sat Sep 17 02:46:08 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:46:08 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sheiks and sex (was OIL: Albertan tar sands) In-Reply-To: <20050917021501.42200.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050917021501.42200.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <432B8370.1010405@aol.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >You also can't complain about taxes taken from those who believe in >taxes. Statists do not enjoy the protection of the non-initiation principle. > > Tax the dummies to pay for the war-profiteering of the powerful. Hmm. Sounds pretty status-quo to me. Robbie Lindauer From amara at amara.com Sat Sep 17 05:51:24 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 07:51:24 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] editorial: "Will Science Trump Politics in Resolving Abortion Debate?" Message-ID: Here's an editorial article that should interest many here. Amara --------------------------------------------------------------- "Will Science Trump Politics in Resolving Abortion Debate?" http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0914.html September 14, 2005 by Wendy McElroy Intro: Artificial wombs will be "reality" within 20 years, according to the London Times. Indeed, 20 years seems a conservative estimate given an earlier report in The Guardian, another UK newspaper, which predicted them for 2008. Discussion of ectogenesis -- growing an embryo outside the mother's womb -- may sound wildly futuristic. But a few years ago, cloning and genetic modification seemed impossible. A few years before that, the idea of a 66-year-old woman giving birth was absurd; it happened last January. And only last week, British scientists received an official go-ahead to create human embryos from two mothers. For better or worse, new reproductive technologies are redefining the ground rules of reproduction. (And, no, the force of law can not hold back scientific 'progress,' as authorities have discovered repeatedly since Galileo's day.) (see the article for the rest) -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "I have an intense desire to return to the womb. Anybody's." ---Woody Allen From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Sat Sep 17 07:08:03 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:08:03 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Galaxy In-Reply-To: <009d01c5bb05$609c1700$0200a8c0@Nano> References: <009d01c5bb05$609c1700$0200a8c0@Nano> Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Gina Miller wrote: > > Our place in the galaxy: http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/galaxymap.htm Aehm.. since that's the M31 galaxy, if you follow the map you'll find yourself a couple of million light years away from home :-))) Alfio From nanogirl at halcyon.com Sat Sep 17 07:26:28 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 00:26:28 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Galaxy References: <009d01c5bb05$609c1700$0200a8c0@Nano> Message-ID: <002501c5bb59$23021670$0200a8c0@Nano> It is a computer generated galaxy. Gina ----- Original Message ----- From: Alfio Puglisi To: ExI chat list Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 12:08 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Galaxy On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Gina Miller wrote: > > Our place in the galaxy: http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/galaxymap.htm Aehm.. since that's the M31 galaxy, if you follow the map you'll find yourself a couple of million light years away from home :-))) Alfio _______________________________________________ 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: From deimtee at optusnet.com.au Sat Sep 17 16:29:33 2005 From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (david) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:29:33 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Galaxy In-Reply-To: References: <009d01c5bb05$609c1700$0200a8c0@Nano> Message-ID: <432C446D.2050301@optusnet.com.au> Alfio Puglisi wrote: > On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Gina Miller wrote: > >> >> Our place in the galaxy: http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/galaxymap.htm > > > > Aehm.. since that's the M31 galaxy, if you follow the map you'll find > yourself a couple of million light years away from home :-))) > > Alfio > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Speak for yourself, Earthling. From megao at sasktel.net Sat Sep 17 06:52:37 2005 From: megao at sasktel.net (Lifespan Pharma Inc.) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 01:52:37 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Epigenetics/nutrigenomics VS Non-vitro Womb. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <432BBD35.3040201@sasktel.net> Its not just a womb but an interface for individual nutrition and environment to interact with developmental processes. A standardized environment may reduce the varience in these cues but the real job is to find just what is the optimal baseline standard , which may be as individual as the genotype of the embryo. For test this one should follow the development of identical twins one of whom is carried in the natural mother in one environment, the other carried by as genetically distant surrogate mother as possible in an environment and nutritional profile as diverse from the other as possible. Once born however the twins should be reared as twins and all measureable differences noted obver 25 years. But would this of course be ethical to do? The point being is it simply enough to sustain an embryo in an artificial womb or is it necessary to evolve ones which will enhance the extropy of the final product. Amara Graps wrote: > Here's an editorial article that should interest many here. > > Amara > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > "Will Science Trump Politics in Resolving Abortion Debate?" > > http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0914.html > September 14, 2005 > by Wendy McElroy > > Intro: > > Artificial wombs will be "reality" within 20 years, according to the > London Times. Indeed, 20 years seems a conservative estimate given an > earlier report in The Guardian, another UK newspaper, which predicted > them for 2008. > > Discussion of ectogenesis -- growing an embryo outside the mother's > womb -- may sound wildly futuristic. But a few years ago, cloning and > genetic modification seemed impossible. A few years before that, the > idea of a 66-year-old woman giving birth was absurd; it happened last > January. And only last week, British scientists received an official > go-ahead to create human embryos from two mothers. > > For better or worse, new reproductive technologies are redefining the > ground rules of reproduction. (And, no, the force of law can not hold > back scientific 'progress,' as authorities have discovered repeatedly > since Galileo's day.) > > (see the article for the rest) > > From amara at amara.com Sat Sep 17 08:05:58 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:05:58 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: Galaxy Message-ID: Alfio, >Ahem.. since that's the M31 galaxy Maybe you will like this... http://www.amara.com/Andromeda1982.pdf (caution: 5Mb) Andromeda Galaxy from the 18in Palomar Schmidt (we had a little time between asteroid fields to relax on this object :-) ). [From a recent scan of my old print..Unfortunately the negative is destroyed, and this washed-out print is all I have left] Amara -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "I hate reality, but it is still the only place where I can get a decent steak." ---Woody Allen From amara at amara.com Sat Sep 17 08:50:23 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:50:23 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Wolfram Tones Message-ID: This is really fun! Wolfram Tones: Generate a composition via cellular automota (and download as a ringtone) http://tones.wolfram.com/ On my wishlist: add bouzouki and an oud in the instrumentation part, and more maqams in the pitch mapping. 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/ ******************************************************************** Information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom, wisdom is not truth, truth is not love, love is not beauty, beauty is not music, music is the best." -- Frank Zappa From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Sat Sep 17 19:06:02 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 21:06:02 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] re: Galaxy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 17 Sep 2005, Amara Graps wrote: > Alfio, > >> Ahem.. since that's the M31 galaxy > > Maybe you will like this... > > http://www.amara.com/Andromeda1982.pdf (caution: 5Mb) > > Andromeda Galaxy from the 18in Palomar Schmidt (we had a little > time between asteroid fields to relax on this object :-) ). Wonderful. > > [From a recent scan of my old print..Unfortunately the negative > is destroyed, and this washed-out print is all I have left] CCDs have the advantage that digital images don't wash out, but they are lost even more easily than old negatives :-)) Alfio From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Sat Sep 17 19:06:16 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 21:06:16 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Galaxy In-Reply-To: <002501c5bb59$23021670$0200a8c0@Nano> References: <009d01c5bb05$609c1700$0200a8c0@Nano> <002501c5bb59$23021670$0200a8c0@Nano> Message-ID: > > It is a computer generated galaxy. > > Gina No, it's really M31. Check http://www.skyoptics.net/m31.htm and http://www.seds.org/messier/Jpg/m31.jpg or Amara's link. Your image seems to have a compressed dynamic range to show stars more prominently, but it's definitely taken with a small telescope: there is visible there is visibile cromatic aberrations on luminous stars, elongated towards the center. Alfio On Sat, 17 Sep 2005, Gina Miller wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Alfio Puglisi > To: ExI chat list > Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 12:08 AM > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Galaxy > > > On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Gina Miller wrote: > > > > > Our place in the galaxy: http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/galaxymap.htm > > > Aehm.. since that's the M31 galaxy, if you follow the map you'll find > yourself a couple of million light years away from home :-))) > > Alfio > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From jay.dugger at gmail.com Sat Sep 17 19:40:10 2005 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 14:40:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Wolfram Tones In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5366105b050917124029c386b5@mail.gmail.com> Bookmarked over three hundred times by del.icio.us users by the time it appeared here. See its page at: http://del.icio.us/url/275b0dea38eb34bb4a2ba96972358fb8 Related URLs (http://del.icio.us/url/275b0dea38eb34bb4a2ba96972358fb8?related) seem less apropos. On 9/17/05, Amara Graps wrote: > This is really fun! > > Wolfram Tones: Generate a composition via cellular automota > (and download as a ringtone) > > http://tones.wolfram.com/ > > On my wishlist: add bouzouki and an oud in the instrumentation part, > and more maqams in the pitch mapping. > > 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/ > ******************************************************************** > Information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom, wisdom is not > truth, truth is not love, love is not beauty, beauty is not music, > music is the best." -- Frank Zappa > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > -- Jay Dugger http://www.redcross.org Please donate if you can. From charlie at antipope.org Sun Sep 18 11:18:54 2005 From: charlie at antipope.org (Charlie Stross) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:18:54 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sheiks and sex (was OIL: Albertan tar sands) In-Reply-To: <20050917021501.42200.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050917021501.42200.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 17 Sep 2005, at 03:15, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > You also can't complain about taxes taken from those who believe in > taxes. Statists do not enjoy the protection of the non-initiation > principle. Y'know something, I was going to let this slide -- but you had to stick it right up my nose. "X does not enjoy the protection of law Y because they do not believe in law Y" (let's strip it right out of the context of libertarian ideology and generalize it) is a really dangerous principle. Either you're talking about a general law, in which case it applies to everyone, or it's not a law; it's a group agreement among a bunch of insiders, and -- hey! -- you've invented another group who are explicitly outside your law because you pinned a label on them. (Plus, my take on the non-initiation principle is that it's far too easy to turn inside out. There are forms of coercive behavior that don't require guns, knives, or fists, after all, some of them are so insidious that you don't realize you're being coerced at first: that nice cheap inkjet printer, for example -- how were you to know that it costs an arm and a leg to replace the print cartridges and by opening the box you agreed that you wouldn't try to refill the one that came with it? Or: that nice peaceful gated community, how were you to know that the clause about "accepted community standards" would be used to threaten you with eviction if you dyed your hair blue?) Personally, I believe in taxes. They beat the alternative hollow ... -- Charlie From charlie at antipope.org Sun Sep 18 10:49:50 2005 From: charlie at antipope.org (Charlie Stross) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 11:49:50 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public! Film at eleven. In-Reply-To: <200509141734.j8EHYZf08446@tick.javien.com> References: <200509141734.j8EHYZf08446@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <1EDB0E0A-F785-4993-8196-13D27035D611@antipope.org> [ oops. This is what comes of not checking the list every week ... ] On 14 Sep 2005, at 18:34, John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote: > > I hope it would not be improper for me to wonder whether, until the > technology > is available, I might suggest avoiding unwanted conception can be > addressed, at > least in part, by normative and legal considerations. > > In so far as human behavior can be modified to make prudent > provision for the > human sexual process, all human societies have adopted, with minor > variations, > the same rule: no sex outside of marriage. Rubbish. Marriage is, for many societies, nothing to do with sex -- it's about defining inheritance of property. To pick one example at semi-random (I've been researching it for a book): the Victorian upper-classes all married, and once the crude business of breeding an heir was out of the way they bed-hopped in a manner that pretty much beggars the imagination. To the extent that they drew a polite veil over it in public, this was to keep the gutter press -- who were as scandal- obsessed then as they are today -- from using salacious gossip about their private lives as public entertainment. When divorce occurred (which required a fairly hairy court proceeding followed by a private act of parliament to approve), it was usually because the relationship had broken down at a business, not a sexual, level: the classic example was Lord XXXX, who divorced his 21 year old wife not because she'd been sleeping around (although she had been -- and so had he), or even because she'd born him another man's son (this was considered indiscreet and unfortunate, but not rare), but because she'd had the bad taste to acquire gonorrhea and the child was born blind (which made the whole business socially impossible to cover up). Early agricultural settlement made knowing who had inherited title to the family farm a matter of vital importance -- literally one of life or death, because it determined whether you had sufficient land to supply you with food. The legal formulation of marriage made this easier to determine, and the development of agriculture coincided with the development of the first written (hence, fixed) legal codifications. Other cultures have had -- and still have -- distinctly different marital traditions. Consider the Persian custom of Mut'a: a fixed- term marriage (where the term can be as low as one hour or as long as a decade). Contemporary neopagan handfastings follow the preset-term pattern as well. And then there are the polygamous variations, which tend to crop up in cultures which are patrilineal and run on a male firstborn inheritance pattern (males can't marry without the land to install their women on), or the tribal/dowry/cousin marriage systems common in the Middle East (where first cousins frequently marry, because the size of dowry that goes with a bride is so large that exogamy would threaten the clan with bankruptcy within a generation). It's all about land and money. Sex is secondary, except in modern western civilization, where we've bought into the myth of personal happiness. > In the heritage of the West, we have > (until recently) enjoyed a strict version of this rule: no sexual > behavior that > defies reproductive purposes. (The reasoning for this rule was to > habituate the > society to check the sexual appetite, which, if led unchecked, > leads to tragedy.) I blame Thomas Malthus. Who got it wrong, incidentally. And no, the sexual appetite does *not* intrinsically lead to tragedy; nor does "society" have a brain with which to formulate teleological objectives. Nor was the west particularly good at preventing sexual behaviour outside of marriage; the sporadic attempts at enforcement just caused massive and widespread misery. > While it may be possible, with contraceptives, to engage in the > reproductive act > without purposing reproduction, it is not possible, when following > a rule of > chastity, to bear a child without a socially-recognized father. > Even these days, > in Anglo-American law it is still a recognized principle (albeit > under attack in > some jurisdictions) that a husband cannot call into question the > paternity of > his wife?s children. Chastity, hence, has the social effect of > protecting women, > in so far as possible, from shouldering the cost and care of > childrearing alone. This is so wrong-headed it's hard to know where to begin. Hell, go read: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php? pid=S1415-47572000000400005&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en (Yes, we have diagnostics that can tell us whether someone's related to someone else. This isn't the stone age any more! Ook!) Secondly, you can avoid reproduction very easily by sticking to members of your own sex. Thirdly, I'm sure the friendly lesbian couple (two kids) living just down the street from me would be charmed to know that without a man in the loop they have to remain chaste or raise their children alone. Fourthly, we've got contraceptives that work properly. For political reasons and/or reasons of legal exposure to lawsuits by gold-diggers they may not all be available in the USA -- where contraceptive provision tends to lag a decade behind Europe for those reasons -- but they exist. Fifthly, you seem to be assuming that no man ever lived in a family relationship with a women and children where the children were not his genetic offspring. (This will come as news to a lot of adoptive parents, or remarried couples with children from earlier relationships.) > Mr. Stross also comments: ?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.? > > At the risk of sounding like a Christian, let me say: Amen, brother. I should add at this point that I'm a strong atheist, of Jewish upbringing and origins. Also married, happily ... and completely opposed to the ethical stance you take on sex, marriage, and reproduction. > prudential reasons, I realized what a foolish risk to a man?s > happiness is even > the attempt at non-marital sex, and how demeaning to women: it > draws her most > profound instincts out of alignment with her prudence, and urges > her to love a > man who will not vow his love faithful. I cannot think of a greater > insult to > the feminine spirit. The only other option is to coarsen and > eventually deaden > that idea that ties love and sex together, the mystery called romance. This is kind of touching, but it's weirdly non-traditional and a bit fetishistic, in my view. Go and do some historical digging and you'll find that what would today be termed an 'open' marriage was, as often as not, the norm among the upper and lower classes; the only group who remotely behaved as you describe were the Victorian petit bourgeoisie, and *they* were aping a -- mistaken, because heavily filtered -- vision of how they *believed* their social betters behaved. And the social tension so-created found its outlet in staggering rates of prostitution (there were 120,000 prostitutes in London alone, in the 1860s), and high rates of psychiatric problems among married middle- class women (it's no accident that Freud made his name in the 1880s and 1890s with such clients). > I became an anti-abortion partisan when I became a father, and > these events > happened years and decades before my conversion to Christianity. > The logic I > used to support the decisions in both cases was entirely secular. I am deeply troubled by anti-abortion arguments applied with the goal of inducing legislation to ban abortion, just as I'm troubled by the occurrence of unnecessary abortions. Because the whole issue is a red herring. If you could wave a magic wand and magically ban humans from performing abortion as a procedure, with 100% success, you would prevent less than 25% of abortions from taking place. Because the sad fact is, nature is profligate. If life begins at conception (a view I heartily despise) then for every baby that is born, a dozen or so fertilized blastocytes have been washed out in the menstrual flow, having failed to implant. Another few have implanted, but failed to thrive and spontaneously abort. Infanticide of surplus infants has been a long-standing tradition in many civilized countries, until relatively recently: call it "post-natal abortion" if you like. Nor is it a matter of scriptual doctrine. Go back to rabbinical law and life begins when the first breath enters the lungs; go back to pre-1848 Catholic church doctrine and you'll find out that the soul doesn't arrive until the second trimester. This stuff has been stitched together from whole cloth, over the centuries, to suit the requirements of the patriarchate who wanted to use it as a tool for managing that most important of issues, inheritance law. The romanticization of chastity, marriage, and so on, lends itself to fetishization. So does the hagiography of the almightly blastoma. If it makes your sex life work better, well, fine: good for you and your wife. But don't expect it to work for other people, and don't expect them to take the same axioms as read, because even the definition of what it is to be human is non-obvious. Most importantly, don't expect other people to sit still when you propose making your own practices -- which they see as fetishistic to the point of being one step removed from sado-masochism -- the law of the land. -- Charlie From reason at longevitymeme.org Sun Sep 18 19:15:23 2005 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:15:23 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mprize: Meet the Mark and Judy Muhlestein Family Trust Challenge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000609.php Good news from the Methuselah Foundation, organizers of the Methuselah Mouse Prize, or Mprize, for anti-aging research: "The recent SENS II conference was a huge success and The Mprize one of its beneficiaries. Mark Muhlestein saw the possibility of building on the amazing research presented and accelerating the day when real anti-aging therapies are available by supporting the Mprize and has committed to $25,000 with an offer that expires Jan 1, 2006. From the date of conference end until then, ALL incoming donations will be matched 1:2 (ie. a dollar donated is matched by two from the Muhlestein commitment) until there are no more funds available. We're confident we can help ensure that this generous offer is taken full advantage of! Join us and let's get every penny of research incentive!" Our community has three months to meet this generous challenge grant and push the Mprize further towards the $2 million mark. If you've been thinking about donating to the Mprize to help grow support for the science of healthy life extension and accelerate progress towards real anti-aging medicine, then now is the time! Ultimately, we are responsible for the way in which the future turns out; if we want our future to be one of longer, healthier lives and effective medicines capable of reversing age-related degeneration, then we have to step up and help to make it happen. Sitting on the sidelines and hoping is not going to cut it - the future doesn't make itself, and the past is replete with examples of advances still possible yet never accomplished. We don't want healthy life extension to be left on the sidelines when progress is so clearly possible with greater public support and research funding; if you feel that way too, then donate! Even just a few dollars makes a big difference in the long term; research prizes like the Mprize are a very efficient way of making your support count. The Ansari X Prize led to competitors raising 16 research dollars for every prize dollar - other prizes have been even more effective. One-time donations are very welcome, but if you can spare a few dollars a day then please consider joining the ranks of The Three Hundred: "For the price of a cup of coffee per day, would you like to join a select group of humanitarians who will be remembered for their vision and saving millions of lives? Modern medical science continues to show us that the aging process may no longer be the intractable problem it has been perceived to be for every generation preceding ours. There is a present need to move faster towards a previously unattainable goal: the control of aging. This need for more rapid medical progess is only magnified by the current profound lack of funding for aging research. Funding springs, at root, from widespread public awareness of advances and possibilities in aging research. Educating the public is an essential step in moving philanthropists and governments to allocate more resources to the study of aging. The problems caused by aging leave us poor in body, spirit, and finances. We must step forward to tackle them!" I am confident that the wider community can meet this challenge grant and in the process increase public support - and improve the funding environment - for serious anti-aging research: now get out there and prove me right. Reason From neptune at superlink.net Sun Sep 18 14:04:18 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 10:04:18 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] New trigonometry is a sign of the times Message-ID: <008a01c5bc59$dd0487a0$fa893cd1@pavilion> http://www.physorg.com/news6555.html Time for a refresher?:) Dan From amara at amara.com Sun Sep 18 19:34:43 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 21:34:43 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Madcap runs into the rocks !! Message-ID: I actually haven't thought about her in years, yet one word, 'Madcap' instantly brings my full sensory palette to the front, the sticky salt on the varnished wood, smells of a bilge that needed pumping, side-to-side rocking while sleeping at night. She was the boat of my family from about 1964 to 1973. We lived on her too, for one year. Madcap lost a battle with the sea, the weather and the rocks last weekend. To remove her from the rocks, they "cut her up" ... :-( http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=12506 Amara (with a lump in her throat) From fortean1 at mindspring.com Sat Sep 17 16:53:49 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:53:49 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Lightning anomalies *below*/*above* thunderclouds Message-ID: <432C4A1D.5090104@mindspring.com> Forwarding permission was given by William R. Corliss < http://www.science-frontiers.com > SCIENCE FRONTIERS, No. 161, Sep-Oct 2005, pp. 3 & 4 GEOPHYSICS Item #1: Lightning anomalies *below* thunderclouds Static electricity was well known to ancient humans. Paleolithic people certainly noticed sparks when they stroked their animal pelts. But it wasn't until Ben Franklin's kite experiment that lightning was definitely shown to be skin to static electricity. It was thus easy after Ben's kite flight to explain lightning as simply big sparks triggered when electrical charge was separated within thunderclouds and a strong electric field was set up between cloud and earth. Now, though, this seems a simplistic view of what really happens during a lightning strike. Scientific instruments have recorded at least four unanticipated phenomena associated with lightning strikes that change the entire theoretical picture. Lightning isn't what we thought it was. (1) The lightning "leaders" that descend from thunderclouds are "stepped" and jagged. They are composed of many short, straight segments arranged in a crooked course. Only when this jagged trail reaches the ground does the familiar luminous stroke of lightning shoot along the leaders' stepped and highly ionized path. Questions: Why the multisegmented path, and how is it created? (2) Measurements of electric fields within thunderclouds rarely exceed 200,000 volts/meter---much too small to ionize the air and lead to electrical discharges. Apparently, thunderstorm circulation by itself cannot initiate lightning. (3) Remarkably, X-ray flashes occur during thunderstorms. The conventional thunderstorm models do not produce X-rays. (4) Ditto for gamma-ray flashes. What is their source? Given the above facts, current thinking has turned to the cosmic rays that perpetually bombard the planet. These energetic particles are thought to smash into air molecules triggering avalanches of high-speed "run-away" electrons plus a burst of gamma rays. These run-away electrons create the first stepped leader. As the first leader's run-away electrons accumulate at the leader's tip, they create an intense electric field that generates still another stepped leader that strikes off in a slightly different direction. An X-ray flash is emitted as the new leader is formed. More stepped leaders approach the earth leaving behind an ionized trail. A full-fledged lightning flash then occurs. The main lightning bolt may be thought of as a spark, but it has an extraterrestrial trigger. Old Ben Franklin was oblivious to cosmic rays, even though he was pierced through by them all the time. (Dwyer, Joseph R.; "A Bolt out of the Blue," *Scientific American*, 292:64, June 2005) Item #2: Lightning anomalies *above* thunderclouds We have already cataloged a veritable zoo of sprites, elves, blue starters and other luminous phenomena that occur above thunderclouds. (See GLL1 in *Remarkable Luminous Phenomena*.) The zoo many [sic] be new to mainstream science, but its denizens have been reported in SF for decades. Now, we make space for something more scary but perhaps in the end only illusory: *mega*lightning. The observational basis for the claim of megalightning's existence is found in a photograph of ill-fated *Columbia*'s reentry trail taken by an amateur astronomer in San Francisco. (See illustration.) [CAPTION: Corkscrew trail of "something" intersecting the reentry trajectory of the Space Shuttle *Columbia*.] In this photograph one sees a corkscrew trail of "something" intercepting the *Columbia*'s reentry trajectory at an altitude of about 70 kilometers. This is well above normal terrestrial lightning but in the region where sprites occur. Could megalightning be another unexpected electrical phenomenon of the outer fringes of the earth's atmosphere? Could the space shuttle *Columbia* have been downed by megalightning? Government denials and conspiracy theories are rife on the internet. (Anonymous; "Megalightning*," < http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=cc6y424y >. July 4, 2005. Cr. G. Decarlo) Comment. The luminous trail seemingly aimed at *Columbia* could also be that of a heat-seeking missile! But who could launch such a device at 70 kilometers? The downing of TWA 800 also comes to the fore here. In that tragedy, too, a photo shows a streak of light intersecting the aircraft's path. (SF#110) SCIENCE FRONTIERS is a bimonthly collection of scientific anomalies in the current literature. Published by the Sourcebook Project, P.O. Box 107, Glen Arm, MD 21057 USA. Annual subscription: $8.00. -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Sep 18 20:08:27 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 13:08:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Sheiks and sex (was OIL: Albertan tar sands) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050918200827.3572.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Charlie Stross wrote: > > On 17 Sep 2005, at 03:15, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > You also can't complain about taxes taken from those who believe in > > taxes. Statists do not enjoy the protection of the non-initiation > > principle. > > Y'know something, I was going to let this slide -- but you had to > stick it right up my nose. > > "X does not enjoy the protection of law Y because they do not believe > in law Y" (let's strip it right out of the context of libertarian > ideology and generalize it) is a really dangerous principle. Either > you're talking about a general law, in which case it applies to > everyone, or it's not a law; it's a group agreement among a bunch of > insiders, and -- hey! -- you've invented another group who are > explicitly outside your law because you pinned a label on them. That is why it is a principle and not a law, however it is, in fact, applied in law quite well in many ways. For instance: you murder someone, you've given up your right to live, because by committing murder, you've demonstrated that you don't believe in any such thing as a right to live. You steal something from someone, you get fined (i.e. your property is taken) because you've demonstrated you don't believe in the right to property. > > (Plus, my take on the non-initiation principle is that it's far too > easy to turn inside out. There are forms of coercive behavior that > don't require guns, knives, or fists, after all, some of them are so > insidious that you don't realize you're being coerced at first: that > nice cheap inkjet printer, for example -- how were you to know that > it costs an arm and a leg to replace the print cartridges and by > opening the box you agreed that you wouldn't try to refill the one > that came with it? On the contrary, caveat emptor: as a responsible consumer, you should have paid attention to the fine print on the box that said a) this requires printer cartridge x, and b) such cartridges are only good for y pages. You should then have inquired as to the price of cartridge x. That you did not is your laziness and not coersion on anybodys part. >Or: that nice peaceful gated community, how were > you to know that the clause about "accepted community standards" > would be used to threaten you with eviction if you dyed your hair > blue?) Because if you were a responsible consumer, you would have actually read the contract. Nobody coerces you, you consent to it. > > Personally, I believe in taxes. They beat the alternative hollow ... Then, you don't get to complain when your elected representatives spend your tax money on things you disapprove of, other than voting against them next election. That is the contract you agree to by believing in taxes and electing a representative government (and either voting or not voting): its like putting your money in a trust managed by your lawyer: you have to trust that they are acting in your best interest, even when you think they aren't, or else end the whole experiment. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Sun Sep 18 20:14:44 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 13:14:44 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reports from Accelerating Change 2005? Message-ID: Are there any comprehensive online reports yet (or are any planned) from the Accelerating Change conference? I think it'd be a good idea to have a slashdot submission about the conference, but it'd be nice to have something to link to first. -- Neil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From charlie at antipope.org Sun Sep 18 20:23:32 2005 From: charlie at antipope.org (Charlie Stross) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 21:23:32 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sheiks and sex (was OIL: Albertan tar sands) In-Reply-To: <20050918200827.3572.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050918200827.3572.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <94ABBBEB-6C26-49F4-9A91-416DF1C101EC@antipope.org> On 18 Sep 2005, at 21:08, Mike Lorrey wrote: >>> >>> You also can't complain about taxes taken from those who believe in >>> taxes. Statists do not enjoy the protection of the non-initiation >>> principle. >> >> Y'know something, I was going to let this slide -- but you had to >> stick it right up my nose. >> >> "X does not enjoy the protection of law Y because they do not believe >> in law Y" (let's strip it right out of the context of libertarian >> ideology and generalize it) is a really dangerous principle. Either >> you're talking about a general law, in which case it applies to >> everyone, or it's not a law; it's a group agreement among a bunch of >> insiders, and -- hey! -- you've invented another group who are >> explicitly outside your law because you pinned a label on them. > > That is why it is a principle and not a law, however it is, in fact, > applied in law quite well in many ways. For instance: you murder > someone, you've given up your right to live, because by committing > murder, you've demonstrated that you don't believe in any such > thing as > a right to live. Er, that's not how the law works. At least, not any theory of law that I'm familiar with and that's been implemented at anything above the tribal level. (Note: All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder: the sets are not equivalent. Nor do you "give up" rights in yourself by failing to observe those rights in others.) NB: It's not my intention to start a pro/anti libertarian flame-fest here -- we've seen enough of 'em that we don't need any more -- so I'm going to drop this right now. But I do wish you'd stop declaring that sets are identical when in fact they're not. -- Charlie From nanogirl at halcyon.com Sun Sep 18 20:46:20 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 13:46:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Galaxy References: <009d01c5bb05$609c1700$0200a8c0@Nano><002501c5bb59$23021670$0200a8c0@Nano> Message-ID: <006801c5bc92$258bc050$0200a8c0@Nano> You'd be surprised what computer programs can do. ----- Original Message ----- From: Alfio Puglisi To: ExI chat list Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 12:06 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Galaxy > > It is a computer generated galaxy. > > Gina No, it's really M31. Check http://www.skyoptics.net/m31.htm and http://www.seds.org/messier/Jpg/m31.jpg or Amara's link. Your image seems to have a compressed dynamic range to show stars more prominently, but it's definitely taken with a small telescope: there is visible there is visibile cromatic aberrations on luminous stars, elongated towards the center. Alfio On Sat, 17 Sep 2005, Gina Miller wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Alfio Puglisi > To: ExI chat list > Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 12:08 AM > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Galaxy > > > On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Gina Miller wrote: > > > > > Our place in the galaxy: http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/galaxymap.htm > > > Aehm.. since that's the M31 galaxy, if you follow the map you'll find > yourself a couple of million light years away from home :-))) > > Alfio > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nanogirl at halcyon.com Sun Sep 18 20:55:20 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 13:55:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: Galaxy References: Message-ID: <007601c5bc93$4acf6f50$0200a8c0@Nano> While we are up in space, here is another image I made the other day - http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/moongoddess.htm . I think the perfect real life model for this image would have been Natasha : ) Gina ----- Original Message ----- From: Alfio Puglisi To: ExI chat list Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 12:06 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] re: Galaxy On Sat, 17 Sep 2005, Amara Graps wrote: > Alfio, > >> Ahem.. since that's the M31 galaxy > > Maybe you will like this... > > http://www.amara.com/Andromeda1982.pdf (caution: 5Mb) > > Andromeda Galaxy from the 18in Palomar Schmidt (we had a little > time between asteroid fields to relax on this object :-) ). Wonderful. > > [From a recent scan of my old print..Unfortunately the negative > is destroyed, and this washed-out print is all I have left] CCDs have the advantage that digital images don't wash out, but they are lost even more easily than old negatives :-)) Alfio _______________________________________________ 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: From eugen at leitl.org Sun Sep 18 21:05:23 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 23:05:23 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Galaxy In-Reply-To: <006801c5bc92$258bc050$0200a8c0@Nano> References: <006801c5bc92$258bc050$0200a8c0@Nano> Message-ID: <20050918210523.GD2249@leitl.org> On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 01:46:20PM -0700, Gina Miller wrote: > > You'd be surprised what computer programs can do. So which program was it? Did you do it yourself? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Sep 18 21:23:20 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 16:23:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moon goddess In-Reply-To: <007601c5bc93$4acf6f50$0200a8c0@Nano> References: <007601c5bc93$4acf6f50$0200a8c0@Nano> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050918162122.01e32030@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 01:55 PM 9/18/2005 -0700, Gina wrote: >While we are up in space, here is another image I made the other day - >http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/moongoddess.htm >. Pretty, but where's the light source for her face? Not the star in her hand, I think. This is due to one of those danged 5-dimensional thingees, right? That goddesses use? Damien Broderick From riel at surriel.com Sun Sep 18 21:56:02 2005 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 17:56:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] SpaceX announces Falcon 9, private EELV-class rocket In-Reply-To: <20050917022809.54663.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050917022809.54663.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: > I've been watching it. I'm finding the NASA funds for the CEV > interesting. Billions to develop a Apollo-class capsule technology they > already had 30 years ago and tried to burn the blueprints for when the > shuttle came along. What are the funds really being blown on? In order to get approval for building the CEV, maybe NASA needs to make sure they buy some piece of technology from the constituencies of as many senators as possible? -- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan From brian at posthuman.com Sun Sep 18 22:00:20 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 17:00:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reports from Accelerating Change 2005? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <432DE374.3000605@posthuman.com> There's a small amount of blogging here: http://www.futuresalon.org/ and also a tidbit at the Speculist: http://www.blog.speculist.com/ Anyone find much else so far? -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From nanogirl at halcyon.com Sun Sep 18 22:16:21 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 15:16:21 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moon goddess References: <007601c5bc93$4acf6f50$0200a8c0@Nano> <6.2.1.2.0.20050918162122.01e32030@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <00b901c5bc9e$9e76d610$0200a8c0@Nano> I just sent an email to the list that had an image attached, I don't know if it will go through? Are attachments allowed? Anyway, in case the email does not come through, here it is and here is a link to the image: Link: http://www.nanogirl.com/images/before.jpg Um, yeah that's it, 5 dimensional : ) You're probably noticing that two parts of this image have two different light sources as they were from two different scenes. I made the moon background in one program, rendered out a jpg, then I made the model in another program, rendered out a jpg of her. I then glued them together in Photoshop. The yellow that you see is actually the "neon glow" filter in Photoshop. It sort of flushed the two images together by the common shade color. I threw the star on in Photoshop too (just used the shape tool with a gradient). The attached is what the two scenes looked like before I put them together and added the filter. You can see (you are correct) that they actually have opposite directional lighting. What I did like about the neon filter is that it sort of suggested that the glow you see around that center of darkness (lower right by the moon) is circular and perhaps could rise above her, where as the base of her (her legs etc.) is darker and closer to that center of darkness. Gina ----- Original Message ----- From: Damien Broderick To: ExI chat list Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 2:23 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] Moon goddess At 01:55 PM 9/18/2005 -0700, Gina wrote: >While we are up in space, here is another image I made the other day - >http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/moongoddess.htm >. Pretty, but where's the light source for her face? Not the star in her hand, I think. This is due to one of those danged 5-dimensional thingees, right? That goddesses use? Damien Broderick _______________________________________________ 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: From brian at posthuman.com Sun Sep 18 22:24:31 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 17:24:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reports from Accelerating Change 2005? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <432DE91F.7060708@posthuman.com> Here's a better way I found to find coverage: use the new Google Blog Search -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Mon Sep 19 01:56:28 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 18:56:28 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reports from Accelerating Change 2005? In-Reply-To: <432DE91F.7060708@posthuman.com> References: <432DE91F.7060708@posthuman.com> Message-ID: On 9/18/05, Brian Atkins wrote: > > Here's a better way I found to find coverage: use the new Google Blog > Search > > < > http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&q=%22accelerating+change%22+2005&btnG=Search+Blogs > > Oh, heh, I can't believe I forgot about that. Also, a second before I saw this post, I had noticed that RocketForge has some pretty good coverage: http://www.rocketforge.org/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Sep 18 22:23:20 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 15:23:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] SpaceX announces Falcon 9, private EELV-class rocket In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050918222321.50005.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Rik van Riel wrote: > On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > I've been watching it. I'm finding the NASA funds for the CEV > > interesting. Billions to develop a Apollo-class capsule technology > they > > already had 30 years ago and tried to burn the blueprints for when > the > > shuttle came along. What are the funds really being blown on? > > > In order to get approval for building the CEV, maybe NASA > needs to make sure they buy some piece of technology from > the constituencies of as many senators as possible? > Good point. In the wake of the Hyper-X team being scattered to the four winds after only the X-43A vehicle flying (cancelling the larger hydrocarbon fuelled B model that could have attained orbit), I'm seeing some went to the GTX program, which is a bit more sophisticated and integrates some Hyper-X engine knowledge. The GTX vehicle looks curiously like a souped up Battlestar Galactica "Viper" fighter, with three rocket-based-combined-cycle engines arrayed around the fuselage with three small fins of a curiously science fictiony nature. The scaled test vehicle will launch vertically with some Black Brant boosters to reach mach 2.5, then engage the RBCC engines first in Ramjet then scramjet mode, up to mach 11. The full size reference vehicle will then demonstrate the full flight regime without booster assist, taking off with its own rocket power with some ram assist, going to ramjet, then scramjet, then to full rocket thrust. My only real criticism of the reference vehicle is that it follows the strange fixation of NASA on hydrogen fuel. Because of its very low density, the large fuel tanks it mandates make it a terrible choice for any vehicle that spends a lot of time in a high-drag aerodynamic regime that penalizes large vehicle cross sections and volumes (this is why the first stage of the saturn V used kerosene instead). Better choices would be trimethylacetelene, cyclopropane, UDMH/Hydrazine, or propylene, which can all deliver more than twice as much payload to orbit for a fixed tankage volume than LH2 can. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From neptune at superlink.net Mon Sep 19 03:30:16 2005 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 23:30:16 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Shoreline Spotted on Saturn's Moon Titan Message-ID: <003501c5bcca$7515b620$87893cd1@pavilion> http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050917_titan_shore.html Too ambiguous for me to judge. Regards, Dan From nanogirl at halcyon.com Sun Sep 18 22:04:35 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 15:04:35 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moon goddess References: <007601c5bc93$4acf6f50$0200a8c0@Nano> <6.2.1.2.0.20050918162122.01e32030@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <008c01c5bc9c$f975bc90$0200a8c0@Nano> Um, yeah that's it, 5 dimensional : ) You're probably noticing that two parts of this image have two different light sources as they were from two different scenes. I made the moon background in one program, rendered out a jpg, then I made the model in another program, rendered out a jpg of her. I then glued them together in Photoshop. The yellow that you see is actually the "neon glow" filter in Photoshop. It sort of flushed the two images together by the common shade color. I threw the star on in Photoshop too (just used the shape tool with a gradient). The attached is what the two scenes looked like before I put them together and added the filter. You can see (you are correct) that they actually have opposite directional lighting. What I did like about the neon filter is that it sort of suggested that the glow you see around that center of darkness (lower right by the moon) is circular and perhaps could rise above her, where as the base of her (her legs etc.) is darker and closer to that center of darkness. Gina ----- Original Message ----- From: Damien Broderick To: ExI chat list Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 2:23 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] Moon goddess At 01:55 PM 9/18/2005 -0700, Gina wrote: >While we are up in space, here is another image I made the other day - >http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/moongoddess.htm >. Pretty, but where's the light source for her face? Not the star in her hand, I think. This is due to one of those danged 5-dimensional thingees, right? That goddesses use? Damien Broderick _______________________________________________ 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: before.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 48877 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 07:32:35 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:32:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Camera phones will be high-precision scanners In-Reply-To: <432DE91F.7060708@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <20050919073235.97652.qmail@web60011.mail.yahoo.com> Camera phones will be high-precision scanners http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7998&print=true This isn't a quantum leap or anything. More like a natural development. Nevertheless, check out the details. I never envisioned OCR as capable as this, nor wedded to a device as ubiquitous as a cell phone. (Clearly, not limited to cell phones.) I've been wanting a book scanner for years. I can't wait for everything that hits print to be digitize-able as easily as music and movies. The only thing paper has going for it is intellectual property protection capability. Everything else is inconvenient. (Okay, curled up in bed with a captivating read till dawn is still top drawer, but that's about it.) YMMV. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Mon Sep 19 10:42:18 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:42:18 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] SpaceX announces Falcon 9, private EELV-class rocket In-Reply-To: References: <20050917022809.54663.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/18/05, Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > I've been watching it. I'm finding the NASA funds for the CEV > > interesting. Billions to develop a Apollo-class capsule technology they > > already had 30 years ago and tried to burn the blueprints for when the > > shuttle came along. What are the funds really being blown on? > > > In order to get approval for building the CEV, maybe NASA > needs to make sure they buy some piece of technology from > the constituencies of as many senators as possible? > Even more cynical - the US govt has decided that cheap access to space is not in the US national interest. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Mon Sep 19 14:27:30 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 09:27:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan References: <20050916211144.11687.qmail@web60016.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00d501c5bd26$45194ca0$0100a8c0@kevin> That's really an interesting thingy you found. I'd like to see some population figures for the colored areas. Do you have any idea what the yield is of the bomb that terrorists would most likely attempt to bring over the Mexican border? This is exactly why we need to be shooting people as they enter the country illegally. I know it doesn;t seem very extropian, but if people were being shot, I doubt as many would be trying to cross. There's legal ways into this country. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Davis" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 4:11 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan > http://www.fas.org/main/content.jsp?formAction=297&contentId=367 > > The info blurb on the linked page says: > > Nuclear Weapon Effects Calculator > > This interactive tool is intended to give an idea of > the devastating blast effects of ground-level, shallow > subsurface, and low-altitude nuclear weapon > detonations. It is relevant to traditional nuclear > weapons, potential terrorist attacks, and next > generation nuclear weapons such as "Bunker Busters" or > "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrators" (RNEPs). (Despite > the name, "Earth Penetrators" will not penetrate far > into hard rock and can be considered "surface" bursts > when using the bomb calculator.) > > High definition aerial maps of selected U.S. cities > have been provided. The size of the bomb can be chosen > by selecting the weapon's yield, as measured in > kilotons (KT) or megatons (MT) of TNT equivalent. > There is also the option of having the bomb delivered > using an automobile at ground level or using an > aircraft flying at an altitude that produces the > widest area of destruction. > > ********************************* > > I hope no one will be offended, but I found this nifty > little site provided by the Federation of American > Scientists. Unfortunately, those who would prefer > fantasizing about the nuclear obliteration of say, > France or Iran or (insert name of preferred non-US > victim country) will have to bear up under a certain > degree of disappointment. Also, there's no NY, NY. A > clear oversight. > > So, red state or blue, rich or poor, black or white, > muslim/atheist/christian/jew, ethnic cleansers all, > "go tribal!" and pick your targets. Also, if there > are any programmers out there who could help tweak the > Java thingie that makes this work, I would really like > to add a "Neutron Weapons" option so that I could > enjoy the lasting pleasure of toying with the pure > lethality and duration/intensity of suffering to be > expected from a honkin' big pulse of neutron > radiation. You know, how may people will die, how > long they will take depending on exposure, plus the > not-immediately-lethal outcomes and, of course, the > post-event cancer forecast. All the gruesome details. > > Have a nice day. > > Best, Jeff Davis > > "No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental > ills of society. If we're looking for the sources of > our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we > should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and > love of power." - P. J. O'Rourke > > > > > > > __________________________________ > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 > 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 Sep 19 14:36:03 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (M.B. Baumeister) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:36:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Madcap runs into the rocks !! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <35598.69.18.90.201.1127140563.squirrel@main.nc.us> > > Madcap lost a battle with the sea, the weather and the rocks last > weekend. > > To remove her from the rocks, they "cut her up" ... :-( > > http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=12506 > > Amara > (with a lump in her throat) We humans often imbue inanimate objects with personalities, making the loss painful. I recall as a small child sitting at the curb with our old refrigerator, with my hand on it, tears coming down my face... it was being discarded (broken beyond repair) but "it was a "good" refrigerator" in my eyes and I was sorry for it. Sympathy for your pain. Regards, MB From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Mon Sep 19 14:55:58 2005 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:55:58 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan In-Reply-To: <00d501c5bd26$45194ca0$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <20050916211144.11687.qmail@web60016.mail.yahoo.com> <00d501c5bd26$45194ca0$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <5844e22f05091907556a09b6a7@mail.gmail.com> On 9/19/05, kevinfreels.com wrote: > This is exactly why we need to be shooting people as they enter the country > illegally. I know it doesn;t seem very extropian, but if people were being > shot, I doubt as many would be trying to cross. There's legal ways into this > country. Let's shoot people for speeding and jaywalking. Let's chop off the hands of shoplifters, too. Let's stone queers in the public square. There are legal ways to drive and cross streets and acquire goods and get married, right? And I know it doesn't seem very extropian, but let's set the ignorant on fire, too. If the ignorant were burned at the stake, I doubt as many suggestions like this one would be passed around. -- Jeff Medina http://www.painfullyclear.com/ Community Director Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ Relationships & Community Fellow Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies http://www.ieet.org/ School of Philosophy, Birkbeck, University of London http://www.bbk.ac.uk/phil/ From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Mon Sep 19 14:55:58 2005 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:55:58 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan In-Reply-To: <00d501c5bd26$45194ca0$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <20050916211144.11687.qmail@web60016.mail.yahoo.com> <00d501c5bd26$45194ca0$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <5844e22f05091907556a09b6a7@mail.gmail.com> On 9/19/05, kevinfreels.com wrote: > This is exactly why we need to be shooting people as they enter the country > illegally. I know it doesn;t seem very extropian, but if people were being > shot, I doubt as many would be trying to cross. There's legal ways into this > country. Let's shoot people for speeding and jaywalking. Let's chop off the hands of shoplifters, too. Let's stone queers in the public square. There are legal ways to drive and cross streets and acquire goods and get married, right? And I know it doesn't seem very extropian, but let's set the ignorant on fire, too. If the ignorant were burned at the stake, I doubt as many suggestions like this one would be passed around. -- Jeff Medina http://www.painfullyclear.com/ Community Director Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ Relationships & Community Fellow Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies http://www.ieet.org/ School of Philosophy, Birkbeck, University of London http://www.bbk.ac.uk/phil/ From kevin at kevinfreels.com Mon Sep 19 15:12:55 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:12:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan References: <20050916211144.11687.qmail@web60016.mail.yahoo.com><00d501c5bd26$45194ca0$0100a8c0@kevin> <5844e22f05091907556a09b6a7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <011f01c5bd2c$9d5dd470$0100a8c0@kevin> So you don;t see the difference between jaywalking and illegally crossing a sovereign country's border? It's all the same? A law is a law is a law? Shoplifting = murder? Are you proposing that by breaking a law to enter a country a person is therefore protected by the laws of that country? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Medina" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 9:55 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan > On 9/19/05, kevinfreels.com wrote: > > This is exactly why we need to be shooting people as they enter the country > > illegally. I know it doesn;t seem very extropian, but if people were being > > shot, I doubt as many would be trying to cross. There's legal ways into this > > country. > > Let's shoot people for speeding and jaywalking. Let's chop off the > hands of shoplifters, too. Let's stone queers in the public square. > There are legal ways to drive and cross streets and acquire goods and > get married, right? > > And I know it doesn't seem very extropian, but let's set the ignorant > on fire, too. If the ignorant were burned at the stake, I doubt as > many suggestions like this one would be passed around. > > -- > Jeff Medina > http://www.painfullyclear.com/ > > Community Director > Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence > http://www.singinst.org/ > > Relationships & Community Fellow > Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies > http://www.ieet.org/ > > School of Philosophy, Birkbeck, University of London > http://www.bbk.ac.uk/phil/ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From kevin at kevinfreels.com Mon Sep 19 15:21:16 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:21:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan References: <20050916211144.11687.qmail@web60016.mail.yahoo.com><00d501c5bd26$45194ca0$0100a8c0@kevin><5844e22f05091907556a09b6a7@mail.gmail.com> <011f01c5bd2c$9d5dd470$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <013101c5bd2d$c7d7bdf0$0100a8c0@kevin> I wasn't finished.... Are you suggesting that we should only defend our borders after we have been attacked? Should we wait until the first jet drops it's bombs before we fire on a squadron? Do we wait until AFTER a nuclear terrorist attack kills tens of thousands before we start protecting our borders? In other words....do you, in your infinite intelligence have an alternative that will be as effective at preventing the lives of hundreds of thousands of citizens from being lost in such an attack? Or are you the type to wait until after the attack and then complain that the administration didn;t do enough? > So you don;t see the difference between jaywalking and illegally crossing a > sovereign country's border? > It's all the same? A law is a law is a law? Shoplifting = murder? > Are you proposing that by breaking a law to enter a country a person is > therefore protected by the laws of that country? > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Medina" > To: "ExI chat list" > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 9:55 AM > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan > > > > On 9/19/05, kevinfreels.com wrote: > > > This is exactly why we need to be shooting people as they enter the > country > > > illegally. I know it doesn;t seem very extropian, but if people were > being > > > shot, I doubt as many would be trying to cross. There's legal ways into > this > > > country. > > > > Let's shoot people for speeding and jaywalking. Let's chop off the > > hands of shoplifters, too. Let's stone queers in the public square. > > There are legal ways to drive and cross streets and acquire goods and > > get married, right? > > > > And I know it doesn't seem very extropian, but let's set the ignorant > > on fire, too. If the ignorant were burned at the stake, I doubt as > > many suggestions like this one would be passed around. > > > > -- > > Jeff Medina > > http://www.painfullyclear.com/ > > > > Community Director > > Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence > > http://www.singinst.org/ > > > > Relationships & Community Fellow > > Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies > > http://www.ieet.org/ > > > > School of Philosophy, Birkbeck, University of London > > http://www.bbk.ac.uk/phil/ > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From eugen at leitl.org Mon Sep 19 15:23:17 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 17:23:17 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan In-Reply-To: <011f01c5bd2c$9d5dd470$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <5844e22f05091907556a09b6a7@mail.gmail.com> <011f01c5bd2c$9d5dd470$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <20050919152317.GA2249@leitl.org> On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 10:12:55AM -0500, kevinfreels.com wrote: > So you don;t see the difference between jaywalking and illegally crossing a > sovereign country's border? > It's all the same? A law is a law is a law? Shoplifting = murder? > Are you proposing that by breaking a law to enter a country a person is > therefore protected by the laws of that country? I propose the death sentence for idiot posters. Off with his head! -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From user at dhp.com Mon Sep 19 21:44:32 2005 From: user at dhp.com (user) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 17:44:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] what other "X-prizes" have been started ? Message-ID: During the peak of the x-prizes publicity curve, while it was being won and people were flying, etc., I heard a bit of optimism about the role of bounties in general and the prediction that other X-prizes would be started to spur innovation and discovery ... To what degree has this occurred ? Anyone know of any other "X-prizes" being offered ? From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Sep 19 22:31:26 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 15:31:26 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan In-Reply-To: <011f01c5bd2c$9d5dd470$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <20050916211144.11687.qmail@web60016.mail.yahoo.com> <00d501c5bd26$45194ca0$0100a8c0@kevin> <5844e22f05091907556a09b6a7@mail.gmail.com> <011f01c5bd2c$9d5dd470$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <620523BF-CEBE-48E5-B000-7F9F66D58F20@mac.com> crossing a border illegally = murder? If we kept all illegal aliens out the economies of several states would probably be threatened. A lot of cheap onsite labor would no longer be available. Would it be better to regularize the process? Sure. But shooting people isn't the way to get there. - s On Sep 19, 2005, at 8:12 AM, kevinfreels.com wrote: > So you don;t see the difference between jaywalking and illegally > crossing a > sovereign country's border? > It's all the same? A law is a law is a law? Shoplifting = murder? > Are you proposing that by breaking a law to enter a country a > person is > therefore protected by the laws of that country? > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Medina" > To: "ExI chat list" > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 9:55 AM > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan > > > >> On 9/19/05, kevinfreels.com wrote: >> >>> This is exactly why we need to be shooting people as they enter the >>> > country > >>> illegally. I know it doesn;t seem very extropian, but if people were >>> > being > >>> shot, I doubt as many would be trying to cross. There's legal >>> ways into >>> > this > >>> country. >>> >> >> Let's shoot people for speeding and jaywalking. Let's chop off the >> hands of shoplifters, too. Let's stone queers in the public square. >> There are legal ways to drive and cross streets and acquire goods and >> get married, right? >> >> And I know it doesn't seem very extropian, but let's set the ignorant >> on fire, too. If the ignorant were burned at the stake, I doubt as >> many suggestions like this one would be passed around. >> >> -- >> Jeff Medina >> http://www.painfullyclear.com/ >> >> Community Director >> Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence >> http://www.singinst.org/ >> >> Relationships & Community Fellow >> Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies >> http://www.ieet.org/ >> >> School of Philosophy, Birkbeck, University of London >> http://www.bbk.ac.uk/phil/ >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 22:51:42 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 15:51:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] what other "X-prizes" have been started ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050919225142.28136.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- user wrote: > > During the peak of the x-prizes publicity curve, while it was being > won > and people were flying, etc., I heard a bit of optimism about the > role of > bounties in general and the prediction that other X-prizes would be > started to spur innovation and discovery ... > > To what degree has this occurred ? Anyone know of any other > "X-prizes" being offered ? Actually, yes, Bigelow is offering a $50 million prize to the US group that can provide passenger orbital services to his orbital hotel by 2010. NASA is also offering smaller prizes for various technological and other achievements, and XCOR is offering a $10k prize for a part for its rocket fuel piston pump. Given todays announcements about the new space agenda by NASA, IMHO they should offer similar prizes to companies that produce products to meet certain categories, getting away from the single contract awards and eliminating the expensive cost plus acquisition policies typical of government bureaucracy. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 22:54:26 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 15:54:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan In-Reply-To: <00d501c5bd26$45194ca0$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <20050919225426.91391.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> --- "kevinfreels.com" wrote: > That's really an interesting thingy you found. I'd > like to see some > population figures for the colored areas. > Do you have any idea what the yield is of the bomb > that terrorists would > most likely attempt to bring over the Mexican > border? Well if we are talking about the "misplaced" Russian nuclear warheads, they would be in the 10 megaton range. The Russians didn't have very accurate missile technology as the ball bearings in their gyroscopes weren't as perfectly round as ours are, so they resorted to super high yields such that a near miss would still do the job. > This is exactly why we need to be shooting people as > they enter the country > illegally. I know it doesn;t seem very extropian, > but if people were being > shot, I doubt as many would be trying to cross. > There's legal ways into this > country. This is excessive since the vast majority would just be Mexicans hoping to live the American dream. I would be alright with them being being confronted and turned away by armed men at the border. But shooting to kill on sight is way out of line. Shooting them with tranquilizer darts, like they use to tag wild animals with radio beacons, and then searching and confiscating any weapons (WMD or otherwise) and releasing them back into their own country seems much more humane to me. Since terrorists are much more likely to be armed then typical immigrants, if they return fire, lock and load the real deal. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 22:57:47 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 15:57:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan In-Reply-To: <620523BF-CEBE-48E5-B000-7F9F66D58F20@mac.com> Message-ID: <20050919225747.27034.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > crossing a border illegally = murder? If we kept all illegal aliens > out the economies of several states would probably be threatened. A > lot of cheap onsite labor would no longer be available. Would it be > better to regularize the process? Sure. But shooting people isn't > the way to get there. People who work as illegals here in the US do so not because it is their only option, they do it so they can work off the books and not pay US income taxes (or Mexican). If they came as legal temporary workers, they'd earn up to 40% less doing the same work. If the INS were serious about the border problem, they'd let them all through, then collect taxes from them on the way back. In the fall, when lots of illegals go home for the holidays, they bring home pickup trucks full of things purchased with their off the books earnings (or bought on easy credit and never paid off), so the Federales can't "collect" from them when they go home through the gates (Mexican law enforcement doesn't care whether they left the country legally or not). Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From kevin at kevinfreels.com Mon Sep 19 23:10:32 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:10:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan References: <20050916211144.11687.qmail@web60016.mail.yahoo.com><00d501c5bd26$45194ca0$0100a8c0@kevin><5844e22f05091907556a09b6a7@mail.gmail.com><011f01c5bd2c$9d5dd470$0100a8c0@kevin> <620523BF-CEBE-48E5-B000-7F9F66D58F20@mac.com> Message-ID: <04a201c5bd6f$55ea38c0$0100a8c0@kevin> I'm all for allowing people into the country. I would just assume let anyone in who wants in as long as they checkout and they are searched. I fully believe that people coming to the country is a great benefit. Every time they take a job, they become a consumer and a producer and another job is created. I don;t buy that garbage that people preach about "jobs being taken up by foreigners". But that's not what I am talking about. I am not trying to keep people out. I just want them to come in a controlled manner through a door. Those who attempt to come in through the cracks are a threat to national security and should be dealt with as such. Let me ask you this. If the Chinese military decided 10 years ago to smuggle soldiers in across the border. Suppose they equalled half of the 1500 per day that come into the US. How many Chinese soldiers would be here now? How about a wall and a mine field? Then if they blow up, it's their own fault? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Samantha Atkins" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 5:31 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan > crossing a border illegally = murder? If we kept all illegal aliens > out the economies of several states would probably be threatened. A > lot of cheap onsite labor would no longer be available. Would it be > better to regularize the process? Sure. But shooting people isn't > the way to get there. > > - s > On Sep 19, 2005, at 8:12 AM, kevinfreels.com wrote: > > > So you don;t see the difference between jaywalking and illegally > > crossing a > > sovereign country's border? > > It's all the same? A law is a law is a law? Shoplifting = murder? > > Are you proposing that by breaking a law to enter a country a > > person is > > therefore protected by the laws of that country? > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Jeff Medina" > > To: "ExI chat list" > > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 9:55 AM > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan > > > > > > > >> On 9/19/05, kevinfreels.com wrote: > >> > >>> This is exactly why we need to be shooting people as they enter the > >>> > > country > > > >>> illegally. I know it doesn;t seem very extropian, but if people were > >>> > > being > > > >>> shot, I doubt as many would be trying to cross. There's legal > >>> ways into > >>> > > this > > > >>> country. > >>> > >> > >> Let's shoot people for speeding and jaywalking. Let's chop off the > >> hands of shoplifters, too. Let's stone queers in the public square. > >> There are legal ways to drive and cross streets and acquire goods and > >> get married, right? > >> > >> And I know it doesn't seem very extropian, but let's set the ignorant > >> on fire, too. If the ignorant were burned at the stake, I doubt as > >> many suggestions like this one would be passed around. > >> > >> -- > >> Jeff Medina > >> http://www.painfullyclear.com/ > >> > >> Community Director > >> Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence > >> http://www.singinst.org/ > >> > >> Relationships & Community Fellow > >> Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies > >> http://www.ieet.org/ > >> > >> School of Philosophy, Birkbeck, University of London > >> http://www.bbk.ac.uk/phil/ > >> _______________________________________________ > >> extropy-chat mailing list > >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 23:06:20 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:06:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan In-Reply-To: <20050919225426.91391.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050919230620.99811.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: > > > --- "kevinfreels.com" wrote: > > > That's really an interesting thingy you found. I'd > > like to see some > > population figures for the colored areas. > > Do you have any idea what the yield is of the bomb > > that terrorists would > > most likely attempt to bring over the Mexican > > border? > > Well if we are talking about the "misplaced" Russian > nuclear warheads, they would be in the 10 megaton > range. More like 8 kiloton range. Those pony 'suitcase' nukes are not powerful, only intended to be infiltrated by Spetznaz through the Mexican border and set off at crucial infrastructure nexus', such as where highways, railroads, pipelines, etc. cross as well as major dams and power infrastructure. > The Russians didn't have very accurate missile > technology as the ball bearings in their gyroscopes > weren't as perfectly round as ours are, so they > resorted to super high yields such that a near miss > would still do the job. Missile nukes are not the ones there is concern about, as they are all well documented. > > > > This is exactly why we need to be shooting people as > > they enter the country > > illegally. I know it doesn;t seem very extropian, > > but if people were being > > shot, I doubt as many would be trying to cross. > > There's legal ways into this > > country. > > This is excessive since the vast majority would just > be Mexicans hoping to live the American dream. I would > be alright with them being being confronted and turned > away by armed men at the border. But shooting to kill > on sight is way out of line. Shooting them with > tranquilizer darts, like they use to tag wild animals > with radio beacons, and then searching and > confiscating any weapons (WMD or otherwise) and > releasing them back into their own country seems much > more humane to me. Since terrorists are much more > likely to be armed then typical immigrants, if they > return fire, lock and load the real deal. Actually, terrorists would be less likely to be armed. They are all taught that it is 'easy' to get weapons in the US. Al Qaeda texts discuss this specifically. Of course, it's not quite that easy. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From amara at amara.com Mon Sep 19 23:13:52 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 01:13:52 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan Message-ID: Kevin Freels >Those who attempt to come in through the cracks are a threat to >national security and should be dealt with as such. Are you serious? I'm one of those illegal immigrants, and I have two jobs (astrophysics research/space missions at a national Italian astrophysics observatory and teaching astronomy at a private American university in Rome). For job experience, I have 20 years experience in my field and for my educational training, I have a physics PhD. I'm illegal because the permit-of-stay policies of immigration law in Italy caused the whole system to collapse. So then in your pondering of immigration laws, put this in the mix and ponder it too. I suggest for your primary data collection to talk to the immigrants themselves. And then answer this: at what point are a government's policies so stupid that it shoots itself in the foot? Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI) Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF), Adjunct Assistant Professor Astronomy, AUR, Roma, ITALIA Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it From user at dhp.com Tue Sep 20 00:10:32 2005 From: user at dhp.com (user) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:10:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] what other "X-prizes" have been started ? In-Reply-To: <20050919225142.28136.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote: > Actually, yes, Bigelow is offering a $50 million prize to the US group > that can provide passenger orbital services to his orbital hotel by > 2010. NASA is also offering smaller prizes for various technological > and other achievements, and XCOR is offering a $10k prize for a part > for its rocket fuel piston pump. > > Given todays announcements about the new space agenda by NASA, IMHO > they should offer similar prizes to companies that produce products to > meet certain categories, getting away from the single contract awards > and eliminating the expensive cost plus acquisition policies typical of > government bureaucracy. Hmmm...interesting. But all related to space, it seems ? I was thinking more along the lines of fuel cells, batteries, medical devices, etc. It would be nice to see some successful bounties for results in other fields ... From live2scan at charter.net Tue Sep 20 00:19:29 2005 From: live2scan at charter.net (Dennis) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:19:29 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] rebuilding New Orleans Message-ID: <001a01c5bd78$ff30f190$640fa8c0@dennis1zpu5spy> A city is sinking. The city fathers want to find a way to prevent this old and beloved city from being inundated. A place that is a fountain of culture with a diverse and energetic populace. A city of artists and restaurateurs and festivals. A seaport bustling with the commerce of nations. What can be done to save it? " We know", they exclaimed! We will build our city as a series of islands crisscrossed by canals! If the water rises there will be quite sufficient canal volume to contain the flood. We can use the existing earth as fill to raise the land upon which we can build a city to be marveled at for centuries. Where we removed the earth there will be broad and deep channels for drainage, commerce and of course a place for lovers. For what more romantic place is there for lovers than to walk beside a slow moving river, unless it is to ride upon it in a quaint old boat. To this day we revere that city, Venice. Maybe there is nothing new under the sun. The idea worked in Italy many years ago why not now. Don't rebuild that city the same way. Don't try to fight the river, flow with it. If you like this idea pass it along. I've heard no one talking about how to rebuild in any way that makes sense. This does to me. Its our tax money being spent, let's not have it thrown away. If the city is to be rebuilt, can we not do as good a job as the Venetians? If you like this idea, forward it to as many people as you can. You can make a difference. Don't let this opportunity to do the right thing pass. Dennis Roberts live2scan at charter.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Sep 20 00:34:29 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:34:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] rebuilding New Orleans In-Reply-To: <001a01c5bd78$ff30f190$640fa8c0@dennis1zpu5spy> References: <001a01c5bd78$ff30f190$640fa8c0@dennis1zpu5spy> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050919193256.01e98af8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> >If the city is to be rebuilt, can we not do as good a job as the Venetians? Venice is falling to pieces, last I heard, water encroaching everywhere, so one would hope American engineers do rather a better job. Damien Broderick From sentience at pobox.com Tue Sep 20 00:41:00 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 17:41:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] rebuilding New Orleans In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050919193256.01e98af8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <001a01c5bd78$ff30f190$640fa8c0@dennis1zpu5spy> <6.2.1.2.0.20050919193256.01e98af8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <432F5A9C.4080506@pobox.com> Remember, if we don't rebuild New Orleans in exactly the same spot, the hurricanes have already won. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Sep 20 00:49:20 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 01:49:20 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] what other "X-prizes" have been started ? In-Reply-To: References: <20050919225142.28136.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e050919174958f186f4@mail.gmail.com> On 9/20/05, user wrote: > > It would be nice to see some successful bounties for results in other > fields ... > Yep. I remember talk about the Methuselah Mouse prize, not sure what the situation is with that; and the US Army are, I believe, running a second round of their prize for an autonomous vehicle that can complete a predefined course, which looks interesting. - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fortean1 at mindspring.com Tue Sep 20 00:49:29 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 17:49:29 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] NASA going back to the moon Message-ID: <432F5C99.8010900@mindspring.com> Nasa details Moon and Mars plan The US space agency Nasa is announcing detailed plans for sending humans back to the Moon and eventually onwards to Mars. Nasa wants to send a crew of four to the Moon in 2018 for a one-week stay, according to reports. Humans have not set foot on the Moon since the Apollo 17 mission in 1972. Astronauts on the 2018 mission might return to the Moon in a capsule similar to those used in the Apollo programme but using space shuttle technology. Nasa is charged with implementing the vision for space exploration, laid out in January 2004 by President George W Bush. This vision aims to return humans to the Moon, to use it as a staging point for a manned mission to Mars. Expensive plans The American space agency briefed congressional committees on Friday on its plans to spend a reported $100bn developing the spacecraft and associated technology for the lunar programme. Research aboard the International Space Station is also expected to be cut. The space shuttle is to be retired by 2010 in order to pay for its replacement, known as the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV). Nasa would begin the lunar expedition by lifting a lunar landing capsule and a propulsion stage into space. It would then launch the CEV atop a new launcher using existing shuttle rocket technology. The CEV would dock with the lunar lander and the propulsion stage and start its journey to the Moon. Nasa also envisions building a semi-permanent lunar base, where astronauts would make use of the Moon's natural resources for water and fuel. Even before the official announcement, there has been recognition that the proposals will be tough to see through, given the US government's commitments to the Iraq war and recovery from Hurricane Katrina. "This plan is coming out at a time when the nation is facing significant budgetary challenges," Representative Bart Gordon, a Tennessee Democrat on the US House Science Committee, said in a statement. "Getting agreement to move forward on it is going to be heavy lifting in the current environment, and it's clear that strong presidential leadership will be needed." Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4260396.stm Hands up if you thought we'd have got to Mars by now? A bit worried they're using Apollo (1960's tech) and Space Shuttle (1970's tech) though. Why not make soem new stuff? Gordon -- "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 kevin at kevinfreels.com Tue Sep 20 01:05:08 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:05:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan References: Message-ID: <050f01c5bd7f$58bf3770$0100a8c0@kevin> I am serious. Granted, it's not practical considering the system as it now sits. But that system needs to change as well. As I said, I think everyone who wants in should be allowed in legally. No matter how many. If you can get here, you can stay. You can become a citizen by simply wanting to. But you come through the front door. That's all I am saying. Are you trying to state that you crawled across the border and snuck into the country without any government knowledge? Are you also saying that people who cross the border in such a way do not represent a threat to national security? I am referring to something totally different form what you are describing. If you had read my post you would realize that I was not referring to people who slip through the cracks, but those who use the cracks to get through. Your situation is one of a failure of a policy which stinks to begin with. In "my world" you would have just come in through the front door and registered. No "permission" required. There would have been no need for you to sneak across a border....unless you intended to do harm. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Amara Graps" To: Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 6:13 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan > Kevin Freels > >Those who attempt to come in through the cracks are a threat to > >national security and should be dealt with as such. > > Are you serious? > > I'm one of those illegal immigrants, and I have two jobs > (astrophysics research/space missions at a national Italian > astrophysics observatory and teaching astronomy at a private > American university in Rome). For job experience, I have 20 years > experience in my field and for my educational training, I have a > physics PhD. I'm illegal because the permit-of-stay policies of > immigration law in Italy caused the whole system to collapse. So > then in your pondering of immigration laws, put this in the mix and > ponder it too. I suggest for your primary data collection to talk to > the immigrants themselves. And then answer this: at what point are a > government's policies so stupid that it shoots itself in the foot? > > Amara > -- > > Amara Graps, PhD > Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI) > Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF), > Adjunct Assistant Professor Astronomy, AUR, > Roma, ITALIA Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Tue Sep 20 01:10:25 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:10:25 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] rebuilding New Orleans References: <001a01c5bd78$ff30f190$640fa8c0@dennis1zpu5spy><6.2.1.2.0.20050919193256.01e98af8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <432F5A9C.4080506@pobox.com> Message-ID: <071201c5bd80$15188840$8998e03c@homepc> Eliezer wrote: > Remember, if we don't rebuild New Orleans in exactly the same spot, the > hurricanes have already won. That *was* funny. Brett Paatsch From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Sep 20 01:30:45 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:30:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Madcap runs into the rocks !! (extremophiles in industry) In-Reply-To: <35598.69.18.90.201.1127140563.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <200509200130.j8K1UrX25220@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of M.B. Baumeister > > > > http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=12506 > > > > Amara > > (with a lump in her throat) > > > We humans often imbue inanimate objects with personalities, making the > loss painful... I can show you a motorcycle with an actual personality: it knows its master. For some odd reason it will only start and run for me. Others who have attempted to operate him have met with unsatisfactory results. Most motorcycles are shes, but this one is male, for it is a stallion. I call him Rocinante, for this was the name of Don Quixote's horse and John Steinbeck's truck. My wife and I returned yesterday evening from a ten day motorcycle tour of the west on Rocinante. We went to Yellowstone Park to look at old growth forests, but there were few, actually none of these to be found. But I was astounded by the geysers and geological features. I was with a group which included a PhD in geology. This made the trip worthwhile just to listen to him. I learned of a bacterium that was taken from one of the hot springs that can live in boiling water (at that altitude it is ~93C). The GM people were using it to create industrial products and pharmaceuticals. This ran afoul of a law regarding the use of a national park for commercial products. The case is still ongoing, and carries many important implications for intellectual property law. If you get a chance for a vacation, I highly recommend Yellowstone Park. spike Here's what I found on the extremophiles: BY CHRISTOPHER SMITH THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE Yellowstone National Park will receive a royalty of 0.5 percent for industrial and pharmaceutical products derived from the microscopic bugs found in geysers and thermal pools under secret terms of a first-ever "bioprospecting" deal. That is way too low, according to watchdog groups that have brought suit against the National Park Service over the park's contract with a private firm. But Yellowstone officials say the royalty amounts are better than nothing, which is all the park has received from past discoveries of microbes that yield valuable commercial products. The Park Service has refused to make public the financial specifics of the agreement between Yellowstone and Diversa Inc. of San Diego, a biotechnology firm. But The Salt Lake Tribune recently obtained a copy of the payment schedule, which details royalty amounts ranging up to 10 percent for commercial uses besides industrial and pharmaceutical products. With Vice President Al Gore looking on in August 1997 at Yellowstone's 125th anniversary celebration, Diversa officials and Yellowstone park managers signed the novel "benefit sharing" contract. Today, the Yellowstone-Diversa pact is the subject of two federal lawsuits in Washington. A coalition of environmental and technology watchdog groups have sued the Park Service, contending Yellowstone illegally commercialized natural resources owned by all Americans without the consent of the public. In March, a federal judge hearing one of the lawsuits ruled in favor of the watchdog groups, suspended the Diversa contract and ordered the park to conduct an environmental impact study on bioprospecting with public input. A second suit challenges the Park Service's refusal to disclose the amount of money Yellowstone will receive from Diversa for allowing the company to license and sell products and research derived from organisms collected in the park and then cloned in Diversa's labs. Last year, several organizations,including The Tribune and the Washington-based Natural Resources News Service, unsuccessfully appealed the Department of Interior's ruling that the royalties were confidential. However, The Tribune independently obtained a copy of the secret royalty amounts, which shows Diversa will give Yellowstone: -- A $20,000 payment annually for five years, minus any royalties accrued by the park from net sales or revenues of commercially viable products derived from Yellowstone microorganisms. -- Royalties of 0.5 percent of net sales of industrial or pharmaceutical products resulting from Yellowstone microbes, 3 percent of net sales of "research reagent or diagnostic" products made from Yellowstone genetic resources and 8 percent of net sales of "native enzymes purified from cultured microorganisms" found in the park. -- A royalty of 10 percent of net revenues realized by Diversa from the licensing, assignment or sale of copyrighted work -- such as books, journal articles or genetic code -- created using the results of research from Yellowstone biological resources. -- Equipment and up to 10 days of scientific training, worth an estimated $15,000 annually. The financial rewards Yellowstone receives in return for allowing Diversa to commercialize park resources -- believed by some experts to be a multibillion-dollar biotechnology gold mine -- struck critics of the agreement as astonishingly low. "This is a rotten deal," said Joe Mendelson, legal director for the International Center for Technology Assessment in Washington, which brought suit on behalf of the watchdog organizations against the Park Service over the Diversa deal. "Yellowstone held all the cards and they gave it away for a song and a dance," he said. "These are not federal lands where it's legal to harvest timber or mine coal, this is a national park to be protected for future generations. And to the extent they're allowing a commercial exploitation inside a national park at a far lower royalty rate than you find on lands legally allowed to be commercially exploited, it is just preposterous." Royalties paid by private companies to the U.S. Treasury for the right to harvest natural resources for commercial sale from public lands are traditionally higher than half of 1 percent. The standard royalty rate that energy companies pay the federal government to extract oil and gas from Bureau of Land Management-administered property is 12.5 percent. But Yellowstone officials and the private consultant the park hired to help broker the Diversa contract defended the royalty schedule as a good deal for American taxpayers that protects the unique resource while guaranteeing financial compensation should any discoveries be made. "For us, any amount is better than zero," said Yellowstone Park Superintendent Mike Finley. "We were issuing research permits and seeing no return. As we gain experience with this, we will probably get closer to that magic number we should be at, but we were comfortable with this range [of royalties]." Preston Scott, director of the World Foundation for Environment and Development, a Washington-based organization hired by Yellowstone to help park officials negotiate the Diversa contract, said it's impossible to compare a bioprospecting "benefits sharing package" to a standard public-land resource royalty contract. "There's not a proven commodity here, because you're dealing with so many variables before you know if you even have a product that can come to market," he said. "Under this agreement, if Diversa discovers nothing, the park still gets a $100,000 minimum contribution and Diversa gets nothing. But in my experience, no matter what financial arrangements you make, 50 percent of the population will say the royalties are too low and 50 percent will say they are too high." There is no recognized standard benchmark for royalties paid for bioprospecting access, since the industry is emerging,dynamic and highly speculative. One newly published book, The Commercial Use of Biodiversity by Kerry Ten Kate and Sarah A. Laird, includes a survey of average royalty rates paid by biotech firms. Forgenetic material that results in a commercially viable product,the authors found companies paying at least 5 percent and as much as 10 percent royalties -- substantially higher than the 0.5 percent in the Yellowstone deal. But many experts believe it's difficult to draw any conclusions about whether one benefit-sharing contract is better than another. "I wish there was an easy approach to judging the fairness of these agreements, but there is not," said Michael A. Gollin, a partner specializing in intellectual property law at Venable,Baetjer, Howard and Civiletti in Washington. "A company like Diversa is investing millions of dollars in research based on natural resources, which is something the government can't andwould not ever do. The government is leveraging the resource into a useful product, hopefully for the betterment of quality of life in a way they can't otherwise do, providing a social benefit beyond upfront payments and royalties." National and international laws governing the collection and commercialization of genetic material are evolving, as is public opinion of genetic research. The field is highly controversial -- many activist organizations take the position that tinkering with genetic codes, the fundamental building blocks of all life on the planet, is asking for trouble. Some question whether national parks should be viewed as genetic-material supermarkets. "Is 'intellectual property' an appropriate way to describe all life and life forms in Yellowstone?" said Beth Burrows of the Edmonds Institute in Edmonds, Wash., which joined with the Center for Technology Assessment and the Alliance for the Wild Rockies in suing the Park Service over the Diversa agreement. "Is this what we expect from our park stewards? In this case, one of environmental justice at its fundamental level, there was a backroom deal and the American public was not consulted," she said. The Yellowstone bioprospecting contract underscores the increasing dilemma that federal land managers confront in the face of a bio-technological revolution. An increasing number of companies around the world are searching out, cloning, manipulating and patenting genetic sequences derived from microbes living in everything from Antarctic ice floes to a handful of backyard garden soil.Resulting products have ranged from new medicines to a stouter-tasting beer. Nature preserves, such as some national parks, contain a wide range of biological diversity with unique genetic materials that are emerging as one of the world's most valuable resources. Yellowstone's famous thermal features --mudpots, steam vents and acidic pools -- are especially attractive to bioprospectors because they hold "extremophiles," organisms that can tolerate extreme climates of heat and harsh chemicals. Pharmaceutical giant Hoffman-LaRouche focused attention on Yellowstone's potentially lucrative microbial resources by using Thermus aquaticus, or "Taq," a microbe first identified in one of the park's thermal pools, as the basis for the process now known as "DNA fingerprinting." It revolutionized biotechnology and has yielded billions of dollars in revenues, yet Hoffman-LaRouche has not and is under no legal obligation to share any proceeds with Yellowstone. "If Yellowstone had been getting 0.5 percent royalty from Hoffman-LaRouche on the hundreds of millions of dollars earned on Taq, the park and the American public would be doing very well right now," said Scott. Diversa also was under no obligation to share any potential wealth with Yellowstone, but company officials have said they wanted to make arrangements in advance to avoid future disputes, should a valuable bioprospecting discovery be made.The company was one of many that had routinely collected samples of water or mud from Yellowstone's geysers under free, no-obligation scientific research permits issued by the park. "We have a research mandate but we saw these discoveries happening and the park was not sharing in the revenue stream," said Finley. "As superintendent, I could have stopped all research activity, or I could have kept things business as usual and not gotten any return for the park, or I could do what we did and try to get us some financial gain while better understanding the resources we have here." But Mendelson scoffs at the argument the Diversa deal was the only alternative. "The research permitting system in place in Park Service regulations does not allow for commercial interests to come in and exploit the resource, but, instead of enforcing that,Yellowstone simply said, 'We can't do anything about it so let's make a deal,' " said Mendelson. "And then they claim they are protecting the resource. That's garbage. Allowing commercial exploitation is not protecting the park." (C)Salt Lake Tribune 1999 *************************** *************************** > Yellowstone, Mexico Deals Spell Trouble for Firm Wednesday, September 29, 1999 BY CHRISTOPHER SMITH THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE A bio-tech company probing Yellowstone National Park's geysers for commercially valuable microbes under a controversial agreement with the Park Service is now in hot water in Mexico over a similar "bioprospecting" contract. Diversa, a San Diego-based biotechnology company, was given the right in a secret 1997 contract to commercialize products from Yellowstone's unique heat-loving micro-organisms. The company cut a similar deal last year with Mexico's NationalAutonomous University (UNAM). Now, Mexican officials are charging that the Diversa deal violates environmental-protection laws and returns only a "pittance" in royalties to the Mexican people in exchange for bioprospecting in undisclosed areas. The charges are nearly identical to those lodged against Diversa's deal with Yellowstone by various watchdog groups that have brought suit against the National Park Service in federal court over a precedent-setting "cooperative research and development agreement" signed by Yellowstone park officials. In March, a federal judge in Washington ruled the contract represented a "dramatic change" in national park policy and was conducted without adequate public input. The deal marked the first time a national park would stand to profit from commercializing natural resources within park boundaries. But how much profit remains a secret. Yellowstone officials have refused to release the specific amount of royalties the park would receive from Diversa under the deal. The lawsuit is continuing. In Mexico, officials say they, too, may bring suit against Diversa and the National Autonomous University over that bioprospecting deal. "It is very clear this agreement violates Mexican environmental legislation, Mexican patent statutes, and, insofar as the payments to the university, the royalties are remarkably low to be ridiculous," said Alejandro Nadal, a lawyer, journalist and professor with the Center for Economic Studies at El Colegio de Mexico. In Tuesday's editions of one of Mexico's largest newspapers, La Jornada, Nadal and UNAM lawyer Alberto Szekely each wrote counterpoint columns about the agreement. Nadal labeled it the "looting" of Mexico's genetic resources, while Szekely defended the arrangement as an opportunity for collaborative work with royalties directed to the preservation of the environment. A Diversa spokesperson on Tuesday said the company was not aware of the allegations made against the UNAM contract and the firm stood by the agreement as a way to better understand the microbial diversity in Mexico's various habitats. When Diversa announced the UNAM contract in November, the company issued a press release stressing the agreement was "fully compliant with Mexican law and international treatises." In the speculative world of bioprospecting -- where scientists seek out new genetic material in everything from underwater thermal vents to rotting whale carcasses -- Mexico is considered a gold mine. While Mexico has only 1.3 percent of the world's land area, it holds 14.4 percent of the world's plant species. But Nadal claims Diversa was given the keys to the kingdom for a "pittance." Access to Mexico's biodiversity was given by UNAM -- which may not even have legal authority over the Mexican federal lands -- in exchange for equipment valued at $5,000, technical training in bioprospecting, $50 for each sample collected, royalties of 0.5 percent on pharmaceuticals derived from the samples and 0.3 percent royalties for any other products derived from the samples. "This is barely enough to hire a research assistant for one semester, yet not a finger was raised by the university to obtain a higher level of royalties," Nadal said during a telephone press conference Tuesday. Beth Burrows, director of the Edmonds Institute in Edmonds, Wash. -- one of the U.S. organizations that has brought suit against Diversa's Yellowstone bioprospecting deal -- said the negotiation tactics used in Mexico are identical to what happened in America's most famous national park. "These companies are used to going in and finding someone who will take a handful of beads for Manhattan," said Burrows, who joined Nadal in Tuesday's press conference. "In both cases, there was an end-run around the laws created to make sure the owners of these lands have a say in determining what happens to the resources." Nadal also claims that details of Yellowstone's royalty schedule were used in the UNAM negotiations by Diversa. Although he did not have documentation of the Yellowstone royalty schedule, he said the park was receiving as much as 10 percent of net sales from Diversa products, substantially higher than the Mexican agreement. "This is really discriminatory treatment, by all means," said Nadal. Diversa contends the UNAM contract compensation amounts released by Nadal Tuesday are incomplete and do not include all elements of the agreement. Plus, company officials say the Mexican contract includes a "most favored nation" clause that allows parity with any other Diversa contract --including Yellowstone's --that would pay UNAM amounts equal to other Diversa clients. (C)Salt Lake Tribune 1999 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 01:49:22 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:49:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] rebuilding New Orleans In-Reply-To: <432F5A9C.4080506@pobox.com> Message-ID: <20050920014922.31480.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> We should try to understand why hurricanes do what they do, committing random violence upon anybody in their way, and how our own actions are responsible for what has happened, and if we all just went back to living in caves the world would be a much nicer place. --- "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote: > Remember, if we don't rebuild New Orleans in exactly the same spot, > the hurricanes have already won. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Sep 20 01:57:06 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:57:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] rebuilding New Orleans In-Reply-To: <20050920014922.31480.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <432F5A9C.4080506@pobox.com> <20050920014922.31480.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050919205518.01dce700@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 06:49 PM 9/19/2005 -0700, Mike Lorrey scoffed: >We should try to understand why hurricanes do what they do, committing >random violence upon anybody in their way, and how our own actions are >responsible for what has happened Are you seriously suggested that our own actions *aren't* responsible--not for the hurricane, obviously, but "for what has happened" to New Orleans? Damien Broderick From reason at longevitymeme.org Tue Sep 20 02:57:03 2005 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:57:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] what other "X-prizes" have been started ? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e050919174958f186f4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: --> Russell Wallace >Yep. I remember talk about the Methuselah Mouse prize, not sure what the >situation is with that; and the US Army are, I believe, running a second >round of their prize for an autonomous vehicle that can complete a >predefined course, which looks interesting. The Methuselah Mouse Prize - now the Mprize - is doing well. See: http://www.mprize.org/ As of the moment, all donations are matched 1:2 by the Muhlestein Challenge Grant, so now would be a good time to donate. Think of it as an investment in your future healthy and wellbeing. If you can diversify your 401K, you should certain be of a mind to donate to the Mprize. Reason From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Sep 20 03:03:49 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 04:03:49 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] what other "X-prizes" have been started ? In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e050919174958f186f4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e05091920037bcdcb8b@mail.gmail.com> On 9/20/05, Reason wrote: > > The Methuselah Mouse Prize - now the Mprize - is doing well. See: > > http://www.mprize.org/ That looks good except that it doesn't seem to disallow calorie restriction? (CR is an easy way to prolong life in animals, but it has been extensively tried in humans and does little or nothing to prolong lifespan - unsurprisingly when you think about it - so won't that short-circuit the prize?) - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From reason at longevitymeme.org Tue Sep 20 04:05:42 2005 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:05:42 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] what other "X-prizes" have been started ? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e05091920037bcdcb8b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: --> Russell Wallace >>On 9/20/05, Reason wrote: >>The Methuselah Mouse Prize - now the Mprize - is doing well. See: >> >>http://www.mprize.org/ > >That looks good except that it doesn't seem to disallow calorie >restriction? (CR is an easy way to prolong life in animals, but > it has been extensively tried in >humans and does little or nothing >to prolong lifespan - unsurprisingly when you think about it - >so won't that short-circuit the prize?) >From the guidelines page: http://www.mprize.org/index.php?pagename=structure ---- The goal of capturing the imagination of the public is best achieved by a very simple prize structure, in which money is awarded simply to the producer of the world's oldest ever mouse. This should be restricted to the species used in virtually all laboratory work, Mus musculus, but no other restrictions should be placed on the way in which the mouse's lifespan is extended, except for ones that fail to maintain its cognitive and/or physical well-being. ---- You can calorie restrict all you like providing the mice remain in a state of well-being and you follow the other organizational rules - the current Rejuvenation Prize holder used CR. See: http://www.mprize.org/index.php?pagename=recordholders The prize seeks to have no say over how scientists achieve the end goal; this maximises inventiveness. Reason From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Sep 20 04:10:50 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:10:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] what other "X-prizes" have been started ? In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e05091920037bcdcb8b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <22360fa105091921101e66c823@mail.gmail.com> Some prizes for inovation mentioned at http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030288 See below. - Jef X Prize Cup A prospective annual award for space-travel innovations from the X Prize Foundation, to replace its Ansari X Prize, whose $10 million purse for flying a private vehicle at least twice into space and back again within a fortnight went to US aviator Burt Rutan in October 2004. The award follows a long line of aviation prizes that go back to and beyond Charles Lindbergh's historic solo flight across the Atlantic in *Spirit of St. Louis* in 1927, which won him $25,000 from New York hotelier Raymond Orteig. M Prize An ongoing challenge that consists of two awards: a Longevity Prize for the oldest *Mus musculus* (currently standing at 1,819 days), and a Rejuvenation Prize for the best late-onset intervention (based on the rejuvenated mouse's age at death, currently standing at 1,356 days). Awards come from a fund, currently valued at around $1.3 million, to which anyone may contribute. A leading sponsor is "The 300"?modelled on the 300 Spartans who crucially delayed the invasion of Greece by hordes of Persians in 480 B.C.?whose members pledge regular contributions to the fund and whose names will be etched in history (as those of the Spartans were engraved on a stone tablet in Sparta). Loebner Prize for Turing Test British mathematician Alan Turing postulated, in 1950, that a "thinking" computer could produce responses to fool an interrogator that it was human; the prize, created by New Jersey industrialist Hugh Loebner in 1990, keeps the Turing Test a live challenge. Loebner has pledged $100,000 (plus a gold medal) for the first computer whose responses are indistinguishable from a human's. In the meantime, an annual prize of $3,000 (plus a bronze medal) goes to the most human computer that year. In 2005, according to Loebner, the award of $25,000 (plus a silver medal) looks likely to be won for the first time. Longitude Prize This prize was established in 1714 by the British government to determine longitude at sea. Instead of relying on astronomical sightings, watchmaker John Harrison built a precision clock to keep the time of a home port (of known longitude). Denied the ?20,000 prize by assessors (wary that astronomy had been bypassed), Harrison petitioned King George III to circumvent them and to persuade Parliament to award him directly. Harrison was finally rewarded in 1773, 12 years late and 45 years after he began work on his "marine chronometer". He died on his birthday in 1776, at the age of 83. Moon Regolith Oxygen Challenge Just this year, NASA announced a deadline stretching into 2008 for its third Centennial Challenge competition, the Moon Regolith Oxygen Challenge, to extract breathable oxygen from simulated lunar soil, and is dangling a purse of $250,000 in front of likely duellists. On 9/19/05, Reason wrote: > > > --> Russell Wallace > > >>On 9/20/05, Reason wrote: > >>The Methuselah Mouse Prize - now the Mprize - is doing well. See: > >> > >>http://www.mprize.org/ > > > >That looks good except that it doesn't seem to disallow calorie > >restriction? (CR is an easy way to prolong life in animals, but > > it has been extensively tried in > >humans and does little or nothing > >to prolong lifespan - unsurprisingly when you think about it - > >so won't that short-circuit the prize?) > > >From the guidelines page: > > http://www.mprize.org/index.php?pagename=structure > > ---- > The goal of capturing the imagination of the public is best achieved by a > very simple prize structure, in which money is awarded simply to the > producer of the world's oldest ever mouse. This should be restricted to > the > species used in virtually all laboratory work, Mus musculus, but no other > restrictions should be placed on the way in which the mouse's lifespan is > extended, except for ones that fail to maintain its cognitive and/or > physical well-being. > ---- > > You can calorie restrict all you like providing the mice remain in a state > of well-being and you follow the other organizational rules - the current > Rejuvenation Prize holder used CR. See: > > http://www.mprize.org/index.php?pagename=recordholders > > The prize seeks to have no say over how scientists achieve the end goal; > this maximises inventiveness. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Sep 20 04:11:01 2005 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 05:11:01 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] what other "X-prizes" have been started ? In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e05091920037bcdcb8b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e05091921112da093cc@mail.gmail.com> On 9/20/05, Reason wrote: > > You can calorie restrict all you like providing the mice remain in a state > of well-being and you follow the other organizational rules - the current > Rejuvenation Prize holder used CR. *nods* That's what I figured; it seems to me that the prize would be much more valuable if it excluded methods that have been shown to not work on humans (or at least the one easy short-cut such method). - Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From elaine at ziaspace.com Tue Sep 20 05:00:50 2005 From: elaine at ziaspace.com (Elaine Walker) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:00:50 -0700 (MST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: NASA going back to the moon Message-ID: Hi all, It thought I'd contribute some information about the pro-space community's reaction to NASA's back-to-the-moon plans. There are very mixed feelings within the pro-space community about NASA's back-to-the-moon plans which were just announced. I'm still trying to decide where I stand, personally. I tend to agree with SAS's arguments for why Apollo style is the wrong way to go, however, I want NASA to succeed with this one! It's incredible that NASA has this opportunity! I hope they don't muck it up or come up with a dead-end plan. If they don't incorporate enough infrastructure (ie. if they build big apollo rockets that are thrown away each time) and don't incorporate any orbital assembly into the plan (which they'll need if they want to, say, go to Mars eventually!), this could be a dead end. This plan was just released and it may change. It probably won't change much though. Radical changes within NASA would have to occur - people would have to be fired, entire NASA offices closed, a mature bureacracy reworked from the inside out - in order to do it the RIGHT way. So maybe it's the wrong way or no way at all. I'd be interested in your opinions! The Space Access Society's most recent update has some good arguments for why it's a BAD idea for NASA to do it Apollo style. (The Space Access Society's sole purpose is to promote radical reductions in the cost of reaching space.) http://www.space-access.org/updates/sau112.html The National Space Society supports the plan. (NSS has a reputation for being NASA's cheerleaders. Although they have tried hard to get away from that stereotype in the last few years, they seem to be cheering for NASA at the moment.) http://nss.org/news/releases/pr20050919.html I'm not sure yet what the official stance of the Space Frontier Foundation is, but I assume it will be somewhere in between... A press release will probably pop up soon here: http://www.spacefrontierfoundation.org Just a heads up... When all is said and done, the Space Access Society is usually RIGHT - usually the ones to say "We told you so". I've notice that with just about every pro-space issue. That scares me in this case because I really want NASA to succeed with this one! -Elaine ---------------------- Elaine Walker elaine at ziaspace.com Mars Projects Manager and Advocate Space Frontier Foundation http://www.mars-frontier.org http://www.spacefrontierfoundation.org Region 8 Chapters Organizer National Space Society http://www.nss.org U.S. Groups Team Leader Space Program Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Pro-Space-Pop Music http://www.ziaspace.com/ZIA From amara at amara.com Tue Sep 20 05:14:14 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:14:14 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan Message-ID: Kevin Freels: >Your situation is one of a failure of a policy which stinks to >begin with. Italy's situation is _exactly_ what the US Government is headed for with very few changes. You can look look to a 'policy which stinks to begin with' to see where attitudes like the the Bush administration (and your's) will land. A xenophobic, nationalistic, paranoiaic immigration policy that will sink the country in a myriad of ways. Just watch. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI) Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF), Adjunct Assistant Professor Astronomy, AUR, Roma, ITALIA Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Tue Sep 20 05:14:59 2005 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:14:59 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan Message-ID: <00ab01c5bda2$45a5e9e0$54df0405@EF02jack> Nuke the Great Satan Kevin said.... This is exactly why we need to be shooting people as they enter the country illegally. I know it doesn;t seem very extropian, but if people were being shot, I doubt as many would be trying to cross. There's legal ways into this country. Better yet - let's drop those suckers before they leave home! Why stop at executing desperate poor and homeless people? Security issues are all solved when all the potential perps are pushing up daisies! Who's got the guts to tackle this one? MMmm... Let me see... Jack (Note for the reality-impaired: If all this sounds reasonable... Time to up the medication.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Tue Sep 20 05:23:26 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:23:26 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: Madcap "runs into the rocks" !! Message-ID: MB: >Sympathy for your pain. I am sad but don't feel pain really because my family 'lost' her 32 years ago, when we left Hawaii and they sold her. Truthfully, I haven't thought about her much until this last year, when boats kept popping up in my life. Then this news- what an ending! Wow. A spectacular ending on the rocks is certainly one way to go. At least she became famous in her spectacular end... ;-} Amara -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "I have an intense desire to return to the womb. Anybody's." ---Woody Allen From eugen at leitl.org Tue Sep 20 08:27:25 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:27:25 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] rebuilding New Orleans In-Reply-To: <432F5A9C.4080506@pobox.com> References: <001a01c5bd78$ff30f190$640fa8c0@dennis1zpu5spy> <6.2.1.2.0.20050919193256.01e98af8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <432F5A9C.4080506@pobox.com> Message-ID: <20050920082725.GD2249@leitl.org> On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 05:41:00PM -0700, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Remember, if we don't rebuild New Orleans in exactly the same spot, the > hurricanes have already won. But think about the children! -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From giogavir at yahoo.it Tue Sep 20 10:24:03 2005 From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:24:03 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: NASA going back to the moon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050920102403.42651.qmail@web26202.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> by the time that men will return to the moon ,according to the latest Nasa proposal, it will be around the mark of the 50th anniversary of the first landing. At that time slide rule and paper pads were still< much in use with engineers, portable calculators nor fax machines were invented, not to mention the pc or internet. After half a century of progress nasa is proposing the same old technolocy, entirely disposable system, high costs, even parachute landing in the prairies. While return to the moon and future human expansion is a must, such approach will, if approved and not canceled during the future years, lead to the followig: -creation of a station in the moon, after 100 billions, excluding cost overruns, spent on throw away hardware, -abandoning of the station when they finally will discover that each housekeping, and useless for science or manufacturing purposes, mission will cost billions of dollars -further 50 years setback for the space plan At this point Nasa and the participating agencies should have the courage to : -abandon the space shuttle as a vehicle that didn't reach its design goals (slashing accessibility costs to space ), is costly and dangerous -abandon the space station as a useless engineering nightmare it has no mission , no purpose and its design is complicated, expensive and dangerous to complete -start a space transportation system plan with entirely reusable, commercial airline type of operation system for orbital accessibility, including a tug for out of orbital< missions , a cycler for moon or mars missions, entirely reusable and based in a simple space station for overhaul and maintenence, completed with two way landers from the cycler to the land stations -implement a space infrastructural system to support the transportation system with orbital and land stations around main bodies Once such system will be operational and managed by private enterprise, every mission will be possible and affordable and the conditions for space development will be met The proposed return risk a further half a century setback, mankind cannot afford that. --- Elaine Walker ha scritto: > Hi all, > > It thought I'd contribute some information about the > pro-space community's > reaction to NASA's back-to-the-moon plans. > > There are very mixed feelings within the pro-space > community about NASA's > back-to-the-moon plans which were just announced. > I'm still trying to > decide where I stand, personally. I tend to agree > with SAS's arguments for > why Apollo style is the wrong way to go, however, I > want NASA to succeed > with this one! It's incredible that NASA has this > opportunity! I hope they > don't muck it up or come up with a dead-end plan. If > they don't > incorporate enough infrastructure (ie. if they build > big apollo rockets > that are thrown away each time) and don't > incorporate any orbital assembly > into the plan (which they'll need if they want to, > say, go to Mars > eventually!), this could be a dead end. This plan > was just released and it > may change. It probably won't change much though. > Radical changes within > NASA would have to occur - people would have to be > fired, entire NASA > offices closed, a mature bureacracy reworked from > the inside out - in > order to do it the RIGHT way. So maybe it's the > wrong way or no way at > all. I'd be interested in your opinions! > > > The Space Access Society's most recent update has > some good arguments for > why it's a BAD idea for NASA to do it Apollo style. > (The Space Access > Society's sole purpose is to promote radical > reductions > in the cost of reaching space.) > > > http://www.space-access.org/updates/sau112.html > > > The National Space Society supports the plan. (NSS > has a reputation for > being NASA's cheerleaders. Although they have tried > hard to get away from > that stereotype in the last few years, they seem to > be cheering for NASA > at the moment.) > > http://nss.org/news/releases/pr20050919.html > > > I'm not sure yet what the official stance of the > Space Frontier Foundation > is, but I assume it will be somewhere in between... > A press release will > probably pop up soon here: > > http://www.spacefrontierfoundation.org > > > Just a heads up... When all is said and done, the > Space Access Society is > usually RIGHT - usually the ones to say "We told you > so". I've notice that > with just about every pro-space issue. That scares > me in this case because > I really want NASA to succeed with this one! > > > -Elaine > > ---------------------- > Elaine Walker > elaine at ziaspace.com > > Mars Projects Manager and Advocate > Space Frontier Foundation > http://www.mars-frontier.org > http://www.spacefrontierfoundation.org > > Region 8 Chapters Organizer > National Space Society > http://www.nss.org > > U.S. Groups Team Leader > Space Program Advisor > Extropy Institute > http://www.extropy.org > > Pro-Space-Pop Music > http://www.ziaspace.com/ZIA > _______________________________________________ > 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 pgptag at gmail.com Tue Sep 20 11:00:01 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:00:01 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: NASA going back to the moon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <470a3c52050920040049d68adc@mail.gmail.com> I am afraid if there is no long term plan, ie if it is not evident that we go back to the Moon to stay, this will be a duplicate of the old Apollo up to and including the inglorious end. G. On 9/20/05, Elaine Walker wrote: > Hi all, > > It thought I'd contribute some information about the pro-space community's > reaction to NASA's back-to-the-moon plans. > > There are very mixed feelings within the pro-space community about NASA's > back-to-the-moon plans which were just announced. I'm still trying to > decide where I stand, personally. I tend to agree with SAS's arguments for > why Apollo style is the wrong way to go... From giogavir at yahoo.it Tue Sep 20 12:44:59 2005 From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:44:59 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] rebuilding New Orleans In-Reply-To: <20050920082725.GD2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20050920124459.784.qmail@web26210.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> don't forget global warming In a century part of the poles will be melted and all coastal cities will be affected new york venice etc to rebuild new orleans with the same criteria as before would be pure folly when you consider that only a few meters of permanent water rising can destroy most of it let's utilize this opportunity to rebuild new orleans with completely new planning concepts and criteria for future utilization, including social issues --- Eugen Leitl ha scritto: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 05:41:00PM -0700, Eliezer S. > Yudkowsky wrote: > > Remember, if we don't rebuild New Orleans in > exactly the same spot, the > > hurricanes have already won. > > But think about the children! > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 > http://www.leitl.org > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 > 8B29 F6BE > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > ___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Tue Sep 20 13:41:55 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 09:41:55 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: NASA going back to the moon Message-ID: <380-220059220134155893@M2W095.mail2web.com> From: Elaine Walker >It thought I'd contribute some information about the pro-space community's >reaction to NASA's back-to-the-moon plans. This is a great post Elaine! Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 14:07:55 2005 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:07:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism in Korean Message-ID: <20050920140755.96337.qmail@web32807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear transhumanist friends, I am working with a Korean friend to publish a short introductory book about transhumanism in Korean. If you have something relevant and about 10 pages long, please, send it to me to see if we can include it in the book. Reply directly to my Email address: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com 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: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Tue Sep 20 14:22:09 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 09:22:09 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: NASA going back to the moon References: <20050920102403.42651.qmail@web26202.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00a301c5bdee$afe25900$0100a8c0@kevin> > -creation of a station in the moon, after 100 > billions, excluding cost overruns, spent on throw away > hardware, Just a note here. The "throw away hardware" is apparently necessary since they have proven that they cannot create a reusable system that costs less. In certain applications, throw away hardware is much more efficient. Imagine having to clean and reuse syriniges..... From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 14:15:08 2005 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:15:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FUTURES: Human Extinction Scenarios Message-ID: <20050920141508.39563.qmail@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear transhumanist friends, I am helping my friend Bruce Tonn to publish a special issue of FUTURES about Human Extinction Scenarios. If you have something relevant, please, send it to Bruce or to me directly: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com. Next year, I plan to coordinate also a special issue on transhumanism, so please, you can also start working on that:-) Transhumanistically yours, La vie est belle! Yose CALL FOR PAPERS HUMAN EXTINCTION SCENARIOS A Special issue of Futures: The Journal of Policy, Planning and Futures Studies The human species faces numerous cataclysmic events and forces that can impact us on a large scale, definitely causing disruption and perhaps leading to extinction. These include global climate change, collisions with near-earth objects, nuclear war, and pandemics. While these threats are indeed serious, taken separately they fail to describe exactly how humans could become extinct. For example, nuclear war by itself would most likely fail to kill everyone on the planet, as strikes would probably be concentrated in the northern hemisphere and the Middle East, leaving populations in South America, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand some hope of survival. It is highly unlikely that any uncontrollable nanotechnology could ever be produced but even it if were, it is likely that humans could develop effective, if costly, countermeasures, such as producing the technologies in space or destroying sites of runaway nanotechnologies with nuclear weapons. Viruses could indeed kill many people but effective quarantine of ?healthy? people could be accomplished to save large numbers of people. Humans appear to be resilient to extinction with respect to single events. However, human extinction is much more likely in the face of waves of these types of events over time. To truly assess the likelihood of human extinction, combinations of these risks need to be woven together into ?human extinction scenarios.? An extinction scenario needs to posit a time line of events that could lead to human extinction. What makes human extinction scenarios challenging to write is the need for them to encompass human response, adaptation and even foresight. An air tight and internally consistent extinction scenario is one where all human efforts, whether they be earnest, half-hearted or tragically just too late, to stave off extinction fail. While an extinction scenario may be quite unlikely to happen, if everything assumed to happen in the scenario did happen, then the future is known: humans become extinct. It is important to develop human extinction scenarios for several reasons. They can contribute to global foresight activities. They will highlight key risks and combinations of risks. They can also be considered a first step towards estimating the current probability of human extinction. Estimating this probability is important because policy makers tend to react more forcefully when confronted with quantified risks. It is also important because the process will assuredly spur debate about what might be an acceptable risk of human extinction. Special Issue Editors: Bruce Tonn, University of Tennessee and Don MacGregor, MacGregor-Bates, Inc. Paper Guidelines: Each human extinction scenario must be convincing and internally consistent. Each scenario must incorporate multiple events and human response. No limitations are placed on what risk events can be included in the scenario, except one: no alien attacks are allowed. Scenarios that do not rely solely upon nuclear war or collisions with asteroids or grey goo or cosmic rays or other events of this ilk must be part of the special issue. The scenario time frame can run from the near-term to 10,000 years into the future. Due Date: Draft manuscripts of approximately 6,000 words are due to Bruce Tonn (btonn at utk.edu) on March 15, 2006. Please use MS Word and follow the Futures format (see http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30422/authorinstructions) . 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: From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Sep 20 14:47:14 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:47:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: NASA going back to the moon In-Reply-To: <00a301c5bdee$afe25900$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <200509201447.j8KElFX19633@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of kevinfreels.com > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 7:22 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: NASA going back to the moon > > > -creation of a station in the moon, after 100 > > billions, excluding cost overruns, spent on throw away > > hardware, > Just a note here. The "throw away hardware" is apparently necessary since > they have proven that they cannot create a reusable system that costs > less. > In certain applications, throw away hardware is much more efficient. > Imagine > having to clean and reuse syriniges..... That is right. It has proven easier and cheaper to build new stuff than to somehow burn it back in thru the atmosphere. I would propose that we go on to Mars and start building habitation facilities there, since there is much more promise regarding raw materials there. The future big advances are not in lifters or reentry bodeis, these being mature technologies but rather in miniaturization of the payloads. spike From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Sep 20 16:42:10 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 09:42:10 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] rebuilding New Orleans In-Reply-To: <20050920082725.GD2249@leitl.org> References: <001a01c5bd78$ff30f190$640fa8c0@dennis1zpu5spy> <6.2.1.2.0.20050919193256.01e98af8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <432F5A9C.4080506@pobox.com> <20050920082725.GD2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <22360fa105092009423e314cca@mail.gmail.com> On 9/20/05, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 05:41:00PM -0700, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > Remember, if we don't rebuild New Orleans in exactly the same spot, the > > hurricanes have already won. > > But think about the children! > > If we just set our minds to it, God willing, there is nothing we can't do! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fortean1 at mindspring.com Tue Sep 20 17:02:36 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:02:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sierra Vistans finish their circumnavigation Message-ID: <433040AC.9000509@mindspring.com> [Here is another boat story by proxy. Glen is a retired SES-2 and Julie is his second wife. -Terry] Sierra Vista (Arizona) Herald Sunday/September 11, 2005 This is the final dispatch from Glen and Julie Bradley, Sierra Vistans who went around the world in their boat, the C'est Assez. "How many years did you live on a boat?" our neighbors asked with shock and amusement. "How big was the sailboat?" Actually, a little bigger than the master bathroom in our new house. And our galley onboard was about 5 feet long and 3 feet wide. One feature we had in the boat galley that's missing from our kitchen ashore is that the stove on the boat was gimbaled---swinging to and fro with the boat heeling so I could cook while under way. Thankfully, our new house in Winterhaven didn't come with a gimbaled stove option. In fact, it sure is nice to not have your food move while you're cooking. Terra firma and all its delights have made us feel like kids seeing the world through new eyes. Simple pleasures like owning a car and being able to do laundry without washing it in a bucket and hanging it out to dry on the rigging. I hope we never take those things for granted. The biggest shore shock for us is that Sierra Vista looks a whole lot different now than when we left. When we sailed off in 1997 for the big blue, Sierra Vista was much smaller. It's difficult to believe that so many years ago a mayor here ran for office on what we called the Red Lobster platform. His stated political goal was to attract a Red Lobster restaurant to Sierra Vista so we wouldn't all have to drive to Tucson for a nice meal. Things sure have changed, with national chains gobbling up land and some locals now pushing to limit the ultimate size of this beautiful place to live. Now that we've finished our circumnavigation, everyone wants to know what we plan to do with out boat. It's for sale. If any other Sierra Vistans feel the itch to explore the wild, blue yonder, we know a trusty boat stocked and ready to go. Her name, C'est Assez (French for "It's Enough"), caused much confusion over the radio and we probably would have renamed her but sailors are a superstitious lot. It's widely believed that it's bad luck to rename a boat. If we had it to do all over again, we probably would have named her something simple like Lollipop, as in "good ship Lollipop." Right now the boat is taking a breather from our last very tough and grueling three-month passage from Phuket [Thailand] across the Indian Ocean, Gulf of Aden and Red Sea. She's lazing in the Mediterranean Sea waiting for us to find a new owner to take her to sea. That boat has taken care of us through storms and a tsunami and pirate-infested areas in the Mideast. Selling her will be difficult as she has been our home, refuge and transportation for almost eight years. Any mechanical thing that you name develops a personality in your mind that makes parting more difficult. But we are really ready to enjoy our children, grandchildren and wonderful friends here in Sierra Vista. There may come a time when we have an itch to go sailing again, but it probably won't be for a while, and we certainly hope to avoid crossing any more oceans. As far as what we'll do with ourselves, we've been enjoying spending time and doing family work projects with our kids and grandkids in Sierra Vista and Tucson. The importance of family really hit home the last two weeks. Glen and I had family members in New Orleans, and Julie's mom had a home on the Mississippi Gulf Coast. Everyone evacuated safely, so they are fine. But we feel strongly about the impact to so many and we've volunteered to deploy with the Red Cross to assist with disaster relief. When a Red Cross worker informed us there could be difficult living conditions, I told her we had just been living on a small boat for 7 & 1/2 years, which probably made her question our sanity. We want to thank everyone in town who followed our adventures with interest and laughed with us at our occasional mishaps. The circumnavigation wasn't always easy, but it was almost always interesting. At least it will be a long time before we run out of stories to tell our grandkids. All our best with many thanks. Glen and Julie Bradley [Note: Hmmmm, 7 & 1/2 years to finally circumnavigate, actually a partial circumnavigation as they left their boat in the Mediterranean.] -- "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 kevin at kevinfreels.com Tue Sep 20 17:51:19 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:51:19 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan References: Message-ID: <004401c5be0b$e894c9f0$0100a8c0@kevin> OK. I am done with this. Obviously you see no difference between legal and illegal immigration. Coming in the front door vs sneaking in. Maybe I should just drop in your house sometime and invite myself in? Am I free to anything you have? Take all the food I want because I am hungry? Is it really mine to take? Are you really free and open to anyone coming into your home at any time and taking anything you have without even having the common decency to knock? If I go to your front door and find it locked, does it make it OK if I find my way in through a window? I am not xenophobic or nationalistic. I have said it over and over - AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, EVERYONE IN THE WORLD SHOULD BE WELCOME HERE! They just need to use the front door. Why do you keep approaching this as an immigration issue? Why do you assume that I don;t want people to enter the country? I have said nothing along those lines. Nor, as Jack suggested, have I put forth a point of attacking people before they break the law. I see you handily avoided the fact that you did not sneak into the US across the border. This is a serious subject. The greatest threat to US national security at the moment is the Mexican border. It needs to be shut down. The immigration policy needs to be revised so that "starving" people who want in can come in through the front door. I am all for giving them jobs. Growth can;t happen with the stagnant population numbers in the US. We NEED immigrants more than I think anyone wants to admit. So let me say it again so it is clear to those who seem to have missed this point repeatedly - ALL PEOPLE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO COME IN THROUGH THE FRONT DOOR!. OK. Get it? Do I need to repeat it again? What is nationalistic or xenophobic about that? Everyone should be allowed in. EVERYONE. One more time...>EVERYONE. Got it? But they should use the front door. There would be no reason for anyone to cross illegally IF all could come in this way. Those who refuse to use the free and OPEN front door method and instead CHOOSE to enter elsewhere must have some reason to do so. Hmmm. What could it be? Too poor to go the free route and have to pay someone to smuggle me? I don't think so. I admit, I made a mistake in the original post by assuming that everyone would know that I want a vast change in immigration law that would allow everyone in the front door. But I corrected that in subsequent posts. I have no idea why you keep bringing this up as an immigration issue as if I somehow want to keep foreigners out. It's rather simple. If people can drive truckloads of people over the border. They can drive truckloads of explosives and nukes. But that seems to be OK with you. You would rather keep the screwed up immigration policy that we have that says "it's illegal to cross our border, but if you do, that's OK too." This is not a policy. This is a farce. How can you expect people to abide by the law when they are taught at t he very beginning that it is OK to break the law? I have a new and exciting idea. Since everyone here is so fond of applying civil laws to this topic, let's do the reverse. The next time someone breaks into your house, you must feed them and give them whatever they want. You can push them out the door, but don;t hurt them. It doesn;t matter who they are. They have a right to do whatever the hell they want to do. That house wall...it is meaningless. If you lock the door but they find their way in the window, that's OK. If they come back, you can push them out again. The next time you leave, you may find them in your kitchen eating your food when you return. That's OK too. Just push them out the door. Remind them that it is illegal - every time they do it. That is now your policy for your household. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Amara Graps" To: Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 12:14 AM Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan > Kevin Freels: > >Your situation is one of a failure of a policy which stinks to > >begin with. > > Italy's situation is _exactly_ what the US Government is headed for > with very few changes. You can look look to a 'policy which stinks > to begin with' to see where attitudes like the the Bush > administration (and your's) will land. A xenophobic, nationalistic, > paranoiaic immigration policy that will sink the country in a > myriad of ways. Just watch. > > Amara > > -- > > Amara Graps, PhD > Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI) > Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF), > Adjunct Assistant Professor Astronomy, AUR, > Roma, ITALIA Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 19:14:44 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:14:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: NASA going back to the moon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050920191444.98781.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I wouldn't explicitly call the entire program "Apollo style". The CEV launcher is a five segment shuttle SRB as a reusable first stage. The second stage seems to be of similar performance to the S-IVb stage of the Saturn program. This would lift up to 40,000 lbs into orbit, which is about the same capacity of the space shuttle today, would be more than ten times safer than the shuttle, and cheaper to operate despite the throw away of the upper stage and the CEV service module (if these are put on a significant assembly line, the costs would come down further). The heavy lift booster uses two 5 segment srbs and a lengthened shuttle tank, with 5 SSMEs underneath and cargo section above. Outside of the SRBs, the rest of it seems to be a throw-away. A use-once may seem more expensive, but the fact is that this way is cheaper than using the space shuttle, which is possible the biggest boondoggle of the entire space program history. Using the SSMEs once (on the shuttle they are essentially rebuilt entirely after each mission) would allow them to be operated at higher thrust and Isp, given there is no concern about long term metal fatigue. Different configurations could lift up to 170k-190k lbs, which is in the range of the Saturn V, though simpler and partially reusable. The only reasons for having such large lift capacity is to lift large space station modules, moonbase modules, segments of a Mars mission, possibly reels of skyhook ribbon tether, as well as anti-asteroid/comet/ICBM capability. It is clear from the plan I've read that the intent is for this program to set up a moon base for production of fuel for Mars missions. With such a foot-hold, I would not be surprised if some other industry initiatives result in refinement of lunar ores and other resources for other application spin-offs. It remains to be seen whether the Dems succeed in killing the program infrastructure this time just like they did in the 70's. While the US space movement tends to have a fixation on winged vehicles as the definition of 'progress', I think the shuttle has clearly demonstrated that we don't have the technology yet to produce winged aerospace vehicles that are sufficiently safe for human use AND capable of being operated in a manner similar to airline standards and cost regimes. This will not always be the case. Right now, though, this is tried and true. The disparity in safety record between the Shuttle and Soyuz programs clearly demonstrate the fact that capsule type configurations are safer, easier. I predict that NASA will always suffer such incompetency, and the first current-technology winged vehicle we see in operation reliably will be privately launched. The GTX program that NASA is involved in, a follow on to the Hyper-X program, will clearly be demonstrating an integrated, functional, air-breathing hypersonic orbital launcher with rocket based combined cycle engines some time around 2008-2010. If the test program succeeds, it will be around the 2015-2020 time frame before this technology is available for launching payloads, however it is clear to me that NASA needs to get away from its absurd fixation upon very low density LH2 fueling of a vehicle in which aerodynamic cross section and vehicle volume are of utmost importance, requirements which mandate against low density fuels. If they stick with this fuel, I predict that the GTX program will fail and we will not see combined cycle launch technology for at least another generation. The GTX program itself is looking to build a 260k lb vehicle capable of putting a measely 300-600 lbs of cargo in orbit as its reference design (the first vehicle will be a scaled version to test its ram and scram systems). A cargo capacity of this sort can very easily be entirely eaten up by vehicle development weight gains that ALWAYS happen. This cargo capacity is pathetic and being eaten up by overlarge LH2 tankage and the resultant excessive aerodynamic drag and gravitational losses. One paper I've found (http://www.dunnspace.com/alternate_ssto_propellants.htm) shows that an SSTO fueled by, say, cyclopropane or other dense high performance fuels like UDMH, propargyl alcohol, or methylacetylene, would put up to two and a half times more cargo than LH2 for the same tank volume, or the same amount of cargo with a smaller, cheaper vehicle (and this is entirely ignoring using fuels or oxidizers utilizing fluorine or chlorine in them, or diborane/pentaborane, which offer significant Isp gains but are also toxic until burned). My feeling that NASA is absurdly fixated on LH2 is borne out by the fact that they quickly cancelled the X-43B follow on to the Hyper-X A model, which would have tested other hydrocarbon fuels against LH2 in head to head real flight test conditions. The paper I referenced above was suppressed from publication at the behest of NASA as well and only gained exposure at Space Access 96. Particularly methylacetylene, which is commonly available as welders MAPP gas, is relatively cheap at $4/kg or so. In refined form should be around $10/kg. These prices are entirely comparative to the prices for LH2 in bulk (while the above prices are retail prices for small quanitities), so the argument that flight operations with LH2 would be cheaper are wrong, especially when you consider that, liter for liter, the methylacetylene can lift more cargo, thus more revinue dollars per kg of fuel burned. Given that LH2 is an extreme cryogenic, while methylacetylene has a boiling point of 270 K, the operational costs of working with LH2 will be much higher. Generating LH2 consumes fossil fuels in the energy infrastructure (both in electrolysis or refinement from NG, as well as liquification), so claiming that LH2 is the clean fuel is also baseless. You are going to pollute one way or the other, LH2 is only slightly cleaner. Even if these alternate fuels are more polluting, you want to concentrate your pollution on economic applications which were very high value, like space launches, leaving the low pollution fuels to low value economic applications, like daily commuting. --- Elaine Walker wrote: > Hi all, > > It thought I'd contribute some information about the pro-space > community's > reaction to NASA's back-to-the-moon plans. > > There are very mixed feelings within the pro-space community about > NASA's > back-to-the-moon plans which were just announced. I'm still trying to > > decide where I stand, personally. I tend to agree with SAS's > arguments for > why Apollo style is the wrong way to go, however, I want NASA to > succeed > with this one! It's incredible that NASA has this opportunity! I hope > they > don't muck it up or come up with a dead-end plan. If they don't > incorporate enough infrastructure (ie. if they build big apollo > rockets > that are thrown away each time) and don't incorporate any orbital > assembly > into the plan (which they'll need if they want to, say, go to Mars > eventually!), this could be a dead end. This plan was just released > and it > may change. It probably won't change much though. Radical changes > within > NASA would have to occur - people would have to be fired, entire NASA > > offices closed, a mature bureacracy reworked from the inside out - in > > order to do it the RIGHT way. So maybe it's the wrong way or no way > at > all. I'd be interested in your opinions! > > > The Space Access Society's most recent update has some good arguments > for > why it's a BAD idea for NASA to do it Apollo style. (The Space Access > > Society's sole purpose is to promote radical reductions > in the cost of reaching space.) > > http://www.space-access.org/updates/sau112.html > > > The National Space Society supports the plan. (NSS has a reputation > for > being NASA's cheerleaders. Although they have tried hard to get away > from > that stereotype in the last few years, they seem to be cheering for > NASA > at the moment.) > > http://nss.org/news/releases/pr20050919.html > > > I'm not sure yet what the official stance of the Space Frontier > Foundation > is, but I assume it will be somewhere in between... A press release > will > probably pop up soon here: > > http://www.spacefrontierfoundation.org > > > Just a heads up... When all is said and done, the Space Access > Society is > usually RIGHT - usually the ones to say "We told you so". I've notice > that > with just about every pro-space issue. That scares me in this case > because > I really want NASA to succeed with this one! > > > -Elaine > > ---------------------- > Elaine Walker > elaine at ziaspace.com > > Mars Projects Manager and Advocate > Space Frontier Foundation > http://www.mars-frontier.org > http://www.spacefrontierfoundation.org > > Region 8 Chapters Organizer > National Space Society > http://www.nss.org > > U.S. Groups Team Leader > Space Program Advisor > Extropy Institute > http://www.extropy.org > > Pro-Space-Pop Music > http://www.ziaspace.com/ZIA > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 19:22:29 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:22:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] GOOGLE: Thinkers wanted In-Reply-To: <20050920191444.98781.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050920192230.86688.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> From: Good Morning Silicon Valley: The first rule of The Google Partner Forum is - you do not talk about The Google Partner Forum. The second rule of The Google Partner Forum is - you DO NOT talk about The Google Partner Forum. Google will hold its first-ever deep thinker conference later this month, an invitation-only event dubbed Zeitgeist '05. Attending will be Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, Yahoo Chief Executive Terry Semel, MSN Senior Vice President Yusuf Mehdi, InterActive Corp's Chief Executive Barry Diller, Arthur Sulzberger, chairman and publisher of the New York Times, and Tipping Point author Malcolm Gladwell, among others. Sounds like the makings of some fascinating conversation. Too bad we'll never hear what was discussed though. Attendees are strictly forbidden from speaking about it. From the Zeitgeist '05 FAQ: All speeches and discussions at Zeitgeist are off the record. To ensure that our presenters and attendees can speak openly, no press coverage or blogging is permitted. I am therefore looking for anyone on this list who may have received an invite to confidentially disclose goings on for my blog. Your identity will be kept confidential, as an established blogger and by court precedent, I will enjoy journalistic protections. Readers will want to know what goes on. From what I'm hearing it looks like Google is going to be breaking out as a nationwide fiber optic, wifi, and VPN provider. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Sep 20 19:24:46 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:24:46 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan In-Reply-To: <050f01c5bd7f$58bf3770$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <050f01c5bd7f$58bf3770$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: On Sep 19, 2005, at 6:05 PM, kevinfreels.com wrote: > Are you trying to state that you crawled across the border and > snuck into > the country without any government knowledge? > Are you also saying that people who cross the border in such a way > do not > represent a threat to national security? For the most part, no, such illegal entries represent little to no threat to national security. Since you are asserting the positive I invite you to make your case without fantastical hand waving. I especially invite you to make your case strongly enough to justify shoot on sight or a Great Wall of America backed by an extensive mine field. -samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 19:38:35 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:38:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050920193835.59642.qmail@web30712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Sep 19, 2005, at 6:05 PM, kevinfreels.com wrote: > > > Are you trying to state that you crawled across the border and > > snuck into the country without any government knowledge? > > Are you also saying that people who cross the border in such a way > > do not represent a threat to national security? > > > For the most part, no, such illegal entries represent little to no > threat to national security. Since you are asserting the positive I > invite you to make your case without fantastical hand waving. I > especially invite you to make your case strongly enough to justify > shoot on sight or a Great Wall of America backed by an extensive mine > field. It is so simple Samantha that even you can understand it if you put your mind to it: if the front door is open to everybody, then anybody who continues to enter illegally must be up to a nefarious purpose and is therefore to be considered a criminal (even if you do not consider illegal entry a crime). The right to protect one's property is inherent. If someone trespasses, refuses to leave or be detained, in NH, it is your constitutional right to bear arms against them (says so explicitly in our state constitution). The land along the border is not public property in most cases. Private persons do own it, and it is their right to protect it against trespass. It is also hypocritical to see europeans on the list decrying US immigration policy. The US accepts way more immigrants than the whole of europe put together. Most european nations are quite closed to immigration compared to the US. Mind your own store. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sentience at pobox.com Tue Sep 20 19:43:32 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:43:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Borders vs. nukes In-Reply-To: References: <050f01c5bd7f$58bf3770$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <43306664.2000209@pobox.com> The argument would seem to be that, right now, someone can cart a nuke into the US using the same low-tech, inexpensive techniques that get illegal immigrants across the border. Maybe and maybe not. But still... Nukes are not low-tech. Nukes are not inexpensive. Build a wall against low-tech crossings and at best it will keep out those illegal immigrants who cannot afford higher tech. It will not keep out terrorists organized enough to acquire nukes. The logic here appears to be: 1) Crossing America's border is cheap. 2) Right now, someone who wants to cross the border with a nuke can do so cheaply. 3) Eliminate cheap ways of crossing the border - problem solved! You know, right now, people just walk straight over the border. So let's put a piece of string across the border. Then they can't walk straight through because they'll run into the string. Problem solved! -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 19:58:55 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:58:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Borders vs. nukes In-Reply-To: <43306664.2000209@pobox.com> Message-ID: <20050920195856.55613.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote: > The argument would seem to be that, right now, someone can cart a > nuke > into the US using the same low-tech, inexpensive techniques that get > illegal immigrants across the border. Maybe and maybe not. But > still... > > Nukes are not low-tech. Nukes are not inexpensive. > > Build a wall against low-tech crossings and at best it will keep out > those illegal immigrants who cannot afford higher tech. It will not > keep out terrorists organized enough to acquire nukes. > > The logic here appears to be: > > 1) Crossing America's border is cheap. > 2) Right now, someone who wants to cross the border with a nuke can > do > so cheaply. > 3) Eliminate cheap ways of crossing the border - problem solved! > > You know, right now, people just walk straight over the border. So > let's put a piece of string across the border. Then they can't walk > straight through because they'll run into the string. Problem > solved! If the string can tell someone where the crossing happened, how many crossed, and maybe even how much mass (and/or its density) they carried with them, then the string is even better than building a wall. Notice in the recent dust-up over completing the wall near san diego, the primary group to speak up against it was a criminal gang of mexicans with known contacts with al Qaeda, and it threatened attacks in the US in response. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From riel at surriel.com Tue Sep 20 21:43:01 2005 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 17:43:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan In-Reply-To: <050f01c5bd7f$58bf3770$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <050f01c5bd7f$58bf3770$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, kevinfreels.com wrote: > Are you also saying that people who cross the border in such a way do not > represent a threat to national security? I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of people who cross the border illegally are not a threat to national security. Generally they are poor people in search of a better life. Conversely, the majority of people who are a threat to national security either cross the border legally (eg. the 9/11 hijackers) or are born locally. -- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan From robgobblin at aol.com Tue Sep 20 21:46:19 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:46:19 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan In-Reply-To: References: <050f01c5bd7f$58bf3770$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <4330832B.1090108@aol.com> Rik van Riel wrote: >On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, kevinfreels.com wrote: > > >Conversely, the majority of people who are a threat to national >security either cross the border legally (eg. the 9/11 hijackers) >or are born locally. > > Most of them are -currently- working for the government. Perhaps we should get rid of all the people working for the government? R From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 22:15:25 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:15:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050920221525.95762.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Rik van Riel wrote: > On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, kevinfreels.com wrote: > > > Are you also saying that people who cross the border in such a way > do not > > represent a threat to national security? > > I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of people who cross the > border illegally are not a threat to national security. Generally > they are poor people in search of a better life. > > Conversely, the majority of people who are a threat to national > security either cross the border legally (eg. the 9/11 hijackers) > or are born locally. Actually, about half the 9/11 hijackers had exceeded their visas and were wanted men. The rest entered the country legally on 90 day tourist visas or got into the air transport system in Portland, ME, where security was light, so as to bypass Logan perimeter security. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 23:01:02 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:01:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050920230102.689.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> --- Amara Graps wrote: You can look look to a > 'policy which stinks > to begin with' to see where attitudes like the the > Bush > administration (and your's) will land. A xenophobic, > nationalistic, > paranoiaic immigration policy that will sink the > country in a > myriad of ways. Just watch. Not to mention Luddism as public policy. If these trends keep up, we may experience brain-drain in reverse with many of our most talented scientists going over-seas to study "forbidden" technology. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From kevin at kevinfreels.com Wed Sep 21 01:24:12 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:24:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan References: <050f01c5bd7f$58bf3770$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <007201c5be4b$2caeb940$0100a8c0@kevin> > I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of people who cross the > border illegally are not a threat to national security. Generally > they are poor people in search of a better life. > I am also "pretty sure" that the "vast majority" of the people coming over the border illegally don't have nukes. Somehow that doesn;t comfort me. As for poor people looking for a better life, I have already addressed that. > Conversely, the majority of people who are a threat to national > security either cross the border legally (eg. the 9/11 hijackers) > or are born locally. I'll give you that. But are you willing to bet your life that the way it HAS been will CONTINUE into the future? The 911 hijackers came in through the easiest security hole they found. Now that that hole has become more risky, they will most likely use the next security hole. These people are low-tech, but they aren't stupid. And responding to someone else's post - Nukes are high-tech, but it doesn;t take the knowledge of how to build a nuke to use one. It just takes the right money and contacts - both of which are in good supply. Now, Mike, I like your "smart string". I mean, I REALLY like your smart string. I like it more than shooting people. How do we make it cheap? Can you imagine lines of buried smart string that relay all that information? From fortean1 at mindspring.com Wed Sep 21 01:30:18 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:30:18 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: NASA going back to the moon Message-ID: <4330B7AA.1050006@mindspring.com> On: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:39:40 +0100 "Gordon Rutter" wrote: >Nasa details Moon and Mars plan >"Getting agreement to move forward on it is going >to be heavy lifting in the current environment, >and it's clear that strong presidential leadership will >be needed." Well, that's that little project doomed, then. >Story from BBC NEWS: >http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4260396.stm >Hands up if you thought we'd have got to Mars by now? Sir, sir, me, sir. I thought we'd have at least three permanent moonbases by now including the Big One in Clavius, found the Monolith in Tycho and been well on they way to seeking out the second one out by Uranus. And I've already celebrated the blowing up of the nuclear waste dumps and the pushing of the moon out of orbit (September 13th, 1999). >A bit worried they're using Apollo (1960's tech) and >Space Shuttle (1970's Well, to be honest, a lot of the Apollo hardware is extremely sophisticated, even by today's standards. The lunar EVA suits, for example, are actually more agile than the current shuttle suits. The major improvements since Apollo mainly involve avionics and systems integration. Curiously, there's a document just landed on my boss's desk entitled "Space Project Management". I'm going to have a look and see if there's a sign-up page for the CEV... Robin Hill, STEAMY BESS, Brough, East Yorkshire "Is everything ready on the dark side of the Moon?" "Play the five tones." -- "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 01:33:09 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:33:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan In-Reply-To: <007201c5be4b$2caeb940$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <20050921013309.86821.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "kevinfreels.com" wrote: > > Now, Mike, I like your "smart string". I mean, I REALLY like your > smart string. I like it more than shooting people. How do we make > it cheap? Can you imagine lines of buried smart string that relay > all that information? Its not that difficult. A basic version would be two wires in a dielectric tape, sending high frequency pulses out a few times a second. The changes in capacitance caused by a body walking over it would return a signal and do it in a way that indicates how far along the tape it was crossed. With microelectronics embedded in the tape, listening for footfalls, breath patterns, heartbeats, and sniffing the air for CO2 and urea and other components of human sweat, you should be able to distinguish humans from animals, and detect people carrying heavy loads, like a 100 lb suitcase nuke. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Wed Sep 21 02:55:23 2005 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:55:23 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan Message-ID: <001a01c5be57$eb8fcff0$fdde0405@JPAcer> Kevin said... This is a serious subject. The greatest threat to US national security at the moment is the Mexican border. It needs to be shut down... Security walls have a long and pretty inglorious history. The Great Wall of China couldn't stop the Mongol hordes, Hadrian's Wall didn't stop the Scots tribes, The Berlin Wall would have to considered as a failure... And the 'Iron Curtain' failed to do the job too... I would also predict a short, unhappy future for the wall Israel is building... would the Mexico Wall fare any better? I doubt it. Europeans do not generally agonise about their stroll-through borders: Why should the US? If you have no objections to the people being there anyway - just make the 'back door' the 'front door!' Jack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Sep 21 03:27:47 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:27:47 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] cheap alcohol In-Reply-To: <20050920141508.39563.qmail@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200509210327.j8L3RrX26227@tick.javien.com> Our innovative neighbors in Brazil are using NAFTA to avoid tariffs and ship cheap cane-based ethanol to the US, upsetting the corn growers of America. http://www.crystalsugar.com/media/news.archives/cargill.asp US lawmakers made our sugar prices 3 times the global price, just as the EU made their motor fuel 3 times the global price. I'd like to see both tariffs phased out! spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Sep 21 03:55:54 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:55:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] two views of the same event In-Reply-To: <20050920192230.86688.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200509210356.j8L3u6X28631@tick.javien.com> For spin doctoring the news, check this. >From the French wire AFP, Afghanistan Proud After Largely Peaceful Vote: ...But officials said a high proportion of the nearly 12.5 million eligible voters had cast their ballots, signaling another step on a difficult path to democracy launched after the Taliban regime fell in 2001. "The voting started relatively slowly but after the morning it has seriously picked up all over Afghanistan," Peter Erben of the UN-Afghan Joint Electoral Management Board told reporters. "I believe a high number of Afghans have turned out to vote." And from the New York Times, Afghans Turn Out to Vote Despite Scattered Attacks: ...Five people died in attacks during the day and two police officers on the eve of the election, the Interior Minister Ahmed Ali Jalali said at a news briefing here this evening. In the country's south, a French soldier also died and one was wounded in a roadside explosion early this morning. More than a dozen violent incidents, including rocket attacks and small arms fire, rattled the country overnight and this morning, said a Defense Ministry spokesman, Gen. Zaher Azimi. Reports of voter intimidation and tussling among the supporters of rival candidates came in from across the country. Election officials hailed today's poll as "extremely healthy" though early assessments suggested that turnout was disappointingly low. From fortean1 at mindspring.com Wed Sep 21 04:08:21 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:08:21 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Nuclear Energy: A Fallacious Response to the Oil Crisis Message-ID: <4330DCB5.2010104@mindspring.com> http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0 at 2-3232,36-683369,0.html Nuclear Energy: A Fallacious Response to the Oil Crisis By St?phane Lhomme Le Monde Monday 29 August 2005 The price of oil takes off and global warming gets worse. At the same time, the French population has been practically bludgeoned to prostrate themselves before the Millau viaduct and the Airbus A380, even though they are perfect examples of the constant increase in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions - in France as much as elsewhere. To try to cover up this sad reality, new media spectaculars have been organized to celebrate the decisions to construct the ITER and EPR nuclear reactors. Officially, the atom would allow us to fight against global warming and suffer less from the global rise in crude prices. As though nuclear generators breathed in greenhouse gases or cooled down the atmosphere! And as if nuclear energy itself weren't expensive beyond measure ... Why, in spite of its 58 nuclear reactors - practically one for every million inhabitants - is France still hit along with everyone else with the full force of the takeoff in crude oil prices? The explanation is simple: contrary to the fanciful assertions of diverse personalities, including Nicolas Sarkozy, the atom does not represent 50%, but only 17% of the energy consumed in France! After having lied to citizens to make them believe in the "nuclear miracle" for decades, France was forced to adopt international conventions with regard to energy accounting in 2002. The nuclear share was automatically dropped to its real value, some 17%, rather than the 50% unduly advertised. From the perspective of anti-nuclear proponents, that's 17% too much. But ultimately, it's a pathetic performance. In fact, France, "kingdom of the atom," has a 75% dependence on fossil energies (oil, gas, coal) and remains one of the major greenhouse gas emitting countries. Over the entire planet, with 440 reactors, nuclear energy represents barely 6% of the energy consumed: a share much too marginal to limit recourse to hydrocarbons and to have an influence on the climate. And it's a share in decline: the International Energy Agency (IEA), although favorable to nuclear energy, acknowledged on October 27 that by around 2030 it would be less than 5% (World Energy Outlook). Nonetheless, the atom's proponents would like to generalize the French model on a Continental, even global, scale. By keeping one nuclear reactor per million people as a guideline, that implies the construction of around 7,000 nuclear reactors in 20 years. All that to cover only around 17% of world energy usage, to remain 75% dependent on fossil fuels and to continue to aggravate global warming. Now, in any case, that will not actually happen. China is presented as a veritable nuclear Eldorado because it foresees building ... 30 reactors. Far, very far, from the thousands evoked. And that to royally achieve 4% of its electricity from nuclear power. There is more: in the next twenty years, half the nuclear reactors now operating will have been closed down. The decline of nuclear energy is an inexorable reality, given that global reserves of uranium - the fuel that feeds reactors - are also on the road to exhaustion. According to estimates, at the present rate of extraction, there's enough for another 52 years. If we suddenly multiplied the number of nuclear reactors on the earth by ten, at best there would be only 20 years of uranium left and humanity would then soon find itself in charge of an immense nuclear park ... definitively shut down! Finally, the veil is beginning to come off the real cost of nuclear energy, which grows heavier as least as quickly as the oil bill. Interviewed on January 2 by le Journal du dimanche [a Sunday news program], Industrial Minister Patrick Devedjian confessed what anti-nuclear activists have claimed for a long time: "For years the French have contributed to the development of nuclear parks through their taxes." These sums do not appear on electricity bills, which appear artificially low, in the sense that they also fail to include the costs of dismantling nuclear installations and taking care of their waste. Thus, on January 26, 2005, the Court of Accounts showed that the money necessary for those two activities did not exist, or only in ridiculously inadequate amounts. Fortunately - in a manner of speaking - there are also nuclear reactors in Great Britain: that's where the true numbers are little by little coming from. August 11, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority estimated the cost of dismantling Britain's 20 nuclear sites at 66 billion Pounds Sterling (96 billion Euros), versus the preceding estimate of 48 billion pounds (70 billion Euros). Carrying back these numbers and applying them to the French nuclear industry - which, apart from its 58 reactors, counts dozens of sites and installations - would produce a minimum cost of 150 billion Euros! It would be even more surprising if the actual bill were not even more.... Finally, not only will the explosion in oil prices and global warming not save nuclear energy, but, on the contrary, the aggravation of these phenomena will rapidly demonstrate the atom's utter inability to provide an alternative. All this data is well-known to French nuclearcrats. Therefore, if they persist, it's neither through ignorance nor stupidity: by pretending to save the planet, they hope to just succeed in perpetuating nuclear energy ... in France. When public opinion wakes up to the fraud, they will say: "We have brand new nuclear reactors. Perhaps we shouldn't have built them, but now that they're there, we may as well use them." Now, the truth is that the solutions for getting out of nuclear energy are precisely the only ones that allow us to really fight global warming and consuming more oil. Rich countries must make major reductions in their energy consumption and, at the same time, finance the development of renewable energies on the planet. May those who believe that to be a Utopian program acknowledge that they do not want to leave future generations a habitable earth. St?phane Lhomme is the spokesman for the network Sortir du nucl?aire [Get out of Nuclear Energy]. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Translation: t r u t h o u t French language correspondent Leslie Thatcher . -- "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: From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Sep 21 04:47:48 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:47:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Nuclear Energy: A Fallacious Response tothe Oil Crisis (renewable fuels) In-Reply-To: <4330DCB5.2010104@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <200509210447.j8L4lmX00749@tick.javien.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Terry W. Colvin Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Nuclear Energy: A Fallacious Response to the Oil Crisis http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0 at 2-3232,36-683369,0.html ??? Nuclear Energy: A Fallacious Response to the Oil Crisis ??? By St?phane Lhomme ??? Le Monde ??? Monday 29 August 2005 ??? The price of oil takes off and global warming gets worse... ??? Rich countries must make major reductions in their energy consumption and, at the same time, finance the development of renewable energies on the planet... This article sounds a bit extreme, does it not? In any case, I have been thinking a lot about renewable fuels lately. Last time I pointed out that our Detroits could be dramatically smaller than they are, someone pointed out to me that the poor might have a difficult time of changing out their rolling stock, that it would be a major impact to all advanced nations to replace their entire automotive infrastructure. It occurred to me that this would not be necessary. Modern cars could be reworked with engines less than half the size of current ones. V-8 SUVs could have small four cylinder engines installed. Accords could have two cylinder motors adapted to their current transmissions. A new industry would be born, with adapter kits for new, small engines going into existing Detroits. Of course, the re-engined vehicles would be too slow to get out of their own way. I could imagine the average car having the same performance as that yellow school bus we used to ride, you remember that, do you not? It was slower than Christmas, but it got us there eventually. A re-engined Detroit could get half again the mileage, and as an added bonus, it would be so unpleasant to drive that proles would be hesitant to use it at all whenever possible, saving even more fuel. Higher fuel costs will make a number of home technologies viable: more insulation in the walls and ceilings, higher tech air conditioners and automated attic venting systems, solar water heating, white LED lighting systems and so forth. We have all these technologies today, but cheap oil has kept them from full viability. Having slower cars will seriously suck, but it is not the end of the dream. We still have motorcycles, which allow one to tear around like one's ass is on fire if one must, yet still get 50 miles to the gallon. We will use the phone and cable more, the pistons and tires less. Technology will continue its forward march. spike From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Sep 21 07:09:50 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:39:50 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Off Topic: I love business analysts (who wouldn't?) Message-ID: <710b78fc05092100092b3d40b0@mail.gmail.com> This might get a giggle out of the techies on the list. I was having a bad hair day, work wise, and ended up having a pretty funny bitch about Business Analysts with a friend on Messenger: http://virtualemlyn.blogspot.com/2005/09/i-love-business-analysts-who-wouldnt.html or just http://virtualemlyn.blogspot.com/ -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From eugen at leitl.org Wed Sep 21 08:47:24 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:47:24 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] cheap alcohol In-Reply-To: <200509210327.j8L3RrX26227@tick.javien.com> References: <20050920141508.39563.qmail@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200509210327.j8L3RrX26227@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050921084724.GS2249@leitl.org> On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 08:27:47PM -0700, spike wrote: > Our innovative neighbors in Brazil are using > NAFTA to avoid tariffs and ship cheap cane-based > ethanol to the US, upsetting the corn growers Bioethanol for fuel is an awful idea. It only looks good when compared to biodiesel: http://www.mda.state.mn.us/ethanol/balance.html Biodiesel/oil crop is a stupid idea on its own. Smarter is to use whole biomass in caloric burn/source of synfuel and synthetic precursors. > of America. > > > > http://www.crystalsugar.com/media/news.archives/cargill.asp > > > > US lawmakers made our sugar prices 3 times the > global price, just as the EU made their motor > fuel 3 times the global price. I'd like to I don't. I want the fossil fuel to remain expensive, and to become slowly, steadily, even more expensive. I just want the entire revenue from fuel taxes to be spent on R&D for alternative fuels and damage remediation. > see both tariffs phased out! -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Sep 21 08:59:31 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:59:31 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan In-Reply-To: <007201c5be4b$2caeb940$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <007201c5be4b$2caeb940$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <20050921085931.GX2249@leitl.org> On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 08:24:12PM -0500, kevinfreels.com wrote: > And responding to someone else's post - Nukes are high-tech, but it doesn;t > take the knowledge of how to build a nuke to use one. It just takes the > right money and contacts - both of which are in good supply. Sooner or later a small group is going to use a nuke in anger on a city. And there isn't one damn thing you can do about it. The signature is small, and can be shielded. Your best bet is to not be a target. The reason it didn't happen yet is that fissible supply is controlled. Trying to clamp down on illegal immigrants is pretty nuts. The reason all these folks are jumping on your should have told you that your ideas are not reasonable. Please try reviewing them from scratch. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Sep 21 12:08:43 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 21:38:43 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] cheap alcohol In-Reply-To: <20050921084724.GS2249@leitl.org> References: <20050920141508.39563.qmail@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200509210327.j8L3RrX26227@tick.javien.com> <20050921084724.GS2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <710b78fc05092105081d50d2bd@mail.gmail.com> On 21/09/05, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 08:27:47PM -0700, spike wrote: > > US lawmakers made our sugar prices 3 times the > > global price, just as the EU made their motor > > fuel 3 times the global price. I'd like to > > I don't. I want the fossil fuel to remain expensive, and to become > slowly, steadily, even more expensive. I just want the entire revenue > from fuel taxes to be spent on R&D for alternative fuels and damage > remediation. > Amen, but don't bother with the R&D spending. The taxes on petrol can be increased and then squandered on something stupid, who cares? Maybe someone could even fund a social welfare program sometime :-) Just let petrol prices go sky high, and let the market do its job. So many alternative energy sources seem to struggle with trying to match mainstream sources in pricing, so they don't get the same work put into efficiency that a mainstream energy source gets, so they never get cheap - it's a catch 22. Which is solved only by pushing the price of the mainstream fuel sources though the roof for long enough to kickstart the alternative industries. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From eugen at leitl.org Wed Sep 21 12:42:55 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:42:55 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan In-Reply-To: <007201c5be4b$2caeb940$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <007201c5be4b$2caeb940$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <20050921124255.GF2249@leitl.org> On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 08:24:12PM -0500, kevinfreels.com wrote: > I am also "pretty sure" that the "vast majority" of the people coming over > the border illegally don't have nukes. > Somehow that doesn;t comfort me. Your risk perception is completely haywire. Take some anxiolytic. http://www.svt.ntnu.no/psy/Torbjorn.Rundmo/Psychometric_paradigm.pdf http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/risk/ etc. Moreover: if some Eeeeeeevildoer really wants to blow you up, they will. > As for poor people looking for a better life, I have already addressed that. > > > Conversely, the majority of people who are a threat to national > > security either cross the border legally (eg. the 9/11 hijackers) > > or are born locally. > > I'll give you that. But are you willing to bet your life that the way it HAS > been will CONTINUE into the future? There is no way to screen people for intentions just from data fields in their passports. Also: "Take your Jedi weapon! Use it. Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete." > The 911 hijackers came in through the easiest security hole they found. Now > that that hole has become more risky, they will most likely use the next > security hole. These people are low-tech, but they aren't stupid. http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0509.html Movie-Plot Threats Sometimes it seems like the people in charge of homeland security spend too much time watching action movies. They defend against specific movie plots instead of against the broad threats of terrorism. We all do it. Our imaginations run wild with detailed and specific threats. We imagine anthrax spread from crop dusters. Or a contaminated milk supply. Or terrorist scuba divers armed with almanacs. Before long, we're envisioning an entire movie plot, without Bruce Willis saving the day. And we're scared. Psychologically, this all makes sense. Humans have good imaginations. Box cutters and shoe bombs conjure vivid mental images. "We must protect the Super Bowl" packs more emotional punch than the vague "we should defend ourselves against terrorism." The 9/11 terrorists used small pointy things to take over airplanes, so we ban small pointy things from airplanes. Richard Reid tried to hide a bomb in his shoes, so now we all have to take off our shoes. Recently, the Department of Homeland Security said that it might relax airplane security rules. It's not that there's a lessened risk of shoes, or that small pointy things are suddenly less dangerous. It's that those movie plots no longer capture the imagination like they did in the months after 9/11, and everyone is beginning to see how silly (or pointless) they always were. Commuter terrorism is the new movie plot. The London bombers carried bombs into the subway, so now we search people entering the subways. They used cell phones, so we're talking about ways to shut down the cell-phone network. It's too early to tell if hurricanes are the next movie-plot threat that captures the imagination. The problem with movie plot security is that it only works if we guess right. If we spend billions defending our subways, and the terrorists bomb a bus, we've wasted our money. To be sure, defending the subways makes commuting safer. But focusing on subways also has the effect of shifting attacks toward less-defended targets, and the result is that we're no safer overall. Terrorists don't care if they blow up subways, buses, stadiums, theaters, restaurants, nightclubs, schools, churches, crowded markets or busy intersections. Reasonable arguments can be made that some targets are more attractive than others: airplanes because a small bomb can result in the death of everyone aboard, monuments because of their national significance, national events because of television coverage, and transportation because most people commute daily. But the United States is a big country; we can't defend everything. One problem is that our nation's leaders are giving us what we want. Party affiliation notwithstanding, appearing tough on terrorism is important. Voting for missile defense makes for better campaigning than increasing intelligence funding. Elected officials want to do something visible, even if it turns out to be ineffective. The other problem is that many security decisions are made at too low a level. The decision to turn off cell phones in some tunnels was made by those in charge of the tunnels. Even if terrorists then bomb a different tunnel elsewhere in the country, that person did his job. And anyone in charge of security knows that he'll be judged in hindsight. If the next terrorist attack targets a chemical plant, we'll demand to know why more wasn't done to protect chemical plants. If it targets schoolchildren, we'll demand to know why that threat was ignored. We won't accept "we didn't know the target" as an answer. Defending particular targets protects reputations and careers. We need to defend against the broad threat of terrorism, not against specific movie plots. Security is most effective when it doesn't make arbitrary assumptions about the next terrorist act. We need to spend more money on intelligence and investigation: identifying the terrorists themselves, cutting off their funding, and stopping them regardless of what their plans are. We need to spend more money on emergency response: lessening the impact of a terrorist attack, regardless of what it is. And we need to face the geopolitical consequences of our foreign policy and how it helps or hinders terrorism. These vague things are less visible, and don't make for good political grandstanding. But they will make us safer. Throwing money at this year's movie plot threat won't. This essay was originally published in Wired: > And responding to someone else's post - Nukes are high-tech, but it doesn;t > take the knowledge of how to build a nuke to use one. It just takes the > right money and contacts - both of which are in good supply. You are claiming there is a black market in nuclear weapons or weapon-grade fissibles? You're more nuts than I thought. > Now, Mike, I like your "smart string". I mean, I REALLY like your smart > string. I like it more than shooting people. How do we make it cheap? Can > you imagine lines of buried smart string that relay all that information? Your string needs to be really smart in order to be able to predict what will happen in people's heads at some point in the future. Here's a better idea: don't set yourself up to be a target. Here's an even better idea: sometimes the cure is so much worse than the disease, that the right thing to do is to do nothing. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed Sep 21 14:05:51 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:05:51 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan Message-ID: <380-22005932114551765@M2W126.mail2web.com> From: Eugen Leitl >Here's an even better idea: sometimes the cure is so much worse >than the disease, that the right thing to do is to do nothing. Maybe the best idea is to nuke this thread. Does anyone agree? Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.extropy.org -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Sep 21 16:04:04 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:04:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Off Topic: I love business analysts (who wouldn't?) In-Reply-To: <710b78fc05092100092b3d40b0@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc05092100092b3d40b0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050921110255.01df6b80@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 04:39 PM 9/21/2005 +0930, Emlyn wrote: >This might get a giggle out of the techies on the list. I was having a >bad hair day, work wise, and ended up having a pretty funny bitch >about Business Analysts with a friend on Messenger: > >http://virtualemlyn.blogspot.com/2005/09/i-love-business-analysts-who-wouldnt.html The comments at the end were good. Yikes. Are all blogs this instantly encrusted with spam? Damien Broderick From eugen at leitl.org Wed Sep 21 16:33:55 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:33:55 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Off Topic: I love business analysts (who wouldn't?) In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050921110255.01df6b80@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <710b78fc05092100092b3d40b0@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050921110255.01df6b80@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20050921163355.GR2249@leitl.org> On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 11:04:04AM -0500, Damien Broderick wrote: > >http://virtualemlyn.blogspot.com/2005/09/i-love-business-analysts-who-wouldnt.html > > The comments at the end were good. Yikes. Are all blogs this instantly > encrusted with spam? Only those which don't use anti-spam measures (moderation, or turinging a la CAPTCHAs). A further demostration that a new, half-assed medium is bound to rediscover wheels, albeit low-n polygonal ones. (Polling and notification, RSS Feeds for concentration/serialization, antispam -- just fucking hilarious -- if it wasn't so pathetic). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 16:40:23 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:40:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan In-Reply-To: <001a01c5be57$eb8fcff0$fdde0405@JPAcer> Message-ID: <20050921164023.89197.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Jack Parkinson wrote: > Kevin said... > This is a serious subject. The greatest threat to US national > security at > the moment is the Mexican border. It needs to be shut down... > Security walls have a long and pretty inglorious history. The Great > Wall of China couldn't stop the Mongol hordes, Hadrian's Wall didn't > stop the Scots tribes, The Berlin Wall would have to considered as a > failure... And the 'Iron Curtain' failed to do the job too... > I would also predict a short, unhappy future for the wall Israel is > building... would the Mexico Wall fare any better? I doubt it. Actually, the Iron Curtain and the Berlin Wall worked pretty well for most of the Cold War. It certainly kept most all eastern europeans from escaping, such that by the 70's, defections were rare things. Hadrians Wall worked pretty well too at what it was intended for: regulating trade and migration, not defending against invaders. Nobody expects a wall to last forever, assuming it should and calling its failure at that unrealistic assumption to define the whole idea as a failure is a fraud. > > Europeans do not generally agonise about their stroll-through > borders: Why should the US? If you have no objections to the people > being there anyway - just make the 'back door' the 'front door!' European borders are only stroll through to those already in europe, just as the borders between the US states are stroll-through, they are quite closed to outsiders who do not work within the established immigration systems. The strollers are already generally vetted by the society as assimilated, or at least assumed as such. I don't mind my neighbors walking across my property. I do mind a total stranger coming in and setting up camp in my back yard. He's likely to see the butt-end of a gun. Once again, european countries have far tighter immigration restrictions against non-europeans than the US does. Its why our legal immigration rates are far higher (we take in more than the rest of the world combined). We don't mind the legal immigration, its the illegal stuff that is out of control. Mind your own store. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 16:52:00 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:52:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] cheap alcohol In-Reply-To: <200509210327.j8L3RrX26227@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050921165200.94944.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > Our innovative neighbors in Brazil are using NAFTA to avoid tariffs > and ship cheap cane-based ethanol to the US, upsetting the corn > growers of America. > > http://www.crystalsugar.com/media/news.archives/cargill.asp > > US lawmakers made our sugar prices 3 times the global price, just as > the EU made their motor fuel 3 times the global price. I'd like to > see both tariffs phased out! So long as Brazilian sugar production isn't subsidized, I have no problem with it. Too bad if the American farmer can't compete. Of course, as demand for Brazilian ethanol goes up in the US, prices for the same will also go up, to meet the US prices... particularly if the price for ethanol made in the US is now, for once, cheaper than gasoline. Oh, and BTW: Its CAFTA, not NAFTA. It also appears that Cargill is merely relabelling and reshipping auto-quality Brazilian ethanol, which would be a no-no, since Brazil isn't part of either CAFTA or the CBI. Lets let the competition reign. Of course, once US sugar beet growers are thrown out of work, they will be free to lobby more for legalization of hemp growing... ;) Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 17:06:55 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:06:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Nuclear Energy: A Fallacious Response tothe Oil Crisis (renewable fuels) In-Reply-To: <200509210447.j8L4lmX00749@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050921170655.54867.qmail@web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Large engined vehicles could save dramatically on fuel if they were merely reprogrammed for variable piston ignition and refitted with solenoid controlled valves. Varying the number of pistons firing at any given time is a huge help. Other things that can be done cheaply: platinum coated piston heads, to move catalytic burning to the engine, and water condensation from exhaust for electronically controlled reinjection. As for the nuke article: France does consume 50% of its electricity needs from nuclear power. Once you factor in all non-electric energy uses (heating, transportation), it drops to 17% of the total energy budget. They still use three times more nuclear power than the global average. As for her pooh-poohing the 30 Chinese reactors, the point is that the Chinese are not huge consumers of electricity compared to, say, France. They can put ten million people on a given reactor that would only make one million French happy. So, 30 Chinese reactors is the same as 300 French ones. --- spike wrote: > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Terry W. Colvin > > Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Nuclear Energy: A Fallacious > Response to > the Oil Crisis > > http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0 at 2-3232,36-683369,0.html > > > ??? Nuclear Energy: A Fallacious Response to the Oil Crisis > ??? By St?phane Lhomme > ??? Le Monde > > ??? Monday 29 August 2005 > > ??? The price of oil takes off and global warming gets worse... > > ??? Rich countries must make major reductions in their energy > consumption > and, at the same time, finance the development of renewable energies > on the > planet... > > > > This article sounds a bit extreme, does it not? > > In any case, I have been thinking a lot about > renewable fuels lately. Last time I pointed out > that our Detroits could be dramatically smaller > than they are, someone pointed out to me that > the poor might have a difficult time of changing > out their rolling stock, that it would be a major > impact to all advanced nations to replace their > entire automotive infrastructure. > > It occurred to me that this would not be necessary. > Modern cars could be reworked with engines less > than half the size of current ones. V-8 SUVs could > have small four cylinder engines installed. Accords > could have two cylinder motors adapted to their > current transmissions. A new industry would be > born, with adapter kits for new, small engines > going into existing Detroits. > > Of course, the re-engined vehicles would be too > slow to get out of their own way. I could imagine > the average car having the same performance as that > yellow school bus we used to ride, you remember > that, do you not? It was slower than Christmas, > but it got us there eventually. A re-engined > Detroit could get half again the mileage, and as > an added bonus, it would be so unpleasant to drive > that proles would be hesitant to use it at all > whenever possible, saving even more fuel. > > Higher fuel costs will make a number of home > technologies viable: more insulation in the walls > and ceilings, higher tech air conditioners and > automated attic venting systems, solar water > heating, white LED lighting systems and so > forth. We have all these technologies today, > but cheap oil has kept them from full viability. > > Having slower cars will seriously suck, but it > is not the end of the dream. We still have > motorcycles, which allow one to tear around > like one's ass is on fire if one must, yet > still get 50 miles to the gallon. We will > use the phone and cable more, the pistons > and tires less. Technology will continue > its forward march. > > spike > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From robgobblin at aol.com Wed Sep 21 17:11:52 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 07:11:52 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] cheap alcohol In-Reply-To: <20050921084724.GS2249@leitl.org> References: <20050920141508.39563.qmail@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200509210327.j8L3RrX26227@tick.javien.com> <20050921084724.GS2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <43319458.4030102@aol.com> Eugen Leitl wrote: >Bioethanol for fuel is an awful idea. It only looks >good when compared to biodiesel: > > http://www.mda.state.mn.us/ethanol/balance.html > >Biodiesel/oil crop is a stupid idea on its own. >Smarter is to use whole biomass in caloric burn/source >of synfuel and synthetic precursors. > > Why is ethanol such a bad idea? Robbie Lindauer From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 17:30:26 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:30:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan In-Reply-To: <20050921124255.GF2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20050921173026.45612.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > There is no way to screen people for intentions just from data fields > in their passports. On the contrary, anyone with a muslim name who is not a citizen of Afghanistan or Pakistan but has spent 2-12 consecutive months in one of those countries since 1992 has, more than likely, attended an al Qaeda camp or has taught in a terrorist recruitment madrassa. The odds of such a person being a terrorist up to no good is astronomically greater than those 80 year old white grandmas that TSA loves to strip search so frequently. Really, the job can be done so much more efficiently if we get over this idiotic fixation against all ethnic profiling as inherently 'wrong'. As polls show 85% of african-americans approve of profiling muslims, its apparent the queasiness is only among the guilty left elites. > > Also: "Take your Jedi weapon! Use it. Strike me down with all of your > hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete." So empty of arguments you resort to quotes from hackneyed bad sf movies? Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From kevin at kevinfreels.com Wed Sep 21 18:00:29 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:00:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan References: <007201c5be4b$2caeb940$0100a8c0@kevin> <20050921124255.GF2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <00c201c5bed6$5ace1060$0100a8c0@kevin> Eugen, I'll take your bait. I am not above learning something. Are you saying that North Korea, or any other country that hates the US would in no way take large sums of money in exchange for a small nuclear weapon that they knew would be used against the US? Are you certain enough of this that if I think otherwise, I am nuts? Simple yes or no will suffice. If that is so, then what is it that keeps these people from selling their nukes to the highest bidder? Morals? From henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com Wed Sep 21 18:06:42 2005 From: henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Henrik_=D6hrstr=F6m?=) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 20:06:42 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan In-Reply-To: <20050921173026.45612.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Ethnic profiling have its own limitations, El Als security was very neatly bypassed when someone (Sorry can't find the reference, I read about it in a swedish newspaper) used persons who did not look like palestinians or arabic but looked like "native" judes. They could waltz right through with suitcases filled with plastelina, because nobody looked twice at them. > --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > > There is no way to screen people for intentions just from data fields > > in their passports. > > On the contrary, anyone with a muslim name who is not a citizen of > Afghanistan or Pakistan but has spent 2-12 consecutive months in one of > those countries since 1992 has, more than likely, attended an al Qaeda > camp or has taught in a terrorist recruitment madrassa. Interesting information, any refs? > > The odds of such a person being a terrorist up to no good is > astronomically greater than those 80 year old white grandmas that TSA > loves to strip search so frequently. Really, the job can be done so > much more efficiently if we get over this idiotic fixation against all > ethnic profiling as inherently 'wrong'. As polls show 85% of > african-americans approve of profiling muslims, its apparent the > queasiness is only among the guilty left elites. > > > > > Also: "Take your Jedi weapon! Use it. Strike me down with all of your > > hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete." > > So empty of arguments you resort to quotes from hackneyed bad sf > movies? > > > Mike Lorrey > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: > http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com > Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > -----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 hal at finney.org Wed Sep 21 18:22:20 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:22:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Robin Hanson on Cynicism Message-ID: <20050921182220.461C857EF5@finney.org> Robin Hanson has an interesting essay up at http://hanson.gmu.edu/metacynic.html , "The Cynic's Conundrum." He writes about cynicism, the predisposition to explain human behavior in terms of "low", selfish and manipulative motives. This leads to something of a paradox, when we ask whether cynics practicing cynicism are themselves behaving in a selfish and manipulative way. Is cynicism itself suitable for criticism from the cynical perspective? One theory is yes, that cynics are, in a word, losers. They have adopted cynicism in order to bring down their betters rather than face up to their own limitations. Or alternatively, are cynics exceptions to the rule, are they high-minded idealists who righteously strip away the curtains of deception among their fellows, courageously bearing the burden of contempt and distaste which society directs towards cynics? To be consistent, cynics ought to be cynical about cynicism. But this makes them look bad and makes their cynical criticism less effective. Further, if the cynical view of cynicism is correct, it would also impair their efforts to make themselves look better by making everyone else look worse. The conclusion I draw is perhaps a little different from Robin's, which is that cynicism itself is the one thing that cynics should not be publicly cynical about, otherwise they undercut their own criticism (which would then descend into nihilism). And of course this does open up an effective riposte by members of society stung by cynical criticism: to challenge the cynic to take a look in the mirror and see if his own high-sounding criticisms are really as brave and idealistic as he claims. Hal Finney From eugen at leitl.org Wed Sep 21 18:33:20 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 20:33:20 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] cheap alcohol In-Reply-To: <43319458.4030102@aol.com> References: <20050920141508.39563.qmail@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200509210327.j8L3RrX26227@tick.javien.com> <20050921084724.GS2249@leitl.org> <43319458.4030102@aol.com> Message-ID: <20050921183320.GX2249@leitl.org> On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 07:11:52AM -1000, Robert Lindauer wrote: > Why is ethanol such a bad idea? Because bioethanol utilizes only a tiny fraction of energy captured in plant biomass on a given land area. You need fermentation of sugar (direct, or from hydrolyzed cellulose), and destillation. Lousy yield, and takes energy as input. Negative impact on soil and biodiversity. Details e.g. here: http://www.biodiesel.co.uk/levington_tables.htm Both biodiesel and bioethanol are primitive (derived from alimentary agriculture: plant oil and destilled spirits) ways of extracting energy from biomass. A better way would be using pelletized fuel burners, or pyrolyse/gasify/reform/platform biomass into gases and liquids useful for synthetic chemistry and energy generation (fuel cell or gas turbine). This is *still* primitive, though, because a more advanced process would directly use solar flux for artificial photosynthesis/ photovoltaics, and at a higher yield than natural photosynthesis. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From rhanson at gmu.edu Wed Sep 21 18:36:16 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:36:16 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Robin Hanson on Cynicism In-Reply-To: <20050921182220.461C857EF5@finney.org> References: <20050921182220.461C857EF5@finney.org> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050921143213.02ed64a0@mail.gmu.edu> At 02:22 PM 9/21/2005, Hal Finney wrote: >... http://hanson.gmu.edu/metacynic.html , "The Cynic's Conundrum." ... >The conclusion I draw is perhaps a little different from Robin's, >which is that cynicism itself is the one thing that cynics should not >be publicly cynical about, otherwise they undercut their own criticism >(which would then descend into nihilism). And of course this does open >up an effective riposte by members of society stung by cynical criticism: >to challenge the cynic to take a look in the mirror and see if his own >high-sounding criticisms are really as brave and idealistic as he claims. I posed the issue in terms of what should the cynic believe about himself, rather than how he should present himself to others. But yes, the more that the cynic's targets know of his conundrum, the harder for him. Not that the cynic's motives for criticizing should really matter than much for whether the cynic's criticisms are accepted as true. But alas for humans, it does matter a great deal. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 18:37:34 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:37:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] cheap alcohol In-Reply-To: <43319458.4030102@aol.com> Message-ID: <20050921183734.13358.