From lubkin at unreasonable.com  Tue May  1 01:25:07 2012
From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 21:25:07 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Spider Robinson
Message-ID: <201205010233.q412Xp0w002213@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

Good news, for a change, for an excellent man:

http://www.spiderrobinson.com/index2.html


-- David.



From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue May  1 11:48:17 2012
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 13:48:17 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Milky Way escape velocity
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armiY0tk-11rCPDYbNLbsH0D1a4KgLAAkBEkGjLkOhO8VBA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armiY0tk-11rCPDYbNLbsH0D1a4KgLAAkBEkGjLkOhO8VBA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPoR7a7wHLi8b6SjJcMhXuetdnOwTJPJfKqwSE3bmGvhP1sq0A@mail.gmail.com>

On 30 April 2012 22:49, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> We recently mentioned the velocity required to escape the Milky Way
> galaxy - over 1 million miles per hour.
>

Million? miles?! hour? I could do the math, but while it sounds much, I do
not have from the top of my head the vaguest idea of the fraction of c we
are discussing here... :-)

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120501/b6328789/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Tue May  1 12:02:13 2012
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 13:02:13 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Milky Way escape velocity
In-Reply-To: <CAPoR7a7wHLi8b6SjJcMhXuetdnOwTJPJfKqwSE3bmGvhP1sq0A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armiY0tk-11rCPDYbNLbsH0D1a4KgLAAkBEkGjLkOhO8VBA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a7wHLi8b6SjJcMhXuetdnOwTJPJfKqwSE3bmGvhP1sq0A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAL_armheyNh+mw8z+sgGwsjXkiVrA5td_UcaFdv+wT7M4LVfJQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Stefano Vaj  wrote:
> Million? miles?! hour? I could do the math, but while it sounds much, I do
> not have from the top of my head the vaguest idea of the fraction of c we
> are discussing here... :-)
>
>

What! You can't do simple conversions in your head! So much for mental
arithmetic.  ;)

It is about .001 to .002 of the speed of light.
It is easy for light to escape from the galaxy. That's why we can see the stars.

There are lots of unit conversions websites available.
It is worth bookmarking at least one website as Americans still use
antique measures like feet and miles.
They even use gallons and insist on a unique size for their gallons.  :)

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


BillK


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue May  1 12:59:26 2012
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 14:59:26 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Milky Way escape velocity
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armheyNh+mw8z+sgGwsjXkiVrA5td_UcaFdv+wT7M4LVfJQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armiY0tk-11rCPDYbNLbsH0D1a4KgLAAkBEkGjLkOhO8VBA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a7wHLi8b6SjJcMhXuetdnOwTJPJfKqwSE3bmGvhP1sq0A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armheyNh+mw8z+sgGwsjXkiVrA5td_UcaFdv+wT7M4LVfJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPoR7a4qxtsxU68hVX2s2GAW3OwS3Aepsz6Mya+ZK_xu=NJR2Q@mail.gmail.com>

On 1 May 2012 14:02, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> They even use gallons and insist on a unique size for their gallons.  :)
>  <http://www.onlineconversion.com/>


Why, in Italian, "a gallon of beer" (un gallone di birra) basically means
"enough beer to get drunk", so I assume that our size is also quite unique
and individualised... :-)

>


-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120501/09c6b911/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue May  1 14:17:38 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 07:17:38 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Milky Way escape velocity
In-Reply-To: <CAPoR7a7wHLi8b6SjJcMhXuetdnOwTJPJfKqwSE3bmGvhP1sq0A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armiY0tk-11rCPDYbNLbsH0D1a4KgLAAkBEkGjLkOhO8VBA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a7wHLi8b6SjJcMhXuetdnOwTJPJfKqwSE3bmGvhP1sq0A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <028e01cd27a5$2a32c5b0$7e985110$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 4:48 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] Milky Way escape velocity

 

On 30 April 2012 22:49, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

We recently mentioned the velocity required to escape the Milky Way
galaxy - over 1 million miles per hour.



Million? miles?! hour? I could do the math, but while it sounds much, I do
not have from the top of my head the vaguest idea of the fraction of c we
are discussing here... :-)

-- 
Stefano Vaj

 

 

BOTECs in round numbers that I can recall, the distance from the sun to the
center of the Milky Way is about 27,000 years, and the orbit period is about
250 million years, so the orbit speed is about 0.1 milli-c, and escape
velocity from any round orbit is square root 2 times the tangential velocity
so escape velocity from here would be about 140 micro-c, and a micro-c is
about .3 km/sec so escape is about 40 km/sec.

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120501/43735b60/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue May  1 14:20:33 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 07:20:33 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Milky Way escape velocity
References: <CAL_armiY0tk-11rCPDYbNLbsH0D1a4KgLAAkBEkGjLkOhO8VBA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a7wHLi8b6SjJcMhXuetdnOwTJPJfKqwSE3bmGvhP1sq0A@mail.gmail.com> 
Message-ID: <029301cd27a5$928c2e80$b7a48b80$@att.net>

 

 

From: spike [mailto:spike66 at att.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 7:18 AM
To: 'ExI chat list'
Subject: RE: [ExI] Milky Way escape velocity

 

 

 

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 4:48 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] Milky Way escape velocity

 

On 30 April 2012 22:49, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

We recently mentioned the velocity required to escape the Milky Way
galaxy - over 1 million miles per hour.



Million? miles?! hour? I could do the math, but while it sounds much, I do
not have from the top of my head the vaguest idea of the fraction of c we
are discussing here... :-)

-- 
Stefano Vaj

 

 

BOTECs in round numbers that I can recall, the distance from the sun to the
center of the Milky Way is about 27,000 years, and the orbit period is about
250 million years, so the orbit speed is about 0.1 milli-c, and escape
velocity from any round orbit is square root 2 times the tangential velocity
so escape velocity from here would be about 140 micro-c, and a micro-c is
about .3 km/sec so escape is about 40 km/sec.

 

spike

 

 

I don't know where I went wrong, but this calc feels like it is off an order
of magnitude to the low side.  I think escape velocity from here is more
like 400 km/sec.  What did I do wrong?

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120501/b48af655/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue May  1 14:26:30 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 07:26:30 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Milky Way escape velocity
References: <CAL_armiY0tk-11rCPDYbNLbsH0D1a4KgLAAkBEkGjLkOhO8VBA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a7wHLi8b6SjJcMhXuetdnOwTJPJfKqwSE3bmGvhP1sq0A@mail.gmail.com> 
Message-ID: <029801cd27a6$672a9230$357fb690$@att.net>

 

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 4:48 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] Milky Way escape velocity

 

On 30 April 2012 22:49, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

We recently mentioned the velocity required to escape the Milky Way
galaxy - over 1 million miles per hour.



Million? miles?! hour? .-- 
Stefano Vaj

 

 

>.BOTECs in round numbers that I can recall, the distance from the sun to
the center of the Milky Way is about 27,000 years.

spike

 

 

>.I don't know where I went wrong, but this calc feels like it is off an
order of magnitude to the low side.  I think escape velocity from here is
more like 400 km/sec.  What did I do wrong?

 

 

Doh!  Forgot to multiply by 2 pi.  So the tangential velocity out here is
more like 600 micro-c or about 200 km/sec and escape velocity is more like
300 km/sec.  That sounds more like it.  that 40 km/sec scared me: we might
wander close enough to something massive and get kicked off the star island.

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120501/d9e3adc7/attachment.html>

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue May  1 14:39:51 2012
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 16:39:51 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Milky Way escape velocity
In-Reply-To: <028e01cd27a5$2a32c5b0$7e985110$@att.net>
References: <CAL_armiY0tk-11rCPDYbNLbsH0D1a4KgLAAkBEkGjLkOhO8VBA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a7wHLi8b6SjJcMhXuetdnOwTJPJfKqwSE3bmGvhP1sq0A@mail.gmail.com>
 <028e01cd27a5$2a32c5b0$7e985110$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAPoR7a6bzSAyBavNjwHNUvCK6xrAARK4MCMey+DGVeOxnu-HeQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 1 May 2012 16:17, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> BOTECs in round numbers that I can recall, the distance from the sun to
> the center of the Milky Way is about 27,000 years, and the orbit period is
> about 250 million years, so the orbit speed is about 0.1 milli-c, and
> escape velocity from any round orbit is square root 2 times the tangential
> velocity so escape velocity from here would be about 140 micro-c, and a
> micro-c is about .3 km/sec so escape is about 40 km/sec.
>

I love those who speak Latin for us lazy lawyers... :-)

This makes it what, four orders of magnitude higher than escape velocity
from earth?

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120501/fab22e5c/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Tue May  1 14:56:50 2012
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 09:56:50 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Transhumanist Track at 2012 International Space Development
	Conference
Message-ID: <011101cd27aa$a3fa35e0$ebeea1a0$@cc>

TRANSHUMANIST TRACK SESSIONS TO BE HELD AT 2012 INTERNATIONAL SPACE
DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE
 
(Washington, DC -- April 27, 2012)   Contact:  kmermel at yahoo.com
 
The National Space Society is holding, for the first time ever, track
sessions on Transhumanism and Human Space Exploration at this year's
International Space Development Conference, which will be held over Memorial
Day weekend, May 24-28, 2012.  The scheduling of this track will be on
Sunday, May 27th and you can register at ISDC 2012
<http://cts.vresp.com/c/?Humanity/a7ea81e97f/d2a2d0808f/1a631211a8> 

Track Lead: Natasha Vita-More. 
 


SPEAKERS INCLUDE:

Dr. Ben Goertzel is Chief Scientist of the financial prediction firm, Aidyia
Holdings; Chairman of AI software company Novamente LLC and bioinformatics
company Biomind LLC; Chairman of the Artificial General Intelligence Society
and the OpenCog Foundation; Vice Chairman of futurist nonprofit Humanity+;
Scientific Advisor of biopharma firm Genescient Corp.;  Advisor to the
Singularity University and Singularity Institute; Research Professor in the
Fujian Key Lab for Brain-Like Intelligent Systems at Xiamen University,
China; and general Chair of the Artificial General Intelligence conference
series. 

David Orban is an entrepreneur and visionary. Orban is a lecturer and
advisor at Singularity University
<http://cts.vresp.com/c/?Humanity/a7ea81e97f/d2a2d0808f/48afca04b3> , whose
mission is to assemble, educate and inspire leaders who strive to understand
and facilitate the development of exponentially advancing technologies that
address humanity's grand challenges.  He is a former Director on the Board
for Humanity+
<http://cts.vresp.com/c/?Humanity/a7ea81e97f/d2a2d0808f/3db8ed29ac>  (and a
former Chair), an organization dedicated to promoting understanding and
participation in fields of emerging innovation with a growing movement of
people willing to work to benefit the human condition through a commitment
to scientific advancement.

Dr. Paul Werbos is a Fellow of IEEE and the International Neural Network
Society (INNS), and a winner of the IEEE Neural Networks Pioneer Award and
INNS Hebb Award. He is a field leader in Core ECCS areas, including Adaptive
and Intelligent Systems (AIS), Quantum systems and device modeling (QMHP),
and systems-level power grids (GRID). Dr. Werbos has also led a variety of
other areas, such as fuel cell and electric vehicles, emerging technologies,
cyber systems, and the sustainability part of IDR since he started at the
National Science Foundation in 1988. Werbos is on the Board of NSS.

 

  _____  

About The National Space Society (NSS):  NSS is an independent, educational,
grassroots, non-profit organization dedicated to the creation of a
spacefaring civilization.  NSS is widely acknowledged as the preeminent
citizen's voice on space.  To learn more about NSS visit www.nss.org
<http://cts.vresp.com/c/?Humanity/a7ea81e97f/d2a2d0808f/4fdc035f16> .

About ISDC: The International Space Development Conference is the annual
conference of the National Space Society.  ISDC 2012
<http://cts.vresp.com/c/?Humanity/a7ea81e97f/d2a2d0808f/e1cc2efd7c>  will
take place at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Washington, DC from May 24 through
28, 2012.  (For more information: http://isdc.nss.org/2012/schedule.shtml
<http://cts.vresp.com/c/?Humanity/a7ea81e97f/d2a2d0808f/92aa8621a0> )





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120501/bfc62849/attachment.html>

From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Tue May  1 18:50:15 2012
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 11:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Milky Way escape velocity
In-Reply-To: <029801cd27a6$672a9230$357fb690$@att.net>
References: <CAL_armiY0tk-11rCPDYbNLbsH0D1a4KgLAAkBEkGjLkOhO8VBA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a7wHLi8b6SjJcMhXuetdnOwTJPJfKqwSE3bmGvhP1sq0A@mail.gmail.com>
 <029801cd27a6$672a9230$357fb690$@att.net>
Message-ID: <1335898215.58522.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

> Doh!? Forgot to multiply by 2 pi.? So the tangential velocity out here is more like
> 600 micro-c or about 200 km/sec and escape velocity is more like 300 km/sec.
> That sounds more like it.? that 40 km/sec scared me: we might wander close
> enough to something massive and get kicked off the star island.

Using conventional techniques and not venturing anywhere near the center of the galaxy, I bet one can do some fly-bys to reach galactic escape velocity. Heck, using unconventional techniques, such as nuclear pulse propulsion, the thinking it one can reach 10 PSOL, so it shouldn't be that hard. Or one might just find a rogue star or planet and try to get captured by it. :)

Regards,

Dan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120501/3c3ab092/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue May  1 19:23:48 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 12:23:48 -0700
Subject: [ExI] finally they acknowledge this effect...
Message-ID: <003f01cd27cf$efa4c940$ceee5bc0$@att.net>

 

I have long thought that motorcycles are sexy devices, especially BMW and
the Italian makes.  As far as I know, this particular mental disorder has no
specific name.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/05/01/california-man-claims-bmw-motorcyc
le-gave-him-long-lasting-erection/?intcmp=features

 

The headline claims the BMW did this to him, but this Corbin seat is an
aftermarket.  Wolf will lose this one.  BMW will get plenty of free
advertisement.

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120501/e04af394/attachment.html>

From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Wed May  2 18:02:45 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 12:02:45 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Off Topic -- Opportunity to help out
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwatWm8o=O+18LBXyvqKWSfRfkS7U9dnow+AtPBJERGs3g@mail.gmail.com>

I know, what could possibly be off topic here, right? :-)

Well, I have established a relationship with a middle/high school in
Uganda... They have about ten more students that would like to attend
school, but cannot afford the tuition... This isn't an official
charity or anything, just a way to help. If anyone is interested, the
yearly tuition is around $600... which includes room and board for
about 9 months of the year. I have found that my relationship with my
student James is very enriching. This isn't a send the money and
forget it kind of thing, more like making a friend and helping them
out. There are so many scams in Africa, that I was relieved to find a
way to help someone directly. I've checked it out, and have been
working with my student James for nearly a year now.

So, if this sounds interesting to anyone, just contact me off list,
and I can provide you with the headmaster?s email. While one can never
be 100% sure that they aren?t being scammed, I have interacted with
these people enough now that I am quite sure it is legitimate.

I now return to your regularly scheduled rant.

-Kelly



From eugen at leitl.org  Wed May  2 20:35:24 2012
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 22:35:24 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Off Topic -- Opportunity to help out
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwatWm8o=O+18LBXyvqKWSfRfkS7U9dnow+AtPBJERGs3g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwatWm8o=O+18LBXyvqKWSfRfkS7U9dnow+AtPBJERGs3g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120502203524.GD17120@leitl.org>

On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 12:02:45PM -0600, Kelly Anderson wrote:

> So, if this sounds interesting to anyone, just contact me off list,
> and I can provide you with the headmaster?s email. While one can never
> be 100% sure that they aren?t being scammed, I have interacted with
> these people enough now that I am quite sure it is legitimate.

Unless you know these people personally (having traveled there)
or have a reliable contact in the area who'll vouch for them
there's no way to be sure.
 
> I now return to your regularly scheduled rant.


From moulton at moulton.com  Wed May  2 23:36:16 2012
From: moulton at moulton.com (F. C. Moulton)
Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 16:36:16 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Off Topic -- Opportunity to help out
In-Reply-To: <20120502203524.GD17120@leitl.org>
References: <CAPy8RwatWm8o=O+18LBXyvqKWSfRfkS7U9dnow+AtPBJERGs3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120502203524.GD17120@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <4FA1C4F0.1050208@moulton.com>

On 05/02/2012 01:35 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> 
> Unless you know these people personally (having traveled there)
> or have a reliable contact in the area who'll vouch for them
> there's no way to be sure.

It might be helpful to see if someone else has done some vetting.  For
example I did some googling and it appears that the Kasese Humanist School
http://www.kasesehumanistschool.webs.com/
has received aid from some international organizations including the
Institute for Science and Human Values

Fred




From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Thu May  3 19:06:22 2012
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 12:06:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Off Topic -- Opportunity to help out
In-Reply-To: <20120502203524.GD17120@leitl.org>
References: <CAPy8RwatWm8o=O+18LBXyvqKWSfRfkS7U9dnow+AtPBJERGs3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120502203524.GD17120@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <1336071982.79078.YahooMailNeo@web160606.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

Aside from being scammed, I'd also be afraid of supporting anything that might have an anti-gay agenda. This is Uganda, after all. (Truth be told, too, my finances recently took a bit of a dip, so I can't actually provide much in the way of donations at this time.)

Regards,

Dan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120503/cbbc33e8/attachment.html>

From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Thu May  3 22:23:50 2012
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 15:23:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] emp again
In-Reply-To: <mailman.626.1335877174.17650.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <1336083830.48763.YahooMailClassic@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

"spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>if we recognize that mastery of arithmetic such as long division takes
>time that can be used on more relevant skills but trains the mind, I can go
>two routes with it: arithmetic either makes children smart or makes them
>stupid.
>
>Comments please.


You asked, so you shall receive.

Imo, it's very important to understand what you are doing when you do (for example) long division, but not so important to know how to do it, when there are quicker and more convenient methods available.  Ideally, a person should be able to figure out long division themselves, from first principles, and then discard it in favour of a calculator.  More realistically, a person should know why they want to do long division, then find a quick shortcut to doing it.  Division was one of my (many) big problems in learning maths, and I've recently had the revelation that it's all about reducing things to 1, and related things to proportions (or multiples) of 1.  Now, I may not be able to divide 123456 by 654 in my head, or even with pencil and paper with any speed, but the important thing is knowing why I need to do that, and what it means (if 654 is 1, what is 123456?  Thanks to Excel, I know that it's 188.7706etc...  As for why do I need to know that, I don't.
  I'ts just a random example).

For some people, this concept is so blindingly obvious that they would never even think of saying it.  For others, not so much.

There are many such conceptual units in maths, and if a person understands them, it doesn't matter what mechanism they use to calculate the answers.  If they don't grok the concepts, though, then giving them tools to get answers quickly is no real help, it's basically encouraging them to become Cargo Cultists.  As long as the problem remains the same, they'll be fine.  As soon as the problem changes, they'll be utterly lost.

That's my two'pennorth (speaking as someone still trying to wrap their tiny mind around quadratic equations)

Anders wrote:

> I like geometry, but probability/stats help make you more rational.

Yes!  The lottery isn't called a 'stupidity tax' for nothing.

Ben Zaiboc



From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Fri May  4 03:20:57 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 21:20:57 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Uploading Swindle (was Re:  Finally!)
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwYdY24xkODKXimAsYxtSk4ObGFV_K5QCHU-kqaX2yqsag@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Tomasz Rola <rtomek at ceti.pl> wrote:
> About uploading: I smell a swindle. I would have big difficulty convincing
> myself that I should give up myself and become, basically, a process in a
> computer. Unless I will be able to control the computer. And I don't think
> I will give away my physical properties, however small, in exchange for
> living in a machine owned by some caring corporation.

Tomasz, one distinct possibility in the future is that the earth might
some day become uninhabitable for carbon based life forms. This might
be a side effect of a biological agent, an accident, or the sun
expanding into a red giant or the atmosphere being eroded by solar
wind as the magnetic core of the earth cools. In any case, it is a
possibility that it will happen soon, and a certainty in the long
term. And in that event, the choices being die or upload, I suspect
that even you might choose upload at that point.

This is just a thought experiment... there are probably other reasons
you might choose some day to upload... but Newton taught us that
thinking in terms of ultimate limits is sometimes helpful.

-Kelly


From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Fri May  4 03:33:58 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 21:33:58 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Wars Between Democracies (was Re:  Finally!)
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwZaeUPokCkjFx8nL8zZTtZ8Y7T=z_yBwU-1Kw5siNd+nw@mail.gmail.com>

(Sorry if this is a repost for anyone, it looked like there was an
error the first time I tried to post this...)

On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Brent Allsop
<brent.allsop at canonizer.com> wrote:
> No democracy has ever gone to war against any other democracy.

I can't say that I understand the point you were trying to make with
this Brent, so I can't say anything about whether this supports your
point or not. And, I'm not trying to start a fight about whatever you
were arguing about in the other thread.

This point about democracies going to war with one another is just a
factual issue... I found a very good synopsis of this issue here:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm

For me, the most convincing example of a war between democracies that
we all know about was the US civil war. The Confederate States of
America had a constitution that was very close to that of the United
States. You can argue that the CSA was not a democracy due to it's
support of slavery, but you would have to say the same thing about the
USA of the period (beginning of the war) as well. While no democracy
is pure other than perhaps the Iroquois Confederacy, where women and
all children above the age of 7 had an equal vote with men, I think
the USA and CSA both qualify as pretty decent examples of Democracies,
or rather Democratic Republics.

If you define Democracies carefully enough, then there has been only
one in all of history, the Iroquois Confederacy (and they may not
count since they did vote in a standing counsel of women who made some
day to day decisions). Since they never had a civil war, and they
obviously didn't go to war with ancient Greece, the second best
example of a true democracy (but only for men), then you can state
that no democracy has ever gone to war with any other democracy, but
you have to use the true definition of democracy. Calling the US a
democracy is not accurate, as it is a democratic republic... but if we
are sloppy about what we call a democracy, then let's go forward...

Of the wars mentioned, the war between the United States and the
Iroquois confederation is probably the war between the two purest
"democracies" that has ever been waged. With this example alone, I
think we can put this down once and for all.

What I can say with utmost certainty is that no two libertarian
countries have ever gone to war with each other (setting aside the
fact that there never has been a libertarian country). Also, no two
communist countries have ever gone to war with each other (again, what
country ever was truly communist?). No two Mormon Theocratic countries
have ever gone to war with each other (unless you count a particular
volley ball game where some Tongan and Samoan Mormons sent each other
to the hospital). No two Shinto countries have ever gone to war with
each other to my knowledge. Probably no two Jane countries have ever
gone to war. And I'm sure I could come up with a dozen other such
examples... but do they have any real meaning?

So, just for fun, and in the interest of the truth, can we put this
particular trope to bed? Permanently. Thanks.

The form of this sort of argument that I favor is "No two countries,
both of which have a McDonald's, have ever gone to war with each other
since acquiring said McDonald's." Which was brought up by Thomas L.
Friedman in The World Is Flat (First edition p.420)... Now, I can't
say what's happened since the book was written (2005), but I think
it's still true. So mutual assured mercantile destruction (freeish
capitalistic trade) is arguably the greatest force for peace in the
early 21st century by Friedman's argument, not "democracy", per se.
:-)

-Kelly


From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Fri May  4 03:43:44 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 21:43:44 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Off Topic -- Opportunity to help out
In-Reply-To: <1336071982.79078.YahooMailNeo@web160606.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <CAPy8RwatWm8o=O+18LBXyvqKWSfRfkS7U9dnow+AtPBJERGs3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120502203524.GD17120@leitl.org>
 <1336071982.79078.YahooMailNeo@web160606.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8Rwae1wYvr09_84P33oOncnr0cPpTOxCMJ6ZQvf3dm_GoUw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Aside from being scammed, I'd also be afraid of supporting anything that
> might have an anti-gay agenda. This is Uganda, after all. (Truth be told,
> too, my finances recently took a bit of a dip, so I can't actually provide
> much in the way of donations at this time.)