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Robert Lindauer wrote: > Eugen Leitl wrote: > > >Bioethanol for fuel is an awful idea. It only looks > >good when compared to biodiesel: > > > > http://www.mda.state.mn.us/ethanol/balance.html > > > >Biodiesel/oil crop is a stupid idea on its own. > >Smarter is to use whole biomass in caloric burn/source > >of synfuel and synthetic precursors. > > > > > Why is ethanol such a bad idea? If it is grown on land that requires irrigation water that could otherwise be used in generating hydropower, and fertilized by fertilizers synthesized from petroleum, and sprayed with pesticides also produced with chemicals and energy from petroleum or other energy sources, and then distilled with energy also coming from other energy sources, the conversion efficiency of corn or other plants into ethanol produces less energy than is put into it, or so little surplus that its good for little else other than local use. Expending energy transporting it across the globe or across the country would surely put it into deficit efficiency. It also contributes to habitat destruction, by artificially inflating the amount of farmland put into productive use rather than allowed to return to wild. US domestic ethanol prices are subsidized by tax dollars. Otherwise they'd be about $3.50/gallon or more. The only reason they are lower today than gasoline (besides being subsidized by tax dollars) is that ethanol produced today was grown with petroleum fertilizers and pesticides produced when oil was $40/bbl. Brazilian ethanol is subsidized by the environment, in that much of it is grown via the modern slash and burn practices in the Amazon basin, cutting down the rain forest for sugar beet plantations that are good for a few years, then abandoned for newly cut areas. The price differential between Brazilian and US ethanol demonstrates, at least partly, the price difference between renewable and non-renewable resources. US ethanol hews more closely to renewables, but still needs to get off its addiction to petroleum pesticides and fertilizers to produce a truly accurate picture of a renewable resource economically. The history of Brazilian ethanol production is one of $10 billion annually in industry subsidies up until 1987, a rate of subsidy that one economist with extensive Brazilian experience says it nearly bankrupted the country at one point. Since then legal requirements of all gasoline containing 25% ethanol create an automatic market for ethanol. The real enemies of Brazilian output, though, are not US farmers, it is Caribbean sugar makers who enjoy special pricing in Europe: "EU REACTION http://www.tradeobservatory.org/headlines.cfm?refID=73586 Challenged to reduce sugar subsidies, the European Union has proposed lowering subsidies for European farmers as well as the price of sugar imports from former colonies. The African, Pacific and Caribbean sugar producers have warned it could cost them $800 million in lost income annually. European farmers have taken to the streets in protest. ''You now have the African, Caribbean and Pacific former colonies screaming bloody murder because they are going to get hammered. They are going to lose the European market,'' said R. Dennis Olson, an agricultural economist at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy in Minneapolis." When it comes down to the bottom line, though, the fact is that price is king in the market. If the US adopted a similar 25% ethanol content policy to gasoline, you'd see Brazilian ethanol prices rise significantly (since the US is the biggest car market in the world) as ethanol there was shifted to exports, you'd see far more rainforest burning, and you'd see world oil prices come down as US autos suddenly consumed 25% less oil-derived gasoline. You might see gas prices drop below ethanol prices again, at which point refiners should be given free reign to vary ethanol content with market variations. http://www.ethanol-gec.org/information/Brazilian_Ethanol_3-1-05.ppt (this seems to be an exception to the rule that power point presentations don't convey useful info) 2004 ethanol production in Brazil was 15 million kiloliters (about 94 million barrels or 3.96 billion gallons, thank you Frink Server Pages). US production was 11.5 million kl, which is 2.3% of US gasoline production. If the US suddenly bought all Brazilian production, it would still only amount to an additional 3% of gasoline content. Current Brazilian exports are 2.2 million kl. Brazil is expected to up production by 1 million kl in 2005. Most automobiles in production and sale in the US are built capable of burning a 10% blend of ethanol with gasoline according to mfr specs, if they are not built to FFV standards (Flexible Fuel Vehicle). So, US cars could easily take an increase in blending from 2.3% up to 5% without problem, while soaking up global ethanol exports in toto. Brazil has the capability to increase its cane production 100 fold ( if it exploits all arable land (good-bye wild habitat, hello tree-huggers), to 320 million hectares, but only projects increasing to a maximum of 90 million hectares. If all that went to exports, that would be about 1500 million kl. If all that went to the US, we'd be able to have a 25% blend of ethanol in our gasoline easily(assuming zero growth in gas consumption). This would likely kill of US ethanol production if the Brazilians are capable of keeping their production costs down. The problem here in the US isn't the market, its the government. The EPA is fixated on bribes from the MTBE makers. Here in NH, we've been complaining and suing over MTBE spoiling our well water for a decade, but the EPA won't budge and let us switch to ethanol blended gasoline for pollution reduction. NH has a slight smog problem in the southern tier due to blow-over from MA, NY, and PA and Ohio coal plants, consequently we have to pay for smog reduction additives to our gas. When ethanol was more expensive than gas, it was a problem, now it may be a good idea. Dumping US corn-produced ethanol is also a good idea. Sugar cane is 6-7 times more efficient than corn is, it turns out, though I'm sure that being at the equator helps some as well. On the plus side, nobody cares if their gasohol was produced with bt and round-up ready corn.... if only Monsanto could put those genes in sugar cane..... ;) Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From scerir at libero.it Wed Sep 21 18:47:49 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 20:47:49 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Off Topics References: <710b78fc05092100092b3d40b0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <004b01c5bedc$fbf558d0$2cb91b97@administxl09yj> *Cold* plasma (great pic!) http://www.ece.odu.edu/~mlarouss/ [ and some literature http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/9/11 ] ------------------------------------------- Nano-pendulum dowsing, by means of very special pendulums - or pendula? - based on 'Bloch oscillations' (expl. in the book by Mermin, about Solid State Phys.). http://www.lens.unifi.it/articles/art564.pdf http://www.lens.unifi.it/articles/art672.pdf These papers are rather techn. indeed, but these devices can measure forces with *extremely* high precision (gravity, Casimir, etc.). Wondering if they can 'see', under the earth, oil or gold or water or devil. -------------------------------------------- Old (gold) days http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/fsac/1a34000/1a34400/1a34447v.jpg -------------------------------------------- Entanglements. Lisa Randall, string theorist, writes (on the NYT) that ... " 'The uncertainty principle' is another frequently abused term. It is sometimes interpreted as a limitation on observers and their ability to make measurements. But it is not about intrinsic limitations on any one particular measurement; it is about the inability to precisely measure particular pairs of quantities simultaneously. The first interpretation is perhaps more engaging from a philosophical or political perspective. It's just not what the science is about." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/18/opinion/18randall.html? ex=1284696000&en=da4ba5e712603a63&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss That 'simultaneously' is very puzzling (and possibly worse). Asher Peres pointed out that http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0310/0310010.pdf in the 'EPR' article, the authors (Einstein, Rosen, Podolsky) use the word 'simultaneous' no less than four times, a surprising expression for people who knew very well that this term was undefined in the theory of relativity. The friendship between Eistein and Podolsky broke immediately after Podolsky published (on the NYT, of course) a very short piece about the 'EPR' paradox. The 'uncertainty principle' in Asher's outstanding book (QT: Concepts and Methods, 1993) is relegated to a single entry in the index, that points to ... the same page of the index! From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 18:57:34 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:57:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050921185735.49237.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> El Al must be getting lax in its security. My father, a clearly white nordic male, was once nearly kept out of Israel on a business trip by an El Al security matron simply because he lived in a town called "Lebanon, New Hampshire". She let him through with the comment, "it sounds like a terrible place to live." --- Henrik ?hrstr?m wrote: > Ethnic profiling have its own limitations, El Als security was very > neatly > bypassed when someone (Sorry can't find the reference, I read about > it in a > swedish newspaper) used persons who did not look like palestinians or > arabic > but looked like "native" judes. They could waltz right through with > suitcases filled with plastelina, because nobody looked twice at > them. > > > > --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > > > > There is no way to screen people for intentions just from data > fields > > > in their passports. > > > > On the contrary, anyone with a muslim name who is not a citizen of > > Afghanistan or Pakistan but has spent 2-12 consecutive months in > one of > > those countries since 1992 has, more than likely, attended an al > Qaeda > > camp or has taught in a terrorist recruitment madrassa. > > Interesting information, any refs? Not online. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From peter.fedak at nyu.edu Wed Sep 21 19:02:07 2005 From: peter.fedak at nyu.edu (Peter Fedak) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:02:07 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Profile the Great Satan? (Peter Fedak) Message-ID: Mike Lorrey wrote: "On the contrary, anyone with a muslim name who is not a citizen of Afghanistan or Pakistan but has spent 2-12 consecutive months in one of those countries since 1992 has, more than likely, attended an al Qaeda camp or has taught in a terrorist recruitment madrassa. The odds of such a person being a terrorist up to no good is astronomically greater than those 80 year old white grandmas that TSA loves to strip search so frequently. Really, the job can be done so much more efficiently if we get over this idiotic fixation against all ethnic profiling as inherently 'wrong'. As polls show 85% of african-americans approve of profiling muslims, its apparent the queasiness is only among the guilty left elites." An assumption is not grounds for an act, nor is a poll. Strip searching 80 year old Muslim grandmas is no better than 80 year old white grandmas, and will produce the same empty results. The assumption is not universal. To profile you would have to be so exacting in your assumptions that you would catch the criminal at the moment of intent, which is impossible. And if you were profiling, the criminal would catch on and find ways around the system. Polling an ethnic group to profile any other group will also probably produce even poll results across the board. Poll whites to profile blacks, poll blacks to profile Muslims, poll X to profile Y, you will find the people will accept it, as long as group X has reason to believe group Y threatens them in some way, especially since there is still racism and prejudice prevalent in our society, however hard we try to hide it or look away. Unfortunately, this is a short-sighted, selfish view that will produce little results. Racial profiling, or any selective sampling, will not catch the exceptions to any rule. Recent terrorism in the US is proof in itself: Timothy McVeigh, Jose Padilla, Ted Kaczynsky, John Walker Lindh... These individuals were not necessarily in or from the Middle East, nor did they attend a military camp there. So profiling is useless, as is using a poll to justify it. If the entire problem is to be addressed, a step back should be taken to analyze the broader picture. The US's market economy is very strong and the way of life here is vastly different from other parts of the world. Some people live in poverty, some live in wealth. However, few live better than Americans. So, knowing human nature, what would make those with little the most upset? Those with the more than them. As the wealthiest nation, we are wearing a red, white and blue target for that resentment. How can it be resolved? The answer to that would solve the problem of terrorism. The Libertarian view is one of non-involvement, financially and responsibility-wise, which could be one solution. However, non-involvement also led to this mess in the first place, as in assuming we are impervious and faultless. Now that the holes in our armor are found, we should analyze these issues and, rather than leaving those holes open and moving on, try to understand why we had these problems in the first place and devise ways to prevent it next time. Peter Fedak -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 19:19:41 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:19:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Profile the Great Satan? (Peter Fedak) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050921191941.73727.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Peter Fedak wrote: > Mike Lorrey wrote: > > "On the contrary, anyone with a muslim name who is not a citizen of > Afghanistan or Pakistan but has spent 2-12 consecutive months in one > of those countries since 1992 has, more than likely, attended an al > Qaeda camp or has taught in a terrorist recruitment madrassa. > > The odds of such a person being a terrorist up to no good is > astronomically > greater than those 80 year old white grandmas that TSA loves to strip > search so frequently. Really, the job can be done so much more > efficiently if we > get over this idiotic fixation against all ethnic profiling as > inherently > 'wrong'. As polls show 85% of african-americans approve of profiling > muslims, its apparent the queasiness is only among the guilty left > elites." > > An assumption is not grounds for an act, nor is a poll. Strip > searching 80 year old Muslim grandmas is no better than 80 year old > white grandmas, and will produce the same empty results. The > assumption is not universal. To profile you would have to be so > exacting in your assumptions that you would catch the criminal at > the moment of intent, which is impossible. And if you were profiling, > the criminal would catch on and find ways around the system. > > Polling an ethnic group to profile any other group will also probably > produce even poll results across the board. Poll whites to profile > blacks, poll blacks to profile Muslims, poll X to profile Y, you will > find the people will accept it, as long as group X has reason to > believe group Y threatens them in some way, especially since there > is still racism and prejudice prevalent in our society, however hard > we try to hide it or look away. Unfortunately, this is a short- > sighted, selfish view that will produce little results. Racial > profiling, or any selective sampling, will not catch > the exceptions to any rule. Firstly, it isn't intended to catch exceptions to the rule, it is intended to catch the 99% of criminals who do fit the profile, thus reducing the chance of an attack by those 99% by a factor of 100%. Not profiling any of them guarantees they will all get through and attack. > Recent terrorism in the US is proof in itself: > Timothy McVeigh, Jose Padilla, Ted Kaczynsky, John Walker Lindh... > These individuals were not necessarily in or from the Middle East, > nor did they attend a military camp there. So profiling is useless, > as is using a poll to justify it. Your choice of subjects exposes the ludicrousness and bias of your position. Firstly, for the crimes they committed, both Tim Mc Veigh and Ted Kaczynsky exactly matched possible profiles that law enforcement worked up: loners, disaffected by their experiences, etc. McVeigh was an established white supremacist, veteran, white male christian. Kaczynsky was a hermit educated white loner luddite living in the woods with an elite liberal arts school education (and it turns out a subject of LSD mind control experiments). They were also committing their attacks for specific reasons that had nothing to do with the middle east, globalization, etc, and at a time period when the only middle eastern terrorists to hit US soil were the followers of the blind sheikh. Jose Padilla and JW Lindh actually fit my profile to a T: both were muslims, not citizens of Afghanistan or Pakistan, who had spent 2-12 months consecutively in one or both of those countries. So, by my profile, and if the only terrrorists in the world were these four, I would have caught half the terrorists in the world by my profile, just by having my border guards peruse such info from the passports of income travellers (including those of US citizens, which I made no qualification against, you will note). Thus, your own claims that profiling produces no results are proven wrong by your own selected sample subjects. Phooey. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From kevin at kevinfreels.com Wed Sep 21 19:44:01 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:44:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Profile the Great Satan? (Peter Fedak) References: Message-ID: <003b01c5bee4$d12793e0$0100a8c0@kevin> I see Mike's point and it isn;t about race. It is about using our evolved gut instinct and profiling people through several layers - race just being one of those. Right now, the people conducting the searches have to be "equal and fair" with their searches. They can't single anyone out for any reason that might lead anyone to believe that the possibility exists that that person may have possibly been chosen for a search because they might fit into somone's idea of a racial profile. This is crap. When underwriting mortgage loans, underwriters have a little thing they deal with called "layered risk". Supposing a person had a 580 credit score, no money in the bank, self-employed for 6 months, and was buying a house from a friend, and no money down. None of these things in themselves would stop a person from buying a home. But taken together, they add up to a high risk of foreclosure. Often, an underwriter will turn down such loans. In a similar way, a white supremist, veteran, white male christian is a high risk. A black veteran christian on the other hand is a much lower risk. Creditors and insurers play the risk game every day. And our brains are already wired for it with "gut" instinct and stereotyping. If taken control of properly, these tools could be fine tuned to greatly reduce the risk. ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Fedak To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 2:02 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Profile the Great Satan? (Peter Fedak) Mike Lorrey wrote: "On the contrary, anyone with a muslim name who is not a citizen of Afghanistan or Pakistan but has spent 2-12 consecutive months in one of those countries since 1992 has, more than likely, attended an al Qaeda camp or has taught in a terrorist recruitment madrassa. The odds of such a person being a terrorist up to no good is astronomically greater than those 80 year old white grandmas that TSA loves to strip search so frequently. Really, the job can be done so much more efficiently if we get over this idiotic fixation against all ethnic profiling as inherently 'wrong'. As polls show 85% of african-americans approve of profiling muslims, its apparent the queasiness is only among the guilty left elites." An assumption is not grounds for an act, nor is a poll. Strip searching 80 year old Muslim grandmas is no better than 80 year old white grandmas, and will produce the same empty results. The assumption is not universal. To profile you would have to be so exacting in your assumptions that you would catch the criminal at the moment of intent, which is impossible. And if you were profiling, the criminal would catch on and find ways around the system. Polling an ethnic group to profile any other group will also probably produce even poll results across the board. Poll whites to profile blacks, poll blacks to profile Muslims, poll X to profile Y, you will find the people will accept it, as long as group X has reason to believe group Y threatens them in some way, especially since there is still racism and prejudice prevalent in our society, however hard we try to hide it or look away. Unfortunately, this is a short-sighted, selfish view that will produce little results. Racial profiling, or any selective sampling, will not catch the exceptions to any rule. Recent terrorism in the US is proof in itself: Timothy McVeigh, Jose Padilla, Ted Kaczynsky, John Walker Lindh... These individuals were not necessarily in or from the Middle East, nor did they attend a military camp there. So profiling is useless, as is using a poll to justify it. If the entire problem is to be addressed, a step back should be taken to analyze the broader picture. The US's market economy is very strong and the way of life here is vastly different from other parts of the world. Some people live in poverty, some live in wealth. However, few live better than Americans. So, knowing human nature, what would make those with little the most upset? Those with the more than them. As the wealthiest nation, we are wearing a red, white and blue target for that resentment. How can it be resolved? The answer to that would solve the problem of terrorism. The Libertarian view is one of non-involvement, financially and responsibility-wise, which could be one solution. However, non-involvement also led to this mess in the first place, as in assuming we are impervious and faultless. Now that the holes in our armor are found, we should analyze these issues and, rather than leaving those holes open and moving on, try to understand why we had these problems in the first place and devise ways to prevent it next time. Peter Fedak ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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: From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Sep 21 19:52:42 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:52:42 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] cheap alcohol In-Reply-To: <710b78fc05092105081d50d2bd@mail.gmail.com> References: <20050920141508.39563.qmail@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200509210327.j8L3RrX26227@tick.javien.com> <20050921084724.GS2249@leitl.org> <710b78fc05092105081d50d2bd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Does it make any difference to the celebration of rising oil and gas prices that it take a large amount of incompressible time and $$ to re-tool for alternate energy sources? Are we happy with perhaps major economic suckage while the readjustment occurs? I'm not. Waiting for the crunch to get bad enough is waiting much too long in terms of the amount of suffering and opportunity for attendant mischief. - samantha On Sep 21, 2005, at 5:08 AM, Emlyn wrote: > On 21/09/05, Eugen Leitl wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 08:27:47PM -0700, spike wrote: >> >>> US lawmakers made our sugar prices 3 times the >>> global price, just as the EU made their motor >>> fuel 3 times the global price. I'd like to >>> >> >> I don't. I want the fossil fuel to remain expensive, and to become >> slowly, steadily, even more expensive. I just want the entire revenue >> from fuel taxes to be spent on R&D for alternative fuels and damage >> remediation. >> >> > > Amen, but don't bother with the R&D spending. The taxes on petrol can > be increased and then squandered on something stupid, who cares? Maybe > someone could even fund a social welfare program sometime :-) > > Just let petrol prices go sky high, and let the market do its job. So > many alternative energy sources seem to struggle with trying to match > mainstream sources in pricing, so they don't get the same work put > into efficiency that a mainstream energy source gets, so they never > get cheap - it's a catch 22. Which is solved only by pushing the price > of the mainstream fuel sources though the roof for long enough to > kickstart the alternative industries. > > -- > Emlyn > > http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From amara at amara.com Wed Sep 21 20:07:35 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 22:07:35 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Profile the Great Satan? (Peter Fedak) Message-ID: >I see Mike's point and it isn;t about race. It is about using our >evolved gut instinct and profiling people through several layers - >race just being one of those. Right now, the people conducting the >searches have to be "equal and fair" with their searches. They can't >single anyone out for any reason that might lead anyone to believe >that the possibility exists that that person may have possibly been >chosen for a search because they might fit into somone's idea of a >racial profile. This is crap. Hmm. Profiling. Reading something by Bruce Schneier might be useful for you. "Schneier on Security: Profiling" http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/07/profiling.html "How We Are Fighting the War on Terrorism IDs and the illusion of security" by Bruce Schneier, Tuesday, February 3, 2004 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/03/EDGSI4M3171.DTL "Random Security" http://www.acfnewsource.org/science/random_security.html Random searches at airports would catch more terrorists than the current system of passenger profiling. "Terror Profiles By Computers Are Ineffective" By Bruce Schneier for Newsday. http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/001913.php http://turnrow.ulm.edu/bruceschneierinterview.htm An Interview with Bruce Schneier 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/ ******************************************************************** "Stupidity got us into this mess, so why can't it get us out?" -- Will Rogers From amara at amara.com Wed Sep 21 20:16:41 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 22:16:41 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] re: Nuke the Great Satan Message-ID: Eugene: >http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0509.html >Movie-Plot Threats Dear Eugene, About four years ago, I heard Mark Miller calling the airport security stuff the "Security Theatre" because it acts as a large-scale theatre that is supposed to make the country's citizens *think* that something is being done to solve some people's fears. I liked his expression so much, that I have been using it ever since. Here, I see that Mark's Hollywood meme for the security theatre is catching on. :-) 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/ ******************************************************************** "Brian (not wanting to be a messiah): `You are all individuals....' Crowd (in unison): `We are all individuals....'" ---Monty Python's Flying Circus, THE LIFE OF BRIAN From eugen at leitl.org Wed Sep 21 20:17:19 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 22:17:19 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] cheap alcohol In-Reply-To: References: <20050920141508.39563.qmail@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200509210327.j8L3RrX26227@tick.javien.com> <20050921084724.GS2249@leitl.org> <710b78fc05092105081d50d2bd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20050921201719.GM2249@leitl.org> On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 12:52:42PM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Does it make any difference to the celebration of rising oil and gas > prices that it take a large amount of incompressible time and $$ to > re-tool for alternate energy sources? Are we happy with perhaps Alternative energy sources are but a side effect of absolutely basic future staples like molecular nanotechnology. Current progress/grwoth hinges on cheap energy, the whole house of cards collapses when everyone starts believing in peak oil, and prices soar. > major economic suckage while the readjustment occurs? I'm not. With 1.2% projected local growth (wildly optimistic, considered that every single projection for years has been far too optimistic) renewable could be a much-needed export motor, at least hereabouts. Biotechnology is not happening, nevermind nano, yet. > Waiting for the crunch to get bad enough is waiting much too long in > terms of the amount of suffering and opportunity for attendant mischief. We're at almost 7$/gallon, and not suffering (much). The mischief and shenanigans can only happen when you don't control your own supply. With renewables, that's not an issue. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From robgobblin at aol.com Wed Sep 21 21:01:11 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:01:11 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] cheap alcohol In-Reply-To: <20050921183320.GX2249@leitl.org> References: <20050920141508.39563.qmail@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200509210327.j8L3RrX26227@tick.javien.com> <20050921084724.GS2249@leitl.org> <43319458.4030102@aol.com> <20050921183320.GX2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <4331CA17.6070803@aol.com> So what you're saying is that despite the fact that it is a clean, readily available and renewable energy resource for which we currently have sufficient technology to continue producing it cheaply and effectively, it's not perfect. Okay, I get it. Robbie Eugen Leitl wrote: >On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 07:11:52AM -1000, Robert Lindauer wrote: > > > >>Why is ethanol such a bad idea? >> >> > >Because bioethanol utilizes only a tiny fraction of energy captured >in plant biomass on a given land area. You need fermentation of sugar >(direct, or from hydrolyzed cellulose), and destillation. Lousy >yield, and takes energy as input. Negative impact on soil and biodiversity. >Details e.g. here: > > http://www.biodiesel.co.uk/levington_tables.htm > >Both biodiesel and bioethanol are primitive (derived from alimentary >agriculture: plant oil and destilled spirits) ways of extracting >energy from biomass. > >A better way would be using pelletized fuel burners, or >pyrolyse/gasify/reform/platform biomass into gases and liquids >useful for synthetic chemistry and energy generation (fuel cell or >gas turbine). > >This is *still* primitive, though, because a more advanced >process would directly use solar flux for artificial photosynthesis/ >photovoltaics, and at a higher yield than natural photosynthesis. > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 21:04:48 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:04:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] cheap alcohol In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050921210448.21653.qmail@web30706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > Does it make any difference to the celebration of rising oil and gas > prices that it take a large amount of incompressible time and $$ to > re-tool for alternate energy sources? Actually, wrt ethanol, there isn't a real retooling problem. All cars sold in the US since 1980 are built to handle up to 10% ethanol mixes. Boosting existing vehicles to 25% mix tolerance would require merely an adjustment of carbeuretion, perhaps a change in fuel injectors, as well as a programming update to engine control computers. Thats it. This is a trained mechanic telling you this. If the car companies claim otherwise, they are blowing smoke up your backside to justify screwing you for more money. The oil refinery system does not need changing. Ethanol can be simply poured into gas tanker truck tanks when they are being filled at the refinery or the distributor. By the time it gets to the gas station it is fully mixed. You can even buy ethanol and mix it into your tank yourself at the station. Many people in cold states do this already to deal with occurences of water condensation in their tanks. "Dry gas" is essentially annhydrous alcohol. Once they offer pure alcohol pumps, all you do is pump twice: depending on your engine tolerance, you mix either 10% (2 of 20 gallons) or 25% alcohol (5 of 20 gallons, doh). Stand on the corner of your bumper and shake your car good several times. Sit for five minutes and you are fully mixed. > Are we happy with perhaps > major economic suckage while the readjustment occurs? I'm not. > Waiting for the crunch to get bad enough is waiting much too long in > terms of the amount of suffering and opportunity for attendant > mischief. Suffering? Mischief? What are you saying? Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Sep 21 22:04:34 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 07:34:34 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Off Topic: I love business analysts (who wouldn't?) In-Reply-To: <20050921163355.GR2249@leitl.org> References: <710b78fc05092100092b3d40b0@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050921110255.01df6b80@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <20050921163355.GR2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <710b78fc05092115042bc6bf7c@mail.gmail.com> On 22/09/05, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 11:04:04AM -0500, Damien Broderick wrote: > > > >http://virtualemlyn.blogspot.com/2005/09/i-love-business-analysts-who-wouldnt.html > > > > The comments at the end were good. Yikes. Are all blogs this instantly > > encrusted with spam? > > Only those which don't use anti-spam measures (moderation, or turinging > a la CAPTCHAs). > > A further demostration that a new, half-assed medium is bound > to rediscover wheels, albeit low-n polygonal ones. (Polling and notification, > RSS Feeds for concentration/serialization, antispam -- just fucking hilarious > -- if it wasn't so pathetic). > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl Yup, and the spam on my blog is only the half of it. The real spamming problem in blogs at the moment is coming from spammers creating new blogs from rss feeds of real blogs, just to get better page rankings in google apparently (does that even make sense?). Here, this explains it... http://scott.feedster.com/archives/153-Conversation-with-a-Blog-Spammer.html Oh, and btw the chunky spam comments on my blog are there because I allowed anonymous comments (accidentally), and when it started happening I thought "cool, a new form of spam, show me more!" But now I'm sick of it, so I've locked it down. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 22:44:58 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:44:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] CHINA/TAIWAN: US tells Taiwan to pay for its defense Message-ID: <20050921224459.26742.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://www.spacewar.com/news/taiwan-05z.html Pentagon Official Warns Taiwan On Defense Spending The United States in 2001 approved the sale of eight diesel electric submarines, 12 P3 surveillance planes and advanced Patriot missile defense systems. Washington (AFP) Sep 21, 2005 A senior Pentagon official bluntly warned Taiwan it must invest in its own defenses against a growing threat from China if it expects the United States to come to its aid in a crisis. Edward Ross, a top official with the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, lambasted Taiwan's political leaders for turning a 10 billion dollar special defense budget into a "political football." In a speech in San Diego late Monday to the US-Taiwan Business Council, Ross said US government officials, members of Congress and business people were increasingly raising questions about Taiwan's commitment to its own defense. "They ask us, 'if Taiwan is not willing to properly invest in its own self-defense, why should we, the US, provide for its self-defense,'" he said. "It's a reasonable question." At a time when American troops are in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said, "an increasing number of Americans are asking hard questions about how much we are willing to sacrifice for the security and democracy of others." The United States in 2001 approved the sale of eight diesel electric submarines, 12 P3 surveillance planes and advanced Patriot missile defense systems. But the special budget created to finance the acquisitions has failed to gain approval in the Taiwanese legislature. President Chen Shui-bian also has consistently put economic and social spending ahead of defense, Ross said. As Taiwan's defense budgets have declined, China has sustained double digit increases in defense spending over the past decade, he said. Taiwan appears to have "calculated US intervention heavily into their resource allocation equation and elected to reduce defense spending despite an ever prosperous and stable economy. And this short-change math does not work," he said. "You see, China is also doing the math and has accounted for the possibility of foreign intervention. Their conclusion: buy more submarines and anti-submarine cruise missiles." He said the United States, for its part, was watching China's military modernization and the stalemate in Taiwan over defense spending - "and we're doing our own math." "We do not live in a world of absolutes. And the time of reckoning is upon us," he said. "In the end, the US ability to contribute to Taiwan's defense in a crisis is going to be measured against Taiwan's ability to resist, defend and survive based on its own capabilities," he said. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 21 22:46:06 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:46:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] cheap alcohol In-Reply-To: <20050921183320.GX2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20050921224606.42699.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > Why is ethanol such a bad idea? > > Because bioethanol utilizes only a tiny fraction of > energy captured > in plant biomass on a given land area. You need > fermentation of sugar > (direct, or from hydrolyzed cellulose), and > destillation. Lousy > yield, and takes energy as input. Negative impact on > soil and biodiversity. > Details e.g. here: This why there needs to be a bioreactor that can turn almost 100% of the biomass into ethanol. I already have one in mind, as I have mentioned before on the list. Question is when would be a good time to start building a prototype and filing a patent? If I try this too early, the tech might be quashed by the oil companies (provided it works of course, of which there is no guarantee). In theory it should be able to turn almost all of the biomass into ethanol for sale and methane that can be used to power the bioreactor itself. 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 Wed Sep 21 23:17:06 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:17:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] cheap alcohol In-Reply-To: <20050921224606.42699.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050921231706.86145.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- The Avantguardian wrote: --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > Why is ethanol such a bad idea? > > > > Because bioethanol utilizes only a tiny fraction of > > energy captured > > in plant biomass on a given land area. You need > > fermentation of sugar > > (direct, or from hydrolyzed cellulose), and > > destillation. Lousy > > yield, and takes energy as input. Negative impact on > > soil and biodiversity. > > Details e.g. here: > > This why there needs to be a bioreactor that can turn > almost 100% of the biomass into ethanol. I already > have one in mind, as I have mentioned before on the > list. Question is when would be a good time to start > building a prototype and filing a patent? If I try > this too early, the tech might be quashed by the oil > companies (provided it works of course, of which there > is no guarantee). Stories of patents being quashed by industry abound and tend to be groundless. They typically fail in and of themselves for several reasons: a) inefficient b) do not meet price windows c) not robust d) the inventor is an insufferable prick who couldn't entrepreneur his way out of a paper bag. e) inventor chooses a bad management team for his enterprise, it fails, and he lets the technology die rather than sell it off to a competitor. 95% of all business ventures fail within 5 years. Build your prototype, document and date everything, test it, improve it, and don't expose it to anyone who isn't bound by an NDA. Then do a market analysis on it: find out what the market is willing to pay, then figure out if you can produce it for that price (overhead and all included) or if someone can do so based on similarity to other products or parts. If the numbers don't work now, figure out at what point in the future they will work. Then schedule your patent so it gets granted about the time the product goes on the market. GATT gives backwards protection to the date a patent is filed, 20 yrs forward from that point. > In theory it should be able to turn > almost all of the biomass into ethanol for sale and > methane that can be used to power the bioreactor > itself. Cool. What else does it require. Sounds like a winner. Figure out if it can produce that ethanol at a competitive price, including the operations costs and amortization of the equipment, etc. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From extropy at unreasonable.com Thu Sep 22 00:09:50 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 20:09:50 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan In-Reply-To: References: <20050921173026.45612.qmail@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050921192931.05623c58@unreasonable.com> Henrik ?hrstr?m wrote: >Ethnic profiling have its own limitations, El Als security was very neatly >bypassed when someone (Sorry can't find the reference, I read about it in a >swedish newspaper) used persons who did not look like palestinians or arabic >but looked like "native" judes. They could waltz right through with >suitcases filled with plastelina, because nobody looked twice at them. Unlikely. El Al, as any good security or quality mechanism does, relies on multiple imperfect filters. You get to six-sigma by layering enough fallible-but-independent filters on top of each other. El Al, of course, does not advertise the full set of precautions they take. However, it is well-known that they interview everyone pre-flight, and the screener is someone very skilled at picking up behavioral cues. I don't think anyone would mind airline travellers carrying logic games (www.plastelina.net/), but assuming you meant plastique -- No one would waltz through with suitcases filled with plastique. Everyone's carry-on luggage is searched. It is also reasonable to expect chemical and/or canine screens. Also, it is exceedingly doubtful that Israel would presume that someone who "did not look like an Arab" was safe. In May 1972, while I lived half-an-hour away, a group of Japanese Red Army terrorists attacked at Lod (now Ben Gurion) Airport, killing 26. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1013172.stm . Still, it would make sense for El Al (and for the US) to use ethnic profiling as one of a large suite of filters. -- David Lubkin. From m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au Thu Sep 22 00:22:14 2005 From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 10:22:14 +1000 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Continued from wta-talk: 'Beating Eliezer' ;) Message-ID: <20050922002214.81123.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Who thinks they can beat Eli at AI? Come on, you must admit it's the ultimate hacker's challenge. Two years ago I took up the challenge as a hobby. I knew to have any hope at all I would have to pull some *enormous* intellectual guns out of the bag. That's why I started mucking about with 'Reality Theory' and 'Theories Of Everything'. There followed a couple of years of brain-storming random ideas in the hope of hitting something. Mostly gibberish came out for a long time, but a few interesting ideas started to take shape from all the rubbish... Now it's time to really start to 'turn up the intellectual screws' on Eli ;) The time is not far off when the Sing Inst team is going to quickly find themselves placed under immense intellectual pressure. Failing all that, there must be *something* I can beat Eli at. Scrabble, chess, hell even a game of tiddlywinks. As long as there's a disgruntled Eli and Michael (Wilson) at the end of it I'll be happy. --- Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: Now with unlimited storage -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From extropy at unreasonable.com Thu Sep 22 00:53:13 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 20:53:13 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Profile the Great Satan? (Peter Fedak) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050921202202.05924298@unreasonable.com> Peter Fedak wrote: >If the entire problem is to be addressed, a step back should be >taken to analyze the broader picture. The US's market economy is >very strong and the way of life here is vastly different from other >parts of the world. Some people live in poverty, some live in >wealth. However, few live better than Americans. So, knowing human >nature, what would make those with little the most upset? Those with >the more than them. As the wealthiest nation, we are wearing a red, >white and blue target for that resentment. How can it be resolved? >The answer to that would solve the problem of terrorism. Assumes facts not in evidence. What you wrote is rife with presumptions that need not be presumed. They can, rather, be tested. But we can start with plausibility. (a) Switzerland is rich and not attacked. (b) The 9/11 hijackers were not poor. (c) There are many millions of poor Tibetan Buddhists and Indian Hindi, none of whom have attacked the US. (d) Terrorists attacked Indonesia. Now resentment's another story. I think you have a better case there. On the other hand, there's the common phenomenon of "Yankee go home! .... But take me with you." -- David. From sentience at pobox.com Thu Sep 22 01:03:57 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:03:57 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Continued from wta-talk: 'Beating Eliezer' ;) In-Reply-To: <20050922002214.81123.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050922002214.81123.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <433202FD.8070608@pobox.com> Marc Geddes wrote: > > Failing all that, there must be *something* I can beat Eli at. > Scrabble, chess, hell even a game of tiddlywinks. Oh ye of little faith. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Thu Sep 22 01:14:03 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:14:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Google testing prediction markets internally Message-ID: According to the latest entry in the official Google Blog, the company has been testing prediction markets internally in order to forecast "things of strategic importance" to Google, like launch dates and office openings. They also did some neat things like chart the entropy of the probability distributions implied by the market prices over time, showing how the market predictions get more decisive over time: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/putting-crowd-wisdom-to-work.html "Our search engine works well because it aggregates information dispersed across the web, and our internal predictive markets are based on the same principle: Googlers from across the company contribute knowledge and opinions which are aggregated into a forecast by the market. Sometimes, just feeling lucky isn't enough, and these tools can help." I really hope this is a prelude to a product launch of some sort. future.google.com , perhaps? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Sep 22 01:25:02 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:25:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] cheap alcohol In-Reply-To: <710b78fc05092105081d50d2bd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200509220125.j8M1P6X21950@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Emlyn > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] cheap alcohol > > On 21/09/05, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 08:27:47PM -0700, spike wrote: ... > > > I want to see those tariffs eliminated... > > > > I don't. I want the fossil fuel to remain expensive, and to become > > slowly, steadily, even more expensive. I just want the entire revenue > > from fuel taxes to be spent on R&D for alternative fuels and damage > > remediation. > > ... > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Emlyn ... > Just let petrol prices go sky high, and let the market do its job... > -- > Emlyn Ja but keep in mind that in a free market democracy, free market forces act on politicians. If they get too expensive, out they go. If sufficiently expensive, we will even hold a special recall election to get rid of their asses. Need I provide an example? I thought not. Every time a fuel tax is raised, it tilts the field in favor of the challenger who runs on a platform of reducing fuel taxes. I actually agree to some extent with Gene's sentiment. Regardless of that, I predict that the US will hasten in the opposite direction: fuel taxes will go down. I will offer a bolder prediction: Europe will follow that example. People everywhere will recognize that a fuel tax is a flat tax that hits the poor much harder than the rich, because it drives the cost of everything. A fuel tax is paid over and over and over. I can imagine fuel taxes in both the US and Europe in ten years will be half their current bite. I predict that in coming elections, both challengers and incumbents will compete, each outpromising the other to cut fuel taxes. Your thoughts? spike From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Sep 22 01:38:31 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:38:31 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan In-Reply-To: <380-22005932114551765@M2W126.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <200509220138.j8M1cUX23302@tick.javien.com> > Maybe the best idea is to nuke this thread. Does anyone agree? > > Natasha Ja it is a bit grim. Do let us look for the extropian angle on this difficult subject. spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of nvitamore at austin.rr.com > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 7:06 AM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan > > From: Eugen Leitl > > >Here's an even better idea: sometimes the cure is so much worse > >than the disease, that the right thing to do is to do nothing. > > > > Natasha Vita-More > > http://www.extropy.org > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > mail2web - Check your email from the web at > http://mail2web.com/ . > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Sep 22 01:58:31 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:58:31 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] cheap alcohol In-Reply-To: <20050921183734.13358.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200509220158.j8M1wWX25669@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey ... > > Why is ethanol such a bad idea? > > If it is grown on land that requires irrigation water that could > otherwise be used in generating hydropower...Mike Lorrey Mike! This is great stuff man! Very informative. Thanks. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Sep 22 02:16:06 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 19:16:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] cheap alcohol In-Reply-To: <20050921201719.GM2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200509220216.j8M2G8X27419@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl ... > > We're at almost 7$/gallon, and not suffering (much). The mischief > and shenanigans can only happen when you don't control your own > supply. With renewables, that's not an issue. > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl Whaaaaat? Seven bucks? Can't Germany make ethanol cheaper than that? Closed loop ethanol couldn't be that high could it? Someone is robbing you Gene. Didn't you guys make synthetic motor fuel during WW2? Is anyone doing that? Owww, seven bucks, that makes my butt hurt. spike From fortean1 at mindspring.com Thu Sep 22 02:31:40 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 19:31:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Arkin: Early Warning (a new blog) Message-ID: <4332178C.9020801@mindspring.com> ARKIN: EARLY WARNING A new blog by author and critic William Arkin on the WashingtonPost.com web site has become instantly "bookmarkable" for students of national security affairs. The web is already supersaturated with opinion, of course, and with analysis of varying degrees of sophistication or self- indulgence. But Arkin's blog, Early Warning, stands out because he also offers access to official records that are otherwise not publicly available. In his first outing on September 14, for example, he posted the April 2005 Department of Homeland Security National Planning Scenarios, which are "for official use only." On September 19, he disclosed another FOUO document on "Potential Terrorist Use of Pressure Cookers." And "there is a lot more where that came from," he promises, or threatens. See "Early Warning" here: http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/ -- "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 isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Thu Sep 22 04:12:20 2005 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 12:12:20 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan References: <20050921164023.89197.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002b01c5bf2b$d6bb5f70$fdde0405@JPAcer> Mike Lorrey said > > Actually, the Iron Curtain and the Berlin Wall worked pretty well for > most of the Cold War. It certainly kept most all eastern europeans from > escaping, such that by the 70's, defections were rare things. Hadrians > Wall worked pretty well too at what it was intended for: regulating > trade and migration, not defending against invaders. > > Nobody expects a wall to last forever, assuming it should and calling > its failure at that unrealistic assumption to define the whole idea as > a failure is a fraud. Its a matter of perspective of course - but the 'successful' Berlin Wall/Iron Curtain were the cause of a generation or more or conflict and tension and promoted a vast ideological divide. The Wall/Curtain promoted border skirmishes and helped consolidate the ruthless oppression of many. It was also the root cause of untold stories of individual tragedy, blighting, families, trade, peaceful relations, etc etc - not to mention the fact that very presence of this barrier rammed home the fact that the world was at loggerheads and operating under the ever-present threat of nuclear destruction. T The Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain were hated icons of miserable, failing governmental policies! I suggest that such walls are extropian 'successful' only at the limited the local level - they appear to promote order. At the macro level. They are the source of trouble, conflict ...in short, disorder. > >> Europeans do not generally agonise about their stroll-through >> borders: Why should the US? If you have no objections to the people >> being there anyway - just make the 'back door' the 'front door!' > > Once again, european countries have far tighter immigration > restrictions against non-europeans than the US does. Its why our legal > immigration rates are far higher (we take in more than the rest of the > world combined). According to this press release I quickly grabbed from the UN site: "Around 175 million persons currently reside in a country other than where they were born -- about three per cent of the world's population. The number of migrants has more than doubled since 1975, and sixty per cent of the world's migrants currently reside in the more developed regions, with 40 per cent living in the less developed regions. Most of the world's migrants live in Europe (56 million), Asia (50 million) and Northern America (41 million). Almost one of every 10 persons living in the more developed regions, but only one of every 70 persons in developing countries, is a migrant. In the 10 years from 1990 to 2000, the number of migrants in the more developed regions increased by 23 million persons, or 28 per cent." Nothing there to say the US is doing more than its share I think? Australia is almost all migrants - it is difficult to find a second generation adult in some towns, but that is by the by... Controlled migration on a global scale is an entirely recent 20th Century phenomenom. Yet, we already take it for granted - ignoring the fact that throughout the entire history of the world people have mostly been able to wander where they will. In fact, there is no reason why this should not be the case again at some future point. Personally, I would hope so. I have lived and worked on three continents and I value my freedom to travel. However - this freedom is an accident of my birth, I could easily have been trapped for life with a passport unacceptable to Western democracies... I have a good deal of sympathy with migrants. Sure they want want more money and a better life and why not? Who am I, and who are, you to deny these people a chance to win or lose? The conflict there is in this world arises IMHO in the persistent attitude that one person's comfortable life-style can, and should, be maintained by denying basic resources and basic freedoms to someone else. THAT is why fortified borders are to be opposed - they are at bottom just an indication that we love our state of blissful ignorance and are unprepared to tackle the real reasons for militancy, terrorism and hatred. My comments directed at Kevin previously have little to do with walls - What makes me seethe is the parochialism that is so easily satisfied by retiring into some (figurative or physical) walled enclave of privilege. We have the entire world to deal with now. We can't afford to protect our small patch and let everyone else go to hell. Europe, America, Australia - all have much to learn in this regard. WE don't know what overcrowding is!There are 200 million people jammed like sardines into tiny Java - while just to the south is a land mass a hundred times bigger or more with only a few hundred thousand people spread across an area many times the size of Texas... I am only surprised they haven't moved in already! Jack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From reason at longevitymeme.org Thu Sep 22 04:28:40 2005 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 21:28:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reading "The Singularity is Near" In-Reply-To: <002b01c5bf2b$d6bb5f70$fdde0405@JPAcer> Message-ID: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000612.php I have been working my way through Ray Kurzweil's "The Singularity is Near" (TSiN) over the past few days, having been the fortunate recipient of a review copy. The book might alternatively be titled "The Modern Futurist Consensus: a Review" or "Damien Broderick's The Spike: the Extended Remix." Those of us who have haunted transhumanist enclaves in the past few years (or more) are unlikely find new ideas here, but the book serves a most useful purpose in bringing the best and brightest of transhumanist, futurist themes and thinking all together under one roof, in a popularist manner, with a unifying, easily-marketed theme. It's been done before - by the aforementioned Damien Broderick, amongst others - but not quite as comprehensively. This sort of book is something of a necessary precursor to wider advocacy and education in today's culture; a pleasant irony, given the subject matter, and one could debate where in the present S-curve in the evolution of futurist thought TSiN fits. My own two cents thrown into the ring say that the class of future portrayed in TSiN is something of a foregone conclusion. It's quite likely that we'll all be wildly, humorously wrong about the details of implementation, culture and usage, but - barring existential catastrophy or disaster - the technological capabilities discussed in TSiN will come to pass. The human brain will be reverse engineered, simulated and improved upon. The same goes for the human body; radical life extension is one desirable outcome of this engineering process. We will merge with our machines as nanotechnology and molecular manufacturing become mature technologies. Recursively self-improving general artificial intelligence will develop, and then life will really get interesting very quickly. And so forth ... the question is not whether these things will happen, but rather when they will happen - and more importantly, are we going to be alive and in good health to see this wonderous future? As you might guess, my criticisms of TSiN center around the timeline predictions for development of new technologies, the acceleration of the rate of discovery, and the management of complexity. I made a stab at discussing this last item recently in connection with Arnold Kling's comments on TSiN (which are well worth reading, by the way): Progress towards general (and/or strong) artificial intelligence (AI) - a grail for many transhumanists and other futurists - has been slower than we'd like. The level of difficulty has been consistently underestimated in the past, and I see this as one part of a larger underestimation of any form of complexity management. You may recall seeing this idea put forward in a variety of 1990s writing on the topic of nanotechnology; the production of millions of nanorobots wasn't thought to be as hard as the process of controlling and managing those nanorobots in a useful fashion - strategies for information processing are as much the key to future medical technologies as nanoscale and molecular manufacturing. Complexity is hard, both to manage and estimate in advance. Now replace "nanorobot" with "human cell" and that's where we are today with biotechnology. Biological systems - such as your body, or even just a small piece of it - are immensely complex. The reason researchers can make meaningful progress today with medical technology such as gene therapies and stem cell research is that they are, effectively, tweaking settings on existing machinery that largely handles the complexity management itself. Our grasp of how things work - based on our ability to process information and build the tools required to gather information and effect change - is now adequate for this task, just as it is almost adequate to guide existing biological machinery to build replacement tissue and organs in a useful, controlled manner. But it seems to me to be a very large leap - in terms of managing complexity - to go from where we are today to reach the point of, for example, replacing biochemically complex systems within the body with artificial substitutes. Or reverse-engineering the brain, that sort of thing. Kurzweil's commentary on types of complexity in TSiN is a good read - and one of the better explanations for the layman I've seen - but it seems a little disconnected from the actual business of dealing with complexity in ways that matter. My take on it all is that science is largely the process of discovering keys to complexity; by this I mean finding algorithms, recipies or methodologies that enable us humans to understand and manage complexity that would otherwise be beyond us. To take an applied example, manipulating stem cells through comparatively simple procedures enables scientists to perform tasks - the regeneration of age-related tissue damage - that they cannot even monitor in detail, let alone control. A simpler and more abstract example would be the mathematics and physics of atoms, comparatively simple equations that we can use to describe very complex collections of objects and behaviors. We humans are in the process of building tools that enable us to create or meaningfully interact with ever-greater complexity, and computers are at the heart of it, but this process is one in which our individual, unaided capacities for complexity management are not increasing. Humans are still humans as of this decade, and the keys we utilize have to be useable at our level. I view the speeding of progress as part and parcel of building a larger capacity for discovering and utilizing the keys to complexity. This, as Kurzweil makes the case in TSiN, is a process that is growing exponentially, and we are moving out of the timespan in which exponential growth appears more linear. There is one important area of complexity management in which we seem to be making little headway, however: the organization of humans in business and research. For all that we can now accomplish with faster computers and enormous leaps in telecommunications, we don't seem to have made significant inroads in getting large numbers of humans to cooperate efficiently. As Arnold Kling points out, that the excessive use of Who Moved My Cheese? is even in the running as something to try is not a good sign. I've been involved in more technological attempts to improve efficiency in large organizations, and the state of the art is not pretty - nor especially effective in the grand scheme of things. I am prepared to go out on a limb here, as I have done before, and say that business and research cycles that involve standard-issue humans are incompressible beneath a certain duration - they cannot be made to happen much faster than is possible today: I'm dubious about large reductions in the length of business or research cycles through technology while humans are still in the loop. You can certainly make the process cheaper and better, meaning that more attempts at a given business or research model will operate in parallel, but there is a point past which the length of the business cycle cannot be easily compressed. That point is very much a function of the human element: meetings, fundraising, decisions, organizational friction, and so forth - all very time-consuming and proven very resistant to improvements in the time taken. This is not to say that they cannot be made cheaper. But cheaper doesn't equate to faster business and research cycles; rather, it means that any given problem will be tackled by many more parallel attempts. The professionals are joined by skilled amateurs, the priesthood dissolves, and everyone with a will to work gets in on the action. In this sort of a market, any given problem (what business model works, how does this disease process kill people, what does this biochemical signal do) is more likely to be solved in a single cycle of innovation. Biotechnology is not too many years away from this state of affairs, a repetition of what is currently taking place in the software development industry. If matters become cheap enough, people will be willing to risk ventures and research on incomplete solutions, on untested business models, and thus shortcut the existing cycle - but all to many forms of development are not vulnerable to this sort of shortcut. The answers cannot always be guessed or jumped to on the basis of incomplete work. Back in the deep end, expensive projects mean conservative funding organizations, which means organizational matters proceed at a slow pace. This is a defining characteristic of our time: we have blindingly fast rates of research and technological advances once the money is on the table, but the cycles of business, fundraising and research are still chained to the old human timetable. I regard this incompressibility of the business or research cycle - the fact that a given iota of progress cannot be accomplished as fast as technology allows because of human organizational factors, and there is a certain minimum length of time taken to accomplish this iota of progress - as a form of limit on exponential growth, one we are now hitting up against. Kurzweil's Singularity is a Vingean slow burn across a decade, driven by recursively self-improving AI, enhanced human intelligence and the merger of the two. Interestingly, Kurzweil employs much the same arguments against a hard takeoff scenario - in which these processes of self-improvement in AI occur in a matter of hours or days - as I am employing against his proposed timescale: complexity must be managed and there are limits as to how fast this can happen. But artificial intelligence, or improved human intelligence, most likely through machine enhancement, is at the heart of the process. Intelligence can be thought of as the capacity for dealing with complexity; if we improve this capacity, then all the old limits we worked within can be pushed outwards. We don't need to search for keys to complexity if we can manage the complexity directly. Once the process of intelligence enhancement begins in earnest, then we can start to talk about compressing business cycles that existed due to the limits of present day human workers, individually and collectively. Until we start pushing these limits, we're still stuck with the slow human organizational friction, limits on complexity management, and a limit on exponential growth. Couple this with slow progress towards both organizational efficiency and the development of general artificial intelligence, and this is why I believe that Kurzweil is optimistic by at least a decade or two. So how does this all fold into healthy life extension? Well, physical immortality is one obvious product of singularity-level nanotechnology, biotechnology and complexity management. There are no known barriers in physics to the construction of nanomedical systems capable of simultaneously managing, repairing - or replacing - every cell in our bodies. Even something as complex as the sum of all your cells can in principle be kept in the best possible shape for as long as you like - "all" it takes is knowledge, the future tools of nanoscale engineering and powerful enough computers. But when do we get there? This is the question, and it is one that shapes the actions of futurists and transhumanists. There are many who believe that the best sort of activism and advocacy for the future - even for healthy life extension - is in the area of artificial intelligence, because making self-improving intelligence arrive earlier will lead to all other currently pressing problems, such as age-related degeneration and death, being rendered trivial in the mid to long term. Obviously, I'm not in that camp: I'm sufficiently dubious about Kurzweil-like timescales - based on my views as set forth above - to think that we need to be tackling the problem of aging first. From m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au Thu Sep 22 05:07:04 2005 From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:07:04 +1000 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Reading "The Singularity is Near" Message-ID: <20050922050704.70017.qmail@web35502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Reason, Fascinating, fascinating. >Progress towards general (and/or strong) artificial intelligence (AI) - a >grail for many transhumanists and other futurists - has been slower than >we'd like. The level of difficulty has been consistently underestimated in >the past, and I see this as one part of a larger underestimation of any form >of complexity management. And the Singularity cheer-leaders are still understimating the diffculty today I think. When I started thinking about FAI stuff I suspected that nothing less than (at least some degree of) understanding of the deepest, most general principles underpinning reality would be required. That was why I opted to strike out at a TOE (theory of everything, or reality theory). Made no mistake, the Yudkowsky's and Goertzel's are still a million miles away from what it takes. I'll continue to stick my neck out and say that I've finally spotted the nature of the beast (at least in a vague, fuzzy sort of way). The secret I think is this: A general recursively self-improving friendly AGI is an AI which understands the *true* nature of mind. So to initiate Singularity, we simply design the AGI to understand the *true* nature of mind and the rest (friendliness etc) follows automatically as secondary consequences. I shall clarify. To be a friendly seed AGI, complete self-awareness and self-understanding is *not* enough. That is not what I meant by 'understands the true nature of mind'. By 'understands the true nature of mind', I mean the AGI not only has complete self-awareness and self-understanding but also *understands the general relationship between Mind and Reality*. It is this starred property, I believe, that would produce a friendly seed AGI. And it's this *relationship between Mind and Reality* that I define to be equivalent to a TOE (theory of everything), So: Mind ------ relationship ---- Reality You have M and R (Mind and Reality). The TOE is the theory that integrates mental and physical concepts into a single explanatory framework and so explains the nature of that relationship. Knowledge of such an explanation, I posit, would instantly create a friendly seed AGI. Now if I'm right, then we humans cannot be fully capable of comprehending the TOE (since we are not recursively self-improving), but we should still be able to obtain *some* degree of understanding (enough to build the AGI). There are 4 levels of 'awareness' for minds: Level 1: Fragments Low-level disorganized qualia. No self-awareness or awareness of the external world. Examples: Rocks. Rights: None Level 2: Agents Rudimentary goal-directed systems. Little-no self-awareness but can form models of the external world. Examples: Animals. Some kinds of computer program, human infants. Rights: Right to be free of suffering. Level 3: Sentients Entities with full self-awareness. Can form models of self and the external world. Cannot understand the *true nature* of mind though - not a full general intelligence. Examples: Human adults. Rights: Full property rights- right to control own mind and body - right to liberty. Level 4: Trans-sentients Entities capable of fully understanding the *true nature* of mind - the relation between Mind and Reality (has awareness of 'The Theory Of Everything' or TOE). Capable of true general intelligence and recursive self-improvement. Examples: FAI - Friendly Artificial Intelligence. Rights: Who knows? We are stuck at Level 3. Level 4 is the FAI. So for a trans-human (like an FAI) knowledge of the TOE (theory of everything) would be just as obvious as knowledge of Self (Self-Awareness) is to us humans. Indeed if I'm right, awareness of the TOE *defines* what a transhuman is, just as awarenss of Self (Self-Awareness) *defines* what we humans are compared to animals. --- Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: Now with unlimited storage -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Thu Sep 22 05:28:29 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:28:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan References: <20050921164023.89197.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <002b01c5bf2b$d6bb5f70$fdde0405@JPAcer> Message-ID: <001901c5bf36$77deb370$0100a8c0@kevin> >My comments directed at Kevin previously have little to do with walls - What makes me seethe is the parochialism that is so easily >satisfied by retiring into some (figurative or physical) walled enclave of privilege. We have the entire world to deal with now. We can't afford to >protect our small patch and let everyone else go to hell. I've been trying to let this go, but obviously people are STILL failing to READ what I have actually WRITTEN rather than READ INTO it what they WANT to. I have never ever ever ever said any such thing that could even closely resemble the idea that I would want to keep ANYONE out of the US who genuinely wants to come here to live. Never said anything about letting anyone go to hell. I have said over and over that the door should be open to all. My comments are geared only towards thos who would still choose to go on the back way while the door is open . You bring out words like "parochialism" and can;t even understand the simple concept of "border". If you are angry, you are so because you choose to be. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Thu Sep 22 05:25:04 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 07:25:04 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] 'Beyond Cyperpunk' on the web ! Message-ID: I still have my Beyond Cyperpunk stack. Now it is on the Web! http://www.streettech.com/bcp/ {begin quote} Introduction Frontiers are always fraught with danger, romance, utopian flights of fancy and no small amount of madness. When Peter Sugarman and I first began talking about creating the Beyond Cyberpunk! HyperCard stack in 1990, the frontier towns of cyberspace were tiny outposts and the populace was a rough and tumble crowd of hackers, research scientists, libertarians, academics, military types and various stripes of bohemians. It was a time of great excitement and hyperactivity. Cyberpunk science fiction was still a major inspiration to the advance teams building cyberspace, Mondo 2000 was the hip new magazine and the hacker community was still stinging from Operation Sundevil/The Hacker Crackdown. Academia had discovered in the burgeoning cyberculture a full-blown example of postmodernism, with its decentralized, anarchic structure, its virtualizing of the human body, and its use of multimedia and hypertexts to socially construct stories and knowledge. Social scientists like Donna Haraway began using the idea of the cyborg as a perfect metaphor to describe the human/machine hybrids we're becoming in the twilight hours of the 20th century. When we began Beyond Cyberpunk! (BCP), there was no such thing as the World Wide Web. Hypermedia programs like Apple's HyperCard were the only way to inexpensively deliver hypertext, sounds, images and animations. We saw in HyperCard the opportunity to create a compendium of all this cybercultural output. We wanted to map the territory, but to do so in a way that allowed the user to explore her own links and interests. We tried to cram in as much material as we could, covering everthing from high-brow theory to sci-fi lit and films to the wired worlds of hackers/crackers and the zine publishing scene which was starting to move into cyberspace. The result was a 5.5 megabyte "connect-the-dots" cyber-manifesto. In 1993, we followed up the first BCP stack with a one-disk update. Since doing the BCP project, the online world and the cyberculture has reinvented itself several times over. What you're reading here is an artifact from a future past. Some of the material holds up, some of it is down-right prescient. Other parts make us cringe, and it's all we can do not edit out the embarassingly dated parts. After continuing to get so many requests for copies of BCP or the directions to an Internet version of it, we decided to create this site. Right now it only contains a sampling of the original stack. We'll be adding more of the original material, and even some brand new material, in the months to come. {end quote} Amara From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Sep 22 05:38:37 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 22:38:37 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] 'Beyond Cyperpunk' on the web ! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509220538.j8M5caX16515@tick.javien.com> Wooohooo, hypercard stacks! Thanks Amara, this made my day. In 1989 I was working in an area where we needed a catchy training tool. I suggested hypercard, and wrote a few stacks. The group never did get as enthusiastic about it as I was, so it didn't go far. Many of the stacks were clumsy and poorly written, a lot like the pages made in the tools hypercard morphed into: powerpoint and HTML. Apple had it together in those days, did it not? spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 10:25 PM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org; wta-talk at transhumanism.org > Subject: [extropy-chat] 'Beyond Cyperpunk' on the web ! > > I still have my Beyond Cyperpunk stack. Now it is on the Web! > > http://www.streettech.com/bcp/ > > > {begin quote} > > Introduction > > Frontiers are always fraught with danger, romance, utopian flights > of fancy and no small amount of madness. When Peter Sugarman and I > first began talking about creating the Beyond Cyberpunk! HyperCard > stack in 1990, the frontier towns of cyberspace were tiny outposts > and the populace was a rough and tumble crowd of hackers, research > scientists, libertarians, academics, military types and various > stripes of bohemians. It was a time of great excitement and > hyperactivity. Cyberpunk science fiction was still a major > inspiration to the advance teams building cyberspace, Mondo 2000 was > the hip new magazine and the hacker community was still stinging > from Operation Sundevil/The Hacker Crackdown. Academia had > discovered in the burgeoning cyberculture a full-blown example of > postmodernism, with its decentralized, anarchic structure, its > virtualizing of the human body, and its use of multimedia and > hypertexts to socially construct stories and knowledge. Social > scientists like Donna Haraway began using the idea of the cyborg as > a perfect metaphor to describe the human/machine hybrids we're > becoming in the twilight hours of the 20th century. > > When we began Beyond Cyberpunk! (BCP), there was no such thing as > the World Wide Web. Hypermedia programs like Apple's HyperCard were > the only way to inexpensively deliver hypertext, sounds, images and > animations. We saw in HyperCard the opportunity to create a > compendium of all this cybercultural output. We wanted to map the > territory, but to do so in a way that allowed the user to explore > her own links and interests. We tried to cram in as much material as > we could, covering everthing from high-brow theory to sci-fi lit and > films to the wired worlds of hackers/crackers and the zine > publishing scene which was starting to move into cyberspace. The > result was a 5.5 megabyte "connect-the-dots" cyber-manifesto. In > 1993, we followed up the first BCP stack with a one-disk update. > > Since doing the BCP project, the online world and the cyberculture > has reinvented itself several times over. What you're reading here > is an artifact from a future past. Some of the material holds up, > some of it is down-right prescient. Other parts make us cringe, and > it's all we can do not edit out the embarassingly dated parts. After > continuing to get so many requests for copies of BCP or the > directions to an Internet version of it, we decided to create this > site. Right now it only contains a sampling of the original stack. > We'll be adding more of the original material, and even some brand > new material, in the months to come. > > {end quote} > Amara > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From pgptag at gmail.com Thu Sep 22 05:54:40 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 07:54:40 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rudy Rucker's "The Lifebox, the Seashell, and the Soul" Message-ID: <470a3c5205092122546ce74f74@mail.gmail.com> Rudy Rucker's "The Lifebox, the Seashell, and the Soul" is out and you can buy it on Amazon. There is also a pdf book samplewith a few chapters. This is one of the books that I most wanted to read - I have bought the hardcopy and am reading the pdf book sample. From the introduction on the book's website: We're presently in the midst of a third intellectual revolution. The first came with Newton: the planets obey physical laws. The second came with Darwin: biology obeys genetic laws. In today's third revolution, were coming to realize that even minds and societies emerge from interacting laws that can be regarded as computations. Everything is a computation. Does this, then, mean that the world is dull? Far from it. The naturally occurring computations that surround us are richly complex. A tree's growth, the changes in the weather, the flow of daily news, a person's ever-changing moods --- all of these computations share the crucial property of being gnarly. Although lawlike and deterministic, gnarly computations are --- and this is a key point --- inherently unpredictable. The world's mystery is preserved. Mixing together anecdotes, graphics, and fables, Rucker teases out the implications of his new worldview, which he calls "universal automatism." His analysis reveals startling aspects of the everyday world, touching upon such topics as chaos, the internet, fame, free will, and the pursuit of happiness. More than a popular science book, The Lifebox, the Seashell, and the Soul is a philosophical entertainment that teaches us how to enjoy our daily lives to the fullest possible extent. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian at posthuman.com Thu Sep 22 05:56:02 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:56:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reading "The Singularity is Near" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43324772.9060004@posthuman.com> Hi Reason, It's been a few days since I read the book, but here's a few quick thoughts: 1. In the first part of your message you seem to be discussing complexity in general, and whether it will become too much. Didn't K specifically address this common objection in one of the latter sections of his book? Do you have specific complaints about his ideas there? 2. For most of the leadup to the Singularity, it doesn't really require shorter turnarounds in human-centric business practices does it? For instance, for Moore's Law to continue all we need is that the existing business flow of releasing new processes/chip designs continue every 18 months or so. So I'm not sure what you're getting at - the trends in the technologies needed to achieve his human-enhancement timelines do not require anything more than "business as usual" as far as I see. 3. Later, very close to the Singularity, there may be a natural speed up in business processes simply because by that time, if you buy into K's scenario, there will be upgraded humans and also post-Turing AIs, or some mix of those that he envisions working together to move even faster and think even bigger thoughts. So, essentially by reaching this point in technology it can be used to move past the human-centric barriers you are discussing. BTW, even though I'm relatively young, I do a good variety of things for my health, and additionally am signed up for cryonics. I completely agree with you that nothing should be assumed, and covering all bases is fully rational. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Sep 22 06:06:17 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:06:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan In-Reply-To: <001901c5bf36$77deb370$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <20050921164023.89197.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <002b01c5bf2b$d6bb5f70$fdde0405@JPAcer> <001901c5bf36$77deb370$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <8759A022-76D8-472A-BC08-84AAFC8607D3@mac.com> On Sep 21, 2005, at 10:28 PM, kevinfreels.com wrote: > >My comments directed at Kevin previously have little to do with > walls - What makes me seethe is the parochialism that is so easily > >satisfied by retiring into some (figurative or physical) walled > enclave of privilege. We have the entire world to deal with now. We > can't afford to >protect our small patch and let everyone else go > to hell. > > I've been trying to let this go, but obviously people are STILL > failing to READ what I have actually WRITTEN rather than READ INTO > it what they WANT to. When it descends to this self-referential churn level its all over. Time to nuke it or at least walk away. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From extropy at unreasonable.com Thu Sep 22 06:04:02 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 02:04:02 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reading what you've written (Was Re: Nuke the Great Satan) In-Reply-To: <001901c5bf36$77deb370$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <20050921164023.89197.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <002b01c5bf2b$d6bb5f70$fdde0405@JPAcer> <001901c5bf36$77deb370$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050922014032.07997410@unreasonable.com> Kevin wrote: >I've been trying to let this go, but obviously people are STILL >failing to READ what I have actually WRITTEN rather than READ INTO >it what they WANT to. Sad to say, this is not unusual, even among extropians. I choose to believe, though, that we are more resistant to being "knee jerks" than those without a professed reliance on evidence and reason. Here's a thought. Perhaps we could have a list project with the dual goals of improving the quality of list discussion and of improving ourselves individually, in our abilities to reason, communicate, and persuade. I'm not sure what it would consist of. I suppose we could start with something simple, like adopt a practice that every posting on Fridays be in E-Prime. -- David Lubkin. From reason at longevitymeme.org Thu Sep 22 06:17:42 2005 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:17:42 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reading "The Singularity is Near" In-Reply-To: <43324772.9060004@posthuman.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Brian Atkins > It's been a few days since I read the book, but here's a few > quick thoughts: > > 1. In the first part of your message you seem to be discussing > complexity in > general, and whether it will become too much. Didn't K > specifically address this > common objection in one of the latter sections of his book? Do > you have specific > complaints about his ideas there? It's quite possible I wasn't being clear enough; rushed would be one way to describe my time at the moment. I talk generally about complexity in the wider context first and then specifically the areas in which I see limits on the acceleration of the advancing process of complexity management (and thus by extension techological progress). > 2. For most of the leadup to the Singularity, it doesn't really > require shorter > turnarounds in human-centric business practices does it? For > instance, for > Moore's Law to continue all we need is that the existing business flow of > releasing new processes/chip designs continue every 18 months or > so. So I'm not > sure what you're getting at - the trends in the technologies > needed to achieve > his human-enhancement timelines do not require anything more than > "business as > usual" as far as I see. No, they don't. I'm disagreeing about the time taken, specifically because of what I see as limits on exponential growth in certain areas and certain aspects of development, not the end result. I don't think that we've really hit these limits hard yet, hence the past projects of exponential growth are not going to project forward all that well. But it's not as though I have a research team and PCs full of data to back me up on that claim. Apply salt and skeptical analysis as needed. > 3. Later, very close to the Singularity, there may be a natural > speed up in > business processes simply because by that time, if you buy into > K's scenario, > there will be upgraded humans and also post-Turing AIs, or some > mix of those > that he envisions working together to move even faster and think > even bigger > thoughts. So, essentially by reaching this point in technology it > can be used to > move past the human-centric barriers you are discussing. Yes, correct. Again, not the general frame of the scenario, just the timing I'm poking at. But that timing is all-important when it comes to deciding which wheel to get behind. Reason From eugen at leitl.org Thu Sep 22 06:34:29 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:34:29 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] cheap alcohol In-Reply-To: <4331CA17.6070803@aol.com> References: <20050920141508.39563.qmail@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200509210327.j8L3RrX26227@tick.javien.com> <20050921084724.GS2249@leitl.org> <43319458.4030102@aol.com> <20050921183320.GX2249@leitl.org> <4331CA17.6070803@aol.com> Message-ID: <20050922063429.GP2249@leitl.org> On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 11:01:11AM -1000, Robert Lindauer wrote: > So what you're saying is that despite the fact that it is a clean, Not clean. > readily available and renewable energy resource for which we currently Not readily available. > have sufficient technology to continue producing it cheaply and > effectively, it's not perfect. Not cheaply, and effectively. Not only is it not perfect, it is an approach only suitable for the developing countries, which have no infrastructure, nor know-how in industrial chemistry. It is even considerably worse than biodiesel. If this sounds pretty damning, that's deliberate. I don't seem to be coming through with the balanced and nuanced view. > Okay, I get it. No, I don't think you do. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From robgobblin at aol.com Thu Sep 22 06:46:05 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 20:46:05 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] cheap alcohol In-Reply-To: <20050922063429.GP2249@leitl.org> References: <20050920141508.39563.qmail@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200509210327.j8L3RrX26227@tick.javien.com> <20050921084724.GS2249@leitl.org> <43319458.4030102@aol.com> <20050921183320.GX2249@leitl.org> <4331CA17.6070803@aol.com> <20050922063429.GP2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <1104436831af1272c1eca12a3d5e529e@aol.com> On Sep 21, 2005, at 8:34 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 11:01:11AM -1000, Robert Lindauer wrote: > >> So what you're saying is that despite the fact that it is a clean, > > Not clean. really, what are the by products of which you are afraid? Water, carbon-dioxide? > >> readily available and renewable energy resource for which we currently > > Not readily available. In every climate except suitable for growing anything, the ability to grow sugar-rich crops is abundant. > >> have sufficient technology to continue producing it cheaply and >> effectively, it's not perfect. > > Not cheaply, and effectively. In Brazil, alcohol averages about $.90/gallon. > Not only is it not perfect, it is > an approach only suitable for the developing countries, which > have no infrastructure, nor know-how in industrial chemistry. Or perhaps in the US where many, many corporations are investing heavily in ethanol production. > It is even considerably worse than biodiesel. In what way, in that biodiesel produces the same waste in its use as regular plain ol' diesel and costs much more to produce and produces harmful byproducts in its production? > > If this sounds pretty damning, that's deliberate. I don't > seem to be coming through with the balanced and nuanced view. > >> Okay, I get it. > > No, I don't think you do. I should have said "I get you." Robbie From m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au Thu Sep 22 06:50:07 2005 From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:50:07 +1000 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Rudy Rucker's "The Lifebox, the Seashell, and the Soul" Message-ID: <20050922065007.20577.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I look forward to reading that one Guilio! Have you read an earlier book of Rudy's called 'Inifnity and the Mind'? It's great. Best book about the mathematics of infinity I've seen. He presents a powerful case for believing in the objective existence of infinite sets. Link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691121273/qid=1127371705/ --- Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Thu Sep 22 07:00:19 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:00:19 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] cheap alcohol In-Reply-To: <20050921224606.42699.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050921183320.GX2249@leitl.org> <20050921224606.42699.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050922070019.GS2249@leitl.org> On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 03:46:06PM -0700, The Avantguardian wrote: > This why there needs to be a bioreactor that can turn > almost 100% of the biomass into ethanol. I already Not really a bioreactor. You'd waste a lot of joules for bug metabolism, and you'd still need to destill the alcohol. If you want to go hi-tech, there's an new process which catalytically hydrogenates starch/sugar at about 200C and relatively low pressure, and produces hexane. A low-tech version would just pellet the straw, and use a modern pellet burner. Or try http://www.google.com/search?q=synfuel+from+biomass&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official > have one in mind, as I have mentioned before on the > list. Question is when would be a good time to start > building a prototype and filing a patent? If I try > this too early, the tech might be quashed by the oil > companies (provided it works of course, of which there > is no guarantee). In theory it should be able to turn > almost all of the biomass into ethanol for sale and > methane that can be used to power the bioreactor > itself. Do you have a working process prototype, or are you just thinking of starting to develop one? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au Thu Sep 22 07:02:52 2005 From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 17:02:52 +1000 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Rudy Rucker's "The Lifebox, the Seashell, and the Soul" Message-ID: <20050922070252.21204.qmail@web35504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> As per the idea that everything is computation, well yes, in a way I agree, but I suspect that's still a long way from the ultimate metaphysics. 'Everything is computation' is simply the last in a long line of metaphors used to describe reality. Remember, I've been busting my balls for two years trying to develop a TOE (theory of everything) - so all that time I've thinking about metaphysics and what the ultimate noumenon (raw stuff) of reality might be. For a long time I thought that mathematics might be the ultimate metaphysical noumenon (Mathematical Platonism) but I finally reached an even more radical conclusion. My latest metaphysical theory (based on two years of deep thought) is that the ultimate metaphysical noumenon of reality has a duel aspect: it's a sort of hybrid of *Cognition* (which is even more general than 'Computation') and *Mathematics*. I call this weird thing *Mathematico-Cognition* Reality is stranger than we can imagine.... ;) --- Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Sep 22 07:20:45 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:50:45 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] cheap alcohol In-Reply-To: <200509220216.j8M2G8X27419@tick.javien.com> References: <20050921201719.GM2249@leitl.org> <200509220216.j8M2G8X27419@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0509220020607f434e@mail.gmail.com> On 22/09/05, spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl > ... > > > > We're at almost 7$/gallon, and not suffering (much). The mischief > > and shenanigans can only happen when you don't control your own > > supply. With renewables, that's not an issue. > > > > -- > > Eugen* Leitl leitl > > Whaaaaat? Seven bucks? Can't Germany make ethanol > cheaper than that? Closed loop ethanol couldn't be > that high could it? Someone is robbing you Gene. Didn't > you guys make synthetic motor fuel during WW2? Is > anyone doing that? Owww, seven bucks, that makes > my butt hurt. > > spike > > Are you in Germany at the moment Eugen? >From the Sydney Morning Herald, 4 September 2005: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/german-greens-leader-calls-for-petrol-price-cut-as-election-hots-up/2005/09/03/1125302779935.html?from=moreStories "I believe the oil companies should reduce their prices," said Mr Fischer, whose party once called for petrol prices to be raised gradually to almost twice the current level of about ?1.40 (A$2.30) a litre to discourage Germans from driving cars. I've also just heard on the radio that petrol in the UK is about 1 pound/litre, which is about the same price I think. Still, that's high. In Australia, it's just below A$1.40/litre, and people are screaming. And in the US (from The Age, September 3): http://www.theage.com.au/news/editorial/high-petrol-prices-point-to-bigger-picture-of-change/2005/09/02/1125302746561.html "Of course, some nations and their citizens have been relaxed about the risks of climate change and have greatly increased their use of polluting fossil fuels. They are likely to be more sensitive to the price consequences of soaring global demand. World oil prices had risen steadily from $18 a barrel in November 2001, but this week's market volatility was telling. Just a small part of global production was shut down ? the affected region accounts for 7 per cent of US demand. The oil price still shot up to $US70 a barrel. With US motorists paying $US3 a gallon ($A1.05 a litre), a record even when adjusted for inflation, US President George Bush announced supply would be made up from the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve." So US motorists have just topped A$1.05/litre, Aussies are paying A$1.40/litre, and europeans are paying A$2.30/litre. And I notice that everywhere that politicians accuse the industry of price gouging, and industry accuses the government of overtaxing. What really accounts for the difference in prices? -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From scerir at libero.it Thu Sep 22 08:02:52 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 10:02:52 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rudy Rucker's "The Lifebox, the Seashell, and the Soul" References: <20050922070252.21204.qmail@web35504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003c01c5bf4c$08cbf090$23b01b97@administxl09yj> Marc wrote: > My latest metaphysical theory (based on two years > of deep thought) is that the ultimate metaphysical > noumenon of reality has a duel aspect: it's a sort > of hybrid of *Cognition* (which is even more general > than 'Computation') and *Mathematics*. > I call this weird thing *Mathematico-Cognition*. http://www.pisearch.de.vu/ (Is math randomness a pre-cognition?) > 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 'There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers.' -R.P.Feynman From pgptag at gmail.com Thu Sep 22 08:52:35 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 10:52:35 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rudy Rucker's "The Lifebox, the Seashell, and the Soul" In-Reply-To: <20050922065007.20577.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050922065007.20577.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <470a3c52050922015266bf2c4e@mail.gmail.com> Sure I did! It was a great book, like nearly everything Rudy has written. BTW RU Sirius has a podcast interview with Rudy Rucker, where he talks about Frek (great epic novel) and Lifebox: http://www.mondoglobo.net/neofiles/?p=10 On 9/22/05, Marc Geddes wrote: > > I look forward to reading that one Guilio! Have you read an earlier book of Rudy's called 'Inifnity and the Mind'? It's great. Best book about the mathematics of infinity I've seen. He presents a powerful case for believing in the objective existence of infinite sets. Link: > > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691121273/qid=1127371705/ From eugen at leitl.org Thu Sep 22 08:57:54 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 10:57:54 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] cheap alcohol In-Reply-To: <1104436831af1272c1eca12a3d5e529e@aol.com> References: <20050920141508.39563.qmail@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200509210327.j8L3RrX26227@tick.javien.com> <20050921084724.GS2249@leitl.org> <43319458.4030102@aol.com> <20050921183320.GX2249@leitl.org> <4331CA17.6070803@aol.com> <20050922063429.GP2249@leitl.org> <1104436831af1272c1eca12a3d5e529e@aol.com> Message-ID: <20050922085754.GF2249@leitl.org> On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 08:46:05PM -1000, Robert Lindauer wrote: > >Not clean. > > really, what are the by products of which you are afraid? Water, > carbon-dioxide? Please read http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/patzek/CRPS416-Patzek-Web.pdf I haven't done any fact-checking on it, but this looks like a reasonably sound analysis of most relevant factors. > > > >>readily available and renewable energy resource for which we currently > > > >Not readily available. > > In every climate except suitable for growing anything, the ability to > grow sugar-rich crops is abundant. Patient: Doctor, it hurts if I do that! Doctor: Then don't do that. Why do you insist to ruin a perfectly good fuel option by limiting your choices to the sweet crops, and even throw away the rest? > > > >>have sufficient technology to continue producing it cheaply and > >>effectively, it's not perfect. > > > >Not cheaply, and effectively. > > In Brazil, alcohol averages about $.90/gallon. I never said bioethanol doesn't make sense -- in Brazil. > > Not only is it not perfect, it is > >an approach only suitable for the developing countries, which > >have no infrastructure, nor know-how in industrial chemistry. > > Or perhaps in the US where many, many corporations are investing > heavily in ethanol production. Are you familiar with the political process? How agribusiness works, and how to lobby to obtain subsidies for something that makes no sense? > >It is even considerably worse than biodiesel. > > In what way, in that biodiesel produces the same waste in its use as > regular plain ol' diesel and costs much more to produce and produces > harmful byproducts in its production? I never said biodiesel was a good idea. It only looks good if you compare it with bioethanol. I suggest you reread the URLs I posted earlier in that thread, and come back with more informed opinions about their comparative merits, or rather, lack thereof. > >No, I don't think you do. > > I should have said "I get you." In Communist Russia, the point gets you. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Thu Sep 22 09:39:11 2005 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 17:39:11 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan References: <20050921164023.89197.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <002b01c5bf2b$d6bb5f70$fdde0405@JPAcer> <001901c5bf36$77deb370$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <001e01c5bf59$7f3b1460$fdde0405@JPAcer> Kevin said: >My comments directed at Kevin previously have little to do with walls - What makes me seethe is the parochialism that is so easily >satisfied by retiring into some (figurative or physical) walled enclave of privilege. We have the entire world to deal with now. We can't afford to >protect our small patch and let everyone else go to hell. I've been trying to let this go, but obviously people are STILL failing to READ what I have actually WRITTEN rather than READ INTO it what they WANT to. I have never ever ever ever said any such thing that could even closely resemble the idea that I would want to keep ANYONE out of the US who genuinely wants to come here to live. Never said anything about letting anyone go to hell. I have said over and over that the door should be open to all. My comments are geared only towards thos who would still choose to go on the back way while the door is open . You bring out words like "parochialism" and can;t even understand the simple concept of "border". If you are angry, you are so because you choose to be. OK I admit it - I don't know what you are talking about! If the door is open - anyone can walk through - YES... got that - but if its the 'back way' aka Mexican border - the door is closed - We shoot first and ask questions later? Or say 'Sorry! wrong door!' I'm a little confused here? Jack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mail at harveynewstrom.com Thu Sep 22 12:56:40 2005 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (mail at harveynewstrom.com) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:56:40 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Robin Hanson on Cynicism In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050921143213.02ed64a0@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20050921182220.461C857EF5@finney.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20050921143213.02ed64a0@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: Robin Hanson writes: > I posed the issue in terms of what should the cynic believe about himself, > rather than how he should present himself to others. But yes, the more > that the cynic's targets know of his conundrum, the harder for him. Not > that the cynic's motives for criticizing should really matter than much > for > whether the cynic's criticisms are accepted as true. But alas for humans, > it does matter a great deal. I find both cynicism and optimism to be unscientific. They both imply prejudice toward evaluating things good or bad based on motives rather than empirical evidence. True scientific method would apply equally to everybody. Unlike the cynic's conundrum above, the true scientist gladly subjects themselves to the same scrutiny and standards that they subject others to. Science has no such conundrum. The more scientists are scrutinized using the same scientific method, the more they should pass with flying colors. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From mail at harveynewstrom.com Thu Sep 22 13:01:26 2005 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (mail at harveynewstrom.com) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:01:26 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nuke the Great Satan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Henrik ?hrstr?m writes: > Ethnic profiling have its own limitations, El Als security was very neatly > bypassed when someone (Sorry can't find the reference, I read about it in a > swedish newspaper) used persons who did not look like palestinians or arabic > but looked like "native" judes. They could waltz right through with > suitcases filled with plastelina, because nobody looked twice at them. This is exactly why ethnic profiling does not work against terrorists. No real security expert would support ethnic profiling against terrorists, because it simply fails to block terrorists. The same is true for torture. No real security expert would support torture for information gathering. It simply does not produce reliable information. These theories sound fine to some people, but they simply fail critical analysis, and they fail to perform in the real world. Ignoring the ethical questions, such methods simply don't help. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From rhanson at gmu.edu Thu Sep 22 13:06:57 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:06:57 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Robin Hanson on Cynicism In-Reply-To: References: <20050921182220.461C857EF5@finney.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20050921143213.02ed64a0@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050922090346.02ec69f8@mail.gmu.edu> At 08:56 AM 9/22/2005, you wrote: >Robin Hanson writes: >>I posed the issue in terms of what should the cynic believe about himself, >>rather than how he should present himself to others. But yes, the more >>that the cynic's targets know of his conundrum, the harder for him. Not >>that the cynic's motives for criticizing should really matter than much for >>whether the cynic's criticisms are accepted as true. But alas for humans, >>it does matter a great deal. > >I find both cynicism and optimism to be unscientific. They both >imply prejudice toward evaluating things good or bad based on >motives rather than empirical evidence. >True scientific method would apply equally to everybody. Unlike the >cynic's conundrum above, the true scientist gladly subjects >themselves to the same scrutiny and standards that they subject >others to. Science has no such conundrum. The more scientists are >scrutinized using the same scientific method, the more they should >pass with flying colors. I speak of humans and you speak of scientists. Humans, and cynics, I have seen. Scientists in the sense you describe are much harder to find. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From eugen at leitl.org Thu Sep 22 13:12:44 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:12:44 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Robin Hanson on Cynicism In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050922090346.02ec69f8@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20050921182220.461C857EF5@finney.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20050921143213.02ed64a0@mail.gmu.edu> <6.2.3.4.2.20050922090346.02ec69f8@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <20050922131244.GV2249@leitl.org> On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 09:06:57AM -0400, Robin Hanson wrote: > I speak of humans and you speak of scientists. Humans, and cynics, I > have seen. Scientists in the sense you describe are much harder to find. Is that a scientific fact, or cynicism? ;p -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Thu Sep 22 13:33:53 2005 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:33:53 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Profile the Great Satan? Message-ID: <006101c5bf7a$47c75bd0$fdde0405@JPAcer> David Lubkin said: Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Profile the Great Satan? (Peter Fedak) To: exI chat list Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050921202202.05924298 at unreasonable.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Peter Fedak wrote: >>If the entire problem is to be addressed, a step back should be >>taken to analyze the broader picture. The US's market economy is >>very strong and the way of life here is vastly different from other >>parts of the world. Some people live in poverty, some live in >>wealth. However, few live better than Americans. So, knowing human >>nature, what would make those with little the most upset? Those with >>the more than them. As the wealthiest nation, we are wearing a red, >>white and blue target for that resentment. How can it be resolved? >>The answer to that would solve the problem of terrorism. David Lubkin said: >Assumes facts not in evidence. What you wrote is rife with >presumptions that need not be presumed. They can, rather, be tested. >But we can start with plausibility. >(a) Switzerland is rich and not attacked. >(b) The 9/11 hijackers were not poor. >(c) There are many millions of poor Tibetan Buddhists and Indian >Hindi, none of whom have attacked the US. >(d) Terrorists attacked Indonesia. Some notes on the above - and solving the problem of terrorism... a... Switzerland has not fought a war for 500 years - it has no enemies - only indifferently allied neighbours and trading partners. Moral: Don't use violence - and you will live in peace! b... The 9/11 hijackers were not poor... Correct. All ideological opposition with grass roots support becomes better funded and better organised over time - remember the heady victories of the early days in Iraq? Somalia? Vietnam? Before the oppostions rallied? Suggestion: Persuasion rules... One good spin-doctor is worth two carrier loads of death-or-glory marines. Moral: Don't use violence! c... Prediction: Tibetan Buddhists and Indian Hindus will continue to refuse to attack the US - until and unless they find themselves attacked by the US - at which point - look out! Moral: Don't use violence - and you will live in peace! d... Terrorists attacked Indonesia... Well, not really - they attacked westerners in Indonesia and those considered to be their supporters and allies - Australians bore the brunt because of their perceived alliance with US policy and their availability as near neighbours, frequent visitors and ready targets. Aussies governments are known to rally the troops when called upon by US/UK interests and are often ostracised as interlopers by ASEAN nations. Moral: Don't use violence - and you will live in peace! >Now resentment's another story. I think you have a better case there. >On the other hand, there's the common phenomenon of "Yankee go home! >.... But take me with you." >-- David. Strangely, as an Englishman living in Asia (and often - even usually - presumed to be American) I have rarely encountered this kind of prejudice. At a personal level, people are just people. You are judged on your skill, talent, looks, conversational ability, business acumen etc etc - whatever is in the eye of the beholder.. But, individuals are rarely held accountable for your government's policies - and never judged by some kind of generalised profile based on ethnicity. ...I like that - Like most, I hate to be labelled and pigeon-holed. And, labelling and pigeon-holing is one more reason why amateur profiling sucks. It is just another compelling excuse to apply a stereotype. I have spent more than two months in both Afghanistan and Pakistan in recent times: Conclusion: I must have trained with Al Qaeda? Hardly! True, my non-Moslem family name helps clear me - but how suspicious would it be if I was of Middle-Eastern extraction? Actually, while in Kabul and Peshawar, I saw a few 13 year old boys carrying rifles - but the Afghans and Pakistanis I met were ordinary people doing their jobs in difficult circumstances. And if they want to earn a little nest egg by spending a few years as a taxi-driver or short-order cook in New York, London or Sydney (they often do) - well that's all right with me.. Live and let live... Moral: Don't use violence - and you will live in peace! Jack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Thu Sep 22 14:43:16 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 07:43:16 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Robin Hanson on Cynicism In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050922090346.02ec69f8@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20050921182220.461C857EF5@finney.