One of the more rewarding aspects of this for me has been that while
these people are Christians, they have accepted the fact that I am not
without judgement. I haven't heard anything anti-gay, but that doesn't
mean there isn't that sort of teaching as the majority of Christian
faiths are anti-homosexual activities...

Anyway, this was never intended as a strong armed request, just
letting you know that I have found it personally quite rewarding and
allowing anyone who would want to to also participate. Giving to most
Charities is like paying taxes... you just don't know where the money
goes. In this case, I know exactly where it's going and exactly how it
is benefiting one young man.

The entire school now knows that one of very few people willing to
help one of theirs is not a Christian. I think that has a positive
impact on their views of atheism and atheists. God certainly isn't
helping these kids.

And, as I said before, I am way past the point of thinking I'm being scammed.

I am naive, there is no question about it. I picked up a hitchhiker
last week in Nevada and got robbed by him... so there is no question
that I have an unfounded optimism about much of humanity. I forget
that not everyone is as enlightened as the members of this mailing
list...  Nevertheless, I can imagine that some day I might pick up a
hitchhiker again. Maybe. It might be a while though... :-)

-Kelly


From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Fri May  4 03:46:26 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 21:46:26 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Milky Way escape velocity
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armheyNh+mw8z+sgGwsjXkiVrA5td_UcaFdv+wT7M4LVfJQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armiY0tk-11rCPDYbNLbsH0D1a4KgLAAkBEkGjLkOhO8VBA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a7wHLi8b6SjJcMhXuetdnOwTJPJfKqwSE3bmGvhP1sq0A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armheyNh+mw8z+sgGwsjXkiVrA5td_UcaFdv+wT7M4LVfJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwaPe4-Qmmta9qjJ=qXjFMiuengJkf=rC=gAGMADyjpZUA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 6:02 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> It is easy for light to escape from the galaxy. That's why we can see the stars.

Uh, wouldn't that also have something to do with the fact that photons
have no mass and are therefore unaffected by gravity (other than minor
lensing from bent space time..) or am I missing something basic here?

-Kelly


From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Fri May  4 03:58:22 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 21:58:22 -0600
Subject: [ExI] sinclair zx spectruim is 30
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armhKPyNtXmHE1Z4sD=DkaQuRMK60H12RQF0otsVBD==-Zw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <006601cd2241$d086db90$719492b0$@att.net>
 <CAL_armhKPyNtXmHE1Z4sD=DkaQuRMK60H12RQF0otsVBD==-Zw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwaLNOKhSccyRxUONwZtUQZie9P6udrRqhZWct0n0U55Og@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:24 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2012/4/24 spike <spike66 at att.net>:
> I'm clearing out my loft at the moment and discovered my old Atari 800XL.
> <http://www.atarimuseum.com/computers/8BITS/XL/800xl/800xl.htm>

I have two 800 XLs now, it was the first computer I ever owned. I also
have a NeXT with a functional optical drive (at least the last time I
plugged it in)... Old computers are very cool...

-Kelly


From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Fri May  4 04:29:20 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 22:29:20 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Lars and the Real Girl (2007)
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwZRA_su8mHcbEULuQt5Z3hPbCTqqodEnLELqaOEAt28kQ@mail.gmail.com>

As anyone who has been around this list for a while knows, I have a
real fascination with the emotional bonds people create with inanimate
objects. I am particularly curious about objects as the target of
intimacy. I just saw "Lars and the Real Girl", a movie released in
2007, that I somehow missed up to this point. This movie was
absolutely fascinating on this point, and I would encourage anyone who
shares my interests in the human psyche to watch it.

I am not ashamed to admit that this movie actually moved me nearly to
tears in several places. I suspect that I am not alone in this, and
that this was part of the effect the creator of the movie wished to
create. Absolutely fascinating!

-Kelly


From rtomek at ceti.pl  Fri May  4 17:07:48 2012
From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola)
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 19:07:48 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [ExI] Uploading Swindle (was Re:  Finally!)
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwYdY24xkODKXimAsYxtSk4ObGFV_K5QCHU-kqaX2yqsag@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwYdY24xkODKXimAsYxtSk4ObGFV_K5QCHU-kqaX2yqsag@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205041801451.9360@tau.ceti.pl>

On Thu, 3 May 2012, Kelly Anderson wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Tomasz Rola <rtomek at ceti.pl> wrote:
> > About uploading: I smell a swindle. I would have big difficulty convincing
> > myself that I should give up myself and become, basically, a process in a
> > computer. Unless I will be able to control the computer. And I don't think
> > I will give away my physical properties, however small, in exchange for
> > living in a machine owned by some caring corporation.
> 
> Tomasz, one distinct possibility in the future is that the earth might
> some day become uninhabitable for carbon based life forms. This might
> be a side effect of a biological agent, an accident, or the sun
> expanding into a red giant or the atmosphere being eroded by solar
> wind as the magnetic core of the earth cools. In any case, it is a
> possibility that it will happen soon, and a certainty in the long
> term. And in that event, the choices being die or upload, I suspect
> that even you might choose upload at that point.
> 
> This is just a thought experiment... there are probably other reasons
> you might choose some day to upload... but Newton taught us that
> thinking in terms of ultimate limits is sometimes helpful.
> 
> -Kelly

Ho ho! When this day comes and I am still alive, I will

A. be able to upload on my own terms

B. have alternative means of survival

C. be royally screwed up

(choose one, two or all three)

The idea behind my reasoning is, should uploading become viable tomorrow 
(or this evening), there is diminishing number of trustworthy parties. 
Actually, the number is probably zero anyway. Well, maybe one (but he 
lacks a machine gun).

Whom actually am I to entrust my persona? While I am in a physical form 
factor, at least I am able to grab a stone. When I become a ghost in a 
machine, whoever runs the machine can screw me for his profit (and believe 
me, he will).

You can tell me all day long about business ethics, if you want. And about 
free market. But think twice. Ever heard about cigarettes? Ever heard 
about "scientific institutions" whose main subject of research was proving 
no link between smoking and cancer? I really wonder if, when we compare 
numbers of dead bodies, how smoking victims compare to genocides.

Another, less lethal example: imagine you would have to use Windows for 
the next bazilion years. If you _have_ to use it, what kind of incentive 
there is for them to improve?

So, the only ethics of business is the one about making profit. As long as 
you can put money on the table, even if some people die because of it, you 
become ethical person.

In other words, I trust businesses. In a way explained in "Born on the 
Fourth of July" - keep one hand on their tits and the other hand on your 
money.

Next, policians. Am I to believe they will screw me, an anonymous voter 
who they don't even know, or screw the man with bag of money who stands in 
their doors?

Religions? Actually, organised religion is not very different from 
corporations.

Atheists? Even worse than believers. Since there is no external Judge for 
them, they have no fear. And even worser, they have no doubts. This is 
sometimes positive, when a atheist is a good guy. When he is an average 
guy, he becomes a beast. 

Actually, since I am prone to put Atheism into the jar with "Religion" 
printed on it, two above paragraphs can be summed up like this: a good guy 
is a guy who has doubts about what he knows and what he can/should do. Two 
doubting guys will understand each other, even if they believe different 
supreme entities (Atheists, for example, believe in Empty, or Nothing 
supreme entity). Non doubting guys, the more power they have, the more 
miserable lifes (of others) they make.

Anyway, you can see that the only way I am to trust the other people or 
their clumps is to have few grenades and machine gun handy. When I upload, 
all my weapons become virtual and I might find, to my surprise, stainless 
steel became an apple pie. And I became a clown in someone else's parade.

So it is not that I am against the idea. I am against the other people :-) 
involvement in my uploading.

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **


From rtomek at ceti.pl  Fri May  4 19:09:14 2012
From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola)
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 21:09:14 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [ExI] Atheism factions? (was Uploading Swindle (was Re: Finally!))
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205041801451.9360@tau.ceti.pl>
References: <CAPy8RwYdY24xkODKXimAsYxtSk4ObGFV_K5QCHU-kqaX2yqsag@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205041801451.9360@tau.ceti.pl>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205042058440.9360@tau.ceti.pl>

On Fri, 4 May 2012, Tomasz Rola wrote:

[...]
> doubting guys will understand each other, even if they believe different 
> supreme entities (Atheists, for example, believe in Empty, or Nothing 
> supreme entity). Non doubting guys, the more power they have, the more 
> miserable lifes (of others) they make.

Ouch! Actually, I erred above. On second thinking, I decided there are at 
least two Atheist schools. The first one says something like this:

1. "There is No, supreme entity"

and the other this:

2. "There is No, supreme entity, beyond Physics"

Which I understand in such way, that whatever is not ruled over by Physics 
fails under rule of No.

Both schools seem to agree there exist some minor entities, like 
Evolution, who are actually aspects of Physics. Also, the subject of 
whether Physics is an aspect of Mathematics or maybe Mathematics is a 
power/law used by Physics is still not decided upon.

So far, we are yet to see fights between those schools. Maybe even 
crusades?

BTW, I doubt in everything I wrote.

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **


From rtomek at ceti.pl  Sat May  5 03:05:07 2012
From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola)
Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 05:05:07 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [ExI] Off Topic -- Opportunity to help out
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8Rwae1wYvr09_84P33oOncnr0cPpTOxCMJ6ZQvf3dm_GoUw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwatWm8o=O+18LBXyvqKWSfRfkS7U9dnow+AtPBJERGs3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120502203524.GD17120@leitl.org>
 <1336071982.79078.YahooMailNeo@web160606.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAPy8Rwae1wYvr09_84P33oOncnr0cPpTOxCMJ6ZQvf3dm_GoUw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205050503000.9360@tau.ceti.pl>

On Thu, 3 May 2012, Kelly Anderson wrote:

> I am naive, there is no question about it. I picked up a hitchhiker
> last week in Nevada and got robbed by him... so there is no question
> that I have an unfounded optimism about much of humanity. I forget
> that not everyone is as enlightened as the members of this mailing
> list...  Nevertheless, I can imagine that some day I might pick up a
> hitchhiker again. Maybe. It might be a while though... :-)

Well, I wouldn't call you naive. Open towards other people, maybe?

And I'm sorry to read about your misfortune. Did the scum bastard hurt you 
physically? I hope not.

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **


From spike66 at att.net  Sat May  5 03:22:42 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 20:22:42 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Off Topic -- Opportunity to help out
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205050503000.9360@tau.ceti.pl>
References: <CAPy8RwatWm8o=O+18LBXyvqKWSfRfkS7U9dnow+AtPBJERGs3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120502203524.GD17120@leitl.org>
 <1336071982.79078.YahooMailNeo@web160606.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAPy8Rwae1wYvr09_84P33oOncnr0cPpTOxCMJ6ZQvf3dm_GoUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205050503000.9360@tau.ceti.pl>
Message-ID: <00f101cd2a6e$55e2d2b0$01a87810$@att.net>



On Thu, 3 May 2012, Kelly Anderson wrote:

> I am naive, there is no question about it. I picked up a hitchhiker 
> last week in Nevada and got robbed by him...


Kelly!  Don't leave us hanging like that man.  Do offer some indication that
you lost a few bucks and a watch, but other than that were unharmed.  I am
trying to shake visions of you in the hospital with a gunshot wound
somewhere.

You don't need to save the world singlehandedly bud.

spike



From spike66 at att.net  Sat May  5 05:54:55 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 22:54:55 -0700
Subject: [ExI] ftl communications again
Message-ID: <012101cd2a83$9970a0b0$cc51e210$@att.net>

I vaguely recall a thread here on the possibility of faster than light
communications based on quantum entanglement.  Did I dream that?  What was
the name of the thread please and when?

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120504/b6c8a4a6/attachment.html>

From scerir at alice.it  Sat May  5 07:51:37 2012
From: scerir at alice.it (scerir)
Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 09:51:37 +0200
Subject: [ExI] ftl communications again
In-Reply-To: <012101cd2a83$9970a0b0$cc51e210$@att.net>
References: <012101cd2a83$9970a0b0$cc51e210$@att.net>
Message-ID: <7A7A20061D8B4753B4A6F031B122F5A9@PCserafino>

>I vaguely recall a thread here on the possibility of faster than light
> communications based on quantum entanglement.  Did I dream that?  What was
> the name of the thread please and when?
> spike

It was based on the experiments by B.Dopfer.
Given the position-momentum entanglement
between photons (biphoton A and biphoton B)
biphoton A shows or doesn't show a two-slit 
interference pattern on a screen, depending
on what you measure on biphoton B (via Heisenberg's
lens).
http://www.qudev.ethz.ch/phys4/studentspresentations/epr/zeilinger.pdf
 read from page S290

It is easy to imagine a FTL communication
via Dopfer's experiment. In example Cramer 
is trying such an experiment, since long time
http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/Nonlocal_2007.pdf
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2007/07/17/4350992-backward-research-goes-forward
http://www.paulfriedlander.com/text/timetravel/experiment.htm
http://www.analogsf.com/0612/altview.shtml

It is not so easy to realize why it doesn't work.
It doesn't work because there is a sort of
second order complementarity principle.

The source of entangled photons we (must) use to perform
a two-photon interference experiment has a 'large'
size (divergence of the beam).

In other words it is known, since long time, there is a weird
'complementarity' principle between the usual one-photon
and the two-photon (between two entangled biphotons) interference. 
In the sense that the more you can see the first interference, the less
you can see the second interference, and viceversa.

So you cannot use the entanglement and Dopfer's
experiments to send FTL signals. (That is to say
you cannot have the right source of entangled photons).
 
See, i.e., these papers:

M.A.Horne, A.Shimony, A.Zeilinger, 'Two-Particle Interferometry',
Phys.Rev.Lett. 62, 2209 (1989).

M.A.Horne, A.Shimony, A.Zeilinger,
'Two-Particle Interferometry', Nature, 347, 429 (1990).

D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Horne and A. Zeilinger,
'Multiparticle Interferometry and the Superposition Principle',
Physics Today 46 8, (1993).

and these specific experiments ...
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0112065
http://josab.osa.org/abstract.cfm?id=35389

For new, different concepts read here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3795
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.3440v1.pdf (appendix B)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.1076



From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Sat May  5 09:35:04 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 03:35:04 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Pinterest and a Singularity Comic
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwYKDn20vi3h4E7eT169MV2vUXYU5fBaZ6jLjOp5HNPoyw@mail.gmail.com>

I found pinterest.com, (I've found that most sites referenced by Wired
are worth at least a 5 minutes look) a kind of interesting site... but
what was fun was this cartoon about the Singularity.

http://pinterest.com/pin/69805862944521266/

-Kelly


From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Sat May  5 09:40:51 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 03:40:51 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Off Topic -- Opportunity to help out
In-Reply-To: <00f101cd2a6e$55e2d2b0$01a87810$@att.net>
References: <CAPy8RwatWm8o=O+18LBXyvqKWSfRfkS7U9dnow+AtPBJERGs3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120502203524.GD17120@leitl.org>
 <1336071982.79078.YahooMailNeo@web160606.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAPy8Rwae1wYvr09_84P33oOncnr0cPpTOxCMJ6ZQvf3dm_GoUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205050503000.9360@tau.ceti.pl>
 <00f101cd2a6e$55e2d2b0$01a87810$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwZUgD=gdB0qxydpUNn9rNa6qPfRHKpvvLMKBdR_iT6jcQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 9:22 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
 On Thu, 3 May 2012, Kelly Anderson wrote:
>
>> I am naive, there is no question about it. I picked up a hitchhiker
>> last week in Nevada and got robbed by him...
>
> Kelly! ?Don't leave us hanging like that man. ?Do offer some indication that
> you lost a few bucks and a watch, but other than that were unharmed. ?I am
> trying to shake visions of you in the hospital with a gunshot wound
> somewhere.
>
> You don't need to save the world singlehandedly bud.

I'm not trying to save the world. I normally wouldn't have picked the
guy up, but we had just passed a fatal car accident, and this guy was
standing next to the road at dusk, and it seemed dangerous. So I was
moved to pick him up before he got squished.

I wasn't hurt. He just sneaked the wallet off of the top of a cooler
between the front seats. The real problem wasn't so much the money,
but that he took my ID. With the lovely works of Mr. Atta and the
zealous response of George W. Bush, you can't check into a hotel these
days without one. So we went camping until Monday morning, when I went
to the DMV in southern Utah and because I had memorized my license
number, I was able to get a new one zippy quick.

The vacation was saved by the fact that my main credit card was in my
pocket, not in the wallet, otherwise we would have indeed been
screwed. Chock one up for absent mindedness... :-)

-Kelly



From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Sat May  5 09:47:44 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 03:47:44 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Uploading Swindle (was Re: Finally!)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205041801451.9360@tau.ceti.pl>
References: <CAPy8RwYdY24xkODKXimAsYxtSk4ObGFV_K5QCHU-kqaX2yqsag@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205041801451.9360@tau.ceti.pl>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwaTy3j_SOzUkw6AiudFhoBYvK6fjkxCPZMSNGZETmfMrQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Tomasz Rola <rtomek at ceti.pl> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 May 2012, Kelly Anderson wrote:
> Ho ho! When this day comes and I am still alive, I will
>
> A. be able to upload on my own terms

So, if I understand your objection Tomasz, your real objection to
uploading is that you want to upload to proprietary equipment with a
self sufficient security system, and you feel very uncomfortable
uploading to the cloud... does that about sum it up?

So it's not uploading itself that you really have the huge problem
with, it's the details of where the physical computing device is.

-Kelly


From rtomek at ceti.pl  Sat May  5 18:03:56 2012
From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola)
Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 20:03:56 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [ExI] Uploading Swindle (was Re: Finally!)
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwaTy3j_SOzUkw6AiudFhoBYvK6fjkxCPZMSNGZETmfMrQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwYdY24xkODKXimAsYxtSk4ObGFV_K5QCHU-kqaX2yqsag@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205041801451.9360@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAPy8RwaTy3j_SOzUkw6AiudFhoBYvK6fjkxCPZMSNGZETmfMrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205051835240.1751@tau.ceti.pl>

On Sat, 5 May 2012, Kelly Anderson wrote:

> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Tomasz Rola <rtomek at ceti.pl> wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 May 2012, Kelly Anderson wrote:
> > Ho ho! When this day comes and I am still alive, I will
> >
> > A. be able to upload on my own terms
> 
> So, if I understand your objection Tomasz, your real objection to
> uploading is that you want to upload to proprietary equipment with a
> self sufficient security system, and you feel very uncomfortable
> uploading to the cloud... does that about sum it up?

I wasn't horrified right after I have first heard about cloud and, a bit 
later, with "computer from a grid, like electricity". But I was horrified 
few minutes later, once I started playing scenarios in my head. In one 
sentence, they all ended with some form of hive. And I don't like insects 
enough to become one of them.

I will not give my data to the cloud. Well, ok, I will. I just need to be 
bribed. How about... an hour-worth of free music from some distributor. 
And a Stone Wars haxalogy in colorful box? Um, not physically, I get a 
picture of the box in a browser and ability to view contents for about, 
say, 10000 times, free of charge. If I wanted to buy 10000 SW boxes on 
com.zonama, I would have to put almost a million out of my pocket, so this 
sounds like a real bloody bargain.

> So it's not uploading itself that you really have the huge problem
> with, it's the details of where the physical computing device is.

This is too simplistic. My real objection is about physical control of 
device. Not just its location, but access and principles of its working 
(including whether it contains backdoors and bugs). Also, I object to 
people fooling with the device, possibly changing what I am going to think 
and remember.

Another subject is, what is going to happen with my material posessions? 
Say, if I own a car, should I stop caring about it later? Sure, if I am 
not going back. What if I upload while sitting in a car, to a device 
laying below the driver's seat? Ok, so, maybe I should sell my posessions 
before I upload. I am sure there will be plenty of buyers, because when 
everybody uploads, someone will have to own the Earth. It is not going to 
be pleasure but hard work, this owning. Hence we should not treat buyers 
as greedy lousy beasts but as heroes. Um, nope, back. There will be 
virtually no buyers at all which will drive prices down to, literally, 
bucks for a house. And even more so buyers will be greeted as heroes, who 
dispose of their money to help those in need of selling their goods.

The fact that nobody rises such objections (at least, I don't remember at 
the moment) only assures me there is going to be a lot of abuse happening 
around uploading.

For example, a well kept up lawyer approaches a not very wealthy, not too 
well educated young man with meager income and darkening economically-bad 
future (not that I am suggesting bad education and bad prospects are 
intentional). "Young man, would you like to live the rest of your days in 
cybernetic heavens? Where the music is free, you can skate all day long 
and all night long you can balance wonderful babes on top of yours..." - 
he just needs to sell whatever he still has. All DNA and stuff, too. And a 
footprint of brain. Which means, every though this brain could have, every 
invention, belongs to us. After all, who can forbid us from educating the 
footprint, give him years of voyages and reading books in virtual library? 
It belongs to us now, right? It is a bunch of mathematical expressions. We 
can do with them as we please.

After uploading, however, well... We all know that maximum life span is 
below 140 years at the moment. But let's be generous, give the guy 300 
years of life. To not make things too hard for us, let's speed up his 
clock by a factor of 110000... So after about a day he clocks 300 years of 
subjective time and we are safe to plug him off. Every judge will let us 
free. Especially if we redact the papers accordingly. And there will be 
plenty of politicians eager to support us, because at one point, uploaded 
voters will outnumber meat voters - and we can easily insert proper 
decicions into statistically significant number of ghost brains.

Actually, we don't need to plug the guy off literally. We just swap him 
off, like it happens in time sharing systems (Windows users, who have 
hard time knowing they have swapfile on their systems, are going to be 
sucked in dozens into this scheme). Some tasks are swapped to 
the disk so another tasks could have their turn. This is perfectly legal, 
because on papers there is a clause that his task might be interrupted for 
short time if this is demanded for correct and proper system operations 
(like, for example, dust cleaning). The maximum time he spends in the 
"off" state is not stated, however, simply because it is so hard to 
predict every random event prohibiting the system's ongoing, 
uninterrupted work.

We could build a bigger system, but can any judge blame us if we postpone 
this to times when our budget allows for this?

I other words, I consider at least some uploading propositions very naive 
and disconnected from reality, where dog eats dog. And also, dog eats 
whoever is stupid enough to become a sausage.

Uploading is not the end of the road for me. It is a bus stop. I don't 
think I can justify uploading to myself if I don't have a plan for 
downloading, even a very sketchy one.

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **


From rtomek at ceti.pl  Sun May  6 01:02:34 2012
From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola)
Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 03:02:34 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [ExI] Venturist Cryonics Conference - June 2012 (on behalf of David
 Pizer) (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205060254400.21937@tau.ceti.pl>


Hello,

I have been asked to forward the following to the list. I have cut off 
irrelevant parts, other than this it is unchanged. I am only afraid my 
text based mail client could have made a mess of it, but maybe not very 
big one.

BTW, I have not affiliation with the conference, so send replies to 
addresses mentioned below.

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 17:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: david pizer <pizerdavid at yahoo.com>
To: Tomasz Rola <rtomek at ceti.pl>
Subject: Re: [ExI] Uploading Swindle (was Re: Finally!)

Please do forward the invitation.??? Anyone interested can repy to the
venturist chat room at??? venturists at yahoogroups.com
or to me at pizerdavid at yahoo.com
???
Thank you for your considerations.
???
David

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 15:37:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: david pizer <pizerdavid at yahoo.com>
To: Tomasz Rola <rtomek at ceti.pl>
Subject: Re: [ExI] Uploading Swindle (was Re: Finally!)

I sent a message in to the address you supplied.? Thank you. ? What we are 
looking for is one more person to give a short presentation on Uploading 
and maybe then have a 20 minute discussion with the group. ? Any 
suggestions?

 ? David Pizer Society for Venturism Copy of tenative schedule 
below Also added to that will probably be Mike Darwin, Mark Voelker and 
cairn. ? Tentative agenda for ?VENTURIST CRYONICS CONFERENCE - JUNE 
1,2,3.? ??You can attend all 3 days or just 1 or 2 days There is no charge 
to attend. Rooms & meals are Dutch Treat. To reserve a room call Mark Plus 
at 928? 632-0777 
================================================================================= 
FRIDAY?eve, June 1? ?????????ARRIVAL & WELCOME PARTY? (open topics for 
informal discussions) ? 3 PM Arrival with informal open house & welcome 
party starting at 3 pm. Held in the Venturist Museum and Library room 
upstairs. This is a time to inspect historic cryonics materials, catch up 
with old friends and make new ones. Somewhere during this time we will go 
downstairs to the restaurant/lounge and have dinner. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
? SATURDAY,?? June 2 ???????CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS ? 7 am 
....................................HIKE:
45 minute hike/walk down adjoining 
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? high desert trail. (meet in lobby)
8:30
.....................................Breakfast
9:30 to 10:00 . .................... GETTING MEDIA ATTENTION FOR CRYONICS:?? 
??????????????????????????????????????????????? How we can produce press releases and obtain media 
?????????????????????????????????????????????? coverage. ?A Group discussion by all attendees led
by 
?????????????????????????????????????????????? Mark
Plus
10:00 to 10:30??????????????? ????Discussion
about VENTURIST CRYONICS VIDEOS ?
?????????????????????????????????? ?????????Led
by Mark Plus. ?Should we make cryonics videos
to put 
?????????????????????????????????? ?????????on
Youtube to help more people to learn about cryonics?
15 minute break? 
10:45 to noon
.................... ??ASSET PRESERVATION GROUP? How every cryonicist 
???????????????????????????????????????????? can
preserve their various? assets? (more info on this in a few 
???????????????????????????????????????????? days)?? By: Founder Carin Idun
?Noon to 1 .......................... Lunch
1:30 to 2:00
...................... SUSPENSION
PROTECTION: ?Venturist back up cryonics 
?????????????????????????????????????????? suspension protection plan and funds may be available for you
????????????????????????????????????????? ?at reanimation time.
2:00 to 2:30
....................... VENTURIST
BACK-UP RESCUE TRUST DOCUMENT 
???????? ???????????????????????????????????wording. By Dr. Mike Perry this
will be voted on at Board 
?????????????????????????????????????????? Meeting
Sunday)
2:30 to 3:30
................... ????CHEMICAL
PRESERVATION:? Dr. Mike Perry
Presenter: 
??????????????????????????????????????? ????Is
chemical preservation a more affordable and better alternative 
??????????????????????????????????????? ?????than
cryonics 
15 minute break
3:45 to 5:00?? ................???? CRYONICS
HALL OF FAME:? Starting a
Venturist Cryonics 
?????????????????????????????????????? ?????Hall
of Fame (How to nominate and elect candidates.? Who do 
??????????????????????????????????? ????????you
want to nominate?? ).
30 minute break
5:30
.................................. Dinner 
7:00
................................. After
Dinner Get-together = informal discussions on topics of 
?????????????????????????????????? ????????guests
choice including: Discussions on which possible reanimation 
??????????????????????????????????? ???????options
are best - what is best, revival of the whole body, or revival
??????????????????????????????????? ???????of original brain in a new cloned body. Or,
what about ?Uploading? 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
?
SUNDAYJune 3? .........?? ?BOARD MEETING AND VOTE ON ACTION ON
CONFERENCE SUBJECTS
7 am ......................................
45 minute walk down desert trail.? (meet
in lobby)
8:30
....................................... Breakfast
9:30 am to noon
.................. Board meeting to vote on ideas from the talks Saturday and Venturist Business.
 

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sun May  6 13:18:27 2012
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 15:18:27 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Wars Between Democracies (was Re: Finally!)
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwZaeUPokCkjFx8nL8zZTtZ8Y7T=z_yBwU-1Kw5siNd+nw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwZaeUPokCkjFx8nL8zZTtZ8Y7T=z_yBwU-1Kw5siNd+nw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPoR7a7T2KFjSmLyd3XC=Y6JUeUTbbDm9_Q-Pibdo=_B=wZUkQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 4 May 2012 05:33, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:

> (Sorry if this is a repost for anyone, it looked like there was an
> error the first time I tried to post this...)
>

I never gave much thought to the issue, but your message is brilliant.

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120506/5c1045f5/attachment.html>

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sun May  6 17:22:38 2012
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 19:22:38 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Uploading Swindle (was Re: Finally!)
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwYdY24xkODKXimAsYxtSk4ObGFV_K5QCHU-kqaX2yqsag@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwYdY24xkODKXimAsYxtSk4ObGFV_K5QCHU-kqaX2yqsag@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPoR7a51GuXFVzA7hj3Kc6z+3Q5VjkRkVB8L=ggtBW+j8b4hZA@mail.gmail.com>

On 4 May 2012 05:20, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:

> And in that event, the choices being die or upload, I suspect
> that even you might choose upload at that point.
>

The only "swindle" that might affect candidates for uploading is with
regard to some vague and "mystical" interpretations of the process.

What is an upload? An upload is a computing process who emulates on another
arbitrary platform your current identity, which is a pure social construct
in the first place. A qualified upload is an emulation which is competitive
with the original in a "specific" Turing test (meaning that it would
persuade the other party in a Turing test that it is "you" as often as you
can).

This is what you pay for, this is what you get. Nobody can really say in
objective terms whether it is "really" you, no more that we can say whether
today's you is the same individual as yesterday's you: this is a matter of
interpretation, and according to your preferred interpretation you may
consider it desirable or not.

Thinking however about the appeal that even extremely poor "emulations" of
ourselves such as portraits or biographies have had in history for most of
us, I suspect that as soon as you will be able to consider your updated
neighbours on the same basis of, say, neighbours having suffered major
amputations, philosophical doubts about the legitimacy of defining
uploading as "survival" will soon become extinct or restricted to the
tinfoil-hat fringe.

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120506/5b4b6c48/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sun May  6 18:36:40 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 11:36:40 -0700
Subject: [ExI] john nash, was: RE:  Uploading Swindle (was Re: Finally!)
Message-ID: <011701cd2bb7$2ddd74b0$89985e10$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj



>.philosophical doubts about the legitimacy of defining uploading as
"survival" will soon become extinct or restricted to the tinfoil-hat fringe.
-- Stefano Vaj

 

What if.  there really is some kind of EM signal penetrating our brains
(designed by aliens to make us crazy) that is somehow reflected by metal
foil.  Then the foil-hat people would be the only ones not made crazy by the
signal, but they were already crazy to start with.  But what if the crazies
anticipated this whole scheme, so that the foil hat fringe were never crazy
to start with?  {8-]  

 

Relax, Stafano, I don't have a foil hat.  {8^D

 

The recent declassification of John Nash's work on encryption made me think
of this.  I took out the book A Beautiful Mind by Nasar.  She was completely
unaware of the encryption work of course, but knows of Nash's paranoia and
delusional schizophrenia.  Perhaps the NSA recognized the guy had mental
problems and used it to keep him quiet on cryptology.  Those of us who ask
the kinds of what-ifs in the first paragraph are tempted to ask, what if.
the government, in its wartime zeal, slipped Nash a little something, a
chemical perhaps, to heighten his mental illness?  Perhaps they
intentionally worked on his paranoia, made it worse, as a means of
controlling him.  Would the US government do something like that under any
circumstances?

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120506/3c9b95dd/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sun May  6 18:47:46 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 11:47:46 -0700
Subject: [ExI] what would the men be required to wear?
Message-ID: <011c01cd2bb8$baa0f560$2fe2e020$@att.net>

Sheesh:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/06/attorney-in-hijab-defends-call-fo
r-other-women-at-11-hearing-to-wear/

 

OK, so the defense attorney for the 9/11 attackers argues that the women
should be required to cover up, in order to prevent distracting the
defendants.  If I were the prosecuting attorney, I would agree to this under
one condition.  Since there is a possibility that one or more of the (all
male) defendants are homosexual, then they would be distracted not by
uncovered women, but by improperly dressed men.  To solve the problem, I
propose that all who enter the courtroom would be required to wear a hajib.
Should the defendants argue that they are not homosexuals, they would have
the burden of proof of that contention as well as proving that no one in
that room is gay, good luck.

 

That would be an interesting court scene.

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120506/6508fc1a/attachment.html>

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sun May  6 19:46:38 2012
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 21:46:38 +0200
Subject: [ExI] john nash, was: RE: Uploading Swindle (was Re: Finally!)
In-Reply-To: <011701cd2bb7$2ddd74b0$89985e10$@att.net>
References: <011701cd2bb7$2ddd74b0$89985e10$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAPoR7a445Hk2Vtwtfi57_A-T4xVCwHtm1BHReGbv-d81P0auew@mail.gmail.com>

On 6 May 2012 20:36, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> Relax, Stafano, I don?t have a foil hat.  {8^D
>
>
> Glad to learn that, you had just started making me worry... :-)

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120506/7db103a3/attachment.html>

From msd001 at gmail.com  Sun May  6 19:28:42 2012
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 15:28:42 -0400
Subject: [ExI] what would the men be required to wear?
In-Reply-To: <011c01cd2bb8$baa0f560$2fe2e020$@att.net>
References: <011c01cd2bb8$baa0f560$2fe2e020$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAOJFdb+N1NakGLkMbPmc=HM3J33-tgBZ0qPP+UerNdpYUq3HMw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 2:47 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> Sheesh:
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/06/attorney-in-hijab-defends-call-for-other-women-at-11-hearing-to-wear/
>

If I ever am forced to appear in court, I'll claim to be a faithful
follower of Pastafarianism and argue that in order to remain focussed
on the case everyone in the room wear a colander on their head out of
respect for the almighty FSM...

but yeah; "sheesh" seconded.


From spike66 at att.net  Sun May  6 19:57:16 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 12:57:16 -0700
Subject: [ExI] john nash, was: RE: Uploading Swindle (was Re: Finally!)
In-Reply-To: <CAPoR7a445Hk2Vtwtfi57_A-T4xVCwHtm1BHReGbv-d81P0auew@mail.gmail.com>
References: <011701cd2bb7$2ddd74b0$89985e10$@att.net>
 <CAPoR7a445Hk2Vtwtfi57_A-T4xVCwHtm1BHReGbv-d81P0auew@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <013c01cd2bc2$7029cd90$507d68b0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2012 12:47 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] john nash, was: RE: Uploading Swindle (was Re: Finally!)

 

On 6 May 2012 20:36, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

Relax, Stafano, I don't have a foil hat.  {8^D




Glad to learn that, you had just started making me worry... :-)

-- 
Stefano Vaj

 

 

 

Ja, I haven't had one in several weeks now.  Misplaced it somehow.  But I
can make a new one.

 

{8^D

 

What about Nash?  I am reading about him and now vaguely suspect foul play
on the part of my own government.  Or perhaps I am thinking too much on
chess grandmaster Bobby Fischer.  Sure he was crazy.  But the criterion we
used to determine his craziness, the accusations he made regarding the
Russians cheating, turned out to be all true.

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120506/921bc2e5/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun May  6 23:00:07 2012
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 16:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] john nash, was: RE: Uploading Swindle (was Re: Finally!)
In-Reply-To: <013c01cd2bc2$7029cd90$507d68b0$@att.net>
References: <011701cd2bb7$2ddd74b0$89985e10$@att.net>
 <CAPoR7a445Hk2Vtwtfi57_A-T4xVCwHtm1BHReGbv-d81P0auew@mail.gmail.com>
 <013c01cd2bc2$7029cd90$507d68b0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <1336345207.53494.YahooMailNeo@web164502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

>From:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj
>Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2012 12:47 PM
>To: ExI chat list
>Subject: Re: [ExI] john nash, was: RE: Uploading Swindle (was Re: Finally!)
>?
>On 6 May 2012 20:36, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>Relax, Stafano, I don?t have a foil hat.? {8^D
>
>
>Glad to learn that, you had just started making me worry... :-)
>
>-- 
>Stefano Vaj
>?
>?
>?
>Ja, I haven?t had one in several weeks now.? Misplaced it somehow.? But I can make a new one.
>?
>{8^D

Speaking of tinfoil hats, do you guys think there is a market for "stealth" tinfoil hats? And by that I mean normal looking fedoras, bowlers, derby hats, etc?that have the tinfoil sewn into the lining as to make the tinfoil invisible to the naked eye. You could even offer baseball caps that have an invisible?metal wire mesh. That way schizophrenics can be protected from their paranoid delusions and remain within fashion norms. So would something like that sell?
?
?
Stuart LaForge


"The state that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting by fools." -Thucydides.



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun May  6 23:37:35 2012
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 16:37:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Off Topic -- Opportunity to help out
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwZUgD=gdB0qxydpUNn9rNa6qPfRHKpvvLMKBdR_iT6jcQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwatWm8o=O+18LBXyvqKWSfRfkS7U9dnow+AtPBJERGs3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120502203524.GD17120@leitl.org>
 <1336071982.79078.YahooMailNeo@web160606.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAPy8Rwae1wYvr09_84P33oOncnr0cPpTOxCMJ6ZQvf3dm_GoUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205050503000.9360@tau.ceti.pl>
 <00f101cd2a6e$55e2d2b0$01a87810$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwZUgD=gdB0qxydpUNn9rNa6qPfRHKpvvLMKBdR_iT6jcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1336347455.76086.YahooMailNeo@web164501.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>



?----- Original Message -----
> From: Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Cc: 
> Sent: Saturday, May 5, 2012 2:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Off Topic -- Opportunity to help out
> 
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 9:22 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 May 2012, Kelly Anderson wrote:
>> 
>>> I am naive, there is no question about it. I picked up a hitchhiker
>>> last week in Nevada and got robbed by him...
>> 
>> Kelly! ?Don't leave us hanging like that man. ?Do offer some indication 
> that
>> you lost a few bucks and a watch, but other than that were unharmed. ?I am
>> trying to shake visions of you in the hospital with a gunshot wound
>> somewhere.
>> 
>> You don't need to save the world singlehandedly bud.
> 
> I'm not trying to save the world. I normally wouldn't have picked the
> guy up, but we had just passed a fatal car accident, and this guy was
> standing next to the road at dusk, and it seemed dangerous. So I was
> moved to pick him up before he got squished.

Sorry to hear that you had a bad experience in Nevada. Not that it excuses the behavior but Nevada still has higher than 20% unemployment rate. (Last I heard it was ~ 25%) On the plus side your dollar goes pretty far here and the "Texas meets Berkley" environment here makes for an interesting political landscape.?

?
> The vacation was saved by the fact that my main credit card was in my
> pocket, not in the wallet, otherwise we would have indeed been
> screwed. Chock one up for absent mindedness... :-)

Or for subconcious precognition. ;-)

Stuart LaForge


"The state that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting by fools." -Thucydides. 




From spike66 at att.net  Sun May  6 23:43:34 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 16:43:34 -0700
Subject: [ExI] john nash, was: RE: Uploading Swindle (was Re: Finally!)
In-Reply-To: <1336345207.53494.YahooMailNeo@web164502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <011701cd2bb7$2ddd74b0$89985e10$@att.net>
 <CAPoR7a445Hk2Vtwtfi57_A-T4xVCwHtm1BHReGbv-d81P0auew@mail.gmail.com>
 <013c01cd2bc2$7029cd90$507d68b0$@att.net>
 <1336345207.53494.YahooMailNeo@web164502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <016801cd2be2$0e2f5a40$2a8e0ec0$@att.net>



-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian
...
> 
>>...Ja, I haven?t had one in several weeks now.  Misplaced it somehow.  But I can make a new one.  {8^D

>...Speaking of tinfoil hats, do you guys think there is a market for "stealth" tinfoil hats? ...So would something like that sell?  Stuart LaForge


No one ever lost money by underestimating the collective intelligence of the buying public.  spike




From spike66 at att.net  Sun May  6 23:54:29 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 16:54:29 -0700
Subject: [ExI] battle tanks to a five yr old
Message-ID: <016e01cd2be3$93fe4ea0$bbfaebe0$@att.net>


The times, they are a-changin.

My five year old son saw a video with a battle tank, but he didn't know what it was called.  He vaguely understands what it is, but just didn't know the name.  I had never explained it to him.  He was trying to describe it, and finally called it a "war-car."

War cars are definitely fading out of importance in his generation.  When I was his age, we knew a lot about warfare I think.  I notice none of the neighborhood kids play battle of any sort now, no cowboys and Indians, no 'Muricans vs Commies, nothing of the kind.  It just occurred to me today their world is a lot freer of conflict than I recall of my own misspent childhood.  Dare we hope that armed conflict will gradually fade away?  Or will restrict itself to that part of the world which revels in that sort of thing?

spike





From atymes at gmail.com  Mon May  7 00:12:53 2012
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 17:12:53 -0700
Subject: [ExI] john nash, was: RE: Uploading Swindle (was Re: Finally!)
In-Reply-To: <1336345207.53494.YahooMailNeo@web164502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <011701cd2bb7$2ddd74b0$89985e10$@att.net>
 <CAPoR7a445Hk2Vtwtfi57_A-T4xVCwHtm1BHReGbv-d81P0auew@mail.gmail.com>
 <013c01cd2bc2$7029cd90$507d68b0$@att.net>
 <1336345207.53494.YahooMailNeo@web164502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNTiY696d5PR=oF8daFd=pV-ftpufmUombWDZYtPn4iQnw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 4:00 PM, The Avantguardian
<avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Speaking of tinfoil hats, do you guys think there is a market for "stealth" tinfoil hats? And by that I mean normal looking fedoras, bowlers, derby hats, etc?that have the tinfoil sewn into the lining as to make the tinfoil invisible to the naked eye. You could even offer baseball caps that have an invisible?metal wire mesh. That way schizophrenics can be protected from their paranoid delusions and remain within fashion norms. So would something like that sell?

Heck, make it so stealth that even metal detectors won't see them.
They hide your thoughts perfectly (disclaimer: does not disguise
facial expressions, tone of voice, word choice, and body language).

The trick, of course, is that they don't actually have any metal in
the first place.  Just buy some all-leather headgear and resell for
a marked up price.



From rtomek at ceti.pl  Mon May  7 03:24:14 2012
From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola)
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 05:24:14 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [ExI] john nash, was: RE: Uploading Swindle (was Re: Finally!)
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNTiY696d5PR=oF8daFd=pV-ftpufmUombWDZYtPn4iQnw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <011701cd2bb7$2ddd74b0$89985e10$@att.net>
 <CAPoR7a445Hk2Vtwtfi57_A-T4xVCwHtm1BHReGbv-d81P0auew@mail.gmail.com>
 <013c01cd2bc2$7029cd90$507d68b0$@att.net>
 <1336345207.53494.YahooMailNeo@web164502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
 <CALAdGNTiY696d5PR=oF8daFd=pV-ftpufmUombWDZYtPn4iQnw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205070522340.28239@tau.ceti.pl>

On Sun, 6 May 2012, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 4:00 PM, The Avantguardian
> <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Speaking of tinfoil hats, do you guys think there is a market for 
> > "stealth" tinfoil hats? And by that I mean normal looking fedoras, 
> > bowlers, derby hats, etc?that have the tinfoil sewn into the lining as 
> > to make the tinfoil invisible to the naked eye. You could even offer 
> > baseball caps that have an invisible?metal wire mesh. That way 
> > schizophrenics can be protected from their paranoid delusions and 
> > remain within fashion norms. So would something like that sell?
> 
> Heck, make it so stealth that even metal detectors won't see them.
> They hide your thoughts perfectly (disclaimer: does not disguise
> facial expressions, tone of voice, word choice, and body language).

Guys, just buy yourself laser guns and you will never have to hide 
anymore...

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **

From pharos at gmail.com  Mon May  7 08:30:40 2012
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 09:30:40 +0100
Subject: [ExI] battle tanks to a five yr old
In-Reply-To: <016e01cd2be3$93fe4ea0$bbfaebe0$@att.net>
References: <016e01cd2be3$93fe4ea0$bbfaebe0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAL_armgLRyVymqAuzejZaHM3=H7y65coJ4Au=n2TH7hFuwjmCw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 12:54 AM, spike  wrote:
>
>
>
> The times, they are a-changin.
>
> My five year old son saw a video with a battle tank, but he didn't know what it was called.  He vaguely understands
> what it is, but just didn't know the name.  I had never explained it to him.  He was trying to describe it, and finally
> called it a "war-car."
>
> War cars are definitely fading out of importance in his generation.  When I was his age, we knew a lot about warfare
> I think.  I notice none of the neighborhood kids play battle of any sort now, no cowboys and Indians, no 'Muricans
> vs Commies, nothing of the kind.  It just occurred to me today their world is a lot freer of conflict than I recall of my
> own misspent childhood.  Dare we hope that armed conflict will gradually fade away?  Or will restrict itself to that
> part of the world which revels in that sort of thing?
>
>


I think it is more that kids today just aren't allowed out to run free
like in the old days.

The parents today are the 'fear' generation. Pedophiles, terrorists,
murderers, gangs,..... the list is endless.



BillK


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Mon May  7 11:56:04 2012
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 13:56:04 +0200
Subject: [ExI] battle tanks to a five yr old
In-Reply-To: <016e01cd2be3$93fe4ea0$bbfaebe0$@att.net>
References: <016e01cd2be3$93fe4ea0$bbfaebe0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAPoR7a6cCXJCTVzP0yVeJ4ExcxZNV=CNWE_WOZx4dLReMaz_0g@mail.gmail.com>

On 7 May 2012 01:54, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>  When I was his age, we knew a lot about warfare I think.  I notice none
> of the neighborhood kids play battle of any sort now, no cowboys and
> Indians, no 'Muricans vs Commies, nothing of the kind.  It just occurred to
> me today their world is a lot freer of conflict than I recall of my own
> misspent childhood.  Dare we hope that armed conflict will gradually fade
> away?
>

I believe that the US started what? Eight or ten wars after the end of the
Cold War and once the "end of conflicts" had been announced?

So, I am inclined to believe that the lack of toy weapons, battle games,
etc. amongst contemporary children, are largely dependent on a cultural
climate which are theoretically very hostile to all that and is in denial
with regard to the practical realities out there.

OTOH, it seems that the same thing is overcompensated if anything by the
very dominant "war" and "warrior" themes in videogames, from Ninja Gaiden
to Call of Duty, where commercial profits easily trump political
correctness, and the use of virtual avatars perhaps prepare the average
western citizens to their later use of actual mercenaries and drones for
the umpleasant parts, such as little comfort and personal risk, in armed
conflicts.

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120507/d0cfbcb7/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Mon May  7 14:05:51 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 07:05:51 -0700
Subject: [ExI] battle tanks to a five yr old
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armgLRyVymqAuzejZaHM3=H7y65coJ4Au=n2TH7hFuwjmCw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <016e01cd2be3$93fe4ea0$bbfaebe0$@att.net>
 <CAL_armgLRyVymqAuzejZaHM3=H7y65coJ4Au=n2TH7hFuwjmCw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <006e01cd2c5a$82ee3360$88ca9a20$@att.net>


>... On Behalf Of BillK

>>...Dare we hope that armed conflict will gradually fade away?  Or will
restrict itself to that part of the world which revels in that sort of
thing?

>...I think it is more that kids today just aren't allowed out to run free
like in the old days.