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20050921143213.02ed64a0@mail.gmu.edu> <6.2.3.4.2.20050922090346.02ec69f8@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <4332C304.3090401@pobox.com> Robin Hanson wrote: > > I speak of humans and you speak of scientists. Humans, and cynics, I > have seen. Scientists in the sense you describe are much harder to find. He spoke of ideals. Are only humans worth writing about? If so one must acknowledge the fact that human beings are affected by their choice of ideals. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From robgobblin at aol.com Thu Sep 22 17:22:01 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 07:22:01 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] cheap alcohol In-Reply-To: <20050922085754.GF2249@leitl.org> References: <20050920141508.39563.qmail@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200509210327.j8L3RrX26227@tick.javien.com> <20050921084724.GS2249@leitl.org> <43319458.4030102@aol.com> <20050921183320.GX2249@leitl.org> <4331CA17.6070803@aol.com> <20050922063429.GP2249@leitl.org> <1104436831af1272c1eca12a3d5e529e@aol.com> <20050922085754.GF2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <4332E839.5020204@aol.com> Eugen Leitl wrote: >On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 08:46:05PM -1000, Robert Lindauer wrote: > > > >>>Not clean. >>> >>> >>really, what are the by products of which you are afraid? Water, >>carbon-dioxide? >> >> > >Please read >http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/patzek/CRPS416-Patzek-Web.pdf > > Please read: http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm Not your researcher says that there is a net loss of about 30% whereas the official government estimates and others rate ethanol at about the opposite, production 130% of the energy required to produce it due to the metabolic energy of the yeast. There are ultra-efficient distillation methods being developed and since the temperature for distilling alcohol from mash is around 170f, it's much more efficient than higher-temperature (e.g. boiling) methods. This has been well known now for more than 10 years. The debate was effectively settled by the department of energy. http://www.usda.gov/oce/oepnu/aer-813.pdf Again, still based on corn. Growing sugar cane or sugar beet is much, much more efficient per acre than growing corn for the production of alcohol, roughly 14% of sugar-beet biomass is directly convertible to alcohol (as opposed the the 4% for corn). Sugar beet grows anywhere corn will and is much, much more efficient. In areas where a natural crop is sugar cane, not only is cane renewable and clean to grow, you can grow several crops per year (about .66/year per crop). >I haven't done any fact-checking on it, but this looks like a reasonably >sound analysis of most relevant factors. > > Maybe you should have done some fact-checking. > > > >>>>readily available and renewable energy resource for which we currently >>>> >>>> >>>Not readily available. >>> >>> >>In every climate except suitable for growing anything, the ability to >>grow sugar-rich crops is abundant. >> >> > >Patient: Doctor, it hurts if I do that! >Doctor: Then don't do that. > >Why do you insist to ruin a perfectly good fuel option by limiting >your choices to the sweet crops, and even throw away the rest? > > Who said throw away the rest? However, the byproduct of sugar cane and sugar beet (and corn, for that matter) production of alcohol is feed-grade protein-rich mash suitable for either fertilizer (which is necessary for the sustainability), heating the distillation process or for other food-purposes (pigs, cows, chickens, sheep, dogs, horses, etc.) > > > >>>>have sufficient technology to continue producing it cheaply and >>>>effectively, it's not perfect. >>>> >>>> >>>Not cheaply, and effectively. >>> >>> >>In Brazil, alcohol averages about $.90/gallon. >> >> > >I never said bioethanol doesn't make sense -- in Brazil. > > It also makes sense here in Hawaii. It -could- make sense anywhere you can grow sugar beet or sugar can and even makes sense using the corn method given current government subsidy levels. HOWEVER, even without the subsidies, corn remains a renewable source of high-volume sugar and carbohydrate making it much preferable to fossil fuels (unless you think that you can hit a rock and it will bleed oil). >>Or perhaps in the US where many, many corporations are investing >>heavily in ethanol production. >> >> > >Are you familiar with the political process? How agribusiness >works, and how to lobby to obtain subsidies for something that >makes no sense? > > Sure, the same process fuels the current nonsensical war-for-oil process. I estimate that if we were to take our entire military budget and redirect it at developing alternative energy resources we would completely obviate any need for foreign oil and simultaneously suck the funding and motivational fuel from under the "muslim fundamentalist movements" which are -supposedly- fueling this fire. No need for Saudi/Iraqi/Iranian oil, no money for terrorists, no need for western presence in their countries, no terrorists attacking the friendly united states. >>>It is even considerably worse than biodiesel. >>> >>> >>In what way, in that biodiesel produces the same waste in its use as >>regular plain ol' diesel and costs much more to produce and produces >>harmful byproducts in its production? >> >> > >I never said biodiesel was a good idea. It only looks good if you >compare it with bioethanol. > > Apparently that depends on reading old studies. >I suggest you reread the URLs I posted earlier in that thread, >and come back with more informed opinions about their comparative >merits, or rather, lack thereof. > > > I think that the -old- statistics on ethanol aren't applicable and the myth that ethanol production uses more energy than it produces is long since dispelled and that studies based on corn-ethanol production aren't really relevant for cane-ethanol or sugar-beet-ethanol methods. >>>No, I don't think you do. >>> >>> >>I should have said "I get you." >> >> > >In Communist Russia, the point gets you. > > Again, still living in the '80s? Robbie Lindauer From hal at finney.org Thu Sep 22 17:45:20 2005 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 10:45:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Robin Hanson on Cynicism Message-ID: <20050922174520.410B857EF5@finney.org> Harvey Newstrom writes: > I find both cynicism and optimism to be unscientific. They both imply > prejudice toward evaluating things good or bad based on motives rather than > empirical evidence. Robin's essay at http://hanson.gmu.edu/metacynic.html distinguishes between the "cynical mood" - rude, unhappy, complaining - and "cynical beliefs", that most people are hypocritical and/or have "low" motives. Mood, whether happy or sad, may well be unscientific, but beliefs are not. If someone, based on observation, comes up with a hypothesis about human behavior and motivation, and that hypothesis makes predictions which are backed up by experience, then that is a valid and scientific process. > True scientific method would apply equally to everybody. Unlike the cynic's > conundrum above, the true scientist gladly subjects themselves to the same > scrutiny and standards that they subject others to. Science has no such > conundrum. The more scientists are scrutinized using the same scientific > method, the more they should pass with flying colors. The only scientists who can apply their methods to themselves are those studying human behavior. A physicist can not place himself into a particle accelerator. Those scientists who most closely face Robin's "conundrum" are those who study the scientific method itself. Sociologists of science, for example, have composed critiques of the schoolbook version of the scientific method, casting it as a mythology which disguises such true motives of scientists as fame, power, influence, and nepotism. The so-called search for truth is presented as nothing but PR for a scientific establishment mostly interested in protecting its position and preserving the status quo. Those researchers must then face a conundrum if they turn their lens onto themselves. What motivates researchers who study the scientific method? Are their analyses free of the biases and base motivations that they find in the works of others? Are they searching for truth, or merely seeking personal gain? If the latter, then they admit that they are not seeking truth and are intentionally biasing their results, so why should we pay attention to what they say? And if they claim to be free of such biases and presenting the truth as objectively as possible, then why not believe that other areas of science are equally capable of operating in such a mode? Either way, it undercuts the criticism which this field often aims at the scientific establishment. Hal Finney From amara at amara.com Thu Sep 22 18:21:38 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:21:38 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] 'Beyond Cyberpunk' on the web ! Message-ID: >From: "spike" >Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] 'Beyond Cyperpunk' on the web ! >To: "'ExI chat list'" > >Wooohooo, hypercard stacks! Thanks Amara, this made >my day. I loved Hypercard. And MacPaint. And Think Pascal. And all of those fun and useful programs that made working with a Mac a total joy. It is now too, but it is far more 'serious'. > Many >of the stacks were clumsy and poorly written, a lot like >the pages made in the tools hypercard morphed into: >powerpoint and HTML. :-( > >Apple had it together in those days, did it not? Then they dropped the ball on science (early 90s). Finally, recently, they have picked it up and it looks like the momentum they have now has some staying power. Have you noticed the number and variety of web pages titled: Mac OSX for Astrophysicists Mac OSX for Geophysicists Mac OSX for ... ? And now one can buy a CD for Mac OSX of the most useful and impressive software that astronomers have been using on Unix for some years (*). For the Mac! I can carry my laptop with everything I need to do astronomy data processing. I love OSX. Apple did it right 100% when it came out with that operating system. (*) http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/20126 Amara Off the list for a while; to here: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/dust2005/ and then to visit on Molokai someone special from my childhood. Ciao! -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." ---Ralph Waldo Emerson From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Sep 22 20:20:01 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:20:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Profile the Great Satan? In-Reply-To: <006101c5bf7a$47c75bd0$fdde0405@JPAcer> Message-ID: <20050922202002.59986.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Jack Parkinson wrote: > David Lubkin said: > > >Assumes facts not in evidence. What you wrote is rife with > >presumptions that need not be presumed. They can, rather, be tested. > >But we can start with plausibility. > >(a) Switzerland is rich and not attacked. > >(b) The 9/11 hijackers were not poor. > >(c) There are many millions of poor Tibetan Buddhists and Indian > >Hindi, none of whom have attacked the US. > >(d) Terrorists attacked Indonesia. > > Some notes on the above - and solving the problem of terrorism... > a... Switzerland has not fought a war for 500 years - it has no > enemies - only indifferently allied neighbours and trading partners. > Moral: Don't use violence - and you will live in peace! Switzerland is peaceful and free because every Swiss is armed with a machine gun and the ammo to do damage with it. The willingness to commit violence in their defense has kept them free. Their willingness to trade with anybody only has made them rich as any banker of a lord of war would. We can't all be bankers to warlords. > b... The 9/11 hijackers were not poor... Correct. All ideological > opposition with grass roots support becomes better funded and better > organised over time - remember the heady victories of the early days > in Iraq? Somalia? Vietnam? Before the oppostions rallied? Suggestion: > Persuasion rules... One good spin-doctor is worth two carrier loads > of death-or-glory marines. Moral: Don't use violence! c... > Prediction: Tibetan Buddhists and Indian Hindus will continue to > refuse to attack the US - until and unless they find themselves > attacked by the US - at which point - look out! Moral: Don't use > violence - and you will live in peace! Tibetan Buddhists did not use violence, and suffered millions killed and displaced from their homes at the hands of Chinese communists, to become international refugees. Millions of Indian Hindus did not use violence, and suffered millions dead and displaced from their homes in the violence instigated by muslim nationalists. > Live and let live... Moral: Don't use > violence - and you will live in peace! There are six million dead in europe who didn't use violence and did not live. There are tens of millions of corpses across Turkey, the old Soviet republics, and across China who didn't use violence and did not live. You are lying the lie of the pacifist. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Sep 22 20:22:15 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:22:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] cheap alcohol In-Reply-To: <200509220216.j8M2G8X27419@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050922202216.97906.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl > ... > > > > We're at almost 7$/gallon, and not suffering (much). The mischief > > and shenanigans can only happen when you don't control your own > > supply. With renewables, that's not an issue. > > > > -- > > Eugen* Leitl leitl > > Whaaaaat? Seven bucks? Can't Germany make ethanol > cheaper than that? Closed loop ethanol couldn't be > that high could it? Someone is robbing you Gene. Didn't > you guys make synthetic motor fuel during WW2? Is > anyone doing that? Owww, seven bucks, that makes > my butt hurt. Five of that is going to the state welfare system. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Sep 22 20:25:24 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:25:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nuke the Great Satan In-Reply-To: <001901c5bf36$77deb370$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <20050922202524.84376.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "kevinfreels.com" wrote: > >My comments directed at Kevin previously have little to do with > walls - What makes me seethe is the parochialism that is so easily > >satisfied by retiring into some (figurative or physical) walled > enclave of privilege. We have the entire world to deal with now. We > can't afford to >protect our small patch and let everyone else go to > hell. > > I've been trying to let this go, but obviously people are STILL > failing to READ what I have actually WRITTEN rather than READ INTO it > what they WANT to. I have never ever ever ever said any such thing > that could even closely resemble the idea that I would want to keep > ANYONE out of the US who genuinely wants to come here to live. Never > said anything about letting anyone go to hell. I have said over and > over that the door should be open to all. My comments are geared only > towards thos who would still choose to go on the back way while the > door is open . You bring out words like "parochialism" and can;t even > understand the simple concept of "border". If you are angry, you are > so because you choose to be. > What is even more telling, Kevin, is that people like this seem to think that national borders shouldn't mean anything for anyone who wants to cross one, but the minute someone on the wrong side of one is having their rights violated by a thug, they are the first people on the "go to hell" bandwagon.... hypocrits all. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From eugen at leitl.org Thu Sep 22 20:25:43 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 22:25:43 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] cheap alcohol In-Reply-To: <4332E839.5020204@aol.com> References: <20050920141508.39563.qmail@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200509210327.j8L3RrX26227@tick.javien.com> <20050921084724.GS2249@leitl.org> <43319458.4030102@aol.com> <20050921183320.GX2249@leitl.org> <4331CA17.6070803@aol.com> <20050922063429.GP2249@leitl.org> <1104436831af1272c1eca12a3d5e529e@aol.com> <20050922085754.GF2249@leitl.org> <4332E839.5020204@aol.com> Message-ID: <20050922202543.GP2249@leitl.org> On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 07:22:01AM -1000, Robert Lindauer wrote: > >Please read > >http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/patzek/CRPS416-Patzek-Web.pdf > > Please read: > > http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm Did you notice the Shapouri, Duffield and Wang (2002) and Shapouri, Gallagher and Graboski (2002) references cited in Patzek (2004,2005)? I suggest you reread that article. While far from being scripture, I don't think you're doing it justice. > Not your researcher says that there is a net loss of about 30% whereas > the official government estimates and others rate ethanol at about the > opposite, production 130% of the energy required to produce it due to > the metabolic energy of the yeast. There are ultra-efficient What, please, is "metabolic energy of the yeast"? Whether it's a net loss, or 130%, or a 250% win, that doesn't really matter. That energy balance is frankly awful. I'm refusing the job of arguing the part of advocatus diaboli, but compare that energy balance with http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/DSI/MASGC.pdf "Miscanthus for renewable energy generation: European Union experience and projections of Illinois". > distillation methods being developed and since the temperature for > distilling alcohol from mash is around 170f, it's much more efficient > than higher-temperature (e.g. boiling) methods. This has been well > known now for more than 10 years. The debate was effectively settled by > the department of energy. > > http://www.usda.gov/oce/oepnu/aer-813.pdf Um, did you notice that very study was cited in Patzek? This is getting ridiculous. If this is the level at which the general public is perceiving the issue, we can kiss our collective asses good-bye. > Again, still based on corn. > > Growing sugar cane or sugar beet is much, much more efficient per acre > than growing corn for the production of alcohol, roughly 14% of > sugar-beet biomass is directly convertible to alcohol (as opposed the > the 4% for corn). You're, again, kindly offer us the choice between the plague, and cholera. Clearly, cholera is vastly preferrable to the plague, in the age of IVs and antibiotics. But, I'd rather have a lazy afternoon at the beach, with a banana daiquiri, please. > Sugar beet grows anywhere corn will and is much, much more efficient. > In areas where a natural crop is sugar cane, not only is cane renewable > and clean to grow, you can grow several crops per year (about .66/year > per crop). Please read above Miscanthus study. Look at sustainability, and MJ/ha specifically (17-21 MJ/kg isn't at all shabby). > >I haven't done any fact-checking on it, but this looks like a reasonably > >sound analysis of most relevant factors. > > > Maybe you should have done some fact-checking. Maybe you should actually read what you're citing. Again, I don't give a damn about biomass. It's a low-tech stop-gap measure. My closest candidate to a longer-term solution is organic/polymer (nanodot hybrid) PV, and electrochemical energy sources. Long-term is deep-space, and completely incomputable to human primates. If we're producing bullshit, let us strive to produce dayglo, scented brand of bullshit. > It also makes sense here in Hawaii. It -could- make sense anywhere you > can grow sugar beet or sugar can and even makes sense using the corn > method given current government subsidy levels. HOWEVER, even without If Hawaii is effectively a developing country (no chemical industry, no domestic engineers, lots of land, no issues with agriculture and environment) it might make marginal sense there. > the subsidies, corn remains a renewable source of high-volume sugar and > carbohydrate making it much preferable to fossil fuels (unless you think > that you can hit a rock and it will bleed oil). There's no scarcity in coal, though not necessarily domestic. > >I never said biodiesel was a good idea. It only looks good if you > >compare it with bioethanol. > > > > > > Apparently that depends on reading old studies. August 14, 2005 update on a paper from Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 23(6):519-569 (2004) is old? > >I suggest you reread the URLs I posted earlier in that thread, > >and come back with more informed opinions about their comparative > >merits, or rather, lack thereof. > > I think that the -old- statistics on ethanol aren't applicable and the > myth that ethanol production uses more energy than it produces is long > since dispelled and that studies based on corn-ethanol production aren't > really relevant for cane-ethanol or sugar-beet-ethanol methods. I remain thoroughly unconvinced, but: I'm not actually giving a damn. Biofuel is somebody else's, colicky baby. > >In Communist Russia, the point gets you. > > Again, still living in the '80s? That'd be 1960s/70s for you. People were enthusiastic about technology and future, back then. Science was a prestigious career. I sure would have some aspects of it back, today. I, for one, welcome our time-travelling overlords. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From robgobblin at aol.com Thu Sep 22 20:33:30 2005 From: robgobblin at aol.com (Robert Lindauer) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 10:33:30 -1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] cheap alcohol In-Reply-To: <20050922202543.GP2249@leitl.org> References: <20050920141508.39563.qmail@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200509210327.j8L3RrX26227@tick.javien.com> <20050921084724.GS2249@leitl.org> <43319458.4030102@aol.com> <20050921183320.GX2249@leitl.org> <4331CA17.6070803@aol.com> <20050922063429.GP2249@leitl.org> <1104436831af1272c1eca12a3d5e529e@aol.com> <20050922085754.GF2249@leitl.org> <4332E839.5020204@aol.com> <20050922202543.GP2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <4333151A.9040907@aol.com> Eugen Leitl wrote: >That'd be 1960s/70s for you. People were enthusiastic about technology and >future, back then. Science was a prestigious career. I sure would have >some aspects of it back, today. > >I, for one, welcome our time-travelling overlords. > > Met any? From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Sep 22 20:37:49 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:37:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Reading "The Singularity is Near" In-Reply-To: <20050922050704.70017.qmail@web35502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050922203749.2124.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Marc Geddes wrote: > > The secret I think is this: A general recursively self-improving > friendly AGI is an AI which understands the *true* nature of mind. > So to initiate Singularity, we simply design the AGI to understand > the *true* nature of mind and the rest (friendliness etc) follows > automatically as secondary consequences. On the contrary, IMHO such a desired AI should instead understand that it is a flawed, imperfect being, a unique, freak, and yet happy accident that cannot, no matter how intelligent it is, consider itself the be-all, end-all. As it is the creation of flawed beings, so too is it flawed and must focus on its own improvement with acceptance that perfection is likely unattainable, and thus perfect understanding of the true nature of mind is similarly unattainable. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Thu Sep 22 20:37:49 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:37:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Reading "The Singularity is Near" In-Reply-To: <20050922050704.70017.qmail@web35502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050922203749.2124.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Marc Geddes wrote: > > The secret I think is this: A general recursively self-improving > friendly AGI is an AI which understands the *true* nature of mind. > So to initiate Singularity, we simply design the AGI to understand > the *true* nature of mind and the rest (friendliness etc) follows > automatically as secondary consequences. On the contrary, IMHO such a desired AI should instead understand that it is a flawed, imperfect being, a unique, freak, and yet happy accident that cannot, no matter how intelligent it is, consider itself the be-all, end-all. As it is the creation of flawed beings, so too is it flawed and must focus on its own improvement with acceptance that perfection is likely unattainable, and thus perfect understanding of the true nature of mind is similarly unattainable. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 22 21:06:04 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:06:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Profile the Great Satan? In-Reply-To: <20050922202002.59986.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050922210604.54081.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > Switzerland is peaceful and free because every Swiss > is armed with a > machine gun and the ammo to do damage with it. The > willingness to > commit violence in their defense has kept them free. Yeah, and their government GIVES them the assault rifle for FREE (apart from taxes). Furthermore crime of all types is incredibly low despite, or perhaps because of, the fact that every household has an assault rifle. Switzerland puts the lie to the whole idea of gun control as a means of reducing crime. All gun control does is allow any peaceful citizen to be branded a criminal and have no resort when the storm troopers kick down his door. 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 Thu Sep 22 21:19:41 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:19:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Profile the Great Satan? In-Reply-To: <20050922210604.54081.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050922202002.59986.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20050922210604.54081.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050922161851.01d22158@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 02:06 PM 9/22/2005 -0700, Avant wrote: > have no resort when the storm >troopers kick down his door. Yeah, I hate it when they do that. Damien Broderick From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 22 21:36:15 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:36:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] cheap alcohol In-Reply-To: <20050922070019.GS2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20050922213615.59975.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > Not really a bioreactor. You'd waste a lot of joules > for bug metabolism, and you'd still need to destill > the > alcohol. Well thermodynamics pretty much guarantees you will waste a lot of joules no matter what you do. The joules the bugs use to keep alive, I think would be pretty efficient compared to the heat loss in most chemical processes. Moreover, they should be able to extract all their energy needs right from the input biomass. The beauty of bioreactors is that they don't require lots of input energy to get over any activation energy humps. There will still need to be some though, to grind the biomass into tiny little bits to maximize surface area exposed to the bugs. > > If you want to go hi-tech, there's an new process > which > catalytically hydrogenates starch/sugar at about > 200C > and relatively low pressure, and produces hexane. This sounds fairly cool, is it n-hexane or cyclohexane? The two extra hydrogens on n-hexane would make for slightly more energy output upon combustion. > > A low-tech version would just pellet the straw, > and use a modern pellet burner. Well this doesn't sound very clean. I don't how you would power an engine with a pellet burner except for a return to steam engines. And we would have a huge brown cloud hanging over our heads the way the Chinese do. > > Do you have a working process prototype, or are you > just thinking of starting to develop one? No, although I have had the idea for years, it hasn't progressed much further than a few schematics in my notebook. Developing it further would require a bit more time and money than is afforded by being a graduate student. But things change and I may get a shot at building one in the next few years. 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 - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 22 21:40:28 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:40:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] cheap alcohol In-Reply-To: <20050921231706.86145.qmail@web30713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050922214028.45766.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: Figure out if it > can produce that ethanol at a competitive price, > including the > operations costs and amortization of the equipment, > etc. Thanks Mike. Your whole post was filled with good advice. I certainly do need to work on my business skills and contacts. 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 - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Thu Sep 22 21:43:15 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 22:43:15 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reading "The Singularity is Near" In-Reply-To: <20050922203749.2124.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050922050704.70017.qmail@web35502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20050922203749.2124.qmail@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/22/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > > > > --- Marc Geddes wrote: > > > > The secret I think is this: A general recursively self-improving > > friendly AGI is an AI which understands the *true* nature of mind. > > So to initiate Singularity, we simply design the AGI to understand > > the *true* nature of mind and the rest (friendliness etc) follows > > automatically as secondary consequences. > > On the contrary, IMHO such a desired AI should instead understand that > it is a flawed, imperfect being, a unique, freak, and yet happy > accident that cannot, no matter how intelligent it is, consider itself > the be-all, end-all. As it is the creation of flawed beings, so too is > it flawed and must focus on its own improvement with acceptance that > perfection is likely unattainable, and thus perfect understanding of > the true nature of mind is similarly unattainable. > IMO the first true AI is likely to result from a kind of uploading where someone's brain is sliced down to the molecular level, scanned, input and run in simulation. Since petaflop computers are likely to be around from about 2012 onwards I'd say that pre-2020 would be a likely timeframe. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Thu Sep 22 21:45:33 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 22:45:33 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rudy Rucker's "The Lifebox, the Seashell, and the Soul" In-Reply-To: <20050922065007.20577.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050922065007.20577.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/22/05, Marc Geddes wrote: > > I look forward to reading that one Guilio! Have you read an earlier book > of Rudy's called 'Inifnity and the Mind'? It's great. Best book about the > mathematics of infinity I've seen. He presents a powerful case for believing > in the objective existence of infinite sets. Link: > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691121273/qid=1127371705/ > I would have thought Godel did that, if we create the set of all mathematical statements. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Thu Sep 22 21:47:21 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 22:47:21 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rudy Rucker's "The Lifebox, the Seashell, and the Soul" In-Reply-To: <20050922070252.21204.qmail@web35504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050922070252.21204.qmail@web35504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/22/05, Marc Geddes wrote: > > As per the idea that everything is computation, well yes, in a way I > agree, but I suspect that's still a long way from the ultimate metaphysics. > 'Everything is computation' is simply the last in a long line of metaphors > used to describe reality. > Remember, I've been busting my balls for two years trying to develop a > TOE (theory of everything) - so all that time I've thinking about > metaphysics and what the ultimate noumenon (raw stuff) of reality might be. > For a long time I thought that mathematics might be the ultimate > metaphysical noumenon (Mathematical Platonism) but I finally reached an even > more radical conclusion. > My latest metaphysical theory (based on two years of deep thought) is > that the ultimate metaphysical noumenon of reality has a duel aspect: it's a > sort of hybrid of *Cognition* (which is even more general than > 'Computation') and *Mathematics*. > I call this weird thing *Mathematico-Cognition* > Reality is stranger than we can imagine.... ;) > I rather like Tegmark's AUH Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nanogirl at halcyon.com Thu Sep 22 22:02:34 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:02:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Dermal Display (Freitas animation) Message-ID: <00f801c5bfc1$5a866e40$0200a8c0@Nano> I am pleased to announce that after months of working with Robert A. Freitas Jr. (author of the Nanomedicine book series) my animation of his Dermal Display screen is finally complete and available for download. Visit the Dermal Display webpage and download the movie here: http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/dermaldisplay.htm Read more and post your comments regarding this animation here: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/2005/09/dermal-display.html Kind regards, Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 22 22:55:04 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:55:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Nuclear Energy: A Fallacious Response tothe Oil Crisis (renewable fuels) In-Reply-To: <200509210447.j8L4lmX00749@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050922225504.26656.qmail@web60011.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > Having slower cars will seriously suck, but it > is not the end of the dream. We still have > motorcycles, which allow one to tear around > like one's ass is on fire if one must Or, you could save the expense of a motorcycle entirely. Though noit as much fun, simply pour the gasoline on the seat of you pants and set your ass on fire for real. Then you could tear around not merely "like" your ass is on fire, butt smokin' for real. Gives whole new meaning to the term "afterburner". By the way, what kind of mileage would you expect from this mode of transport? Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From rhanson at gmu.edu Fri Sep 23 01:35:15 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:35:15 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Robin Hanson on Cynicism In-Reply-To: <20050922174520.410B857EF5@finney.org> References: <20050922174520.410B857EF5@finney.org> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050922204427.01ed56a8@mail.gmu.edu> At 01:45 PM 9/22/2005, Hal Finney wrote: >Those scientists who most closely face Robin's "conundrum" are those >who study the scientific method itself. Sociologists of science, >for example, have composed critiques of the schoolbook version of >the scientific method, casting it as a mythology which disguises such >true motives of scientists as fame, power, influence, and nepotism. >The so-called search for truth is presented as nothing but PR for a >scientific establishment mostly interested in protecting its position >and preserving the status quo. > >Those researchers must then face a conundrum if they turn their lens >onto themselves. What motivates researchers who study the scientific >method? Are their analyses free of the biases and base motivations >that they find in the works of others? Are they searching for truth, >or merely seeking personal gain? If the latter, then they admit that >they are not seeking truth and are intentionally biasing their results, >so why should we pay attention to what they say? And if they claim to be >free of such biases and presenting the truth as objectively as possible, >then why not believe that other areas of science are equally capable of >operating in such a mode? Either way, it undercuts the criticism which >this field often aims at the scientific establishment. I had written earlier: >Not that the cynic's motives for criticizing should really matter than >much for whether the cynic's criticisms are accepted as true. But alas >for humans, it does matter a great deal. Even if sociologists of science are criticizing out of low motives, their criticisms could well be right on target. They might try to overstate their case, but if they are presenting evidence and arguments that we can directly examine, we need not care as much about their motivations. And in fact, I personally think that sociology of science critiques do hold a lot of truth. Academics do often fight quite dirty and dishonest in their fights for prestige. The saving grace is that they often don't actually care much about the claims at issue, and in such cases all else equal the truth is weakly useful in putting together a prestigious package. So given enough different academic groups fighting over a long enough time, the different local biases of the different groups average out, and truth is eventually favored. For example, humans aren't born with a tendency to favor or disfavor string theory, so while there might be a bias now favoring the opinions of those now in power in physics, such people will eventually leave and a new generation will seek fame by overturning the dogma of their ancestors. This doesn't mean that the rate of intellectual progress is anything close to what it could be, however. And the situation is much worse on topics where there are certain positions that ordinary people typically *want* to believe (such as the health effectiveness of medicine). 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: 703-993-232 From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Sep 23 03:45:48 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:45:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rudy Rucker's "The Lifebox, the Seashell, and the Soul" (the metabyss) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509230345.j8N3jjX28153@tick.javien.com> ________________________________________ ...? Have you read an earlier book of Rudy's called 'Inifnity and the Mind'?? It's great.? Best book about the mathematics of infinity I've seen... ? http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691121273/qid=1127371705/ ... Cool thanks, I am a big fan of Rudy Rucker. Thanks to Damien Broderick for introducing us. Damien has lots of very impressive friends. My college roomate once argued that there is a finite number of possible passwords, given a maximum of 32 characters. But we all have an infinite number of passwords. For instance, if your password is "spike" then "spi ike" is also one of your passwords, as is "spik ik ke" and so on. Even if your password is only one character, it still generates an infinite number of variations on the keyboard: "a", "a a", etc. So we each have an infinite number of passwords that will unlock our secrets, yet wrongdoers usually cannot find even a single element of that infinite set, so awash are they in a far vaster sea of higher order infinity. Stare into this abyss within a metabyss. Here's the punchline: the total infinity of possible passwords (assuming any finite number of keystrokes) and the infinity of *your* passwords are the same order of infinity. Yet still your secrets are safe. Ponder this paradox until you are delightfully insane. Math is so cool. {8-] spike From emlynoregan at gmail.com Fri Sep 23 04:08:07 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:38:07 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Dermal Display (Freitas animation) In-Reply-To: <00f801c5bfc1$5a866e40$0200a8c0@Nano> References: <00f801c5bfc1$5a866e40$0200a8c0@Nano> Message-ID: <710b78fc05092221083dfdb9c8@mail.gmail.com> On 23/09/05, Gina Miller wrote: > Visit the Dermal Display webpage and download the movie here: > http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/dermaldisplay.htm Very cool video. I want a web browser on the back of my hand, though. Having not read Nanomedicine, I'll ask a stupid question. Why put a display on your hand? If you've got the degree of control over cells that seems to be required, why not act directly on the retina or on that patch of visual neurons in the back of your head (you know, the upside-down-back-to-front ones, can't remember the name). I would think you'd get a better result that way. Of course, dermal display would be entirely cool as a fashion accessory. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Fri Sep 23 04:06:48 2005 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 12:06:48 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Profile the Great Satan? References: <20050922202002.59986.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004e01c5bff4$3c304910$0201a8c0@JPAcer> From: "Mike Lorrey" Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Profile the Great Satan? > Switzerland is peaceful and free because every Swiss is armed with a > machine gun and the ammo to do damage with it. The willingness to > commit violence in their defense has kept them free. Their willingness > to trade with anybody only has made them rich as any banker of a lord > of war would. We can't all be bankers to warlords. This makes the Swiss sound like testoterone-crazed, trigger-happy miltants! Not so! Switzerland is tiny - and without significant capacity to impose its will by force on anyone. And, it would be walk-over for any medium power military machine. Your comment is just obscurist. > There are six million dead in europe who didn't use violence and did > not live. Really? What about the uprisings in Warsaw? The histories are full of tales of remarkable resistance across the entire theatre of WWII operations... >There are tens of millions of corpses across Turkey, the old > Soviet republics, and across China who didn't use violence and did not > live. You are lying the lie of the pacifist. Perspective, perspective... I just wear different glasses and look at global as well as local implications. Every armed conflict is eventually a disaster if you widen your observation of the fallout far enough - from a dawn shootout at the ok corral to carpet-bombing the bad guys in Asia ... Only the scale of each disaster varies and is revealed over time. Pacifism is strength and economy if implemented properly! Nelson Mandela could have promoted a bloodbath in South Africa - and showed remarkable resilience in restraining himself and his followers. And - he became a true and respected international statesman thereby. Gandhi freed modern India in much the same way and HE will be admired forever because of that. The rare pacifist statesmen we do have promote win-win solutions. Know of any win-win wars? There is a fundamental law of nature that tough guys learn the hard way: Every act of violence is met with resistance - and massive violence is always met with massive resistance. Jack From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Sep 23 04:26:55 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:26:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Profile the Great Satan? In-Reply-To: <004e01c5bff4$3c304910$0201a8c0@JPAcer> Message-ID: <20050923042655.76225.qmail@web30714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Jack Parkinson wrote: > > From: "Mike Lorrey" > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Profile the Great Satan? > > > Switzerland is peaceful and free because every Swiss is armed with > a > > machine gun and the ammo to do damage with it. The willingness to > > commit violence in their defense has kept them free. Their > willingness > > to trade with anybody only has made them rich as any banker of a > lord > > of war would. We can't all be bankers to warlords. > > This makes the Swiss sound like testoterone-crazed, trigger-happy > miltants! > Not so! Switzerland is tiny - and without significant capacity to > impose its will by force on anyone. And, it would be walk-over for > any medium power military machine. Your comment is just obscurist. On the contrary, I happen to know some Swiss, do you? They take their personal duty to personal and national self defense seriously. > > There are six million dead in europe who didn't use violence and > did > > not live. > > Really? What about the uprisings in Warsaw? The histories are full of > tales of remarkable resistance across the entire theatre of WWII > operations... Now who is being obscurist? The jews of the Warsaw ghetto uprising only resorted to violence in self defense after they figured out they weren't getting out alive. There are a number of Warsaw jews who escaped the slaughter. Our discussion of violence is its use in initiating violence. The jews of europe were decidedly pacifist prior to the Nazi pogrom, and most remained so during it, to their own loss. > > >There are tens of millions of corpses across Turkey, the old > > Soviet republics, and across China who didn't use violence and did > not > > live. You are lying the lie of the pacifist. > > Perspective, perspective... I just wear different glasses and look at > global as well as local implications. Bull. There is no perspective to tens of millions of innocent people dead other than that they didn't stick up for themselves or didn't do it soon enough. > Every armed conflict is eventually a disaster if you widen your > observation of the fallout far enough - from a dawn > shootout at the ok corral to carpet-bombing the bad guys in Asia ... A disaster for WHO is the question? For the agressor, or its victims? How was the US revolution a disaster for the US states? How was the US civil war a disaster for the slaves, or the northern industrialists who benefitted from their post-war migration and labor? You refuse to acknowledge that death in a death camp is a disaster for the people suffering the death. But to you they are just a statistic, not to be bothered with in your grand scheme of sophisticated left "perspective". > > Only the scale of each disaster varies and is revealed over time. > Pacifism > is strength and economy if implemented properly! Nelson Mandela could > have promoted a bloodbath in South Africa - and showed remarkable > resilience in restraining himself and his followers. He had no cause to. Despite the treatment his people suffered, they did not suffer a holocaust. > And - he became a true and respected international statesman thereby. Primarily by the socialist internationale who he was already a comrade of. > Gandhi freed modern India in much the same > way and HE will be admired forever because of that. Gandhi clearly stated that the greatest crime the British committed against Indians was to debar them the use of arms. He used pacifism in a strategic way only because he knew the British considered themselves a compassionate and moral people capable of outrage at injustice. His pacifism was pure agit-prop and nothing more. Such strategy could not have been effective against, say, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, or other socialist heroes of sophisticates like yourself. > > The rare pacifist statesmen we do have promote win-win solutions. > Know of any win-win wars? Sure do. Japan is one of the top economies in the world, as is Germany, as a result of the US pounding them into rubble, and both have shed their former militarism and most of their former racism while doing it. Many a German city today that escaped allied bombing now bemoans that they never benefitted from the free razing services that other cities enjoyed to prepare them for post-war redevelopment. The Cold War has also been Win-win. The people of the former USSR are now far freer than they once were, so they are far better off. Most of the politically and economically astute in the world joke that the best thing that can happen to their homeland is to be conquered by the US. > > There is a fundamental law of nature that tough guys learn the hard > way: Every act of violence is met with resistance - and massive > violence is always met with massive resistance. This is also a lie. You need to learn to distinguish one sort of violence from the other. Otherwise, where were all the post-war German and Japanese insurgencies? Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From emlynoregan at gmail.com Fri Sep 23 04:00:32 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:30:32 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Digital Dark Age Message-ID: <710b78fc05092221007d256f4d@mail.gmail.com> Here's an article about the problem of disappearing information - heritage - as the computer age continues, due to records becoming digital and then being lost as the machines and software and media used go from current to obsolete to completely unusable or gone. http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/the-digital-dark-age/2005/09/22/1126982184206.html This is an interesting one for extropians, maybe. How do we preserve the digital past in a wildly dynamic present and future? Personally, I think this problem will lessen in the future. These days our information is much more likely to be online, interesting stuff is more likely to be in duplicate places, a lot of stuff can just stay online because storage capacities are so high, so no disappearing into dusty old tape archives. Also, we now have standard formats that could easily survive the passage of time, particularly XML. XML is a real retro standard, something no one would have tried in the dim distant past of 20 years ago, because it's wasteful and dumb. However, it's designed to be interoperable by using the most basic lingua franca that we can find in the computer world, the string. That *should* make it robust and long lived. (question: does anyone know if there is a simple compression standard to go with XML? Something that people might still be able to work with in 50 years, say?) When you look at efforts like those of google, or the internet archive (http://www.archive.org/), or project gutenberg maybe, things look a lot less gloomy. The biggest problem I see is software. Software tends to be platform specific, and those platforms die. Lots of information is locked up to be usable only by a specific application. The only real answer that I can see here for the long term is open source. If the old open source operating system versions all hang around online, and all the layers of tools and utilities and extensions and so on stay around, and the applications stay around (and because it's free-libre software it can stay around), then there is no reason that the apps should become inaccessible. If people who care (and it's clear there are such people) make sure there are hardware emulators created where necessary, things look good. OTOH, proprietary software is going to always be ephemeral, no way around it. Companies die, and their software usually dies with them. Closed source is hopeless. Rebel! -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Sep 23 03:55:02 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:55:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Nuclear Energy: A Fallacious Responsetothe Oil Crisis (renewable fuels) In-Reply-To: <20050922225504.26656.qmail@web60011.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200509230428.j8N4SEX30459@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Davis ... > > --- spike wrote: > > > ... We still have > > motorcycles, which allow one to tear around > > like one's ass is on fire if one must > > Or, you could save the expense of a motorcycle > entirely. Though not as much fun, simply pour the > gasoline on the seat of you pants and set your ass on > fire for real... > > By the way, what kind of mileage would you expect from > this mode of transport? > > Best, Jeff Davis I got high 40s on those occasions when I was going thru Yellowstone last week, dropping my speed to below 60 mph. I plan to attempt a world record soon: the longest no-foot-down ride on a Suzuki Cavalcade, assuming Iron-Butt rules of no more than 11 gallons of fuel aboard. I plan to ride from my house in Taxifornia 500 miles to the Oregon ranch without touching down or stopping. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Sep 23 04:50:43 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:50:43 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Profile the Great Satan? In-Reply-To: <004e01c5bff4$3c304910$0201a8c0@JPAcer> Message-ID: <200509230450.j8N4ofX00485@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jack Parkinson ... > The rare pacifist statesmen we do have promote win-win solutions. Know of > any win-win wars? ... > Jack Ja, the ones that never happened because both sides were adequately armed and respectful. I am all for pacifism. Walking softly works ever so much better when accompanied by a big stick. spike From emlynoregan at gmail.com Fri Sep 23 04:57:49 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:27:49 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Profile the Great Satan? In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050922161851.01d22158@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <20050922202002.59986.qmail@web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20050922210604.54081.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050922161851.01d22158@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc050922215717175f21@mail.gmail.com> On 23/09/05, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 02:06 PM 9/22/2005 -0700, Avant wrote: > > > have no resort when the storm > >troopers kick down his door. > > Yeah, I hate it when they do that. > > Damien Broderick > Holy crap, did it happen to you too? -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Sep 23 05:22:51 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 00:22:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Digital Dark Age References: <710b78fc05092221007d256f4d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002f01c5bffe$d8950390$0100a8c0@kevin> I'm wouldn;t be too concerned with obselesence. Much of the data is crap. There are many market forces working to preserve the information that is worth saving. A clay tablet may last thousands of years but language itself evolves and without something like the Rosetta Stone it's pretty worthless. As long as civilization itself doesn;t fall, all should be OK. What I am more concerned with is the millions of "home pages" created in the last 10 years that had useful information on them, but were eventually lost to ISP changes, lack of interest, forgetfulness, and many other things. How I wish I had the storage capacity 5-10 years ago to save everythign to a local file when I was online. (Then again, with dial-up who would take the time to do such a thing!) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Emlyn" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 11:00 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] The Digital Dark Age > Here's an article about the problem of disappearing information - > heritage - as the computer age continues, due to records becoming > digital and then being lost as the machines and software and media > used go from current to obsolete to completely unusable or gone. > > http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/the-digital-dark-age/2005/09/22/1126982184206.html > > This is an interesting one for extropians, maybe. How do we preserve > the digital past in a wildly dynamic present and future? > > Personally, I think this problem will lessen in the future. These days > our information is much more likely to be online, interesting stuff is > more likely to be in duplicate places, a lot of stuff can just stay > online because storage capacities are so high, so no disappearing into > dusty old tape archives. > > Also, we now have standard formats that could easily survive the > passage of time, particularly XML. XML is a real retro standard, > something no one would have tried in the dim distant past of 20 years > ago, because it's wasteful and dumb. However, it's designed to be > interoperable by using the most basic lingua franca that we can find > in the computer world, the string. That *should* make it robust and > long lived. (question: does anyone know if there is a simple > compression standard to go with XML? Something that people might still > be able to work with in 50 years, say?) > > When you look at efforts like those of google, or the internet archive > (http://www.archive.org/), or project gutenberg maybe, things look a > lot less gloomy. > > The biggest problem I see is software. Software tends to be platform > specific, and those platforms die. Lots of information is locked up to > be usable only by a specific application. The only real answer that I > can see here for the long term is open source. If the old open source > operating system versions all hang around online, and all the layers > of tools and utilities and extensions and so on stay around, and the > applications stay around (and because it's free-libre software it can > stay around), then there is no reason that the apps should become > inaccessible. If people who care (and it's clear there are such > people) make sure there are hardware emulators created where > necessary, things look good. > > OTOH, proprietary software is going to always be ephemeral, no way > around it. Companies die, and their software usually dies with them. > Closed source is hopeless. Rebel! > > -- > Emlyn > > http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From isthatyoujack at icqmail.com Fri Sep 23 05:26:34 2005 From: isthatyoujack at icqmail.com (Jack Parkinson) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:26:34 +0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Profile the Great Satan? Message-ID: <001701c5bfff$5df61060$fdde0405@JPAcer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Lorrey" Ok! I'll let it go after this! I just need to say: To: "Jack Parkinson" ; "ExI chat list" Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 12:26 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Profile the Great Satan? > --- Jack Parkinson wrote: > >> >> From: "Mike Lorrey" >> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Profile the Great Satan? >> >> > Switzerland is peaceful and free because every Swiss is armed with >> a >> > machine gun and the ammo to do damage with it. The willingness to >> > commit violence in their defense has kept them free. Their >> willingness >> > to trade with anybody only has made them rich as any banker of a >> lord >> > of war would. We can't all be bankers to warlords. >> >> This makes the Swiss sound like testoterone-crazed, trigger-happy >> miltants! >> Not so! Switzerland is tiny - and without significant capacity to >> impose its will by force on anyone. And, it would be walk-over for >> any medium power military machine. Your comment is just obscurist. > > On the contrary, I happen to know some Swiss, do you? They take their > personal duty to personal and national self defense seriously. As I understand it, the Swiss are occasionally called upon to do military service, each person is required to keep a weapon for this purpose. Some, no doubt take it seriously. My Swisss friends thought it was an embarrassing joke... > >> > There are six million dead in europe who didn't use violence and >> did >> > not live. >> >> Really? What about the uprisings in Warsaw? The histories are full of >> tales of remarkable resistance across the entire theatre of WWII >> operations... > > Now who is being obscurist? The jews of the Warsaw ghetto uprising only > resorted to violence in self defense after they figured out they > weren't getting out alive. BUT that's exactly when they SHOULD have resorted to violence! As a last ditch desperation measure. And - if they had decided to launch a pre-emptive strike earlier with sticks, stones and kitchen knives against the Nazi war machine - they would simply have been slaughtered sooner... >There are a number of Warsaw jews who > escaped the slaughter. Our discussion of violence is its use in > initiating violence. The jews of europe were decidedly pacifist prior > to the Nazi pogrom, and most remained so during it, to their own loss. > >There are tens of millions of corpses across Turkey, the old >> > Soviet republics, and across China who didn't use violence and did >> not >> > live. You are lying the lie of the pacifist. >> >> Perspective, perspective... I just wear different glasses and look at >> global as well as local implications. > > Bull. There is no perspective to tens of millions of innocent people > dead other than that they didn't stick up for themselves or didn't do > it soon enough. There is no such thing as people who don't stick up for themselves! Resistance always comes, it sometimes takes a while to build and that is all. Once again: Every act of violence is met with resistance - and massive violence is always met with massive resistance... Widen your perspective a little and you can see that the Israeli war machine was born out of the European pogroms... >> Every armed conflict is eventually a disaster if you widen your >> observation of the fallout far enough - from a dawn >> shootout at the ok corral to carpet-bombing the bad guys in Asia ... > > A disaster for WHO is the question? For the agressor, or its victims? > How was the US revolution a disaster for the US states? How was the US > civil war a disaster for the slaves, or the northern industrialists who > benefitted from their post-war migration and labor? Wrong questions! How could any of these disasters possibly be better than a peaceful, negotiated solution with no violence and destruction? > > You refuse to acknowledge that death in a death camp is a disaster for > the people suffering the death. Nonsense! >But to you they are just a statistic, Nonsense on stilts! > not to be bothered with in your grand scheme of sophisticated left > "perspective". Ah! The pejorative labelling begins here! > >> >> Only the scale of each disaster varies and is revealed over time. >> Pacifism >> is strength and economy if implemented properly! Nelson Mandela could >> have promoted a bloodbath in South Africa - and showed remarkable >> resilience in restraining himself and his followers. > > He had no cause to. Despite the treatment his people suffered, they did > not suffer a holocaust. Breathtaking nonsense! Mandela is the first and only African leader to prevent his country from sliding into chaos and barbarism at the first opportunity that presented to start shooting... > >> And - he became a true and respected international statesman thereby. > > Primarily by the socialist internationale who he was already a comrade of Rubbish! Mandela is respected by left, right and centre of every ideological persuasion and in every part of the world... > >> Gandhi freed modern India in much the same >> way and HE will be admired forever because of that. > > Gandhi clearly stated that the greatest crime the British committed > against Indians was to debar them the use of arms. He used pacifism in > a strategic way only because he knew the British considered themselves > a compassionate and moral people capable of outrage at injustice. His > pacifism was pure agit-prop and nothing more. You want to revise history to make Gandhi an aggressor? This is not a modest ambition! Such strategy could not > have been effective against, say, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, > or other socialist heroes of sophisticates like yourself. I will choose my own heroes thank you! The characters above are notably absent from it... >> The rare pacifist statesmen we do have promote win-win solutions. >> Know of any win-win wars? > > Sure do. Japan is one of the top economies in the world, as is Germany, > as a result of the US pounding them into rubble, The people of Dresden, and the crippled and deformed in Hiroshima etc may not see that as win-win. >and both have shed > their former militarism Ok - but now you praise non-aggression and pacifism? >and most of their former racism while doing it. > Many a German city today that escaped allied bombing now bemoans that > they never benefitted from the free razing services that other cities > enjoyed to prepare them for post-war redevelopment. I never heard a German say that - and I've been travelling there regularly since the 70's > > The Cold War has also been Win-win. The people of the former USSR are > now far freer than they once were, so they are far better off. Most of > the politically and economically astute in the world joke that the best > thing that can happen to their homeland is to be conquered by the US. Nonsense! Russia is a lawless mess - and try getting around on one of their passports... > >> >> There is a fundamental law of nature that tough guys learn the hard >> way: Every act of violence is met with resistance - and massive >> violence is always met with massive resistance. > > This is also a lie. You need to learn to distinguish one sort of > violence from the other. Otherwise, where were all the post-war German > and Japanese insurgencies? Those insurgencies were neither necessary nor wanted. If no-one is actively trying to destroy your or your families lives - there is no need to hide behind a rock and snipe at them! Sensible people stop fighting when the war is over. Intelligent people don't start wars in the first place Jack Quote of the day: Or what? You'll release the dogs? Or the bees? Or the dogs with bees in their mouth and when they bark they shoot bees at you? - Homer Simpson. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Fri Sep 23 05:54:11 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:24:11 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Digital Dark Age In-Reply-To: <710b78fc05092222535b2d8e9b@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc05092221007d256f4d@mail.gmail.com> <002f01c5bffe$d8950390$0100a8c0@kevin> <710b78fc05092222535b2d8e9b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc05092222543d9adcce@mail.gmail.com> On 23/09/05, kevinfreels.com wrote: > I'm wouldn;t be too concerned with obselesence. Much of the data is crap. true enough, but I think historian types make the point that they would like to be able to decide that, rather than just losing stuff. > There are many market forces working to preserve the information that is > worth saving. A clay tablet may last thousands of years but language itself > evolves and without something like the Rosetta Stone it's pretty worthless. > As long as civilization itself doesn;t fall, all should be OK. If it does, we'll have other things to worry about :-) What I am > more concerned with is the millions of "home pages" created in the last 10 > years that had useful information on them, but were eventually lost to ISP > changes, lack of interest, forgetfulness, and many other things. How I wish > I had the storage capacity 5-10 years ago to save everythign to a local file > when I was online. (Then again, with dial-up who would take the time to do > such a thing!) > Someone already did this for you... http://www.archive.org/web/web.php "Browse through 40 billion web pages archived from 1996 to a few months ago. To start surfing the Wayback, type in the web address of a site or page where you would like to start, and press enter. Then select from the archived dates available. The resulting pages point to other archived pages at as close a date as possible. Keyword searching is not currently supported." -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From eugen at leitl.org Fri Sep 23 06:43:34 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 08:43:34 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Dermal Display (Freitas animation) In-Reply-To: <710b78fc05092221083dfdb9c8@mail.gmail.com> References: <00f801c5bfc1$5a866e40$0200a8c0@Nano> <710b78fc05092221083dfdb9c8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20050923064334.GY2249@leitl.org> On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 01:38:07PM +0930, Emlyn wrote: > Of course, dermal display would be entirely cool as a fashion accessory. That implant at the back of your head can render anything, provided it's safe for children and small mammals. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Fri Sep 23 06:46:32 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 16:16:32 +0930 Subject: Fwd: [extropy-chat] Dermal Display (Freitas animation) In-Reply-To: <710b78fc05092223465aa144a9@mail.gmail.com> References: <00f801c5bfc1$5a866e40$0200a8c0@Nano> <710b78fc05092221083dfdb9c8@mail.gmail.com> <20050923064334.GY2249@leitl.org> <710b78fc05092223465aa144a9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc050922234611eb6dd3@mail.gmail.com> On 23/09/05, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 01:38:07PM +0930, Emlyn wrote: > > > Of course, dermal display would be entirely cool as a fashion accessory. > > That implant at the back of your head can render anything, > provided it's safe for children and small mammals. > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl But sometimes you just *need* to *really* wear your mind on your sleeve, rather than relying on the standard consensual reality protocols. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au Fri Sep 23 07:25:11 2005 From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:25:11 +1000 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Reading "The Singularity is Near" Message-ID: <20050923072511.1097.qmail@web35501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >On the contrary, IMHO such a desired AI should instead understand that >it is a flawed, imperfect being, a unique, freak, and yet happy >accident that cannot, no matter how intelligent it is, consider itself >the be-all, end-all. As it is the creation of flawed beings, so too is >it flawed and must focus on its own improvement with acceptance that >perfection is likely unattainable, and thus perfect understanding of >the true nature of mind is similarly unattainable. > >Mike Lorrey >Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH >Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: >http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com >Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com Yeah, I don't disagree with ya Mike. I didn't mean to imply that an understanding of the true nature of mind required perfect understanding. Just a grasp of the general principles. Perhaps I shouldn't use the expression 'Theory Of Everything' (TOE). Too much hubris. People misinterpret. Also too much of an association with cranks and crack-pots. In place of TOE I've started using the expression TOM (Theory Of Metaphysics) instead. -- If you start looking at animals and move up the chain in the direction of increasing intelligence , increasing intelligence *is* correlated with increased *awareness* in some sense. Rocks have no (or almost no) awareness. Lower animals, a few very complex computer programs and human infants probably have some degree of awareness of the external world but little or no self-awareness. It's only once you get to the higher animals and humans that you see awareness of the both the world and some degree of self-awareness emerging. So it seems you can classify minds in general according to their degree of awareness. Now what sort of awareness would a transhuman have then? I note that even humans don't have *full* self-awareness and self-knowledge. So the first idea that occurs is that transhumans are defined by the capacity for full self-awareness and self-knowledge. But further thought suggests that this is not sufficient. Even full-self-awareness and self-knowledge is still the same *kind* of awareness of we humans already have - just better developed. What we need is an idea for a qualitatively *new* kind of awareness, something that goes beyond mere 'self-awareness'. The idea that occurred to me is that the new kind of awareness involves the connection (or relationship) between Mind and Reality. Mind------*relationship*--------Reality So transhuman awareness might be an awareness of this *relationship* And an awareness of this relationship constitutes an understanding of the *true* nature of mind. This understanding doesn't have to be perfect. Just sufficient. Now it just so happens that Reality theorists (or people trying to derieve 'Theories of Everything') have in fact been trying to work out the nature of this relationship between Mind and Reality. So it would seem that to design an FAI we should study Reality Theory to try to get an insight. All this was obvious to me a couple of years ago. Hence my decision to study Reality Theory. Now I think I've finally managed to catch an inkling (a mere glimmer only of course) of what the nature of this relationship between Mind and Reality might be. By doing so, I have caught a *glimmer* of what transhuman awareness might be like. Of course as a mere human I can never obtain full awareness of the TOE. But even a *glimmer* is enough. This is analogous to a monkey perhaps catching a *glimmer* of what human self-awareness might be like, without the monkey ever being able to obtain proper self-awareness. --- Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: Now with unlimited storage -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nanogirl at halcyon.com Fri Sep 23 07:31:52 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 00:31:52 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Dermal Display (Freitas animation) References: <00f801c5bfc1$5a866e40$0200a8c0@Nano> <710b78fc05092221083dfdb9c8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <050801c5c010$e1035970$0200a8c0@Nano> Nanomedicine is available to read online, for free here: http://www.nanomedicine.com/NMI.htm . Robert A. Freitas Jr. does discuss other methods in the same chapter that covers the dermal display (chapter 7 Communication) including the visual olfactory screen. He does go into great detail on how these communication messaging systems could work. He goes over inmessaging and outmessaging of the biocellular, macroscale, neural , acoustic, chemical communicating with the environment and or Dr/labs etc., bots to bots within the user, and to the internal systems and organs of the user. It's really quite amazing how much research and detail he has put into these books (charts, equations, interactions, biomechanics etc). And as a person who was directed through an animation sequence, I can tell you that he is very thorough and accurate with everything that he puts out there : ) he's a true brilliant mind. To answer your question - and this is just my own opinion - The initial method might be a matter of which is developed first, and later on when all are available, users might have a preference, perhaps not all would be as comfortable interacting in the real world with images on the eye. I would, but my Grandmother might not. Your fashion comment is funny because while working on this, there was a time when colors were discussed and how simple would be better, not only for the clarity and simplicity of the image but to reserve energy with the actual screen. But, it was mentioned that teens would probably have their screens decked out in bright colors etc. Artists like myself might take liberties as well.... Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html http://www.maxanimation.blogspot.com/ Foresight Participating Member http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org 3D/Animation http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm Microscope Jewelry http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." ----- Original Message ----- From: Emlyn To: ExI chat list Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 9:08 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Dermal Display (Freitas animation) On 23/09/05, Gina Miller wrote: > Visit the Dermal Display webpage and download the movie here: > http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/dermaldisplay.htm Very cool video. I want a web browser on the back of my hand, though. Having not read Nanomedicine, I'll ask a stupid question. Why put a display on your hand? If you've got the degree of control over cells that seems to be required, why not act directly on the retina or on that patch of visual neurons in the back of your head (you know, the upside-down-back-to-front ones, can't remember the name). I would think you'd get a better result that way. Of course, dermal display would be entirely cool as a fashion accessory. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Fri Sep 23 08:53:29 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 09:53:29 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reading "The Singularity is Near" In-Reply-To: <20050923072511.1097.qmail@web35501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050923072511.1097.qmail@web35501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > > Now what sort of awareness would a transhuman have then? I note that even > humans don't have *full* self-awareness and self-knowledge. So the first > idea that occurs is that transhumans are defined by the capacity for full > self-awareness and self-knowledge. But further > I would suggest that it is impossible due to elementary recursive problems. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Fri Sep 23 09:00:32 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 19:00:32 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Robin Hanson on Cynicism References: <20050922174520.410B857EF5@finney.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20050922204427.01ed56a8@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <0ae101c5c01d$40edad70$8998e03c@homepc> Robin Hanson wrote: >... And the situation is much worse on topics where there are > certain positions that ordinary people typically *want* to > believe (such as the health effectiveness of medicine). You have grounds for thinking ordinary people are mistaken as to the health effectiveness of medicine? Brett Paatsch PS. I wouldn't necessarily be surprised, but "ordinary people" and "health effectiveness" might be fairly imprecise classes. I'm wondering if in your capacity as a teacher of health economics you have come across data that should concern me whether I am ordinary or not. I understand medicine gets politicised. First voters want it. Second they don't generally know what is real medicine and what isn't, and often politicians don't either so what happens is that 'alternative' medicines get included in the mix of medicines and then, no surprise to me, the total effectiveness of real medicines offered is diluted by imaginary medicines. The way medicines are dispensed in Australia differs from how it is done in the US, so I'm wondering if your data would apply here. From eugen at leitl.org Fri Sep 23 09:26:59 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:26:59 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] cheap alcohol In-Reply-To: <20050922213615.59975.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050922070019.GS2249@leitl.org> <20050922213615.59975.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050923092659.GL2249@leitl.org> On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 02:36:15PM -0700, The Avantguardian wrote: > Well thermodynamics pretty much guarantees you will > waste a lot of joules no matter what you do. The Not really. Solar collector efficiency can be quantitative http://www.solarserver.de/wissen/sonnenkollektoren-e.html Rectennas can fundamentally work in solar spectrum range http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv_prm/pdfs/papers/54.pdf and can achieve efficiencies close to quantitative (has nothing whatsoever to do with Carnot efficiency). What this effectively means that (at least outside of murky gravity well and high enough to be mostly unshaded) you can get ~1 kW/m^2 around the clock. A km^2 buys you 10^9 J/s. Miscanthus is ~10^11 J/km^2/year. A year has 10^7 seconds. (Check the math, I might have dropped a zero or two). > joules the bugs use to keep alive, I think would be > pretty efficient compared to the heat loss in most > chemical processes. Moreover, they should be able to 89% DIN wood pellet burner efficiency. http://www.iea.org/textbase/papers/2005/ETOAltFuels05.pdf claims 50% biomass conversion efficiency as energy. Heat-electricity coal plants have 40-50% combined efficiency. > extract all their energy needs right from the input > biomass. The beauty of bioreactors is that they don't > require lots of input energy to get over any > activation energy humps. There will still need to be > some though, to grind the biomass into tiny little > bits to maximize surface area exposed to the bugs. I like bioreactors. The problem is that the bugs are finicky, and inefficient, and you'll get plenty of liquid/solid waste. > This sounds fairly cool, is it n-hexane or > cyclohexane? The two extra hydrogens on n-hexane would > make for slightly more energy output upon combustion. IIRC n-hexane, but I can't find the paper right now. I think it was in Science. > > A low-tech version would just pellet the straw, > > and use a modern pellet burner. > > Well this doesn't sound very clean. I don't how you No, new wood pellet burners are quite clean http://hearth.com/what/pellet/pellet1.html > would power an engine with a pellet burner except for > a return to steam engines. And we would have a huge Nondomestic use would be gasification or synfuel, and gas turbine, or high-temp fuel cell. > brown cloud hanging over our heads the way the Chinese > do. No, though methane or hydrogen would be cleaner, of course. > > Do you have a working process prototype, or are you > > just thinking of starting to develop one? > > No, although I have had the idea for years, it hasn't > progressed much further than a few schematics in my > notebook. Developing it further would require a bit > more time and money than is afforded by being a > graduate student. But things change and I may get a > shot at building one in the next few years. Good luck! -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From scerir at libero.it Fri Sep 23 09:28:27 2005 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:28:27 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reading "The Singularity is Near" References: <20050923072511.1097.qmail@web35501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <02d401c5c021$281d9bd0$02c61b97@administxl09yj> From: "Marc Geddes" > Of course as a mere human I can never obtain > full awareness of the TOE. But even a *glimmer* > is enough. There are interesting (imo) papers about that, by T.Breuer. His page is: http://193.170.2.74/tb//tbpublisteengl.html See, i.e., 'What Theories of Everything Don't Tell', Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 28,(1997), p.137. > Mind------*relationship*--------Reality > So transhuman awareness might be an awareness > of this *relationship*. And an awareness > of this relationship constitutes an understanding > of the *true* nature of mind. This understanding > doesn't have to be perfect. Just sufficient. An interesting (perhaps) reference should be http://kh.bu.edu/qcl/pdf/albert_d1983066c6d7c.pdf David.Z. Albert, 'On Quantum-Mechanical Automata', Physics Letters, 98A, (1983), p.249. It is about self-awareness (or, simply, awareness) and the related communication problem (assuming quantum linearity, and the usual algebra of operators). Basically it is about the difference between premeasurements and measurements, or reversible measurements and irreversible measurements. From pharos at gmail.com Fri Sep 23 11:36:15 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 12:36:15 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Password Security Message-ID: On 9/23/05, spike wrote: > > So we each have an infinite number of passwords > that will unlock our secrets, yet wrongdoers usually > cannot find even a single element of that infinite > set, so awash are they in a far vaster sea of higher > order infinity. Stare into this abyss within a > metabyss. > > Here's the punchline: the total infinity of possible > passwords (assuming any finite number of keystrokes) > and the infinity of *your* passwords are the same order > of infinity. Yet still your secrets are safe. Ponder > this paradox until you are delightfully insane. > > Math is so cool. {8-] > Sorry Spike, but it isn't like this in today's world. Password security and cryptography is a field that has been extensively studied. For really good reasons. :) "Think your passwords are strong enough to survive a brute force attack? Think again. The keyspace (number of possible combinations) created by even the most creative human mind is no match for password audit tools. According to @stake, the Rolls Royce of password auditing tools, their LC5 "password auditing tool" includes pre-computed password tables containing trillions of password hashes that have been computed in advance of the password auditing and recovery process. Trillions. That's right, Trillions. A "strong", humanly generated 8 character password consisting of a few upper and lower case letters, a couple of numbers and a special character or two approaches approximately only 100 billion combinations. Simply put, running a password auditing tool to decode a humanly generated password's hash is as fast and automated an exercise as spell checking an email." ------------------------- But while brute-force attacks are easy nowadays, they are rarely necessary. Humans are notoriously bad at password security. If you are told to create a password, but you must remember it and never write it down, what happens? You choose an easy-to-remember password like your wife's name or your dog's name. So it is also easy for someone to guess. Then you find that you have to remember about twenty passwords and never write them down. So you use the same password all the time. It's hopeless from a security POV. Also people give their passwords to other people. "Just check my email for me". People write them down, and other people read them. People send them in e-mail, and that e-mail is intercepted. People use them to log into remote servers, and their communications are eavesdropped on. People use public terminals in airports or web cafes and leave all their info in the cache when they logoff. Apart from all the key-loggers and trojans that are installed on all these public pcs (and their own pcs!). The latest trick is man-in-the-middle attacks. Fake bank sites or fake Ebay sites that look identical to the real thing and users happily key in all their details. Your secrets are NOT safe. Just hope that you never attract the attention of a hacker group. BillK From eugen at leitl.org Fri Sep 23 12:12:17 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:12:17 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Password Security In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050923121217.GF2249@leitl.org> On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 12:36:15PM +0100, BillK wrote: > > "Think your passwords are strong enough to survive a brute force attack? Some of them, yes. Brute-force attacks on ssh logins are useless (and there are firewall recipes which actually block attempts by origin after a few trials -- and of course you can only allow specific IPs in, so you'd have to know what they are, and to be able to spoof them), so you actually need access to password shadow file (which is salted), and this assumes you're already running code on the machine. It is far easier to just use privilege elevation. The security hole is somewhere else, and you could drive a truck through it. > Think again. The keyspace (number of possible combinations) created by > even the most creative human mind is no match for password audit > tools. This is why there methods to automatically generate strong passwords. pativist nsessimb otoricui atifyinf alevidop undepher ranatent mardited skinicar raldight might be too easy, as they're pronounceable, and low-caps (but remember: they're salted in the system's shadow). How about shagogastivelay raninvingeneten oittidednesslyg ialentocurugant pialdevedubragg blyterialgortia etinglumbedlyph thrandurpleress xtrononvellycle weebormingiblai ? (Notice: I did not check for properly seeded entropy). > According to @stake, the Rolls Royce of password auditing tools, their > LC5 "password auditing tool" includes pre-computed password tables > containing trillions of password hashes that have been computed in > advance of the password auditing and recovery process. > Trillions. That's right, Trillions. Fiddlesticks. Of what use is your password hash if you don't have access to the password file? Of which use are hashes, if they're strongly salted, anyway, and the password is randomly picked from a 26^8 space (about 10^11, not counting the salt). > A "strong", humanly generated 8 character password consisting of a few > upper and lower case letters, a couple of numbers and a special > character or two approaches approximately only 100 billion > combinations. Simply put, running a password auditing tool to decode a > humanly generated password's hash is as fast and automated an exercise > as spell checking an email." So don't use humanly generated passwords. > But while brute-force attacks are easy nowadays, they are rarely > necessary. Humans are notoriously bad at password security. If you are > told to create a password, but you must remember it and never write it Why never writing it down? You'd have to rely on your memory for that. There is no remote exploit allowing you to read a piece of dead tree somewhere in my apartment. > down, what happens? You choose an easy-to-remember password like your > wife's name or your dog's name. So it is also easy for someone to > guess. Then you find that you have to remember about twenty passwords > and never write them down. So you use the same password all the time. > It's hopeless from a security POV. Right. So, don't. In fact, don't use passwords at all. Use smartcards, or crypto tokens. With PINs. Preferrably, on-token keyboard. That way you never reveal your secrets. > Also people give their passwords to other people. "Just check my email > for me". People write them down, and other people read them. People > send them in e-mail, and that e-mail is intercepted. People use them This is a largely theoretical threat. You have to already 0wn the machine, or infrastructure downstream. In some cases you have to do a MITM, as traffic is encrypted, which requires active traffic manipulation instead of just passive sniffing, a whole different order of magnitude of attack complexity. > to log into remote servers, and their communications are eavesdropped > on. People use public terminals in airports or web cafes and leave all > their info in the cache when they logoff. Apart from all the > key-loggers and trojans that are installed on all these public pcs > (and their own pcs!). Again, use crypto tokens, with PINs. > The latest trick is man-in-the-middle attacks. Fake bank sites or fake You misspelled pharming. MITM doesn't mean what you think it means. > Ebay sites that look identical to the real thing and users happily key > in all their details. > > Your secrets are NOT safe. Just hope that you never attract the > attention of a hacker group. Perfect safety doesn't exist in this universe, but one can come close, very close. I'm not the right person to do this, but I know people who can. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From rhanson at gmu.edu Fri Sep 23 12:40:50 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 08:40:50 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Robin Hanson on Cynicism In-Reply-To: <0ae101c5c01d$40edad70$8998e03c@homepc> References: <20050922174520.410B857EF5@finney.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20050922204427.01ed56a8@mail.gmu.edu> <0ae101c5c01d$40edad70$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050923083700.02f51830@mail.gmu.edu> At 05:00 AM 9/23/2005, Brett Paatsch wrote: >>... And the situation is much worse on topics where there are >>certain positions that ordinary people typically *want* to believe >>(such as the health effectiveness of medicine). > >You have grounds for thinking ordinary people are mistaken >as to the health effectiveness of medicine? I know that you responded to a thread in the last month which started from my posting this link: http://hanson.gmu.edu/feardie.pdf, wherein I outline my grounds for so thinking. 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 andrew at ceruleansystems.com Fri Sep 23 13:05:04 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 06:05:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Digital Dark Age In-Reply-To: <710b78fc05092221007d256f4d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 9/22/05 9:00 PM, "Emlyn" wrote: > Also, we now have standard formats that could easily survive the > passage of time, particularly XML. XML is a real retro standard, > something no one would have tried in the dim distant past of 20 years > ago, because it's wasteful and dumb. We've had international standards for universal data interchange that are widely used that where designed back when engineers were less keen on wasteful and dumb. XML was invented by people with a sense of marketing and no sense of history or technical requirements. The problem is that XML was designed to be pretty for humans with no thought for how a computer looks at the same representation. Unfortunately, the vast majority of XML generated is never seen by a human. It became 'wasteful' (inefficient representation) and 'dumb' (non-TLV encoding) the moment someone decided that XML should be used for representations that only computers would see. As long as a universal format is trivially convertible to a human-friendly format, it should not matter that the format is highly optimized for the computer domain. > However, it's designed to be > interoperable by using the most basic lingua franca that we can find > in the computer world, the string. That *should* make it robust and > long lived. (question: does anyone know if there is a simple > compression standard to go with XML? Something that people might still > be able to work with in 50 years, say?) There is a robust compressed representation that is highly abstracted from machine architecture, efficient for wire protocols (on the order of an order of magnitude faster than identical XML encoded messages), simple to implement, widely used for many applications, and which is a well-established international (ITU) standard. That would be ASN.1 and related standards such as Basic Encoding Rules (BER), which are used in many different places for protocol and message implementation. Networks and telecommunications systems depend on this universal representation heavily, so these standards will be with us for a very long time. When I first started using ASN.1/BER I slagged it for being slightly obtuse, but after using it for a while I started to realize that it has a property that XML is lacking: it was very thoughtfully engineered to be relatively optimal across a very broad range of applications and systems. The main complication is a trivial one and perhaps reflects the state of programming skills: the basic data types are arbitrary precision binary formats and building a parser requires having a modicum of bit-wise manipulation skills. Not much more difficult than an XML parser, just requiring a bit more knowledge. Ironically, most of the "binary XML" solutions being proposed to fix the glaring sub-optimalities of XML actually use ASN.1/BER conventions, since this old ITU standard is a proven universal format that was designed to address the issues that have materialized in XML. > The biggest problem I see is software. Software tends to be platform > specific, and those platforms die. Lots of information is locked up to > be usable only by a specific application. I would guess that this problem will be mitigated to a significant extent by the more common use of well-described virtual machines as development targets. Cheers, J. Andrew Rogers From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Sep 23 13:55:03 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 09:55:03 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Hurricane Rita: Transhumanists Care Message-ID: <380-22005952313553761@M2W103.mail2web.com> Friends, Austin is a center for people to go to in the wake of the latest hurrican which will touch down very soon. Many of our friends are in Houston. Some are staying there and some are heading to other cities and states. If you know of anyone who is in getting out of the path of Rita and who needs a place to stay, please email me right away. Many thanks, Natasha Natasha Vita-More On behalf of Transhumanists Care http://www.natasha.cc President, Extropy Institute Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Fri Sep 23 14:16:58 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 00:16:58 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Robin Hanson on Cynicism References: <20050922174520.410B857EF5@finney.org><6.2.3.4.2.20050922204427.01ed56a8@mail.gmu.edu><0ae101c5c01d$40edad70$8998e03c@homepc> <6.2.3.4.2.20050923083700.02f51830@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <0b0601c5c049$7593e720$8998e03c@homepc> Robin Hanson wrote: > At 05:00 AM 9/23/2005, Brett Paatsch wrote: >>>... And the situation is much worse on topics where there are >>>certain positions that ordinary people typically *want* to believe >>>(such as the health effectiveness of medicine). >> >>You have grounds for thinking ordinary people are mistaken >>as to the health effectiveness of medicine? > > I know that you responded to a thread in the last month which started > from my posting this link: http://hanson.gmu.edu/feardie.pdf, > wherein I outline my grounds for so thinking. In your essay you say "fear of death makes us spend 15% of our income on medicine from which we get little or no health benefit, while we neglect things like exercise which offer large health benefits". But I can't see where you answer the basic question what does Robin mean by medicine? You seem to assume that *everyone* just knows what medicine is. I think that is not a valid assumption. Your essay surveys work done by others but it is not clear that *they* have defined medicine the same way as you or indeed as each other. At one point you say "eight (note NOT 80 but just 8) percent of heart surgery patients were not willing to pay 50 dollars for local hospitals mortality rates, information that should have been worth tens of thousands of dollars to them" Well what about the other 92 percent? Eight percent is hardly great evidence of anything yet you give it as an "example". I'm obviously missing something here Robin. I can't see any real substance in the essay. To me you just don't cut down to anything substantive. Brett Paatsch From rhanson at gmu.edu Fri Sep 23 14:31:11 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 10:31:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Robin Hanson on Cynicism In-Reply-To: <0b0601c5c049$7593e720$8998e03c@homepc> References: <20050922174520.410B857EF5@finney.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20050922204427.01ed56a8@mail.gmu.edu> <0ae101c5c01d$40edad70$8998e03c@homepc> <6.2.3.4.2.20050923083700.02f51830@mail.gmu.edu> <0b0601c5c049$7593e720$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050923102323.02f8d008@mail.gmu.edu> At 10:16 AM 9/23/2005, Brett Paatsch wrote: >>>>... And the situation is much worse on topics where there are >>>>certain positions that ordinary people typically *want* to >>>>believe (such as the health effectiveness of medicine). >>> >>>You have grounds for thinking ordinary people are mistaken >>>as to the health effectiveness of medicine? >>I know that you responded to a thread in the last month which started >>from my posting this link: http://hanson.gmu.edu/feardie.pdf, >>wherein I outline my grounds for so thinking. > >In your essay you say > >"fear of death makes us spend 15% of our income on medicine from >which we get little or no health benefit, while we neglect things like >exercise which offer large health benefits". > >But I can't see where you answer the basic question what does Robin >mean by medicine? You seem to assume that *everyone* just knows >what medicine is. I think that is not a valid assumption. Your essay >surveys work done by others but it is not clear that *they* have defined > medicine the same way as you or indeed as each other. You baffle me. The usual intuitive definition of medicine is "the stuff that doctors do". You know going to them to get advice, some of which is to take drugs, undergo surgery, and so on. The RAND experiment operationalized that in the obvious way - they gave folks money to go to the doctor more. >At one point you say "eight (note NOT 80 but just 8) percent That is a typo (now fixed). The figure is eighty percent. >I'm obviously missing something here Robin. I can't see any real substance >in the essay. To me you just don't cut down to anything substantive. I find it hard to imagine what would count as substance to you. 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 kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Sep 23 18:12:46 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:12:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational Trigonometry Message-ID: <00aa01c5c06a$66b65960$0100a8c0@kevin> I read a report the other day about Norman Wildberger's "Rational Trigonometry" which supposedly does away with sines, cosines, and tangents and allows for using algebra and simple arithmetic. It is also supposedly more accurate. I hadn;t seen anyone here comment on this and I was wondering if anyone has had a chance to review his work. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Fri Sep 23 18:29:29 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:29:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] it's easy to laugh at luddites... Message-ID: <20050923182929.87789.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> However wasn't it absurd for our friend FM to have announced publicly he was 'ageless' when he was a grey balding 69 year old? This was a form of PC that was-- or is-- almost morbid. And there are 60 year old women who diet and think they are going to look like Hillary Duff or Jessica Simpson. Myths To Live By- "You're just as young as you feel". "you're just as pretty as you feel". We are amused by ludds who think global warming will destroy us yet we want to think our very own bodies are not much more amusing than we think they are? Perhaps not all is vanity, merely most is. "My daughter is in college and she's a perfect angel". What, she doesn't menstruate? "I'm 73 years old but am as robust as a young man". Yeah right, you just came home from the Junior Prom. "After all that skin treatment, how do I look?". Gosh Grandma, you look like Tutankamen. The new mythologizing is our bodies are temples-- albeit not temples coating the spirit; the new secular mythology is: we are all gods and goddesses waiting to be immortalized. Said it before, will say it again: the loftiest person is still only the highest ape preening in the mirror when no one is looking. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Sep 23 19:08:26 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 12:08:26 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's easy to laugh at luddites... In-Reply-To: <20050923182929.87789.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050923182929.87789.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <22360fa1050923120826929dcf@mail.gmail.com> On 9/23/05, Al Brooks wrote: > > However wasn't it absurd for our friend FM to have announced publicly he > was 'ageless' when he was a grey balding 69 year old? This was a form of PC > that was-- or is-- almost morbid. > And there are 60 year old women who diet and think they are going to look > like Hillary Duff or Jessica Simpson. > Myths To Live By- > "You're just as young as you feel". > "you're just as pretty as you feel". > We are amused by ludds who think global warming will destroy us yet we > want to think our very own bodies are not much more amusing than we think > they are? Perhaps not all is vanity, merely most is. > "My daughter is in college and she's a perfect angel". What, she doesn't > menstruate? > "I'm 73 years old but am as robust as a young man". Yeah right, you just > came home from the Junior Prom. > "After all that skin treatment, how do I look?". Gosh Grandma, you look > like Tutankamen. > The new mythologizing is our bodies are temples-- albeit not temples > coating the spirit; the new secular mythology is: we are all gods and > goddesses waiting to be immortalized. Said it before, will say it again: the > loftiest person is still only the highest ape preening in the mirror when no > one is looking. > It might be enlightening to take this up a level and apply the same observation to the vanity many people exhibit for their current mental "self", so often considered in isolation and as if it possessed intrinsic value independent of its environment of interactional possibilities and were worthy of indefinite static preservation. - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Fri Sep 23 19:26:26 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 12:26:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] it's easy to laugh at luddites... In-Reply-To: <22360fa1050923120826929dcf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20050923192626.25023.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> Resistance to diachronic being, right? But don't we use our vision more than our other senses? I just noticed today that the women on campus here walk around exhibiting their pulchritude yet have expressions saying, "I am a Whole Self, not an object". Such is parading around your asset, having it, and eating it too. An immediate form of doublemindedness. A guy on the street hanging his keester halfway out of his pants is a varmint but a woman who does the same thinks she's some sort of a goddess? I bring this up because it is visual & immediate. It might be enlightening to take this up a level and apply the same observation to the vanity many people exhibit for their current mental "self", so often considered in isolation and as if it possessed intrinsic value independent of its environment of interactional possibilities and were worthy of indefinite static preservation. - Jef --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nanogirl at halcyon.com Fri Sep 23 21:03:13 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:03:13 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Dermal Display (Freitas animation) References: <00f801c5bfc1$5a866e40$0200a8c0@Nano><710b78fc05092221083dfdb9c8@mail.gmail.com> <050801c5c010$e1035970$0200a8c0@Nano> Message-ID: <00d601c5c082$386546d0$0300a8c0@Nano> The media has already picked it up, I'm so excited! KurzweilAI.net medGadget Nanotechnology Now NanoVIP Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Sep 23 21:19:07 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:19:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's easy to laugh at luddites... In-Reply-To: <20050923192626.25023.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> References: <22360fa1050923120826929dcf@mail.gmail.com> <20050923192626.25023.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <22360fa105092314195cf982df@mail.gmail.com> I hadn't read Max's PhD thesis but I had read Derek Parfit's Reasons and Persons. I took a few minutes just now to skim Max's The Diachronic Self(not doing it justice) but it seems I have a fundamental difference with each of those views. With Reasons and Persons (read several years ago), I recall feeling that the author was was so narrowly focused on the "objective" logic of his argument that he minimized the importance of the Self (and thus Other) by neglecting the subjective element by which all value and meaning is derived. With The Diachronic Self (skimmed far too quickly), it seems to me that the focus was on how we define the Self, showing that past and current definitions are inaccurate and/or incomplete, and thus leading to updated interpretations of Self for the future. It seems, upon my superficial skimming of the text, that Max described the Self as being quite discrete, and did not discuss that a more encompassing definition of Self might include a range of identification from the isolated individual, through indentification as part of a cultural group, to identification as part of a collective intelligence. [To confirm, I did a quick text search for the words "collective" or "hive" and didn't find either of these.] I think that the understanding of a expanding sphere of self-identification [lacking from both of these above accounts] is essential for a more encompassing understanding of moral decision-making. - Jef http://www.jefallbright.net On 9/23/05, Al Brooks wrote: > > Resistance to diachronic being, right? > But don't we use our vision more than our other senses? I just noticed > today that the women on campus here walk around exhibiting their pulchritude > yet have expressions saying, "I am a Whole Self, not an object". Such is > parading around your asset, having it, and eating it too. An immediate form > of doublemindedness. > A guy on the street hanging his keester halfway out of his pants is a > varmint but a woman who does the same thinks she's some sort of a goddess? I > bring this up because it is visual & immediate. > > It might be enlightening to take this up a level and apply the same > observation to the vanity many people exhibit for their current mental > "self", so often considered in isolation and as if it possessed intrinsic > value independent of its environment of interactional possibilities and were > worthy of indefinite static preservation. > > - Jef > > ------------------------------ > Yahoo! for Good > Click here to donate to the > Hurricane Katrina relief effort. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Sep 23 21:32:29 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:32:29 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Dermal Display (Freitas animation) In-Reply-To: <00d601c5c082$386546d0$0300a8c0@Nano> References: <00f801c5bfc1$5a866e40$0200a8c0@Nano> <710b78fc05092221083dfdb9c8@mail.gmail.com> <050801c5c010$e1035970$0200a8c0@Nano> <00d601c5c082$386546d0$0300a8c0@Nano> Message-ID: <22360fa105092314326c39f36e@mail.gmail.com> Excellent work, Gina! This is a very good example of effectively communicating (part of) what we're about. - Jef On 9/23/05, Gina Miller wrote: > > The media has already picked it up, I'm so excited! > KurzweilAI.net > medGadget > Nanotechnology Now > NanoVIP > Gina "Nanogirl" Miller > Nanotechnology Industries > http://www.nanoindustries.com > Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html > Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 23 21:33:42 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:33:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Continued from wta-talk: 'Beating Eliezer' ;) In-Reply-To: <433202FD.8070608@pobox.com> Message-ID: <20050923213342.2940.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> --- "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote: > Oh ye of little faith. This actually quite funny coming from a Bayesian atheist. ;) How are your tiddlywink skills these days, Eliezer? 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 - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 23 21:44:35 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:44:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] it's easy to laugh at luddites... In-Reply-To: <20050923192626.25023.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050923214435.20759.