>...The parents today are the 'fear' generation. Pedophiles, terrorists,
murderers, gangs,..... the list is endless...BillK
_______________________________________________


Hmmm, perhaps, but when I look around, I realize my son's world is actually
so much freer of all those kinds of things, it is most remarkable.  It is a
cause for optimism when I realize that we now have actual crime numbers and
can do direct comparisons.  I took out Steven Pinker's recent book The
Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence has Declined.  It caused me to
compare my son's school to the ones I attended in the 1960s and his
neighborhood to the one in which I misspent my own childhood.  Differences:
there are waaay fewer kids now, adults are far more involved in their kids'
lives, kids generally do not roam randomly unattended below age about 10,
there is no evidence anywhere of gangs (wasn't really back then either, but
we knew where the bad guys could be found), property crime is now rare,
violent crime now is almost unheard of, vandalism is seldom seen and quickly
repaired.  There is an online crime log, so everyone knows when anything
goes down anywhere.  Everyone is carrying a camera in their phone.  Anyone
can make a crime report in complete anonymity by logging on at the library.
Anyone can videorecord any crime in progress and post it to YouTube,
anonymously, for the whole world to see.

The neighborhoods that were safe before are still safe, and the dangerous
neighborhoods feel safer than they did even twenty years ago.

Examples: in 1990, shortly after I moved to the Silicon Valley, I bumbled
into a south San Jose neighborhood.  It was extremely scary down there.
When we had Extro5 down that way in 2000, I wrote up a big gum flap about
how you need to stay up around the convention center, and that if you drop
below the freeway, your chances of escape are grim, etc, but I wandered down
in there, looking for stray extropians, and it wasn't so rough looking.  I
was down there just last week, and it looked better than the neighborhood I
grew up in.  Saw very little that would make me worry.  There were senoritas
pushing baby carriages, gentle civilized people everywhere, nothing
particularly trashy anywhere.

I suppose we are seeing the cumulative effects of the three strikes law,
which passed in California in 1994.  Alternate views?

spike



From spike66 at att.net  Mon May  7 14:27:52 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 07:27:52 -0700
Subject: [ExI] battle tanks to a five yr old
In-Reply-To: <CAPoR7a6cCXJCTVzP0yVeJ4ExcxZNV=CNWE_WOZx4dLReMaz_0g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <016e01cd2be3$93fe4ea0$bbfaebe0$@att.net>
 <CAPoR7a6cCXJCTVzP0yVeJ4ExcxZNV=CNWE_WOZx4dLReMaz_0g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <007301cd2c5d$96651500$c32f3f00$@att.net>

 

 

>. On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj
Subject: Re: [ExI] battle tanks to a five yr old

 

On 7 May 2012 01:54, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>>..  Dare we hope that armed conflict will gradually fade away?  


>.I believe that the US started what? Eight or ten wars after the end of the
Cold War and once the "end of conflicts" had been announced?

 

Depends on how you define the term "started."  Of all those I think you are
talking about, the wars had already started a long time before the US showed
up.


>.So, I am inclined to believe that the lack of toy weapons, battle games,
etc. amongst contemporary children, are largely dependent on a cultural
climate ... Stefano Vaj

 

Ja, and it could be that weapons have changed a lot.  For instance, we
played with rifles and "hanger-nades" neither of which have much role in
modern battle, for their range is far too short.  We seldom get that
up-close and personal now.  Today the most important war weapon has become a
computer.  I can easily see this trend continuing.  Anything that can be
identified as a weapon, such as a missile battery, a tank, armored or
motorized artillery, any of the usual battle gear, can be attacked from a
safe distance by a drone with a relatively small but highly effective
explosive.  The weapon is wrecked, the uninjured warriors stand around in
arbitrarily large numbers, as harmless as kittens.

 

Dare we hope armed conflict will fade?  I think now think so.

 

spike

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120507/3fe8e6a5/attachment.html>

From pizerdavid at yahoo.com  Mon May  7 18:29:12 2012
From: pizerdavid at yahoo.com (david pizer)
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 11:29:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Hall of Fame ideas
Message-ID: <1336415352.2933.YahooMailNeo@web161704.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

Marta Sandberg has posted some ideas about the Cryonics Hall of Fame.?? They are below and I will give my relies to them below.
This discussion is timely because the Hall of Fame idea is scheduled for discussion at the Venturist Cryonics Conference the first 3 days in June with the main event being Saturday June 2nd.
Many cryonicists have wanted to establish a Hall of Fame and now may be the time to discuss how to do it.
?

MARTA SAID:? What a fantastic idea. Some place for the cryonic movement to cluster around as well as a great
publicity opportunity.?I won't be at the Venturist meeting so I will give my ideas
through this post instead.

?MARTA 1:? There has to be a substantial number of people to start the
Hall of Fame ? the initial inductees. 
Cryonics has been going for 40 years (since TransTime started) and it
would be tempting to have 40 initial inductees, but that is probably too
many. 
?
DAVID:? One question that comes to mind, as Marta points out, is the first year do we try to induct most of the original pioneers, or just a few each year?
What would be the reasons for doing it either way, or some other way?

MARTA 2:? Then every year one or two more people would be
recognised.  This way we continually? recognise our own as well as give us a new media opportunity every year.  If that seems too much, then induct new
people every two years.

DAVID:? I like the idea of doing something each year as it keeps the idea in people's minds.?? What would be the?benefit to do it every year?vs. every two years?
?

MARTA 3:? Everybody who has a valid cryonics contract should be able
to nominate inductees and vote.  Leave it? up to the cryonic organisation to contact their members and invite them to
write/email you to be put on your email list.

DAVID:? I agree that the cryonics community of signed up and funded cryoncists should be the ones who nominate and vote in the inductees.? The only role of the Venturists would be to manage the elections to insure fairness, and also we already have a small combo museum and library which has some possibility of growing into a very larger building in the near future.

MARTA 4:? Once you have a list, then ask for nominations and then put
it to the vote.  If you have somebody? clever enough to set up an on-line voting system, then this takes a lot of the
grunt work off your shoulders. 

DAVID:? We will need to think of all ways possible to allow every signed up cryoncists to nominate, discuss, research and vote.? We will need some more ideas on the best way to do this.
?
?MARTA 5:? I would suggest that each voting member get the same number? of votes as there are places to fill ? in other words if you decide to start
with twenty initial inductees, then each person can pick their twenty? favourites.  With this many votes there
is less likely hood that there would be a tie, but if it happens then? predetermined committee would decide who is in and who is out.
MARTA 6:  Just pick up to twenty people, but not in any particular
order.  Otherwise there is too much  chance for complications and ranking people creates unnecessary
competitiveness.??

? DAVID:? We need a detailed and clear system on how this will work.

MARTA 7:? You should try to tweak the rules so that people living outside
USA also gets a fair chance of being voted in.? It is natural to know your own countrymen better and to be a bit biased
against outsiders.  As the vast majority? of cryonicists are in The States this means that overseas candidates will have
a lot of trouble in getting in.  Maybe? have a certain number of places reserved for overseas candidates or give a
non-American a positive handicap.? For example, Peter Tsolakides and Mark Milton have done a
sterling job in starting an Australian facility but although they are well known
in Australia, people outside my wonderful country may never have heard of them.
?
? DAVID:? The Venturists have a good library with publications (containing news and historical reports) of every person ever associated with cryonics and what they have done.? Once people are nominated there can be a period of several months where we put out information and others can contribute testimonials all to be given to the voters before each election.

MARTA 8:? Finally, the initial bunch of inductees will probably be? heavily weighted towards people who are dead, but I would like the
annual/biannual inductees to mainly involve living people.  We need role models who are still alive.  It doesn't mean that frozen people can't be
voted in but once you decide what sort of handicap system can be used for? overseas candidates you might use the same system, but in reverse, for dead
candidates.

DAVID:? These ideas and new ones to be discussed on Saturday June 2nd at the Cryonics Conference and then after that on-line for a while until we agree on the terms and rules and start the project.
?
MARTA? CONCLUSION:? These are just some thought off the top of my head to start the conversation rolling
I think it is a fantastic idea.  We need to start thinking about ourselves as? a community with a lot more to bind us together than divides us.
?
MARTA AFTERTHOUGHT 1:? I would like to nominate whoever came up with this idea as
one of the initial inductees in the Cryonics Hall of Fame

DAVID:? You are making me blush.

MARTA AFTERTHOUGHT2:? BTW, exactly where is the building situated?  Arizona is a big state.
?
DAVID:? The Society for Venturism museum and library are located at the Creekside Preserve Lodge in Mayer Arizona, about an hour's drive north of?north Phoenix on the way to Prescott Arizona.? We may have an invitation to move to a bigger building in a more popular cryonics site in the future.? I can not discuss that at present.
People can see pictures of the Creekside Lodge at www.creeksidepreserve.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120507/8e1e8f3e/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Mon May  7 20:34:17 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 13:34:17 -0700
Subject: [ExI] nobel prize and other premature notions
Message-ID: <011201cd2c90$c6e595a0$54b0c0e0$@att.net>

 

I had an idea I have been playing withwardly.  Alfred Nobel invented
dynamite and thought that he had ended warfare, since the new explosive made
the whole notion of armed conflict just too dangerous to be any fun.  He was
tragically wrong of course: warfare just became more dangerous, as
demonstrated in two major European conflicts.  But in a way he was right:
eventually we went thru another round of invention of still bigger
explosives when we built nukes, and in that way, warfare really is too
dangerous now for nuke-enable societies to play.  So Al Nobel was premature,
but not exactly wrong.

 

Today we look at Mr. and Mrs. Ehrlich's notion of the population bomb and
their predictions, and oh, were they silly, so wrong, etc.  But in
retrospect, it isn't entirely clear to me they were wrong exactly, but
rather just too pessimistic on the timeframe of their predictions.  Perhaps
they really had the right idea to some extent, just didn't really model it
correctly.  Perhaps in the very long run, Malthusian population dynamics
really do apply to this overcrowded planet, but the model is far more
complex than a jar of fruit flies.

 

What other examples can we think of where the initially presented model is
too simple but perhaps contains some truth?

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120507/c27ea1c4/attachment.html>

From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Mon May  7 20:28:45 2012
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 13:28:45 -0700
Subject: [ExI]  battle tanks to a five yr old
In-Reply-To: <CAPiwVB493PpUz9_KuWnEzBmARGsgRWbh+6fT0u=dt9tx5dDNGg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB493PpUz9_KuWnEzBmARGsgRWbh+6fT0u=dt9tx5dDNGg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPiwVB4HQg=fmtgWNXkFNv9-qS+4tTXH=kA4QC15u0M-qtRSCw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 5:00 AM, ?"spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
> The times, they are a-changin.
>
> My five year old son saw a video with a battle tank, but he didn't know what it was called. ?He vaguely understands what it is, but just didn't know the name. ?I had never explained it to him. ?He was trying to describe it, and finally called it a "war-car."
>
> War cars are definitely fading out of importance in his generation. ?When I was his age, we knew a lot about warfare I think. ?I notice none of the neighborhood kids play battle of any sort now, no cowboys and Indians, no 'Muricans vs Commies, nothing of the kind.

When they get a little older they play WoW.

> It just occurred to me today their world is a lot freer of conflict than I recall of my own misspent childhood. ?Dare we hope that armed conflict will gradually fade away? ?Or will restrict itself to that part of the world which revels in that sort of thing?

Evolutionary psychology makes the case that war is an outcome of
resource crisis or looming resource crisis.

Re tanks, they and virtually ever other piece of war equipment stands
on the brink of becoming obsolete. ?Physics and economics seems to
make propulsion lasers extremely attractive for solving major
problems, particularly energy. ?But they are also weapons that negate
most current weapons, even infantry. ?A tank, even with a totally
reflective roof, will not survive an encounter with a multi GW laser.
If nothing else, it will sink in the lava pool around the tank.

Keith



From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Mon May  7 21:13:16 2012
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 23:13:16 +0200
Subject: [ExI] battle tanks to a five yr old
In-Reply-To: <007301cd2c5d$96651500$c32f3f00$@att.net>
References: <016e01cd2be3$93fe4ea0$bbfaebe0$@att.net>
 <CAPoR7a6cCXJCTVzP0yVeJ4ExcxZNV=CNWE_WOZx4dLReMaz_0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <007301cd2c5d$96651500$c32f3f00$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAPoR7a5nGoFybTtcW3zYYGX8jpWH1C7aeKfvShP2JBgeLb7tLg@mail.gmail.com>

On 7 May 2012 16:27, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> Depends on how you define the term ?started.?  Of all those I think you
> are talking about, the wars had already started a long time before the US
> showed up.
>

"Starting" defined as "entering foreign territory with regular troops
before the enemy enters yours". But my point here was not about possible
responsibilities for wars, I was merely referring to the fact of being
willingly engaged in one or more thereof, but at the same time repressing
the very idea in everyday life of your metropolitan citizens.

There are for sure much more Italians around the world firing real guns
than in my youth when children were more likely to fire toy ones.
Conversely, videogames without varying degrees of actual, bloodletting
military violence are not so easy to find.

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120507/9ba82a1c/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Mon May  7 16:27:26 2012
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 18:27:26 +0200
Subject: [ExI] [CCM-L] take the cryonics intelligence test
Message-ID: <20120507162726.GQ17120@leitl.org>


http://chronopause.com/index.php/2012/05/06/take-the-cryonics-intelligence-test/

Take the Cryonics Intelligence Test
Posted on May 6, 2012 by chronopause	

When you give the answer to a question over and over again and it is not understood, perhaps not even perceived, and the question gets asked repeatedly, you know you?ve got a communication problem. I suppose the classic example is a friend, a family member or colleague who keep asking the same question repeatedly, but either can?t hear, or don?t want to hear the answer.

It?s a frustrating situation, because it raises another question that often has no answer; ?How do I parse my answer or give the information in a way that will be understood?? The clich? answer to that question, and one my mother frequently gave is, ?That?s something they?re just going to have to figure out for themselves; you can lead a horse to water, but you can?t make him drink.?

Over the past six months or so, I?ve been doing an experiment. I confess that I?m surprised that the first part of that experiment has worked as well as it has. What the experiment consisted of was asking a cross section of people in cryonics to whom I have personal access (correspondents, queries for information, old cryonics friends?) to take something I call ?The Cryonics Intelligence Test.? My expectation was that few, if any, would participate. I was thus gratified when 10 people out of 12 agreed to take the test. Of those, 9 completed it. The results were fascinating ? at least to me ? and they convinced me that, as a prelude to discharging another obligation I have relating to Chronosphere, that I should offer the test to all and sundry who are willing to take it.

You needn?t be concerned about  your ?performance?; this is an instance where anonymity on Chronosphere is permitted. If you like, you can submit your answers using a pseudononymous name and email address. If someone out there knows how to format the test to Survey Monkey, or some similar anonymous data gathering engine, please contact me and I?ll work with you to set it up (contact me at mgdarwin at aol.com).

The test itself consists to of two parts: a simple introductory letter with the two test questions and a file of resource materials which must be evaluated in order to answer the two questions. The answers will necessarily be essay style and expositive.

You can submit your answers to either the Comments section of this post (here on Chronosphere), or to me directly at mgdarwin at aol.com. Obviously, if you submit to the Comments section, your answers will be published. If you submit to me, they will be held in confidence, unless permission is granted from you, in writing, to post them. Privately submitted answers, and the fact that the individual participated in the Test will not be circulated, either privately or publicly, without the prior written consent of the participant, although statistical data obtained as a result will be used at my discretion.

I will be commenting on the issues raised by the answers to the test extensively in the near future.

The test is below, and should you choose to take it, I offer both my thanks and good luck.
  Cryonics Intelligence Test

Dear ______,

If you can figure out the scientific take home message for cryonics in what is to follow, you will have demonstrated extraordinary insight into ?thinking in a cryonics-medical context.?

You will also have the tool to be able to understand why I believe that cryonics must, on a purely scientific-medical basis, be pursued in a fundamentally different way, both biomedically and socially.

The Test: The test resource materials are available for download at http://www.yousendit.com/download/M3BsQndOR0ZsMHhjR05Vag , you will find a number of full text peer reviewed scientific papers. In addition, you will be sent several cryopatient case Hxs. Together, these resources contain data which should give a reasonably intelligent person with a properly prepared mind a fundamentally new insight into a major, indeed overwhelming flaw in how cryonics has been, and currently is practiced.

Your task is to:

a) identify the problem(s)

b) identify one or more possible solutions

You have 5 days to complete this task. Your response should be in the form of a succinct statement of the problem, and an itemization, and if you like, a discussion of possible solutions.

Thanks for your patience and cooperation.

Mike Darwin
_______________________________________________
CCM-L mailing list
CCM-L at list.pitt.edu
https://list.pitt.edu/mailman/listinfo/ccm-l



From atymes at gmail.com  Mon May  7 23:14:14 2012
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 16:14:14 -0700
Subject: [ExI] [CCM-L] take the cryonics intelligence test
In-Reply-To: <20120507162726.GQ17120@leitl.org>
References: <20120507162726.GQ17120@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNRxUZRO2eKS5xgfNB=jWGQiMEQzUrNPsNfdp2riZ8HNEw@mail.gmail.com>

1) Epic BS.  An unorganized pile of data does not a
problem statement make.  Calling this an "intelligence
test" just goads people not to respond if they don't see
the requested pattern (those who do were likely already
familiar with it, invalidating their reply as "discovered the
problem from reading this data").

2) mgdarwin at aol.com bounces.  aol.com appears to say
that address is invalid:
550 550 5.1.1 <mgdarwin at aol.com>: Recipient address rejected: aol.com
(state 13).

-Adrian

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
>
> http://chronopause.com/index.php/2012/05/06/take-the-cryonics-intelligence-test/
>
> Take the Cryonics Intelligence Test
> Posted on May 6, 2012 by chronopause
>
> When you give the answer to a question over and over again and it is not understood, perhaps not even perceived, and the question gets asked repeatedly, you know you?ve got a communication problem. I suppose the classic example is a friend, a family member or colleague who keep asking the same question repeatedly, but either can?t hear, or don?t want to hear the answer.
>
> It?s a frustrating situation, because it raises another question that often has no answer; ?How do I parse my answer or give the information in a way that will be understood?? The clich? answer to that question, and one my mother frequently gave is, ?That?s something they?re just going to have to figure out for themselves; you can lead a horse to water, but you can?t make him drink.?
>
> Over the past six months or so, I?ve been doing an experiment. I confess that I?m surprised that the first part of that experiment has worked as well as it has. What the experiment consisted of was asking a cross section of people in cryonics to whom I have personal access (correspondents, queries for information, old cryonics friends?) to take something I call ?The Cryonics Intelligence Test.? My expectation was that few, if any, would participate. I was thus gratified when 10 people out of 12 agreed to take the test. Of those, 9 completed it. The results were fascinating ? at least to me ? and they convinced me that, as a prelude to discharging another obligation I have relating to Chronosphere, that I should offer the test to all and sundry who are willing to take it.
>
> You needn?t be concerned about ?your ?performance?; this is an instance where anonymity on Chronosphere is permitted. If you like, you can submit your answers using a pseudononymous name and email address. If someone out there knows how to format the test to Survey Monkey, or some similar anonymous data gathering engine, please contact me and I?ll work with you to set it up (contact me at mgdarwin at aol.com).
>
> The test itself consists to of two parts: a simple introductory letter with the two test questions and a file of resource materials which must be evaluated in order to answer the two questions. The answers will necessarily be essay style and expositive.
>
> You can submit your answers to either the Comments section of this post (here on Chronosphere), or to me directly at mgdarwin at aol.com. Obviously, if you submit to the Comments section, your answers will be published. If you submit to me, they will be held in confidence, unless permission is granted from you, in writing, to post them. Privately submitted answers, and the fact that the individual participated in the Test will not be circulated, either privately or publicly, without the prior written consent of the participant, although statistical data obtained as a result will be used at my discretion.
>
> I will be commenting on the issues raised by the answers to the test extensively in the near future.
>
> The test is below, and should you choose to take it, I offer both my thanks and good luck.
> ?Cryonics Intelligence Test
>
> Dear ______,
>
> If you can figure out the scientific take home message for cryonics in what is to follow, you will have demonstrated extraordinary insight into ?thinking in a cryonics-medical context.?
>
> You will also have the tool to be able to understand why I believe that cryonics must, on a purely scientific-medical basis, be pursued in a fundamentally different way, both biomedically and socially.
>
> The Test: The test resource materials are available for download at http://www.yousendit.com/download/M3BsQndOR0ZsMHhjR05Vag , you will find a number of full text peer reviewed scientific papers. In addition, you will be sent several cryopatient case Hxs. Together, these resources contain data which should give a reasonably intelligent person with a properly prepared mind a fundamentally new insight into a major, indeed overwhelming flaw in how cryonics has been, and currently is practiced.
>
> Your task is to:
>
> a) identify the problem(s)
>
> b) identify one or more possible solutions
>
> You have 5 days to complete this task. Your response should be in the form of a succinct statement of the problem, and an itemization, and if you like, a discussion of possible solutions.
>
> Thanks for your patience and cooperation.
>
> Mike Darwin
> _______________________________________________
> CCM-L mailing list
> CCM-L at list.pitt.edu
> https://list.pitt.edu/mailman/listinfo/ccm-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From pjmanney at gmail.com  Tue May  8 03:11:58 2012
From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney)
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 20:11:58 -0700
Subject: [ExI] battle tanks to a five yr old
In-Reply-To: <006e01cd2c5a$82ee3360$88ca9a20$@att.net>
References: <016e01cd2be3$93fe4ea0$bbfaebe0$@att.net>
 <CAL_armgLRyVymqAuzejZaHM3=H7y65coJ4Au=n2TH7hFuwjmCw@mail.gmail.com>
 <006e01cd2c5a$82ee3360$88ca9a20$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJrtBE0YWpw+v4bdYU1U4ipgXdnP2NFG539Yg0NDqoC2EYEALg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:05 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> Examples: in 1990, shortly after I moved to the Silicon Valley, I bumbled
> into a south San Jose neighborhood. ?It was extremely scary down there.
<snip>
>?I
> was down there just last week, and it looked better than the neighborhood I
> grew up in. ?Saw very little that would make me worry. ?There were senoritas
> pushing baby carriages, gentle civilized people everywhere, nothing
> particularly trashy anywhere.
>
> I suppose we are seeing the cumulative effects of the three strikes law,
> which passed in California in 1994. ?Alternate views?

Real estate values and gentrification.  I could say the same about the
Upper West Side of Manhattan between 1975 and 1985.  It went from
heroin junkies preying on pedestrians from needle-strewn doorways to
baby strollers and Benettons almost overnight.  Now it's Brooks
Brothers and Bang & Olfson.

The heroin junkies either died of AIDS or were moved by the police to
less high-priced real estate.  Like Queens.  Where did San Jose's go?

PJ



From pjmanney at gmail.com  Tue May  8 02:57:40 2012
From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney)
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 19:57:40 -0700
Subject: [ExI] battle tanks to a five yr old
In-Reply-To: <CAPoR7a6cCXJCTVzP0yVeJ4ExcxZNV=CNWE_WOZx4dLReMaz_0g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <016e01cd2be3$93fe4ea0$bbfaebe0$@att.net>
 <CAPoR7a6cCXJCTVzP0yVeJ4ExcxZNV=CNWE_WOZx4dLReMaz_0g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJrtBE0sv4P9nqXn4XySRE3CkM4QdaSO+sKCuJTrCMK3sR1rUg@mail.gmail.com>

> On 7 May 2012 01:54, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>> ?When I was his age, we knew a lot about warfare I think. ?I notice none
>> of the neighborhood kids play battle of any sort now, no cowboys and
>> Indians, no 'Muricans vs Commies, nothing of the kind. ?It just occurred to
>> me today their world is a lot freer of conflict than I recall of my own
>> misspent childhood. ?Dare we hope that armed conflict will gradually fade
>> away?

The mythology has changed.  Cowboys and Indians are no longer a part
of the lingua franca of childhood, because there are nowhere to be
seen in the culture.  In 1959, there were 26 Westerns on prime-time US
television on only THREE networks!  Do the math.  That's a lot of
Injuns runnin' round the chuckwagons.  So of course the kids aped the
zeitgeist.  Same with 'Muricans and Commies: television, movies, books
all focused on the Cold War, as conflict, arena, metaphor.  Our
nightly news was nothing but that struggle.  Remember Vietnam in your
living room every night?

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe that the US started what? Eight or ten wars after the end of the
> Cold War and once the "end of conflicts" had been announced?
>
> So, I am inclined to believe that the lack of toy weapons, battle games,
> etc. amongst contemporary children, are largely dependent on a cultural
> climate which are theoretically very hostile to all that and is in denial
> with regard to the practical realities out there.

The antiwar movements made the politicians realize that all that
freedom of the press was a buzzkill for a war economy.  So no more war
on TV, unless it's a carefully staged photo-op, pulling down Saddam's
statue or posturing in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner.
Certainly no bodybags or funerals...

> OTOH, it seems that the same thing is overcompensated if anything by the
> very dominant "war" and "warrior" themes in videogames, from Ninja Gaiden to
> Call of Duty, where commercial profits easily trump political correctness,
> and the use of virtual avatars perhaps prepare the average western citizens
> to their later use of actual mercenaries and drones for the umpleasant
> parts, such as little comfort and personal risk, in armed conflicts.

You are correct, Stefano.  These types of videogames are capable of
decreasing empathy and can even be used as a desensitization device,
as is the online recruitment engine-game America?s Army, created by
the US Military, or actual training video games, designed to hone real
soldier?s reflexes and survival skills and even help recruiters assign
recruits by their strengths on the game.  Simulators and war rooms are
frighteningly close to the games they played as children.  Ender's
Game is not science fiction.

PJ



From ginakathleenmiller at gmail.com  Tue May  8 02:59:53 2012
From: ginakathleenmiller at gmail.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 20:59:53 -0600
Subject: [ExI] NanotubeTV announcement
Message-ID: <CAMd8APwp0GBRNZKHcyMTeMsZneBCv+6z2zXYHcNzTwFvJL-pLg@mail.gmail.com>

Nanotechnology Industries is proud to present the first episode of the
NanotubeTV series. NanotubeTV is a monthly series about
nanotechnology. Nanotechnology is an emerging technology that is on the
nanoscale which is at the atomic level. While in it's current state it is
used to enhance products, for example shoes that repel water - in it's
future state it has the potential to create cures for all diseases, clean
up nuclear pollution, repair the ozone layer and provide food for all.
NanotubeTV will cover the history of nanotechnology, current news and the
future applications. Nanotechnology Industries was formed in 1998 by long
term nanotechnology advocate Gina Miller, famously nicknamed Nanogirl. With
an interest in both art and science Gina Miller has had her nanotechnology
animations shown on the History Channel, documentaries and television
shows. Gina Miller had the vision for NanotubeTV years ago and this year
the vision came to fruition when she began filming in her newly created
production studio. She asked Dr. James B. Lewis to be the host of the show
as he has 25 years experience as a molecular biologist and has been
involved in the nano community since it's onset. NanotubeTV will be
available free online. Watch the  first episode of NanotubeTV (any many
more to come)    at www.nanoindustries.com.

Fellow Extropians, I can't make these without you, so I thank you ahead of
time for your support! Gina
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120507/87ef559b/attachment.html>

From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Tue May  8 04:38:52 2012
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 21:38:52 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Wash post comment
Message-ID: <CAPiwVB7V78ZkdgcRPQ8NksN938Wz-zN3FVN09FFYO11jeROyuA@mail.gmail.com>

It's a shame the climate debate became so polarized.  No matter if
carbon contributes to some kind of climate change or not, energy *is*
getting more expensive.  Anyone who fills up at the pump should be
able to agree that we really need to bring energy cost down.

That really can't be done with fossil fuels.  What's left is under
deep water or otherwise expensive to get out.

Of all the possible sources of energy, solar is the best, but it's
awful dilute, intermittent and costs a lot to collect it.

That's not the case out in space.  The sun shines almost all the time
on geosynchronous orbit.  We could put very light power satellites out
there where they could collect a hundred times as much energy as the
same mass on Earth.  The problem is that even with lightweight
collectors it's too expensive to haul millions of tons to orbit.

There are two ways around this problem, get the materials from space,
or cut the cost of lifting parts from Earth.  In the end, we will use
parts made out of asteroids, but for the present, reducing the cost to
orbit looks like the shorter-term approach.

There does seem to be a way to do it, beamed energy propulsion.  That
uses lasers from high orbit heating hydrogen in teakettle rockets.
Because of the excellent performance of hot hydrogen as a reaction
mass, rockets using it can get 25% of their starting mass into orbit.
That's at least 5 times more than conventional rockets.

The result is electric power for half the cost of power from coal and
carbon neutral synthetic fuels for a dollar a gallon.  Google dollar a
gallon gasoline if you want the math details

The problem is getting the first propulsion lasers into space.  Even
though it will be very expensive and may require hundreds of
conventional rocket launches, the payback is so high that the entire
cost can be paid back from profits in three years.

My background is engineering, I can work out how it might be done and
how much it would cost, but raising the tens of billions needed for
the first propulsion laser is beyond me.


From protokol2020 at gmail.com  Tue May  8 10:13:36 2012
From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 12:13:36 +0200
Subject: [ExI] battle tanks to a five yr old
In-Reply-To: <CAJrtBE0sv4P9nqXn4XySRE3CkM4QdaSO+sKCuJTrCMK3sR1rUg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <016e01cd2be3$93fe4ea0$bbfaebe0$@att.net>
 <CAPoR7a6cCXJCTVzP0yVeJ4ExcxZNV=CNWE_WOZx4dLReMaz_0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJrtBE0sv4P9nqXn4XySRE3CkM4QdaSO+sKCuJTrCMK3sR1rUg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALMrAFROYx25j2z_rB7Ct4LQUm1+ix=9-9OWdCo_r-d1rCE8Sw@mail.gmail.com>

The war is not always the worst thing. Sometimes, somewhere, the coming war
is the only hope. For somebody in Nazi camp in 1938, the war was the only
hope. Just like for the million of starving in North Korea, the war is the
only hope to not die of hunger. Hundreds of examples.

Yes, eventually we could abolish wars all together, but not just yet. It is
NOT yet the prime evil.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120508/2a067b0a/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Tue May  8 10:50:25 2012
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 13:50:25 +0300
Subject: [ExI] nobel prize and other premature notions
In-Reply-To: <011201cd2c90$c6e595a0$54b0c0e0$@att.net>
References: <011201cd2c90$c6e595a0$54b0c0e0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <4FA8FA71.5090505@aleph.se>

On 07/05/2012 23:34, spike wrote:
>
> Today we look at Mr. and Mrs. Ehrlich's notion of the population bomb 
> and their predictions, and oh, were they silly, so wrong, etc.  But in 
> retrospect, it isn't entirely clear to me they were wrong exactly, but 
> rather just too pessimistic on the timeframe of their predictions.  
> Perhaps they really had the right idea to some extent, just didn't 
> really model it correctly.  Perhaps in the very long run, Malthusian 
> population dynamics really do apply to this overcrowded planet, but 
> the model is far more complex than a jar of fruit flies.
>

Robin Hansons model of the upload population explosion (and the 
"dreamtime" we are currently living in) have a similar Malthusian 
dynamics, it is just that we are living before it really kicks in 
(possibly for anthropic reasons, if you buy the simulation argument). 
That it might involve rapid outward expansion doesn't change its 
resource-constrained nature (potential exponential population growth, 
polynomial resource growth).


> What other examples can we think of where the initially presented 
> model is too simple but perhaps contains some truth?
>

In many ways most scientific theories are like that. Darwin's original 
theory just got the macro stuff right, but he was completely wrong about 
genetic transmission (mostly because he did not know it was done by 
discrete units) - but once that is corrected his model works fine.


-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120508/dfbd4a23/attachment.html>

From msd001 at gmail.com  Tue May  8 12:07:46 2012
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 08:07:46 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Wash post comment
In-Reply-To: <CAPiwVB7V78ZkdgcRPQ8NksN938Wz-zN3FVN09FFYO11jeROyuA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7V78ZkdgcRPQ8NksN938Wz-zN3FVN09FFYO11jeROyuA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOJFdbKrSCGVF8EsE675cjcG7wEy4PMjpn-JXy-QsYbwEP+ZWw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> wrote:
> My background is engineering, I can work out how it might be done and
> how much it would cost, but raising the tens of billions needed for
> the first propulsion laser is beyond me.

Yeah, that's a lot of cupcakes at a bake sale.


From pharos at gmail.com  Tue May  8 12:29:20 2012
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 13:29:20 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Wash post comment
In-Reply-To: <CAOJFdbKrSCGVF8EsE675cjcG7wEy4PMjpn-JXy-QsYbwEP+ZWw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7V78ZkdgcRPQ8NksN938Wz-zN3FVN09FFYO11jeROyuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbKrSCGVF8EsE675cjcG7wEy4PMjpn-JXy-QsYbwEP+ZWw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAL_armitz0EJYEGX16+oYiCAThp_9-5WBkJpk52TFU3z32tXwg@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote:
> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Keith Henson wrote:
>> My background is engineering, I can work out how it might be done and
>> how much it would cost, but raising the tens of billions needed for
>> the first propulsion laser is beyond me.
>
> Yeah, that's a lot of cupcakes at a bake sale.
>

The main problem I see is that it is a sink hole for money for many
years with no return until successful completion.

Even governments would be reluctant to fund that. It is quite likely
they would be voted out of power and the project cancelled by
political opponents claiming they were throwing money away. Also, in
todays climate of corporate fraud, it would be hard to get people to
believe that the project will eventually pay off and that it isn't
just another scheme for directors to scam millions, then surprisingly
go bankrupt.

You need a smaller project first with some payback which would prove
feasibility and help fund the full scale project.

As with all projects there may be unexpected consequences. Pollution
from hundreds of launches, disasters from misfiring rockets, more
space debris in orbit, (which might damage construction work), other
projects cancelled in order to fund this project, etc. These are just
a few possibilities after a few minutes thought.


BillK


From eugen at leitl.org  Tue May  8 12:34:07 2012
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 14:34:07 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Wash post comment
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armitz0EJYEGX16+oYiCAThp_9-5WBkJpk52TFU3z32tXwg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7V78ZkdgcRPQ8NksN938Wz-zN3FVN09FFYO11jeROyuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbKrSCGVF8EsE675cjcG7wEy4PMjpn-JXy-QsYbwEP+ZWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armitz0EJYEGX16+oYiCAThp_9-5WBkJpk52TFU3z32tXwg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120508123407.GU17120@leitl.org>

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 01:29:20PM +0100, BillK wrote:

> The main problem I see is that it is a sink hole for money for many
> years with no return until successful completion.

I see no possibility at all for public funding. We're
already firefighting on too many fronts. Keith's best
chance would be a pitch with people like Thiel, Bezos et al.

If you have 10 gigabucks, I would spend it on renewable
energy and resource base.


From eugen at leitl.org  Tue May  8 13:03:30 2012
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 15:03:30 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Wash post comment
In-Reply-To: <CAPiwVB7V78ZkdgcRPQ8NksN938Wz-zN3FVN09FFYO11jeROyuA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7V78ZkdgcRPQ8NksN938Wz-zN3FVN09FFYO11jeROyuA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120508130330.GW17120@leitl.org>

On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 09:38:52PM -0700, Keith Henson wrote:
> It's a shame the climate debate became so polarized.  No matter if
> carbon contributes to some kind of climate change or not, energy *is*
> getting more expensive.  Anyone who fills up at the pump should be
> able to agree that we really need to bring energy cost down.
> 
> That really can't be done with fossil fuels.  What's left is under
> deep water or otherwise expensive to get out.
> 
> Of all the possible sources of energy, solar is the best, but it's
> awful dilute, intermittent and costs a lot to collect it.

This is incorrect. Flux upon outer skin of structures allows 
self-powering structures with today's technology. EROEI of
thin-film is at 40:1 already, with the potential of reaching
100:1 in a couple decades.

What we need now is to spend cash on panel surface and infrastructure.
There is no way around that other than spend a >TUSD/annually on it,
world-wide. The longer you wait, the more you have to spend.

If you wait long enough, there's no resouces in the world to prevent
world energy hunger. Literally so.

There's nothing to discuss. Just execute. Or, die.


From eugen at leitl.org  Tue May  8 13:37:44 2012
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 15:37:44 +0200
Subject: [ExI] battle tanks to a five yr old
In-Reply-To: <CAJrtBE0sv4P9nqXn4XySRE3CkM4QdaSO+sKCuJTrCMK3sR1rUg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <016e01cd2be3$93fe4ea0$bbfaebe0$@att.net>
 <CAPoR7a6cCXJCTVzP0yVeJ4ExcxZNV=CNWE_WOZx4dLReMaz_0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJrtBE0sv4P9nqXn4XySRE3CkM4QdaSO+sKCuJTrCMK3sR1rUg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120508133744.GY17120@leitl.org>

On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 07:57:40PM -0700, PJ Manney wrote:

> You are correct, Stefano.  These types of videogames are capable of
> decreasing empathy and can even be used as a desensitization device,
> as is the online recruitment engine-game America?s Army, created by
> the US Military, or actual training video games, designed to hone real
> soldier?s reflexes and survival skills and even help recruiters assign

Relevant, as always: http://www.amazon.com/On-Killing-Psychological-Learning-Society/dp/0316040932/

> recruits by their strengths on the game.  Simulators and war rooms are
> frighteningly close to the games they played as children.  Ender's
> Game is not science fiction.

On Zero State, we're currently looking into distributed reputation tracking
(apart from raw mana and controversiality (ratio upvote/downvote) also
the full inspectable track for each nym, cum social network overlay 
to be able to ping FOAFs for more info).

Relevant reading http://www.amazon.com/Daemon-Daniel-Suarez/dp/B003L1ZXCU/
and http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-TM-Daniel-Suarez/dp/B003MAJNUS/

Unlike above works this is for wearable (Android) especially AR
(Google Glasses and related) platforms to encourage co-operation and
quell defection. Mobile devices would discover via BlueTooth and/or
WLAN, and transactions initiated either by NFC or just bumping devices
(accelerometer synchronicity). Modem-like audio also an option.

Anyone with P2P (especially BitCoin and especially BitCoin blockchain
clue) and Android dev prowess feel free to contribute.

tl;dr wearable and augmentative game-like environments can make the world better. let's.


From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Tue May  8 13:39:45 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 07:39:45 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Wash post comment
In-Reply-To: <20120508123407.GU17120@leitl.org>
References: <CAPiwVB7V78ZkdgcRPQ8NksN938Wz-zN3FVN09FFYO11jeROyuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbKrSCGVF8EsE675cjcG7wEy4PMjpn-JXy-QsYbwEP+ZWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armitz0EJYEGX16+oYiCAThp_9-5WBkJpk52TFU3z32tXwg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120508123407.GU17120@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwbfwF++3qfsbrMvBkj2x8SXGnHTbqEvGwWcJrYnUAR7bw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 6:34 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 01:29:20PM +0100, BillK wrote:
>
>> The main problem I see is that it is a sink hole for money for many
>> years with no return until successful completion.
>
> I see no possibility at all for public funding. We're
> already firefighting on too many fronts. Keith's best
> chance would be a pitch with people like Thiel, Bezos et al.

Maybe Gates... if you can make a great pitch.

> If you have 10 gigabucks, I would spend it on renewable
> energy and resource base.

The thing that I can't get past is that if it is easy enough to do in
space, it's even easier to do on the ground. Apparently Kleiner
Perkins (VCs) agrees with me. They are funding Primus Power and Aquion
Energy, both of whom are designing and building extremely large
battery systems. These battery systems (and a few more years of cost
cutting) are the primary thing standing between earth based solar and
profitability. Aquion Energy's battery uses sodium and water, no rare
earth materials, which is particularly exciting. According to Bill
Joy, they should be able to store and retrieve a kilowatt-hour for
about 1 cent when they are done.

http://www.aquionenergy.com/
http://www.primuspower.com/

Coal plants may be maintained as emergency backup, but not run on a
normal basis.

With massive electricity storage soon becoming a solved problem, I see
absolutely no reason to go to space to get solar energy. The
technical, political and economic challenges of space seem far larger
to me than the technical, political, ecological and economic
challenges of earth based solar with building sized batteries. Just my
opinion, mind you, but having lived off the grid for a few years
myself, there are difficulties inherent in living 20 miles from the
nearest Walmart. Multiply for outer space.

I appreciate that you are passionate about this Keith, but have you
run the numbers for ground based solar lately? I think it has gotten
way more competitive, especially with some of the new technologies
that are just around the corner. You can't say you don't have to
develop new technologies to do space too... perhaps even more
challenging.

-Kelly


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue May  8 14:16:10 2012
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 16:16:10 +0200
Subject: [ExI] battle tanks to a five yr old
In-Reply-To: <CAPiwVB4HQg=fmtgWNXkFNv9-qS+4tTXH=kA4QC15u0M-qtRSCw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB493PpUz9_KuWnEzBmARGsgRWbh+6fT0u=dt9tx5dDNGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPiwVB4HQg=fmtgWNXkFNv9-qS+4tTXH=kA4QC15u0M-qtRSCw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPoR7a5w521sMqf7b-sU7JALU8hAUNfkHOCBnM1cmWaRbOpHOg@mail.gmail.com>

On 7 May 2012 22:28, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> wrote:

> Physics and economics seems to
> make propulsion lasers extremely attractive for solving major
> problems, particularly energy.  But they are also weapons that negate
> most current weapons, even infantry.  A tank, even with a totally
> reflective roof, will not survive an encounter with a multi GW laser.
> If nothing else, it will sink in the lava pool around the tank.
>

So, realistic wargames might at the end of the day become once again close
to "battleships".

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120508/a52b1293/attachment.html>

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue May  8 15:32:47 2012
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 17:32:47 +0200
Subject: [ExI] battle tanks to a five yr old
In-Reply-To: <CALMrAFROYx25j2z_rB7Ct4LQUm1+ix=9-9OWdCo_r-d1rCE8Sw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <016e01cd2be3$93fe4ea0$bbfaebe0$@att.net>
 <CAPoR7a6cCXJCTVzP0yVeJ4ExcxZNV=CNWE_WOZx4dLReMaz_0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJrtBE0sv4P9nqXn4XySRE3CkM4QdaSO+sKCuJTrCMK3sR1rUg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALMrAFROYx25j2z_rB7Ct4LQUm1+ix=9-9OWdCo_r-d1rCE8Sw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPoR7a7sXK-j_EMkVkH8r7jgObozaw6X+CPARxvXDpL=wcjY4g@mail.gmail.com>

On 8 May 2012 12:13, Tomaz Kristan <protokol2020 at gmail.com> wrote:

> The war is not always the worst thing.
>

Sure. And the horse is sometimes a useful animal. What else is new?

But the issue here is why children at least in the West tend to play less
with toy weapons and battle game (and perhaps run nothing else than
wargames on their consoles).

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120508/93b86e42/attachment.html>

From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Tue May  8 15:53:00 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 09:53:00 -0600
Subject: [ExI] battle tanks to a five yr old
In-Reply-To: <CAPoR7a7sXK-j_EMkVkH8r7jgObozaw6X+CPARxvXDpL=wcjY4g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <016e01cd2be3$93fe4ea0$bbfaebe0$@att.net>
 <CAPoR7a6cCXJCTVzP0yVeJ4ExcxZNV=CNWE_WOZx4dLReMaz_0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJrtBE0sv4P9nqXn4XySRE3CkM4QdaSO+sKCuJTrCMK3sR1rUg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALMrAFROYx25j2z_rB7Ct4LQUm1+ix=9-9OWdCo_r-d1rCE8Sw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a7sXK-j_EMkVkH8r7jgObozaw6X+CPARxvXDpL=wcjY4g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwY9pDa3d4+gf29cBqGRLu9VyckRM0qR_jg1VuKRf5FfKQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> But the issue here is why children at least in the West tend to play less
> with toy weapons and battle game (and perhaps run nothing else than wargames
> on their consoles).

Nation on nation war is clearly going out of style. It's bad for
business. The cost of WWI and WWII are so widely known, that public
support for such conflict is very hard to come by. Asymmetric warfare,
on the other hand, is alive and well. In fact, it is probably going to
grow. The thing that really confuses me is that while there seems to
be a lot of 60s-like behavior today, there haven't been all that many
assassinations (or even attempts) in recent years. Assassination is
the ultimate in asymmetric warfare. You can't tell me there weren't
people in the world that wanted to see president Bush eat dirt. Same
for the current, or any imaginable, administration.

With weapons like the new long range Barrett rifles, why wouldn't
every nut job on the planet be gunning for someone they didn't like?

So my question is, why in this age of suicide killings (think both the
terrorists and the high school shooters) aren't there crazy people
gunning for the big boys?

I want it to be totally clear that I am not advocating for
assassination of anyone at any time. I'm just asking the question, in
the same sense as the Fermi paradox... the trends would seem to
indicate that it would be an increasing trend, while the ground truth
seems to be that it is a decreasing trend. Why do you suppose that is
the case?

-Kelly


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue May  8 16:12:23 2012
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 18:12:23 +0200
Subject: [ExI] battle tanks to a five yr old
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwY9pDa3d4+gf29cBqGRLu9VyckRM0qR_jg1VuKRf5FfKQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <016e01cd2be3$93fe4ea0$bbfaebe0$@att.net>
 <CAPoR7a6cCXJCTVzP0yVeJ4ExcxZNV=CNWE_WOZx4dLReMaz_0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJrtBE0sv4P9nqXn4XySRE3CkM4QdaSO+sKCuJTrCMK3sR1rUg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALMrAFROYx25j2z_rB7Ct4LQUm1+ix=9-9OWdCo_r-d1rCE8Sw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a7sXK-j_EMkVkH8r7jgObozaw6X+CPARxvXDpL=wcjY4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwY9pDa3d4+gf29cBqGRLu9VyckRM0qR_jg1VuKRf5FfKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPoR7a5eaCB7pjtymgSPEz4diXwWGEo9cWwN=CMgVk+o5XJwFw@mail.gmail.com>

On 8 May 2012 17:53, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:

> Nation on nation war is clearly going out of style. It's bad for
> business. The cost of WWI and WWII are so widely known, that public
> support for such conflict is very hard to come by. Asymmetric warfare, on
> the other hand, is alive and well. In fact, it is probably going to grow.


Yes. Now that I think of it, I did assist to some battle game amongst
11-years old, and it was "terrorists vs security". :-)

Not that being on one team or another was source of much concern for the
participants. :-)


> Assassination is the ultimate in asymmetric warfare.
>

This may well be the case, but I have the impression myself that it is not
so fashionable these days. A sucide attack, even though it may appear a
horrible waste in comparison with a sniper, Jackal-like shooting, may have
a higher propaganda and motivational value and attract less antipathy for
the attacker, who, after all, literally puts his or her life in line for
the cause.

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120508/bcade816/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Tue May  8 16:22:41 2012
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 18:22:41 +0200
Subject: [ExI] battle tanks to a five yr old
In-Reply-To: <CAPoR7a5eaCB7pjtymgSPEz4diXwWGEo9cWwN=CMgVk+o5XJwFw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <016e01cd2be3$93fe4ea0$bbfaebe0$@att.net>
 <CAPoR7a6cCXJCTVzP0yVeJ4ExcxZNV=CNWE_WOZx4dLReMaz_0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJrtBE0sv4P9nqXn4XySRE3CkM4QdaSO+sKCuJTrCMK3sR1rUg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALMrAFROYx25j2z_rB7Ct4LQUm1+ix=9-9OWdCo_r-d1rCE8Sw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a7sXK-j_EMkVkH8r7jgObozaw6X+CPARxvXDpL=wcjY4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwY9pDa3d4+gf29cBqGRLu9VyckRM0qR_jg1VuKRf5FfKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a5eaCB7pjtymgSPEz4diXwWGEo9cWwN=CMgVk+o5XJwFw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120508162241.GI17120@leitl.org>

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 06:12:23PM +0200, Stefano Vaj wrote:

> > Assassination is the ultimate in asymmetric warfare.
> >
> 
> This may well be the case, but I have the impression myself that it is not
> so fashionable these days. A sucide attack, even though it may appear a
> horrible waste in comparison with a sniper, Jackal-like shooting, may have
> a higher propaganda and motivational value and attract less antipathy for
> the attacker, who, after all, literally puts his or her life in line for
> the cause.