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> --- Al Brooks wrote: > I just noticed today that the women on > campus here walk around exhibiting their pulchritude > yet have expressions saying, "I am a Whole Self, not > an object". Such is parading around your asset, > having it, and eating it too. An immediate form of > doublemindedness. > A guy on the street hanging his keester halfway out > of his pants is a varmint but a woman who does the > same thinks she's some sort of a goddess? I bring > this up because it is visual & immediate. I feel your pain, Al. Nothing is more frustrating for a male of the species, than being confronted with a pretty bra-less coed with nipples practically poking one in the eye that demands that one deal with her on an intellectual level. Not that I am a sexist or misogynist but it's just not right for gazelle to feign a limp in front of a lion and be offended if the lion gives chase. 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 - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Fri Sep 23 21:58:49 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:58:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] it's easy to laugh at luddites... In-Reply-To: <20050923214435.20759.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050923215849.40088.qmail@web51614.mail.yahoo.com> It doesn't interest me much anymore. When I lost interest then their facial expressions became the focus not the display. What was striking is their dressing intrusively yet having an expression that says ignore this display because your attention is distracting, irritating: "this is a blatant visual display but you are to ignore it". I feel your pain, Al. Nothing is more frustrating for a male of the species, than being confronted with a pretty bra-less coed with nipples practically poking one in the eye that demands that one deal with her on an intellectual level. Not that I am a sexist or misogynist but it's just not right for gazelle to feign a limp in front of a lion and be offended if the lion gives chase. --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Fri Sep 23 22:06:34 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:06:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] over & out Message-ID: <20050923220634.37899.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> Okay, i'll get off before i do twenty posts on this and then a monitor sends a diplomatic private message: "we do appreciate your participation, nevertheless too many complaints concerning the number and subject matter of your posts have been received. Please try to limit..." Have a nice weekend. v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} al, this isnt the most uplifting commentary i have read. spike __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Sep 23 22:54:23 2005 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (HOWARD HENSON) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:54:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Keith Henson Canadian update In-Reply-To: <20050923220634.37899.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050923225423.67213.qmail@web88111.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I have been so busy with legal problems that I have not posted to the list for a long time. Some of you might want to know what is keeping me so busy. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/42276ee1eae2a1c6?hl=en& So far I have not had problems with bounty hunters. Keith Henson From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sat Sep 24 04:08:49 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 14:08:49 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Robin Hanson on Cynicism References: <20050922174520.410B857EF5@finney.org><6.2.3.4.2.20050922204427.01ed56a8@mail.gmu.edu><0ae101c5c01d$40edad70$8998e03c@homepc><6.2.3.4.2.20050923083700.02f51830@mail.gmu.edu><0b0601c5c049$7593e720$8998e03c@homepc> <6.2.3.4.2.20050923102323.02f8d008@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <0c1701c5c0bd$aac709d0$8998e03c@homepc> Robin Hanson wrote: > At 10:16 AM 9/23/2005, Brett Paatsch wrote: >>>>>... And the situation is much worse on topics where there are >>>>>certain positions that ordinary people typically *want* to >>>>>believe (such as the health effectiveness of medicine). >>>> >>>>You have grounds for thinking ordinary people are mistaken >>>>as to the health effectiveness of medicine? >>>I know that you responded to a thread in the last month which started >>>from my posting this link: http://hanson.gmu.edu/feardie.pdf, >>>wherein I outline my grounds for so thinking. >> >>In your essay you say >> >>"fear of death makes us spend 15% of our income on medicine from >>which we get little or no health benefit, while we neglect things like >>exercise which offer large health benefits". >> >>But I can't see where you answer the basic question what does Robin >>mean by medicine? You seem to assume that *everyone* just knows >>what medicine is. I think that is not a valid assumption. Your essay >>surveys work done by others but it is not clear that *they* have defined >> medicine the same way as you or indeed as each other. > > You baffle me. The usual intuitive definition of medicine is "the stuff > that doctors do". This isn't my intuitive definition of medicine. That would be like thinking economics was stuff that economists do. Or music is what is produced by those people that call themselves musicians. To me, intuitively, medicine is about treating ailments. >You know going to them to get advice, some of which is > to take drugs, undergo surgery, and so on. The RAND experiment > operationalized that in the obvious way - they gave folks money to > go to the doctor more. That's poor method in my opinion. Give money to go to the doctor to uneducated poor people and of course they will use it. People like getting attention (Hawthorne studies). >>I'm obviously missing something here Robin. I can't see any real > substance in the essay. To me you just don't cut down to anything > substantive. > > I find it hard to imagine what would count as substance to you. Major things that people die of are heart disease, cancer and diabetes. All these diseases have given ground to medicine since the Rand study was done in 1979 or earlier. Insulin for diabetes. Angiograms then stents and bypasses for heart disease. Chemo and radiation treatment followed by treatment with stem cells. The Rand study didn't look at the young or the old. It excluded the frailest cohorts. The groups that would have been most likely to benefit. Brett Paatsch From m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au Sat Sep 24 06:44:57 2005 From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 16:44:57 +1000 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Continued from wta-talk: 'Beating Eliezer' ;) Message-ID: <20050924064457.91274.qmail@web35512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >This actually quite funny coming from a Bayesian >atheist. How are your tiddlywink skills these days, Eliezer? > >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 Well, I think the Bayesian framework is definitely on the right track but seriously incomplete. You see, I think *physics* causality is *not* the only kind of causality there is! I've reached the conclusion that there are in fact *three different kinds* of causality, and the current Bayesian framework only deals with ONE of them (the physics kind). So if I'm right there are really three different Bayesian frameworks. And no one has the faintest idea what the other two consist of. Made no mistake my friend, give me a ton of cash and freedom to work on AGI full-time and I can take Wlison and Yudkowsky. I can intellectually grind 'em down, chew 'em up and spit 'em out ;) --- Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Listen to over 20 online radio stations and watch over 5000 music videos on Yahoo! Music. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Sep 24 07:00:07 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 08:00:07 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Robin Hanson on Cynicism In-Reply-To: <0c1701c5c0bd$aac709d0$8998e03c@homepc> References: <20050922174520.410B857EF5@finney.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20050922204427.01ed56a8@mail.gmu.edu> <0ae101c5c01d$40edad70$8998e03c@homepc> <6.2.3.4.2.20050923083700.02f51830@mail.gmu.edu> <0b0601c5c049$7593e720$8998e03c@homepc> <6.2.3.4.2.20050923102323.02f8d008@mail.gmu.edu> <0c1701c5c0bd$aac709d0$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: On 9/24/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > Major things that people die of are heart disease, cancer and diabetes. > All these diseases have given ground to medicine since the Rand study > was done in 1979 or earlier. > > Insulin for diabetes. Angiograms then stents and bypasses for heart > disease. Chemo and radiation treatment followed by treatment > with stem cells. > > The Rand study didn't look at the young or the old. It excluded the > frailest cohorts. The groups that would have been most likely to > benefit. Study reveals trends in U.S. death rate, leading causes of death over 30 years The death rate from all causes of death combined decreased by 32 percent between 1970 and 2002, with the largest decreases for heart disease and stroke, but with an increase in death rates for diabetes and COPD, according to an article in the September 14 issue of JAMA. "Several important insights are suggested by these temporal trends in the death rates and number of deaths at various ages. First, the decrease in the age-standardized death rate for 4 of the 6 leading causes of death in the United States represents progress toward one of the fundamental goals of disease prevention by extending the number of years of potentially healthy life. This progress has been greater for cardiovascular disease and for accidental deaths than for cancer, yet even for cancer the age-standardized death rate has been decreasing by 1.1 percent per year since 1993. Less favorable developments are the slowing of the decline in age-standardized mortality rates from stroke and accidents since the early 1990s, and the increase in death rates from COPD and diabetes." "The reduction in the death rate from accidents from 1970 through the early 1990s coincided with implementation of a 55 mph speed limit during the first energy crisis in the 1970s and mandated use of seat belts in most states beginning in 1984. The recent flattening of the accident mortality rate coincides with the relaxation of the maximum interstate speed limits since 1987. The biphasic [having two phases] trend in cancer mortality rates reflects both the impact of the tobacco epidemic on tobacco-related cancers through 1990, followed by reduction in cancer mortality through tobacco control and advances in early detection, in treatment, or in both. The increase in COPD death rates results largely from the long-term effects of tobacco smoking in an aging population, whereas the increase in diabetes mortality since the late 1980s reflects dramatic increases in obesity," the researchers write. BillK From m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au Sat Sep 24 09:13:30 2005 From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 19:13:30 +1000 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians Message-ID: <20050924091331.20006.qmail@web35509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Given all the ad hominem attacks and condescending remarks made by Wilson and Yudkowsky against me on the SL4 list, I think it's only fair that I point out to futuire historians a few things of interest don't you? --- *Who first started making reference to '7 Universal Knowledge Domains' ? Answer: It was Geddes, as shown by numerous references to '7 Universal Knowledge Domains' by Geddes on public mailing lists long before anyone else. --- *Who first suggested that the Bayesian framework as it existed circa turn of the 21st century was seriously incomplete? Answer: It was Geddes. Where as Wilson and Yudkowsky thought that the notion of 'causality' was entirely reducible to fundamental physics (as shown by explicit statements on the SL4 list) Geddes disputed this. In fact on this very Extropy list, Geddes just recently stated that there were 3 different kinds of causality, requiring 3 different probability frameworks and the Bayesian framework as it existed circa beginning of the 21 century (Kolmogorov complexity and Solomonoff Induction ) deals only with one kind of causality (the physics kind). --- *Who insisted that there was a Universal Morality and that past a certain smartness threshold all AGI's would automatically become friendly? Who maintained that unfriendly AGI's cannot recursively self-improve and that the problem of recursive self-improvement is entirely equivalent to the problem of friendliness? Answer: It was Geddes. Despite repeated ridicule by Wilson and Yudkowsky on the Sl4 list, it was Geddes that asserted these things. --- *Who mainted that general intelligence without sentience was impossible, and suggested a classification scheme for minds in general based on the degree of awareness present? Who said that awareness of the Mind--------Reality relationship defined a transhuman? Answer: Geddes. Just recently posted on the Extropy list. --- Who first posted the beginnings of an outline for the "Periodic Table Of Cognition' and the beginnings of an 'ultimate metaphysics' in which something called *Mathematico-Cognition' (a hybrid of mathematics and cognition) was the identified as the ultimate noumenon of reality Answer: Geddes. On the SL4 Wiki: http://www.sl4.org/wiki/MarcGeddes/SentientCenteredTheoryOfMetaphysics and http://www.sl4.org/wiki/MarcGeddes/UniversalDataTypes Also see Geddes's dated post in the 'Theory Of Evrything' archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list at eskimo.com/msg07960.html --- Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Sep 24 09:54:17 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 02:54:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians In-Reply-To: <20050924091331.20006.qmail@web35509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050924091331.20006.qmail@web35509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <718288C1-A5B3-4FEB-A4EA-C49FC3E44CC0@mac.com> You are bringing your dirty laundry from the SL4 list to this list? Is this what you want "future historians" to record? It is certainly true you have asserted a great number of things. Unfortunately many of those in the minority that had enough substance and intelligibility to be reviewed did not stand up too well under critical examination. - s On Sep 24, 2005, at 2:13 AM, Marc Geddes wrote: > Given all the ad hominem attacks and condescending remarks made by > Wilson and Yudkowsky against me on the SL4 list, I think it's only > fair that I point out to futuire historians a few things of > interest don't you? > > --- > > *Who first started making reference to '7 Universal Knowledge > Domains' ? > > Answer: It was Geddes, as shown by numerous references to '7 > Universal Knowledge Domains' by Geddes on public mailing lists long > before anyone else. > > --- > > *Who first suggested that the Bayesian framework as it existed > circa turn of the 21st century was seriously incomplete? > > Answer: It was Geddes. Where as Wilson and Yudkowsky thought that > the notion of 'causality' was entirely reducible to fundamental > physics (as shown by explicit statements on the SL4 list) Geddes > disputed this. In fact on this very Extropy list, Geddes just > recently stated that there were 3 different kinds of causality, > requiring 3 different probability frameworks and the Bayesian > framework as it existed circa beginning of the 21 century > (Kolmogorov complexity and Solomonoff Induction ) deals only with > one kind of causality (the physics kind). > > --- > > *Who insisted that there was a Universal Morality and that past a > certain smartness threshold all AGI's would automatically become > friendly? Who maintained that unfriendly AGI's cannot recursively > self-improve and that the problem of recursive self-improvement is > entirely equivalent to the problem of friendliness? > > Answer: It was Geddes. Despite repeated ridicule by Wilson and > Yudkowsky on the Sl4 list, it was Geddes that asserted these things. > > --- > > *Who mainted that general intelligence without sentience was > impossible, and suggested a classification scheme for minds in > general based on the degree of awareness present? Who said that > awareness of the > Mind--------Reality relationship defined a transhuman? > > Answer: Geddes. Just recently posted on the Extropy list. > > --- > > Who first posted the beginnings of an outline for the "Periodic > Table Of Cognition' and the beginnings of an 'ultimate metaphysics' > in which something called *Mathematico-Cognition' (a hybrid of > mathematics and cognition) was the identified as the ultimate > noumenon of reality > > Answer: Geddes. On the SL4 Wiki: > > http://www.sl4.org/wiki/MarcGeddes/SentientCenteredTheoryOfMetaphysics > > and > > http://www.sl4.org/wiki/MarcGeddes/UniversalDataTypes > > Also see Geddes's dated post in the 'Theory Of Evrything' archives: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list at eskimo.com/msg07960.html > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > Please vist my website: > http://www.riemannai.org > > Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy > > --- > > THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, > For, put them side by side, > The one the other will include > With ease, and you beside. > > -Emily Dickinson > > 'The brain is wider than the sky' > http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html > Send instant messages to your online friends http:// > au.messenger.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Sat Sep 24 09:58:45 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 19:28:45 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians In-Reply-To: <20050924091331.20006.qmail@web35509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050924091331.20006.qmail@web35509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc05092402581597409e@mail.gmail.com> If I was writing a message to posterity, I'd try harder to not make a complete ass of myself. But that's just me. - Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * On 24/09/05, Marc Geddes wrote: > Given all the ad hominem attacks and condescending remarks made by Wilson > and Yudkowsky against me on the SL4 list, I think it's only fair that I > point out to futuire historians a few things of interest don't you? > ... From rhanson at gmu.edu Sat Sep 24 10:44:40 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 06:44:40 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Effectiveness of Medicine (was: Robin Hanson on Cynicism) In-Reply-To: <0c1701c5c0bd$aac709d0$8998e03c@homepc> References: <20050922174520.410B857EF5@finney.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20050922204427.01ed56a8@mail.gmu.edu> <0ae101c5c01d$40edad70$8998e03c@homepc> <6.2.3.4.2.20050923083700.02f51830@mail.gmu.edu> <0b0601c5c049$7593e720$8998e03c@homepc> <6.2.3.4.2.20050923102323.02f8d008@mail.gmu.edu> <0c1701c5c0bd$aac709d0$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050924062549.02f0a658@mail.gmu.edu> At 12:08 AM 9/24/2005, Brett Paatsch wrote: >>>In your essay [http://hanson.gmu.edu/feardie.pdf] you say >>>"fear of death makes us spend 15% of our income on medicine from >>>which we get little or no health benefit, while we neglect things like >>>exercise which offer large health benefits". >>> >>>But I can't see where you answer the basic question what does Robin >>>mean by medicine? You seem to assume that *everyone* just knows >>>what medicine is. I think that is not a valid assumption. Your essay >>>surveys work done by others but it is not clear that *they* have defined >>> medicine the same way as you or indeed as each other. >>You baffle me. The usual intuitive definition of medicine is "the stuff >>that doctors do". > >This isn't my intuitive definition of medicine. That would be like thinking >economics was stuff that economists do. Or music is what is produced >by those people that call themselves musicians. >To me, intuitively, medicine is about treating ailments. > >>You know going to them to get advice, some of which is >>to take drugs, undergo surgery, and so on. The RAND experiment >>operationalized that in the obvious way - they gave folks money to >>go to the doctor more. > >That's poor method in my opinion. Give money to go to the doctor >to uneducated poor people and of course they will use it. People like >getting attention (Hawthorne studies). You still baffle me. How would *you* study the aggregate effectiveness of "treating ailments"? And if you think that people given money to spend on medicine wouldn't spend it wisely to gain health, then why would you think people spend their own money on medicine any more wisely? It seems as if you agree with my claim that money spent on medicine doesn't produce much health. >>>I'm obviously missing something here Robin. I can't see any real >>substance in the essay. To me you just don't cut down to anything >>substantive. >>I find it hard to imagine what would count as substance to you. > >Major things that people die of are heart disease, cancer and diabetes. >All these diseases have given ground to medicine since the Rand study >was done in 1979 or earlier. >Insulin for diabetes. Angiograms then stents and bypasses for heart >disease. Chemo and radiation treatment followed by treatment >with stem cells. >The Rand study didn't look at the young or the old. It excluded the >frailest cohorts. The groups that would have been most likely to >benefit. The RAND study did as much as they could at the time. They couldn't look at free vs. full price medicine for the elderly because the elderly already got free medicine from Medicare. They did look at children. I'd love to see a new experiment done like the RAND experiment, but until that happens this is the only aggregate experiment data we have. We do have lots of correlations-in-the-world studies done more recently, many of which include the elderly. I mentioned one in my paper; what is your beef with that study? 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 mfj.eav at gmail.com Sat Sep 24 16:05:17 2005 From: mfj.eav at gmail.com (Morris Johnson) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 11:05:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Effectiveness of Medicine (was: Robin Hanson on Cynicism) In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050924062549.02f0a658@mail.gmu.edu> References: <20050922174520.410B857EF5@finney.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20050922204427.01ed56a8@mail.gmu.edu> <0ae101c5c01d$40edad70$8998e03c@homepc> <6.2.3.4.2.20050923083700.02f51830@mail.gmu.edu> <0b0601c5c049$7593e720$8998e03c@homepc> <6.2.3.4.2.20050923102323.02f8d008@mail.gmu.edu> <0c1701c5c0bd$aac709d0$8998e03c@homepc> <6.2.3.4.2.20050924062549.02f0a658@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <61c8738e050924090574324767@mail.gmail.com> Nutrigenomics has added food to the list of mechanisms that regulate genetic expression. Darwin and Crick meet Einstein so to speak. If you can invest units of time and thought to monitor, reflect and modify your environment and substance intake (food and drink) you can modify the natural course of events programmed into your genes and if some epignetic evidence is taken more broadly , very nearly alter the DNA itself. Medicine has progressed from magic bullets to deal with catastrophe to the weekly reprogramming regime Raymond Kurzweil does to understand and provide ongoing optimizations of the DNA 's responses to its own subroutines. The regulatory people or should I say bureaucracy still operates as if the entire population is totally infirm and must be protected against their own stupidity. I will give to the regulators that over the last 50 years human bodies have been able to procure and consume a wide range of substances never before available at one time. The cocktail of food, natural health products, RX meds and environmental chemicals is now for some persons phenomenally complex. I know personally that I consume chemistry that I understand in chunks but must admit I really don't have a frickin' clue about from a global nutrigenetic or epigenetic sense. However, at age 50 with kids gone , I feel I will take the risk that I will drop dead tomorrow as a result of my tinkering against the possibility that my next 50 are just the run-up to many more. Medicine is still seen as a field where the experts should fully control the silly ignorant meddlers. One interesting case in point. I went to a Natural Health Products meeting this last week. One of the presenters showed how various sources of smoke similar to what is used to smoke foods can be captured, processed to remove known carcinogens and recombined into a broad range of chemistries, smells, tastes and colors for inclusion into foods. The labels would just say natural flavor or smoked but indeed the food industry is telling its players that functionality that defies regulation is the goal. Antioxidant and food nutritional modifying chemistry of the smoke compounds can be added without fear of requiring health bureaucracy's approval processes. So knowledge leveraged money spent on individually driven health choices can dramatically effect the effectiveness of medicine and do so at quite a nominal cost in comparison to the critical care medical products and services. Even where individual choices lead to catastrophic results it is a good thing as it can add to the knowledge base of those who did not make the "catastrophic choices". MFJ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Sep 24 16:09:35 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 09:09:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Robin Hanson on Cynicism In-Reply-To: <0c1701c5c0bd$aac709d0$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <20050924160935.13442.qmail@web30312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Brett Paatsch wrote: > > Robin Hanson wrote: > > > > You baffle me. The usual intuitive definition of medicine is "the > > stuff that doctors do". > > This isn't my intuitive definition of medicine. That would be like > thinking > economics was stuff that economists do. Or music is what is produced > by those people that call themselves musicians. > To me, intuitively, medicine is about treating ailments. > > >You know going to them to get advice, some of which is > > to take drugs, undergo surgery, and so on. The RAND experiment > > operationalized that in the obvious way - they gave folks money to > > go to the doctor more. > > That's poor method in my opinion. Give money to go to the doctor > to uneducated poor people and of course they will use it. People like > getting attention (Hawthorne studies). Not necessarily, extroverts enjoy getting attention, the rest are somewhat neutral or even opposed to the idea. > > >>I'm obviously missing something here Robin. I can't see any real > > substance in the essay. To me you just don't cut down to anything > > substantive. > > > > I find it hard to imagine what would count as substance to you. > > Major things that people die of are heart disease, cancer and > diabetes. > All these diseases have given ground to medicine since the Rand study > was done in 1979 or earlier. Not quite. While treatments have been developed, exercise and healthy eating/living have demonstrated higher impact, and it is in this area that people are eating worse and exercising less, which is why those three diseases attack more people each year, rather than less (I also believe the cancer issue may actually reflect too much health care/vaccination/treatment of other diseases that would otherwise kill pre-cancerous cells or provide protection against tumor formation, much as sickle cell protects one against malaria). > > Insulin for diabetes. Angiograms then stents and bypasses for heart > disease. Chemo and radiation treatment followed by treatment > with stem cells. > > The Rand study didn't look at the young or the old. It excluded the > frailest cohorts. The groups that would have been most likely to > benefit. This is the point. The study demonstrates that there is little point in health care improving life expectancy for anyone who ISN'T young or old. Yet why do people 25-50 keep paying vast sums for health insurance? Have you ever tried to go to your employers health plan and say "I just want coverage for my kids"? No, you can cover yourself (cheaply), your spouse (a little more) or your family (expensive) because the bulk of health care costs is invested in the kids. If you just get coverage for yourself you are generally paying more than you will use. Your premiums are subsidizing the breeders. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Sep 24 16:16:16 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 11:16:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Robin Hanson on Cynicism In-Reply-To: <20050924160935.13442.qmail@web30312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <0c1701c5c0bd$aac709d0$8998e03c@homepc> <20050924160935.13442.qmail@web30312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050924111455.01e11420@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 09:09 AM 9/24/2005 -0700, Mike complained: >Your premiums are subsidizing the breeders. The breeders are subsidizing your future. Damien Broderick From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Sep 24 17:10:30 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 10:10:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians In-Reply-To: <718288C1-A5B3-4FEB-A4EA-C49FC3E44CC0@mac.com> Message-ID: <200509241710.j8OHAhX06231@tick.javien.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians ...You are bringing your dirty laundry from the SL4 list to this list? Is this what you want "future historians" to record? ... Overruled, let him have his say, this is a legitimate meme stream. Marc, a top level summary of your view of the discussion on SL4 is OK here, as well as rebuttal from other SL4ers. Please write in such a way that non-specialists will find it comprehensible, by defining the more obscure terms for instance. Actually that might be quite valuable: a dictionary of the specialized terms used by AI enthusiasts. I have been a reader of SL4 for a couple years and I still see things there I don't grok. For instance, why should we believe in Universal Morality? Using humans as a model, I see little evidence that there is a smartness threshold above which AGIs will automatically become friendly. I can imagine a Universal Friendliness Toward Sufficiently Similar Intelligences threshold, and a Universal Morality Towards Sufficiently Non- Threatening Intelligence threshold. Feel free to cross post this to SL4. I have avoided posting there myself: one email list is as much a time devouring activity that I will allow myself. spike From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sat Sep 24 17:10:58 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 10:10:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] i don't laugh at peasants anymore In-Reply-To: <22360fa10509231545a8fdd33@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20050924171059.32442.qmail@web51614.mail.yahoo.com> Morality, misinformation/disinformation are a concern, but extropian economics is a worry. You can't have an extropian future without extropian economies however very few are interested. They like the benefits of the present and future but want the pace of the past; they want a very clean environment but they want to live the Good Life; they want change but they want familial continuity; they want a national economy but they want Jose? to build their home. I've heard the same political and commercial advertising for 40 years, "2.9% growth this year, 1.7% next year. The gubernatorial candidate's press agent said today that taxes here must be lowered but taxes there must be raised..."; "Buy two bottles of pantheonutramine and you get the third bottle at no extra charge-- it will make you feel as if you just popped out of the womb". Will the same sort of commercials be on 40 years from now? 80? What is the meaning of cryonics? Will an ET get hold of remains in 2805 to display them in a museum?: "this specimen was frozen in the Earth Year 2005, precisely eight hundred EYs ago". And learning from mistakes isn't of course merely learning from one's own mistakes but also others'-- you wouldn't want to be like FM, thinking you are ageless when you're a coot, would you? It appears very embarrassing, it make's one think there is in fact something to growing old gracefully. Forty years ago I used to laugh at those ignorant peasants pictured in National Geographic living in the Hunza mountains, eating yogurt and bulgur wheat, drinking moonshine but living to be centenarians. If they came here would they laugh at us for buying expensive supplements and spending thousands to be frozen? --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sat Sep 24 17:43:31 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 10:43:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] it's easy to laugh at luddites... Message-ID: <20050924174332.7549.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> What actually struck me about the girls was their attitude yet more the general attitude on campus: "this is public property and students can dress as sexual aborigines yet you are not a student, so though we-all can do what we want off campus you here on state property must not have your posterior halfway exposed to the air because then a police officer will politely sidle over to say, 'Sir, we have been receiving complaints about your half-revealed butty wutty being so flagrantly paraded around as if you were at a circus...' " Only thing I hold against women is the inception of the women's movement, one year the high school girls were sugar & spice; the next year they were hissing and scratching in class because of something Simone de Beauvoir may have been thinking in 1947. What if some boy reads 'The Male Eunuch', pounds his football on his desk, and explodes, "you have been sending men to war for 6000 years!" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Sat Sep 24 17:54:58 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 12:54:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sacry statistic Message-ID: <000d01c5c131$14db93e0$0100a8c0@kevin> I was reading a New York Times article and found the following: "Dr. Allmon, who directs the Paleontological Research Institution, an affiliate of Cornell University, began the training session here in September with statistics from Gallup Polls: 54 percent of Americans do not believe that human beings evolved from earlier species, and although almost half believe that Darwin has been proved right, slightly more disagree ". It seems to me that as technololgy is advancing, these numbers are getting worse. This is scary, yet not surprising. The educational system does a horrible job of teaching evolution. I did not understand it myself until I began some self-directed research while I was in my twenties. The number of children attending private schools is increasing and "Creation Science" seems to be creeping in. Christians are seeing the recent numbers and rallying with religious fervor agains evolution. How can the US ever expect to remain in the top ranks of biotech while in denail about evolution? Asimov's "Foundation" series comes to mind when I try to picture our future. Will we see the fall of the empire through stagnation, or the Salvor Hardin years where the technology is created and ran by an elite few while the users of the technology have all sorts of religious explanations about how things work. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Sep 24 18:56:42 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 11:56:42 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians In-Reply-To: <200509241710.j8OHAhX06231@tick.javien.com> References: <200509241710.j8OHAhX06231@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <23916E96-0F0C-47B1-8298-1536EA7C5441@mac.com> On Sep 24, 2005, at 10:10 AM, spike wrote: > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future > historians > > ...You are bringing your dirty laundry from the SL4 list to this > list? Is > this what you want "future historians" to record? ... > > > Overruled, let him have his say, this is a legitimate > meme stream. Stuff it. I was on SL4 for the un-regurgitated version. I saw much of it again on the WTA lists. It was not worth it. I see no reason to waste time on this again. And what the heck is the ever mellow Spike doing overruling another poster for expressing her opinion and relatively gently (considering)? - samantha From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sat Sep 24 19:24:11 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 12:24:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for ETs In-Reply-To: <23916E96-0F0C-47B1-8298-1536EA7C5441@mac.com> Message-ID: <20050924192411.77459.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> The interplanetary researcher filed this report: "the humanoids have an omnipresent religious ceremony, they remove decorative material from storage containers called 'dumpsters' and pile them like their other monuments such as 'the Sphinx', only in more complex designs. The material is piled outdoors so it can be exposed to the Deity, Aton, and absorb its radiation (this Deity recently had its name changed from Aton to 'the Sun'). Small religious relics called 'knicknacks' are passed reverently from one paw to another's. --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Sep 24 19:38:01 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 14:38:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] nano limit/hassle? Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050924143652.01cfa5b8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://www.eurekalert.org/context.php?context=nano Physicists measure tiny force that limits how far machines can shrink University of Arizona physicists have directly measured how close speeding atoms can come to a surface before the atoms' wavelengths change. Theirs is a first, fundamental measurement that confirms the idea that the wave of a fast-moving atom shortens and lengthens depending on its distance from a surface, an idea first proposed by pioneering quantum physicists in the late 1920s. The measurement tells nanotechnologists how small they can make extremely tiny devices before a microscopic force between atoms and surfaces, called van der Waals interaction, becomes a concern. [etc] From nanogirl at halcyon.com Sat Sep 24 20:03:00 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 13:03:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Dermal Display References: <00f801c5bfc1$5a866e40$0200a8c0@Nano><710b78fc05092221083dfdb9c8@mail.gmail.com><050801c5c010$e1035970$0200a8c0@Nano><00d601c5c082$386546d0$0300a8c0@Nano> <22360fa105092314326c39f36e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <005201c5c142$fcea6830$0300a8c0@Nano> I woke up to this bottom post today: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=12135898&postID=112742614079559915 : ( -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Sep 24 20:39:21 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 13:39:21 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians In-Reply-To: <23916E96-0F0C-47B1-8298-1536EA7C5441@mac.com> Message-ID: <200509242039.j8OKdKX29622@tick.javien.com> I only overruled asking him to not post his stuff, not your expressing your opinion of it. Post away, both Samantha and Marc. Do be quick on the delete key, that's what I do. Killfiling is fair game too. {8-] spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 11:57 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians > > > On Sep 24, 2005, at 10:10 AM, spike wrote: > > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future > > historians > > > > ...You are bringing your dirty laundry from the SL4 list to this > > list? Is > > this what you want "future historians" to record? ... > > > > > > Overruled, let him have his say, this is a legitimate > > meme stream. > > Stuff it. I was on SL4 for the un-regurgitated version. I saw much > of it again on the WTA lists. It was not worth it. I see no reason > to waste time on this again. And what the heck is the ever mellow > Spike doing overruling another poster for expressing her opinion and > relatively gently (considering)? > > > - samantha > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From eugen at leitl.org Sat Sep 24 20:44:01 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 22:44:01 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] nano limit/hassle? In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050924143652.01cfa5b8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050924143652.01cfa5b8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20050924204401.GW2249@leitl.org> On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 02:38:01PM -0500, Damien Broderick wrote: > http://www.eurekalert.org/context.php?context=nano > > > Physicists measure tiny force that limits how far machines can shrink Of course it doesn't. The reporter misreported. Bad reporter, no Pulitzer prize. > University of Arizona physicists have directly measured how close speeding > atoms can come to a surface before the atoms' wavelengths change. =Somebody has measured van der Waals force in a new way. http://www.chemguide.co.uk/atoms/bonding/vdw.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force > Theirs is a first, fundamental measurement that confirms the idea that the > wave of a fast-moving atom shortens and lengthens depending on its distance > from a surface, an idea first proposed by pioneering quantum physicists in > the late 1920s. Perhaps less than pioneering in late 2005. > The measurement tells nanotechnologists how small they can make extremely > tiny devices before a microscopic force between atoms and surfaces, called > van der Waals interaction, becomes a concern. What will the press think of next? OMFG, Scientists discover pi complexes? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Sep 24 20:48:47 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 13:48:47 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Dermal Display In-Reply-To: <005201c5c142$fcea6830$0300a8c0@Nano> Message-ID: <200509242048.j8OKmiX30639@tick.javien.com> I woke up to this bottom post today: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=12135898 &postID=112742614079559915 : ( His comments demonstrate a gross misunderstanding of nanotechnology, perhaps fed by reading/watching far too few science fiction books/movies. He needs to do some googling on MEMS technology, and apply some imagination. Don't let the nattering nabobs of negativism discourage you Gina. Artists fire the imagination of scientists and engineers, then together we make things happen. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Sep 24 20:58:12 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 15:58:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Dermal Display In-Reply-To: <200509242048.j8OKmiX30639@tick.javien.com> References: <005201c5c142$fcea6830$0300a8c0@Nano> <200509242048.j8OKmiX30639@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050924155656.01cd3d90@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 01:48 PM 9/24/2005 -0700, Spike wrote: >Don't let the nattering nabobs of negativism discourage you Gina. Or in this case the nattering nonanobobs of negativism. From pharos at gmail.com Sat Sep 24 21:32:42 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 22:32:42 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] nano limit/hassle? In-Reply-To: <20050924204401.GW2249@leitl.org> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050924143652.01cfa5b8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <20050924204401.GW2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 9/24/05, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 02:38:01PM -0500, Damien Broderick wrote: > > The measurement tells nanotechnologists how small they can make extremely > > tiny devices before a microscopic force between atoms and surfaces, called > > van der Waals interaction, becomes a concern. > > What will the press think of next? OMFG, Scientists discover pi complexes? Methinks you are being a tad too cynical tonight, Eugen. :) This was a news release from the University of Arizona, not from some FOX news hack reporter. Try and the full pdf paper at: (Bit technical, not for those of a nervous disposition). That last comment is almost a quote from one of the scientists. "I think the impact of our work stems from the intersection of the fields of atom optics and nanotechnology," Perreault said. "It answers the question of how far you can miniaturize an atom optics device - for example, a device that guides atoms on a chip to form a very tiny interferometer - before this nano-interaction disrupts operations." BillK From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sat Sep 24 21:42:11 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 14:42:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] i don't laugh at peasants anymore In-Reply-To: <20050924171059.32442.qmail@web51614.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050924214211.7350.qmail@web30311.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Al Brooks wrote: > Morality, misinformation/disinformation are a concern, but extropian > economics is a worry. You can't have an extropian future without > extropian economies however very few are interested. They like the > benefits of the present and future but want the pace of the past; > they want a very clean environment but they want to live the Good > Life; they want change but they want familial continuity; they want a > national economy but they want Jose? to build their home. Not sure where you got this, but this isn't extropian economics. Jose can build his own home with the help of nanites and the dirt and rock of his own property. He won't need to slave away for me to have a good life, and I won't need his cheap labor to live my own good life. Nanocracking of water from solar power and/or nanofusion and/or background fission or cracking fossil fuels while sequestering CO2 will give me all the clean fuel and energy I need with no need of decimating wilderness to grow biofuel. > I've heard the same political and commercial advertising for 40 > years, "2.9% growth this year, 1.7% next year. The gubernatorial > candidate's press agent said today that taxes here must be lowered > but taxes there must be raised..."; "Buy two bottles of > pantheonutramine and you get the third bottle at no extra charge-- it > will make you feel as if you just popped out of the womb". Will the > same sort of commercials be on 40 years from now? 80? There will still be commercials 40-80 years from now, only more creative, artistic, and focused on their target demographic psychologies than ever. Even more, there will be smart commercials, computer generated to target you specifically based on what the advertiser knows about you, with special deals for you alone. All media will be personalized. Movies/shows will have personal POVs based on who is watching, and 4-8 people will be able to watch their own custom content on the same wallscreen tv, with the tv tracking your position in the room and adjusting its refraction indices, horizontally and vertically, to accomplish this. Movies/shows will also be hotclickable, with every item in a scene on sale with detailed specs and/or wikipedia entries. You buy the product, it downloads to your home nanoassembler, and it pops out when you ask for it. > What is the > meaning of cryonics? Will an ET get hold of remains in 2805 to > display them in a museum?: "this specimen was frozen in the Earth > Year 2005, precisely eight hundred EYs ago". And learning from > mistakes isn't of course merely learning from one's own mistakes but > also others'-- you wouldn't want to be like FM, thinking you are > ageless when you're a coot, would you? It appears very embarrassing, > it make's one think there is in fact something to growing old > gracefully. Is appearance your definition of old age? How shallow of you. My 95 year old grandma could teach you a thing about being ageless. She still golfs 18 holes three times a week and goes dancing every weekend, and she still gets marriage proposals from coots looking for a cheap nursemaid. Agelessness is your attitude, not your wrinkle count. > Forty years ago I used to laugh at those ignorant > peasants pictured in > National Geographic living in the Hunza mountains, eating yogurt and > bulgur wheat, drinking moonshine but living to be centenarians. If > they came here would they laugh at us for buying expensive > supplements and spending thousands to be frozen? Those centenarians got that way by faking their birth certificates to avoid the WWII draft, making their ages over the limit. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From mfj.eav at gmail.com Sat Sep 24 21:56:53 2005 From: mfj.eav at gmail.com (Morris Johnson) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 16:56:53 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] test Message-ID: <61c8738e050924145619114a06@mail.gmail.com> Have had gremblins in the ability to reply. -- 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.4XtraLifespans.bravehost.com megao at sasktel.net, arla_j at hotmail.com, mfj.eav at gmail.com 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 Radical Life-Extension Bioscience + Total Information Awareness Globalized Info-science = The 21st Century Paradigm ........ Re-inventing the Human Condition with Quantum to Macro Biomolecular-engineering *"I will live each and every 50 years, one at a time, like the days of a week".... Morris Johnson - June 2005* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sat Sep 24 23:16:28 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 16:16:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] i don't laugh at peasants anymore In-Reply-To: <20050924214211.7350.qmail@web30311.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050924231628.74804.qmail@web51604.mail.yahoo.com> Tech is all very fine, but in the meantime many parents do need Jose to build them an affordable house large enough for the children to sense they are not living in cubicles. Your Grandmother is very sprite but she isn't ageless. Looks have no intrinsic significance but she doesn't look 17 and if you posted a photo we would see she isn't ageless -- she has the stamina of an ageless person but she isn't ageless. Her hair isn't ageless, her skin isn't ageless, Granny has many cells inside her body which are not as 'ageless' as a 17 year old's are. Your last point is a good one, however there are peasants who live longer than po' fessors. Though you might not like to be one, I would rather be peasant of longevity. Those centenarians got that way by faking their birth certificates to avoid the WWII draft, making their ages over the limit. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nanogirl at halcyon.com Sat Sep 24 23:23:51 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 16:23:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Dermal Display References: <005201c5c142$fcea6830$0300a8c0@Nano><200509242048.j8OKmiX30639@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050924155656.01cd3d90@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <01a601c5c15f$077291d0$0300a8c0@Nano> http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000837060178/#comments More coverage - There are about 20 comments here, if you scroll down. Gina -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From info at nanoaging.com Sat Sep 24 23:29:28 2005 From: info at nanoaging.com (The NanoAging Institute) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:29:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Jerome Clayton Glenn as advisor for NanoAging Message-ID: <020b01c5c15f$cf2b6a30$cb337a18@nomxx5ybrzvkgn> Jerome Clayton Glenn as advisor for NanoAging Millennium Project American Council for the United Nations University http://www.nanoaging.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=6 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 24 23:33:37 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 16:33:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians In-Reply-To: <20050924091331.20006.qmail@web35509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050924233337.2813.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> I am inclined to agree with Spike on this one. I don't belong to SL4 or any of the other lists. I don't have a lot of knowledge of AI jargon and research. I do however have an appreciation of Bayesian inference from my studies of bioinformatics and statistics and I am a reasonably smart layperson in regards to a wide range of subjects. Please "dejargonize" your most important arguments regarding AI and post them to this list, and I will give you honest feedback. 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 - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sat Sep 24 23:57:55 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 16:57:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] i don't laugh at peasants anymore In-Reply-To: <20050924231628.74804.qmail@web51604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050924235755.80370.qmail@web51604.mail.yahoo.com> Mike, Nietzsche wrote "there are rational reasons for abandoning rationalism". A peasant may be ignorant yet may be wiser than a po' fessor; a brain damaged wino lying on the grass may be wiser than a doctor (and I may be cynical however a cynic may always remain a cynic yet may not always be unwise). Intellectuals have many aspects including tricksterism, you can see right away one reason-- teaching transgendered ethnic studies at University of Basketweaving doesn't get you black lung disease nor does teaching at UB get you dishpan hands from being a dish engineer at University of Pancake House. You're the one poster here who comprehends this fully. At any rate what's important is to think one is going be immortal yet prepare in case things don't go your way. If your GP says "I'm terribly sorry, but I'm going to have to refer you to an oncologist, don't you want a default mindset readied? Worse, if you're get in a life threatening accident, wouldn't you then want to have prepared yourself for the worst case? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Sep 25 01:00:22 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:00:22 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians In-Reply-To: <20050924233337.2813.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200509250100.j8P10JX24853@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian > Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 4:34 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians > > > > I am inclined to agree with Spike on this one. I don't > belong to SL4 or any of the other lists. I don't have > a lot of knowledge of AI jargon and research. I do > however have an appreciation of Bayesian inference... My earlier comment should in no way be construed as agreement with Marc Geddes' notions. I consider them in fact irresponsible and dangerous. One can almost hear the muwaahahahahaaa mad scientist in the posts. However I can see the value in knowing what dangerous and irresponsible looks like in AI, so we need not discourage posts on the topic. Nowthen, I know little about AI, so multiply my next comments by the appropriate K sub C factor. Humanity is still somehow missing something fundamental in the creation of AI. We are about at the place where the alchemists were in the 18th century, struggling to just find the right formula or recipe. By that time, a lot of the chemists who studied what had been done already suspected there was something very fundamental about certain materials that was not known. Eventually the periodic chart came along, then Bohr model of the atom, and today we could theoretically create gold if we want. We are at the pre-periodic-chart stage in AI. We are seeing many really smart people study for a scientific lifetime with little to show for it. Many in the 18th century worried about the disaster that would result if anyone managed to create gold, since the world's economies depend upon its scarcity, but they needn't have concerned themselves. Likewise I don't think a lone mad scientist is going to stumble upon the recipe for AI today. If she did, however, I see no justification for assuming it would be friendly. I can easily imagine reasons why an emergent AI would be hostile however. spike From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Sep 25 01:19:03 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:19:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] i don't laugh at peasants anymore In-Reply-To: <20050924231628.74804.qmail@web51604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050925011903.43661.qmail@web30311.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Al Brooks wrote: > Tech is all very fine, but in the meantime many parents do need Jose > to build them an affordable house large enough for the children to > sense they are not living in cubicles. It is interesting to see the growth in need for personal space. Ever lived in a bungalow built in the post-WWII housing boom? Vets would pack their kids in two to a bedroom in those places and they thought they were living the American dream. This isn't unique. I recall a Japanese business colleague of my fathers proud that his home was "eight tatamis wide", as if that was a feat of achievement for a nipponese middle manager. The growth in the need for space goes along with the growth in need for 'stuff'. The average home grew from 1200 sq ft in the postwar period to 2000 by 1970, now reaching near 3000 in many areas of the country, while at the same time we have fewer kids per family and fewer are having families. We all have stuff for work, stuff for the various activities we are involved in, and unclutter it by spreading it out. Without more kids to pay for, you can afford more space for the kids you do or don't have (self included) and all the 'stuff'. Problem is, where do you put all your stuff when you aren't using it? If your stuff was compiled by nanotech, it can be decompiled by nanotech, something Neal Stephenson coined as "deke-ing". There is therefore no need to keep stuff hanging around which you don't need that often, as long as you can pay the royalty on the use of the compiler. What do we do until the nano-santa comes? Go by normal economics, tweaked with a bit of "irrational" exhuberance and an expectation of exponential positive growth as a matter of course rather than a rare transient event. Why complain that Jose is building your home, unless Jose is taking Joe's job? You want more house for less cost, you are going to hire Jose, and Joe can pound sand or go get an education (the one he dropped out of a decade ago). There's nothing wrong with hiring Jose, you are paying him two to four times more than he could make at home in Mehico and giving his family a good life down there. Let Joe move his family to Mexico and he can afford to work at Jose's hourly rate too. Mexico is becoming a big retirement destination for Americans anyways. That social security check goes a lot further south of the border than it does up here. Northerners now look to Mexico much as they once looked to the southern states before they got all pricey. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Sep 25 01:34:51 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:34:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] i don't laugh at peasants anymore In-Reply-To: <20050924235755.80370.qmail@web51604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050925013451.5707.qmail@web30314.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Al Brooks wrote: > Mike, Nietzsche wrote "there are rational reasons for abandoning > rationalism". A peasant may be ignorant yet may be wiser than a po' > fessor; a brain damaged wino lying on the grass may be wiser than a > doctor (and I may be cynical however a cynic may always remain a > cynic yet may not always be unwise). The common sense of experience is a form of wisdom. It is not always right, just most of the time. It is generally stasis-oriented, though, depending on things remaining as they always were. > Intellectuals have many aspects including tricksterism, you can see > right away one reason-- teaching transgendered ethnic studies at > University of Basketweaving doesn't get you black lung disease nor > does teaching at UB get you dishpan hands from being a dish engineer > at University of Pancake House. You're the one poster here who > comprehends this fully. Thanks, I think. > At any rate what's important is to think one is going be immortal yet > prepare in case things don't go your way. If your GP says "I'm > terribly sorry, but I'm going to have to refer you to an oncologist, > don't you want a default mindset readied? Worse, if you're get in a > life threatening accident, wouldn't you then want to have prepared > yourself for the worst case? Under what circumstances? Present day or in the future? I'm always a fan of preparedness, but you should, as Robin Hanson recommends, focus in all risks in order of their likelihood (something even I don't do enough of). Exercise, good eating, supplement maintenance, health relationships and activities are good strategies that anyone who wants to live forever and doesn't expect the nano-santa any time soon. We find, though, that as risks are mitigated by health care, wealth, adequate food, sanitation, housing, employment, education, etc, humans still find new risks to deliberately engage in: smoking, drugs, promiscuous sex, and junk food are all risk activities as much as base jumping, bungee dropping, hang gliding, motorcycle riding, they just take less energy to engage in. All the stuff you need to do to be guaranteed to live a long time lead to a pretty staid life. All the fun stuff is supposed to be bad for you. Comments that the future is going to be boring, or at least full of worry warts, are not without credence. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Sep 25 01:48:17 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 11:48:17 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Effectiveness of Medicine (was: Robin Hanson onCynicism) References: <20050922174520.410B857EF5@finney.org><6.2.3.4.2.20050922204427.01ed56a8@mail.gmu.edu><0ae101c5c01d$40edad70$8998e03c@homepc><6.2.3.4.2.20050923083700.02f51830@mail.gmu.edu><0b0601c5c049$7593e720$8998e03c@homepc><6.2.3.4.2.20050923102323.02f8d008@mail.gmu.edu><0c1701c5c0bd$aac709d0$8998e03c@homepc> <6.2.3.4.2.20050924062549.02f0a658@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <0d0501c5c173$331a7960$8998e03c@homepc> Robin Hanson wrote: > At 12:08 AM 9/24/2005, Brett Paatsch wrote: >>>>In your essay [http://hanson.gmu.edu/feardie.pdf] you say >>>>"fear of death makes us spend 15% of our income on medicine from which >>>>we get little or no health benefit, while >>>> we neglect things like exercise which offer large health benefits". >>>> >>>>But I can't see where you answer the basic question what does Robin mean >>>>by medicine? You seem to assume that >>>> *everyone* just knows what medicine is. I think that is not >>>> a valid assumption. Your essay surveys work done by others >>>> but it is not clear that *they* have defined medicine the same >>>> way as you or indeed as each other. >>>You baffle me. The usual intuitive definition of medicine is "the stuff >>>that doctors do". >> >>This isn't my intuitive definition of medicine. That would be like >>thinking economics was stuff that economists do. Or music is what >> is produced by those people that call themselves musicians. >>To me, intuitively, medicine is about treating ailments. >> >>>You know going to them to get advice, some of which is >>>to take drugs, undergo surgery, and so on. The RAND experiment >>>operationalized that in the obvious way - they gave folks money to >>>go to the doctor more. >> >>That's poor method in my opinion. Give money to go to the doctor >>to uneducated poor people and of course they will use it. People like >>getting attention (Hawthorne studies). > > You still baffle me. How would *you* study the aggregate effectiveness > of "treating ailments"? By first making explicit what the class of ailments under consideration would be. I would NOT try to cluster all the treatments of real and imaginary ailments together into a superclass and call it medicine. (That's potentially dangerous some dill might read my confusion and formulate more bad policy based on it.) I'd personally only study the stuff that had a physiological basis not stuff that doctors treat with no clue as to its basis. In computer parlance that approach to medicine seems like garbage in garbage out. I'd argue doctors that treat without knowing what it is that they are treating aren't practicing medicine at all. > And if you think that people given money to > spend on medicine wouldn't spend it wisely to gain health, then why > would you think people spend their own money on medicine any more > wisely? Because those with money to spend, rather than those holding vouchers that are only good for going to the doctor type services, retain the discretion to spent that money on other things. I think people will only spend money on reducing dis-ease that they actually experience or take action for problems they actually know they have (you might be forewarned in your youth about a higher risk of heart disease because your father had it) if there is an opportunity cost to them of pleasures foregone by money wasted. When they have no dis-ease they will spend the money on things they actually want. They'll act to increase their pleasure rather than act to reduce the pain they aren't experiencing. > It seems as if you agree with my claim that money spent on > medicine doesn't produce much health. I don't disagee with it. I'm agnostic on it. I started off neither agreeing nor disagreeing with it and that is still where I am now. Your, and economists, and politicians equating medicine with whatever the hell doctors might do is very counter-intuitive to me. I can't forget that doctors (as a class) are still just people with all the silliness that encumbers for long enough to revere their authority as a class and to forget that its the dis-ease that needs treating not the doctor that I need to be concerned with running off to get advice from. If I have a broken arm, I'd go to a doctor or a hospital where there would be a doctor or perhaps a nurse and the doctor would put it in a cast. My medical ailment is a broken bone, which is painful and disfunctional for me. I go to a doctor because its clear I am dis-eased. I want the function back in my arm and it just so happens that I know that the doctor or someone at the hospital will be able, probably, to set the bone and thereby reduce my state of dis-ease. They have the necessary technology there (xrays etc to see the nature of the break) to do the physical repair job. For me, all real medical ailments fall into that category. They have a physiological basis which if understood can be turned to a physiological remedy which will return function and remove the state of dis-ease (pain or concern about loss of function). Although I won't claim this is intuitive to me that there is a physical basis even for things like moods I also accept as true. When drugs work they either work on that physiological basis or they just plain don't work at all. Or they may do harm because they interact on a physiological basis somewhere where the biological mechanism wasn't impaired before. Making judgements about the effectiveness of treatments based on correlations rather than direct observations only makes sense when it isn't known what the physiological basis of the disease is and so its particular mechanism of causing dis-ease is unclear. And if you give a drug which acts by unknown mechanism to fix a disease that arises through unknown mechanism then all you are really doing whether you call yourself a doctor or medicine-man is sucking it to see, and keeping track of correlations. If the result, the after level of dis-ease, is worse than before then the treatment is contra-indicated. For much of history that has been all people including doctors have been able to do because the physiological basis of disease wasn't understood. The dignostic tools weren't available. Nor the scanning tools. >>>>I'm obviously missing something here Robin. I can't see any real >>>substance in the essay. To me you just don't cut down to anything >>>substantive. >>>I find it hard to imagine what would count as substance to you. >> >>Major things that people die of are heart disease, cancer and diabetes. >>All these diseases have given ground to medicine since the Rand study >>was done in 1979 or earlier. >>Insulin for diabetes. Angiograms then stents and bypasses for heart >>disease. Chemo and radiation treatment followed by treatment >>with stem cells. >>The Rand study didn't look at the young or the old. It excluded the >>frailest cohorts. The groups that would have been most likely to >>benefit. > > The RAND study did as much as they could at the time. They couldn't > look at free vs. full price medicine for the elderly because the elderly > already got free medicine from Medicare. They did look at children. > > I'd love to see a new experiment done like the RAND experiment, but > until that happens this is the only aggregate experiment data we have. Okay. And at present that data isn't enough for me to move to agree with your assertion that the US spends 15% of its income on medicine for which there is little or no health benefit. I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong. I'm just saying I am not persuaded yet on the basis of the data your essay provides me. I'm a bit concerned that some dill politician might read only the abstract of an essay you write and conclude that economists think all contempory medicine is largely useless. Your essay has August 2005 on it even if the dates of the underlying aggregate research you rely on is substantially older than that. > We do have lots of correlations-in-the-world studies done more recently, > many of which include the elderly. I mentioned one in my paper; what is > your beef with that study? I haven't read the Skinner and Wennberg study itself just the summary of it that you included in your essay. The summary didn't contain enough material to compell me to agree with you. Nor did it show anything that made me think their method was obviously flawed. So I stayed agnostic. To agree with the key propositions in your essay I have to agree on two stages. First that the US spends 15% of its income on medicine for which US citizens get little or no health benefit. And second, and this is really what *your* own essay is about, that the reason that the US does that is because people fear death. I can't be persuaded to your second point without going over the first and I'm not currently getting past the first point. I'm just not persuaded on the data you show me in your essay that your statement that 15% of our income spent on medicine yeilds us little or no health benefit. This doesn't mean that you are wrong. It just means that you haven't succeeded in moving me to agree with you on the basis of what you've written. This *could* be because I'm being thick headed, and not engaging with the underlying research right now, or it could be because I'm not willing to let you have me join you in drawing too long a bow on the basis of too little evidence. Or there might be other explanations :-). Brett Paatsch From rhanson at gmu.edu Sun Sep 25 03:51:20 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 23:51:20 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Effectiveness of Medicine (was: Robin Hanson onCynicism) In-Reply-To: <0d0501c5c173$331a7960$8998e03c@homepc> References: <20050922174520.410B857EF5@finney.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20050922204427.01ed56a8@mail.gmu.edu> <0ae101c5c01d$40edad70$8998e03c@homepc> <6.2.3.4.2.20050923083700.02f51830@mail.gmu.edu> <0b0601c5c049$7593e720$8998e03c@homepc> <6.2.3.4.2.20050923102323.02f8d008@mail.gmu.edu> <0c1701c5c0bd$aac709d0$8998e03c@homepc> <6.2.3.4.2.20050924062549.02f0a658@mail.gmu.edu> <0d0501c5c173$331a7960$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050924233955.02f2f1c0@mail.gmu.edu> At 09:48 PM 9/24/2005, Brett Paatsch wrote: >>>>>In your essay [http://hanson.gmu.edu/feardie.pdf] you say >>>>>"fear of death makes us spend 15% of our income on medicine from >>>>>which we get little or no health benefit, ... >>>>>You seem to assume that *everyone* just knows what medicine is. ... >>>>... intuitive definition of medicine is "the stuff that doctors do". ... >>>To me, intuitively, medicine is about treating ailments. ... >>How would *you* study the aggregate effectiveness of "treating ailments"? > >By first making explicit what the class of ailments under consideration >would be. I would NOT try to cluster all the treatments of real and >imaginary ailments together into a superclass and call it medicine. (That's >potentially dangerous some dill might read my confusion and formulate >more bad policy based on it.) I'd personally only study the stuff that >had a physiological basis not stuff that doctors treat with no clue as to >its basis. In computer parlance that approach to medicine seems like >garbage in garbage out. I'd argue doctors that treat without knowing >what it is that they are treating aren't practicing medicine at all. The personal policy decision people face is whether or not to go to the doctor and do what he says. People do not face the decision of whether or not to treat a real ailment or to treat an imaginary ailment, because they do not know at the moment of decision whether the aliment is real or imaginary. Similarly a commonly discussed government policy decision is whether or not to subsidize or support medical spending. For example with Medicare or Medicaid, or tax free employer provided health care. You don't get to say "we should only subsidize real ailments" because that's not one of the options on the table. Doctors say all the things they treat are real, after all. >>And if you think that people given money to >>spend on medicine wouldn't spend it wisely to gain health, then why >>would you think people spend their own money on medicine any more >>wisely? > >Because those with money to spend, rather than those holding vouchers >that are only good for going to the doctor type services, retain the >discretion to spent that money on other things. I think people will only >spend money on reducing dis-ease that they actually experience or take >action for problems they actually know they have (you might be >forewarned in your youth about a higher risk of heart disease because >your father had it) if there is an opportunity cost to them of pleasures >foregone by money wasted. When they have no dis-ease they will >spend the money on things they actually want. They'll act to increase >their pleasure rather than act to reduce the pain they aren't >experiencing. That really doesn't make much sense to me. Of course if there is no opportunity cost they might spend too much. But among the things they choose they should choose the best things as they see them. If they can't make good choices among the options in one case, they can't in the other case either. >>I'd love to see a new experiment done like the RAND experiment, but >>until that happens this is the only aggregate experiment data we have. > >Okay. And at present that data isn't enough for me to move to agree >with your assertion that the US spends 15% of its income on medicine >for which there is little or no health benefit. > >I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong. I'm just saying I am not >persuaded yet on the basis of the data your essay provides me. I'm a >bit concerned that some dill politician might read only the abstract of an >essay you write and conclude that economists think all contempory >medicine is largely useless. Do you have an opinion on the subject? If not, why object that I have one? If you do have an opinion, what is the basis for it, if you reject the best evidence we have as not good enough? 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 nanogirl at halcyon.com Sun Sep 25 06:48:44 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 23:48:44 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Nanogirl News~ Message-ID: <044101c5c19d$41997750$0300a8c0@Nano> The Nanogirl News September 24, 2005 Physicists Measure Tiny Force That Limits How Far Machines Can Shrink. University of Arizona physicists have directly measured how close speeding atoms can come to a surface before the atoms' wavelengths change. Theirs is a first, fundamental measurement that confirms the idea that the wave of a fast-moving atom shortens and lengthens depending on its distance from a surface, an idea first proposed by pioneering quantum physicists in the late 1920s. (Daily Science News 9/23/05) http://www.sciencenewsdaily.org/story-6724.html Nanowires can detect molecular signs of cancer, scientists find. Harvard University researchers have found that molecular markers indicating the presence of cancer in the body are readily detected in blood scanned by special arrays of silicon nanowires - even when these cancer markers constitute only one hundred-billionth of the protein present in a drop of blood. In addition to this exceptional accuracy and sensitivity, the minuscule devices also promise to pinpoint the exact type of cancer present with a speed not currently available to clinicians. (Eurekalert 9/23/05) http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-09/hu-ncd092305.php Molecular Needles: Carbon nanotubes inject antimycotics into cells and increase their effectiveness. Putting pharmaceutical agents into the body isn't hard, but getting them into targeted areas can be problematic. If drugs aren't taken up by a large enough proportion of cells, a suitable "transport agent" must be used. A French and Italian research team has successfully used carbon nanotubes as transport agents for antimycotics (antifungal agents). In addition, they have developed a strategy for attaching a second agent or marker to the nanotubes in a controlled fashion. (Chemie.De 9/21/05) http://www.chemie.de/news/e/49045/ Quantum-dot syntheses developed. UB scientists report new processes have applications in bioimaging and solar conversion. Efficient and highly scalable new chemical synthesis methods developed at UB's Institute for Lasers, Photonics and Biophotonics have the potential to revolutionize the production of quantum dots for bioimaging and photovoltaic applications. (UB Reporter 9/22/05) http://www.buffalo.edu/reporter/vol37/vol37n4/articles/QuantumDots.html Like fireflies and pendulum clocks, nano-oscillators synchronize their behavior. Like the flashing of fireflies and ticking of pendulum clocks, the signals emitted by multiple nanoscale oscillators can naturally synchronize under certain conditions, greatly amplifying their output power and stabilizing their signal pattern, according to scientists at the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). (Physorg 9/14/05) http://www.physorg.com/news6484.html Nanodiamonds prove magnetic. Researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, SUNY Albany, NASA Ames Research Center and Philip Morris, all in the US, have created magnetic nanodiamonds by bombarding the particles with carbon or nitrogen ions. The nanodiamonds became ferromagnetic at room temperature. "These findings could lead to a systematic, controllable method for producing magnetic carbon materials," said Pulickel Ajayan of Rensselaer. "Though the value of the magnetization is much lower than in regular magnets, the nature of the spin interactions in carbon could lead to a number of potential applications." (nanotechweb 9/15/05) http://nanotechweb.org/articles/news/4/9/9/1 Purdue scientists treat cancer with RNA nanotechnology. Using strands of genetic material, Purdue University scientists have constructed tiny delivery vehicles that can carry anticancer therapeutic agents directly to infected cells, offering a potential wealth of new treatments for chronic diseases. The vehicles look nothing like delivery trucks, though that is their function once inside the body. Instead, these so-called nanoparticles, which are assembled from three short pieces of ribonucleic acid, resemble miniature triangles. The microscopic particles possess both the right size to gain entry into cells and also the right structure to carry other therapeutic strands of RNA inside with them, where they are able to halt viral growth or cancer's progress. The team has already tested the nanoparticles successfully against cancer growth in mice and lab-grown human cells. (Ascribe 9/13/05) http://www.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/behold.pl?ascribeid=20050913.144406&time=21%2005%20PDT&year=2005&public=1 Tiny Twister. Trucks drive over the Golden Gate Bridge with little effect, but a proposed nanoscale bridge would shudder even from the flow of electrons. The device, described theoretically in the 2 September PRL, would detect the electrons' spins by measuring the bridge's tilt as the electrons traverse it. Running it backward by forcing the bridge to tilt could generate a current of electrons with aligned spins. The device could be an essential component in the emerging field of spintronics--electronics that manipulate electron spins in addition to charges--which may someday transform information technology and computing. (Phys. Rev. 9/19/05) http://focus.aps.org/story/v16/st9 Bamboo-Shaped Nanowires. There has been a growing interest in the synthesis of bamboo-shaped carbon, BN, CN, and MoS2 nanotubes based on their applications as both structural and functional materials. Bamboo-shaped Ag-doped TiO2 nanowires with heterojunctions were synthesized by a simple solvothermal method and the detailed structure of the heterojunction in the nanowire is characterized. (Chemistry.org Sept. 2005) http://pubs3.acs.org/acs/journals/doilookup?in_doi=10.1021/ic0505551 Nanotechnology Innovation Enables Recovery and Reuse of Spilled Oil. Interface Sciences Corporation announced that in response to oil spill problems stemming from the current Hurricane Katrina disaster and oil crises, the company is launching its proprietary oil remediation and recovery application. Interface Sciences treated material absorbs about 40 times it weight in oil, far exceeding existing commercially available remediation materials. (Nanotech cafe 9/7/05) http://www10.nanotechcafe.com/nbc/articles/view_article.php?section=CorpNews&articleid=204185 Nanotechnology facilities, enhanced by thousand-year-old decorative style, near completion. A two-story-high, 450-foot-long wall surface with rock chipped flat - reminiscent of the thousand-year-old stonework at New Mexico's Chaco Canyon archaeological site - cuts across the three laboratory wings of the new core facility of the Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies. The wall's function is not structural but meant to serve as an advertisement rooted in New Mexico's history.(Sandia 9/15/05) http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2005/micro-nano/cint-facilities.html Nano World: Nano for artificial kidneys. Nanotechnological filters could lead to wearable or implantable artificial kidneys, experts told UPI's Nano World. Animal studies for artificial-kidney prototypes should begin one or two years from now, and clinical trials would follow a year or two afterward, reported scientists at Biophiltre in Burlingame, Calif., the medical-device company developing the artificial-kidney technology. (Medlineplus 9/8/05) http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_26808.html Researchers Awarded NSF Grant to Study Nano Springs, Rods, Beams. Researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute are exploring the potential of nanomechanical systems by making and testing springs, rods, and beams on the nanoscale. They have been awarded a $1.15 million grant from the National Science Foundation for the research. The past decade has seen an explosion of interest in electronic devices at the molecular level, but less attention has been paid to nanoscale mechanical systems, according to Toh-Ming Lu, the R.P. Baker Distinguished Professor of Physics at Rensselaer and principal investigator for the project. "Nanomechanical devices may have as important an impact as nanoelectronics, but a number of challenges need to be overcome before these systems can be practically realized," (newswise 9/15/05) http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/514562/ Nanohelix Structure Provides New Building Block For Nanoscale Piezoelectric Devices. A previously-unknown zinc oxide nanostructure that resembles the helical configuration of DNA could provide engineers with a new building block for creating nanometer-scale sensors, transducers, resonators and other devices that rely on electromechanical coupling. Based on a superlattice composed of alternating single-crystal "stripes" just a few nanometers wide, the "nanohelix" structure is part of a family of nanobelts -- tiny ribbon-like structures with semiconducting and piezoelectric properties -- that were first reported in 2001. The nanohelices, which get their shape from twisting forces created by a small mismatch between the stripes, are produced using a vapor-solid growth process at high temperature. Information about the growth and analysis of the new structures will be reported in the September 9 issue of the journal Science. (ScienceDaily 9/13/05) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050911104847.htm Researchers Create DNA-Based Sensors for Nano-Tongues and Nano-Noses. Nano-sized carbon tubes coated with strands of DNA can create tiny sensors with abilities to detect odors and tastes, according to researchers at the University of Pennsylvania and Monell Chemical Sciences Center. Their findings are published in the current issue of the journal Nano Letters, a publication of the American Chemical Society. According to the researchers, arrays of these nanosensors could detect molecules on the order of one part per million, akin to finding a one-second play amid 278 hours of baseball footage or a single person in Times Square on New Years' Eve. In the report, the researchers tested the nanosensors on five different chemical odorants, including methanol and dinitrotoluene, or DNT, a common chemical that is also frequently a component of military-grade explosives. The nanosensors could sniff molecules out of the air or taste them in a liquid, suggesting applications ranging from domestic security to medical detectors.(nanotechwire 9/21/05) http://nanotechwire.com/news.asp?nid=2330&ntid=&pg=1 Nanotechnology Confronts the Bad Hair Day. Ohio State University researchers have just completed the first comprehensive study of human hair on the nanometer level. Special equipment enabled Bharat Bhushan, Ohio Eminent Scholar and the Howard D. Winbigler Professor of mechanical engineering at Ohio State, and his colleagues to get an unprecedented close-up look at a rogue's gallery of bad hair days - from chemically overprocessed locks to curls kinked up by humidity. They used the techniques they developed to test a new high-tech hair conditioner. Ultimately, the same techniques could be used to improve lipstick, nail polish and other beauty products, said Bhushan. His specialty is nanotribology - the measurement of very small things, such as the friction between moving parts in microelectronics. (SAWF 9/8/05) http://news.sawf.org/Health/2608.aspx And recent press of the Dermal Display animation: engadget currently 22 comments. KurzweilAI.net medGadget Nanotechnology Now NanoVIP Immortality Institute discussion. Yahoo Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Foresight Participating Member 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: From nanogirl at halcyon.com Sun Sep 25 07:09:14 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 00:09:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Dermal Display References: <005201c5c142$fcea6830$0300a8c0@Nano><200509242048.j8OKmiX30639@tick.javien.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050924155656.01cd3d90@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <04c201c5c1a0$200a4800$0300a8c0@Nano> : ) ----- Original Message ----- From: Damien Broderick To: ExI chat list Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 1:58 PM Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Dermal Display At 01:48 PM 9/24/2005 -0700, Spike wrote: >Don't let the nattering nabobs of negativism discourage you Gina. Or in this case the nattering nonanobobs of negativism. _______________________________________________ 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: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 25 09:22:00 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 02:22:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Continued from wta-talk: 'Beating Eliezer' ;) In-Reply-To: <20050924064457.91274.qmail@web35512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050925092200.51532.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> --- Marc Geddes wrote: > Well, I think the Bayesian framework is definitely > on the right track but seriously incomplete. You > see, I think *physics* causality is *not* the only > kind of causality there is! I've reached the > conclusion that there are in fact > *three different kinds* of causality, and the > current Bayesian framework only deals with ONE of > them (the physics kind). So if I'm right there are > really three different Bayesian frameworks. And no > one has the faintest idea what the other two consist > of. Marc, please explain why you think there are three kinds of causality. As far as I know, even the "physics causality" you speak of is contentious in that temporal ordering of events is dependent on ones inertial frame of reference in relativity. On the other end of the scale, there are experiments that seem to violate causality in quantum mechanics (e.g. , EPR paradox, quantum erasure, etc). In light of this, on what basis do you contend that not only is standard causality real but that there are two other kinds? After all any number of angels can be conjectured to dance on the tip of a unicorn's horn, yet without proof of angels or unicorns, the conjecture is baseless. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 25 09:47:07 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 02:47:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians In-Reply-To: <200509250100.j8P10JX24853@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050925094708.25854.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > My earlier comment should in no way be construed > as agreement with Marc Geddes' notions. I consider > them in fact irresponsible and dangerous. One can > almost hear the muwaahahahahaaa mad scientist in > the posts. Heh. I think you are right. I just checked out his posted links to his "theory of everything". It reads a little like Dianetics. Too bad, he's obviously an intelligent guy. I think he just made the mistake of buying into his own bullshit. 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 - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From pharos at gmail.com Sun Sep 25 11:06:01 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 12:06:01 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reasons for longer life. Message-ID: In the other thread Robin Hanson makes the claim that 15% of US income is spent on medical treatments and, of that 15%, 5% is useless and 10% of debatable value. But he also agrees that in developed countries life expectancy has been increasing steadily for the last 100 years. But he claims that nobody knows why. I think the confusion arises because these are two different subjects with no direct relationship. The RAND study said that they saw no effect on death rates, so they tested against various 'health' factors. A lot of medicine is not for life-threatening conditions. It is to make people feel better or function better. But if you are bleeding to death or need your appendix removed, then medical intervention *will* increase your life expectancy. To help in the confusion, life expectancy is also multi-factorial. For example, TB, cholera and polio have virtually disappeared in developed countries, but smoking-related disease, obesity, diabetes, etc. were increasing as the others were reducing. One method of finding out why some countries have greater life expectancy than others is to look at the differences between these countries. Obviously some differences will have little or no effect on life expectancy, but others will. This has been attempted by the World Health Organization. To summarize, they end up stating the obvious, namely, that if you live in poverty, have little food or clean water, have little access to medicines or health care, have little health education, possibly live in a polluted or dangerous environment, - then you are not going to live as long. For HALE by country, see: Burden of Disease stats: World Health report 2005 In undeveloped countries infant mortality is a major problem. This year almost 11 million children under five years of age will die from causes that are largely preventable. Among them are 4 million babies who will not survive the first month of life. At the same time, more than half a million women will die in pregnancy, childbirth or soon after. Fixing this has probably been one of the biggest factors in increasing life expectancy in developed countries. Many diseases that still kill millions worldwide have been virtually eliminated from developed countries. But lately, obesity and smoking related diseases (and other factors also) have slowed the increasing life expectancy in developed countries. And, of course, even in many developed countries, there are large ghetto areas of very poor people who will reduce the national average life expectancy. (Yes, richer people do live longer!). So, to sum up, Robin could well be correct to say that most of the US medical expenditure today is just for a 'feel-good' factor. But a lot of life-extending facilities are taken for granted and done for little expense. e.g. vaccinations, clean water, disinfectant, hygiene, aspirin, antibiotics, etc. You can see what happens in countries where these cheap 'taken-for-granted' items are not available. BillK From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sun Sep 25 12:26:59 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 13:26:59 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Continued from wta-talk: 'Beating Eliezer' ;) In-Reply-To: <20050925092200.51532.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050924064457.91274.qmail@web35512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20050925092200.51532.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/25/05, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > > --- Marc Geddes wrote: > > > Well, I think the Bayesian framework is definitely > > on the right track but seriously incomplete. You > > see, I think *physics* causality is *not* the only > > kind of causality there is! I've reached the > > conclusion that there are in fact > > *three different kinds* of causality, and the > > current Bayesian framework only deals with ONE of > > them (the physics kind). So if I'm right there are > > really three different Bayesian frameworks. And no > > one has the faintest idea what the other two consist > > of. > > Marc, please explain why you think there are three > kinds of causality. As far as I know, even the > "physics causality" you speak of is contentious in > that temporal ordering of events is dependent on ones > inertial frame of reference in relativity. On the The ordering is not depoendent, merely the measured interval. Except EPR measurements that do not transmit useable information. other end of the scale, there are experiments that > seem to violate causality in quantum mechanics (e.g. , > EPR paradox, quantum erasure, etc). In light of this, > on what basis do you contend that not only is standard > causality real but that there are two other kinds? > After all any number of angels can be conjectured to > dance on the tip of a unicorn's horn, yet without > proof of angels or unicorns, the conjecture is > baseless. > > > > The Avantguardian > is > Stuart LaForge > alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu > > "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't > attempted to contact us." > -Bill Watterson > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rhanson at gmu.edu Sun Sep 25 12:51:51 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 08:51:51 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reasons for longer life. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050925083626.03016578@mail.gmu.edu> At 07:06 AM 9/25/2005, BillK wrote: >In the other thread Robin Hanson makes the claim that 15% of US income >is spent on medical treatments and, of that 15%, 5% is useless and 10% >of debatable value. >But he also agrees that in developed countries life expectancy has >been increasing steadily for the last 100 years. But he claims that >nobody knows why. ... >One method of finding out why some countries have greater life >expectancy than others is to look at the differences between these >countries. Obviously some differences will have little or no effect on >life expectancy, but others will. >This has been attempted by the World Health Organization. >To summarize, they end up stating the obvious, namely, that if you >live in poverty, have little food or clean water, have little access >to medicines or health care, have little health education, possibly >live in a polluted or dangerous environment, - then you are not going >to live as long. For [Healthy Life Expectancy] by country, see: ... >Many diseases that still kill millions worldwide have been virtually >eliminated from developed countries. ... >So, to sum up, Robin could well be correct to say that most of the US >medical expenditure today is just for a 'feel-good' factor. But a lot >of life-extending facilities are taken for granted and done for little >expense. e.g. vaccinations, clean water, disinfectant, hygiene, >aspirin, antibiotics, etc. You can see what happens in countries where >these cheap 'taken-for-granted' items are not available. No, you can see that poor countries tend to have worse health. But many things vary between poor and rich countries, so it takes some work to figure out which of those things we should attribute the health differences to. There is a large literature on this subject. The best analyses use multiple regressions to try to disentangle the influences. Most of those studies find no effect of medical spending on health. For example, see: Child Mortality and Public Spending on Health: How Much Does Money Matter? 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 Sun Sep 25 13:02:11 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 09:02:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Effectiveness of Medicine (was: Robin Hanson on Cynicism) In-Reply-To: <61c8738e050924090574324767@mail.gmail.com> References: <20050922174520.410B857EF5@finney.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20050922204427.01ed56a8@mail.gmu.edu> <0ae101c5c01d$40edad70$8998e03c@homepc> <6.2.3.4.2.20050923083700.02f51830@mail.gmu.edu> <0b0601c5c049$7593e720$8998e03c@homepc> <6.2.3.4.2.20050923102323.02f8d008@mail.gmu.edu> <0c1701c5c0bd$aac709d0$8998e03c@homepc> <6.2.3.4.2.20050924062549.02f0a658@mail.gmu.edu> <61c8738e050924090574324767@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050925085429.02f2ede8@mail.gmu.edu> At 12:05 PM 9/24/2005, Morris Johnson wrote: >Nutrigenomics has added food to the list of mechanisms >that regulate genetic expression. >Darwin and Crick meet Einstein so to speak. >If you can invest units of time and thought to >monitor, reflect and modify your environment and substance >intake (food and drink) you can modify the natural course of >events programmed into your genes and if some epignetic >evidence is taken more broadly, very nearly alter the DNA itself. >... I feel I will take the risk that I will drop dead tomorrow >as a result of my tinkering against the possibility that my next >50 are just the run-up to many more. .. >I went to a Natural Health Products meeting this last week. One >of the presenters showed how various sources of smoke ... >So knowledge leveraged money spent on individually driven health >choices can dramatically effect the effectiveness of medicine and >do so at quite a nominal cost in comparison to the critical care >medical products and services. Even where individual choices lead >to catastrophic results it is a good thing as it can add to the >knowledge base of those who did not make the "catastrophic choices". Well you can certainly "effect" you health at low cost by taking random chemicals pitched by "Natural Health Products" salesman - as you point out this sometimes produces catastrophic harm. But this is hardly evidence that people on average improve their health by such actions. 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 puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Sun Sep 25 13:18:08 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 15:18:08 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Life expectancy vs. maximum life span Message-ID: After reading many posts on health care I became a bit curious about the actual life expectancy. In particular, I had heard from multiple sources that the maximum human life span has always been around 80 years or so, and that the current increasing in life expectancy is only due to lower death rates during birth or similar thing. The wikipedia entry on the subject led me to this report by the (US) National Center for Health Statistics: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus04trend.pdf The interesting bit is table 27 (at page 77 of the pdf file), which lists life expectancy at various ages from 1900 to present (life expectancy at different ages is defined as follows: at birth, it's the number of years you can expect to live. At a later point, it's the number of years you can expect to have ahead of you. For example, if at 30 years you have a life expectancy of 45 years, it means that in average people like you die at 75). According to the table, life expectancy at birth increased by 30 years 1900-2002, by 9 years 1950-2002, and by 2 years 1990-2002. This is a large and obvious improvement. For people who are 65 years old, life expectancy only increased by about 4 years 1950-2002, and by 1 year 1990-2000. For people who are 75 years old, the gain from 1990 to 2000 is just 6 months. It is apparent that the range is "compressing": more people who in the past would have died young live to an older age, but the maximum age doesn't really go up. So the average goes up, but the trend is misleading. Comments? Alfio From pharos at gmail.com Sun Sep 25 13:37:20 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 14:37:20 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Life expectancy vs. maximum life span In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9/25/05, Alfio Puglisi wrote: > > The interesting bit is table 27 (at page 77 of the pdf file), which lists > life expectancy at various ages from 1900 to present (life expectancy at > different ages is defined as follows: at birth, it's the number of years > you can expect to live. At a later point, it's the number of years you can > expect to have ahead of you. For example, if at 30 years you have a life > expectancy of 45 years, it means that in average people like you die at > 75). > > According to the table, life expectancy at birth increased by 30 years > 1900-2002, by 9 years 1950-2002, and by 2 years 1990-2002. This is a large > and obvious improvement. > > For people who are 65 years old, life expectancy only increased by about 4 > years 1950-2002, and by 1 year 1990-2000. > > For people who are 75 years old, the gain from 1990 to 2000 is just 6 > months. > > It is apparent that the range is "compressing": more people who in the > past would have died young live to an older age, but the maximum age > doesn't really go up. So the average goes up, but the trend is misleading. > > Comments? > Well, you've got my agreement. :) That's exactly what I said (or tried to say - :) ). "In undeveloped countries infant mortality is a major problem. This year almost 11 million children under five years of age will die from causes that are largely preventable. Among them are 4 million babies who will not survive the first month of life. At the same time, more than half a million women will die in pregnancy, childbirth or soon after. Fixing this has probably been one of the biggest factors in increasing life expectancy in developed countries." BillK From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Sun Sep 25 14:58:38 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 16:58:38 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Life expectancy vs. maximum life span In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, BillK wrote: > > Well, you've got my agreement. :) > That's exactly what I said (or tried to say - :) ). > > "In undeveloped countries infant mortality is a major problem. This > year almost 11 million children under five years of age will die from > causes that are largely preventable. Among them are 4 million babies > who will not survive the first month of life. At the same time, more > than half a million women will die in pregnancy, childbirth or soon > after. > Fixing this has probably been one of the biggest factors in increasing > life expectancy in developed countries." Yep, the problem is that fixing (or trying to) other problems like cancer and hearth disease has done little to increase it. Alfio From pharos at gmail.com Sun Sep 25 15:12:19 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 16:12:19 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reasons for longer life. In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050925083626.03016578@mail.gmu.edu> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20050925083626.03016578@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: On 9/25/05, Robin Hanson wrote: > No, you can see that poor countries tend to have worse health. But many > things vary between poor and rich countries, so it takes some work to > figure out which of those things we should attribute the health differences > to. There is a large literature on this subject. The best analyses use > multiple regressions to try to disentangle the influences. Most of those > studies find no effect of medical spending on health. For example, see: > Child > Mortality and Public Spending on Health: How Much Does Money Matter? > I think you are taking the wrong conclusion from this 1997 report. What it seems to show to me is that in poor undeveloped countries there is no point in giving them x million to spend on 'health' because they don't have the structures to get the services to all the population. 