The nice part of drone warfare is that it works both ways. And we do
have enough onboard power for smartphones to function even with jammed
GPS and cellular. Dead reckoning, optical flow and terrain matching
(once the province of cruise missiles) from public data or prior
digitization missions as well as individual biometrics recognition
(detonation keyed to recipient) are definitely dual-use.

Hell, we have 400 USD quadcopter toys which automatically navigate
a preprogrammed course with GPS already. What do they think 100 g of C4
dropped on top of your head will do?


From atymes at gmail.com  Tue May  8 16:49:44 2012
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 09:49:44 -0700
Subject: [ExI] battle tanks to a five yr old
In-Reply-To: <20120508162241.GI17120@leitl.org>
References: <016e01cd2be3$93fe4ea0$bbfaebe0$@att.net>
 <CAPoR7a6cCXJCTVzP0yVeJ4ExcxZNV=CNWE_WOZx4dLReMaz_0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJrtBE0sv4P9nqXn4XySRE3CkM4QdaSO+sKCuJTrCMK3sR1rUg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALMrAFROYx25j2z_rB7Ct4LQUm1+ix=9-9OWdCo_r-d1rCE8Sw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a7sXK-j_EMkVkH8r7jgObozaw6X+CPARxvXDpL=wcjY4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwY9pDa3d4+gf29cBqGRLu9VyckRM0qR_jg1VuKRf5FfKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a5eaCB7pjtymgSPEz4diXwWGEo9cWwN=CMgVk+o5XJwFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120508162241.GI17120@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNSu2O0uj-ZR-76FS5eSu0_Ww-=xd5tbfih5X1Ny9cNzQg@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> The nice part of drone warfare is that it works both ways.

Not so much.

1) Just because the hardware can be purchased by either side,
does not mean both sides have the knowledge to put it to good use.
Suicide bombers tend not to have a lot invested in their technical
education, for one - and generally, anti-Western terrorists object to
visible symbols of technology.  They may use rifles and bombs, but
drones?  That's a symbol of their enemy, so they tend not to be
willing or able to learn how to set them up and operate them.

2) You'd better believe that the US military has spent a lot of time
thinking about how to shut drones down, based on their experience
using them.  So far, this is mostly a theoretical capability: no one
has used Predators against US forces yet, other than in training
exercises (US against itself).  But those training exercises can be
pretty effective in distinguishing what works from what does not.


From atymes at gmail.com  Tue May  8 16:57:57 2012
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 09:57:57 -0700
Subject: [ExI] battle tanks to a five yr old
In-Reply-To: <CAPoR7a5eaCB7pjtymgSPEz4diXwWGEo9cWwN=CMgVk+o5XJwFw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <016e01cd2be3$93fe4ea0$bbfaebe0$@att.net>
 <CAPoR7a6cCXJCTVzP0yVeJ4ExcxZNV=CNWE_WOZx4dLReMaz_0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJrtBE0sv4P9nqXn4XySRE3CkM4QdaSO+sKCuJTrCMK3sR1rUg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALMrAFROYx25j2z_rB7Ct4LQUm1+ix=9-9OWdCo_r-d1rCE8Sw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a7sXK-j_EMkVkH8r7jgObozaw6X+CPARxvXDpL=wcjY4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwY9pDa3d4+gf29cBqGRLu9VyckRM0qR_jg1VuKRf5FfKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a5eaCB7pjtymgSPEz4diXwWGEo9cWwN=CMgVk+o5XJwFw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNTRrNi9N4O+Eh+Wy15nBQ1zZCRzqsRVh8k0=HC_KbYnhQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8 May 2012 17:53, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Assassination is the ultimate in asymmetric warfare.
>
> This may well be the case, but I have the impression myself that it is not
> so fashionable these days. A sucide attack, even though it may appear a
> horrible waste in comparison with a sniper, Jackal-like shooting, may have a
> higher propaganda and motivational value and attract less antipathy for the
> attacker, who, after all, literally puts his or her life in line for the
> cause.

Further, unlike the threats that terrorists do execute on, assassination is
something that most nations have much experience defending against.
9-11 succeeded in large part because it used an unexpected attack
vector.  How many other foreign attacks have there been on US - or
Canadian, Western European, or even Australian* - soil in the past few
decades?  It may be cliche that generals prepare for the last war, but in
doing so, they make sure the last war doesn't happen again (and again
and again).

* As in, "Western" nations that neither are near hostile powers nor have
significant internal armed conflict.


From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Tue May  8 19:03:37 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 13:03:37 -0600
Subject: [ExI] battle tanks to a five yr old
In-Reply-To: <20120508162241.GI17120@leitl.org>
References: <016e01cd2be3$93fe4ea0$bbfaebe0$@att.net>
 <CAPoR7a6cCXJCTVzP0yVeJ4ExcxZNV=CNWE_WOZx4dLReMaz_0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJrtBE0sv4P9nqXn4XySRE3CkM4QdaSO+sKCuJTrCMK3sR1rUg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALMrAFROYx25j2z_rB7Ct4LQUm1+ix=9-9OWdCo_r-d1rCE8Sw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a7sXK-j_EMkVkH8r7jgObozaw6X+CPARxvXDpL=wcjY4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwY9pDa3d4+gf29cBqGRLu9VyckRM0qR_jg1VuKRf5FfKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a5eaCB7pjtymgSPEz4diXwWGEo9cWwN=CMgVk+o5XJwFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120508162241.GI17120@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwYF94ggNPTSB66goENxZY74JWTzobiHbN=HW2gimuEh1Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 06:12:23PM +0200, Stefano Vaj wrote:
>
>> > Assassination is the ultimate in asymmetric warfare.
>
> Hell, we have 400 USD quadcopter toys which automatically navigate
> a preprogrammed course with GPS already. What do they think 100 g of C4
> dropped on top of your head will do?

Sorry, I just had a vision of secret service agents climbing on top of
the president ala King Kong swatting at a squadron of quadcopters...
It was funny for a minute, then got rather terrifying.

Apparently, autonomous areal vehicles are on the "do not export"
list... so Chris Anderson (the Wired one) has apparently weaponized
lego. :-)

-Kelly


From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Tue May  8 20:41:04 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 14:41:04 -0600
Subject: [ExI] nobel prize and other premature notions
In-Reply-To: <011201cd2c90$c6e595a0$54b0c0e0$@att.net>
References: <011201cd2c90$c6e595a0$54b0c0e0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwZyXnC7+O_gxZ0Gdm+LJ7S-A=fgSicusZa49YObb-J0_Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 2:34 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> I had an idea I have been playing withwardly.? Alfred Nobel invented
> dynamite and thought that he had ended warfare, since the new explosive made
> the whole notion of armed conflict just too dangerous to be any fun.? He was
> tragically wrong of course: warfare just became more dangerous, as
> demonstrated in two major European conflicts.? But in a way he was right:
> eventually we went thru another round of invention of still bigger
> explosives when we built nukes, and in that way, warfare really is too
> dangerous now for nuke-enable societies to play.? So Al Nobel was premature,
> but not exactly wrong.

Ok, this is interesting and insightful.

> Today we look at Mr. and Mrs. Ehrlich?s notion of the population bomb and
> their predictions, and oh, were they silly, so wrong, etc.? But in
> retrospect, it isn?t entirely clear to me they were wrong exactly, but
> rather just too pessimistic on the timeframe of their predictions.? Perhaps
> they really had the right idea to some extent, just didn?t really model it
> correctly.? Perhaps in the very long run, Malthusian population dynamics
> really do apply to this overcrowded planet, but the model is far more
> complex than a jar of fruit flies.

The biggest thing that the population bomb misses IMHO is that when
people get rich, they stop having so many kids. Also, when people live
longer and healthier lives, they don't need so many children to take
care of them. When people start living 100 years+ in healthy 30 year
old bodies, I think the idea of having children will positively go out
of style (throwing out a couple of religious memes I could think
of)... Europe and North America are now growing only through
immigration, and Japan doesn't like immigration, so they are
shrinking... Everywhere you add money, the birth rate goes down. There
are good reasons for this, and "Abundance" (Diamandus) goes through
many of them.

So, the thing that is necessary to get the birth rate down is to get
income up for the bottom billion (or 3) and get education into the
hands of women. At that point, I don't think population growth is
going to be nearly the problem that we think it is now.

So while I'm concerned that if we don't do anything, population will
bloom out of control in the third world, I'm also convinced that we
are actively working on the things that will bring population growth
under control. Just increasing the amount of clean water available in
the third world will reduce population growth, and that may be a
reality much faster than we think. Now, if we could just get the
Mormons and Catholics on board... LOL

> What other examples can we think of where the initially presented model is
> too simple but perhaps contains some truth?

Virtually everything science has ever done falls into this category...

-Kelly



From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Wed May  9 03:39:28 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 21:39:28 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Very Cool Kinect Application
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwaNTQf6aLOOCt6i3_098tRf7-9wtPuOgP1M4WiirpaWKA@mail.gmail.com>

I think I've mentioned before that I'm a computer programmer, and that
I have an interest in the Kinect. I try not to impose this too much
here, but I just found this video of a real sandbox with a Kinect and
a projector doing a simulation of water running over the surfaces as
you dig around in the sand. It's a little hard to describe, but a few
seconds with the video, and you get it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9JXtTj0mzE

Anyway, it makes me think of the quote that a mouse, keyboard and
screen are an awful narrow straw through which to view the world. It's
gonna get fun people!

-Kelly


From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Wed May  9 04:50:39 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 22:50:39 -0600
Subject: [ExI] what would the men be required to wear?
In-Reply-To: <CAOJFdb+N1NakGLkMbPmc=HM3J33-tgBZ0qPP+UerNdpYUq3HMw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <011c01cd2bb8$baa0f560$2fe2e020$@att.net>
 <CAOJFdb+N1NakGLkMbPmc=HM3J33-tgBZ0qPP+UerNdpYUq3HMw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwYhXyu8zKehgR3ATeCOF3-UzpdFocei8E9S3oqvw1Vrzw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 2:47 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>> Sheesh:
>> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/06/attorney-in-hijab-defends-call-for-other-women-at-11-hearing-to-wear/
>>
>
> If I ever am forced to appear in court, I'll claim to be a faithful
> follower of Pastafarianism and argue that in order to remain focussed
> on the case everyone in the room wear a colander on their head out of
> respect for the almighty FSM...

My children always insist that I say the prayer over our evening meal
when we have spaghetti... Rather than the normal fare the kids offer
up... I thank the FSM for providing us with his "noodly brethren" for
us to partake of... :-)  They enjoy it quite a bit.

-Kelly


From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Wed May  9 05:22:57 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 23:22:57 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Uploading Swindle (was Re: Finally!)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205051835240.1751@tau.ceti.pl>
References: <CAPy8RwYdY24xkODKXimAsYxtSk4ObGFV_K5QCHU-kqaX2yqsag@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205041801451.9360@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAPy8RwaTy3j_SOzUkw6AiudFhoBYvK6fjkxCPZMSNGZETmfMrQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205051835240.1751@tau.ceti.pl>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwZhqCcVmwiuM1MsB_AwZH3own+MUBsm765khsTjYrMxXw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Tomasz Rola <rtomek at ceti.pl> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 May 2012, Kelly Anderson wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Tomasz Rola <rtomek at ceti.pl> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 3 May 2012, Kelly Anderson wrote:
>> > Ho ho! When this day comes and I am still alive, I will
>> >
>> > A. be able to upload on my own terms
>>
>> So, if I understand your objection Tomasz, your real objection to
>> uploading is that you want to upload to proprietary equipment with a
>> self sufficient security system, and you feel very uncomfortable
>> uploading to the cloud... does that about sum it up?
>
> I wasn't horrified right after I have first heard about cloud and, a bit
> later, with "computer from a grid, like electricity". But I was horrified
> few minutes later, once I started playing scenarios in my head. In one
> sentence, they all ended with some form of hive. And I don't like insects
> enough to become one of them.

Every form of emergence that I'm familiar with starts with a number of
elements, each of which is similar. The ants in a colony, cells in a
body, individuals in a population... If there is an emergent "super
intelligence" that emerges from our collective efforts, then in some
sense, we will become cells, or processing nodes, or participants of
some kind in that super intelligence.

If the super intelligence is independent of us, then we'll make great
pets. So I suppose the choice might be between useful insect, or
irrelevant pet. I think I'd rather be a useful insect than a pet...
but maybe that's just me.

> I will not give my data to the cloud. Well, ok, I will. I just need to be
> bribed. How about... an hour-worth of free music from some distributor.
> And a Stone Wars haxalogy in colorful box? Um, not physically, I get a
> picture of the box in a browser and ability to view contents for about,
> say, 10000 times, free of charge. If I wanted to buy 10000 SW boxes on
> com.zonama, I would have to put almost a million out of my pocket, so this
> sounds like a real bloody bargain.

Maybe they'll activate your pleasure center a few times a day... :-)
It will be just like Christian Heaven!!! LOL

>> So it's not uploading itself that you really have the huge problem
>> with, it's the details of where the physical computing device is.
>
> This is too simplistic.

That's why I asked, because I assumed it was.

> My real objection is about physical control of
> device. Not just its location, but access and principles of its working
> (including whether it contains backdoors and bugs). Also, I object to
> people fooling with the device, possibly changing what I am going to think
> and remember.

Our uploaded memories seem highly likely to be more reliable than
those we work with today. Philip J. Corso, a highly decorated
Lieutenant Colonel in the Army. He worked at the highest levels of
government. Yet, he remembers seeing a dead alien, and shopping the
parts of a crashed UFO around to various industry scientists in the
early 1960s. Claims the reverse engineering of these artifacts
indirectly led to the development of accelerated particle beam
devices, fiber optics, lasers, integrated circuit chips and Kevlar
material.

So what is more likely, that Corso actually did these things, that he
lied about doing these things, or that his memory failed? I think I'd
go for memory failure as the most likely explanation, with lying
coming in second. Yet he is very convincing because HE really believes
it.

I want a better memory than that. We all have the illusion that our
memories are better than they actually are. It's part of how the brain
works. It's the same kind of illusion that models our entire
environment around us when we can only actually see part of it.

> Another subject is, what is going to happen with my material posessions?
> Say, if I own a car, should I stop caring about it later?

Dematerialization is the future. Of course, the future is here now in
this sense in many ways. Do I really need those four boxes of old
National Geographics in my garage if I have every National Geographic
since 1888 on my iPad? Do I need 400 LP records when I have all that
music on my MP3 player? Do I need to own a car if a robot can deliver
one to me within five minutes whenever I need to drive somewhere? If
we get good enough at creating material goods quickly from digital
specifications, we might even be able to dematerialize things and
rematerialize them when we need them. http://www.airbnb.com/ is
dematerializing hotels. Imagine if Ebay were 1000 times more efficient
than it is now. If listing, selling and shipping something required
nothing more than the thought that you wanted to do so. If buying and
getting something required nothing but a thought and a few minutes...
How many things would you really choose to own on a continuous basis?
If I could scan all my old papers and many of my old books, I would
gladly get rid of them, but doing the scanning is a relatively large
job. Took me a couple of days with a really fast scanner to do two
boxes of papers... the last time I could find the power cord for my
scanner... LOL.

> Sure, if I am
> not going back. What if I upload while sitting in a car, to a device
> laying below the driver's seat? Ok, so, maybe I should sell my posessions
> before I upload. I am sure there will be plenty of buyers, because when
> everybody uploads, someone will have to own the Earth.

Perhaps every atom that was Earth will be converted (eventually) into
computronium?

> It is not going to
> be pleasure but hard work, this owning. Hence we should not treat buyers
> as greedy lousy beasts but as heroes. Um, nope, back. There will be
> virtually no buyers at all which will drive prices down to, literally,
> bucks for a house. And even more so buyers will be greeted as heroes, who
> dispose of their money to help those in need of selling their goods.

A house will be worth a lot because you can convert a house to an
awful lot of computronium...

> The fact that nobody rises such objections (at least, I don't remember at
> the moment) only assures me there is going to be a lot of abuse happening
> around uploading.

You are probably right. I just don't see any other choice in the long term...

> For example, a well kept up lawyer approaches a not very wealthy, not too
> well educated young man with meager income and darkening economically-bad
> future (not that I am suggesting bad education and bad prospects are
> intentional). "Young man, would you like to live the rest of your days in
> cybernetic heavens? Where the music is free, you can skate all day long
> and all night long you can balance wonderful babes on top of yours..." -
> he just needs to sell whatever he still has. All DNA and stuff, too. And a
> footprint of brain. Which means, every though this brain could have, every
> invention, belongs to us. After all, who can forbid us from educating the
> footprint, give him years of voyages and reading books in virtual library?
> It belongs to us now, right? It is a bunch of mathematical expressions. We
> can do with them as we please.

Sounds like the line they give the young suicide bombers today, doesn't it?

> After uploading, however, well... We all know that maximum life span is
> below 140 years at the moment. But let's be generous, give the guy 300
> years of life. To not make things too hard for us, let's speed up his
> clock by a factor of 110000... So after about a day he clocks 300 years of
> subjective time and we are safe to plug him off. Every judge will let us
> free. Especially if we redact the papers accordingly. And there will be
> plenty of politicians eager to support us, because at one point, uploaded
> voters will outnumber meat voters - and we can easily insert proper
> decicions into statistically significant number of ghost brains.

Voting in the future is going to get tricky... :-)

> Actually, we don't need to plug the guy off literally. We just swap him
> off, like it happens in time sharing systems (Windows users, who have
> hard time knowing they have swapfile on their systems, are going to be
> sucked in dozens into this scheme). Some tasks are swapped to
> the disk so another tasks could have their turn. This is perfectly legal,
> because on papers there is a clause that his task might be interrupted for
> short time if this is demanded for correct and proper system operations
> (like, for example, dust cleaning). The maximum time he spends in the
> "off" state is not stated, however, simply because it is so hard to
> predict every random event prohibiting the system's ongoing,
> uninterrupted work.

I think there will be some kind of contract that he'll sign... and
that contract will probably have to be honored by both parties. I
don't think the contract system will go away in the future. Sadly,
there will be many robot lawyers, I'm afraid.

> We could build a bigger system, but can any judge blame us if we postpone
> this to times when our budget allows for this?

I think your right to run will be tied to some extent to who wants to
interact with you.

> I other words, I consider at least some uploading propositions very naive
> and disconnected from reality, where dog eats dog. And also, dog eats
> whoever is stupid enough to become a sausage.
>
> Uploading is not the end of the road for me. It is a bus stop. I don't
> think I can justify uploading to myself if I don't have a plan for
> downloading, even a very sketchy one.

Uploading should not be the end of the road. However, if eventually
the entire solar system is converted into computronium, there won't be
any really happy place to download to... possibly... eventually...

-Kelly


From clementlawyer at gmail.com  Wed May  9 16:53:25 2012
From: clementlawyer at gmail.com (James Clement)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 12:53:25 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Looking for people to help with project in various countries
Message-ID: <CA+LBAbSrm+V08qB=NLuioAYuhjF1carzDv0C4SGJFLUWGyOSWw@mail.gmail.com>

I'm working on a project and need someone in the following countries:

Italy, Greece, France, Spain, Brazil, Honduras, China, and Japan.  A
description of the task and payment information will be discussed with the
people applying for this project. No particular skills are necessary,
although some travel within each country may be necessary.

Thanks,

James Clement
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120509/f6972d8d/attachment.html>

From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Wed May  9 15:29:22 2012
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 08:29:22 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Wash post comment
Message-ID: <CAPiwVB5cJs50YJk=+Mj+H0yRvFQ_V1XaF_DpJc_oVHVinJa2Jg@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 5:00 AM,  BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote:
>> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Keith Henson wrote:
>>> My background is engineering, I can work out how it might be done and
>>> how much it would cost, but raising the tens of billions needed for
>>> the first propulsion laser is beyond me.
>>
>> Yeah, that's a lot of cupcakes at a bake sale.
>>
> The main problem I see is that it is a sink hole for money for many
> years with no return until successful completion.

That's certainly a point I have considered.  It's not like big and
fairly long term projects can't be done.  The Chunnel took 12 years
and came in 80% over budget.  (11 B pounds at current rates).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Tunnel#Arrangement

Three Gorges dam cost 180 billion yuan (US$22.5 billion), estimated to
be repaid in ten years from the sale of power.  Construction started
in late 1994 and took about 6 years.

On the basis of the tonnage needed, first flight to an operational
laser propulsion laser could be done in three years at a cost of
perhaps $75 B.  That's a very uncertain number, it might be
considerably less.

> Even governments would be reluctant to fund that. It is quite likely
> they would be voted out of power and the project cancelled by
> political opponents claiming they were throwing money away. Also, in
> todays climate of corporate fraud, it would be hard to get people to
> believe that the project will eventually pay off and that it isn't
> just another scheme for directors to scam millions, then surprisingly
> go bankrupt.

I don't think this would apply to China.

> You need a smaller project first with some payback which would prove
> feasibility and help fund the full scale project.

Unfortunately the physics is against doing it on a small scale, at
least as far as I can see.  It's like the Chunnel, it can't go half
way and produce any revenue at all.

> As with all projects there may be unexpected consequences. Pollution
> from hundreds of launches, disasters from misfiring rockets, more
> space debris in orbit, (which might damage construction work), other
> projects cancelled in order to fund this project, etc. These are just
> a few possibilities after a few minutes thought.

Yeah.  In some ways it is amazing that anything gets done at all.

Keith


From pizerdavid at yahoo.com  Wed May  9 22:00:04 2012
From: pizerdavid at yahoo.com (david pizer)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 15:00:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] test & introduction
Message-ID: <1336600804.47462.YahooMailNeo@web161703.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

Hello everyone in this chat room.
?
My name is David Pizer.? As you know I am new to this forum, but I have been in cryonics a long time.
I have been following this chat room for a few weeks and see some of my old friends are here.
?
A little about myself:
I am retired from Alcor management.? I served as VP and Treasurer and a Director for 11 years.
I am mostly responsible for Alcor being in the building they are in now.
At present I am part of the Venturist Organization.? our site?= www.venturist.info
I own a small resort/dude ranch kinda place in Mayer Arizona, an hour north of north Phoenix.??? pictures at www.creeksidepreserve.com
In1988 I was?placed into custody for refusing to cooperate with the Dora Kent investigation.? Along with 4 others, I filed Pizer vs. Riverside and we collected money from
the?bureaucrats that tried to damage Dora and Alcor.
The Society for Venturism wants to sponsor ideas and projects that might help move the cryonics movement forward.? Let us know your projects.
Dr .More and his wife met at my old resort in Wrightwood California years ago.? They are both?very smart?people.
?
That's about all I can think of for now.
?
Best to all.
?
David Pizer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120509/a7a77a96/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed May  9 22:33:20 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 15:33:20 -0700
Subject: [ExI] test & introduction
In-Reply-To: <1336600804.47462.YahooMailNeo@web161703.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <1336600804.47462.YahooMailNeo@web161703.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <039d01cd2e33$bd17b630$37472290$@att.net>

Welcome David.  We are pleased to have you on board.  spike

 

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of david pizer
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 3:00 PM
To: Extropy Chat
Subject: [ExI] test & introduction

 

Hello everyone in this chat room.

 

My name is David Pizer.  As you know I am new to this forum, but I have been
in cryonics a long time.

I have been following this chat room for a few weeks and see some of my old
friends are here.

 

A little about myself:

I am retired from Alcor management.  I served as VP and Treasurer and a
Director for 11 years.

I am mostly responsible for Alcor being in the building they are in now.

At present I am part of the Venturist Organization.  our site =
www.venturist.info

I own a small resort/dude ranch kinda place in Mayer Arizona, an hour north
of north Phoenix.    pictures at www.creeksidepreserve.com

In1988 I was placed into custody for refusing to cooperate with the Dora
Kent investigation.  Along with 4 others, I filed Pizer vs. Riverside and we
collected money from

the bureaucrats that tried to damage Dora and Alcor.

The Society for Venturism wants to sponsor ideas and projects that might
help move the cryonics movement forward.  Let us know your projects.

Dr .More and his wife met at my old resort in Wrightwood California years
ago.  They are both very smart people.

 

That's about all I can think of for now.

 

Best to all.

 

David Pizer

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120509/2b2a7316/attachment.html>

From clementlawyer at gmail.com  Thu May 10 05:21:11 2012
From: clementlawyer at gmail.com (James Clement)
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 01:21:11 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Willow Garage Announces Launch of Open Source Robotics
	Foundation
Message-ID: <CA+LBAbT2B3kv0gmy1Je=SxFi5T0_zKESYmgemeG60U6+-LW3og@mail.gmail.com>

   Willow Garage Announces Launch of Open Source Robotics Foundation New
Board Members to Drive Adoption, Research and Education for Open Source
Within Robotics

 MENLO PARK, Calif., May 09, 2012 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Willow Garage today
announced the formation of The Open Source Robotics Foundation, Inc. The
OSRF is an independent, non-profit organization founded by members of the
global robotics community. Their mission is to support the development,
distribution, and adoption of open source software for use in robotics
research, education, and product development.

In conjunction with the formation of the OSRF, the Board of Directors was
also announced. The Board of Directors comprises a worldwide collection of
educators, leaders and visionaries in the field of robotics, including:

Wolfram Burgard. Dr. Burgard is a professor at the University of Freiburg
where he leads the Laboratory for Autonomous Intelligent Systems. His major
research interests lie in mobile robotics, state estimation and control, as
well as artificial intelligence. Burgard is an active member of the IEEE
Robotics and Automation Society and a lifetime member of the American
Association of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). Dr. Burgard is a recipient
of the Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Prize from the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).

Ryan Gariepy. Mr. Gariepy is the co-founder and CTO of Clearpath Robotics.
Clearpath Robotics specializes in the design and manufacture of robust and
reliable unmanned vehicle solutions for industrial R&D. Gariepy's belief in
the need for a strong global robotics community resulted in Clearpath being
the first field robotics company to fully adopt and support ROS. Mr.
Gariepy manages Clearpath's technology strategy and serves as the company's
lead system architect.

Brian Gerkey. Dr. Gerkey is Director of Open Source Development at Willow
Garage. Since 2008, Gerkey has worked on ROS, which develops and releases
one of the most widely-used robot software platforms. He is also founding
and former lead developer on the open source Player Project. For his work
on Player and ROS, Technology Review recognized Gerkey with the TR35 award
in 2011. Dr. Gerkey will be CEO of the OSRF.

Helen Greiner. Ms. Greiner is a co-founder of iRobot and currently CEO of
CyPhyWorks. She has also been honored as a Technology Review "Innovator for
the Next Century" and has been awarded the DEMO God Award and DEMO Lifetime
Achievement Award. Greiner serves as the elected President and Board Member
of the Robotics Technology Consortium (RTC), a non-profit organization
established to speed the creation and deployment of ground robotics
technology.

Sam Park. Mr. Park is the executive vice president of Yujin Robot. At Yujin
Robot he has directed the commercialization of educational and
entertainment robots, elderly service robots and home cleaning robots.
Yujin Robot is one of South Korea's first generation of service robotics
companies and also a leading voice in the Korean robotics community. Before
joining Yujin Robotics, Mr. Park was an industrial robotics engineer at
Motorola.

The first initiative of the OSRF will be participation in the DARPA
Robotics Challenge. The DARPA Robotics Challenge will launch in October
2012 and offers a $2 million prize "to whomever can help push the
state-of-the-art in robotics beyond today's capabilities in support of the
DoD's disaster recovery mission."

"It's always been the intention of Willow Garage to create an independent
body that can take our initial work in open source robotics and see it grow
beyond the confines of a single organization," according to Steve Cousins,
CEO of Willow Garage. "The reality is that the popularity of open source
robotics in general, and ROS specifically, has grown beyond our wildest
expectations. Willow Garage will enthusiastically support the goals of the
OSRF."

About The Open Source Robotics Foundation

The Open Source Robotics Foundation is an independent, non-profit
organization founded by members of the global robotics community. The
mission of the OSRF is to support the development, distribution, and
adoption of open source software for use in robotics research, education,
and product development. The organization is based in Menlo Park,
California. More information is available at
http://www.osrfoundation.organd by following the OSRF on Twitter
@OSRFoundation.
Best regards,

James Clement
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120510/3cf72d4f/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Thu May 10 10:34:20 2012
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 12:34:20 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Very Cool Kinect Application
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwaNTQf6aLOOCt6i3_098tRf7-9wtPuOgP1M4WiirpaWKA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwaNTQf6aLOOCt6i3_098tRf7-9wtPuOgP1M4WiirpaWKA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4FAB99AC.7040809@aleph.se>

Love the little sandbox. I want to play. Or have a sand-based user 
interface.

On 09/05/2012 05:39, Kelly Anderson wrote:
> Anyway, it makes me think of the quote that a mouse, keyboard and
> screen are an awful narrow straw through which to view the world. It's
> gonna get fun people!

Yup. I am at a biometrics workshop right now, and I think we are going 
to see a lot of more interesting sensors/senses of our devices. This is 
both good news and bad news to the biometrics people: more uses for 
their algorithms, but also less control over whether applications are 
going to be secure and privacy protecting. But conversely, the 
biometrics also helps make the new sensors even more useful and hence 
widespread.

Still, the ergonomics of boring desktops is well understood and we can 
take steps to avoid wearout. This might be much trickier in richer 
interfaces - while they might be more variable over time and tuned to 
the user, it is not uncommon for people to invent ways of working that 
are profoundly unergonomic.

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University



From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Thu May 10 13:46:06 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 07:46:06 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Very Cool Kinect Application
In-Reply-To: <4FAB99AC.7040809@aleph.se>
References: <CAPy8RwaNTQf6aLOOCt6i3_098tRf7-9wtPuOgP1M4WiirpaWKA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4FAB99AC.7040809@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwYa9bB_Y++ngPnqB8wyLYK7Kmwr4NMKfU5ZB0kH=e4Sfw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 4:34 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
> Love the little sandbox. I want to play. Or have a sand-based user
> interface.

I bet Seymour Papert would have fun with this... :-)

> On 09/05/2012 05:39, Kelly Anderson wrote:
>> Anyway, it makes me think of the quote that a mouse, keyboard and
>> screen are an awful narrow straw through which to view the world. It's
>> gonna get fun people!
>
> Yup. I am at a biometrics workshop right now, and I think we are going to
> see a lot of more interesting sensors/senses of our devices. This is both
> good news and bad news to the biometrics people: more uses for their
> algorithms, but also less control over whether applications are going to be
> secure and privacy protecting. But conversely, the biometrics also helps
> make the new sensors even more useful and hence widespread.

Do you really need the number of steps taken in your Nike shoes to be
private? The folks who turn every aspect of their lives into data (I
went pee 5 times today! @kellypeed) and tweet it all are kinda nuts,
or are they? Maybe it's the rest of us that are nuts?

> Still, the ergonomics of boring desktops is well understood and we can take
> steps to avoid wearout. This might be much trickier in richer interfaces -

It is clearly more difficult to program a good NUI interface than a
GUI interface. Nobody has yet come up with anything resembling a
development environment for this kind of interface other than the very
low level. It reminds me of the time that we had to create our own GUI
for an image processing board... had to draw the menus and buttons
ourselves on that one... Everyone is dealing with the NUI at that
level now. I think there is opportunity to make it easier, but it is
inherently more difficult. It seems that it might be inherently more
difficult to learn too, but clever people will make it easy. The
problem being that there is a shortage of clever user interface
designers out there, so a lot of the NUIs will be junk, harder to use
than the mouse and keyboard they replace in most cases, at least to
begin with.

> while they might be more variable over time and tuned to the user, it is not
> uncommon for people to invent ways of working that are profoundly
> unergonomic.

Clearly this is the case. Perhaps even worse than unergonomic is the
incomprehensible. I remember once Micheal Jackson created this really
fancy web site with Flash or something, and you just could not figure
out how to operate it. It was very creative, just a bit TOO creative.
NUI designers will have a challenge with this aspect of things. It's
too early for standardization of NUIs, too new, but eventually we'll
get there at least to some extent.

-Kelly


From pizerdavid at yahoo.com  Thu May 10 21:38:01 2012
From: pizerdavid at yahoo.com (david pizer)
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 14:38:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Cryonics Hall of Fame
Message-ID: <1336685881.79006.YahooMailNeo@web161704.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

Mike Darwin made some interesting comments recently about what makes a truly good and prestigious award.? I think they?are worth repeating and commenting on, and looking for even more feedback.
?
MIKE SAID:? "? I'm not a big fan of awards, in general, mostly because they are so commonplace it beggars the imagination.? (He then gave several examples).
?
DAVID:? Awards can be meaningless unless the process of how they are come by is well thought out, and I do think that we cryonicists need to do some positive things to honor those who have contributed so much to cryonics, which is, of course, the?technology that many of us are counting on for our possible survival.???
?
MIKE SAID:? "What makes a truly good and prestigious award?"? and he answered with: ? "Genuine material benefit to the awardee."
?
DAVID:? I had not thought of that, but I think that is something we cryonicists, if we do establish a Cryonics Hall of Fame, should seriously consider.??The sum of $1,000 was suggested. ?The Society for Venturism, if we manage the affair for the whole cryonics movement, could contribute that amount each year, and even raise the amount each year over time.?? 
?
One of the problems is how to give the money to the winner if she is already in suspension.?? There are two prizes a hall of Fame can bestow on one or many recipients each year:? Induction into the Hall of Fame, and A Cash Prize. ? I think there could be recognition and induction into the Cryonics Hall of Fame for those still "alive" by current standards and those who are already in suspension each year, but just one cash award for one living person each year, perhaps to use for cryonics work, or to donate to their favorite charity, of for whatever they want to use it for.
?
The cryonics community certainly needs more input on this idea.
?
MIKE SAID:? "They must be based on genuine performance and Merritt as judged by people who matter in the field of endeavor."
?
DAVID:?I think this point?is well taken.?? ?Since the field of those signed up and funded for cryonics is so small at present, perhaps WE could be the people who matter in the field of endeavor and WE should be the ones to do the voting.?? As cryonics grows to where it should in the near future and we one day have many thousands of cryonicists, then we might consider changing how the voting is done.?? 
?
MIKE SAID:? "... it might be wise to spell out what the nature and scope of the body of work has to be to even be considered."
?
DAVID:? It would be interesting to see some examples that might be considered, perhaps work in research, public relations, management, support of the movement in general and other valuable efforts could have seperate catagories?
?
?
?DAVID CONCLUDING:? Since the possibility of establishing a Cryonics Hall of Fame is one topic that will be considered at the upcoming Venturist Cryonics Conference, I am looking for ideas about this subject and asking for them in place where I believe there are people who are interested and could have some valuable suggestions.
?
Any ideas, discussions, criticisms, debates or praise for or against the creating of the Cryonics Hall of Fame are hereby solicited.
?
David Pizer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120510/04e411a8/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Thu May 10 22:07:48 2012
From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc)
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 18:07:48 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Cryonics Hall of Fame
In-Reply-To: <1336685881.79006.YahooMailNeo@web161704.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <1336685881.79006.YahooMailNeo@web161704.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20120510180748.44i03x9vcw8kcwos@webmail.natasha.cc>

> Any ideas, discussions, criticisms, debates or praise for or against  
>  the creating of the Cryonics Hall of Fame are hereby solicited.

2 thumbs down if this has anything to do with Mike Darwin.  He is not  
someone who has high value capital within the community.







From eugen at leitl.org  Fri May 11 06:50:19 2012
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 08:50:19 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Cryonics Hall of Fame
In-Reply-To: <20120510180748.44i03x9vcw8kcwos@webmail.natasha.cc>
References: <1336685881.79006.YahooMailNeo@web161704.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <20120510180748.44i03x9vcw8kcwos@webmail.natasha.cc>
Message-ID: <20120511065019.GI17120@leitl.org>

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 06:07:48PM -0400, natasha at natasha.cc wrote:
>> Any ideas, discussions, criticisms, debates or praise for or against  
>> the creating of the Cryonics Hall of Fame are hereby solicited.
>
> 2 thumbs down if this has anything to do with Mike Darwin.  He is not  
> someone who has high value capital within the community.

Excuse me? Surely you jest?


From kryonica at gmail.com  Fri May 11 07:26:47 2012
From: kryonica at gmail.com (Kryonica)
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 08:26:47 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Cryonics Hall of Fame
In-Reply-To: <20120511065019.GI17120@leitl.org>
References: <1336685881.79006.YahooMailNeo@web161704.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <20120510180748.44i03x9vcw8kcwos@webmail.natasha.cc>
 <20120511065019.GI17120@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <BB344E1B-08E9-45B1-A38B-54CD7B1E44A0@gmail.com>


On 11 May 2012, at 07:50, Eugen Leitl wrote:

> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 06:07:48PM -0400, natasha at natasha.cc wrote:
>>> Any ideas, discussions, criticisms, debates or praise for or against  
>>> the creating of the Cryonics Hall of Fame are hereby solicited.
>> 
>> 2 thumbs down if this has anything to do with Mike Darwin.  He is not  
>> someone who has high value capital within the community.
> 
> Excuse me? Surely you jest?

I agree: surely you cannot deny Mike Darwin's contribution to cryonics?
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From natasha at natasha.cc  Fri May 11 14:47:13 2012
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 09:47:13 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Cryonics Hall of Fame
In-Reply-To: <BB344E1B-08E9-45B1-A38B-54CD7B1E44A0@gmail.com>
References: <1336685881.79006.YahooMailNeo@web161704.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <20120510180748.44i03x9vcw8kcwos@webmail.natasha.cc>
 <20120511065019.GI17120@leitl.org>
 <BB344E1B-08E9-45B1-A38B-54CD7B1E44A0@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <001201cd2f84$f4440760$dccc1620$@cc>

No one can prevent anyone from doing anything. My comment was ONLY my
personal view. Take it or leave it.  It ought not to ruffle your feathers.

LET 1,000 flowers bloom or not.



-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Kryonica
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 2:27 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] Cryonics Hall of Fame


On 11 May 2012, at 07:50, Eugen Leitl wrote:

> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 06:07:48PM -0400, natasha at natasha.cc wrote:
>>> Any ideas, discussions, criticisms, debates or praise for or against 
>>> the creating of the Cryonics Hall of Fame are hereby solicited.
>> 
>> 2 thumbs down if this has anything to do with Mike Darwin.  He is not 
>> someone who has high value capital within the community.
> 
> Excuse me? Surely you jest?

I agree: surely you cannot deny Mike Darwin's contribution to cryonics?
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

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



From rtomek at ceti.pl  Sat May 12 16:44:56 2012
From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola)
Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 18:44:56 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [ExI] Uploading Swindle (was Re: Finally!)
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwZhqCcVmwiuM1MsB_AwZH3own+MUBsm765khsTjYrMxXw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwYdY24xkODKXimAsYxtSk4ObGFV_K5QCHU-kqaX2yqsag@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205041801451.9360@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAPy8RwaTy3j_SOzUkw6AiudFhoBYvK6fjkxCPZMSNGZETmfMrQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205051835240.1751@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAPy8RwZhqCcVmwiuM1MsB_AwZH3own+MUBsm765khsTjYrMxXw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205121705400.9442@tau.ceti.pl>

On Tue, 8 May 2012, Kelly Anderson wrote:

> On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Tomasz Rola <rtomek at ceti.pl> wrote:
> > On Sat, 5 May 2012, Kelly Anderson wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Tomasz Rola <rtomek at ceti.pl> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 3 May 2012, Kelly Anderson wrote:
> >> > Ho ho! When this day comes and I am still alive, I will
> >> >
> >> > A. be able to upload on my own terms
> >>
> >> So, if I understand your objection Tomasz, your real objection to
> >> uploading is that you want to upload to proprietary equipment with a
> >> self sufficient security system, and you feel very uncomfortable
> >> uploading to the cloud... does that about sum it up?
> >
> > I wasn't horrified right after I have first heard about cloud and, a bit
> > later, with "computer from a grid, like electricity". But I was horrified
> > few minutes later, once I started playing scenarios in my head. In one
> > sentence, they all ended with some form of hive. And I don't like insects
> > enough to become one of them.
> 
> Every form of emergence that I'm familiar with starts with a number of
> elements, each of which is similar. The ants in a colony, cells in a
> body, individuals in a population... If there is an emergent "super
> intelligence" that emerges from our collective efforts, then in some
> sense, we will become cells, or processing nodes, or participants of
> some kind in that super intelligence.
> 
> If the super intelligence is independent of us, then we'll make great
> pets. So I suppose the choice might be between useful insect, or
> irrelevant pet. I think I'd rather be a useful insect than a pet...
> but maybe that's just me.

Humans feel, dream, educate themselves and change. Pets and insects don't.

I am willing to extend humanity, to embrace cyborgs and augmented animals. 
Provided they implement abovementioned ideals, very few indeed.

> > I will not give my data to the cloud. Well, ok, I will. I just need to be
> > bribed. How about... an hour-worth of free music from some distributor.
> > And a Stone Wars haxalogy in colorful box? Um, not physically, I get a
> > picture of the box in a browser and ability to view contents for about,
> > say, 10000 times, free of charge. If I wanted to buy 10000 SW boxes on
> > com.zonama, I would have to put almost a million out of my pocket, so this
> > sounds like a real bloody bargain.
> 
> Maybe they'll activate your pleasure center a few times a day... :-)
> It will be just like Christian Heaven!!! LOL

The idea of being titillated for eternity is plausible only to simple 
minds, who lack imagination and cannot see how boring and maddening this 
would have been.

Strangely, the very same kind seems to fail into marketing scams.

> > My real objection is about physical control of
> > device. Not just its location, but access and principles of its working
> > (including whether it contains backdoors and bugs). Also, I object to
> > people fooling with the device, possibly changing what I am going to think
> > and remember.
> 
> Our uploaded memories seem highly likely to be more reliable than
> those we work with today. Philip J. Corso, a highly decorated
> Lieutenant Colonel in the Army. He worked at the highest levels of
> government. Yet, he remembers seeing a dead alien, and shopping the
> parts of a crashed UFO around to various industry scientists in the
> early 1960s. Claims the reverse engineering of these artifacts
> indirectly led to the development of accelerated particle beam
> devices, fiber optics, lasers, integrated circuit chips and Kevlar
> material.
> 
> So what is more likely, that Corso actually did these things, that he
> lied about doing these things, or that his memory failed? I think I'd
> go for memory failure as the most likely explanation, with lying
> coming in second. Yet he is very convincing because HE really believes
> it.
> 
> I want a better memory than that. We all have the illusion that our
> memories are better than they actually are. It's part of how the brain
> works. It's the same kind of illusion that models our entire
> environment around us when we can only actually see part of it.

The best way to make sure your memory remains intact is to have control 
over uploading process (this includes both ends of the process, too).

Or you can trust entities who are, historically, known to screw people 
depending on them (if you care about history at all),

> > Another subject is, what is going to happen with my material posessions?
> > Say, if I own a car, should I stop caring about it later?
> 
> Dematerialization is the future. Of course, the future is here now in
> this sense in many ways. Do I really need those four boxes of old
> National Geographics in my garage if I have every National Geographic
> since 1888 on my iPad? Do I need 400 LP records when I have all that
> music on my MP3 player? Do I need to own a car if a robot can deliver
> one to me within five minutes whenever I need to drive somewhere? If
> we get good enough at creating material goods quickly from digital
> specifications, we might even be able to dematerialize things and
> rematerialize them when we need them. http://www.airbnb.com/ is
> dematerializing hotels. Imagine if Ebay were 1000 times more efficient
> than it is now. If listing, selling and shipping something required
> nothing more than the thought that you wanted to do so. If buying and
> getting something required nothing but a thought and a few minutes...
> How many things would you really choose to own on a continuous basis?
> If I could scan all my old papers and many of my old books, I would
> gladly get rid of them, but doing the scanning is a relatively large
> job. Took me a couple of days with a really fast scanner to do two
> boxes of papers... the last time I could find the power cord for my
> scanner... LOL.

Kelly, I have a deal for you. You: work hard, earn money, buy gold and 
send it to me. I: buy an extremely good camera, make loads of photos, send 
them in many copies to you. How many do you want - hundred copies? That's 
100:1 exchange rate, from your point of view.

Man!

Deal?

You can have million copies of "Lady with an Ermine" by Leonardo da Vinci, 
on your harddrive. All of them virtually worthless.

You can have machinery capable of making atom-to-atom copies. This does 
not mean original "Lady" will loose value. Its owner would have to agree 
and give you his piece of matter so that you can make an atomic copy. As 
long as he does not agree and you don't want to spend rest of your life in 
prison (if you are lucky), there is going to be only one such painting at 
best.

Everything that exists in one copy has value.

> > Sure, if I am
> > not going back. What if I upload while sitting in a car, to a device
> > laying below the driver's seat? Ok, so, maybe I should sell my posessions
> > before I upload. I am sure there will be plenty of buyers, because when
> > everybody uploads, someone will have to own the Earth.
> 
> Perhaps every atom that was Earth will be converted (eventually) into
> computronium?

Or moonshine. I have seen working prototypes of moonshine but I am yet to 
see a *plan* of this computronium. Which one is more probable?

> > It is not going to
> > be pleasure but hard work, this owning. Hence we should not treat buyers
> > as greedy lousy beasts but as heroes. Um, nope, back. There will be
> > virtually no buyers at all which will drive prices down to, literally,
> > bucks for a house. And even more so buyers will be greeted as heroes, who
> > dispose of their money to help those in need of selling their goods.
> 
> A house will be worth a lot because you can convert a house to an
> awful lot of computronium...

You can make computronium of dirt (if you know what it is, actually), 
hence a house will be worth as much as equivalent mass of dirt.

> > The fact that nobody rises such objections (at least, I don't remember at
> > the moment) only assures me there is going to be a lot of abuse happening
> > around uploading.
> 
> You are probably right. I just don't see any other choice in the long term...

If there is really no other way, not examining it seems like a bit too 
careless. Especially that even if way is just one, it can be travelled by 
different means and trajectories.

Oh, how I am always interested in cases of strange carelesness.

> > For example, a well kept up lawyer approaches a not very wealthy, not too
> > well educated young man with meager income and darkening economically-bad
> > future (not that I am suggesting bad education and bad prospects are
> > intentional). "Young man, would you like to live the rest of your days in
> > cybernetic heavens? Where the music is free, you can skate all day long
> > and all night long you can balance wonderful babes on top of yours..." -
> > he just needs to sell whatever he still has. All DNA and stuff, too. And a
> > footprint of brain. Which means, every though this brain could have, every
> > invention, belongs to us. After all, who can forbid us from educating the
> > footprint, give him years of voyages and reading books in virtual library?
> > It belongs to us now, right? It is a bunch of mathematical expressions. We
> > can do with them as we please.
> 
> Sounds like the line they give the young suicide bombers today, doesn't it?