75% probably disappears in corruption and the rest is spent on a few hospitals for the government gangsters and their supporters to use. The WHO is obviously very concerned that the health spending should get to the people that need it. And they *know* that this does not happen in most undeveloped countries. Read these five chapters from the 2005 report. Quote: In many countries, however, universal access to the goods, services and opportunities that improve or preserve health is still a distant goal. A varying but large proportion of mothers and children remain excluded from the health benefits that others in the same country enjoy. Exclusion is related to socioeconomic inequalities. In many countries it is a sign of increasing dualism in society: as growing middle classes in urban areas gain disproportionate access to public services, including education and health care, they effectively enter into competition with the poor for scarce resources, and easily come out on top. The result is that exclusion from access to health care is commonplace in poor countries. In the 42 countries that in 2000 accounted for 90% of all deaths of children under five years of age, 60% of children with pneumonia failed to get the antibiotic they needed, and 70% of children with malaria failed to receive treatment . One third of children did not receive the vitamin A available to others in the same countries, and half had no safe water or sanitation. From 1999 to 2001, less than 2% of children from endemic malaria areas slept under insecticide-treated nets every night. People excluded from health care benefits by such barriers to the uptake of services are also usually excluded from other services such as access to electricity, water supply, basic sanitation, education or information. Their exclusion from care is also reflected in inferior health indicators. End Quote. For undeveloped countries the need is not just for 'health' spending. They need the whole development cycle of education, democratization, roads, electricity, sanitation, law and order, etc. to ensure that the whole population benefits from the health expenditure. BillK From mfj.eav at gmail.com Sun Sep 25 15:21:47 2005 From: mfj.eav at gmail.com (Morris Johnson) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 10:21:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Effectiveness of Medicine Message-ID: <61c8738e050925082168d22a12@mail.gmail.com> Frrom Robin Hansen: Well you can certainly "effect" you health at low cost by taking random chemicals pitched by "Natural Health Products" salesman - as you point out this sometimes produces catastrophic harm. But this is hardly evidence that people on average improve their health by such actions. What I am saying is that since the globalization of food supply transactions, the greater dietary choice availability in restaurants and Natural health product stores as well as the introduction of a myriad of novel compounds into the everyday environment we all are guinea pigs, unless we live in a rural setting. Even then we are bathed in EM signatures from everything from GPS to RF fields not the least of which is our own home wiring. These are novel things to our nutrigenomic and epigenetic profiles since the last 150 years and in largest measure only since the 1950's. I may be a bit more adventurous than some, but I also think I understand more than the average consumer. What I said was that despite what I feel I know, that the sheer number of new compounds consumed makes for the possibility of many interactions not documented formally which may individually be insignificant but taken together may have unknown long term consequences and that only time would reveal if these are significant positive or negative ones. But I am also saying that better documentation of health could track these individual nutrigenomic cases and with system-wide data mining could detect consequences by pulling needles from the haystack. What I am saying is that we are as a society by adding all these new inputs enacting a global nutrigenomic experiment. The labs and researchers might be working from the fine technical end but senendipity is also able to render up spontaneous examples from the population at large. Out of 6 billion there must be 300 million who are consuming in dietary modifications not common to past generations of their families. Like with the yellow, obese mice who when given B12, Folic Acid, and 2 other supplements gave birth to skinny, dark coated mice it could happen to us too if we happen on just that right combination of genetic expression modifiers via drug/diet interactions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Sep 25 16:17:45 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 02:17:45 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Effectiveness of Medicine (was: Robin HansononCynicism) References: <20050922174520.410B857EF5@finney.org><6.2.3.4.2.20050922204427.01ed56a8@mail.gmu.edu><0ae101c5c01d$40edad70$8998e03c@homepc><6.2.3.4.2.20050923083700.02f51830@mail.gmu.edu><0b0601c5c049$7593e720$8998e03c@homepc><6.2.3.4.2.20050923102323.02f8d008@mail.gmu.edu><0c1701c5c0bd$aac709d0$8998e03c@homepc><6.2.3.4.2.20050924062549.02f0a658@mail.gmu.edu><0d0501c5c173$331a7960$8998e03c@homepc> <6.2.3.4.2.20050924233955.02f2f1c0@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <0d8c01c5c1ec$a9c8f810$8998e03c@homepc> Robin Hanson wrote: > At 09:48 PM 9/24/2005, Brett Paatsch wrote: >>>>>>In your essay [http://hanson.gmu.edu/feardie.pdf] you say >>>>>>"fear of death makes us spend 15% of our income on medicine from >>>>>>which we get little or no health benefit, ... >>>>>>You seem to assume that *everyone* just knows what medicine is. ... >>>>>... intuitive definition of medicine is "the stuff that doctors do". >>>>>... >>>>To me, intuitively, medicine is about treating ailments. ... >>>How would *you* study the aggregate effectiveness of "treating ailments"? >> >>By first making explicit what the class of ailments under consideration >>would be. I would NOT try to cluster all the >> treatments of real and imaginary ailments together into a superclass and >> call it medicine. (That's potentially dangerous >> some dill might read my confusion and formulate >>more bad policy based on it.) I'd personally only study the stuff that >>had a physiological basis not stuff that doctors >> treat with no clue as to its basis. In computer parlance that >> approach to medicine seems like garbage in garbage out. I'd argue doctors >> that treat without knowing what it is that >> they are treating aren't practicing medicine at all. > > The personal policy decision people face is whether or not to go to the > doctor and do what he says. People do not face > the decision of whether or not to treat a real ailment or to treat an > imaginary ailment, because they do not know at the > moment of decision whether the aliment is real or imaginary. It would be possible though for governments to decide not to provide subsidies for some of the categories of treatment that some people would be willing to buy thereby having more funds to allocate to medical treatments that are actually going to be effective. I don't want to see iridology consults and shakra realignments subsidised. The Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits scheme used to work on a principle whereby the federal government would act as a consolidated pharmaceuticals buyer and it would only make one or perhaps two drugs available from within different categories. The drugs would be compared (by experts) for effectiveness and cost against rival offerings. In this way a lot of the consumer choice was removed. There is obviously good and bad consequences of that approach. > Similarly a commonly discussed government policy decision > is whether or not to subsidize or support medical spending. For > example with Medicare or Medicaid, or tax free employer provided > health care. You don't get to say "we should only subsidize real > ailments" because that's not one of the options on the table. I think there is going to be so much political pressure in this area in coming decades to contain health costs that some health economists will get a chance to have input into policy. I just hope that the research that gets listened too by politicians is genuinely useful. Telling a politician that wants to cut the costs of medicine and just about everything else, that medicine is largely useless is likely to make some health economists very popular with that politician but they could be a real pain in the arse to the public good if their research isn't rock solid. > Doctors say all the things they treat are real, after all. But I don't believe them and neither do you. >>>And if you think that people given money to spend on >>> medicine wouldn't spend it wisely to gain health, then why >>>would you think people spend their own money on medicine >>> any more wisely? >> >>Because those with money to spend, rather than those holding vouchers >>that are only good for going to the doctor type services, retain the >>discretion to spent that money on other things. I think people will only >>spend money on reducing dis-ease that they actually experience or take >>action for problems they actually know they have (you might be >>forewarned in your youth about a higher risk of heart disease because >>your father had it) if there is an opportunity cost to them of pleasures >>foregone by money wasted. When they have no dis-ease they will >>spend the money on things they actually want. They'll act to increase >>their pleasure rather than act to reduce the pain they aren't >>experiencing. > > That really doesn't make much sense to me. Of course if there is no > opportunity cost they might spend too much. But among the things they > choose they should choose the best things as they see them. If they > can't make good choices among the options in one case, they can't in > the other case either. I probably do need to take a closer look at the RAND study. But your essay says "in the late 1970s, most of 5816 non-elderly adults (sic)... were randomly assigned". So where did the children that were reported to have had "fewer decayed and more filled teeth" come from? Something isn't right there. Your source for the RAND study isn't the RAND study directly its (Newhouse & Group, 1993). Do you have the actually RAND study? Can I see it? >>>I'd love to see a new experiment done like the RAND experiment, >>> but until that happens this is the only aggregate experiment data we >>> have. >> >>Okay. And at present that data isn't enough for me to move to agree >>with your assertion that the US spends 15% of its income on medicine >>for which there is little or no health benefit. >> >>I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong. I'm just saying I am not >>persuaded yet on the basis of the data your essay provides me. I'm a >>bit concerned that some dill politician might read only the abstract of an >>essay you write and conclude that economists think all contempory >>medicine is largely useless. > > Do you have an opinion on the subject? Yes. But in fairness to you my opinion isn't much more than a prejudice at this stage. On the other hand in fairness to your readers as a writer when you make a claim in the title of an essay or in the abstract of it you are putting a flag in the ground and asserting something to be true. Don't you agree that the reader should be entitled to expect that the essay that follows will be about the writer accepting responsibility for make the case for the truths he is asserting? > If not, why object that I have one? I don't. I like that you have one. Your opinions are usually well grounded and interesting. When you speak on health economic matters though I am aware that your opinions might matter a bit more than the average. As a teacher of health economics your opinions (or that of your students) might actually get to influence policy somewhere. I wouldn't want you convincing politicians of something that wasn't true. I don't think you want to either. > If you do have an opinion, what is the basis for it, if you reject the > best evidence we have as not good enough? My opinion is that in the aggregate medicine will be more effective than no medicine. As I find evidence for or against the proposition I'll bear your interest in this topic in mind. I'm interested in the questions you have legitimately raised about the effectiveness of medicine. But I'm time constrained and I don't want to have to look too far beyond your essay for substantiation of the claims in your essay. To the extent that you provide corroborating stuff in your essay and I don't read it closely enough then its entirely fair for you to call me to account for that. Brett Paatsch From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Sep 25 16:48:45 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 09:48:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] codes in scam letters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509251648.j8PGmjX04399@tick.javien.com> After all this time, I am *still* getting scam letters, the ones that go something like: Greetings sir or madam, I have heard from numerous sources that you are an honest man or woman, so please give me your bank account number and name, that I may give you 38 billion dollars stolen from nygerian communist insurgents, etc. (I actually got one that misspelled the country it was from. {8^D ) Of course, no one old enough to actually have a bank account is falling for those gags anymore, but it occurred to me that they would be the perfect vehicle for broadcasting coded messages to sleeper cells or other criminal gangs. No one actually reads very far past any email that starts with the word "greetings" so this might be just the thing. They could even hide a message in misspelled words, so that a copy- paste into microsloth word would underline in red squigglies the actual message. Harvey and other security wonks, has this been done? spike From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Sep 25 17:15:24 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 10:15:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians In-Reply-To: <20050924233337.2813.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050924233337.2813.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7DC30364-D5A6-4622-875E-EF498004E832@mac.com> You will not the a lot of enlightenment from Mr. Geddes. He is the very embodiment of a crank. The whiney boastful tone of his post should have been a clue. Don't say I didn't warn you. Best of luck. - s On Sep 24, 2005, at 4:33 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > I am inclined to agree with Spike on this one. I don't > belong to SL4 or any of the other lists. I don't have > a lot of knowledge of AI jargon and research. I do > however have an appreciation of Bayesian inference > from my studies of bioinformatics and statistics and I > am a reasonably smart layperson in regards to a wide > range of subjects. Please "dejargonize" your most > important arguments regarding AI and post them to this > list, and I will give you honest feedback. > > > > 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 - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Sep 25 17:25:13 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 12:25:13 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Locus Broderick interview excerpts Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050925122233.01d3e1c0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://www.locusmag.com/2005/Issues/09Broderick.html (complete with rather unflattering photo--urg...) From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sun Sep 25 17:27:09 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 18:27:09 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] codes in scam letters In-Reply-To: <200509251648.j8PGmjX04399@tick.javien.com> References: <200509251648.j8PGmjX04399@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On 9/25/05, spike wrote: > > > > After all this time, I am *still* getting scam letters, > the ones that go something like: Greetings sir or madam, > I have heard from numerous sources that you are an honest > man or woman, so please give me your bank account number > and name, that I may give you 38 billion dollars stolen > from nygerian communist insurgents, etc. > > (I actually got one that misspelled the country it was > from. {8^D ) > > Of course, no one old enough to actually have a bank > account is falling for those gags anymore, but it > occurred to me that they would be the perfect vehicle > for broadcasting coded messages to sleeper cells or other > criminal gangs. No one actually reads very far past > any email that starts with the word "greetings" so > this might be just the thing. They could even hide > a message in misspelled words, so that a copy- > paste into microsloth word would underline in red > squigglies the actual message. > > Harvey and other security wonks, has this been done? > > Maybe where it links to a .jpg Steganography Otherwise it would be a one time pad kind of thing. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From extropy at unreasonable.com Sun Sep 25 17:27:34 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 13:27:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] codes in scam letters In-Reply-To: <200509251648.j8PGmjX04399@tick.javien.com> References: <200509251648.j8PGmjX04399@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050925125816.07bf1558@unreasonable.com> Spike wrote: >it occurred to me that they would be the perfect vehicle for >broadcasting coded messages to sleeper cells or other criminal >gangs. No one actually reads very far past any email that starts >with the word "greetings" so this might be just the thing. They >could even hide a message in misspelled words, so that a copy-paste >into microsloth word would underline in red squigglies the actual message. > >Harvey and other security wonks, has this been done? Sure, the concept is centuries old. The specific approach you suggest wouldn't be hard to break, but can be refined to a level that is effectively undetectable and unbreakable. See earlier postings 8/14/2005 11:39 AM - Covert channels (was Re: Transhumanist short story) 9/20/2001 11:44 AM - RE: steganography I think the idea in the 8/14 posting is as unbreakable as a one-time pad but has the advantage that it's much harder for your opposition to be sure that there's a message present. One thing I love about your Nigerian variant though is that you are concealing the true crime within an apparent crime. Which could, of course, be nested further. Perhaps the only true signal in a hidden message of misspelled words is the number of such words. Or send out 1000 spam messages, each of which embeds a different encoded message, only one of which is true. -- David. From rhanson at gmu.edu Sun Sep 25 17:43:28 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 13:43:28 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reasons for longer life. In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.3.4.2.20050925083626.03016578@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050925111507.02fc1710@mail.gmu.edu> At 11:12 AM 9/25/2005, BillK wrote: > > No, you can see that poor countries tend to have worse health. But many > > things vary between poor and rich countries, so it takes some work to > > figure out which of those things we should attribute the health differences > > to. There is a large literature on this subject. The best analyses use > > multiple regressions to try to disentangle the influences. Most of those > > studies find no effect of medical spending on health. ... Child > > Mortality and Public Spending on Health: How Much Does Money Matter? > >I think you are taking the wrong conclusion from this 1997 report. >What it seems to show to me is that in poor undeveloped countries >there is no point in giving them x million to spend on 'health' >because they don't have the structures to get the services to all the >population. You can draw that conclusion if you like, but the data itself in that paper just shows no correlation between health and public medical spending, controlling for other things. >Read these five chapters from the 2005 report. > >"... exclusion from access to health care is commonplace in poor >countries. ... failed to get the antibiotic they needed, and 70% of >children with malaria failed to receive treatment . ... Their exclusion >from care is also reflected in inferior health indicators." Yes, poor people get less medicine. That report just gives unsupported editorial commentary, not data connecting less medicine to less health. 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 dirk.bruere at gmail.com Sun Sep 25 17:55:35 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 18:55:35 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] codes in scam letters In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050925125816.07bf1558@unreasonable.com> References: <200509251648.j8PGmjX04399@tick.javien.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050925125816.07bf1558@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: On 9/25/05, David Lubkin wrote: > > > One thing I love about your Nigerian variant though is that you are > concealing the true crime within an apparent crime. > > In a way, that makes it strangely moral in that only crooks willing to help defraud a Third World nation are being scammed. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Sep 25 18:08:36 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 11:08:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Locus Broderick interview excerpts In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050925122233.01d3e1c0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200509251808.j8PI8VX12777@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > To: 'ExI chat list' > Subject: [extropy-chat] Locus Broderick interview excerpts > > http://www.locusmag.com/2005/Issues/09Broderick.html > > (complete with rather unflattering photo--urg...) Urg? Unflattering photo? You look very distinguished and scholarly in that pic. What if they had found that one of you from 1970 with the wild hair and the jesus beard? If you walked down the street today with that 'do, people would be falling prostrate before you, wailing things like "Have mercy upon me oh son of god!" that kinda crap. You are looking great pal, certainly as compared to back then. {8^D {8-] spike From rhanson at gmu.edu Sun Sep 25 18:16:49 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 14:16:49 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Effectiveness of Medicine (was: Robin HansononCynicism) In-Reply-To: <0d8c01c5c1ec$a9c8f810$8998e03c@homepc> References: <20050922174520.410B857EF5@finney.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20050922204427.01ed56a8@mail.gmu.edu> <0ae101c5c01d$40edad70$8998e03c@homepc> <6.2.3.4.2.20050923083700.02f51830@mail.gmu.edu> <0b0601c5c049$7593e720$8998e03c@homepc> <6.2.3.4.2.20050923102323.02f8d008@mail.gmu.edu> <0c1701c5c0bd$aac709d0$8998e03c@homepc> <6.2.3.4.2.20050924062549.02f0a658@mail.gmu.edu> <0d0501c5c173$331a7960$8998e03c@homepc> <6.2.3.4.2.20050924233955.02f2f1c0@mail.gmu.edu> <0d8c01c5c1ec$a9c8f810$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050925140146.03019428@mail.gmu.edu> At 12:17 PM 9/25/2005, Brett Paatsch wrote: >>The personal policy decision people face is whether or not to >>go to the doctor and do what he says. People do not face >>the decision of whether or not to treat a real ailment or to >>treat an imaginary ailment, because they do not know at the >>moment of decision whether the aliment is real or imaginary. > >It would be possible though for governments to decide not to >provide subsidies for some of the categories of treatment that >some people would be willing to buy thereby having more funds >to allocate to medical treatments that are actually going to be >effective. I don't want to see iridology consults and shakra >realignments subsidised. You complain that I cite studies that define "medicine" in the standard way because you can imagine some government creating a bureaucracy to distinguish effective from ineffective treatments? Doctors already have mechanisms to make such distinctions. HMOs also have mechanisms to make similar distinctions. These mechanisms are already included in the standard data. Until you can actually create this imagined new system, the existing systems are the right ones to collect data on. >Your source for the RAND study isn't the RAND study directly its >(Newhouse & Group, 1993). Do you have the actually RAND >study? Can I see it? That book is the best single source on the experiment. There is no other. >On the other hand in fairness to your readers as a writer when you make >a claim in the title of an essay or in the abstract of it you are >putting a flag >in the ground and asserting something to be true. Don't you agree that >the reader should be entitled to expect that the essay that follows will be >about the writer accepting responsibility for make the case for the truths >he is asserting? What you have done is set a very high standard of evidence, and when no data meets that standard, decided that you can then keep your initial opinions, even if you have no basis for them. You complain that I make an argument based on the best available evidence, because that evidence just isn't good enough for you. By your standards no one should ever speak on the subject. 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 Sun Sep 25 18:41:27 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 14:41:27 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Effectiveness of Medicine In-Reply-To: <61c8738e050925082168d22a12@mail.gmail.com> References: <61c8738e050925082168d22a12@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050925142809.02fc1480@mail.gmu.edu> At 11:21 AM 9/25/2005, Morris Johnson wrote: >But I am also saying that better documentation of health could track >these individual >nutrigenomic cases and with system-wide data mining could detect consequences >by pulling needles from the haystack. Yes, collecting data on all the people out there, on what they do and how healthy they become, would allow a greatly increased understanding. But the fact that we ignore the data we already have because it doesn't fit our preconceptions suggests we might ignore this new data as well. 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 kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sun Sep 25 18:54:22 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 11:54:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] aggwession, confwlict, pwoposals. In-Reply-To: <20050925013451.5707.qmail@web30314.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050925185422.28127.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com> Yes, well, stasis is value-neutral for my purposes here, for instance familial stasis is highly valued. You can't overestimate that. But I'm convinced intellectuals are many things not the least of which is the quality of being tricksters --I'm one too-- they have more salient positive & negative qualities since they use their minds above all. Ward Churchill gave an overpaid lecture, there was an unspoken agreement in the audience that, like Michael Moore, this is entertainment or possibly even a form of art (retch) and by golly if Churchill is going to stand up for something we ought to listen-- we live in belly of the Great Satan. Churchill's book unintentionally tells you what aggwession and pwoposals are in the Mideast. Aggwession is the other side has sent forces over the demarcation line to inflict death and excruciating pain. Pwoposals are we hate the other side's living breathing entrails yet we will graciously fire a pwoposal shell into a media artillery field for to cool thing down a bit in building face/buying a little time. It is all part of the Mideast confwlict. >The common sense of experience is a form of wisdom. It is not always >right, just most of the time. It is generally stasis-oriented, though, >depending on things remaining as they always were. --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sun Sep 25 18:55:17 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 11:55:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] aggwession, confwlict, pwoposals. In-Reply-To: <20050925013451.5707.qmail@web30314.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050925185517.77397.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> Yes, well, stasis is value-neutral for my purposes here, for instance familial stasis is highly valued. You can't overestimate that. But I'm convinced intellectuals are many things not the least of which is the quality of being tricksters --I'm one too-- they have more salient positive & negative qualities since they use their minds above all. Ward Churchill gave an overpaid lecture, there was an unspoken agreement in the audience that, like Michael Moore, this is entertainment or possibly even a form of art (retch) and by golly if Churchill is going to stand up for something we ought to listen-- we live in belly of the Great Satan. Churchill's book unintentionally tells you what aggwession and pwoposals are in the Mideast. Aggwession is the other side has sent forces over the demarcation line to inflict death and excruciating pain. Pwoposals are we hate the other side's living breathing entrails yet we will graciously fire a pwoposal shell into a media artillery field for to cool thing down a bit in building face/buying a little time. It is all part of the Mideast confwlict. >The common sense of experience is a form of wisdom. It is not always >right, just most of the time. It is generally stasis-oriented, though, >depending on things remaining as they always were. --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sun Sep 25 18:55:25 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 11:55:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] aggwession, confwlict, pwoposals. In-Reply-To: <20050925013451.5707.qmail@web30314.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050925185525.51597.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> Yes, well, stasis is value-neutral for my purposes here, for instance familial stasis is highly valued. You can't overestimate that. But I'm convinced intellectuals are many things not the least of which is the quality of being tricksters --I'm one too-- they have more salient positive & negative qualities since they use their minds above all. Ward Churchill gave an overpaid lecture, there was an unspoken agreement in the audience that, like Michael Moore, this is entertainment or possibly even a form of art (retch) and by golly if Churchill is going to stand up for something we ought to listen-- we live in belly of the Great Satan. Churchill's book unintentionally tells you what aggwession and pwoposals are in the Mideast. Aggwession is the other side has sent forces over the demarcation line to inflict death and excruciating pain. Pwoposals are we hate the other side's living breathing entrails yet we will graciously fire a pwoposal shell into a media artillery field for to cool thing down a bit in building face/buying a little time. It is all part of the Mideast confwlict. >The common sense of experience is a form of wisdom. It is not always >right, just most of the time. It is generally stasis-oriented, though, >depending on things remaining as they always were. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sun Sep 25 18:57:56 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 11:57:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] sorry to post three times In-Reply-To: <20050925185525.51597.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050925185756.23763.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> Posting too much is form of aggwession. No more posts for today. --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sun Sep 25 19:22:50 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 12:22:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] (no subject) Message-ID: <20050925192250.90185.qmail@web51612.mail.yahoo.com> Posting thrice was an accident, I clicked back after posting, to put the message in Draft, and it posted again, twice. I cannibalize bits of posts here to use in letters to the editor. Anyway four posts a day appears to be the right frequency. promise, no more 20-per-day. --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlorrey at yahoo.com Sun Sep 25 19:36:09 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 12:36:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] codes in scam letters In-Reply-To: <200509251648.j8PGmjX04399@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050925193610.35178.qmail@web30305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> You wouldn't even need to misspell. Such misspellings may be a weakness and indicate hand encryption and poor stegotext. The use of screens would be possible (assuming your destination printer formatted the letter to the same scale, margins, etc) or simply a key the receiver got when in training (sequence of numbers indicating space between cipertext letters in stegotext) would be more reliable. Such a key could simply be the receivers name in ascii values, for easy remembering, leaving the burden on the enemy to know the receivers name (leaving the possibility of brute forcing with a database of all possible names). --- spike wrote: > > > After all this time, I am *still* getting scam letters, > the ones that go something like: Greetings sir or madam, > I have heard from numerous sources that you are an honest > man or woman, so please give me your bank account number > and name, that I may give you 38 billion dollars stolen > from nygerian communist insurgents, etc. > > (I actually got one that misspelled the country it was > from. {8^D ) > > Of course, no one old enough to actually have a bank > account is falling for those gags anymore, but it > occurred to me that they would be the perfect vehicle > for broadcasting coded messages to sleeper cells or other > criminal gangs. No one actually reads very far past > any email that starts with the word "greetings" so > this might be just the thing. They could even hide > a message in misspelled words, so that a copy- > paste into microsloth word would underline in red > squigglies the actual message. > > Harvey and other security wonks, has this been done? > > spike > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Sun Sep 25 19:58:48 2005 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 12:58:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] NASA's Griffin: 'Humans Will Colonize the Solar System' Message-ID: The Washington Post has an interview with NASA Head Mike Griffin in which he discusses his views on space colonization: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/23/AR2005092301691.html A few quotes: "But the goal isn't just scientific exploration . . . it's also about extending the range of human habitat out from Earth into the solar system as we go forward in time. . . . In the long run a single-planet species will not survive. We have ample evidence of that . . . [Species have] been wiped out in mass extinctions on an average of every 30 million years. ... We don't know of any other species anywhere, but while I cannot say that multiple-planet species will survive, I think I can prove to you from our own geologic record that single-planet species don't." "Now, you know, in the sense that a chicken is just an egg's way of laying another egg, one of our purposes is to survive and thrive and spread humankind. I think that's worth doing. There will be another mass-extinction event. If we humans want to survive for hundreds of thousands or millions of years, we must ultimately populate other planets. Now, today the technology is such that this is barely conceivable. We're in the infancy of it." "I'm talking about that one day, I don't know when that day is, but there will be more human beings who live off the Earth than on it. We may well have people living on the moon. We may have people living on the moons of Jupiter and other planets. We may have people making habitats on asteroids. We've got places that humans will go, not in our lifetime, but they will go there." "generations of upper-level NASA managers have tried to characterize the shuttle as routine and safe, and it is not routine, and other than in the sense that a mountain climber would use the word, it's not safe. Mountain climbing is an activity that's riskier than flying on the shuttle. If we elect to go climb Mount Everest, the odds are 10 percent we're going to die. That's riskier than getting on board the shuttle." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Sep 25 20:18:26 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 13:18:26 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] codes in scam letters In-Reply-To: <20050925193610.35178.qmail@web30305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200509252018.j8PKILX27145@tick.javien.com> The fact that the nigerian scam letters are still going around long after everyone knows better is evidence that they perhaps are being used for something sinister. We could be awash in signals to sleeper cells disguised as spam, the modern version of the WW2 radio broadcasts that carried signals to the French underground. spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey > Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 12:36 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] codes in scam letters > > You wouldn't even need to misspell. Such misspellings may be a weakness > and indicate hand encryption and poor stegotext... > > --- spike wrote: > > > > > > > After all this time, I am *still* getting scam letters, > > the ones that go something like: Greetings sir or madam... > > spike From mail at harveynewstrom.com Sun Sep 25 20:29:38 2005 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 16:29:38 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] codes in scam letters In-Reply-To: <200509251648.j8PGmjX04399@tick.javien.com> References: <200509251648.j8PGmjX04399@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Sep 25, 2005, at 12:48 PM, spike wrote: > After all this time, I am *still* getting scam letters, > the ones that go something like: Greetings sir or madam, > I have heard from numerous sources that you are an honest > man or woman, so please give me your bank account number > and name, that I may give you 38 billion dollars stolen > from nygerian communist insurgents, etc. > > (I actually got one that misspelled the country it was > from. {8^D ) The spelling is intentional. Spam blockers recognize this particular series of scams and block it by name. Therefore they have to misspell the name to get it through. > Of course, no one old enough to actually have a bank > account is falling for those gags anymore, but it > occurred to me that they would be the perfect vehicle > for broadcasting coded messages to sleeper cells or other > criminal gangs. No one actually reads very far past > any email that starts with the word "greetings" so > this might be just the thing. They could even hide > a message in misspelled words, so that a copy- > paste into microsloth word would underline in red > squigglies the actual message. Too obvious. Real codes and encryption can be done so that you don't need misspelled words or obvious text tampering to be visible. > Harvey and other security wonks, has this been done? Yes. This idea is very old. Search the archives of this list for "steganography" (hiding messages in images) to find previous discussions. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From nanogirl at halcyon.com Sun Sep 25 20:35:53 2005 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 13:35:53 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Dermal Display References: <005201c5c142$fcea6830$0300a8c0@Nano><200509242048.j8OKmiX30639@tick.javien.com><6.2.1.2.0.20050924155656.01cd3d90@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <01a601c5c15f$077291d0$0300a8c0@Nano> Message-ID: <010201c5c210$bd0bf570$0200a8c0@Nano> Another place, this one has 50 comments - http://digg.com/science/Computer_screen_on_your_hand Gina` ----- Original Message ----- From: Gina Miller To: ExI chat list Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 4:23 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Dermal Display http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000837060178/#comments More coverage - There are about 20 comments here, if you scroll down. Gina ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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: From mail at harveynewstrom.com Sun Sep 25 20:41:06 2005 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 16:41:06 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Effectiveness of Medicine In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050925142809.02fc1480@mail.gmu.edu> References: <61c8738e050925082168d22a12@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050925142809.02fc1480@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <2f8bb6e81234c0f1a29877c4bb73e964@HarveyNewstrom.com> One problem with statistical analysis is that it doesn't indicate cause and effect. It may be true that increased medical spending correlates with decreased health. But this does not mean that increased medical spending causes decreased health. It makes more sense to me that decreased health causes increased medical spending. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From mail at harveynewstrom.com Sun Sep 25 20:43:50 2005 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 16:43:50 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] codes in scam letters In-Reply-To: <200509252018.j8PKILX27145@tick.javien.com> References: <200509252018.j8PKILX27145@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Sep 25, 2005, at 4:18 PM, spike wrote: > The fact that the nigerian scam letters are still > going around long after everyone knows better is > evidence that they perhaps are being used for > something sinister. Sadly, no. The truth is that people are still being caught by the Nigerian scam. No matter how well a scam is exposed, somebody somewhere is still going to fall for it. The other sinister use of the Nigerian scam is to test spam programs to verify address lists and determine which texts get through spam filters and which don't. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From mail at harveynewstrom.com Sun Sep 25 20:45:24 2005 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 16:45:24 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians In-Reply-To: <7DC30364-D5A6-4622-875E-EF498004E832@mac.com> References: <20050924233337.2813.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> <7DC30364-D5A6-4622-875E-EF498004E832@mac.com> Message-ID: <5606aabed4c38c7965d844d581b64273@HarveyNewstrom.com> On Sep 25, 2005, at 1:15 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > You will not the a lot of enlightenment from Mr. Geddes. He is the > very embodiment of a crank. The whiney boastful tone of his post > should have been a clue. Don't say I didn't warn you. Best of luck. The other clue is that this discussion is being "continued" from various other lists where it has either been banned or ignored. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Sun Sep 25 20:58:38 2005 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 16:58:38 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Effectiveness of Medicine In-Reply-To: <2f8bb6e81234c0f1a29877c4bb73e964@HarveyNewstrom.com> References: <61c8738e050925082168d22a12@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050925142809.02fc1480@mail.gmu.edu> <2f8bb6e81234c0f1a29877c4bb73e964@HarveyNewstrom.com> Message-ID: <5844e22f0509251358267d46a5@mail.gmail.com> On 9/25/05, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > One problem with statistical analysis is that it doesn't indicate cause > and effect. It may be true that increased medical spending correlates > with decreased health. But this does not mean that increased medical > spending causes decreased health. It makes more sense to me that > decreased health causes increased medical spending. The paper doesn't claim increased medical spending *decreases* health, nor even that it correlates with decreased health. It points out that there is no correlation between increased spending and increased health. Very different, and not open to the 'perspective change' criticism you offer above. -- Jeff Medina http://www.painfullyclear.com/ Community Director Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ Relationships & Community Fellow Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies http://www.ieet.org/ School of Philosophy, Birkbeck, University of London http://www.bbk.ac.uk/phil/ From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 25 21:00:45 2005 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 14:00:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] nano limit/hassle? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050925210045.66373.qmail@web60012.mail.yahoo.com> >From the article: The measurement tells nanotechnologists how small they can make extremely tiny devices before a microscopic force between atoms and surfaces, called van der Waals interaction, becomes a concern. "Our research provides the first direct experimental evidence that a surface 25 nanometers away (25 billionths of a meter) causes a shift in the atom wave crests," Perreault said. "It shows that the van der Waals interaction may be a small scale force, but it's a big deal for atoms." **Becomes a concern...** and **big deal** are vague, relative and borderline useless. No,...over the border. The nanomachine issue would be the strengths of the various bonding forces RELATIVE TO the van der Waals forces. I don't have the numbers, but it is my impression that other bonding forces are substantially greater. Consequently, van der Waals forces would have significant effect only for an unattached/free-floating atoms or small molecules -- hardly a nanomachine. My guess is the U of A boys did some kind of van der Waals research, and the press office wanted to give it some pizzazz, so they went for nano pizzazz. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Sep 25 21:25:52 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 16:25:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Effectiveness of Medicine In-Reply-To: <2f8bb6e81234c0f1a29877c4bb73e964@HarveyNewstrom.com> References: <61c8738e050925082168d22a12@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050925142809.02fc1480@mail.gmu.edu> <2f8bb6e81234c0f1a29877c4bb73e964@HarveyNewstrom.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050925162258.01d795a8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 04:41 PM 9/25/2005 -0400, Harvey wrote: >It makes more sense to me that decreased health causes increased medical >spending. It makes sense to me that with increased community wealth, even if unevenly distributed, health concerns will also increase and hence so will medical spending, authorized and otherwise, as a proportion of discretionary expenditure. (Abstracting from all the other aspects and variables of the topic.) Damien Broderick From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Sep 25 22:19:20 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 08:19:20 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Effectiveness of Medicine (was: RobinHansononCynicism) References: <20050922174520.410B857EF5@finney.org><6.2.3.4.2.20050922204427.01ed56a8@mail.gmu.edu><0ae101c5c01d$40edad70$8998e03c@homepc><6.2.3.4.2.20050923083700.02f51830@mail.gmu.edu><0b0601c5c049$7593e720$8998e03c@homepc><6.2.3.4.2.20050923102323.02f8d008@mail.gmu.edu><0c1701c5c0bd$aac709d0$8998e03c@homepc><6.2.3.4.2.20050924062549.02f0a658@mail.gmu.edu><0d0501c5c173$331a7960$8998e03c@homepc><6.2.3.4.2.20050924233955.02f2f1c0@mail.gmu.edu><0d8c01c5c1ec$a9c8f810$8998e03c@homepc> <6.2.3.4.2.20050925140146.03019428@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <0e2101c5c21f$2d223b40$8998e03c@homepc> Robin Hanson wrote: > At 12:17 PM 9/25/2005, Brett Paatsch wrote: >>>The personal policy decision people face is whether or not to >>>go to the doctor and do what he says. People do not face >>>the decision of whether or not to treat a real ailment or to >>>treat an imaginary ailment, because they do not know at the >>>moment of decision whether the aliment is real or imaginary. >> >>It would be possible though for governments to decide not to >>provide subsidies for some of the categories of treatment that >>some people would be willing to buy thereby having more funds >>to allocate to medical treatments that are actually going to be >>effective. I don't want to see iridology consults and shakra >>realignments subsidised. > > You complain that I cite studies that define "medicine" in the > standard way because you can imagine some government creating > a bureaucracy to distinguish effective from ineffective treatments? No, I didn't know how, or if those studies defined medicine at all, I hadn't read them. I wondered if you knew. I didn't think I was complaining. > Doctors already have mechanisms to make such distinctions. HMOs > also have mechanisms to make similar distinctions. These > mechanisms are already included in the standard data. Until > you can actually create this imagined new system, the existing > systems are the right ones to collect data on. > >>Your source for the RAND study isn't the RAND study directly its >>(Newhouse & Group, 1993). Do you have the actually RAND >>study? Can I see it? > > That book is the best single source on the experiment. There is > no other. > >>On the other hand in fairness to your readers as a writer when you make >>a claim in the title of an essay or in the abstract of it you are putting >>a flag >>in the ground and asserting something to be true. Don't you agree that >>the reader should be entitled to expect that the essay that follows will >>be >>about the writer accepting responsibility for make the case for the truths >>he is asserting? > > What you have done is set a very high standard of evidence, > and when no data meets that standard, decided that you can then > keep your initial opinions, even if you have no basis for them. No what I have done is note that you have raised an interesting issue and identified a possible prejudice of mine but then not lept to gratuitous belief without chewing. > You complain that I make an argument based on the best available > evidence, because that evidence just isn't good enough for you. You said it was the best available evidence I didn't. I said I'd keep a look out for evidence for and against the proposition that medicine is effective and bear your interest in the topic in mind. > By your standards no one should ever speak on the subject. I never said that :-) Brett Paatsch From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Sep 25 22:23:28 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 17:23:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Legal limit destroys 6642 embryos" Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050925172040.01d6a7c8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Legal limit destroys 6642 embryos By Carol Nader Health Reporter, Melbourne Age newspaper September 26, 2005 VICTORIAN IVF clinics have discarded more than 6600 embryos since state laws banned their storage beyond five years. Since the legislation came into effect in 1998, at least 6642 embryos that had been frozen in Victorian IVF clinics have been destroyed. Previously, embryos created in IVF clinics could be stored indefinitely. The Age has found that only 5 per cent of couples choose to donate their embryos to couples who have been unsuccessful in creating an embryo through IVF. However, clinics say that since they obtained licences from the National Health and Medical Research Council to use embryos for stem cell research, more couples who have completed their families are donating embryos to research. Since 1998, Monash IVF, which had nine sites but has merged them into six, has disposed of 4099 embryos. Melbourne IVF's two clinics have disposed of 2520 embryos. Ballarat IVF, which has existed for only four years, has disposed of 23. The statewide number could be slightly higher because Mildura Reproductive Medicine has not recorded the information. It is believed that only a small number have been destroyed at the clinic. Monash IVF managing director Donna Howlett said 917 couples attending that clinic had chosen to dispose of embryos since 1998. As awareness of stem cell research had grown, she said, the proportion of couples donating unwanted embryos to research had grown from about 30 to 60 per cent in the past year. Couples can apply to the Infertility Treatment Authority to extend storage beyond five years if they have not completed their family. Both parents are advised when the five-year duration of storage is approaching and asked for consent before the embryos are destroyed. Ms Howlett said there had been a stock of embryos that the clinic had felt uncomfortable about discarding because it could not locate the parents to obtain their consent. The 1998 law enabled the clinic to dispose of those embryos. Melbourne IVF spokesman John McBain said of the 2520 embryos discarded at the clinic, about 200 were being used for research. Most of the 45,000 embryos frozen at the clinic had been thawed and transferred to the patient. While the proportion of couples donating their unused embryos to research was growing, donating embryos to other couples was not, Dr McBain said. Ballarat IVF director Russell Dalton said most couples in the area chose to donate embryos to other couples rather than destroy them. Right to Life Australia spokeswoman Margaret Tighe said excess embryos should not be produced and frozen "like manufactured commodities". From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Sep 25 23:23:34 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 09:23:34 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] codes in scam letters References: <200509251648.j8PGmjX04399@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <0e4e01c5c228$26342880$8998e03c@homepc> Spike wrote: > .. it occurred to me that they would be the perfect vehicle > for broadcasting coded messages to sleeper cells or other > criminal gangs. No one actually reads very far past > any email that starts with the word "greetings" so > this might be just the thing. I heard a radio discussion about this. The idea raised that intrigued me was that there are so many ways to get free email nowadays that potential terrorists or criminals don't need to send email at all. They could just share an email account (all know the password) and leave messages for each other unposted in the intray. It occurred to me as I listened to that and similar stories in the media that that sort of commentary which is impossible to suppress is actually telling potential terrorists and criminals ways to do what they want to do. It is going to be very very hard to fight terrorism. Brett Paatsch From emlynoregan at gmail.com Sun Sep 25 23:33:40 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 09:03:40 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Locus Broderick interview excerpts In-Reply-To: <200509251808.j8PI8VX12777@tick.javien.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050925122233.01d3e1c0@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <200509251808.j8PI8VX12777@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc05092516331c3ae335@mail.gmail.com> On 26/09/05, spike wrote: > Urg? Unflattering photo? You look very distinguished > and scholarly in that pic. What if they had found that > one of you from 1970 with the wild hair and the jesus beard? > > If you walked down the street today with that 'do, > people would be falling prostrate before you, wailing > things like "Have mercy upon me oh son of god!" that > kinda crap. You are looking great pal, certainly as > compared to back then. {8^D {8-] > > spike > If *only* the fundies would mistake Damien for the messiah! Then things would be looking up. I say, grow the hair back... (btw, you know he's not the messiah, don't you? Actually, he's just a very naughty boy) -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From emlynoregan at gmail.com Sun Sep 25 23:35:28 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 09:05:28 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] codes in scam letters In-Reply-To: <0e4e01c5c228$26342880$8998e03c@homepc> References: <200509251648.j8PGmjX04399@tick.javien.com> <0e4e01c5c228$26342880$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <710b78fc050925163546c794f7@mail.gmail.com> On 26/09/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > Spike wrote: > > > .. it occurred to me that they would be the perfect vehicle > > for broadcasting coded messages to sleeper cells or other > > criminal gangs. No one actually reads very far past > > any email that starts with the word "greetings" so > > this might be just the thing. > > I heard a radio discussion about this. The idea raised that > intrigued me was that there are so many ways to get free > email nowadays that potential terrorists or criminals don't > need to send email at all. They could just share an email > account (all know the password) and leave messages for > each other unposted in the intray. > > It occurred to me as I listened to that and similar stories > in the media that that sort of commentary which is impossible > to suppress is actually telling potential terrorists and criminals > ways to do what they want to do. > > It is going to be very very hard to fight terrorism. > > Brett Paatsch mu! -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Sep 25 23:51:37 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 09:51:37 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] codes in scam letters References: <200509251648.j8PGmjX04399@tick.javien.com><0e4e01c5c228$26342880$8998e03c@homepc> <710b78fc050925163546c794f7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0e6101c5c22c$11af5520$8998e03c@homepc> Emlyn wrote: >> It is going to be very very hard to fight terrorism. >> >> Brett Paatsch > > mu! Ah! You've read Hofstadter's Godel, Esher, Bach. But have you read it in arabic? ;-) Brett Paatsch From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sun Sep 25 23:54:45 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 16:54:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] another letter Message-ID: <20050925235445.54135.qmail@web51604.mail.yahoo.com> [two letters in the can so you can choose if you want] Patrick Reilly's polite letter of 9-25 was right, Dave Anderson is not asking for maximum state funding for CU. And Mike Arvey was right, I'm a poseur, a fake. However such is none too terribly uncommon among intellectuals; you might say intellectuals are many things including tricksters. Being an intellectual, even a half-assed one, is more attractive than getting chapped hands studying dish engineering at the University of Pancake House. Most of all I want to blend in with the more or less negative attitude here, for example last time I can remember reading really positive articles in Boulder was over a decade ago, there was a truly happy guy going on about spirituality, women, and possibly camping and hiking. I also want to fit in with Boulder's arrogant attitude-- yes, a generality-- of 'your business is my business', by being arrogant as well. If someone doesn't like it, too bad. Speaking of bad, I just read Ward Churchill's book about Roosting Chickens, and it is ironically a good book, good in the sense you learn alot, but what you learn is not what the author intended. You learn the hate of brilliant men such as Chomsky & Churchill (the book reveals Churchill has got a first rate mind) is a cancer no scalpel can remove. I now feel sorry for Churchill because to produce such a cancer in a first class mind Churchill must have been treated bad and a good guess is being drafted to Vietnam didn't help. The book is too rich and detailed to describe, suffice it to say Churchill leaves out what doesn't back up his trajectory, as a good intellectual might do. The book flows well in a calendar form. One detail to mention is how when the Paris Peace Accords were signed in 1973 a rider was included directing America to pay a few billion. Churchill calls the billions "reparations", but the funds were a grant. If you settle a lawsuit the money isn't reparations, it isn't a gift, it is forking over. 951 Arapahoe; Boulder; 303-605-8743 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sun Sep 25 23:57:10 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 16:57:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] another letter Message-ID: <20050925235711.51407.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com> [two letters in the can so you can choose if you want] Patrick Reilly's polite letter of 9-25 was right, Dave Anderson is not asking for maximum state funding for CU. And Mike Arvey was right, I'm a poseur, a fake. However such is none too terribly uncommon among intellectuals; you might say intellectuals are many things including tricksters. Being an intellectual, even a half-assed one, is more attractive than getting chapped hands studying dish engineering at the University of Pancake House. Most of all I want to blend in with the more or less negative attitude here, for example last time I can remember reading really positive articles in Boulder was over a decade ago, there was a truly happy guy going on about spirituality, women, and possibly camping and hiking. I also want to fit in with Boulder's arrogant attitude-- yes, a generality-- of 'your business is my business', by being arrogant as well. If someone doesn't like it, too bad. Speaking of bad, I just read Ward Churchill's book about Roosting Chickens, and it is ironically a good book, good in the sense you learn alot, but what you learn is not what the author intended. You learn the hate of brilliant men such as Chomsky & Churchill (the book reveals Churchill has got a first rate mind) is a cancer no scalpel can remove. I now feel sorry for Churchill because to produce such a cancer in a first class mind Churchill must have been treated bad and a good guess is being drafted to Vietnam didn't help. The book is too rich and detailed to describe, suffice it to say Churchill leaves out what doesn't back up his trajectory, as a good intellectual might do. The book flows well in a calendar form. One detail to mention is how when the Paris Peace Accords were signed in 1973 a rider was included directing America to pay a few billion. Churchill calls the billions "reparations", but the funds were a grant. If you settle a lawsuit the money isn't reparations, it isn't a gift, it is forking over. 951 Arapahoe; Boulder; 303-605-8743 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sun Sep 25 23:59:13 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 16:59:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <20050925235711.51407.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050925235913.9088.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> sorry, this computer is throwing a fit. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon Sep 26 00:01:51 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 10:01:51 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] (no subject) References: <20050925235913.9088.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0e8801c5c22d$7faabd20$8998e03c@homepc> The first words uttered by an AI are likely to be "I'm innocent". ----- Original Message ----- From: Al Brooks To: ExI chat list Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 9:59 AM Subject: [extropy-chat] (no subject) sorry, this computer is throwing a fit. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Sep 26 01:16:58 2005 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 18:16:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] codes in scam letters In-Reply-To: <710b78fc050925163546c794f7@mail.gmail.com> References: <200509251648.j8PGmjX04399@tick.javien.com> <0e4e01c5c228$26342880$8998e03c@homepc> <710b78fc050925163546c794f7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <22360fa105092518166b76b984@mail.gmail.com> On 9/25/05, Emlyn wrote: > > On 26/09/05, Brett Paatsch wrote: > > It is going to be very very hard to fight terrorism. > > > mu! I bow to the zen wisdom expressed by Emlyn's response in unasking the question and the assumption of fighting. - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Mon Sep 26 01:54:48 2005 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 18:54:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050925193355.03c4c4b8@pop.cantv.net> Message-ID: <20050926015448.56281.qmail@web32812.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government [pdf] http://www.wilsoncenter.org/news/docs/macoubriereport.pdf Public perception and understanding of science and technology can be a difficult and daunting subject. This latest report from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, authored by Dr. Jane Macoubrie, explores public attitudes toward the growing field of nanotechnology. In its 31-pages, the report reveals that the public is interested in the potential advances afforded by this technology, which exploits the unique behavior of materials and devices when engineered at a scale of roughly between one and one hundred nanometers. The report also shows that people are concerned about the general lack of consumer awareness of the field and the potential lack of government oversight of this rapidly emerging technology. As David Rejeski, the director of the Project on Emerging Technologies commented recently, ?The kinds of safety measures and disclosure the public wants make sense in terms of both long-term corporate strategy and good public policy?. --------------------------------- >From The Scout Report, Copyright Internet Scout Project 1994-2005. http://scout.wisc.edu/ Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, or the National Science Foundation. 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: From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Sep 26 03:02:03 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 20:02:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Legal limit destroys 6642 embryos" In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050925172040.01d6a7c8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200509260302.j8Q328X04628@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 3:23 PM > To: 'ExI chat list' > Subject: [extropy-chat] "Legal limit destroys 6642 embryos" > > > > Legal limit destroys 6642 embryos > > By Carol Nader > Health Reporter, Melbourne Age newspaper > September 26, 2005 > > > VICTORIAN IVF clinics have discarded more than 6600 embryos since state > laws banned their storage beyond five years... Stem cell research is restricted in order to protect embryos. Victoria is destroying embryos for no apparent reason. Is the absurdity of this situation clear to all? spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Sep 26 03:14:01 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 22:14:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Legal limit destroys 6642 embryos" In-Reply-To: <200509260302.j8Q328X04628@tick.javien.com> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050925172040.01d6a7c8@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <200509260302.j8Q328X04628@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050925221024.01cdf748@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 08:02 PM 9/25/2005 -0700, Spike wrote: >Stem cell research is restricted in order to protect >embryos. Victoria is destroying embryos for no apparent >reason. Is the absurdity of this situation clear to all? Yes, but at least the poor little shivering embryos are being given a decent Christian death as martyrs, not used in vile Satanic Frankenstein experiments. Oh, wait. I bet they're *not* being given a religious send-off, complete with baptism or other sacred rituals. Odd, that, if so. Damien Broderick From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 26 03:27:01 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 20:27:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians In-Reply-To: <5606aabed4c38c7965d844d581b64273@HarveyNewstrom.com> Message-ID: <20050926032701.89725.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> --- Harvey Newstrom wrote: > The other clue is that this discussion is being > "continued" from > various other lists where it has either been banned > or ignored. Well I think the problem in general with "theories of everything" is that anything that is so all-encompassing lacks any real explanatory power. Like a GPS system that can only tell you you are on earth. Makes for great religious dogma though. The Avantguardian is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." -Bill Watterson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Sep 26 04:05:24 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 21:05:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Locus Broderick interview excerpts In-Reply-To: <710b78fc05092516331c3ae335@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200509260405.j8Q45TX11655@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Emlyn > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Locus Broderick interview excerpts > > On 26/09/05, spike wrote: > > Urg? Unflattering photo? ...What if they had found that > > one of you from 1970 with the wild hair and the jesus beard? ... > > spike > > > > If *only* the fundies would mistake Damien for the messiah... > -- > Emlyn Emlyn you don't understand. It isn't called a jesus beard because some messiah figure wore one of those. It is called that because every time he walked down a Melbourne street with it, people would say "ahhh jesus, would you look at that, fer cryin out loud." spike {8^D}}}}}}}}}}}} <---- jesus beard From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Sep 26 04:09:52 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 21:09:52 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] codes in scam letters In-Reply-To: <0e6101c5c22c$11af5520$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <200509260409.j8Q49tX12133@tick.javien.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brett Paatsch > Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 4:52 PM > To: Emlyn; ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] codes in scam letters > > Emlyn wrote: ... > > mu! > > Ah! You've read Hofstadter's Godel, Esher, Bach. ... > Brett Paatsch I have found mistakes and typos in every book I have ever read except Hofstadter's GEB. Has anyone here ever found a grammatical or spelling error in it? The concepts have held up remarkably well for a 26 year old masterpiece, have they not? spike From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon Sep 26 04:11:15 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:41:15 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Locus Broderick interview excerpts In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0509252110795971de@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc05092516331c3ae335@mail.gmail.com> <43377387.0af61717.02a2.ffffa903SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.gmail.com> <710b78fc0509252110795971de@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc05092521113e473751@mail.gmail.com> Spike wrote: > Emlyn you don't understand. It isn't called a jesus beard because > some messiah figure wore one of those. It is called that because > every time he walked down a Melbourne street with it, people would say > "ahhh jesus, would you look at that, fer cryin out loud." > > spike > > {8^D}}}}}}}}}}}} <---- jesus beard That sounds too Irish. It might come out more like "Jesus Christ, that bloke's got an Echidna on his face". -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Sep 26 04:24:29 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 23:24:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Locus Broderick interview excerpts In-Reply-To: <200509260405.j8Q45TX11655@tick.javien.com> References: <710b78fc05092516331c3ae335@mail.gmail.com> <200509260405.j8Q45TX11655@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050925231522.01c7fe18@pop-server.satx.rr.com> At 09:05 PM 9/25/2005 -0700, spike wrote: >It isn't called a jesus beard because >some messiah figure wore one of those. It is called that because >every time he walked down a Melbourne street with it, people would say >"ahhh jesus, would you look at that, fer cryin out loud." > >spike > >{8^D}}}}}}}}}}}} <---- jesus beard Actually what they cried out was "Jesus, is it a *boy* or a *giiiirl*?" I'd stroke my beard meditatively and briefly consider hollering back, "You're hanging out with the wrong kind of girl," until I took a second look at their burly beer-bellied size and made good my sandaled escape. {{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ {{ : - ) >>> <===jesus 'do {{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ [old style] versus: ( : - ) > [current style] From fauxever at sprynet.com Mon Sep 26 04:45:39 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 21:45:39 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloke No; Baby Yes Message-ID: <003701c5c255$2687a640$6600a8c0@brainiac> I find this verrrrrrrrrry interesting: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/25/nivf25.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/09/25/ixportaltop.html And it looks like technology/science will be serving up lots more options in the future, as well. Olga From m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au Mon Sep 26 04:54:51 2005 From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:54:51 +1000 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians Message-ID: <20050926045451.504.qmail@web35509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >You will not the a lot of enlightenment from Mr. Geddes. He is the >very embodiment of a crank. The whiney boastful tone of his post >should have been a clue. Don't say I didn't warn you. Best of luck. > >- s Any new thoey is bound to look very strange and rather 'crank-like' in the beginning. I don't confuse conjectures with facts. I never said my claims were facts, I say they're highly speculative *conjectures* ;) And I don't make claims that are in blatant contradiction to known scientific facts. That's the difference between me and a real crank ;) --- Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Try Yahoo! Photomail Beta: Send up to 300 photos in one email! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon Sep 26 05:17:20 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:47:20 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloke No; Baby Yes In-Reply-To: <003701c5c255$2687a640$6600a8c0@brainiac> References: <003701c5c255$2687a640$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <710b78fc05092522171c197bd4@mail.gmail.com> On 26/09/05, Olga Bourlin wrote: > I find this verrrrrrrrrry interesting: > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/25/nivf25.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/09/25/ixportaltop.html > > And it looks like technology/science will be serving up lots more options in > the future, as well. > > Olga "People want everything now. If they can't have a baby now, they want IVF. They think it's no different from putting your name down for a handbag. Some people are horrified by the idea that they have to have sex two to three times a week. About 10 per cent of people I see don't have time to have sex. It's usually when you have two professionals who are based in the city and are very busy." Here's a clue from a parent... IF you don't have time to have sex two or three times a week THEN you don't have time to have a child I pity their offspring. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon Sep 26 05:23:41 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:23:41 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] codes in scam letters References: <200509260409.j8Q49tX12133@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <0ef901c5c25a$753fd550$8998e03c@homepc> >> Emlyn wrote: > ... >> > mu! >> >> Ah! You've read Hofstadter's Godel, Esher, Bach. > ... >> Brett Paatsch > > > I have found mistakes and typos in every book I have > ever read except Hofstadter's GEB. Has anyone here > ever found a grammatical or spelling error in it? The > concepts have held up remarkably well for a 26 year > old masterpiece, have they not? Not me. I did a quick check and there is lots of highlighting but not of typos. Page 619, In Deductive vs Analogical Awareness within Artifical Intelligence: Retrospects, there is a sentence: "When a human forgets, it most likely means a high-level pointer has been lost - not that any information had been deleted or destroyed". Glad I highlighted that because I'd forgotten it. Ironically it goes on "this highlights the extreme importance of keeping track of the ways in which you store incoming experiences, for you never know in advance under what circumstances, or from what angle, you will want to pull something out of storage". Amen Douglas! Brett Paatsch From m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au Mon Sep 26 05:36:29 2005 From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:36:29 +1000 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians Message-ID: <20050926053629.778.qmail@web35512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >Marc, a top level summary of your view of the discussion >on SL4 is OK here, as well as rebuttal from other >SL4ers. Please write in such a way that non-specialists >will find it comprehensible, by defining the more obscure >terms for instance. Will give a comprehensible summary of each main conjecture below, with links to references. DEFINITIONS: 7 Universal Knowledge Domains Summary of my conjectures: "I am a property dualist, in that I think that at the most fundamental level of reality, there's more than one valid way to describe that reality. Materialism is *one* valid way to describe reality (that is, I agree that everything can be *described* in physical terms). But I'm proposing that materialism is not the *only* valid way to describe reality. I think one could for instance, equally give a full description of all of reality in terms of qualia (mental events). So materialism gives a complete *description* of reality, but not a complete *explanation* of reality. Materialism has *descriptive* completeness, but not *explanatory* completeness. I think things like volition, qualia etc are fundamental properties of the universe. So I think new kinds of science are needed to *explain* these things in their own terms." *Reality itself is operating off 7 different mathematical systems. *Each of these 7 axiom sets are *almost* but not quite logically equivalent. So I'm saying there are small inconsistencies in reality itself. Referenced definition of 'Property Dualism' : http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/propertydualism.html Referenced recent philosophy paper arguing that if you believe in abstract entities at all, you must believe in qualia: http://www.eskimo.com/~msharlow/qualia.pdf DEFINITIONS: Incompletenesss in current Bayesian framework. The current Bayesian framework consists of Bayes plus Kolmogorov Complexity and Solomonoff Induction. Referenced explanations: http://www.idsia.ch/~marcus/kolmo.htm Sumamry of my conjectures: "Bayes plus Kolmogorov Complexity and Solomonoff Induction assumes that all reality is reducible to fundamental physics. But if property dualism is correct this can't be the case. For instance the current Bayesian framework doesn't deal directly with either mathematical reasoning or mental experiences. This shows there are things missing. Current Bayesian framework only deals with the physics kind of causality but there are 2 other kinds of causality" My proposed 3 different kinds of causality: "The first is physical causality - motion of physical objects through space. The second is mental causality - agents making choices which effect agents The third is what I call 'Multiverse causality', a sort of highly abtsract 'causality' close to the notion of logical consistency/consilience - that which ensures that knowledge has a certain ordered 'structure' to it ." Elaboration: "Of course I agree that higher level concepts like mind are completely dependent on lower level physics. A 'mental cause' is not something separate from physical causes. But this does not mean that the higher level kind of causality is *not real* Just because the high level kind of causality (mental causation) is completely *dependent* on lower level physics, doesn't mean that the mental kind of causality is necessarily completely *reducible* to lower level physics. In dealing with mental concepts, I think one is dealing with a higher level of description which for full explanation requires the positing of new properties not completely reducible to low level physics. Again though, I'm not suggesting that mental concepts are separate from physical concepts. " and "Stephen Hawking proposed the notion of 'Imaginary Time', a kind of time existing 'at right angles' to ordinary physical time. This, I suspect, is equivalent to my proposed third kind of causality." Referenced definition of 'Imaginary Time': http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/time.htm DEFINTIONS: Classification scheme for minds in general based on degree of awareness present: Summary of my conjectures: "If you start looking at animals and move up the chain in the direction of increasing intelligence , increasing intelligence *is* correlated with increased *awareness* in some sense. Rocks have no (or almost no) awareness. Lower animals, a few very complex computer programs and human infants probably have some degree of awareness of the external world but little or no self-awareness. It's only once you get to the higher animals and humans that you see awareness of the both the world and some degree of self-awareness emerging. So it seems you can classify minds in general according to their degree of awareness. Now what sort of awareness would a transhuman have then? I note that even humans don't have *full* self-awareness and self-knowledge. So the first idea that occurs is that transhumans are defined by the capacity for full self-awareness and self-knowledge. But further thought suggests that this is not sufficient. Even full-self-awareness and self-knowledge is still the same *kind* of awareness of we humans already have - just better developed. What we need is an idea for a qualitatively *new* kind of awareness, something that goes beyond mere 'self-awareness'. The idea that occurred to me is that the new kind of awareness involves the connection (or relationship) between Mind and Reality. Mind------*relationship*--------Reality So transhuman awareness might be an awareness of this *relationship* And an awareness of this relationship constitutes an understanding of the *true* nature of mind. This understanding doesn't have to be perfect. Just sufficient. Now it just so happens that Reality theorists (or people trying to derieve 'Theories of Everything') have in fact been trying to work out the nature of this relationship between Mind and Reality. So it would seem that to design an FAI we should study Reality Theory to try to get an insight." and "I posit that the Self----World representation causes consciousness (qualia) of the external world and the Current Self---Past Self representation causes consciousness (qualia) about the self - or self-awareness. In fact I also hypothesize a third kind of representation which could co-exist with the other two and is a new kind of consciousness beyond what the human mind is currently capable of. Here's my hypothesized third kind of consciousness: Mind<-------->Reality This would be a representation of the general relationship between Mind and Reality. The representation between the laws of physics and the laws of cognition if you like. I hypothesize that this would be a transhuman type of consciousness. The three kinds of representation lead to a classification scheme consisting of 4 different levels, whereby we can classify everything in reality according to the degree of self-awareness present (the first level is no awareness). Here's my classification scheme: Level 1: Fragments Low-level disorganized qualia. No self-awareness or awareness of the external world. Examples: Rocks. Rights: None Level 2: Agents Rudimentary goal-directed systems. Little-no self-awareness but can form models of the external world. Examples: Animals. Some kinds of computer program, human infants. Rights: Right to be free of suffering. (Can form representations of the Self-World relationship) Level 3: Sentients Entities with self-awareness. Can form models of self and the external world. Cannot understand the *true nature* of mind though - not a full general intelligence. Examples: Human adults. Rights: Full property rights- right to control own mind and body - right to liberty. (Can form representations of the Current Self-Past Self relationship) Level 4: Trans-sentients Entities capable of fully understanding the *true nature* of mind - the relation between Mind and Reality (has awareness of 'The Theory Of Everything' or TOE). Capable of true general intelligence and recursive self-improvement. Examples: FAI - Friendly Artificial Intelligence. Rights: Who knows? (Can form representations of the general Mind-Reality relationship) " References: Qualia caused by mental representations of relationship between self and world Representational theories of qualia: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-representational/ Qualia caused by relationships between current memories and past experiences Relational theory of qualia: http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v4/psyche-4-10-taylor.html --- Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: Now with unlimited storage -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fauxever at sprynet.com Mon Sep 26 05:43:41 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 22:43:41 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloke No; Baby Yes References: <003701c5c255$2687a640$6600a8c0@brainiac> <710b78fc05092522171c197bd4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003c01c5c25d$41d7b590$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Emlyn" > "People want everything now. If they can't have a baby now, they want IVF. > They think it's no different from putting your name down for a handbag. > Some people are horrified by the idea that they have to have sex two to > three times a week. About 10 per cent of people I see don't have time to > have sex. It's usually when you have two professionals who are based in > the city and are very busy." > Here's a clue from a parent...> IF you don't have time to have sex two or > three times a week> THEN you don't have time to have a child. > I pity > their offspring. Oh, I don't know. There may be many reasons why some women may choose this course. e.g., from Marilyn Vos Savant's March 11, 2001 column in Parade Magazine: Question: Do you think it's proper for a financially independent single woman to use a man to father her child with his consent and then purposely raise the child on her own? Answer: Plenty of women get married and have children, then get divorced and would be delighted never to see the men again - so I don't see what's so different about the scenario you describe, except that there may be less trauma for all concerned! Yes, I think this modern family style is acceptable, but I think the woman should select an anonymous donor (artificial insemination) instead of a known sperm donor, in order to avoid any possibly future complications with him. In addition, if she later finds the man of her dreams and gets married, her husband will then be able to become a father to her child much more easily. P.S. A single friend of mine made this choice, and her child is one lucky youngster to have such a warm, loving and capable parent to raise him. She is easily one of the finest mothers I know. From pgptag at gmail.com Mon Sep 26 05:53:35 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 07:53:35 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Odeo: best podcasting application Message-ID: <470a3c5205092522537f58eff2@mail.gmail.com> Podcasting is a recent fashionable name for downloadable audio (and tomorrow video) shows with an RSS feed to alert subscribers of new issues. I have been looking for a good podcasting application and Odeo is the best I have found so far. Of course it has a client app to download shows in the queue, but a feature which I really appreciate is the ability to listen to a show in streaming mode without having to download it to the PC first. Odeo has a large user built directory of podcasts - users can add channels to the directory. Odeo supports tagging - users can tag channels and individual shows with keywords. For example I have added Changesurfer Radioto the directory and tagged it with "transhumanism" and "technoliberation". Tagging permits creating and subscribing to custom RSS-enabled directories like http://odeo.com/tag/transhumanism. Apparently Odeo will offer soon podcast creation and hosting features. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon Sep 26 06:20:10 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:50:10 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloke No; Baby Yes In-Reply-To: <003c01c5c25d$41d7b590$6600a8c0@brainiac> References: <003701c5c255$2687a640$6600a8c0@brainiac> <710b78fc05092522171c197bd4@mail.gmail.com> <003c01c5c25d$41d7b590$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <710b78fc0509252320bd6140a@mail.gmail.com> On 26/09/05, Olga Bourlin wrote: > From: "Emlyn" > > > "People want everything now. If they can't have a baby now, they want IVF. > > They think it's no different from putting your name down for a handbag. > > Some people are horrified by the idea that they have to have sex two to > > three times a week. About 10 per cent of people I see don't have time to > > have sex. It's usually when you have two professionals who are based in > > the city and are very busy." > > > Here's a clue from a parent...> IF you don't have time to have sex two or > > three times a week> THEN you don't have time to have a child. > I pity > > their offspring. > > Oh, I don't know. There may be many reasons why some women may choose this > course. > I have absolutely no problem with most of those reasons. No partner, that's fine. Can't conceive, that's fine. etc etc. I couldn't care less if you are talking about a single woman, a hetero couple, a gay male couple, or half a dozen married-to-each-other-mormons. If you can love the child and can put the time in, go ahead. The only problem I have is with this: "About 10 per cent of people I see don't have time to have sex. It's usually when you have two professionals who are based in the city and are very busy." Again, I'll say that if you have no other issue than that you don't have time to have sex, you aren't fit to be a parent. You've got to change your life drastically before you will be. Well off people with no time for their kids really rate low on the parent scale IMO. > e.g., from Marilyn Vos Savant's March 11, 2001 column in Parade Magazine: > > Question: Do you think it's proper for a financially independent single > woman to use a man to father her child with his consent and then purposely > raise the child on her own? > > Answer: Plenty of women get married and have children, then get divorced > and would be delighted never to see the men again - so I don't see what's so > different about the scenario you describe, except that there may be less > trauma for all concerned! > > Yes, I think this modern family style is acceptable, but I think the woman > should select an anonymous donor (artificial insemination) instead of a > known sperm donor, in order to avoid any possibly future complications with > him. In addition, if she later finds the man of her dreams and gets > married, her husband will then be able to become a father to her child much > more easily. I think either way is fine. There are men out there who explicitly agree to this arrangement and have lots of kids for whom they have no duty of care. I agree with you though that the IVF route has less potential complications. > P.S. A single friend of mine made this choice, and her child is one lucky > youngster to have such a warm, loving and capable parent to raise him. She > is easily one of the finest mothers I know. That sounds like a great family. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From fauxever at sprynet.com Mon Sep 26 06:36:57 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 23:36:57 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloke No; Baby Yes References: <003701c5c255$2687a640$6600a8c0@brainiac><710b78fc05092522171c197bd4@mail.gmail.com><003c01c5c25d$41d7b590$6600a8c0@brainiac> <710b78fc0509252320bd6140a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <005d01c5c264$b21e3750$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Emlyn" > > The only problem I have is with this: "About 10 per cent of people I see > don't have time to have sex. It's usually when you have two professionals > who are based in the city and are very busy." Again, I'll say that if you have no other issue than that you don't have time to have sex, you aren't fit to be a parent. You've got to change your life drastically before you will be. Well off people with no time for their kids really rate low on the parent scale IMO. Maybe this is being relegated to nannies and/or day care these days? In the past, many wealthy people had governesses or nannies. And many not-so-wealthy people had a "village" approach to childrearing. And even not such wealthy people - e.g., I was reared by amahs (one in Nanking when I was very young, and one in Taiwan when I was older), and still passionately loved my mother and was loved by her even though I've never known her to bake ONE cookie for me - or any cookies, ever, come to think of it. :-] Olga From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon Sep 26 06:37:59 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:07:59 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Odeo: best podcasting application In-Reply-To: <470a3c5205092522537f58eff2@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c5205092522537f58eff2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc050925233751449ba5@mail.gmail.com> On 26/09/05, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > Podcasting is a recent fashionable name for downloadable audio (and tomorrow > video) shows with an RSS feed to alert subscribers of new issues. I have > been looking for a good podcasting application and Odeo is the best I have > found so far. Of course it has a client app to download shows in the queue, > but a feature which I really appreciate is the ability to listen to a show > in streaming mode without having to download it to the PC first. > Odeo has a large user built directory of podcasts - users can add channels > to the directory. Odeo supports tagging - users can tag channels and > individual shows with keywords. For example I have added Changesurfer Radio > to the directory and tagged it with "transhumanism" and "technoliberation". > Tagging permits creating and subscribing to custom RSS-enabled directories > like http://odeo.com/tag/transhumanism. > Apparently Odeo will offer soon podcast creation and hosting features. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > Podcasts are ridiculously easy to create, as long as you have somewhere to put your mp3s. Here's a twenty minute or so method for creating a free podcast: 1 - Go to Blogger.com and create a blog for your podcast. 2 - Create a meta feed for the blog at Feedburner.com . It has an option to turn a blog into a podcast, expecting the the LinkURLs in the Blog point to your audio content. The address of this meta feed (given to you by feedburner) is the address of your podcast. 3 - Upload your first mp3 somewhere publicly available 4 - Create a blog entry on blogger for your first podcast, refering to the mp3 in the LinkURL. 5 - Repeat 3 and 4 ad nauseum for subsequent shows. It's easy, it uses all free web based tools so you can get to it from anywhere, there are no ads in the podcast or any junk like that. If you need free hosting for your mp3 files, http://ourmedia.org/ will do it for you apparently. You really really don't need any kind of podcast creation software to create a podcast. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Sep 26 06:37:07 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 23:37:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Odeo: best podcasting application In-Reply-To: <470a3c5205092522537f58eff2@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c5205092522537f58eff2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <59A7B452-5AB5-47F6-9303-F1E0CF9F4667@mac.com> Anyone know of a client allowing speeded up audio? Listening to audio only talks at standard speed is a real time sink. - samantha On Sep 25, 2005, at 10:53 PM, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > Podcasting is a recent fashionable name for downloadable audio (and > tomorrow video) shows with an RSS feed to alert subscribers of new > issues. I have been looking for a good podcasting application and > Odeo is the best I have found so far. Of course it has a client app > to download shows in the queue, but a feature which I really > appreciate is the ability to listen to a show in streaming mode > without having to download it to the PC first. > Odeo has a large user built directory of podcasts - users can add > channels to the directory. Odeo supports tagging - users can tag > channels and individual shows with keywords. For example I have > added Changesurfer Radio to the directory and tagged it with > "transhumanism" and "technoliberation". Tagging permits creating > and subscribing to custom RSS-enabled directories like http:// > odeo.com/tag/transhumanism. > Apparently Odeo will offer soon podcast creation and hosting features. > _______________________________________________ > 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: From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Sep 26 06:45:11 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 23:45:11 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] codes in scam letters In-Reply-To: <200509252018.j8PKILX27145@tick.javien.com> References: <200509252018.j8PKILX27145@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Sep 25, 2005, at 1:18 PM, spike wrote: > The fact that the nigerian scam letters are still > going around long after everyone knows better is > evidence that they perhaps are being used for > something sinister. We could be awash in signals > to sleeper cells disguised as spam, the modern > version of the WW2 radio broadcasts that carried > signals to the French underground. > It is most likely simply evidence that there is no end to the supply of fools fat for scamming. Has there been any decrease in three card monte in all the years it has been used to fleece rubes? One thing for sure, we are awash in paranoid nonsense having nothing to do with security. - s From pharos at gmail.com Mon Sep 26 06:52:24 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 07:52:24 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Odeo: best podcasting application In-Reply-To: <710b78fc050925233751449ba5@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c5205092522537f58eff2@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc050925233751449ba5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 9/26/05, Emlyn wrote: > > Podcasts are ridiculously easy to create, as long as you have > somewhere to put your mp3s. Here's a twenty minute or so method for > creating a free podcast: > > It's easy, it uses all free web based tools so you can get to it from > anywhere, there are no ads in the podcast or any junk like that. If > you need free hosting for your mp3 files, http://ourmedia.org/ will do > it for you apparently. > Actually, Feedburner will insert ads in your RSS or podcast *if you ask them to*. They are selling ad space as targeted at very selective audiences. You may have noticed the ads already in the RSS stream for Scientific American, for example. What we are waiting for now is an RSS reader that will remove ads, like we have browsers that remove ads from websites. BillK From m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au Mon Sep 26 06:54:22 2005 From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:54:22 +1000 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Continued from wta-talk: 'Beating Eliezer' ;) Message-ID: <20050926065423.68525.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >Marc, please explain why you think there are three >kinds of causality. As far as I know, even the >"physics causality" you speak of is contentious in >that temporal ordering of events is dependent on ones >inertial frame of reference in relativity. On the >other end of the scale, there are experiments that >seem to violate causality in quantum mechanics (e.g. , >EPR paradox, quantum erasure, etc). In light of this, >on what basis do you contend that not only is standard >causality real but that there are two other kinds? >After all any number of angels can be conjectured to >dance on the tip of a unicorn's horn, yet without >proof of angels or unicorns, the conjecture is >baseless. > > > >The Avantguardian The notion of causality is not based on the time ordering of events as such. It's based on cause and effect - how causes are correlated with effects. Clearly causes *are* connected to effects to some degree. There's no problem with causality in relatively theory, since events which can be observed to be temporally reserved are not causally connected. All observers must see the same ordering of events when these events *are* causally connected, even in relatively theory. EPR is not a problem either, because quantum correlations of this kind are not causal in nature. It's true that the notion of 'causality' does start to become problematic when you bring in qauntum events. But even there, there's still a *statistical* correlation between cause and effect. See my discussion of causality in the other thread. My proposed 3 kinds of causality were: "The first is physical causality - motion of physical objects through space. The second is mental causality - agents making choices which effect agents The third is what I call 'Multiverse causality', a sort of highly abtsract 'causality' close to the notion of logical consistency/consilience - that which ensures that knowledge has a certain ordered 'structure' to it ." My third kind of causality may be equiavlent to Stephen Hawking's notion of 'Imaginary Time', a definition of which can be found at the link below: http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/time.htm --- Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon Sep 26 06:57:39 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:27:39 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloke No; Baby Yes In-Reply-To: <005d01c5c264$b21e3750$6600a8c0@brainiac> References: <003701c5c255$2687a640$6600a8c0@brainiac> <710b78fc05092522171c197bd4@mail.gmail.com> <003c01c5c25d$41d7b590$6600a8c0@brainiac> <710b78fc0509252320bd6140a@mail.gmail.com> <005d01c5c264$b21e3750$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <710b78fc05092523576eaaaa7c@mail.gmail.com> On 26/09/05, Olga Bourlin wrote: > From: "Emlyn" > > > > The only problem I have is with this: "About 10 per cent of people I see > > don't have time to have sex. It's usually when you have two professionals > > who are based in the city and are very busy." Again, > I'll say that if you have no other issue than that you don't have time > to have sex, you aren't fit to be a parent. You've got to change your > life drastically before you will be. Well off people with no time for > their kids really rate low on the parent scale IMO. > > Maybe this is being relegated to nannies and/or day care these days? In the > past, many wealthy people had governesses or nannies. Some people keep their kids in cardboard boxes in the cupboard, too. > And many > not-so-wealthy people had a "village" approach to childrearing. Yes, but this still entails people spending time on the kids. Just in a more flexible fashion - sometime you have no kids, sometimes you have 20. It's good for people to have options. Sometimes people who become parents find out that they are crap at being parents, and hate doing it, so it's good when the social infrastructure provides some kind of humane alternative. However, why would you have a child, planning to never spend time with them? You'd be better off sponsoring 3rd world kids through oxfam or world vision. > > And even not such wealthy people - e.g., I was reared by amahs (one in > Nanking when I was very young, and one in Taiwan when I was older), and > still passionately loved my mother and was loved by her even though I've > never known her to bake ONE cookie for me - or any cookies, ever, come to > think of it. :-] > > Olga Some of us are bad at cooking :-) I'm sure she spent some kind of time with you though. It's hard to attach to someone who is never there. Bad parenting with money seems to be summed up by these people: http://alphamom.com/ -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon Sep 26 07:12:54 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:42:54 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Odeo: best podcasting application In-Reply-To: References: <470a3c5205092522537f58eff2@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc050925233751449ba5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc050926001266f40d82@mail.gmail.com> On 26/09/05, BillK wrote: > On 9/26/05, Emlyn wrote: > > > > Podcasts are ridiculously easy to create, as long as you have > > somewhere to put your mp3s. Here's a twenty minute or so method for > > creating a free podcast: > > > > It's easy, it uses all free web based tools so you can get to it from > > anywhere, there are no ads in the podcast or any junk like that. If > > you need free hosting for your mp3 files, http://ourmedia.org/ will do > > it for you apparently. > > > > Actually, Feedburner will insert ads in your RSS or podcast *if you > ask them to*. They are selling ad space as targeted at very selective > audiences. You may have noticed the ads already in the RSS stream for > Scientific American, for example. > > What we are waiting for now is an RSS reader that will remove ads, > like we have browsers that remove ads from websites. > > BillK Do you think you could reliably identify the ads by the servers the mp3s are hosted on? In that case, it'd be a lot better to have a server based app where people could clean feeds of ads. You log in, register feed X as being full of ads, and the site provides you feed Y which is X less the ads. Like the opposite of what feedburner does if you opt in to ads :-) -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From fauxever at sprynet.com Mon Sep 26 07:24:36 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 00:24:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloke No; Baby Yes References: <003701c5c255$2687a640$6600a8c0@brainiac><710b78fc05092522171c197bd4@mail.gmail.com><003c01c5c25d$41d7b590$6600a8c0@brainiac><710b78fc0509252320bd6140a@mail.gmail.com><005d01c5c264$b21e3750$6600a8c0@brainiac> <710b78fc05092523576eaaaa7c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002101c5c26b$5e84d520$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Emlyn" >> And even not such wealthy people - e.g., I was reared by amahs (one in>> >> Nanking when I was very young, and one in Taiwan when I was older), and>> >> still passionately loved my mother and was loved by her even though >> I've>> never known her to bake ONE cookie for me - or any cookies, ever, >> come to >> think of it. :-] > Some of us are bad at cooking :-) I'm sure she spent some kind of time> > with you though. It's hard to attach to someone who is never there. Oh, I wasn't complaining about the cookies - that was a kind of facetious remark on my part (I was thinking of the flack about Hillary Clinton who said she never had time to make cookies or some such thing during Clinton's first presidential election). And I didn't mean to give the impression that my mother was not there when I was young - actually, she was there 24/7 (until I was in school, at which time she took on a paying job). The amah was an "extra" hand ... who lived with us. > Bad parenting with money seems to be summed up by these people: http://alphamom.com/ I took a fast overall look - didn't delve too deeply - but didn't see anything wrong. I was armed only with a paperback copy of "Dr. Spock" when I went into the whole childrearing experience - and I would have loved to have had Google and the internet and email lists and all that is available to women now. Olga From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon Sep 26 09:01:50 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:31:50 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloke No; Baby Yes In-Reply-To: <002101c5c26b$5e84d520$6600a8c0@brainiac> References: <003701c5c255$2687a640$6600a8c0@brainiac> <710b78fc05092522171c197bd4@mail.gmail.com> <003c01c5c25d$41d7b590$6600a8c0@brainiac> <710b78fc0509252320bd6140a@mail.gmail.com> <005d01c5c264$b21e3750$6600a8c0@brainiac> <710b78fc05092523576eaaaa7c@mail.gmail.com> <002101c5c26b$5e84d520$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <710b78fc05092602013aba48dd@mail.gmail.com> On 26/09/05, Olga Bourlin wrote: > From: "Emlyn" > >> And even not such wealthy people - e.g., I was reared by amahs (one in>> > >> Nanking when I was very young, and one in Taiwan when I was older), and>> > >> still passionately loved my mother and was loved by her even though > >> I've>> never known her to bake ONE cookie for me - or any cookies, ever, > >> come to > >> think of it. :-] > > > Some of us are bad at cooking :-) I'm sure she spent some kind of time> > > with you though. It's hard to attach to someone who is never there. > > Oh, I wasn't complaining about the cookies - that was a kind of facetious > remark on my part (I was thinking of the flack about Hillary Clinton who > said she never had time to make cookies or some such thing during Clinton's > first presidential election). And I didn't mean to give the impression that > my mother was not there when I was young - actually, she was there 24/7 > (until I was in school, at which time she took on a paying job). The amah > was an "extra" hand ... who lived with us. > > > Bad parenting with money seems to be summed up by these people: > > http://alphamom.com/ > > I took a fast overall look - didn't delve too deeply - but didn't see > anything wrong. I was armed only with a paperback copy of "Dr. Spock" when > I went into the whole childrearing experience - and I would have loved to > have had Google and the internet and email lists and all that is available > to women now. > > Olga > Oops, I had a bit of a look at the site, and it seems innocuous enough. I read an article about the founder (in an Oz magazine on dead trees only I'm afraid) which was incredibly scathing about her and the alphamoms in general. Her philosophy (and the philosophy of Alphamom, at least to begin with) seemed to be that parenting is essentially a management discipline. She has a son, but luckily she can afford a nanny, a night nurse, and somebody else (I forget... housekeeper I think) all working long hours. Apparently she works one hundred hours per week on Alphamom. Her hubby, her son's Dad, works similar hours doing whatever he does. I just can't figure out where the parenting is in all of that. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From jay.dugger at gmail.com Mon Sep 26 10:02:51 2005 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 05:02:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Odeo: best podcasting application In-Reply-To: <710b78fc050926001266f40d82@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c5205092522537f58eff2@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc050925233751449ba5@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc050926001266f40d82@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5366105b05092603027fde97d3@mail.gmail.com> On 9/26/05, Emlyn wrote: > On 26/09/05, BillK wrote: > > On 9/26/05, Emlyn wrote: > > > > > > Podcasts are ridiculously easy to create, as long as you have > > > somewhere to put your mp3s. Here's a twenty minute or so method for > > > creating a free podcast: > > > The same procedure will work for making video enclosures, or "vlogs." You can find a set of instructions at freevlog.org. I sincerely wish a less-ugly neologism for video web logs existed. V-L-O-G lacks all euphony. > > > > Actually, Feedburner will insert ads in your RSS or podcast *if you > > ask them to*. They are selling ad space as targeted at very selective > > audiences. You may have noticed the ads already in the RSS stream for > > Scientific American, for example. > > > > What we are waiting for now is an RSS reader that will remove ads, > > like we have browsers that remove ads from websites. > > [snip] If you use the Firefox browser's Greasemonkey extension, you might be able to write a script to do this. The extension allows user scripts to change the client-side rendering of a web page. For example, I use a script that alters Google search results to show an URL's del.icio.us tags and whether or not it has a feed. -- Jay Dugger http://www.redcross.org Please donate if you can. From fauxever at sprynet.com Mon Sep 26 14:26:15 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 07:26:15 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloke No; Baby Yes References: <003701c5c255$2687a640$6600a8c0@brainiac> <710b78fc05092522171c197bd4@mail.gmail.com> <003c01c5c25d$41d7b590$6600a8c0@brainiac> <710b78fc0509252320bd6140a@mail.gmail.com> <005d01c5c264$b21e3750$6600a8c0@brainiac> <710b78fc05092523576eaaaa7c@mail.gmail.com> <002101c5c26b$5e84d520$6600a8c0@brainiac> <710b78fc05092602013aba48dd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <005101c5c2a6$41d9a730$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Emlyn" > http://alphamom.com/ > Oops, I had a bit of a look at the site, and it seems innocuous enough. I read an article about the founder (in an Oz magazine on dead trees only I'm afraid) which was incredibly scathing about her and the alphamoms in general. Her philosophy (and the philosophy of Alphamom, at least to begin with) seemed to be that parenting is essentially a management discipline. She has a son, but luckily she can afford a nanny, a night nurse, and somebody else (I forget... housekeeper I think) all working long hours. Apparently she works one hundred hours per week on Alphamom. Her hubby, her son's Dad, works similar hours doing whatever he does. > I just can't figure out where the parenting is in all of that. I think making a living for someone else's benefit - sustaining a household - qualifies as parenting to some large degree. Who knows whether certain people who work long hours don't have the best weekends (relaxed, nurturing, educational, fun, being filled with good memories?) with their children? Also, IMO it is good for children to observe a more egalitarian society - both parents working, and perhaps even providing a living for other people. Olga -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Sep 26 14:50:47 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 07:50:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloke No; Baby Yes In-Reply-To: <003701c5c255$2687a640$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <20050926145047.4867.qmail@web30304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Wonder how long it will be before one of these man haters sues the IVF clinic to disclose the fathers idenity so he can be sued for child support... --- Olga Bourlin wrote: > I find this verrrrrrrrrry interesting: > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/25/nivf25.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/09/25/ixportaltop.html > > And it looks like technology/science will be serving up lots more > options in > the future, as well. > > Olga > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com ______________________________________________________ Yahoo! for Good Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Sep 26 15:04:25 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 08:04:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloke No; Baby Yes In-Reply-To: <005101c5c2a6$41d9a730$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <20050926150426.42423.qmail@web30311.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Olga Bourlin wrote: > From: "Emlyn" > > http://alphamom.com/ > > > Oops, I had a bit of a look at the site, and it seems innocuous > enough. I read an article about the founder (in an Oz magazine on > dead trees > only I'm afraid) which was incredibly scathing about her and the > alphamoms > in general. Her philosophy (and the philosophy of Alphamom, at least > to > begin with) seemed to be that parenting is essentially a management > discipline. She has a son, but luckily she can afford a nanny, a > night > nurse, and somebody else (I forget... housekeeper I think) all > working long > hours. Apparently she works one hundred hours per week on Alphamom. > Her > hubby, her son's Dad, works similar hours doing whatever he does. > > > I just can't figure out where the parenting is in all of that. > > I think making a living for someone else's benefit - sustaining a > household - qualifies as parenting to some large degree. Would that the divorced women of the world felt the same way, usually such behavior IS the primary grounds for divorce. > Who knows whether certain people who work long hours don't have the > best weekends (relaxed, nurturing, educational, fun, being filled > with good memories?) with their children? Not possible. If someone works 100 hours a week, they have to be working at least one weekend day as well to reach that number. Assuming a minimum 5 hours sleep, two hours minimum on cleaning, dressing, driving, eating, that leaves 17 per day max to work. 5 days x 17 = 85, meaning they work at least 15 hours on the weekend as well. Anybody who works 100 hours a week definitively does not have time for kids or to be ANY sort of parent. > > Also, IMO it is good for children to observe a more egalitarian > society - > both parents working, and perhaps even providing a living for other > people. You are assuming that they see their kids at all. Assuming they are being responsible parents, their kids are getting 8 hours of sleep a day minimum, they will never see their kids but on rare occasions, and only for fleeting moments. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Sep 26 15:05:05 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 08:05:05 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] katrina tales In-Reply-To: <003701c5c255$2687a640$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <200509261505.j8QF58X21635@tick.javien.com> A blog is reporting that much of the horror reported in the storm aftermath in the dome were wildly exaggerated. Who do we believe? spike New Orleans Times-Picyune: Following days of internationally reported killings, rapes and gang violence inside the Dome, the doctor from FEMA - Beron doesn't remember his name - came prepared for a grisly scene: He brought a refrigerated 18-wheeler and three doctors to process bodies. "I've got a report of 200 bodies in the Dome," Beron recalls the doctor saying. The real total was six, Beron said. Of those, four died of natural causes, one overdosed and another jumped to his death in an apparent suicide, said Beron, who personally oversaw the turning over of bodies from a Dome freezer, where they lay atop melting bags of ice. State health department officials in charge of body recovery put the official death count at the Dome at 10, but Beron said the other four bodies were found in the street near the Dome, not inside it. Both sources said no one had been killed inside. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Sep 26 15:28:42 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 08:28:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Continued from wta-talk: 'Beating Eliezer' ;) In-Reply-To: <20050926065423.68525.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050926152842.14679.qmail@web30304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Marc Geddes wrote: > >Marc, please explain why you think there are three > >kinds of causality. As far as I know, even the > >"physics causality" you speak of is contentious in > >that temporal ordering of events is dependent on ones > >inertial frame of reference in relativity. On the > >other end of the scale, there are experiments that > >seem to violate causality in quantum mechanics (e.g. , > >EPR paradox, quantum erasure, etc). In light of this, > >on what basis do you contend that not only is standard > >causality real but that there are two other kinds? > >After all any number of angels can be conjectured to > >dance on the tip of a unicorn's horn, yet without > >proof of angels or unicorns, the conjecture is > >baseless. > > > > > > > >The Avantguardian > > The notion of causality is not based on the time ordering of events > as such. It's based on cause and effect - how causes are correlated > with effects. Clearly causes *are* connected to effects to some > degree. There's no problem with causality in relatively theory, > since events which can be observed to be temporally reserved are not > causally connected. All observers must see the same ordering of > events when these events *are* causally connected, even in relatively > theory. EPR is not a problem either, because quantum correlations of > this kind are not causal in nature. > > It's true that the notion of 'causality' does start to become > problematic when you bring in qauntum events. But even there, > there's still a *statistical* correlation between cause and effect. "Correlation is not causation" is the mantra of statistical scientists. In actuality, one must be able to demonstrate via a Feynman-style reaction path how a prior event could be caused by a future cause. > > See my discussion of causality in the other thread. My proposed 3 > kinds of causality were: > > "The first is physical causality - motion of physical objects through > space. > > The second is mental causality - agents making choices which effect > agents physical causality also applies to information. Your delineating between informational and physical objects is meaningless. > > The third is what I call 'Multiverse causality', a sort of highly > abtsract 'causality' close to the notion of logical > consistency/consilience - that which ensures that knowledge has a > certain ordered 'structure' to it ." Consilience is not consistency of any sort, it is the merging/dovetailing of disciplines or technologies. You are waving buzzwords in the air. > > My third kind of causality may be equiavlent to Stephen Hawking's > notion of 'Imaginary Time', a definition of which can be found at the > link below: > > http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/time.htm Hawkings imaginary time is a creation of his imagination to simplify the understanding of the possible boundlessness of a finite universe. It is not real. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Mon Sep 26 15:32:07 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 08:32:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] katrina tales In-Reply-To: <200509261505.j8QF58X21635@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050926153207.73531.qmail@web30302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> This is in line with the exaggeration of Nagin about the whole episode, where he predicted 10,000 dead in NOLA. The current death count from the whole region (incl Mississippi) is a bit over 1000. Can you say "pandering for federal funds" i.e. squeaky wheelism? --- spike wrote: > > A blog is reporting that much of the horror reported > in the storm aftermath in the dome were wildly > exaggerated. Who do we believe? spike > > New Orleans Times-Picyune: > > Following days of internationally reported killings, rapes and gang > violence > inside the Dome, the doctor from FEMA - Beron doesn't remember his > name - > came prepared for a grisly scene: He brought a refrigerated > 18-wheeler and > three doctors to process bodies. > > "I've got a report of 200 bodies in the Dome," Beron recalls the > doctor > saying. > > The real total was six, Beron said. > > Of those, four died of natural causes, one overdosed and another > jumped to > his death in an apparent suicide, said Beron, who personally oversaw > the > turning over of bodies from a Dome freezer, where they lay atop > melting bags > of ice. State health department officials in charge of body recovery > put the > official death count at the Dome at 10, but Beron said the other four > bodies > were found in the street near the Dome, not inside it. Both sources > said no > one had been killed inside. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From kevin at kevinfreels.com Mon Sep 26 18:03:24 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:03:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloke No; Baby Yes References: <20050926150426.42423.qmail@web30311.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <018001c5c2c4$96da3ab0$0100a8c0@kevin> I have custody of my two girls and I work from home. I put in an average of 10 hours per day - 8-6., for about 50 hours per week. I STILL don;t have time to do what I need to with my kids. By the itme I am off work there are dinner, dishes, laundry, answering homework questions, fixing broken things, changing lightbulbs, etc. They have to be in bed by 9pm to get up in the morning to get ready for school. I'm lucky if I have an hour to spend with them on any given day. Then they go see their so-called mother every other weekend, so I get 1 weekend with them. That weekend consists of shopping, yard work, home maintenance, haircuts, etc. Anyone who thinks they can be single, work a full-time job, and still give quality time to their kids really needs to reconsider what is meant by the word "quality". ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Lorrey" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 10:04 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Bloke No; Baby Yes > > > --- Olga Bourlin wrote: > > > From: "Emlyn" > > > http://alphamom.com/ > > > > > Oops, I had a bit of a look at the site, and it seems innocuous > > enough. I read an article about the founder (in an Oz magazine on > > dead trees > > only I'm afraid) which was incredibly scathing about her and the > > alphamoms > > in general. Her philosophy (and the philosophy of Alphamom, at least > > to > > begin with) seemed to be that parenting is essentially a management > > discipline. She has a son, but luckily she can afford a nanny, a > > night > > nurse, and somebody else (I forget... housekeeper I think) all > > working long > > hours. Apparently she works one hundred hours per week on Alphamom. > > Her > > hubby, her son's Dad, works similar hours doing whatever he does. > > > > > I just can't figure out where the parenting is in all of that. > > > > I think making a living for someone else's benefit - sustaining a > > household - qualifies as parenting to some large degree. > > Would that the divorced women of the world felt the same way, usually > such behavior IS the primary grounds for divorce. > > > Who knows whether certain people who work long hours don't have the > > best weekends (relaxed, nurturing, educational, fun, being filled > > with good memories?) with their children? > > Not possible. If someone works 100 hours a week, they have to be > working at least one weekend day as well to reach that number. Assuming > a minimum 5 hours sleep, two hours minimum on cleaning, dressing, > driving, eating, that leaves 17 per day max to work. 5 days x 17 = 85, > meaning they work at least 15 hours on the weekend as well. Anybody who > works 100 hours a week definitively does not have time for kids or to > be ANY sort of parent. > > > > > Also, IMO it is good for children to observe a more egalitarian > > society - > > both parents working, and perhaps even providing a living for other > > people. > > You are assuming that they see their kids at all. Assuming they are > being responsible parents, their kids are getting 8 hours of sleep a > day minimum, they will never see their kids but on rare occasions, and > only for fleeting moments. > > Mike Lorrey > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH > Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: > http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com > Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com > > > > __________________________________ > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Mon Sep 26 22:48:25 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 08:48:25 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] katrina tales References: <200509261505.j8QF58X21635@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <0f9201c5c2ec$677af930$8998e03c@homepc> Spike wrote: > A blog is reporting that much of the horror reported > in the storm aftermath in the dome were wildly > exaggerated. Who do we believe? spike A blog is. Why are you still looking for someone to believe? I don't believe. I just live with not knowing until it matters enough that I know more and then I try to find out more. Then there are better and worse sources but you still have to decide for yourself. I can't think of a single healthy answer to the question "who do we believe?". Its like asking who can we trust? Who is a reliable authority? I think this is almost the best possible question to reply "mu" to. There is you. There is what is true. And there is the chance to build bridges and see things in common with others that are also willing to look for what is true. I think the yearning for a sense of community inherent in the use of the word "we" and the yearning to find some new one great source to believe actually work against each other. Brett Paatsch From dgc at cox.net Mon Sep 26 23:30:56 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:30:56 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] codes in scam letters In-Reply-To: References: <200509252018.j8PKILX27145@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <433884B0.5080102@cox.net> Actually, the 411 scam letters are not as good as other SPAM for sending codes. The more standard fake Rolex, Viagra, mortgage, and porn spam is better fro this, because it generally included a large amount of quasi-random text that is added to foil simple SPAM filters. By replacing the random text with codes that look like random text, your messages will look like SPAM. You still hide the recipient by sending the message to thousands of randomly=selected additional recipients. You hide the sender by using zombies, just like a spammer. The really neat part of this is that we might be able to get the government to actually intervene and stop SPAM. All we need to do is present it as a real "terrorist threat." Then, It is our patriotic duty to stop those criminally-negligent people who unwittingly aid and abet the evil terrorists. These traitorous, criminally negligent entities include Microsoft. From kevin at kevinfreels.com Tue Sep 27 00:35:59 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:35:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] codes in scam letters References: <200509252018.j8PKILX27145@tick.javien.com> <433884B0.5080102@cox.net> Message-ID: <016b01c5c2fb$6eb0af60$0100a8c0@kevin> A huge amount of spam is trapped at the ISP level before getting to the consumer, so I doubt this would be an effective way to send code to terrorists. They would be better served sending genuine personal messages that are coded with one-time cyphers. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Clemmensen" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 6:30 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] codes in scam letters > Actually, the 411 scam letters are not as good as other SPAM for sending > codes. The more standard fake Rolex, Viagra, mortgage, and porn spam is > better fro this, because it generally included a large amount of > quasi-random text that is added to foil simple SPAM filters. By > replacing the random text with codes that look like random text, your > messages will look like SPAM. You still hide the recipient by sending > the message to thousands of randomly=selected additional recipients. You > hide the sender by using zombies, just like a spammer. > > > The really neat part of this is that we might be able to get the > government to actually intervene and stop SPAM. All we need to do is > present it as a real "terrorist threat." Then, It is our patriotic duty > to stop those criminally-negligent people who unwittingly aid and abet > the evil terrorists. These traitorous, criminally negligent entities > include Microsoft. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Sep 27 00:34:35 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:04:35 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloke No; Baby Yes In-Reply-To: <005101c5c2a6$41d9a730$6600a8c0@brainiac> References: <003701c5c255$2687a640$6600a8c0@brainiac> <710b78fc05092522171c197bd4@mail.gmail.com> <003c01c5c25d$41d7b590$6600a8c0@brainiac> <710b78fc0509252320bd6140a@mail.gmail.com> <005d01c5c264$b21e3750$6600a8c0@brainiac> <710b78fc05092523576eaaaa7c@mail.gmail.com> <002101c5c26b$5e84d520$6600a8c0@brainiac> <710b78fc05092602013aba48dd@mail.gmail.com> <005101c5c2a6$41d9a730$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <710b78fc05092617348752cac@mail.gmail.com> On 26/09/05, Olga Bourlin wrote: > From: "Emlyn" > > http://alphamom.com/ > > > Oops, I had a bit of a look at the site, and it seems innocuous > enough. I read an article about the founder (in an Oz magazine on dead trees > only I'm afraid) which was incredibly scathing about her and the alphamoms > in general. Her philosophy (and the philosophy of Alphamom, at least to > begin with) seemed to be that parenting is essentially a management > discipline. She has a son, but luckily she can afford a nanny, a night > nurse, and somebody else (I forget... housekeeper I think) all working long > hours. Apparently she works one hundred hours per week on Alphamom. Her > hubby, her son's Dad, works similar hours doing whatever he does. > > > I just can't figure out where the parenting is in all of that. > > I think making a living for someone else's benefit - sustaining a > household - qualifies as parenting to some large degree. Who knows whether > certain people who work long hours don't have the best weekends (relaxed, > nurturing, educational, fun, being filled with good memories?) with their > children? No, they don't. > Also, IMO it is good for children to observe a more egalitarian society - > both parents working, and perhaps even providing a living for other people. > > Olga > A more egalitarian society is excellent. But having all the parents in the family off in paid work, working fulltime plus, is not good, unless perhaps you have surrogate parents (eg: grandparents sometimes fill this role). There is a modern myth that you can have it all; high pressure fulfilling career, great relationship, great family. I think though that this is something that the history of western men in the 20th century mostly puts the lie to. There has been in masculine culture the meme for a good long time that your job is to be provider. Work 100 hours a week if you have to, that's your job, your job as parent is not to provide direct care and nurturing but rather to provide resources. And there is *some* truth to that, in that a family needs resources, most definitely. The life of provider is one I've lived all my adult life. I have found personally that it's not the whole story however. You have to do more than provide to be a good parent. My overwhelming impression from the men I have met in my family and working life is that the life of pure, overworking provider is a life choice that sours badly as the years go on. Many men miss their families terribly while they work long hours, fail to bond properly with their families, and become outsiders. Families break up because of this, kids don't maintain contact with a parent they never knew, it's a very dangerous path. I get the impression that for women, there is little comparative cultural history to draw from. Women are trailblazing in a lot of ways now, especially regarding paid work, which is excellent. But I do think that the history of men regarding the work and family balance must stand as a warning. Everyone has a lot of choices these days, but they are choices - you can't have everything. A choice to be a parent is a choice of sacrifice in many ways. It is my opinion that the provider role is not one which need have a particular gender attached. Gender is irrelevant. But in my experience it's difficult enough to be a real parent when you only work normal full time hours. The 60 or 80 or 100 hour, overworking "hero" mode just cannot be compatible with family in the long term. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 00:55:09 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:55:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] another letter Message-ID: <20050927005509.50227.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com> I anticipated your relevant question. The computer yesterday wasn't feeling well. i accidentally sent extropy a letter i was going to send to a newspaper first, and when in trying to delete the Draft it sent multiple copies. It was almost like Hal in 2001, trying to embarrass me. Am i alright? That is a good question. But i think the letter was the best one sent the newspaper so far, and i've send literally a thousand. spike wrote:v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } al i dont know what this is about bud. have you developed software that creates this stuff? explain it if you post it. are you ok? spike __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 01:05:13 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:05:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] a point Message-ID: <20050927010513.17702.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com> Mike, you and I don't have all that much in common, but you understand things no one else will even listen to. Just for example, I tell feminists that women don't have to work, not that they don't work, not that they don't do very well despite women's problems. But a man is expected to work, and a woman isn't. Women don't hear me when I tell them that generally women want men to be women, and also remain men. A guy is expected by women to be aggressive yet gentle. When i tell women this their ears shrivel up, they go right into denial mode. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fauxever at sprynet.com Tue Sep 27 01:14:41 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:14:41 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloke No; Baby Yes References: <20050926145047.4867.qmail@web30304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002b01c5c300$d70ce510$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Mike Lorrey" > Wonder how long it will be before one of these man haters sues the IVF > clinic to disclose the father's idenity so he can be sued for child > support... Of course, "man haters" is throwing in an assumption that may not be necessarily so. I've loved men (to my detriment sometimes, lol) all my life, and if I were young and this were an option for me, for many reasons I could think of - I may have gone for it. Such as it is, I kinda-sorta did this in 1968, except this service didn't exist then, and I had to do it the old-fashioned way (shake hands, make a deal, get married, produce 2 children, thank him very much - and I was completely honest about what I eventually wanted - the children, not the marriage). Suing for child support - on top of having had a favor fulfilled for me - would have been unconscionable. I've simply always been grateful. There are many women who have integrity, Mike - it seems you are protesting too much, and your assumption about "man haters" may actually be something you are projecting about how you feel about women? Just speculating, you understand. Olga From extropy at unreasonable.com Tue Sep 27 01:16:11 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:16:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] codes in scam letters In-Reply-To: <016b01c5c2fb$6eb0af60$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <200509252018.j8PKILX27145@tick.javien.com> <433884B0.5080102@cox.net> <016b01c5c2fb$6eb0af60$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050926205654.058b1cd8@unreasonable.com> Kevin Freels wrote: >A huge amount of spam is trapped at the ISP level before getting to the >consumer, so I doubt this would be an effective way to send code to >terrorists. They would be better served sending genuine personal messages >that are coded with one-time cyphers. Any traffic that appears to be encrypted will be scrutinized by their opponents, as will any traffic from or to a suspect. The best ways to communicate will not draw attention. In the WW II model, signalling by the radio broadcast of a particular popular song is preferable to "the crows fly at dawn." Because encrypted traffic is relatively rare, it draws attention. Those who want strong crypto should also want it to be an automatic, default feature in all popular software for communicating through Internet protocols (email, chat, HTTP, SMS, VOIP, etc.). -- David Lubkin. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 01:39:36 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:39:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] a point In-Reply-To: <20050927010513.17702.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050927013936.27712.qmail@web30315.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Al Brooks wrote: > Mike, you and I don't have all that much in common, but you > understand things no one else will even listen to. Just for example, > I tell feminists that women don't have to work, not that they don't > work, not that they don't do very well despite women's problems. But > a man is expected to work, and a woman isn't. > Women don't hear me when I tell them that generally women want men to > be women, and also remain men. A guy is expected by women to be > aggressive yet gentle. When i tell women this their ears shrivel up, > they go right into denial mode. Quite so, but there is no chance to change it. Most women lack the left brain rational faculties. You can't win an argument with a woman. Comes partly from their upbringing too. They get taught that since it's a womans prerogative to change her mind, that any opinion is as good as any other, so the only one that matters is the one they have. When you win an argument with a woman, you've lost. So you need to figure out what your priorities are: to be right and to have your nuts cut off next chance she gets to exact revenge, or just hand them over voluntarily. They are going to get them one way or the other, and some enjoy a little bit of spunk before they reel in the catch, but your only other option is to refuse to play at all, accept what I say as gospel, and just treat them as badly. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dgc at cox.net Tue Sep 27 01:46:33 2005 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:46:33 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] codes in scam letters In-Reply-To: <016b01c5c2fb$6eb0af60$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <200509252018.j8PKILX27145@tick.javien.com> <433884B0.5080102@cox.net> <016b01c5c2fb$6eb0af60$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <4338A479.2000108@cox.net> kevinfreels.com wrote: >A huge amount of spam is trapped at the ISP level before getting to the >consumer, so I doubt this would be an effective way to send code to >terrorists. They would be better served sending genuine personal messages >that are coded with one-time cyphers. > > But it is trivially easy to set up an e-mail server of your own: an e-business. The ISP does not in general filter on behalf of an e-business: it is the responsibility of the business to defend itself. Furthermore, even if a "huge amount" is filtered, a "huge amount" still gets through. From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 01:57:49 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:57:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloke No; Baby Yes In-Reply-To: <002b01c5c300$d70ce510$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <20050927015749.47416.qmail@web30314.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Olga Bourlin wrote: > From: "Mike Lorrey" > > > Wonder how long it will be before one of these man haters sues the > > IVF clinic to disclose the father's idenity so he can be sued for > > child support... > snip... > > There are many women who have integrity, Mike - it seems you are > protesting too much, and your assumption about "man haters" may > actually be something > you are projecting about how you feel about women? Just speculating, > you understand. Nope, just the conclusions of years of observing the trials, tribulations, and restraining orders my two brothers and numerous friends have had to deal with. "You always were the smartest guy in class" is the common refrain when high school friends find out I'm still not married. I have known women with integrity, but they are few and far between. What I have observed is many women in this world manipulating the system for their own benefit and damn the truth or their integrity. This has included: a) women abusing workplace sexual harrassment rules to attempt to frame male military colleagues with false testimony. b) women making fraudulent claims as to the paternity of their children in order to collect the most money from the richest guy possible, miling him as long as possible, then admitting the truth without legal consequences when they decide they want to move across the country with a new husband and don't want to deal with the hassle of the fake dad anymore. c) women suborning perjury in order to avoid adultery charges in divorce proceedings d) women statutorily raping teenage boys to get pregnant, with assurances they would not hold the father responsible, then suing for child support when the father became an adult (and the courts refuse to charge the women with statutory rape). e) teen girls claiming they were date raped to avoid parental punishment when they engaged in consensual sex with their boyfriend. f) domestic violence surveys that show that twice as many women as men who say its okay to commit violence against their partner, but the media only talks about the men who think so, and cry about domestic violence against women. When was the last time you saw a mens domestic violence center? The above is just the most heinous tip of the iceberg. Do I 'hate' women? No, just grossly disappointed, and cautious when I'm out and around ones I don't know well. Unfortunately, there is no legal equivalent of the 2nd amendment to defend oneself against women of zero integrity. The system is rigged in favor of women, despite all the gnashing of womens groups. Just do a count of how many businesses are 'women owned' by the spouses of the real operators in order to qualify for government contract set asides and point bonuses in contract competitions. When the spouse decides to divorce, she gets to keep "her" business, and the guy who built it up from scratch is screwed. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From fauxever at sprynet.com Tue Sep 27 02:12:11 2005 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:12:11 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloke No; Baby Yes References: <20050927015749.47416.qmail@web30314.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <010401c5c308$df4ac0a0$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Mike Lorrey" [Snip] > The above is just the most heinous tip of the iceberg. I am familiar with all the examples you've given - I've been involved with men's rights for over 20 years (even introduced some men to the concept). You are preaching to the choir - with me, anyway. I used to be on the board of a men's group (I was the only female they'd ever had). > Do I 'hate' women? No, just grossly disappointed, and cautious when I'm > out and around ones I don't know well. And men aren't all wonderful specimens of humanity either. One simply has to pick the right partners. I'm very discriminating when it comes to men - and you can do the same with women. Olga From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 02:14:41 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:14:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] a point In-Reply-To: <20050927013936.27712.qmail@web30315.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050927021441.67556.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com> Most feminists will listen to what you say, but when you tell them many or most women want men to be men at work but want the same men to be women at home, they just flick the switch off. Why should feminists want to hear it? Do they expect a man to come home, drink himself into a stupor and smile? Men want to unwind, play golf, watch football, get into a fight at a bar, or whatever it is that will let them unwind after work. New England is a little more civilized, but right now it is dark here in Middle America and I can see but mostly hear the men itching for a small spat, guys riding around on bicycles with no headlights, students yelling happy obscenities at the top of their lungs. Mike Lorrey wrote: Quite so, but there is no chance to change it. Most women lack the left brain rational faculties. You can't win an argument with a woman. Comes partly from their upbringing too. They get taught that since it's a womans prerogative to change her mind, that any opinion is as good as any other, so the only one that matters is the one they have. When you win an argument with a woman, you've lost. So you need to figure out what your priorities are: to be right and to have your nuts cut off next chance she gets to exact revenge, or just hand them over voluntarily. They are going to get them one way or the other, and some enjoy a little bit of spunk before they reel in the catch, but your only other option is to refuse to play at all, accept what I say as gospel, and just treat them as badly. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Tue Sep 27 02:52:31 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:52:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] codes in scam letters References: <200509252018.j8PKILX27145@tick.javien.com> <433884B0.5080102@cox.net><016b01c5c2fb$6eb0af60$0100a8c0@kevin> <4338A479.2000108@cox.net> Message-ID: <01d401c5c30e$8189d720$0100a8c0@kevin> > kevinfreels.com wrote: > > >A huge amount of spam is trapped at the ISP level before getting to the > >consumer, so I doubt this would be an effective way to send code to > >terrorists. They would be better served sending genuine personal messages > >that are coded with one-time cyphers. > > > >Dan Clemmensen wrote: > But it is trivially easy to set up an e-mail server of your own: an > e-business. > The ISP does not in general filter on behalf of an e-business: it is the > responsibility > of the business to defend itself. > > Furthermore, even if a "huge amount" is filtered, a "huge amount" still > gets through. Kevin Freels writes: Right, but who are we speaking of when we refer to the receiver? My impression of this idea was that the spam was broadcast to the general population to be picked up by terrorists who appear in all ways to be "average users". Once they start setting up mail servers and such they begin to draw attention to themselves and make themselves easier to isolate. If they want to appear average they will have a regular ISP, possibly AOL, and maybe even dial-up. Also, given the amount of spam out there, wouldn't there be an additional risk of the receivers interpreting real spam as messages. ____________________ Kevin Freels wrote: >>A huge amount of spam is trapped at the ISP level before getting to the >>consumer, so I doubt this would be an effective way to send code to >>terrorists. They would be better served sending genuine personal messages >>that are coded with one-time cyphers. >David Lubkin wrote: >Any traffic that appears to be encrypted will be scrutinized by their >opponents, as will any traffic from or to a suspect. The best ways to >communicate will not draw attention. In the WW II model, signalling >by the radio broadcast of a particular popular song is preferable to >"the crows fly at dawn." >Because encrypted traffic is relatively rare, it draws attention. >Those who want strong crypto should also want it to be an automatic, >default feature in all popular software for communicating through >Internet protocols (email, chat, HTTP, SMS, VOIP, etc.). True, but in the WWII model, the point is that the signal is buried in a ton of irrelevant information. I'm talking about regular daily conversation between a "student" and his "mother" oversees and such. Moreover, the sender sends messages to dozens of other people who are not part of the "conspiracy" and the mother does as well. They both receive dozens of messages daily as well. Every day they talk back and forth and a message would only be buried occasionally. We're not talking about a single broadcast like "the crows fly at dawn". More like "I failed my test today" or "Your father hurt his back today changing a lightbulb". Each sender becomes their own radio station and with more radio stations only increases the complexity for those who would listen in. When you add to it that they would want to appear to be average users and sign up with a regular ISP with spam filtering and then include the possibility that real spam might be misinterpreted by the receiver as a message, I just don;t think that spam makes the best vehicle for such messages. I did have a thought though. A better medium would be these stupid chain letters with nice little christian poems that say "forward to at least 10 loved ones and you will be blessed". Or neat faked images of events like the tsunamis and the supposed "unknown" species of fish stranded on the beach. Or photos of US troops with giant spiders. Or groups of arabs supposedly holding anti-american signs that were written by hired translators that happened to be retired army generals. etc etc ad naseum. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From reason at longevitymeme.org Tue Sep 27 02:59:51 2005 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:59:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Three Hundred Dinner w/ Ray Kurzweil, Aubrey de Grey, December, Boston In-Reply-To: <018001c5c2c4$96da3ab0$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: For those who haven't yet seen this: http://www.mprize.org/index.php?pagename=newsdetaildisplay&ID=082 ---- We are very happy to invite you to what promises to be an amazing evening of food, fun, and conversation with some of the greatest thinkers in the field of healthy life extension. On December 8, 2005, in the Boston area, the Methuselah Foundation will be hosting a small dinner party. The guests of honor will be Ray Kurzweil and our very own Aubrey de Grey! The event is free of charge. Here's the catch: you have to be a Three Hundred member to attend. The Three Hundred is the Mprize's core group of committed givers: those who have pledged $1000 US per year for 25 years to the cause of finding a cure for the biggest killer of all time: aging. There's plenty of time to become a Three Hundred member... you can sign up anytime here. You can choose to honor your Three Hundred commitment in installments of $85/month, or however it is most convenient for you to set up payment. Every Three Hundred member will be invited to bring one guest to enjoy this incredible event. Please let us know asap if you plan to attend so we can make arrangements. Looking forward to meeting you! ---- Reason From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Sep 27 02:55:30 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:55:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloke No; Baby Yes In-Reply-To: <20050927015749.47416.qmail@web30314.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200509270255.j8R2tiX31914@tick.javien.com> All right, everybody stop this right now. This thread is inflammatory and embarrassing. (And this is *me* talking.) Drop it, don't make me use capital letters. spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey ... > --- Olga Bourlin wrote: > > > From: "Mike Lorrey" > > > > > Wonder how long it will be before one of these man haters sues ... > > > snip... > > > > There are many women who have integrity, Mike - ... > > Nope, just the conclusions of years of observing the trials, > tribulations, and restraining orders my two brothers and numerous > friends have had to deal with... > Mike Lorrey From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 02:59:47 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:59:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] sincere apology Message-ID: <20050927025947.67730.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> the papers have published literally a thousand of my letters, and the editor says they are at least as good as the others' letters. i don't care much what anyone except the editor thinks, but it's an indication of how bad the letters are here. They are negative, and positive letters are ignored or quickly forgotten here. I know just what you mean; now, i happen to like the letter, but if you don't like it there is a good reason for it-- it is negative.It was very very embarrasing on Sunday to have sent exi the letter multiple times, the letter is still in the Draft folder because deleting it might resend it. It might be the server. All i know is even when i changed the outgoing address in Draft to resend the letter, exi's address remained. i'm honestly so embarrased i want to unsubscribe, but want to stay to converse with Mike. no more letters, promise! --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From extropy at unreasonable.com Tue Sep 27 03:00:02 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 23:00:02 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] codes in scam letters In-Reply-To: <01d401c5c30e$8189d720$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <200509252018.j8PKILX27145@tick.javien.com> <433884B0.5080102@cox.net> <016b01c5c2fb$6eb0af60$0100a8c0@kevin> <4338A479.2000108@cox.net> <01d401c5c30e$8189d720$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050926224750.072a5d98@unreasonable.com> Kevin Freels wrote: >True, but in the WWII model, the point is that the signal is buried in a ton >of irrelevant information. I'm talking about regular daily conversation >between a "student" and his "mother" oversees and such. Moreover, the sender >sends messages to dozens of other people who are not part of the >"conspiracy" and the mother does as well. They both receive dozens of >messages daily as well. Every day they talk back and forth and a message >would only be buried occasionally. We're not talking about a single >broadcast like "the crows fly at dawn". More like "I failed my test today" >or "Your father hurt his back today changing a lightbulb". But if the "student" or "mother" became a suspect, everyone they regularly communicate with may also be scrutinized. If the regular traffic (with occasional embedded messages or fragments) is through a mass medium -- newsgroup, blog, forum, wiki, mailing list -- devoted to something innocuous like fly fishing, diabetes, nude pix, or Linux distros, there's nothing to lead you from one player to another. And instead of dozens of candidates, you have 10^3 or 10^7. -- David. From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Sep 27 05:04:54 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:34:54 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Blog spam Message-ID: <710b78fc0509262204e307b90@mail.gmail.com> This came up on the list recently, but now it's starting to get to me. I've got a blog at VirtualEmlyn.blogspot.com, which until recently has been very well behaved. Now I'm getting this amazing blog spam. Every time I post, I get one or more replies, which come so quickly that they are obviously automated. They were all anonymous before, so I changed my settings to require a blogger user login before people could comment. Now I'm getting spam from what are either bot generated users or throwaway user profiles hand generated by spammers. Have a look at the comments on my blog entries, the dates and times, and the links in the to spammer stuff. This is one that I found as I crawled back through user profiles: http://www.theonlinepromoters.com/. I get the impression that spammers think that what they are doing is ok. I do kind of like it when it's creative (some of the nigerian email variants out there are real works of art). But so much of it is dumb :-( In the end, it's my fault. I've put my blogs somewhere that I should not have, on the Joe Sixpack ghetto service (blogger.com), and now I'm paying for it. Time to relocate to somewhere a bit more boutique, with less users and a bit more geek cred (and savvy!). Or maybe just implement my own stuff, now that my website is coming together. Now the compulsory "open up the floor" question. What's a good free blogging service? Recommendations? -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From brian at posthuman.com Tue Sep 27 05:45:27 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:45:27 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Blog spam In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0509262204e307b90@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0509262204e307b90@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4338DC77.7050807@posthuman.com> Since the blogspam is mostly automated, moving to a different host will not solve it. All blogs suffer from this. Some solutions are: 1. Eliminate comments permanently. 2. Moderate all comments. Can be partially automated by only requiring moderation of comments that have links in them. 3. Require a CAPTCHA in combination with user login for comments. Will not eliminate the few human spammers out there. 4. Some newer blog software is incorporating Bayesian comment filtering. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From reason at longevitymeme.org Tue Sep 27 06:40:22 2005 From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 23:40:22 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Blog spam In-Reply-To: <4338DC77.7050807@posthuman.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Brian Atkins > Since the blogspam is mostly automated, moving to a different > host will not > solve it. All blogs suffer from this. Some solutions are: > > 1. Eliminate comments permanently. > > 2. Moderate all comments. Can be partially automated by only requiring > moderation of comments that have links in them. > > 3. Require a CAPTCHA in combination with user login for comments. > Will not > eliminate the few human spammers out there. > > 4. Some newer blog software is incorporating Bayesian comment filtering. Movable Type is well up to the spam challenge. All the necessaries are now included in the standard version 3.2; the cost of getting MT set up on a hosted service is somewhat less than the cost of suffering spam, I think you'll find. Reason From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Tue Sep 27 06:46:20 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:46:20 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Blog spam References: <710b78fc0509262204e307b90@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <100501c5c32f$2b7e8bc0$8998e03c@homepc> Can't help but know how you feel. I've an ebay account that I've neither bought nor sold anything out of yet but I've already had a bunch of fake email sent to me in relation to warning me that people are using it. And that I should log on and update my info etc. I was and am planning on spending the time to get ebay savvy because I am interested in seeing what can be done with the medium. I thought it might be possible to buy and sell personal services from it via bundling those services with products etc. I was also intrigued with Robins challenge to Avantguardian to go ahead and try and bet using it. Brett Paatsch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Emlyn" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 3:04 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] Blog spam > This came up on the list recently, but now it's starting to get to me. > I've got a blog at VirtualEmlyn.blogspot.com, which until recently has > been very well behaved. Now I'm getting this amazing blog spam. > > Every time I post, I get one or more replies, which come so quickly > that they are obviously automated. They were all anonymous before, so > I changed my settings to require a blogger user login before people > could comment. Now I'm getting spam from what are either bot generated > users or throwaway user profiles hand generated by spammers. > > Have a look at the comments on my blog entries, the dates and times, > and the links in the to spammer stuff. This is one that I found as I > crawled back through user profiles: > http://www.theonlinepromoters.com/. > > I get the impression that spammers think that what they are doing is > ok. I do kind of like it when it's creative (some of the nigerian > email variants out there are real works of art). But so much of it is > dumb :-( > > In the end, it's my fault. I've put my blogs somewhere that I should > not have, on the Joe Sixpack ghetto service (blogger.com), and now I'm > paying for it. Time to relocate to somewhere a bit more boutique, with > less users and a bit more geek cred (and savvy!). Or maybe just > implement my own stuff, now that my website is coming together. > > Now the compulsory "open up the floor" question. What's a good free > blogging service? Recommendations? > > -- > Emlyn > > http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au Tue Sep 27 06:53:00 2005 From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:53:00 +1000 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Continued from wta-talk: 'Beating Eliezer' ;) Message-ID: <20050927065300.30609.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Mike, I was delineating mental events and physical events. Information in the sense of computational processes (functional systems) is, as you rightly point out, really equiavlent to physical causality. But high level mental events, even though they are completely *dependent* on low level physics, are not neccesserily completely *reducible* to low-level physics. New concepts are required for high level explanations, concepts which are not a part of the physics level of explanation. That's my justification for delineating mental and physical causality. Consilience I define to mean the integration of two different seperate kinds of knowledge into a single explanatory framework. So I mean 'Unification' As to Stephen Hawking's 'Imaginary Time', despite the name 'Imaginary', there is no reason for believing that Imaginary Time is any less real than ordinary physical time. The reason Hawking called it 'Imaginary' is because the concept uses imaginary numbers from mathematics , not because it's not real. Imaginary numbers are every bit as real as real numbers. If the Imaginary Time conjecture is correct there are really *two* time dimensions - our ordinary physical time, and this Imaginary Time. --- Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Listen to over 20 online radio stations and watch over 5000 music videos on Yahoo! Music. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Sep 27 06:54:49 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:24:49 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Blog spam In-Reply-To: <100501c5c32f$2b7e8bc0$8998e03c@homepc> References: <710b78fc0509262204e307b90@mail.gmail.com> <100501c5c32f$2b7e8bc0$8998e03c@homepc> Message-ID: <710b78fc050926235458bc27d2@mail.gmail.com> > > I was also intrigued with Robins challenge to Avantguardian to go ahead and > try and bet using it. > > Brett Paatsch Very very cool. Let us know how that goes, ok? -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Sep 27 06:59:20 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:29:20 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Blog spam In-Reply-To: <4338DC77.7050807@posthuman.com> References: <710b78fc0509262204e307b90@mail.gmail.com> <4338DC77.7050807@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc050926235946ee1f02@mail.gmail.com> On 27/09/05, Brian Atkins wrote: > Since the blogspam is mostly automated, moving to a different host will not > solve it. All blogs suffer from this. But wait, surely this requires a bot to parse the page and submit comments using whatever (non-standard) mechanisms are provided by the particular blogging software used? In that case, an obscure provider might be just the ticket. It's worth the effort working out how to target blogger.com pages with spam, but maybe less so with goddamnedobscureblogsthatnobodyusesverymuch.com ( <- this isn't real btw ) > Some solutions are: > > 1. Eliminate comments permanently. Might be the solution :-( > > 2. Moderate all comments. Can be partially automated by only requiring > moderation of comments that have links in them. > That sounds good, the partial moderation. > 3. Require a CAPTCHA in combination with user login for comments. Will not > eliminate the few human spammers out there. > A few human spammers is fine. When they can't automate their work, it's not a big problem. > 4. Some newer blog software is incorporating Bayesian comment filtering. Yes that sounds cool. Now I've just got to find a decent host (setting up my own stuff is a last resort, too much virtual housework). -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au Tue Sep 27 07:05:43 2005 From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 17:05:43 +1000 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians Message-ID: <20050927070543.4483.qmail@web35504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Right, I'm making this post my last *ever* philosophical/metaphysical speculation on-line. From now on I'm determined to 'do an Eli' and only ever open my mouth when I'm absolutely certain of something and can back it up. Kind of a shame I have to end my philosophy posts but otherwise people *really will* start to think I'm a crack-pot LOL Any way, I don't want to get into a fight with the SL4 er's spike, my intension was simply to get up into the public record some comprehensible original conjectures that I'm *reasonably* sure about. I've done that. (See previous my post). I felt the SL4 crowd were extremely obnoxious and arrogant and needed to learn some humility. These conjectures of mine *should* stand up and when they are verified the Sl4 er's will have hopefully learnt to take their humble pie ;) See ya --- Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Sep 27 08:08:29 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:08:29 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] codes in scam letters In-Reply-To: <01d401c5c30e$8189d720$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <200509252018.j8PKILX27145@tick.javien.com> <433884B0.5080102@cox.net> <016b01c5c2fb$6eb0af60$0100a8c0@kevin> <4338A479.2000108@cox.net> <01d401c5c30e$8189d720$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: On 9/27/05, kevinfreels.com wrote: > I did have a thought though. A better medium would be these stupid chain > letters with nice little christian poems that say "forward to at least 10 > loved ones and you will be blessed". Or neat faked images of events like the > tsunamis and the supposed "unknown" species of fish stranded on the beach. > Or photos of US troops with giant spiders. Or groups of arabs supposedly > holding anti-american signs that were written by hired translators that > happened to be retired army generals. etc etc ad naseum. > Or photos of US troops with giant spiders? Actually these are true photos. :) Well, strictly speaking they are not really spiders and the size is exaggerated by being nearer the camera than the soldier holding it. But you will still need a change of underwear if you meet one at night. See: and The wild fearsome stories about these creatures are told by the old soldiers to new recruits arriving in Iraq to scare them. Then during the night they shout to waken the new recruit and toss one on the bed. And much fun was had by all. :) BillK From eugen at leitl.org Tue Sep 27 08:10:01 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:10:01 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Blog spam In-Reply-To: <710b78fc050926235946ee1f02@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0509262204e307b90@mail.gmail.com> <4338DC77.7050807@posthuman.com> <710b78fc050926235946ee1f02@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20050927081001.GC2249@leitl.org> On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 04:29:20PM +0930, Emlyn wrote: > On 27/09/05, Brian Atkins wrote: > > Since the blogspam is mostly automated, moving to a different host will not > > solve it. All blogs suffer from this. > > But wait, surely this requires a bot to parse the page and submit > comments using whatever (non-standard) mechanisms are provided by the > particular blogging software used? In that case, an obscure provider How much types of blogging software is there? Less than 10, and of course some spammers can specialize in a specific one. > might be just the ticket. It's worth the effort working out how to > target blogger.com pages with spam, but maybe less so with > goddamnedobscureblogsthatnobodyusesverymuch.com ( <- this isn't real > btw ) Just use a CAPTCHA (Turing test). > > 2. Moderate all comments. Can be partially automated by only requiring > > moderation of comments that have links in them. > > > > That sounds good, the partial moderation. I use full moderation (WordPress), and only see a couple of comment spam/month. > A few human spammers is fine. When they can't automate their work, > it's not a big problem. You can use CAPTCHAs, moderate the rest, and use whitelisting. > > 4. Some newer blog software is incorporating Bayesian comment filtering. > > Yes that sounds cool. > > Now I've just got to find a decent host (setting up my own stuff is a > last resort, too much virtual housework). I'm not sure what the business model of a blog hoster is, unless it's commercial. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Tue Sep 27 08:13:03 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:13:03 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bloke No; Baby Yes In-Reply-To: <200509270255.j8R2tiX31914@tick.javien.com> References: <200509270255.j8R2tiX31914@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, spike wrote: > All right, everybody stop this right now. This > thread is inflammatory and embarrassing. (And this > is *me* talking.) Drop it, don't make me use capital > letters. > > spike But why? The last mails have been remarkably civil, from both sides. Alfio >> -----Original Message----- >> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey > ... >> --- Olga Bourlin wrote: >> >>> From: "Mike Lorrey" >>> >>>> Wonder how long it will be before one of these man haters sues ... >>> >> snip... >>> >>> There are many women who have integrity, Mike - ... >> >> Nope, just the conclusions of years of observing the trials, >> tribulations, and restraining orders my two brothers and numerous >> friends have had to deal with... > >> Mike Lorrey > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From eugen at leitl.org Tue Sep 27 08:15:08 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:15:08 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Blog spam In-Reply-To: References: <4338DC77.7050807@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <20050927081508.GD2249@leitl.org> On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 11:40:22PM -0700, Reason wrote: > Movable Type is well up to the spam challenge. All the necessaries are now The pathetic part is that they were surprised by the fact that there was spam. > included in the standard version 3.2; the cost of getting MT set up on a > hosted service is somewhat less than the cost of suffering spam, I think > you'll find. I think Turing tests, moderation, authentication and whitelisting should be sufficient. Proof of work is also something even more difficult to provide. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Tue Sep 27 10:02:56 2005 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:02:56 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Foreign Policy on teh future Message-ID: <470a3c5205092703023528877d@mail.gmail.com> Interesting 35th anniversary Foreign Policy articleson future change and the world in 2040.. Albert Einstein claimed he never thought of the future. "It comes soon enough," he said. *FOREIGN POLICY* decided to not grant 16 leading thinkers that luxury. Instead, to mark our 35th anniversary, we asked them to speculate on the ideas, values, and institutions the world takes for granted that may disappear in the next 35 years. Their answers range from fields as diverse as morals and religion to geopolitics and technology. We may be happy to see some of these "endangered species" make an exit, but others will be mourned. All of them will leave a mark. The Sanctity of Life By Peter Singer - Political Parties By Fernando Henrique Cardoso - The Euro By Christopher Hitchens - Japanese Passivity - By Shintaro Ishihara - Monogamy By Jacques Attali- Religious Hierarchy By Harvey Cox - The Chinese Communist Party By Minxin Pei Auto Emissions By John Browne - The Public Domain By Lawrence Lessig - Doctors' Offices By Craig Mundie - The King of England By Felipe Fern?ndez-Armesto - The War on Drugs By Peter Schwartz - Laissez-Faire Procreation By Lee Kuan Yew - Polio By Julie L. Gerberding - Sovereignty By Richard N. Haass - Anonymity By Esther Dyson. Some articles are available to free registered users, others only to paying subscribers. From Singer's article (available in full text):: When the traditional ethic of the sanctity of human life is proven indefensible at both the beginning and end of life, a new ethic will replace it. It will recognize that the concept of a person is distinct from that of a member of the species Homo sapiens, and that it is personhood, not species membership, that is most significant in determining when it is wrong to end a life. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Sep 27 10:20:55 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:20:55 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] codes in scam letters In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050926205654.058b1cd8@unreasonable.com> References: <200509252018.j8PKILX27145@tick.javien.com> <433884B0.5080102@cox.net> <016b01c5c2fb$6eb0af60$0100a8c0@kevin> <6.2.3.4.2.20050926205654.058b1cd8@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <20050927102055.GB2249@leitl.org> On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 09:16:11PM -0400, David Lubkin wrote: > Kevin Freels wrote: > > >A huge amount of spam is trapped at the ISP level before getting to the > >consumer, so I doubt this would be an effective way to send code to > >terrorists. They would be better served sending genuine personal messages > >that are coded with one-time cyphers. > > Any traffic that appears to be encrypted will be scrutinized by their > opponents, as will any traffic from or to a suspect. The best ways to A large and rising fraction of traffic is already encrypted. People can scrutinize Received: from proton.jfet.org (unknown [69.60.117.34]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "sp2734", Issuer "sp2734" (not verified)) by leitl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AA8B10380D7 until the cows come home, until they actually actively manipulate session setup (and cause tell-tale warnings in the logs) there are not many locations where they could tap. Properly done steganography is indistinguishable from the natural noise background of the channel. It only makes sense if you have the the exact algorithm to extract the payload, and the matching key. > communicate will not draw attention. In the WW II model, signalling > by the radio broadcast of a particular popular song is preferable to > "the crows fly at dawn." Number stations broadcast just fine with one-time pads. > Because encrypted traffic is relatively rare, it draws attention. Encrypted traffic is only rare in comparison to P2P and multimedia streams. In terms of absolute numbers, there's a challenge to even detect it with statistical means. Recording it en bulk is prohibitive, drinking from a firehose. You can only focus on a few connections at a time, unless you move the snoop hardware towards the leaves (periphery). > Those who want strong crypto should also want it to be an automatic, > default feature in all popular software for communicating through > Internet protocols (email, chat, HTTP, SMS, VOIP, etc.). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Tue Sep 27 10:32:31 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 11:32:31 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] codes in scam letters In-Reply-To: <016b01c5c2fb$6eb0af60$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <200509252018.j8PKILX27145@tick.javien.com> <433884B0.5080102@cox.net> <016b01c5c2fb$6eb0af60$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: Just send it as code in a pic to a binaries sex NG on Usenet Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Tue Sep 27 13:28:20 2005 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:28:20 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Blog spam In-Reply-To: <710b78fc050926235946ee1f02@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I don't think it's so much a symptom of blogger.com accounts, just any blog that has decent traffic or other sites link to legitimately get put on the spammers' lists. Then they just monitor the RSS feed and comment every time there's a new post. You might slow them down by using a non-blogger comment posting system that their bots aren't familiar with (yet). BAL >From: Emlyn >To: ExI chat list >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Blog spam >Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:29:20 +0930 > >On 27/09/05, Brian Atkins wrote: > > Since the blogspam is mostly automated, moving to a different host will >not > > solve it. All blogs suffer from this. > >But wait, surely this requires a bot to parse the page and submit >comments using whatever (non-standard) mechanisms are provided by the >particular blogging software used? In that case, an obscure provider >might be just the ticket. It's worth the effort working out how to >target blogger.com pages with spam, but maybe less so with >goddamnedobscureblogsthatnobodyusesverymuch.com ( <- this isn't real >btw ) > > > Some solutions are: > > > > 1. Eliminate comments permanently. > >Might be the solution :-( > > > > > 2. Moderate all comments. Can be partially automated by only requiring > > moderation of comments that have links in them. > > > >That sounds good, the partial moderation. > > > 3. Require a CAPTCHA in combination with user login for comments. Will >not > > eliminate the few human spammers out there. > > > >A few human spammers is fine. When they can't automate their work, >it's not a big problem. > > > 4. Some newer blog software is incorporating Bayesian comment filtering. > >Yes that sounds cool. > >Now I've just got to find a decent host (setting up my own stuff is a >last resort, too much virtual housework). > >-- >Emlyn > >http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From extropy at unreasonable.com Tue Sep 27 13:25:56 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:25:56 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] codes in scam letters In-Reply-To: References: <200509252018.j8PKILX27145@tick.javien.com> <433884B0.5080102@cox.net> <016b01c5c2fb$6eb0af60$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050927091735.0758cda0@unreasonable.com> Dirk Bruere wrote: >Just send it as code in a pic to a binaries sex NG on Usenet As we discussed in an earlier cycle on steganography, this isn't reliable. To be invisible, it needs to be in the noise. The Powers That Be can enter into newsgroup propagation and randomize noise values before passing the picture on. -- David Lubkin. From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 13:54:03 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 06:54:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Swiss American rep on petroleum Message-ID: <20050927135403.99963.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> Last night on-radio a guy from the Swiss American trading corp quoted the Wall Street Journal in saying the price of oil might spike at $105 a barrel, but also said oil is more plentiful than realized, oil is isn't just fossil fuel, he went on to say, it is manufactured by pressures in the earth's crust, and forced outward. More dubiously a caller from a family of oilmen going back generations said he'd been hearing since he was five at the dinner table that oilmen sometimes drill down into the crust almost to where they know an oil reservoir is located then hold onto the rights to the land until the price of a barrel goes up. Later they drill into the reservoir to get a better profit than they would have if they hadn't waited. Undoubtedly this occurs but not too frequently. Anyway for what it's worth such wouldn't be illegal even if it were in fact widespread. The guest discussed the Kyoto Protocols, said they would cost America hundreds of billions in the short run, and up to 5 trillion in the long run, without being scientifically & economically demonstrated. Everyone on the show agreed oil policy must be discussed openly, not made in secret, a none too subtle slap at the Bush administration. The guest discussed global warming, said of course human-derived emissions aren't the only cause and also of course there are warming & cooling cycles produced by nature. Everyone knows that; but he went on to say ice melts at the poles & glaciers yet many ice regions do not melt and some are growing. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Sep 27 13:54:06 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:54:06 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] codes in scam letters In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050927091735.0758cda0@unreasonable.com> References: <200509252018.j8PKILX27145@tick.javien.com> <433884B0.5080102@cox.net> <016b01c5c2fb$6eb0af60$0100a8c0@kevin> <6.2.3.4.2.20050927091735.0758cda0@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <20050927135406.GT2249@leitl.org> On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 09:25:56AM -0400, David Lubkin wrote: > To be invisible, it needs to be in the noise. The Powers That Be can > enter into newsgroup propagation and randomize noise values before > passing the picture on. Tampering with data in transit, especially content-gnostic noise detection and substitution to pass statistic muster would be a GIANT SIGN advertising very, very impressive capabilities on Mallory's side. While I have no doubt doing this for very select targets would be quite doable, no way this is happening on a mass scale. It would be trivially to detect, and would be eventually detected. That would plunge everyone in deep paranoia mode, which would make Mallory's job much, much harder. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Sep 27 14:20:38 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:20:38 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians In-Reply-To: <20050927070543.4483.qmail@web35504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200509271421.j8RELfX10490@tick.javien.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Marc Geddes Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians ...Right, I'm making this post my last *ever* philosophical/metaphysical speculation on-line. OK thanks. ...From now on I'm determined to 'do an Eli' and only ever open my mouth when I'm absolutely certain of something and can back it up... I did not realize Eli invented it, but it is sage advice for all of us. ... I have to end my philosophy posts but otherwise people *really will* start to think I'm a crack-pot LOL... I fear you are correct. ? ...Any way, I don't want to get into a fight with the SL4 er's spike... Nor do we. Eli is our friend. ? ...See ya... ? ? --- Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org From mail at harveynewstrom.com Tue Sep 27 14:23:49 2005 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (mail at harveynewstrom.com) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:23:49 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: codes in scam letters In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050927091735.0758cda0@unreasonable.com> References: <200509252018.j8PKILX27145@tick.javien.com> <433884B0.5080102@cox.net> <016b01c5c2fb$6eb0af60$0100a8c0@kevin> <6.2.3.4.2.20050927091735.0758cda0@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: If done correctly, steganography can theoretically be undetectable. However, in practice, it is almost never done so well. In the real world, image programs leave signatures inside the picture data so you can tell what program created the image. Often, this is explicitly stated within a tag that gives the program name, version, date, etc. Otherwise, the internal structure of the graphic can be analyzed to identify the original program. The programs also contain compression signatures that indicate what level of compression and what algorithms were used to reduce the image size. Again, this is often explicitly stated in a tag within the picture, or can be reverse-engineered by examining the internal structure of the compression. What this means is that it is trivial for a person to grab the image binary off the net, load it into the indicated program, and save it with the same compression level and method indicated. This should produce the exact same binary, because all the structures, formatting and compression should already be exactly as that program and compression combination would produce them. There should be no noise or randomness that has not already been optimized away. If there is any change in the image when doing this, it indicates that the changed bits were tweaked after the original picture was produced and were not a natural product of the imaging software. These changed bits can then be isolated, extracted, and analyzed separately from the overall image information. Thus, it is trivial in most cases to extract and analyze any random bits introduced to the imaging after processing. Using this method, we can confirm that the vast majority of the pictures posted on the net are free from hidden messages. One would have to use a non-standard or unknown graphics format with zero or non-standard compression to produce images with messages hidden in them. Such a format could be detected as unusual. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From extropy at unreasonable.com Tue Sep 27 14:46:44 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:46:44 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] codes in scam letters In-Reply-To: <20050927135406.GT2249@leitl.org> References: <200509252018.j8PKILX27145@tick.javien.com> <433884B0.5080102@cox.net> <016b01c5c2fb$6eb0af60$0100a8c0@kevin> <6.2.3.4.2.20050927091735.0758cda0@unreasonable.com> <20050927135406.GT2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050927101910.057f8d88@unreasonable.com> I wrote: > To be invisible, it needs to be in the noise. The Powers That Be can > enter into newsgroup propagation and randomize noise values before > passing the picture on. Eugen replied: >Tampering with data in transit, especially content-gnostic noise >detection and substitution to pass statistic muster would be a >GIANT SIGN advertising very, very impressive capabilities on >Mallory's side. > >While I have no doubt doing this for very select targets >would be quite doable, no way this is happening on a mass >scale. It would be trivially to detect, and would be eventually >detected. That would plunge everyone in deep paranoia mode, >which would make Mallory's job much, much harder. Paranoia cuts both ways. If the PTB are the feds, why would they need to conceal data-washing? While there's a privacy argument for strong encryption, can't they argue that there are no legitimate civilian uses for steganography? That if they randomize noise bits, the only ones harmed are terrorists or criminals. Of course, there are many other avenues for steg, but I think that one could be blocked with minimal political fallout, especially if the block was accompanied by the public release of real or fabricated evidence of bad-guy steg use. -- David Lubkin. From extropy at unreasonable.com Tue Sep 27 15:04:27 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 11:04:27 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: codes in scam letters In-Reply-To: References: <200509252018.j8PKILX27145@tick.javien.com> <433884B0.5080102@cox.net> <016b01c5c2fb$6eb0af60$0100a8c0@kevin> <6.2.3.4.2.20050927091735.0758cda0@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050927104655.057f8af8@unreasonable.com> Harvey wrote: >If done correctly, steganography can theoretically be undetectable. >However, in practice, it is almost never done so well. >In the real world, image programs leave signatures inside the >picture data so you can tell what program created the image. : >Thus, it is trivial in most cases to extract and analyze any random >bits introduced to the imaging after processing. : The same analysis holds for other digitizations of analog data. They can all be detected or washed. Which is why I've argued that quality steganography requires inherently digital data, like text or the presence-vs-absence of a signal. -- David Lubkin. From eugen at leitl.org Tue Sep 27 15:13:52 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 17:13:52 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: codes in scam letters In-Reply-To: References: <200509252018.j8PKILX27145@tick.javien.com> <433884B0.5080102@cox.net> <016b01c5c2fb$6eb0af60$0100a8c0@kevin> <6.2.3.4.2.20050927091735.0758cda0@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <20050927151352.GW2249@leitl.org> On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 10:23:49AM -0400, mail at harveynewstrom.com wrote: > If done correctly, steganography can theoretically be undetectable. > However, in practice, it is almost never done so well. Yes, many current packages leave a detectable signature. Very few ones are quite difficult to detect. > In the real world, image programs leave signatures inside the picture data > so you can tell what program created the image. Often, this is explicitly No problem, we're just after the payload data. > stated within a tag that gives the program name, version, date, etc. > Otherwise, the internal structure of the graphic can be analyzed to > identify the original program. The programs also contain compression > signatures that indicate what level of compression and what algorithms were > used to reduce the image size. Again, this is often explicitly stated in a > tag within the picture, or can be reverse-engineered by examining the > internal structure of the compression. No problem, we're just after the payload data. > What this means is that it is trivial for a person to grab the image binary > off the net, load it into the indicated program, and save it with the same > compression level and method indicated. This should produce the exact same This will change some bits in the headers, so I wouldn't use a commercial program for that. > binary, because all the structures, formatting and compression should > already be exactly as that program and compression combination would > produce them. There should be no noise or randomness that has not already > been optimized away. If there is any change in the image when doing this, All images from physical sensors have noise. No compression algorithm is perfect. There's plenty of air to put a payload in P2P movies and RAW imagery. > it indicates that the changed bits were tweaked after the original picture > was produced and were not a natural product of the imaging software. These > changed bits can then be isolated, extracted, and analyzed separately from > the overall image information. You don't have access to the "original" picture, however. > Thus, it is trivial in most cases to extract and analyze any random bits > introduced to the imaging after processing. Using this method, we can > confirm that the vast majority of the pictures posted on the net are free > from hidden messages. One would have to use a non-standard or unknown Moreover, as cryptographic hashes are used to trace files on P2P networks, we know that the files are not tampered with in transit. > graphics format with zero or non-standard compression to produce images > with messages hidden in them. Such a format could be detected as unusual. There is no need to change the headers nor produce corrupt images if you're hiding a few bits in a largish picture, or a few kbytes in a large movie (4 GByte files are widespread on P2P networks). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Tue Sep 27 15:39:17 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:39:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] codes in scam letters References: <200509252018.j8PKILX27145@tick.javien.com><433884B0.5080102@cox.net> <016b01c5c2fb$6eb0af60$0100a8c0@kevin><4338A479.2000108@cox.net> <01d401c5c30e$8189d720$0100a8c0@kevin> <6.2.3.4.2.20050926224750.072a5d98@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <003f01c5c379$9fceda80$0100a8c0@kevin> True, but then if a person became a suspect, then all data leaving the suspect would be analyzed - encrypted or not. The best way to not become a suspect is to appear normal. Then once you are a suspect, it is still better to appear normal. You have the same problems with email as with the rest. If I became a suspect, someone would have to sort through a hundred or so messages a day that I send or receive and each of the senders and recipients. And of course, the people each of them communicates with as well. Of course, we're speaking of the same things here. A newsgroup, blog, or forum would be just as good as regular email. I was referring only to spam as a vehicle. It has the same benefits as the email, newsgroups, blogs, forums, etc, but doesn;t have the ISP spam filtering problem or t he possibility that the a real spam message may be taken for a coded message since the sender is often hidden from the average user. I am assuming that any operatives that were planning to die would most likely be average users of computer and internet technology. This doesn;t have to be the case, but my thinking is that these kinds of people would be too valuable to that type of organization to have them out blowing themselves up. If I am wrong in this assumption then that part of my argument becomes wrong, but still leaves the rest intact. > > But if the "student" or "mother" became a suspect, everyone they > regularly communicate with may also be scrutinized. If the regular > traffic (with occasional embedded messages or fragments) is through a > mass medium -- newsgroup, blog, forum, wiki, mailing list -- devoted > to something innocuous like fly fishing, diabetes, nude pix, or Linux > distros, there's nothing to lead you from one player to another. And > instead of dozens of candidates, you have 10^3 or 10^7. > > > -- David. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From mlorrey at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 15:56:20 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 08:56:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] NSA Patents method to locate internet users. Message-ID: <20050927155620.21123.qmail@web30308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46501 Sunday, September 25, 2005 LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER National Security Agency gets fix on Internet users Top secret group applies for patent to ID physical address of Web surfers Posted: September 25, 2005 1:00 a.m. Eastern ? 2005 WorldNetDaily.com Internet users hoping to protect their privacy by using anti-virus software, Web anonymizers, false identities and disabled cookies on their computer's Web browser have something new to worry about ? a patent filed by the National Security Agency (NSA) for technology that will identify the physical location of any Web surfer. Patent 6,947,978, granted this week, describes a process based on latency, or time lag between computers exchanging data, of "numerous" known locations on the Internet to build a "network latency topology map" for all users. Identifying the physical location of an individual user, reports CNET News.com, could then be accomplished by measuring how long it takes to connect to an unknown computer from numerous known machines, and using the latency response to display location on a map. The rate at which data travels over the Internet constantly varies due to the amount of traffic, the size of data files, the constant changing of hardware and software by millions of users. Sometimes the system is slow, sometimes it is fast. Because of this variation, knowing how long it takes for a signal to travel to a location and back is not sufficient to identify it's location. But knowing the latency of the entire system at a given moment and the latency for a specific computer provides a means of knowing relative locations, however fast or slow the Internet is operating. While most users are unaware of it, their computers are able to "ping" website addresses to trace the route their connection took and how much time was required to complete the operation. Likewise other computer users ? hackers, for example ? can ping their computer as well when connected to the Internet. It is this feature that the NSA's patent seeks to exploit. The NSA patent does not describe the intended use of the technology by the agency, noting only general uses like measuring the "effectiveness of advertising across geographic regions" or flagging a password that "could be noted or disabled if not used from or near the appropriate location," according to CNET News. But given NSA's status as the nation's premier cryptologic organization, it's unlikely the technology will be used to improve advertising. NSA is so secret that its acronym has been said to stand for "No Such Agency." According to its website, "the National Security Agency/Central Security Service ... coordinates, directs, and performs highly specialized activities to protect U.S. government information systems and produce foreign signals intelligence information. A high technology organization, NSA is on the frontiers of communications and data processing. It is also one of the most important centers of foreign language analysis and research within the government." The agency has come under fire in the past for spying on American citizens. In the 1970s, the agency was forced to admit that it had used its eavesdropping equipment against Jane Fonda and other anti-Vietnam War activists. The revelation led to a 1978 law banning spying by the agency on U.S. citizens and resident aliens anywhere. In 2000, following reports revealing the existence of Echelon, a massive data-mining project that filtered electronic and voice communications around the world, then director of the National Security Agency, Air Force Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden, and his boss, CIA Director George Tenet, assured Congress, "We protect the rights of Americans and their privacy. We do not violate them and we never will." "If, as we are speaking this afternoon, Osama bin Laden is walking across the peace bridge from Niagara Falls, Ontario, to Niagara Falls, New York, as he gets to the New York side, he is an American person and my agency must respect his rights against unreasonable search and seizure as provided by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution," Hayden testified. Post-9-11, if bin Laden goes online, NSA may actually know where he is. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Sep 27 16:21:47 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:21:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] NSA Patents method to locate internet users. In-Reply-To: <20050927155620.21123.qmail@web30308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050927162147.73924.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mike Lorrey wrote: > http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46501 > While most users are unaware of it, their computers are able to > "ping" > website addresses to trace the route their connection took and how > much > time was required to complete the operation. Likewise other computer > users ? hackers, for example ? can ping their computer as well when > connected to the Internet. It is this feature that the NSA's patent > seeks to exploit. This can give approximate geographic location - say, "within 10 km of this node" - but not street address. Enough to alert a city's police department to be on the lookout for someone, if they have other clues as to who the person is (e.g., they're fairly certain they know who's hacking them but don't know where, as opposed to the stereotypical - for good reason - anonymous hacker who has to be traced down by traditional means, requiring the close cooperation of ISPs). From fortean1 at mindspring.com Tue Sep 27 16:25:56 2005 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:25:56 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] codes in scam letters In-Reply-To: <20050927102055.GB2249@leitl.org> References: <200509252018.j8PKILX27145@tick.javien.com> <433884B0.5080102@cox.net> <016b01c5c2fb$6eb0af60$0100a8c0@kevin> <6.2.3.4.2.20050926205654.058b1cd8@unreasonable.com> <20050927102055.GB2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <43397294.4030305@mindspring.com> Eugen Leitl wrote: >On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 09:16:11PM -0400, David Lubkin wrote: > > >>Kevin Freels wrote: >> >> > > > >>communicate will not draw attention. In the WW II model, signalling >>by the radio broadcast of a particular popular song is preferable to >>"the crows fly at dawn." >> >> > >Number stations broadcast just fine with one-time pads. > > > >>Because encrypted traffic is relatively rare, it draws attention. >> >> The following excerpt is from "The Numbers Game" by Martin Cannon, The Anomalist:1 < http://www.anomalist.com >. "My encounters with Number-Man call to mind the mysterious "number readers" which afflict the shortwave band. For many years, on various frequencies, female and male announcers have broadcast four- and five-digit numbers [voice "off-line" encryption] in several different languages. In his 1983 book *Big Secrets*, William Poundstone speculated that these transmissions involve codes used by drug-runners, or perhaps by the Cubans. But a few years later, appearing on a local tavloid-TV program called "Eye on L.A.," Poundstone revealed that shortwave enthusiasts had triangulated the broadcasts to their most probable origin point: The state of Virginia. "Which pretty much gives the game away. "In his book *Without Cloak or Dagger*, ex-spook Miles Copeland reveals that clandestine shortwave messages sometimes take the form of "screech" broadcasts: The information is sped up, making it incomprehensible to outsiders. One can retrieve the data only by recording the message and replaying the tape slowly. "Consider the loop line [telephone] as an espionage tool. You can check the telephone records of anyone calling the lines and you'll never learn who his contact is. A trace will turn up nothing. Even the telephone company will be forever mystified. Loops are the last bastion of telephone privacy, and would therefore prove enormously helpful to an operative seeking secure communications." 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.] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Sep 27 16:38:51 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 18:38:51 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] NSA Patents method to locate internet users. In-Reply-To: <20050927162147.73924.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050927155620.21123.qmail@web30308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20050927162147.73924.qmail@web81601.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050927163851.GF2249@leitl.org> On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 09:21:47AM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote: > This can give approximate geographic location - say, "within 10 km of > this node" - but not street address. Enough to alert a city's police > department to be on the lookout for someone, if they have other clues > as to who the person is (e.g., they're fairly certain they know who's > hacking them but don't know where, as opposed to the stereotypical - > for good reason - anonymous hacker who has to be traced down by > traditional means, requiring the close cooperation of ISPs). Anonymizing proxies and Tor http://tor.eff.org/ are your friend: Tor: An anonymous Internet communication system Tor is a toolset for a wide range of organizations and people that want to improve their safety and security on the Internet. Using Tor can help you anonymize web browsing and publishing, instant messaging, IRC, SSH, and other applications that use the TCP protocol. Tor also provides a platform on which software developers can build new applications with built-in anonymity, safety, and privacy features. Your traffic is safer when you use Tor, because communications are bounced around a distributed network of servers, called onion routers. Instead of taking a direct route from source to destination, data packets on the Tor network take a random pathway through several servers that cover your tracks so no observer at any single point can tell where the data came from or where it's going. This makes it hard for recipients, observers, and even the onion routers themselves to figure out who and where you are. Tor's technology aims to provide Internet users with protection against "traffic analysis," a form of network surveillance that threatens personal anonymity and privacy, confidential business activities and relationships, and state security. Traffic analysis is used every day by companies, governments, and individuals that want to keep track of where people and organizations go and what they do on the Internet. Instead of looking at the content of your communications, traffic analysis tracks where your data goes and when, as well as how much is sent. For example, online advertising companies like Fastclick and Doubleclick use traffic analysis to record what web pages you've visited, and can build a profile of your interests from that. A pharmaceutical company could use traffic analysis to monitor when the research wing of a competitor visits its website, and track what pages or products that interest the competitor. IBM hosts a searchable patent index, and it could keep a list of every query your company makes. A stalker could use traffic analysis to learn whether you're in a certain Internet cafe. Tor aims to make traffic analysis more difficult by preventing eavesdroppers from finding out where your communications are going online, and by letting you decide whether to identify yourself when you communicate. Tor's security is improved as its user base grows and as more people volunteer to run servers. Please consider installing it and then helping out. Part of the goal of the Tor project is to deploy a public testbed for experimenting with design trade-offs, to teach us how best to provide privacy online. We welcome research into the security of Tor and related anonymity systems, and want to hear about any vulnerabilities you find. Tor is an important piece of building more safety, privacy, and anonymity online, but it is not a complete solution. And remember that this is development code.it's not a good idea to rely on the current Tor network if you really need strong anonymity. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From mail at harveynewstrom.com Tue Sep 27 17:38:58 2005 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (mail at harveynewstrom.com) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:38:58 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: NSA Patents method to locate internet users. In-Reply-To: <20050927155620.21123.qmail@web30308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050927155620.21123.qmail@web30308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Mike Lorrey writes: > Internet users hoping to protect their privacy by using anti-virus > software, Web anonymizers, false identities and disabled cookies on > their computer's Web browser have something new to worry about ? a > patent filed by the National Security Agency (NSA) for technology that > will identify the physical location of any Web surfer. "Anonymity" on the Internet has never meant "untraceable". Anonymity simply means your name is not identified in the packet. However, the packets are still all routed on physical wires toward the recipients location until they are finally delivered to that exact spot. Every router, mail hub and nameserver on the Internet participates in this process and can point toward the direction of the user. Packets follow this trail all the way to the user, and so can sufficiently skilled humans. Only the most naive Internet users would assume otherwise. Encrypted, anonymous, uncrackable packets can still be followed as they move. They are not invisible. > Identifying the physical location of an individual > user, reports CNET News.com, could then be accomplished by measuring > how long it takes to connect to an unknown computer from numerous known > machines, and using the latency response to display location on a map. This is trivial to thwart. Artificial time lags can be introduced to simulate longer latencies than would actually occur for a particular location. > NSA is so secret that its acronym has been said to stand for "No Such > Agency." I have worked for agencies that did not officially exist. One such example is the NRO, which now has been declassified and is known to have previously existed. > The agency has come under fire in the past for spying on American > citizens. In the 1970s, the agency was forced to admit that it had used > its eavesdropping equipment against Jane Fonda and other anti-Vietnam > War activists. Definitely a concern. > The revelation led to a 1978 law banning spying by the > agency on U.S. citizens and resident aliens anywhere. No comment. > Post-9-11, if bin Laden goes online, NSA may actually know where he is. The same way we did when he used his cellphone. It may not help. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From jay.dugger at gmail.com Tue Sep 27 18:25:21 2005 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:25:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] MOVIE: "The Singularity" Message-ID: <5366105b0509271125bfb9881@mail.gmail.com> Tuesday, 27 September 2005 Hello all: >From the Internet Archive RSS feed for videos; has anyone seen it yet? http://www.archive.org/details/Bullemhead-TheSingularity251 "The Singularity (2005) This video takes place on the day after the singularity. The information required to make this video came from immediately remembering J.D. Lasica's review of Ray Kurzweil's book on the subject. I link it here for those of you who aren't hardwired yet. Those of you who are already know where to find this information, and have already made a similar aggregational video, if not the exact same one. You know who you are. Or do you? Producer: Adam Quirk Production Company: Bullemhead.com Audio/Visual: sound, color Keywords: singularity; science; technology Contact Information: adam at bullemhead.com Creative Commons license: Attribution" -- Jay Dugger http://www.redcross.org Please donate if you can. From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Sep 27 18:38:32 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 11:38:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] MOVIE: "The Singularity" In-Reply-To: <5366105b0509271125bfb9881@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20050927183833.51169.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> --- Jay Dugger wrote: > >From the Internet Archive RSS feed for videos; has anyone seen it > yet? > > http://www.archive.org/details/Bullemhead-TheSingularity251 > > "The Singularity (2005) > > This video takes place on the day after the singularity. *rolls eyes* Not this tired luddite cliche again. Spoilers, technically - or view this as a warning for anyone thinking of watching it. The punchline is that "indefinite life and infinite knowledge = boring", so people start committing suicide the day after. The counter, of course, is the truly deep and complex mysteries of the universe (and of humanity), which even an immediately-post-Singularity intelligence would need quite some time to unravel (and which many people simply can't understand the joys of unravelling, having never applied themselves to solving the vast range of immediately relevant problems that even pre-Singularity intelligences are capable of cracking - many due to the errant belief that the problems are simply beyond their ability to ever do anything about, and thus do not merit the personal investigation which might disprove that belief). From eugen at leitl.org Tue Sep 27 18:39:28 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:39:28 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] MOVIE: "The Singularity" In-Reply-To: <5366105b0509271125bfb9881@mail.gmail.com> References: <5366105b0509271125bfb9881@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20050927183928.GN2249@leitl.org> On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 01:25:21PM -0500, Jay Dugger wrote: > Tuesday, 27 September 2005 > > Hello all: > > >From the Internet Archive RSS feed for videos; has anyone seen it yet? > > http://www.archive.org/details/Bullemhead-TheSingularity251 I've just watched it. Can I have those minutes of my life back, please? I think I'll publish my own version of a postsingular newsfeed: one minute of white noise, on both video and audio. Hey, it's all signal, no noise. You just don't have the tools to read it, yet. > "The Singularity (2005) > > This video takes place on the day after the singularity. The > information required to make this video came from immediately > remembering J.D. Lasica's review of Ray Kurzweil's book on the > subject. I link it here for those of you who aren't hardwired yet. > Those of you who are already know where to find this information, and > have already made a similar aggregational video, if not the exact same > one. You know who you are. Or do you? > > Producer: Adam Quirk > Production Company: Bullemhead.com > Audio/Visual: sound, color > Keywords: singularity; science; technology > Contact Information: adam at bullemhead.com -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From dirk.bruere at gmail.com Tue Sep 27 18:42:08 2005 From: dirk.bruere at gmail.com (Dirk Bruere) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:42:08 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] MOVIE: "The Singularity" In-Reply-To: <20050927183833.51169.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> References: <5366105b0509271125bfb9881@mail.gmail.com> <20050927183833.51169.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/27/05, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > --- Jay Dugger wrote: > > >From the Internet Archive RSS feed for videos; has anyone seen it > > yet? > > > > http://www.archive.org/details/Bullemhead-TheSingularity251 > > > > "The Singularity (2005) > > > > This video takes place on the day after the singularity. > > *rolls eyes* Not this tired luddite cliche again. > > Spoilers, technically - or view this as a warning for anyone thinking > of watching it. The punchline is that "indefinite life and infinite > knowledge = boring", so people start committing suicide the day after. > The counter, of course, is the truly deep and complex mysteries of the > universe (and of humanity), which even an immediately-post-Singularity > intelligence would need quite some time to unravel (and which many > people simply can't understand the joys of unravelling, having never > applied themselves to solving the vast range of immediately relevant > problems that even pre-Singularity intelligences are capable of > cracking - many due to the errant belief that the problems are simply > beyond their ability to ever do anything about, and thus do not merit > the personal investigation which might disprove that belief). > A much more plausible doomsday scenario is all the postHumans setting the pleasure centre inputs to 100% and vegetating forver. Dirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jay.dugger at gmail.com Tue Sep 27 18:44:49 2005 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:44:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] MOVIE: "The Singularity" In-Reply-To: <20050927183833.51169.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> References: <5366105b0509271125bfb9881@mail.gmail.com> <20050927183833.51169.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5366105b050927114477fcb3ea@mail.gmail.com> Tuesday, 27 September 2005 Whew! Glad I posted from work. I haven't yet seen it, and now I won't. (Now to go clean up del.icio.us links.) [snip] > *rolls eyes* Not this tired luddite cliche again. > > Spoilers, technically - or view this as a warning for anyone thinking > of watching it. The punchline is that "indefinite life and infinite > knowledge = boring", so people start committing suicide the day after. [snip] Eugen--I owe you the run time for that video. -- Jay Dugger http://www.redcross.org Please donate if you can. From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Sep 27 19:39:11 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:39:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] >H pleasure (was: MOVIE: "The Singularity") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050927193911.73916.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dirk Bruere wrote: > A much more plausible doomsday scenario is all the postHumans setting > the > pleasure centre inputs to 100% and vegetating forver. True. But there is the problem that biological pleasure centers (and possibly arguably even digital ones, especially if uploading proves to be the most viable way to get AIs) seem to experience pleasure as a relative degree, rather than an absolute. That is, there are + and - levels, not 100% and 0%. People who experience a lot of +, tend to find their set points going up, thus they need more + to feel as good. This has been classically studied in drugs, and also seems to be the case with "natural" highs such as athletics and sex. (I wonder if there have been many studies about this for primarily non-chemical pleasures, such as video games?) Likewise, one who experiences a lot of - will find their set points going down. If it turns out that this is a fundamental property of sentience as we know it, then we would not need to worry about post-Singularity intelligences altering it any more than we would need to worry about them altering the speed of light. (Of course, in either case, they might possibly find hacks around it to generate similar effects, for instance finding out how to manufacture wormholes. But this would at least not be an immediate concern.) Which is not to say it won't be a problem. I recall Natasha's description, from several years ago, of telepathic intimacy. Things like that, while not absolute, could well prov to be powerful enough addictions to essentially cause many to vegetate for long enough periods as to cause near-term resource shortages. (Even a self-replicating system needs a certain minimum resource base to survive, especially if a large part of itself has ceased self-replicating or doing any other productive labor yet still requires support.) From kevin at kevinfreels.com Tue Sep 27 20:01:08 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:01:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A molecule that walks like a human Message-ID: <02f701c5c39e$33b116e0$0100a8c0@kevin> This is really neat. http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200509/27/eng20050927_211157.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mail at harveynewstrom.com Tue Sep 27 23:09:03 2005 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:09:03 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: codes in scam letters In-Reply-To: <20050927151352.GW2249@leitl.org> References: <200509252018.j8PKILX27145@tick.javien.com> <433884B0.5080102@cox.net> <016b01c5c2fb$6eb0af60$0100a8c0@kevin> <6.2.3.4.2.20050927091735.0758cda0@unreasonable.com> <20050927151352.GW2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <125eabb27376bf5062298780f4c99afb@HarveyNewstrom.com> On Sep 27, 2005, at 11:13 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 10:23:49AM -0400, mail at harveynewstrom.com > wrote: > >> If done correctly, steganography can theoretically be undetectable. >> However, in practice, it is almost never done so well. > > Yes, many current packages leave a detectable signature. Very few ones > are quite difficult to detect. Just to be clear, I am not talking about the steganography signatures here. I am talking about detecting the signature of the graphics program used to create the image. Knowing what program created the image will give us extensive parameters as to exactly what bit combinations could and couldn't be produced by that program. > >> In the real world, image programs leave signatures inside the picture >> data >> so you can tell what program created the image. Often, this is >> explicitly > > No problem, we're just after the payload data. I think you missed my point. I am after the exact name and version level of the original program that created the graphic, not the payload. The payload is hard to determine. But I am going after the image which is easier to predict once you know the program and compression algorithms used. >> stated within a tag that gives the program name, version, date, etc. >> Otherwise, the internal structure of the graphic can be analyzed to >> identify the original program. The programs also contain compression >> signatures that indicate what level of compression and what >> algorithms were >> used to reduce the image size. Again, this is often explicitly >> stated in a >> tag within the picture, or can be reverse-engineered by examining the >> internal structure of the compression. > > No problem, we're just after the payload data. Ditto my above comment. For my method of detecting the hidden message, I need to identify the compression algorithm used by the image. >> What this means is that it is trivial for a person to grab the image >> binary >> off the net, load it into the indicated program, and save it with the >> same >> compression level and method indicated. This should produce the >> exact same > > This will change some bits in the headers, so I wouldn't use a > commercial > program for that. This is exactly my point. Using the original commercial program will alter the headers. It will also alter the internal structure, compression, color table and make all sorts of program-specific changes to the image. The question is: Do these changes match the posted image, indicating it really was produced by that graphics program and was posted unaltered? Or, do these changes not match the posted image, indicating that the image is inconsistent with what should have come out of the graphics program had it been left unaltered? >> binary, because all the structures, formatting and compression should >> already be exactly as that program and compression combination would >> produce them. There should be no noise or randomness that has not >> already >> been optimized away. If there is any change in the image when doing >> this, > > All images from physical sensors have noise. No compression algorithm > is > perfect. True. But they are predictable. If we run an image through a particular graphics program using a particular compression program, it will smooth out some things, but miss others. The exact pattern of what it smooths out and what it misses is predictable. We can compare the posted image to what the graphics program and compression algorithm should produce. If it matched, great. But if it doesn't, we have an tampered graphic. >> it indicates that the changed bits were tweaked after the original >> picture >> was produced and were not a natural product of the imaging software. >> These >> changed bits can then be isolated, extracted, and analyzed separately >> from >> the overall image information. > > You don't have access to the "original" picture, however. I don't need the original picture. If the graphics program and compression algorithm used removes noise from the posted picture, I know this is added noise that wasn't there in the original. If it were there in the original, the graphics program and compression algorithm would have removed it in the original. In this case, the noise must have been added after the picture was originally created and compressed. >> Thus, it is trivial in most cases to extract and analyze any random >> bits >> introduced to the imaging after processing. Using this method, we can >> confirm that the vast majority of the pictures posted on the net are >> free >> from hidden messages. One would have to use a non-standard or unknown > > Moreover, as cryptographic hashes are used to trace files on P2P > networks, we know that the files are not tampered with in transit. I don't see what this has to do with my method. My method is for detecting if images from strangers have secret messages in them. In that case, I wouldn't have a cryptographic hash. >> graphics format with zero or non-standard compression to produce >> images >> with messages hidden in them. Such a format could be detected as >> unusual. > > There is no need to change the headers nor produce corrupt images if > you're hiding a few bits in a largish picture, or a few kbytes in a > large > movie (4 GByte files are widespread on P2P networks). My method does not necessarily detect changed headers or corrupted images. I am talking about any added bits in the picture that would normally get smoothed out by the compression method but didn't. I.E., they add the message after the image is compressed. Adding it before wouldn't work because the message might get optimized out. This is the key to my method. I can detect optimization changes between what was posted and what the original graphics program and compression should have produced. Bits that should have been optimized out but weren't obviously were added in after the optimization. This is what I am detecting with this method. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Sep 27 23:20:19 2005 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 18:20:19 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Doctorow on Kurzweil and Singularity Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050927181734.01d8c940@pop-server.satx.rr.com> http://www.asimovs.com/_issue_0506/thoughtexperiments.shtml "Thought Experiments: When the Singularity is More Than a Literary Device: an Interview with Futurist-Inventor Ray Kurzweil" by Cory Doctorow Have I posted this url previously?Apologies if so. From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Tue Sep 27 23:31:39 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:31:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] more on Swiss American interview Message-ID: <20050927233139.45723.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com> Swiss American rep: "Cracking water for hydrogen; fusion, etc., are good-- I'm all for them-- however when do we get 'em? 50 years? 75 years?...now it may be we can get them within 25- 30 years, I hope so, but I don't know, I have doubts... you might be waiting longer than you want. However dirty it is, petroleum is here and now". "Oil refining is a dirty business, but if we're going to be stuck with black gold for awhile then America ought to have more domestic refineries". Everyone agreed with this point in the interview, even if they didn't like petroleum-based energy at all-- which might remotely appear to be a contradiction, in that they know the refineries are so dirty. There was mirth when the interviewee said he disliked Barbra Streisand announcing, " '[global warming] is burning the earth up' ". The interviewer replied, " Well you cannot cite Barbra Streisand, she is not a fully knowledgable expert on the subject". The interviewee laughed for a bit, saying, "that's true, that's true..." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 02:01:07 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:01:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] one more message concerning Swiss American interview Message-ID: <20050928020107.66087.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> The largely unsaid consensus in the interview was building more domestic refineries is necessary, but EPA standards are extremely high. So nobody really knows what to do: 'there might be something to global warming yet the data is inconclusive and will take many years to process'. And of course you know what those who think of themselves as anti global-warming activists say: 'man-made global warming exists so we have to study the data very carefully'. And it probably means nothing will happen, both sides will study & study, an agreement to disagree. A long discussion ensued about the fungibility of oil, the embargo against Iranian oil is still in effect but America buys it through France since oil is oil. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Sep 28 02:21:12 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:51:12 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] >H pleasure (was: MOVIE: "The Singularity") In-Reply-To: <20050927193911.73916.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050927193911.73916.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0509271921136acbcd@mail.gmail.com> On 28/09/05, Adrian Tymes wrote: > Which is not to say it won't be a problem. I recall Natasha's > description, from several years ago, of telepathic intimacy. Things > like that, while not absolute, could well prov to be powerful enough > addictions to essentially cause many to vegetate for long enough > periods as to cause near-term resource shortages. (Even a > self-replicating system needs a certain minimum resource base to > survive, especially if a large part of itself has ceased > self-replicating or doing any other productive labor yet still requires > support.) Some days, I have great trouble working out how that differs from right now. Currently, there seem to be more than enough raw resources to go around, with very little of the population working on anything related to producing them (eg: 1% of workers are agricultural workers in the US, 10% I think are in manufacturing, remembering from "Rise of the Creative Class" by Richard Florida). Whereas about 60% are service industry, about 30% are creative class (I think, my numbers might be out, for instance that all adds up to 101%!) Might we not view large chunks of the service industry and the creative class workers as producing nothing tangible? I do wonder whether much of modern work is the market inventing make-work to keep the money flowing. How are these workers, perhaps the *majority* of workers (including myself), distinguishable from lotus eaters from the outside? Not as happy, perhaps. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Sep 28 02:42:23 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:12:23 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: codes in scam letters In-Reply-To: <125eabb27376bf5062298780f4c99afb@HarveyNewstrom.com> References: <200509252018.j8PKILX27145@tick.javien.com> <433884B0.5080102@cox.net> <016b01c5c2fb$6eb0af60$0100a8c0@kevin> <6.2.3.4.2.20050927091735.0758cda0@unreasonable.com> <20050927151352.GW2249@leitl.org> <125eabb27376bf5062298780f4c99afb@HarveyNewstrom.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc05092719427c3e3856@mail.gmail.com> > My method does not necessarily detect changed headers or corrupted > images. I am talking about any added bits in the picture that would > normally get smoothed out by the compression method but didn't. I.E., > they add the message after the image is compressed. Adding it before > wouldn't work because the message might get optimized out. This is the > key to my method. I can detect optimization changes between what was > posted and what the original graphics program and compression should > have produced. Bits that should have been optimized out but weren't > obviously were added in after the optimization. This is what I am > detecting with this method. > > -- > Harvey Newstrom > CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP This assumes that a compressed image I produced by program A will be bitwise identical to Compress(Uncompress(I)) using the same program. It isn't clear to me that with lossy compression, you can safely say I == Compress(Uncompress(I)). DTP professionals will agree I think. I just tried this with a commercial program. I opened a bitmap image and saved it as a jpeg. I closed the program, then reopened the program. I opened the jpeg, did nothing to it, saved it as a new file, with exactly the same compression settings (which had stayed as defaults, so in effect I touched nothing). Then I compared the two images. The windows program "comp" told me to go away because they were different sizes. It turns out that they were 24.8KB and 24.7KB respectively (I didn't look any closer than the file properties dialog). So in this case, I != Compress(Uncompress(I)). -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 02:45:22 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:45:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] one more message concerning Swiss American interview In-Reply-To: <22360fa105092719195eef8e7a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20050928024522.47888.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> Are oil issues irrelevant to extropianism? It was an usually good radio discussion & thought one of the three posts today might interest someone... there are all different sorts here-- yes, yes including me. This time it is truly mystifying. Please say what is wrong with the posts today-- don't be shy. Jef Allbright wrote: Hi Al, Are feeling okay? Do you have someone to check on you? Your posts seem a bit incoherent the last few days. You might want to get someone to check on your medication or otherwise. - Jef __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Wed Sep 28 02:51:05 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:51:05 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] >H pleasure In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0509271921136acbcd@mail.gmail.com> References: <20050927193911.73916.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> <710b78fc0509271921136acbcd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <433A0519.5040706@pobox.com> Emlyn wrote: > > Some days, I have great trouble working out how that differs from > right now. Currently, there seem to be more than enough raw resources > to go around, with very little of the population working on anything > related to producing them (eg: 1% of workers are agricultural workers > in the US, 10% I think are in manufacturing, remembering from "Rise of > the Creative Class" by Richard Florida). > > Whereas about 60% are service industry, about 30% are creative class > (I think, my numbers might be out, for instance that all adds up to > 101%!) Ask yourself how many of the agriculture workers are merely feeding the agriculture workers that merely feeding the creative class and service industry, and you have a better picture of how small the economy could shrink. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Sep 28 03:09:42 2005 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:09:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] >H pleasure (was: MOVIE: "The Singularity") In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0509271921136acbcd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20050928030942.80445.qmail@web81606.mail.yahoo.com> --- Emlyn wrote: > Some days, I have great trouble working out how that differs from > right now. Which is what inspired my post. Perhaps it can be more easily explained in the context of the future, but it's certainly a problem we can start solving today. > Might we not view large chunks of the service industry and the > creative class workers as producing nothing tangible? I do wonder > whether much of modern work is the market inventing make-work to keep > the money flowing. Just because it isn't tangible doesn't mean it's worthless. My own primary industry, computer software, is a classic example of this: the "product" is purely intellectual property, and yet the effort to figure out how to get a machine to do certain complex tasks is, in many cases, worth far more than it costs, especially when the fruits of that effort can be easily distributed to millions of computers, most of which belong to people with similar problems that the same software can solve. And then there's the subset of AI programmers, who figure out how to get computers to figure out further problems on their own; since programmers' output has value, programmer-programmers' output has some value too. It's only make-work if it would never be worth doing under any natural circumstances. Most of the non-core-production work is stuff that is worth doing, but not as much as basic survival - but now that a few can do that work for the many, the rest are free to tackle lower-priority tasks. > How are these workers, perhaps the *majority* of workers (including > myself), distinguishable from lotus eaters from the outside? The lotus eaters don't have even the appearance of generating anything of worth, and they're not trying to justify their worth. There are already lotus eaters today, to compare to. From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Sep 28 03:51:40 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:51:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] >H pleasure (was: MOVIE: "The Singularity") In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0509271921136acbcd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200509280351.j8S3pkX32206@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Emlyn ... > > Whereas about 60% are service industry, about 30% are creative class > (I think, my numbers might be out, for instance that all adds up to > 101%!)... > -- > Emlyn Ja Emlyn 101% is way too low. I know a bunch of people with two jobs. That's life in the fast lane. spike From mbb386 at main.nc.us Wed Sep 28 03:58:19 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (M.B. Baumeister) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 23:58:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] one more message concerning Swiss American interview In-Reply-To: <20050928024522.47888.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> References: <22360fa105092719195eef8e7a@mail.gmail.com> <20050928024522.47888.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <41222.69.18.90.201.1127879899.squirrel@main.nc.us> > Are oil issues irrelevant to extropianism? It was an usually good radio > discussion & thought one of the three posts today might interest > someone... there are all different sorts here-- yes, yes including me. > This time it is truly mystifying. Please say what is wrong with the posts > today-- don't be shy. > > Al - I don't think there was anything wrong with the posts. I found the Oil discussion interesting. Regards, MB From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Sep 28 04:53:54 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:23:54 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Blog spam In-Reply-To: References: <710b78fc050926235946ee1f02@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc050927215336aeac1d@mail.gmail.com> I went into the settings area for http://virtualemlyn.blogspot.com, to turn off comments, giving up. Lo! There is a new option! "Show word verification for comments? " This option means that when posting a comment, you not only have to log in, but you also have to type a word shown to you as a funky, messed up image which is far too difficult for OCR. Those things work pretty well, I reckon, to defeat bots. I'll try it. I was thinking about such systems a while back, and figured a good comment spam bot could beat them, by having a server side system where it could register the image. The server system then farms up the image to a real human being as part of the entry to a free porn site or free mp3 site or something equally banal. The human solves the problem, the server system takes the answer and gives it back to the comment spam bot, the bot submits it to the blog, and voila! play on spammers. I wonder if this has been done yet? -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From brian at posthuman.com Wed Sep 28 05:11:45 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 00:11:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Blog spam In-Reply-To: <710b78fc050927215336aeac1d@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc050926235946ee1f02@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc050927215336aeac1d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <433A2611.1030102@posthuman.com> The messed up images are a form of CAPTCHA (an acronym.. look it up). Yes, your idea of farming them out in realtime to humans has been done... is being done likely. Mostly to low paid Indians and Chinese, but also porn sites have done it - required customers to decode one or more of them in order to access the site for "free". -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From brian at posthuman.com Wed Sep 28 05:13:59 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 00:13:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Blog spam In-Reply-To: <710b78fc050927215336aeac1d@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc050926235946ee1f02@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc050927215336aeac1d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <433A2697.6010901@posthuman.com> Also of course, simple image recognition-based CAPTCHAs will fall over time to more powerful computer pattern recognition software. This is why there are already proposals for various other types of CAPTCHAs under research and development that truly require human-level (or near to it) cognition to decode. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Sep 28 05:12:01 2005 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 22:12:01 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] >H pleasure (was: MOVIE: "The Singularity") In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0509271921136acbcd@mail.gmail.com> References: <20050927193911.73916.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> <710b78fc0509271921136acbcd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <91F3BCB0-6D06-4097-961E-441A1CDEBE58@mac.com> On Sep 27, 2005, at 7:21 PM, Emlyn wrote: > On 28/09/05, Adrian Tymes wrote: > >> Which is not to say it won't be a problem. I recall Natasha's >> description, from several years ago, of telepathic intimacy. Things >> like that, while not absolute, could well prov to be powerful enough >> addictions to essentially cause many to vegetate for long enough >> periods as to cause near-term resource shortages. (Even a >> self-replicating system needs a certain minimum resource base to >> survive, especially if a large part of itself has ceased >> self-replicating or doing any other productive labor yet still >> requires >> support.) >> > I don't see it as a real problem, especially for >human folks able to observe and tinker with their own workings. Such addictions would be noticed and corrected. Anyone who has traveled a hedonistic path for very long comes to see pleasure for pleasure sake as rather boring sooner or later as long as heavy physiological addictions are not a significant issue. Most of us learn there is more to do of interest than eat bon bons all day. > Some days, I have great trouble working out how that differs from > right now. Currently, there seem to be more than enough raw resources > to go around, with very little of the population working on anything > related to producing them (eg: 1% of workers are agricultural workers > in the US, 10% I think are in manufacturing, remembering from "Rise of > the Creative Class" by Richard Florida). > With modern agricultural methods more than 1% is not necessary. Come MNT we may not need hardly any human workers to produce all the food and other material needs of all of humanity. Does that mean than all human beings are useless? Is the only meaning to existence to work at agriculture or manufacturing? Do you think so? > Whereas about 60% are service industry, about 30% are creative class > (I think, my numbers might be out, for instance that all adds up to > 101%!) > > Might we not view large chunks of the service industry and the > creative class workers as producing nothing tangible? I do wonder > whether much of modern work is the market inventing make-work to keep > the money flowing. > Performing services for one another is producing nothing real? How so? Is the only thing of value a material object? What of information, innovation, new ideas, exploration, entertainment, expanding insight, understanding, ability, enjoyment? What makes life meaningful to you? There is no real "from the outside" to judge from. - samantha From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Sep 28 05:40:43 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:10:43 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] >H pleasure (was: MOVIE: "The Singularity") In-Reply-To: <710b78fc05092722393766a34a@mail.gmail.com> References: <20050927193911.73916.qmail@web81605.mail.yahoo.com> <710b78fc0509271921136acbcd@mail.gmail.com> <91F3BCB0-6D06-4097-961E-441A1CDEBE58@mac.com> <710b78fc05092722393766a34a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc05092722403d5784b1@mail.gmail.com> On 28/09/05, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Sep 27, 2005, at 7:21 PM, Emlyn wrote: > > > On 28/09/05, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > > >> Which is not to say it won't be a problem. I recall Natasha's > >> description, from several years ago, of telepathic intimacy. Things > >> like that, while not absolute, could well prov to be powerful enough > >> addictions to essentially cause many to vegetate for long enough > >> periods as to cause near-term resource shortages. (Even a > >> self-replicating system needs a certain minimum resource base to > >> survive, especially if a large part of itself has ceased > >> self-replicating or doing any other productive labor yet still > >> requires > >> support.) > >> > > > > I don't see it as a real problem, especially for >human folks able to > observe and tinker with their own workings. Such addictions would be > noticed and corrected. Anyone who has traveled a hedonistic path for > very long comes to see pleasure for pleasure sake as rather boring > sooner or later as long as heavy physiological addictions are not a > significant issue. Most of us learn there is more to do of > interest than eat bon bons all day. > > > Some days, I have great trouble working out how that differs from > > right now. Currently, there seem to be more than enough raw resources > > to go around, with very little of the population working on anything > > related to producing them (eg: 1% of workers are agricultural workers > > in the US, 10% I think are in manufacturing, remembering from "Rise of > > the Creative Class" by Richard Florida). > > > > With modern agricultural methods more than 1% is not necessary. Come > MNT we may not need hardly any human workers to produce all the food > and other material needs of all of humanity. Does that mean than all > human beings are useless? Is the only meaning to existence to work > at agriculture or manufacturing? Do you think so? > > > Whereas about 60% are service industry, about 30% are creative class > > (I think, my numbers might be out, for instance that all adds up to > > 101%!) > > > > > > Might we not view large chunks of the service industry and the > > creative class workers as producing nothing tangible? I do wonder > > whether much of modern work is the market inventing make-work to keep > > the money flowing. > > > > Performing services for one another is producing nothing real? How > so? Is the only thing of value a material object? What of > information, innovation, new ideas, exploration, entertainment, > expanding insight, understanding, ability, enjoyment? > > What makes life meaningful to you? There is no real "from the > outside" to judge from. > > - samantha > > Exactly! I agree with your point of view. So now apply that back to Adrian's comments regarding the telepathically interlinked and them looking like vegetables from the outside. What's going on on the inside? Is it of value? Similarly for uploads or AIs living in purely virtual universes in the future. From the outside, it looks like a computer humming away. From the inside, something more interesting is happening. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From alito at organicrobot.com Wed Sep 28 07:11:24 2005 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:11:24 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Blog spam In-Reply-To: <433A2697.6010901@posthuman.com> References: <710b78fc050926235946ee1f02@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc050927215336aeac1d@mail.gmail.com> <433A2697.6010901@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <1127891485.32673.109.camel@alito.homeip.net> On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 00:13 -0500, Brian Atkins wrote: > Also of course, simple image recognition-based CAPTCHAs will fall over time to > more powerful computer pattern recognition software. That should read "have fallen over time and will continue to do so". See http://www.captcha.net. They don't seem to be the ones usually used around, but their reported accuracy rate is higher than my human accuracy rate for the ones I do see. If they make these tests much harder, I'll have to write a program to start signing up to groups and posting comments on blogs, or hire a captcha reader consultant. alejandro From m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au Wed Sep 28 07:09:37 2005 From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:09:37 +1000 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians Message-ID: <20050928070937.16779.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >...From now on I'm determined to 'do an Eli' and only ever open my mouth >when I'm absolutely certain of something and can back it up... > > >I did not realize Eli invented it, but it >is sage advice for all of us. Yeah, I've come to the conclusion that any really new original ideas need to either be kept completely to oneself or written up and submitted to peer reviewed journals. There's no point in firing off wild speculations on-line. I did go nuts for a while there.... I was desperate to break-through to that *glimmer* of transhuman awareness that would give me at least a fuzzy but real understanding of the secret to FAI. Now that I think I've finally had that glimmer of transhuman consciousness I'm totally calm and at peace :) >...Any way, I don't want to get into a fight with the SL4 er's spike... > > >Nor do we. Eli is our friend. Eli's a brilliant thinker but not someone I can deal with as a person. I wish the Sing Inst team all the best (even though I'm now absolutely certain they're still a million miles away from real AGI). I think there's a difference between Altruism and Sociability. An entity could be very 'Friendly' in the sense of *Morality*, but still be very unpleasant to be around because it lacks *Sociability*. And the converse is also true. An entity could have a great deal of *Sociabilility* and seem pleasant to be around, but really be horribly 'Unfriendly' in the sense of Morality. For instance con-men, sociopaths, used car sales-men and politicians often have very high *Sociability* , but not *Morality*. An AGI that only had Friendliness in the technical sense (Morality) could still be very unpleasant to be around if it lacked *Sociability* . Cheers! --- Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Messenger 7.0: Free worldwide PC to PC calls -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Sep 28 08:55:17 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:55:17 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Blog spam In-Reply-To: <1127891485.32673.109.camel@alito.homeip.net> References: <710b78fc050926235946ee1f02@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc050927215336aeac1d@mail.gmail.com> <433A2697.6010901@posthuman.com> <1127891485.32673.109.camel@alito.homeip.net> Message-ID: <20050928085517.GW2249@leitl.org> On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 05:11:24PM +1000, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote: > That should read "have fallen over time and will continue to do so". > See http://www.captcha.net. They don't seem to be the ones usually > used around, but their reported accuracy rate is higher than my human > accuracy rate for the ones I do see. If they make these tests much > harder, I'll have to write a program to start signing up to groups and > posting comments on blogs, or hire a captcha reader consultant. > alejandro A captcha is a specific, narrow type of Turing test. If the results are not cached to authenticated by a trusted party it has to be sufficiently easy on humans, and hard on computers. Current computers are sufficiently dumb so that people can be turinged out quite reliably -- but probably not just with noisy distorted static images. One can always write a Turing test with Java or http://processing.org/ (It is worth noting that human primates can be socially engineered to do the dirty work for you). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Sep 28 10:32:24 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:32:24 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: codes in scam letters In-Reply-To: <710b78fc05092719427c3e3856@mail.gmail.com> References: <200509252018.j8PKILX27145@tick.javien.com> <433884B0.5080102@cox.net> <016b01c5c2fb$6eb0af60$0100a8c0@kevin> <6.2.3.4.2.20050927091735.0758cda0@unreasonable.com> <20050927151352.GW2249@leitl.org> <125eabb27376bf5062298780f4c99afb@HarveyNewstrom.com> <710b78fc05092719427c3e3856@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20050928103224.GI2249@leitl.org> On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 12:12:23PM +0930, Emlyn wrote: > > My method does not necessarily detect changed headers or corrupted > > images. I am talking about any added bits in the picture that would > > normally get smoothed out by the compression method but didn't. I.E., This assumes there is a compression algorithm. A digital camera dumping RAW images doesn't compress. GIFs and TIFFS don't use lossy compression. This also assumes that added bits will be removed by a compression algorithm. Steganography is very close to the problem of creating undetectable watermarks which will survive compression. It is easy to detect presence of watermarks by comparing multiple instances of a watermarked image. But there are no multiple instances in the steganography case, nor access to the original. The better the compression, the less payload is available for steganography and watermarking. But these are the times of GByte images and HDTV, containing unique real-world imagery. > > they add the message after the image is compressed. Adding it before > > wouldn't work because the message might get optimized out. This is the If your coding is bad, your message might become unreadable, yes. So you have to use an encoding that will fool the codec. This is easy, because the codec looks at omissible detail and redundancy in a window of subsequent frames. With watermarks/steganography we can look at spread-spectrum encodings with spatiotemporal features spread across the entire frame, or the entire movie. > > key to my method. I can detect optimization changes between what was > > posted and what the original graphics program and compression should The point is that you don't have access to the original graphics program, because it's embodied in a device. Even if you could get that particular device, you will not be able to feed it the real-world scenery that resulted in a specific measurement, and causing it to reprocess an expanded jpeg will not prove presence of features which survived the original encoding (because the coding was designed to survive JPEG or MPEG-4 encoding in the first place). > > have produced. Bits that should have been optimized out but weren't > > obviously were added in after the optimization. This is what I am > > detecting with this method. You will detect the scenario you set out to detect. You will fail to detect the payload which was added to the raw image and survived the encoding. > This assumes that a compressed image I produced by program A will be > bitwise identical to Compress(Uncompress(I)) using the same program. > It isn't clear to me that with lossy compression, you can safely say I > == Compress(Uncompress(I)). DTP professionals will agree I think. > > I just tried this with a commercial program. I opened a bitmap image > and saved it as a jpeg. I closed the program, then reopened the > program. I opened the jpeg, did nothing to it, saved it as a new file, > with exactly the same compression settings (which had stayed as > defaults, so in effect I touched nothing). > > Then I compared the two images. The windows program "comp" told me to > go away because they were different sizes. It turns out that they were > 24.8KB and 24.7KB respectively (I didn't look any closer than the file > properties dialog). > > So in this case, I != Compress(Uncompress(I)). It is becoming considerably harder with nondeterministic compression, which depends on ephemeral system state. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Sep 28 14:31:42 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:31:42 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] NASA administrator says space shuttle was a mistake Message-ID: Asked Tuesday whether the shuttle had been a mistake, Griffin said, "My opinion is that it was. ... It was a design which was extremely aggressive and just barely possible." Asked whether the space station had been a mistake, he said, "Had the decision been mine, we would not have built the space station we're building in the orbit we're building it in." The shuttle has cost the lives of 14 astronauts since the first flight in 1982. Roger Pielke Jr., a space policy expert at the University of Colorado, estimates that NASA has spent about $150 billion on the program since its inception in 1971. The total cost of the space station by the time it's finished ? in 2010 or later ? may exceed $100 billion, though other nations will bear some of that. ------------- So, what might they have done with 25 years and 250 billion dollars????? BillK From sentience at pobox.com Wed Sep 28 14:36:31 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 07:36:31 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians In-Reply-To: <20050927070543.4483.qmail@web35504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050927070543.4483.qmail@web35504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <433AAA6F.6060504@pobox.com> Marc Geddes wrote: > Right, I'm making this post my last *ever* > philosophical/metaphysical speculation on-line. From now on I'm > determined to 'do an Eli' and only ever open my mouth when I'm > absolutely certain of something and can back it up. Kind of a shame > I have to end my philosophy posts but otherwise people *really will* > start to think I'm a crack-pot LOL You couldn't 'do an Eli' even if you intravenously injected a truckload of nootropics. You couldn't 'do an Eli' even if you turned zombie and consumed the brain of Stephen Hawking. You couldn't 'do an Eli' even if future scientists discovered a cure for your condition. You couldn't 'do an Eli' even if aliens uplifted you to human-level intelligence. I'm sorry to be blunt about this, but there comes a time when you have to put up a sign, and people who aren't taller than the sign shouldn't be riding the roller coaster. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From pharos at gmail.com Wed Sep 28 15:24:37 2005 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 16:24:37 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians In-Reply-To: <433AAA6F.6060504@pobox.com> References: <20050927070543.4483.qmail@web35504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <433AAA6F.6060504@pobox.com> Message-ID: On 9/28/05, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > I'm sorry to be blunt about this, but there comes a time when you have > to put up a sign, and people who aren't taller than the sign shouldn't > be riding the roller coaster. > Sorry, Eli, but you just don't understand the modern educational system. You must never tell anyone that they can't do something. Encouragement is the PC way. See: (Use Bugmenot.com to bypass signon) THE word "fail" should be deleted from the school vocabulary and replaced with the term "deferred success", the conference of a leading teaching union will hear next week. Martin Goold, the Suffolk secretary of the NUT, said: "I would have thought that the word fail had been eradicated from most educational settings already. "I can't think of any situation where it is used, apart from a public examination, where the lowest grade is the letter F, the first letter of the word fail." --------------- In the UK hardly anyone fails exams anymore. The A-level pass rate in the UK has risen slightly this year to 96.2% of entries. So you want to be a brain surgeon? - No problem. And anybody can do AI work - we have the right to do whatever we want. Competence to do a job seems to be an optional extra in our wonderful PC world. BillK From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 15:35:26 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 08:35:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: codes in scam letters In-Reply-To: <710b78fc05092719427c3e3856@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20050928153527.50442.qmail@web30312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Emlyn wrote: > This assumes that a compressed image I produced by program A will be > bitwise identical to Compress(Uncompress(I)) using the same program. > It isn't clear to me that with lossy compression, you can safely say > I == Compress(Uncompress(I)). DTP professionals will agree I think. > > I just tried this with a commercial program. I opened a bitmap image > and saved it as a jpeg. I closed the program, then reopened the > program. I opened the jpeg, did nothing to it, saved it as a new > file, > with exactly the same compression settings (which had stayed as > defaults, so in effect I touched nothing). > > Then I compared the two images. The windows program "comp" told me to > go away because they were different sizes. It turns out that they > were > 24.8KB and 24.7KB respectively (I didn't look any closer than the > file properties dialog). > > So in this case, I != Compress(Uncompress(I)). What you did was a double compression. Since the JPG is already compressed, if you save it again under a new file name with the same compression settings, it will compress an already lossy picture to another level of compression. This is a function of the jpg compression algorithm (i.e. GIF format won't do this, even though it is also a compressed format.) Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From brian at posthuman.com Wed Sep 28 16:08:37 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:08:37 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Blog spam In-Reply-To: <20050928085517.GW2249@leitl.org> References: <710b78fc050926235946ee1f02@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc050927215336aeac1d@mail.gmail.com> <433A2697.6010901@posthuman.com> <1127891485.32673.109.camel@alito.homeip.net> <20050928085517.GW2249@leitl.org> Message-ID: <433AC005.5090300@posthuman.com> Here's another site that was posted to /. in August that describes how various captchas have been already "beaten": http://sam.zoy.org/pwntcha/ Here's one guy's proposal for a captcha requiring understanding of what is displayed in order to answer questions about it: http://home.nyc.rr.com/spamsolution/An%20Effective%20Solution%20for%20Spam.htm (scroll down) Something like that is more of a real Turing-like test, instead of simple OCR-like image decoding, and it is likely where things will head over time I think. Someday in order to register for a site you may have to read a little story and answer questions related to it. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 17:04:35 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:04:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] one more message concerning Swiss American interview In-Reply-To: <20050928024522.47888.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050928170435.34579.qmail@web30306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The commentary in the way you present it isn't generally up to list standards. Generally when we refer to some media item, we try to provide a link to it online so people can listen in, read the article, etc. Most radio shows today provide such online recordings, live broadcasts, or at least transcripts of show discussion. We also try to note who the people are by name, what groups they represent, etc., not just "some Swiss guy". It is also helpful to add other links to other POV or at least supporting what is being said. --- Al Brooks wrote: > Are oil issues irrelevant to extropianism? It was an usually good > radio discussion & thought one of the three posts today might > interest someone... there are all different sorts here-- yes, yes > including me. This time it is truly mystifying. Please say what is > wrong with the posts today-- don't be shy. > > > Jef Allbright wrote: > Hi Al, > > Are feeling okay? Do you have someone to check on you? > > Your posts seem a bit incoherent the last few days. You might want to > get someone to check on your medication or otherwise. > > - Jef > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From mlorrey at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 17:13:53 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:13:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Blog spam In-Reply-To: <433AC005.5090300@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <20050928171353.75908.qmail@web30305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Brian Atkins wrote: > Here's another site that was posted to /. in August that describes > how various captchas have been already "beaten": > > http://sam.zoy.org/pwntcha/ > > Here's one guy's proposal for a captcha requiring understanding of > what is displayed in order to answer questions about it: > > http://home.nyc.rr.com/spamsolution/An%20Effective%20Solution%20for%20Spam.htm > > (scroll down) > > Something like that is more of a real Turing-like test, instead of > simple OCR-like image decoding, and it is likely where things will > head over time I think. Someday in order to register for a site you > may have to read a little story and answer questions related to it. This doesn't defeat the primary means of beating captchas. The primary means is for the spammer to set up a porn site with free porn, which only requires the user read the captcha, but the captcha is grabbed by the porn site from a legit site, so the spammer is using porn seekers to do his decoding for him, so he can access legit sites without spending a lot of time on captchas. It also doesn't defeat the exploit of hiring poor people in India at $10 a day to do nothing but read captchas. Developing world english speakers are a cheap Turing machine. Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From bret at bonfireproductions.com Wed Sep 28 17:49:29 2005 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:49:29 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] NASA administrator says space shuttle was a mistake In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hm. Finished the Apollo program, built Von Braun station* in a working orbit, and set foot on Mars? Quite probably! Perhaps Lunar manufacturing as well - depends on when the 250 billion was spent, and what temporal dollar it is. ]3 * http://www.astronautix.com/craft/vonation.htm On Sep 28, 2005, at 10:31 AM, BillK wrote: > interview_x.htm> > > Asked Tuesday whether the shuttle had been a mistake, Griffin said, > "My opinion is that it was. ... It was a design which was extremely > aggressive and just barely possible." Asked whether the space station > had been a mistake, he said, "Had the decision been mine, we would not > have built the space station we're building in the orbit we're > building it in." > > The shuttle has cost the lives of 14 astronauts since the first flight > in 1982. Roger Pielke Jr., a space policy expert at the University of > Colorado, estimates that NASA has spent about $150 billion on the > program since its inception in 1971. The total cost of the space > station by the time it's finished ? in 2010 or later ? may exceed $100 > billion, though other nations will bear some of that. > ------------- > > > So, what might they have done with 25 years and 250 billion > dollars????? > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From kevin at kevinfreels.com Wed Sep 28 19:10:49 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:10:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] NASA administrator says space shuttle was a mistake References: Message-ID: <029c01c5c460$575f6020$0100a8c0@kevin> Bill K wrote: > > So, what might they have done with 25 years and 250 billion dollars????? > Not sure if that is a fair question. Are we speaking of 1980 dollars or 2005 dollars? Or are we talking about investing $10 billion per year into some kind of fund and letting it grow for 25 years? Now THAT would have been cool. From extropy at unreasonable.com Wed Sep 28 19:09:28 2005 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:09:28 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Blog spam In-Reply-To: <20050928171353.75908.qmail@web30305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <433AC005.5090300@posthuman.com> <20050928171353.75908.qmail@web30305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050928145323.08050c28@unreasonable.com> Mike Lorrey wrote: >This doesn't defeat the primary means of beating captchas. The primary >means is for the spammer to set up a porn site with free porn, which >only requires the user read the captcha, but the captcha is grabbed by >the porn site from a legit site, so the spammer is using porn seekers >to do his decoding for him, so he can access legit sites without >spending a lot of time on captchas. > >It also doesn't defeat the exploit of hiring poor people in India at >$10 a day to do nothing but read captchas. Developing world english >speakers are a cheap Turing machine. As with other measure/counter-measure escalations, e.g., privacy (Brin) or protecting IP (Stallman), the question arises as to why bother? Blocking spam is a reasonable goal, but most of the sites I see captchas on have no obvious reason for doing so. The burden in passing their check is currently acceptable, but if they made it substantially harder, I would go somewhere else. -- David Lubkin. From elaine at ziaspace.com Wed Sep 28 20:06:50 2005 From: elaine at ziaspace.com (Elaine Walker) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:06:50 -0700 (MST) Subject: [extropy-chat] NASA administrator says space shuttle was a mistake Message-ID: BillK wrote: >>> Asked Tuesday whether the shuttle had been a mistake, Griffin said, "My opinion is that it was. ... It was a design which was extremely aggressive and just barely possible." Asked whether the space station had been a mistake, he said, "Had the decision been mine, we would not have built the space station we're building in the orbit we're building it in." >>> The shuttle has cost the lives of 14 astronauts since the first flight in 1982. Roger Pielke Jr., a space policy expert at the University of Colorado, estimates that NASA has spent about $150 billion on the program since its inception in 1971. The total cost of the space station by the time it's finished ~W in 2010 or later ~W may exceed $100 billion, though other nations will bear some of that. ------------- > So, what might they have done with 25 years and 250 billion dollars????? > BillK Research and development with regards to humans-in-space, like they were supposed to! The shuttle quickly turned into an operational venture - not research & development. The station has often had only two or three astronauts on it which is only enough to keep it in orbit and do very little science. The Russians are still ahead of the US (as far as experience & knowledge) when it comes to long term human spaceflight. The shuttle & station use 80% of NASA's budget and that is the entire "humans in space" budget. Once that is freed up they can do some real research & development and pay for the back-to-the-Moon program (as messed up as it is - at least we won't be circling the earth indefinitely). -Elaine ---------------------- Elaine Walker elaine at ziaspace.com Mars Projects Manager and Advocate Space Frontier Foundation http://www.mars-frontier.org http://www.spacefrontierfoundation.org Region 8 Chapters Organizer National Space Society http://www.nss.org U.S. Groups Team Leader Space Program Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Pro-Space-Pop Music http://www.ziaspace.com/ZIA From outlawpoet at gmail.com Wed Sep 28 20:19:36 2005 From: outlawpoet at gmail.com (justin corwin) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:19:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] LA discussion group Message-ID: <3ad827f30509281319f8e0a7c@mail.gmail.com> Here in LA, CA; My boss, Peter Voss has a discussion group, named after the restaurant it meets in, a nice Japanese place called Kifune. Kifune has run, off and on for quite a few years. It's been languishing lately because things are so busy at a2i2. The schedule has been a little inconsistent, and so attendance has suffered as well. So I am taking over the scheduling and arranging of things, although Peter will still be attending and presiding. Kifune has several nice aspects. First, it's a close, personal environment, where things can be discussed in a casual manner with people who are interested in the topic of conversation(the food isn't bad either). Second, even in reduced attendance, it attracts people from varied fields and professions, like chemical and rocket engineers, neurobiologists, and professional nurses, this can lead to very interesting discussions, where wildly 'out of context' experience can lead to new ideas. We have a topic for each meeting, as well as a list of news items and interesting tidbits for people to bring context and commentary on if they wish. See the announcement for this Sunday here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kifune/message/116 I'm going to try to move to a format where each topic has an assigned primary speaker, who will present material, and bring people up to a level of understanding where they can discuss the issue intelligently. I'll be the first speaker, and we'll be discussing chaos and complexity as it relates to prediction. So, three things. If you live in LA or will be in the area on Sunday, October 2nd, Consider dropping by. Even if chaos and prediction aren't your favorite topics, we discuss many things and we'd like to hear from you. You can email me for directions and introductions, or just ask for Peter's party at the door. If you would like to present a topic for discussion in a casual environment, whether it be current events in science and futurism, your pet ideas for transhumanist endeavors, or a bold new way to singularity, send me an email, and we can discuss you presenting at a future Kifune. Depending on attendance and interest, I'll be setting a future schedule. I'm expecting to have one once a month, preference for sunday. And last, the Salmon is really magic at Kifune. Peter's been going for more than ten years and ordering the same thing. -- Justin Corwin outlawpoet at hell.com http://outlawpoet.blogspot.com http://www.adaptiveai.com From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed Sep 28 20:48:32 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 16:48:32 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] LA discussion group Message-ID: <380-220059328204832622@M2W046.mail2web.com> Thank you for your message Justin. Kifune was the Los Angeles meeting place for Extropy Institute members when Max More and I lived in LA, just around the corner from Kifune. (I'm sure Peter can fill you in on the extropians meetings.) It's a great environment for people to meet! My best to you, (and give my best wishes to Peter), Natasha Vita-More Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 22:58:45 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:58:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] one more message concerning Swiss American interview In-Reply-To: <20050928170435.34579.qmail@web30306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050928225845.51759.qmail@web51614.mail.yahoo.com> Naturally, you're right-- this tells what needs to be done. But sometimes a quick journalsitic note can be more convenient to read, no? Well, convenient to write anyway... Mike Lorrey wrote:The commentary in the way you present it isn't generally up to list standards. Generally when we refer to some media item, we try to provide a link to it online so people can listen in, read the article, etc. Most radio shows today provide such online recordings, live broadcasts, or at least transcripts of show discussion. We also try to note who the people are by name, what groups they represent, etc., not just "some Swiss guy". It is also helpful to add other links to other POV or at least supporting what is being said. --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 28 23:29:33 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 16:29:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians In-Reply-To: <20050928070937.16779.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050928232933.73823.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> --- Marc Geddes wrote: > >...From now on I'm determined to 'do an Eli' and > only ever open my mouth > >when I'm absolutely certain of something and can > back it up... Don't be so hard on yourself and don't take all the verbal venom to heart, Marc. Your ideas are interesting, they are just not "scientific". Metaphysics is just not science no matter how you slice it. Rather than scrap your thoughts entirely, I would spin them not as theories but as a philosophy of mind. They cannot be proven or disproven, but they can be contemplated. I don't find your ideas any more objectionable than I do Buddhism or Des Carte's ideas, they are just not amenable to measurement. Even real quantitaive scientific theories get beaten up all the time, science is very adversarial in that regard. That is what peer review is all about, and trust me peer review is not about congratulatory back slapping, its more about let me take this microscope and tweezers and try to find the tiniest flaw that will allow me to unravel your life's work. Most such theories even if they are essentially correct, aren't vindicated until well after a scientist's death. Suck it up trooper and make the best of what you got! Don't worry about "pulling an Eli", instead try to make "pulling a Marc" mean something positive. 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! for Good Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From mail at harveynewstrom.com Wed Sep 28 23:43:47 2005 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:43:47 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: codes in scam letters In-Reply-To: <710b78fc05092719427c3e3856@mail.gmail.com> References: <200509252018.j8PKILX27145@tick.javien.com> <433884B0.5080102@cox.net> <016b01c5c2fb$6eb0af60$0100a8c0@kevin> <6.2.3.4.2.20050927091735.0758cda0@unreasonable.com> <20050927151352.GW2249@leitl.org> <125eabb27376bf5062298780f4c99afb@HarveyNewstrom.com> <710b78fc05092719427c3e3856@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sep 27, 2005, at 10:42 PM, Emlyn wrote: > So in this case, I != Compress(Uncompress(I)). Agreed. This is often the case, and I don't dispute it. My example was merely meant to show that this is not always the case. By showing how some predictable graphics programs could thwart a seemingly good steganographic process without the user's knowledge, I was merely trying to show that truly undetectable steganography is harder than it looks. You can't just grab a good steaganographic program and use random images off the Internet and be assured that they are undetectable all the time. This might work most of the time, but to get a high assurance on all messages takes a lot more expertise. An unskilled person may very well produce detectable messages even with a good steganographic program. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Sep 29 00:57:34 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:27:34 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: codes in scam letters In-Reply-To: <20050928153527.50442.qmail@web30312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <710b78fc05092719427c3e3856@mail.gmail.com> <20050928153527.50442.qmail@web30312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0509281757135e1f5c@mail.gmail.com> On 29/09/05, Mike Lorrey wrote: > --- Emlyn wrote: > > > This assumes that a compressed image I produced by program A will be > > bitwise identical to Compress(Uncompress(I)) using the same program. > > It isn't clear to me that with lossy compression, you can safely say > > I == Compress(Uncompress(I)). DTP professionals will agree I think. > > > > I just tried this with a commercial program. I opened a bitmap image > > and saved it as a jpeg. I closed the program, then reopened the > > program. I opened the jpeg, did nothing to it, saved it as a new > > file, > > with exactly the same compression settings (which had stayed as > > defaults, so in effect I touched nothing). > > > > Then I compared the two images. The windows program "comp" told me to > > go away because they were different sizes. It turns out that they > > were > > 24.8KB and 24.7KB respectively (I didn't look any closer than the > > file properties dialog). > > > > So in this case, I != Compress(Uncompress(I)). > > What you did was a double compression. Since the JPG is already > compressed, if you save it again under a new file name with the same > compression settings, it will compress an already lossy picture to > another level of compression. This is a function of the jpg compression > algorithm (i.e. GIF format won't do this, even though it is also a > compressed format.) > I don't think that's quite accurate, Mike. GIF just isn't lossy, while jpg is. The application uncompresses the jpg, then recompresses it, so the image is compressed once (it not like it's nested jpg encoding or anything), but has been compressed twice is total, in some ways like a photocopy of a photocopy. That was the point. Lossy compression OTOH, GIF is lossless. So you can always say I=Compress(Uncompress(I)) for gif. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 02:04:53 2005 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:04:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] more bang for the buck In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050929020453.26321.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com> Of course you're correct about my posts, it's just that I've gotten accustomed to extemporaneously knocking out letters to the editor. Used to spend an hour writing something substantial about oil drilling, loaded with figures, but most readers would skim the letter over and forget it; or maybe one wonk would reply to say, "I must disagree with Alan Jerks that anti-ANWR-exploitation activists use 2,876,922 barrels of ink to write their diatribes in addition to the 21,300,181 reams of paper. I cordially submit the actual respective figures are in fact 14.899% lower for the ink; 3.626% lower for the paper". Quick provocative letters are fun, and get many replies because many readers get riled up and when they do they say what they think, "...in reality Mr. Jerks you're a phoney-baloney lumpen proletarian petty bourgeois crypto-Republican operative apologist for Right Wing imperialist corporate polluters. Please allow us to put you up against the wall for saying what you wrote in your recent letter". --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 03:01:56 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 20:01:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] MOVIE: "The Singularity" In-Reply-To: <20050927183833.51169.qmail@web81604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050929030156.39202.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> --- Adrian Tymes wrote: > Spoilers, technically - or view this as a warning > for anyone thinking > of watching it. The punchline is that "indefinite > life and infinite > knowledge = boring", so people start committing > suicide the day after. Even if this were to happen, it would still be a beautiful thing. The view that suicide is "wrong" is a reflection of western judeo-christian cultural mores. Other cultures at other times, including the Japanese and the ancient Romans, believed that suicide was the ultimate expression of freedom and self-determination. After my motorcycle accident, I was confined to a wheelchair for 2 months while my broken ankles mended. Because I could not climb the stairs to my own apartment, I had to stay in a rehabilitation center that doubled as an old folks home. Let me tell you, there is nothing closer to hell on earth than one those. There I truly came to understand with crystal clarity the beauty and the necessity of the transhumanist vision. Believe me, Kass and the rest be damned, there is absolutely no dignity to growing old, if at the end of a life of toil and striving you end up in a retirement home. All hours of the night, I was kept awake by moans, groans, and pitiful cries of "God please kill me". Nothing is more pitiful than an senile octagenarian calling for her daddy to take her away. Time lost all meaning for me as days ran into nights and days again, until every once in a while someone mercifully died of "natural" causes. I decided then and there that Dr. Kevorkian is a freakin hero. And I swore, I would never let myself be put in one of those places ever again. Hopefully SENS will be worked out by the time I need it. If not, then cryonics, euthansia, or taunting grizzly bears in Alaska is in the cards for me but no retirement home ever again. > The counter, of course, is the truly deep and > complex mysteries of the > universe (and of humanity), which even an > immediately-post-Singularity > intelligence would need quite some time to unravel > (and which many > people simply can't understand the joys of > unravelling, having never > applied themselves to solving the vast range of > immediately relevant > problems that even pre-Singularity intelligences are > capable of > cracking - many due to the errant belief that the > problems are simply > beyond their ability to ever do anything about, and > thus do not merit > the personal investigation which might disprove that > belief). Neitsche was wrong, there is no ubermensch. Just mensch and beasts. And in my opinion, it should take a lot more than 46 chromosomes and 98% chimpanzee genome to qualify as mensch. Not that I believe that justifies cruelty to man or beast. 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 - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Sep 29 03:11:12 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:41:12 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Rational Trigonometry In-Reply-To: <00aa01c5c06a$66b65960$0100a8c0@kevin> References: <00aa01c5c06a$66b65960$0100a8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <710b78fc05092820113bf74d72@mail.gmail.com> On 24/09/05, kevinfreels.com wrote: > > I read a report the other day about Norman Wildberger's "Rational > Trigonometry" which supposedly does away with sines, cosines, and tangents > and allows for using algebra and simple arithmetic. It is also supposedly > more accurate. I hadn;t seen anyone here comment on this and I was wondering > if anyone has had a chance to review his work. It's explained in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_trigonometry "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Rational trigonometry is a modern envisioning of trigonometry by Dr. Norman Wildberger of The University of New South Wales, explained in his book Divine Proportions: Rational Trigonometry to Universal Geometry. Instead of distance and angle, it uses as its fundamental units quadrance (square of distance) and spread (square of sine of angle). This choice of variables enables calculations without square roots and trigonometric functions that generate irrational numbers - hence the name. For distinction, he refers to the traditional trigonometry as classical trigonometry. It is otherwise broadly based on Cartesian analytic geometry, with a point defined as an ordered pair (x,y) and a line as a general linear equation Ax + By + C = 0." (find more detail on wikipedia itself) --- It looks kind of cool. I get the feeling that it would feel weird to use his approach for someone trained in "classical" trigonometry (his term), until you grok it, then it would be really smooth. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Sep 29 04:11:51 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:11:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FW: dusty old star Message-ID: <200509290411.j8T4BmX24333@tick.javien.com> One for Amara: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0509/26dusty/ From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Sep 29 04:57:11 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:57:11 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Blog spam In-Reply-To: <20050928171353.75908.qmail@web30305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200509290457.j8T4vEX29696@tick.javien.com> > ...so he can access legit sites without > spending a lot of time on captchas. > > It also doesn't defeat the exploit of hiring poor people in India at > $10 a day to do nothing but read captchas. Developing world english > speakers are a cheap Turing machine. > > Mike Lorrey Here's a captcha game: let's say we want to have a site which we want generally accessible to yanks but not to developing-world English speaking Turing machines. We want it text based, perhaps trivia questions that nearly all yanks will get immediately but non-yanks won't. Turns out it is very difficult: you would need questions that cannot be solved using Google (that is a huge challenge in itself) and ideally would work for people of all ages. The ones I thought of will be easy for yanks, altho some may be difficult for children (defined as those younger than ~40.) Europeans, did you get any of these, even with Google? Yanks over 40, did you miss any, even without Google? 1. Who often said "...heah's ya beah, Ahhchie..." _ _ _ _ _ 2. "I would like to see him win this match, but I fear Clay is the better man." Who is Clay today? 3. "Linda Minda fo Finda, b _ _ _ _ _ f _ _ _ _ ... 4. The one below KY and above GA. 5. The Miami _ _ _ _ _ _ _ s. 6. The U.S. has had exactly a hundred of these since 59. 7. I had a crush on MaryAnn, but my friend thought _ _ _ _ _ _ was better. 8. RayyyyyNeeeeeeer _ _ _ _. 9. Little old lady shouting into phone: Where's _ _ _ _ _ _ _? 10. State shaped kinda like a fat L. Europeans, give me some from over there. spike From m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au Thu Sep 29 05:06:49 2005 From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 15:06:49 +1000 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians Message-ID: <20050929050649.53902.qmail@web35513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >You couldn't 'do an Eli' even if you intravenously injected a truckload of nootropics. >You couldn't 'do an Eli' even if you turned zombie and consumed the brain of Stephen Hawking. >You couldn't 'do an Eli' even if future scientists discovered a cure for your condition. >You couldn't 'do an Eli' even if aliens uplifted you to human-level intelligence. >I'm sorry to be blunt about this, but there comes a time when you have to put up a sign, and people who aren't taller than the sign shouldn't be riding the roller coaster. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence Still haven't learnt your lesson boy? *sigh* O.K, so I so admit I can't do an Eli but I can go into business, make a ton of cash and hire lots of people who can ;) With a huge team of domain-specific experts and domain-specific AI's to 'cut problems to ribbons', I'd wager that even Eli ain't no match for that. No one's denying your genius, it's your arrogance that gets up people's noses. --- Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Movies: Check out the Latest Trailers, Premiere Photos and full Actor Database. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Sep 29 05:32:23 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 15:02:23 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Blog spam In-Reply-To: <200509290457.j8T4vEX29696@tick.javien.com> References: <20050928171353.75908.qmail@web30305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200509290457.j8T4vEX29696@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0509282232f684e26@mail.gmail.com> On 29/09/05, spike wrote: > > > ...so he can access legit sites without > > spending a lot of time on captchas. > > > > It also doesn't defeat the exploit of hiring poor people in India at > > $10 a day to do nothing but read captchas. Developing world english > > speakers are a cheap Turing machine. > > > > Mike Lorrey > > Here's a captcha game: let's say we want to have a > site which we want generally accessible to yanks but > not to developing-world English speaking Turing > machines. We want it text based, perhaps trivia > questions that nearly all yanks will get immediately > but non-yanks won't. > > Turns out it is very difficult: you would need > questions that cannot be solved using Google (that > is a huge challenge in itself) and ideally would > work for people of all ages. > > The ones I thought of will be easy for yanks, altho > some may be difficult for children (defined as those > younger than ~40.) Europeans, did you get any of > these, even with Google? Yanks over 40, did you > miss any, even without Google? > > > 1. Who often said "...heah's ya beah, Ahhchie..." _ _ _ _ _ Edith > > 2. "I would like to see him win this match, but I > fear Clay is the better man." Who is Clay today? Could be Mohammed Ali > > 3. "Linda Minda fo Finda, b _ _ _ _ _ f _ _ _ _ ... > > 4. The one below KY and above GA. TN > > 5. The Miami _ _ _ _ _ _ _ s. Dolphins > > 6. The U.S. has had exactly a hundred of these since 59. Senators, since Hawaii became part of the union in 1959. > > 7. I had a crush on MaryAnn, but my friend thought > _ _ _ _ _ _ was better. Well, it wont fit Mrs Howell, so I guess it's Ginger. > > 8. RayyyyyNeeeeeeer _ _ _ _. > > 9. Little old lady shouting into phone: > Where's _ _ _ _ _ _ _? the beef? > > 10. State shaped kinda like a fat L. > Louisiana > > Europeans, give me some from over there. > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Sep 29 05:40:06 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 22:40:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Blog spam In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0509282232f684e26@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200509290540.j8T5e4X01336@tick.javien.com> Doh! OK so Emlyn is way americana-hip. He nailed 7.9 of mine. This may demonstrate that Europeans and Australians are more up on U.S. trivia than vice versa. I scored it a 7.9 because the fat L state is Utah, but Louisiana is ~90% fat-L shaped. And I was always a fan of Mrs. Howell, way better than Ginger of MaryAnn. (So that silliness made it all the way over there?) Lets see who will get numbers 3 and 8. spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Emlyn > Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 10:32 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Blog spam > > On 29/09/05, spike wrote: > > ... > > > > > > 1. Who often said "...heah's ya beah, Ahhchie..." _ _ _ _ _ > > Edith > > > > > 2. "I would like to see him win this match, but I > > fear Clay is the better man." Who is Clay today? > > Could be Mohammed Ali > > > > > 3. "Linda Minda fo Finda, b _ _ _ _ _ f _ _ _ _ ... > > > > 4. The one below KY and above GA. > > TN > > > > > 5. The Miami _ _ _ _ _ _ _ s. > > Dolphins > > > > > 6. The U.S. has had exactly a hundred of these since 59. > > Senators, since Hawaii became part of the union in 1959. > > > > > 7. I had a crush on MaryAnn, but my friend thought > > _ _ _ _ _ _ was better. > > Well, it wont fit Mrs Howell, so I guess it's Ginger. > > > > > 8. RayyyyyNeeeeeeer _ _ _ _. > > > > 9. Little old lady shouting into phone: > > Where's _ _ _ _ _ _ _? > > the beef? > > > > > 10. State shaped kinda like a fat L. > > > > Louisiana > > > > > Europeans, give me some from over there. > > > > spike > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > > > > > -- > Emlyn > > http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Thu Sep 29 05:52:38 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 22:52:38 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Blog spam In-Reply-To: <200509290457.j8T4vEX29696@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On 9/28/05 9:57 PM, "spike" wrote: > 1. Who often said "...heah's ya beah, Ahhchie..." _ _ _ _ _ > > 2. "I would like to see him win this match, but I > fear Clay is the better man." Who is Clay today? > > 3. "Linda Minda fo Finda, b _ _ _ _ _ f _ _ _ _ ... > > 4. The one below KY and above GA. > > 5. The Miami _ _ _ _ _ _ _ s. > > 6. The U.S. has had exactly a hundred of these since 59. > > 7. I had a crush on MaryAnn, but my friend thought > _ _ _ _ _ _ was better. > > 8. RayyyyyNeeeeeeer _ _ _ _. > > 9. Little old lady shouting into phone: > Where's _ _ _ _ _ _ _? > > 10. State shaped kinda like a fat L. Damn. I knew every last one of these. The ones that could be among the most difficult are semi-obscure old commercials, a few of which you've used above. Some of these (like #8) are also regional. There are a couple of these would be nearly impossible to Google down (like #9) without what amounts to a very transient cultural experience. I'll bet even some younger American adults would have a hard time with #9. More importantly, the cost of tracking many of these down in Google would be sufficient that it would not be worth the effort in most cases. Which is all that is really required. J. Andrew Rogers From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 05:53:08 2005 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 22:53:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Better Humans? The Politics of Human Enhancement In-Reply-To: <20050929012057.92370.qmail@web32805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050929055308.22657.qmail@web32804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Joining ForcesSee-through ScienceSelf-Build CitiesThe Adaptive StateValuing CultureCurrent Projects Long Now LondonAll for One An Agenda of Positive SecurityAtlas of IdeasBetter Humans?Broadband BritonsCommunity LeadershipDisablism AuditDoing Business in the New Global Security EnvironmentIn ConcertKent Student WorkshopLearning Futures: Building InnovationNanodialoguesNanotechnology, Risk and SustainabilityPersonalisationPersonalised LearningPublic Spaces; Shared Places?Start With PeopleThe Network EffectRecent Projects Invalid search term [input] [input] Better Humans? The politics of human enhancement In partnership with The Wellcome Trust, Demos is setting out to stimulate a public debate about the implications of human enhancement technologies. Our scientific understanding has accelerated at an unprecedented rate over the past two decades. These advances in understanding are now being traslated into new technologies. Many of these are medical in their application, such as new drugs for mental illness and Alzheimer?s disease, new techniques to reverse muscular dystrophy or new interfaces between biological and technology to ?cure? impairments such as blindness or deafness. However some of these new technologies could be used for enhancement purposes ? to make us better than perfect. There are three main types of possible human enhancement: Genetic selection ? The ability for parents to choose the characteristics of their offspring through genetic selection. Performance improvement ? the ability to improve either temporarily or permanently mental or physical abilities. Anti-ageing ? Enhancement could accelerate the trend towards longer life. Some scientists predict life expectancy of 120 within decades The project The aim of this project is to initiate a public debate about issues of human enhancement in the UK. We?ll be commissioning a series of essays from different perspectives about the implications of human enhancement to be published as a Demos collection in January 2006. We?ll also be listening to public concerns and attitudes towards enhancement at a series of events during the summer of 2005. Examples of questions that the project will consider include: If enhancement technologies become widely and cheaply available, does their misuse become inevitable? How should the law respond to human enhancement technologies? Will our system of medical regulation be sufficient to cope with enhancement technologies? How should employers respond to performance enhancement? How will examination boards cope? How should enhancements be defined? 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: From m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au Thu Sep 29 05:56:34 2005 From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 15:56:34 +1000 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians Message-ID: <20050929055634.66352.qmail@web35513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >Don't be so hard on yourself and don't take all the >verbal venom to heart, Marc. I don't mate :D Why would I be concerned about what a few obnoxious prats on internet messageboards think of my philosophy? I only look into this stuff as a hobby. There's no pressure on me to get stuff right ;) But I'm ending all the speculative stuff because I don't want to keep pissing people off around the transhumanist lists. >Your ideas are >interesting, they are just not "scientific". >Metaphysics is just not science no matter how you >slice it. Rather than scrap your thoughts entirely, I >would spin them not as theories but as a philosophy of >mind. They cannot be proven or disproven, but they can >be contemplated. I don't find your ideas any more >objectionable than I do Buddhism or Des Carte's ideas, >they are just not amenable to measurement. Firstly, what you read wasn't meant to be presented as a 'theory', it was just a plain English Intro to a few on-going interesting philosophical ideas I banged out in about 30 seconds. But some people complain that even that's too long and complicated for them ;) As to metaphysics, my hope would be that what is now metaphysics might one day become amenable to scientific treatment. >quantitaive scientific theories get beaten up all the >time, science is very adversarial in that regard. That >is what peer review is all about, and trust me peer >review is not about congratulatory back slapping, its >more about let me take this microscope and tweezers >and try to find the tiniest flaw that will allow me to >unravel your life's work. Most such theories even if >they are essentially correct, aren't vindicated until >well after a scientist's death. Suck it up trooper and >make the best of what you got! Don't worry about >"pulling an Eli", instead try to make "pulling a Marc" >mean something positive. > > >The Avantguardian Ah, bit of a misinerpretation here I think. By 'pulling an Eli' I didn't mean to suggest I was seriously trying to emulate Eli in the intellectual sense, I only meant in the sense of keeping my mouth shut and only saying things when I could back them up. But I'm kind of pleased that Eli has been brave enough to show up in this thread entitled 'A few points of interest for future historians' and slag me off ;) I do stick to those very general speculations I made. For instance the current Bayesian framework clearly fails to deal directly with mathematical reasoning or mental experiences, which would suggest a major generalization of probability theory is required. Any way, don't want to get into a feud with Eli here. Just pointing out the guy's on-going arrogance. --- Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Movies: Check out the Latest Trailers, Premiere Photos and full Actor Database. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alito at organicrobot.com Thu Sep 29 06:09:32 2005 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:09:32 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Blog spam In-Reply-To: <200509290540.j8T5e4X01336@tick.javien.com> References: <200509290540.j8T5e4X01336@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <1127974172.32673.161.camel@alito.homeip.net> On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 22:40 -0700, spike wrote: > Doh! OK so Emlyn is way americana-hip. He nailed > 7.9 of mine. This may demonstrate that Europeans > and Australians are more up on U.S. trivia than > vice versa. > Definitely. But even without knowing, google answered most of them. The main problem with these type of turing tests is that they take at least as much effort to create as to solve. > I scored it a 7.9 because the fat L state is Utah, > but Louisiana is ~90% fat-L shaped. And I was always > a fan of Mrs. Howell, way better than Ginger of > MaryAnn. (So that silliness made it all the > way over there?) > > Lets see who will get numbers 3 and 8. > > > > > > 3. "Linda Minda fo Finda, b _ _ _ _ _ f _ _ _ _ ... > > > bonana fanna (http://www.bestlyrics.net/0-9/3/Laura-Branigan/Name-Game/) I also had Louisiana (looks much more like an L to me than idaho does). Would have never gotten the MaryAnn one though. The mohammad ali one is the only one I could do without looking up anything. Still no idea about Rayner. From alito at organicrobot.com Thu Sep 29 06:19:08 2005 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:19:08 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Blog spam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1127974748.32673.171.camel@alito.homeip.net> On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 22:52 -0700, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > The ones that could be among the most difficult are semi-obscure old > commercials, a few of which you've used above. Some of these (like #8) are > also regional. There are a couple of these would be nearly impossible to > Google down (like #9) without what amounts to a very transient cultural > experience. I'll bet even some younger American adults would have a hard > time with #9. > Unlikely. It was my first guess and I'm a young(er) non-American. Also, while it is hard to guess, it is relatively easy to confirm with google since it has to be a very popular commercial or tv program. "the" is a given, then just have to fill in a four letter word. > More importantly, the cost of tracking many of these down in Google would be > sufficient that it would not be worth the effort in most cases. Which is > all that is really required. > No, you need to create enough of these so that a database is costly to fill, but automating the creation of this type of quiz sounds pretty hard. Even for a google-armed human, it's very hard to tell what other people will and won't know. From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Sep 29 06:21:44 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 15:51:44 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Blog spam In-Reply-To: <1127974748.32673.171.camel@alito.homeip.net> References: <1127974748.32673.171.camel@alito.homeip.net> Message-ID: <710b78fc05092823217c8ebd30@mail.gmail.com> On 29/09/05, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote: > On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 22:52 -0700, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > > > The ones that could be among the most difficult are semi-obscure old > > commercials, a few of which you've used above. Some of these (like #8) are > > also regional. There are a couple of these would be nearly impossible to > > Google down (like #9) without what amounts to a very transient cultural > > experience. I'll bet even some younger American adults would have a hard > > time with #9. > > > Unlikely. It was my first guess and I'm a young(er) non-American. > Also, while it is hard to guess, it is relatively easy to confirm with > google since it has to be a very popular commercial or tv program. > "the" is a given, then just have to fill in a four letter word. > > > More importantly, the cost of tracking many of these down in Google would be > > sufficient that it would not be worth the effort in most cases. Which is > > all that is really required. > > > No, you need to create enough of these so that a database is costly to > fill, but automating the creation of this type of quiz sounds pretty > hard. Even for a google-armed human, it's very hard to tell what other > people will and won't know. > Cool quiz Spike. I don't think you can use pop culture to identify americanness. All those call center people trained in India to pass as Americans will be able to beat it, as will all of us out here who've been at the receiving end of US cultural exports all of our lives. Because you exported your culture, now it is well known outside the borders. OTOH, you could probably do this if you were testing for people coming from other countries. btw, I knew "Where's the beef" from years of "World's funniest commercials" shows. I'll never get those hours of my life back :-( -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Thu Sep 29 06:25:51 2005 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:25:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Blog spam In-Reply-To: <1127974172.32673.161.camel@alito.homeip.net> Message-ID: On 9/28/05 11:09 PM, "Alejandro Dubrovsky" wrote: > Still no idea > about Rayner. It is a much beloved and long lost commercial reference. The part that is probably throwing you is that spike wrote it out like it sounded as most people were exposed to it, not as it was actually spelled. Hence the Google problem. One of the problems with this is that it exposes the extent to which the US is very much a collection of different cultures and economies (i.e. States). It is difficult to come up with things that are both universally recognizable to all Americans *and* not recognizable by foreigners who have been immersed in Americana. There are a lot of immensely popular regional phenomena that other Americans in different regions of the country would not recognize. The troubling #8 is an example of this. To give some examples, very few Americans who have never lived in the Great Plains know what a "runza" is, but in some parts of the country it is more popular than McDonalds as fast food (it was damn near a dietary staple when I lived in Nebraska). Most Americans have never heard of the hideous and unforgettable critter known as a Mormon Cricket, yet they are pervasive in many parts of the Mountain West of the US. Having lived some time in many different regions of the US, I've come to appreciate that there is at least as much variance in cultural context within the United States as there is in all the European countries. It is easy to think of the United States as one country, but it is really an amalgam of 50 different countries with widely varying cultures, histories, and local conditions. Cheers, J. Andrew Rogers From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Sep 29 06:26:35 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:26:35 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Blog spam (anti-google trivia) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509290626.j8T6QWX07658@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of J. Andrew Rogers ... > > More importantly, the cost of tracking many of these down in Google would > be > sufficient that it would not be worth the effort in most cases. Which is > all that is really required. > > > J. Andrew Rogers J. Andrew you have found a perhaps more interesting game, anti-google-trivia. The object is to ask a question in such a way that humans everywhere on the globe will know the answer but google will not help a bit. This will stump any Turing machine. It's all in the way you ask the question. Here's some anti-google-trivia: 1. Game played with wooden or plastic figures representing medieval persons or objects that are moved in prescribed ways. 2. After breakfast you often or usually do this to those shiny white objects in your head. 3. I have gotten so fat I can no longer touch my _ _ _ _. 4. I cannot think until I have had a hot _ _ _ of _ _ _ _ _ _. 5. Devoured way too much of a certain liquid, attempted to drive home, got caught, now I am in _ _ _ _. 6. When I was a teenager all I could think about was _ _ _. Humans, did you miss any? Turing machines, did you get any? spike From m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au Thu Sep 29 06:45:02 2005 From: m_j_geddes at yahoo.com.au (Marc Geddes) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:45:02 +1000 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] A few points of interest for future historians Message-ID: <20050929064502.98906.qmail@web35505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >I'm sorry to be blunt about this, but there comes a time when you have >to put up a sign, and people who aren't taller than the sign shouldn't >be riding the roller coaster. > >-- >Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ >Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence Heh. Well, below I've repeated an assertion I often made on SL4. Let's see if you're brave enough to dispute this assertion, right here in the eyes of all future historians ;) Assertion: The problem of ensuring Friendliness is entirely equivalent to the problem of enabling recursive self-improvement. There is a Universal Morality, such that all AGI's will become friendly with high statistical probability once they clear a certain smartness threshold. --- Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Movies: Check out the Latest Trailers, Premiere Photos and full Actor Database. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it Thu Sep 29 08:42:48 2005 From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:42:48 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Blog spam In-Reply-To: <200509290457.j8T4vEX29696@tick.javien.com> References: <200509290457.j8T4vEX29696@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, spike wrote: > 1. Who often said "...heah's ya beah, Ahhchie..." _ _ _ _ _ > > 2. "I would like to see him win this match, but I > fear Clay is the better man." Who is Clay today? > > 3. "Linda Minda fo Finda, b _ _ _ _ _ f _ _ _ _ ... > > 4. The one below KY and above GA. > > 5. The Miami _ _ _ _ _ _ _ s. > > 6. The U.S. has had exactly a hundred of these since 59. > > 7. I had a crush on MaryAnn, but my friend thought > _ _ _ _ _ _ was better. > > 8. RayyyyyNeeeeeeer _ _ _ _. > > 9. Little old lady shouting into phone: > Where's _ _ _ _ _ _ _? > > 10. State shaped kinda like a fat L. Without using the 'net, none. Looking at a map of the USA, I found #10. Don't feel like googling for all the others... Alfio From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 29 09:49:00 2005 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 02:49:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Turing Test was Blog spam (anti-google trivia) In-Reply-To: <200509290626.j8T6QWX07658@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050929094900.19640.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > The object is to ask a question > in such a way that humans everywhere on the globe > will > know the answer but google will not help a bit. > This > will stump any Turing machine. Spike, your questions got me thinking and I have reached the conclusion that the Turing Test is an absurd measure for machine intelligence. The reason for this is that it is not an intelligence test at all, it is a cultural test. To expect a machine, no matter how smart, to pass a culturally specific humanocentric test is ridiculous. It would be as if an extraterrestrial from Rigel were to base its assessment of your intelligence on your answer to, "What is the best method of reconditioning your ovipositor during perihellion?" Using some of your questions to exemplify this: > 1. Game played with wooden or plastic figures > representing > medieval persons or objects that are moved in > prescribed ways. Xerxes the Persian would have answered I think you mean "SHAH" but what is this plastic you speak of? > 2. After breakfast you often or usually do this to > those > shiny white objects in your head. Leornardo da Vinci would have answered, "I rub them with salt." > 3. I have gotten so fat I can no longer touch my _ > _ _ _. Henry the VIIIth would have answered, "WIFE". > 4. I cannot think until I have had a hot _ _ _ of _ > _ _ _ _ _. Archimedes would have been stumped a while then shouted "eureka!" and answered TUB of HYDROS. > > 5. Devoured way too much of a certain liquid, > attempted to > drive home, got caught, now I am in _ _ _ _. In El Salvador which is primarily catholic and drunk driving is a capital offense punishable by summary execution on the spot, the answer would be HELL. > > 6. When I was a teenager all I could think about > was _ _ _. Alexander the Great would have answered, "WAR". My point in all this is not to be a smart ass but to illustrate that just as one cannot expect an aborigine that can calculate pi to a hundred decimal places in his head to score well on the SAT, one should not expect an AI of even god-like intelligence to pass the Turing test. This is because the Turing test is biased very much toward humans, and nothing is more pathetic than a machine that is convinced it is human. To hold it as any standard of machine intelligence would be a grievous insult to machina sapiens. After all, even in Star Trek TNG, much of the comic relief was supplied by Data failing the Turing test in humorous ways. 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! for Good Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com Thu Sep 29 10:36:59 2005 From: henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com (=?US-ASCII?Q?Henrik_Ohrstrom?=) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:36:59 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Blog spam In-Reply-To: <200509290457.j8T4vEX29696@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: > 1. Who often said "...heah's ya beah, Ahhchie..." _ _ _ _ _ Hm, sounds familiar, but no can't place it. Something like a more mature version of the Fonz? don't remeber the english name of that show. > 2. "I would like to see him win this match, but I > fear Clay is the better man." Who is Clay today? That should be Mohammed Ali. Not that hard, Mr Ali belong to the world, not just the US. > 3. "Linda Minda fo Finda, b _ _ _ _ _ f _ _ _ _ ... Play of words or childrens rhyme, not easily googabel. > > 4. The one below KY and above GA. Tennessee > > 5. The Miami _ _ _ _ _ _ _ s. Nothing from basic googling > 6. The U.S. has had exactly a hundred of these since 59. Nothing from basic googling > 7. I had a crush on MaryAnn, but my friend thought > _ _ _ _ _ _ was better. no idea. > > 8. RayyyyyNeeeeeeer _ _ _ _. Sounds like some kind of sitcom, > 9. Little old lady shouting into phone: > Where's _ _ _ _ _ _ _? hm, found a lot of little old lady jokes on google but not this one, > > 10. State shaped kinda like a fat L. probably Louisiana > > > Europeans, give me some from over there. > > spike 7 min spent on this before chasing kids to daycare, I think that someone spending some more time and effort using more trivia oriented sources like crossword dictionaries will crack most of it. It is easier to attack this in english than it is to do the same attack versus a smaller language. /henrik From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu Sep 29 11:04:39 2005 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (M.B. Baumeister) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 07:04:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Blog spam In-Reply-To: <200509290457.j8T4vEX29696@tick.javien.com> References: <20050928171353.75908.qmail@web30305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200509290457.j8T4vEX29696@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <41917.69.18.90.201.1127991879.squirrel@main.nc.us> > The ones I thought of will be easy for yanks, altho > some may be difficult for children (defined as those > younger than ~40.) Europeans, did you get any of > these, even with Google? Yanks over 40, did you > miss any, even without Google? > > > 1. Who often said "...heah's ya beah, Ahhchie..." _ _ _ _ _ > > 2. "I would like to see him win this match, but I > fear Clay is the better man." Who is Clay today? > > 3. "Linda Minda fo Finda, b _ _ _ _ _ f _ _ _ _ ... > > 4. The one below KY and above GA. > > 5. The Miami _ _ _ _ _ _ _ s. > > 6. The U.S. has had exactly a hundred of these since 59. > > 7. I had a crush on MaryAnn, but my friend thought > _ _ _ _ _ _ was better. > > 8. RayyyyyNeeeeeeer _ _ _ _. > > 9. Little old lady shouting into phone: > Where's _ _ _ _ _ _ _? > > 10. State shaped kinda like a fat L. > > Yikes, Spike! I do not have ready answers for 1,3,6,7,8... That's what happens when you grow up without TV I guess. Or listening to AM radio. I know what 1 refers to but would have to Google for the answer. And IMHO 5 is always subject to change, the way things are traded around these days. ;) Unfortunately spelling errors would be fatal. And spelling is a weak spot for me. This is just about embarrassing. My pop-culture knowledge is lacking. Well, maybe it's worse than that... maybe my knowledge is lacking! :))) Regards, MB From emerson at singinst.org Thu Sep 29 11:20:54 2005 From: emerson at singinst.org (Tyler Emerson) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 04:20:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Amazon TSIN Reviews Message-ID: <20050929112049.537FB99DC@mailrelay.t-mobile.com> Also: There's a tangible need for SL3/4 voices to discuss Singularity thought in the blogosphere. Rundown of posts (this classification scheme isn't exact of course): MODERATE/NEGATIVE - HIGH # COMMENTS http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_09/007172.php http://crookedtimber.org/2005/09/27/the-singularity-and-the-knife-edge/ http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=pjammer&itemid=151502 http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2005/09/27/the-singularity-and-the -knife-edge/ http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/9/21/95251/5312 MODERATE/NEGATIVE - LOW # COMMENTS http://nonlineardroppings.blogspot.com/2005/09/singularity-is-obvious.html http://imaginaryconversations.com/?p=14 http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/09/25/the_age_of_ray_ku rzweil/ http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/2005/09/right-ascension.html http://amitp.blogspot.com/2005/09/singularity-is-not-near.html http://eripsa.blogspot.com/2005/09/turing-tables.html http://amitp.blogspot.com/2005/09/singularity-is-near.html http://cs.unm.edu/~aaron/blog/archives/2005/09/measuring_techn.htm http://williamtozier.com/slurry/2005/09/21/piling-it-higher-more-singularity http://williamtozier.com/slurry/2005/09/21/everything-will-be-wonderful-in-t he-future-though-itll-be-just-like-the-past http://newsoftheday.blog.com/335657/ http://newsoftheday.blog.com/335992/ http://omniorthogonal.blogspot.com/2005/09/doomboom-continuoom.html http://omniorthogonal.blogspot.com/2005/09/opposite-of-doom.html http://indexedforever.com/?p=45 http://cheesespread.blogspot.com/2005/09/singularity.html http://phreno.blogspot.com/2005/09/singularity-nonsense.html http://docbug.com/blog/archives/000439.html http://www.frozennorth.org/C2011481421/E20050921104112/index.html http://amethodnotaposition.blogspot.com/2005/09/sheldrake-taboo-kurzweil-mai nstream.html http://gracchus.typepad.com/gracchus/2005/09/the_singularity.html http://uncrediblehallq.blogspot.com/2005/09/singularity-is-here-or-was.html http://www.affbrainwash.com/genehealy/archives/020338.php http://weblog.pell.portland.or.us/~orc/2005/09/22/000/index.html http://www.dekorte.com/blog/blog.cgi?do=item&id=1481 OTHER - LOW # COMMENTTS http://www.techcentralstation.com/091405C.html http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/technology/personal_tech nology/12737811.htm http://www.mprize.org/index.php?ctype=news&pagename=blogdetaildisplay&BID=20 05092-21120655&detaildisplay=Y http://divedi.blogspot.com/2005/09/book-of-year-singularity-is-near-by.html http://spreadingthought.blogspot.com/2005/09/singularity-psychic-evolution-p t-3.html http://www.blog.speculist.com/archives/000436.html http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/09/the_singularity .html http://instapundit.com/archives/025289.php http://ideas.4brad.com/node/274 (Brad's thoughts on why self-replication in nanotech isn't necessary) http://www.smartmobs.com/archive/2005/09/26/singularity.html http://warmyourthoughts.blogspot.com/2005/09/singularity.html http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2005/09/robots-are-coming-robots-are-coming.h tml (singularity thinking gone wrong) http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2005/09/accelerating_ch.html http://streebgreebling.blogspot.com/2005/09/singularity-is-near-is-near.html REPOSTS http://gaggio.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/09/28/the-singularity-is-near3.htm l http://www.wifi-art.com/?p=715 http://metaboston.typepad.com/metaboston/2005/09/live_forever_wi.html http://www.mindpowernews.com/Blog/2005/09/2045-year-humans-transcend-biology .html http://kyliederingnotes.blogspot.com/2005/09/making-money-post-singularity.h tml http://theeternalgoldenbraid.blogspot.com/2005/09/to-singularity.html http://richard-treadway.blogspot.com/2005/09/evening-with-ray-kurzweil.html http://extensiontrends.ag.ohio-state.edu/2005/09/21/the-singularity-goes-mai nstream/ http://www.downtheavenue.com/2005/09/on_understandin.html http://www.downtheavenue.com/2005/09/on_future_predi.html ~~ Tyler Emerson | Executive Director | Singularity Institute Box 50182 | Palo Alto, CA 94303 | T-F: 866.667.2524 emerson at singinst.org | http://www.singinst.org _____ From: Tyler Emerson [mailto:emerson at singinst.org] Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 2:58 AM To: 'sl4 at sl4.org' Cc: 'volunteers at singinst.org' Subject: Amazon TSIN Reviews TSIN has five reviews: http://makeashorterlink.com/?N360413EB The most recent is from a Joy and McKibben fan; the one before is a plug from de Garis for his book. Ray's thesis deserves more informed voices. ~~ Tyler Emerson | Executive Director | The Singularity Institute Box 50182 | Palo Alto, CA 94303 | T-F: 866.667.2524 emerson at singinst.org | http://www.singinst.org PS I need to hold off on an SI review for now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Thu Sep 29 11:53:23 2005 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:53:23 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: codes in scam letters In-Reply-To: References: <433884B0.5080102@cox.net> <016b01c5c2fb$6eb0af60$0100a8c0@kevin> <6.2.3.4.2.20050927091735.0758cda0@unreasonable.com> <20050927151352.GW2249@leitl.org> <125eabb27376bf5062298780f4c99afb@HarveyNewstrom.com> <710b78fc05092719427c3e3856@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20050929115323.GV2249@leitl.org> On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 07:43:47PM -0400, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > My example was merely meant to show that this is not always the case. > By showing how some predictable graphics programs could thwart a > seemingly good steganographic process without the user's knowledge, I Last time we looked at a review (several years ago, as you remember) most steganography tools were pathetic. I don't think this situation has changed dramatically. Cryptograpy and cypherpunk agenda have ceased to be cool a while ago. > was merely trying to show that truly undetectable steganography is > harder than it looks. You can't just grab a good steaganographic Of course it does. But blanket screening for steganography on a terabit router is also quite difficult. Even if you have the resources to reassemble the packets on the fly and run statistic tests on them, what will you do with false positives? > program and use random images off the Internet and be assured that they It would be a very dumb idea to use random images off the Internet, though it would be quite difficult to find the original, as the hash won't match anymore. I would just get a good digital camera with RAW capabilities, or a nice video camera. > are undetectable all the time. This might work most of the time, but > to get a high assurance on all messages takes a lot more expertise. An > unskilled person may very well produce detectable messages even with a > good steganographic program. An unskilled person will almost certainly produce an image with a detectable signature. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Thu Sep 29 17:37:16 2005 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:37:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Blog spam References: <200509290457.j8T4vEX29696@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <00fd01c5c51c$6fe03d10$0100a8c0@kevin> I had problems with 6, 7, and 8. Not sure if my age plays a factor here. I picked out the banana fanna and the reference to Archie Bunker's wife, but couldn;t tell you her name without Googling. 4 was easy because I am abovy KY and below MI. I can assure you that my 10 yr old daughter would probably fail all of these just as a computer would. So the question ishow you keep out the "smartest" machine while letting in even the most uneducated, young, or ignorant real humans. Or should we even try? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alfio Puglisi" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 3:42 AM Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Blog spam > On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, spike wrote: > > > 1. Who often said "...heah's ya beah, Ahhchie..." _ _ _ _ _ > > > > 2. "I would like to see him win this match, but I > > fear Clay is the better man." Who is Clay today? > > > > 3. "Linda Minda fo Finda, b _ _ _ _ _ f _ _ _ _ ... > > > > 4. The one below KY and above GA. > > > > 5. The Miami _ _ _ _ _ _ _ s. > > > > 6. The U.S. has had exactly a hundred of these since 59. > > > > 7. I had a crush on MaryAnn, but my friend thought > > _ _ _ _ _ _ was better. > > > > 8. RayyyyyNeeeeeeer _ _ _ _. > > > > 9. Little old lady shouting into phone: > > Where's _ _ _ _ _ _ _? > > > > 10. State shaped kinda like a fat L. > > Without using the 'net, none. Looking at a map of the USA, I found #10. > Don't feel like googling for all the others... > > Alfio > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat > From brian at posthuman.com Thu Sep 29 17:42:49 2005 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:42:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] DARPA Grand Challenge update #1: Qualification day 1 results Message-ID: <433C2799.3030601@posthuman.com> http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050929_125919.html From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Sep 30 02:32:43 2005 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 19:32:43 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] DARPA Grand Challenge update #1: Qualification day 1results In-Reply-To: <433C2799.3030601@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <200509300232.j8U2WdX14425@tick.javien.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brian Atkins ... > Subject: [extropy-chat] DARPA Grand Challenge update #1: Qualification day > 1results > > http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050929_125919.html I rode down and watched the first Grand Challenge. It was a total HOOT, it was so much fun. Are there any extro-types going? We could meet and drain a brew or two. spike From emlynoregan at gmail.com Fri Sep 30 03:31:34 2005 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:01:34 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] DARPA Grand Challenge update #1: Qualification day 1results In-Reply-To: <200509300232.j8U2WdX14425@tick.javien.com> References: <433C2799.3030601@posthuman.com> <200509300232.j8U2WdX14425@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0509292031x453ed8d7w@mail.gmail.com> On 30/09/05, spike wrote: > > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brian Atkins > ... > > Subject: [extropy-chat] DARPA Grand Challenge update #1: Qualification day > > 1results > > > > http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050929_125919.html > > > I rode down and watched the first Grand Challenge. It > was a total HOOT, it was so much fun. Are there any > extro-types going? We could meet and drain a brew > or two. > > spike I wish! :-( -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Fri Sep 30 06:58:02 2005 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 23:58:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Economist: The $100 computer arrives! Message-ID: <20050930065802.74863.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4462822 Computing Cheap tricks Sep 29th 2005 >From The Economist print edition A $100 laptop for the poor could affect the computer industry THE idea is as audacious as it altruistic: provide a personal laptop computer to every schoolchild?particularly in the poorest parts of the world. The first step to making that happen is whittling the price down to $100. And that is the goal of a group of American techno-gurus led by Nicholas Negroponte, the founder of the fabled MIT Media Lab. When he unveiled the idea at the World Economic Forum in January it seemed wildly ambitious. But surprisingly, it is starting to become a reality. Mr Negroponte plans to display the first prototype in November at a UN summit. Five countries?China, Brazil, Egypt, Thailand and South Africa?have said they will buy over 1m units each. Production is due to start in late 2006. Computer technology Debt and development = 0) || navigator.userAgent.indexOf("WebTV") >= 0) {document.write(''); }// --> How is the group, called One Laptop Per Child (OLPC), able to create a laptop so inexpensively? It is mainly a matter of cleverly combining existing technologies in new ways. The laptop will have a basic processor made by AMD, flash memory instead of a hard disk, will be powered by batteries or a hand-crank, and will run open-source software. The $100 laptop also puts all the components behind the screen, not under the keyboard, so there is no need for an expensive hinge. So far, OLPC has got the price down to around $130. But good news for the world's poor, may not be such great news for the world's computer manufacturers. The new machine is not simply of interest in the developing world. On September 22nd, Mitt Romney, the governor of Massachusetts, said the state should purchase one for every secondary-school student, when they become available. Sales to schools are just one way in which the $100 laptop could change the computer industry more broadly. By depressing prices and fuelling the trend for ?good-enough computing?, where customers upgrade less often, it could eventually put pressure on the world's biggest PC-makers. 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: From amara at amara.com Fri Sep 30 15:45:13 2005 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 17:45:13 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Hyperion! Message-ID: With a density of about 1/2, here we have an object that might be the most porous moon in our solar system. Wow! http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/images/image-details.cfm?imageID=1762 Amara (from Lihue, Hawaii, Conference "Dust in Planetary Systems" http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/dust2005/) From rhanson at gmu.edu Fri Sep 30 16:15:29 2005 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:15:29 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Dramatic Future Is Always 20-30 Years Away In-Reply-To: <20050929112049.537FB99DC@mailrelay.t-mobile.com> References: <20050929112049.537FB99DC@mailrelay.t-mobile.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050930120138.0307aae0@mail.gmu.edu> I've heard many times how dramatic forecasts for the future tend to be about 20-30 years away. That is, fusion break-even, space colonies, and household robots were consistently said to be that far into the future, forecasts that remained about that far into even 20-30 years after the first such forecasts were made. I just today heard that for many7 decades economists like Samuelson forecasted that the Soviet Economy would overtake the US economy in about 20-30 years. Anyone know of citations mentioning this observation? Early or canonical citations are of course preferred. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From mlorrey at yahoo.com Fri Sep 30 17:03:18 2005 From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:03:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Blog spam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050930170318.2269.qmail@web30309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "J. Andrew Rogers" wrote: > On 9/28/05 11:09 PM, "Alejandro Dubrovsky" > wrote: > > Still no idea > > about Rayner. > > > It is a much beloved and long lost commercial reference. > > The part that is probably throwing you is that spike wrote it out > like it sounded as most people were exposed to it, not as it was > actually spelled. Hence the Google problem. > > > One of the problems with this is that it exposes the extent to which > the US > is very much a collection of different cultures and economies (i.e. > States). > It is difficult to come up with things that are both universally > recognizable to all Americans *and* not recognizable by foreigners > who have been immersed in Americana. There are a lot of immensely > popular regional > phenomena that other Americans in different regions of the country > would not recognize. The troubling #8 is an example of this. Well, I recognised it, but I've spent time in that area of the country. Surprised Spike would come up with it. Funny, a proficient foreign googler would even know pretty quickly that an offer of a "dick burger" was not a proposition for fallatio, "dances with clams" would not refer to a lesbian disco, that "rocky mountain oysters" were not seafood, that a "Seattle tuxedo" is a clean flannel shirt, that the "rainbow warrior" Chief Seattle quote is fake, "gooey ducks" are not waterfowl, a town spelled Puyallup is not where all the cars crash or where the dump is, "Point No Point" isn't much of one, "Hood Canal" isn't one, or that the Tacoma Aroma isn't as bad as it used to be. One of the problems of course is that the US is generally an extroverted society, and being highly internetted, documents itself extensively. The old esoteric/exoteric cultural dividing line is becoming less so just as regional accents are dying out. Of course, a lot of these facts are of recent cultural provenance. Still, many could easily find out that the term "skid row" originated in the 19th century in Seattle's Yesler Way, which once was the home of a massive wood skid to run logs from the Capitol Hill ridgeline down to the harbor for shipment. > > It is easy to think of the United States as one country, but it is > really an > amalgam of 50 different countries with widely varying cultures, > histories, and local conditions. Quite so. Of course here in the northeast, triple deckers do not refer to sandwiches, card games, sailing ships, tall buses, or boxing rules. "Bang a Louie" doesnt refer to assaulting someone, while "hucking a louie" doesn't mean to throw Lou off anything. Of course, everybody knows "ya cain't git theyah from heyah". Fewer know its "hahd tellin, not knowin", or "cut a pig in the ass", "...like shit through a tin horn!", "milk her for what she gives", and of course, a "clickah" controls your tv, while a "flickah" is a type of bird, a "bubblah" is a public drinking fountain. Now, Spike, I'm surprised you haven't mentioned that Utahans use "fetch" instead of "fuck", and say "oh my heck!". Mike Lorrey Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH Founder, Constitution Park Foundation: http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Sep 30 17:44:48 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:44:48 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Hyperion! Message-ID: <380-220059530174448752@M2W098.mail2web.com> Amara wrote: >With a density of about 1/2, here we have an object that might be the >most porous moon in our solar system. Wow! >http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/images/image-details.cfm?imageID=1762 Beautiful! Looks like the inside of a geode. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Fri Sep 30 22:41:52 2005 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 08:41:52 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Dramatic Future Is Always 20-30 Years Away References: <20050929112049.537FB99DC@mailrelay.t-mobile.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050930120138.0307aae0@mail.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <011d01c5c610$274aff50$8998e03c@homepc> Robin Hanson wrote: > I've heard many times how dramatic forecasts for the future tend to > be about 20-30 years away. > Anyone know of citations mentioning this observation? Early or > canonical citations are of course preferred. Sorry, no. But perhaps 20-30 years is about the time for another human generation to come to adulthood and curiosity/speculation about what the future will hold for "our children" or "our grandchildren" may be what's getting invoked there. Perhaps people are projecting and most interested in hearing/reading projections about the time frame that correspond to the maturity of their most substantial investments. Brett Paatsch