I have no clue. I am neither young, nor suicidal nor do I bear any 
semblance to bomber (although I could spare few kilos, yes).

> I think there will be some kind of contract that he'll sign... and
> that contract will probably have to be honored by both parties. I
> don't think the contract system will go away in the future. Sadly,
> there will be many robot lawyers, I'm afraid.

Your honor, Mr Smith did not want to have a library in his simulation.

Your honor, Mr Smith gave us a spoken wish, during talk with our lawyer Mr 
Jenssen, which we recorded, that he will be delighted to "spank asses 
until hell freezes".

Your honor, Mr Smith did not say he wanted to contact anybody, neither his 
relatives nor other uploads, nor his lawyers.

Your honor, Mr Smith wanted to spank abovementioned asses in a hotel with 
a view on the beach but never mentioned he would like to go out of the 
room. This is why we did not give him an option to go to the beach or swim 
in the sea. Actually, for this very reason we did not give him any other 
option at all.

Your honor, Mr Smith was very specific, after two days of subjective time 
in a sim, that he is not going back other than, quote: "over my dead body 
- but you told me I will never die, rigth?". Later, he wished us good luck 
and asked to not interrupt him anymore.

Your honor, Mr Smith is our client and he gave us instructions. By terms 
of contract, we are going to do our best to fulfill all his wishes.

> > We could build a bigger system, but can any judge blame us if we postpone
> > this to times when our budget allows for this?
> 
> I think your right to run will be tied to some extent to who wants to
> interact with you.

Probably. It is questionable if those willing to interact with me, will 
indeed talk to me or some glut simulation concocted ad hoc from backups of 
many people who were to be contacted at this specific time.

Why this complicated? Because it might be cheaper for entity caring for 
uploads.

Of course if I decide to upload under wings of such entity, I should not 
be surprised when they perform they money saving on my skin.

> > I other words, I consider at least some uploading propositions very naive
> > and disconnected from reality, where dog eats dog. And also, dog eats
> > whoever is stupid enough to become a sausage.
> >
> > Uploading is not the end of the road for me. It is a bus stop. I don't
> > think I can justify uploading to myself if I don't have a plan for
> > downloading, even a very sketchy one.
> 
> Uploading should not be the end of the road. However, if eventually
> the entire solar system is converted into computronium, there won't be
> any really happy place to download to... possibly... eventually...

Kelly. I may live happily in Oort Cloud.

By many experts on computronium psychology, who wrote here, propagation 
times counted in weeks or even months (realtime) are not interesting to 
computronium. So I will be able to find some dark corner on the edge of 
Solar System and computrionium would not even notice, nor should it give 
a damn (as long as I don't do anything suspicious).

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sat May 12 18:28:23 2012
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 20:28:23 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Uploading Swindle (was Re: Finally!)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205121705400.9442@tau.ceti.pl>
References: <CAPy8RwYdY24xkODKXimAsYxtSk4ObGFV_K5QCHU-kqaX2yqsag@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205041801451.9360@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAPy8RwaTy3j_SOzUkw6AiudFhoBYvK6fjkxCPZMSNGZETmfMrQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205051835240.1751@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAPy8RwZhqCcVmwiuM1MsB_AwZH3own+MUBsm765khsTjYrMxXw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205121705400.9442@tau.ceti.pl>
Message-ID: <CAPoR7a6tL=4BnHhhgPz4k57gAGwMRJKNZZCpCFAQVOswfEq8RA@mail.gmail.com>

On 12 May 2012 18:44, Tomasz Rola <rtomek at ceti.pl> wrote:

> Humans feel, dream, educate themselves and change. Pets and insects don't.
>

I would not really know about insects, but I wonder what kind of experience
you have with pets. Did you have them lobotomised by your veterinary before
welcoming them at home?

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120512/d5ffd505/attachment.html>

From pizerdavid at yahoo.com  Sun May 13 00:56:37 2012
From: pizerdavid at yahoo.com (david pizer)
Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 17:56:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Uploading Swindle (was Re: Finally!)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205121705400.9442@tau.ceti.pl>
References: <CAPy8RwYdY24xkODKXimAsYxtSk4ObGFV_K5QCHU-kqaX2yqsag@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205041801451.9360@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAPy8RwaTy3j_SOzUkw6AiudFhoBYvK6fjkxCPZMSNGZETmfMrQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205051835240.1751@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAPy8RwZhqCcVmwiuM1MsB_AwZH3own+MUBsm765khsTjYrMxXw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205121705400.9442@tau.ceti.pl>
Message-ID: <1336870597.56135.YahooMailNeo@web161702.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

Tomasz said:? "Humans feel, dream, educate themselves and change. Pets and insects don't."
?
I don't agree with this.? I have owned many dogs as pets and have observed them dreaming while sleeping.
?
For instance several of my Great Danes would move their legs as in running and bark as when they are chasing prey, all while they?were asleep.
?
One Great Dane I used to own, "Little Woofy" loved M&Ms candy.? We had a candy machine at a resort we owned in the mountains.
?
When a guest would take out some coins from their pocket and put them in the candy machine, Woofy would rush over and take their hand and put it on the lever that you pull to dispense the M&Ms.? They thought that was cute and so they gave some of the candy to him.? Of course this only made him get better at this little trick.
?
I feel very strongly that some mammals have minds similar to humans, (as?far as memory and decision making),?but without the advanced benefit of the extend of? the level of consciousness that we humans have, especially the extent of self-consciousness.
?
David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120512/0455be09/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sun May 13 01:47:17 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 18:47:17 -0700
Subject: [ExI] dogs and chocolate... was RE: Uploading Swindle (was Re:
	Finally!)
Message-ID: <016401cd30aa$54469da0$fcd3d8e0$@att.net>

One Great Dane I used to own, "Little Woofy" loved M&Ms candy. David

 

 

 

Don't try this at home.  Woofy was OK because he was a big dog, but
chocolate is nearly poison for dogs in general.  They will eat it eagerly,
but if you give them very much it is bad news indeed.  Had he been a little
dog, the outcome might have been double plus ungood.

 

spike

 

.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120512/eeb478b2/attachment.html>

From rtomek at ceti.pl  Sun May 13 03:51:08 2012
From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola)
Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 05:51:08 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [ExI] Uploading Swindle (was Re: Finally!)
In-Reply-To: <CAPoR7a6tL=4BnHhhgPz4k57gAGwMRJKNZZCpCFAQVOswfEq8RA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwYdY24xkODKXimAsYxtSk4ObGFV_K5QCHU-kqaX2yqsag@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205041801451.9360@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAPy8RwaTy3j_SOzUkw6AiudFhoBYvK6fjkxCPZMSNGZETmfMrQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205051835240.1751@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAPy8RwZhqCcVmwiuM1MsB_AwZH3own+MUBsm765khsTjYrMxXw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205121705400.9442@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAPoR7a6tL=4BnHhhgPz4k57gAGwMRJKNZZCpCFAQVOswfEq8RA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205130539260.9442@tau.ceti.pl>

On Sat, 12 May 2012, Stefano Vaj wrote:

> On 12 May 2012 18:44, Tomasz Rola <rtomek at ceti.pl> wrote:
> 
> > Humans feel, dream, educate themselves and change. Pets and insects don't.
> >
> 
> I would not really know about insects, but I wonder what kind of experience
> you have with pets. Did you have them lobotomised by your veterinary before
> welcoming them at home?

Interesting idea, but no.

Revised statement, so it sounds like it should, a logical statement.

Humans feel AND dream AND educate themselves AND change. I should probably 
add we change on our own behalf.

Insects and pets don't do all four of the above. They may do some, but 
this is not enough. Of course we still love them, if we have them in a 
house.

Perhaps the list could be extended but I think just four properties define 
human quite well, from functional side.

I consider myself human and cannot see reason to stop being one. OTOH if 
someone here would like to join hive or start learning tricks, be my 
guest.

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **


From pharos at gmail.com  Sun May 13 07:06:54 2012
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 08:06:54 +0100
Subject: [ExI] dogs and chocolate... was RE: Uploading Swindle (was Re:
	Finally!)
In-Reply-To: <016401cd30aa$54469da0$fcd3d8e0$@att.net>
References: <016401cd30aa$54469da0$fcd3d8e0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAL_armiZF__K5ZJunJe3RQXn7i8WDgtP=NfScsJ=1WBXG_P_FQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 2:47 AM, spike wrote:
> Don?t try this at home.? Woofy was OK because he was a big dog, but
> chocolate is nearly poison for dogs in general.? They will eat it eagerly,
> but if you give them very much it is bad news indeed.? Had he been a little
> dog, the outcome might have been double plus ungood.
>

Cats as well react badly to the theobromine in chocolate.

It is not just the size of the dog that matters. Depends on how
allergic they are as well and on how much theobromine is in the
particular brand of chocolate.. Some big dogs can have a bad reaction
just from licking chocolate.

<http://www.vetinfo.com/chocolate-poison-dogs.html>
<http://www.vetinfo.com/chocolate-toxic-cat.html>


BillK



From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Sun May 13 07:21:32 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 01:21:32 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Uploading Swindle (was Re: Finally!)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205130539260.9442@tau.ceti.pl>
References: <CAPy8RwYdY24xkODKXimAsYxtSk4ObGFV_K5QCHU-kqaX2yqsag@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205041801451.9360@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAPy8RwaTy3j_SOzUkw6AiudFhoBYvK6fjkxCPZMSNGZETmfMrQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205051835240.1751@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAPy8RwZhqCcVmwiuM1MsB_AwZH3own+MUBsm765khsTjYrMxXw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205121705400.9442@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAPoR7a6tL=4BnHhhgPz4k57gAGwMRJKNZZCpCFAQVOswfEq8RA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205130539260.9442@tau.ceti.pl>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwY47Mwo_sNqekABq0dZAJ0Q-jfgcio=Un5v+FBFh4q5rQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Tomasz Rola <rtomek at ceti.pl> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 May 2012, Stefano Vaj wrote:
>
>> On 12 May 2012 18:44, Tomasz Rola <rtomek at ceti.pl> wrote:
>>
>> > Humans feel, dream, educate themselves and change. Pets and insects don't.
>>
>> I would not really know about insects, but I wonder what kind of experience
>> you have with pets. Did you have them lobotomised by your veterinary before
>> welcoming them at home?
>
> Interesting idea, but no.

I don't see us becoming pets in that sense... think more like a "kept
woman"... you will have liberty as a "pet" to pursue your interests,
but no responsibilities... I for one think this kind of future as a
limited "kept" person seems just a little bleak. You're no longer
relevant to what's really happening. Kind of like some people on
perpetual welfare are today. That's soul stealing, and I won't be
participating in that part of the future if I can help it.

> Revised statement, so it sounds like it should, a logical statement.
>
> Humans feel AND dream AND educate themselves AND change. I should probably
> add we change on our own behalf.

I am quite certain that whatever comes next, be it enhanced humans, or
something built rather from scratch, will have these four
capabilities. It may be superhuman, from our current perspective, and
it may or may not think of itself as human. I can't say. If you are
attempting a definition of human, this differentiates us from most
animals today, but it probably will not differentiate us from
posthumans.

Of course, under your argument is the entire question of free will and
whether we actually have it, or it's just an illusion that we all
carry... but I digress...

> Insects and pets don't do all four of the above. They may do some, but
> this is not enough. Of course we still love them, if we have them in a
> house.

When I say "insect", I don't mean that we in the future will only have
the capacity of an insect, but rather that it seems likely that we
will want to communicate with others more and more frequently.

I would invite you to listen to Sherry Turkle about the challenges
that we face just with today's technology to stay fully human.
http://www.ted.com/talks/sherry_turkle_alone_together.html
She recommends rather liberal doses of solitude. The text connected
youth of today send an average of 3000+ texts per month. As
communication increases, and it most certainly will, the necessity of
solitude to maintain humanness will become even more important. I
think this particular TED talk is really relevant to this discussion
in that it shows the trends being followed by the youth of today.
Extrapolating those trends forward would seem to indicate a preference
for the hive mentality over what we currently view as "human", but
maybe I'm wrong or there will be a backlash.

However, there is no guarantee that we will be able to maintain the
kind of humanness that Sherry desires. And if the hive mind is
inevitable, would you rather be part of the only intellect that is
relevant, or maintain your independent, solitary humanity? I suspect
that your answer now is that you would rather maintain your
independent, solitary loving humanity. But I also suspect there are
many, particularly of the younger and next generations, that will not
desire this aspect of humanity any more. If enough are willing to
share all, and become part of a hive mind, then that hive mind would
seemingly become the most intellectually important being in the local
galactic neighborhood.

> Perhaps the list could be extended but I think just four properties define
> human quite well, from functional side.

So what properties would post humans potentially have that would make
them cease being human? Functional telepathy? Ability to process
multiple threads of thought execution simultaneously? What? When do
higher functioning beings cease being human? And is that necessarily a
bad thing?

I for one do not consider it the responsibility of our descendents to
care for us in our current state indefinitely.

> I consider myself human and cannot see reason to stop being one. OTOH if
> someone here would like to join hive or start learning tricks, be my
> guest.

We already are in the hive, to an extent. This mailing list functions
as a kind of hive mind. I'm pretty sure it doesn't have consciousness,
but  it is collective reason. Communication hubs of the future may
well be conscious. I don't know.

> Regards,
> Tomasz Rola

I have regards for you too Tomasz. And while I can't say that you are
wrong, I would plead with you to open your mind to a future of many
possibilities. Some of which you might find difficult to believe now.
For example, 5 years ago, I could not have imagined a future in which
I would be an atheist, free of the memes of Mormonism. And yet, here I
am. If I can change my core beliefs that deeply, then who is to say
what beliefs you might have in the future that are different than your
beliefs now. I don't hold ANY of my beliefs as being immutable any
more. I simply have beliefs that I hold today... and I am open to
having new and different beliefs as I learn and mature. Hell, someday,
I might even sign up for Alcor, who's to say?

-Kelly


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sun May 13 15:26:23 2012
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 17:26:23 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Uploading Swindle (was Re: Finally!)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205130539260.9442@tau.ceti.pl>
References: <CAPy8RwYdY24xkODKXimAsYxtSk4ObGFV_K5QCHU-kqaX2yqsag@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205041801451.9360@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAPy8RwaTy3j_SOzUkw6AiudFhoBYvK6fjkxCPZMSNGZETmfMrQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205051835240.1751@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAPy8RwZhqCcVmwiuM1MsB_AwZH3own+MUBsm765khsTjYrMxXw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205121705400.9442@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAPoR7a6tL=4BnHhhgPz4k57gAGwMRJKNZZCpCFAQVOswfEq8RA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205130539260.9442@tau.ceti.pl>
Message-ID: <CAPoR7a5kQ70dxJx2uEowYvfkn+rysAY7tV+jS8EYm75md3JFZA@mail.gmail.com>

On 13 May 2012 05:51, Tomasz Rola <rtomek at ceti.pl> wrote:

> Revised statement, so it sounds like it should, a logical statement.
>
> Humans feel AND dream AND educate themselves AND change. I should probably
> add we change on our own behalf.
>
> Insects and pets don't do all four of the above.
>

This remains quite an assumption, and as far as we can hallucinate such
activities in fellow humans (all of them could be philophical zombies,
after all, for what we know), I suspect denying them so self-assuredly to
our closest relatives to be influenced by culturally-driven specieism more
than by empirical experience.

Note that I am quite a peculiar anti-specieist, when compared to, say,
David Pearce, because, eg, I am essentially carnivorous and would not dream
for a minute that I should "liberate" my neighbour's dog from its
"slavery".

But if we have to find identifying features of our species as a whole IMHO
a) we should look harder than that b) we should not base them on an
anthropocentric bias which is the thinly secularised legacy of monotheistic
worldviews where *all* humans and *only* humans would be made in the image
of God.

I consider myself human and cannot see reason to stop being one.
>

Hey, be my guest. My Holy Scriptures say instead: "Man is something that is
to be surpassed. What have ye done to surpass man? All beings hitherto have
created something beyond themselves: and ye want to be the ebb of that
great tide, and would rather go back to the beast than surpass man? What is
the ape to man? A laughing-stock, a thing of shame. And just the same shall
man be to the Superman: a laughing-stock, a thing of shame. Ye have made
your way from the worm to man, and much within you is still worm. Once were
ye apes, and even yet man is more of an ape than any of the apes... The
Superman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: The Superman SHALL
BE the meaning of the earth!" :-)

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120513/3ce091a3/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sun May 13 15:52:37 2012
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 16:52:37 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Uploading Swindle (was Re: Finally!)
In-Reply-To: <CAPoR7a5kQ70dxJx2uEowYvfkn+rysAY7tV+jS8EYm75md3JFZA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwYdY24xkODKXimAsYxtSk4ObGFV_K5QCHU-kqaX2yqsag@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205041801451.9360@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAPy8RwaTy3j_SOzUkw6AiudFhoBYvK6fjkxCPZMSNGZETmfMrQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205051835240.1751@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAPy8RwZhqCcVmwiuM1MsB_AwZH3own+MUBsm765khsTjYrMxXw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205121705400.9442@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAPoR7a6tL=4BnHhhgPz4k57gAGwMRJKNZZCpCFAQVOswfEq8RA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205130539260.9442@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAPoR7a5kQ70dxJx2uEowYvfkn+rysAY7tV+jS8EYm75md3JFZA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4FAFD8C5.2080807@aleph.se>

On 13/05/2012 16:26, Stefano Vaj wrote:
> On 13 May 2012 05:51, Tomasz Rola <rtomek at ceti.pl 
> <mailto:rtomek at ceti.pl>> wrote:
>
>     Revised statement, so it sounds like it should, a logical statement.
>
>     Humans feel AND dream AND educate themselves AND change. I should
>     probably
>     add we change on our own behalf.
>
>     Insects and pets don't do all four of the above.
>
>
> This remains quite an assumption, and as far as we can hallucinate 
> such activities in fellow humans (all of them could be philophical 
> zombies, after all, for what we know), I suspect denying them so 
> self-assuredly to our closest relatives to be influenced by 
> culturally-driven specieism more than by empirical experience.

There is also something transhumanly interesting in the question itself: 
is there a sharp distinction, some important threshold, between animals 
and humans, or is it just that humans have more of some faculties than 
other species? It could be that there is a threshold effect - enough 
communication and ability to change in response to communicated 
information (rather than direct learning) might lead to a rapid upwards 
spiral of cumulative culture. But it could also be that there are some 
tricky special modules needed to make human-style general intelligence, 
for example an open-ended language module.

This matters, because if our intelligence and moral standing is due to 
just more of various standard faculties, then we should expect AI to be 
relatively easy: just get enough of them, and the rest will follow. 
Progress is mainly an issue of having enough computing power. But if 
there are some special tricks needed to achieve humanity, then 1) 
success in AI becomes dependent on figuring out how to do them (we 
should expect lumpy progress until a breakthrough) and 2) intelligent 
life might indeed be rare in the universe (which is good news from the 
existential risk/anthropics perspective, if a bit lonely).

Personally I do think most of our capacities are fairly normal in the 
animal kingdom, it was just that we managed to cross a threshold of 
joint language/self control/working memory/whatever and kicked of an 
exponential rise - but the evolutionary pressures leading to that might 
be somewhat uncommon. Not ultra-rare, but still uncommon. And I do 
wonder whether we had a breakthrough in recursive language a few hundred 
thousand years ago.


>     I consider myself human and cannot see reason to stop being one.
>
>
> Hey, be my guest. My Holy Scriptures say instead: "Man is something 
> that is to be surpassed. What have ye done to surpass man? All beings 
> hitherto have created something beyond themselves: and ye want to be 
> the ebb of that great tide, and would rather go back to the beast than 
> surpass man? What is the ape to man? A laughing-stock, a thing of 
> shame. And just the same shall man be to the Superman: a 
> laughing-stock, a thing of shame. Ye have made your way from the worm 
> to man, and much within you is still worm. Once were ye apes, and even 
> yet man is more of an ape than any of the apes... The Superman is the 
> meaning of the earth. Let your will say: The Superman SHALL BE the 
> meaning of the earth!" :-)

And I'll quote:

"We have given you, O Adam, no visage proper to yourself, nor endowment 
properly your own, in order that whatever place, whatever form, whatever 
gifts you may, with premeditation, select, these same you may have and 
possess through your own judgement and decision. The nature of all other 
creatures is defined and restricted within laws which We have laid down; 
you, by contrast, impeded by no such restrictions, may, by your own free 
will, to whose custody We have assigned you, trace for yourself the 
lineaments of your own nature. I have placed you at the very center of 
the world, so that from that vantage point you may with greater ease 
glance round about you on all that the world contains.

We have made you a creature neither of heaven nor of earth, neither 
mortal nor immortal, in order that you may, as the free and proud shaper 
of your own being, fashion yourself in the form you may prefer. It will 
be in your power to descend to the lower, brutish forms of life; you 
will be able, through your own decision, to rise again to the superior 
orders whose life is divine."

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120513/02ff40dd/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Sun May 13 18:15:28 2012
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 19:15:28 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Uploading Swindle (was Re: Finally!)
In-Reply-To: <4FAFD8C5.2080807@aleph.se>
References: <CAPy8RwYdY24xkODKXimAsYxtSk4ObGFV_K5QCHU-kqaX2yqsag@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205041801451.9360@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAPy8RwaTy3j_SOzUkw6AiudFhoBYvK6fjkxCPZMSNGZETmfMrQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205051835240.1751@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAPy8RwZhqCcVmwiuM1MsB_AwZH3own+MUBsm765khsTjYrMxXw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205121705400.9442@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAPoR7a6tL=4BnHhhgPz4k57gAGwMRJKNZZCpCFAQVOswfEq8RA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205130539260.9442@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAPoR7a5kQ70dxJx2uEowYvfkn+rysAY7tV+jS8EYm75md3JFZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4FAFD8C5.2080807@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAL_armixo3ixTkeWajj6j1mzO9Zv6mGYepYiT99_rySkU4+AkA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote:
<snip>
>
> Personally I do think most of our capacities are fairly normal in the animal
> kingdom, it was just that we managed to cross a threshold of joint
> language/self control/working memory/whatever and kicked of an exponential
> rise - but the evolutionary pressures leading to that might be somewhat
> uncommon. Not ultra-rare, but still uncommon. And I do wonder whether we had
> a breakthrough in recursive language a few hundred thousand years ago.
>


Well, you've just seen a dancing dog win the 'Britain's Got Talent' TV show.

Does that mean a dog has more talent than the human contestants?

Going by the clips I've seen of the contestants, then the answer is
probably 'Yes'.

:)

BillK


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sun May 13 18:29:10 2012
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 20:29:10 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Uploading Swindle (was Re: Finally!)
In-Reply-To: <4FAFD8C5.2080807@aleph.se>
References: <CAPy8RwYdY24xkODKXimAsYxtSk4ObGFV_K5QCHU-kqaX2yqsag@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205041801451.9360@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAPy8RwaTy3j_SOzUkw6AiudFhoBYvK6fjkxCPZMSNGZETmfMrQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205051835240.1751@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAPy8RwZhqCcVmwiuM1MsB_AwZH3own+MUBsm765khsTjYrMxXw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205121705400.9442@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAPoR7a6tL=4BnHhhgPz4k57gAGwMRJKNZZCpCFAQVOswfEq8RA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205130539260.9442@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAPoR7a5kQ70dxJx2uEowYvfkn+rysAY7tV+jS8EYm75md3JFZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4FAFD8C5.2080807@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAPoR7a6c5eFFeivqyazgfHz0fJ8Wnawa2pvXbxakoYOQoVDxRw@mail.gmail.com>

On 13 May 2012 17:52, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> There is also something transhumanly interesting in the question itself:
> is there a sharp distinction, some important threshold, between animals and
> humans, or is it just that humans have more of some faculties than other
> species?
>

My tentative answer, which is obviously influenced by a both
"anti-egalitarian" and "anti-specieist" worldview,  is:
i) of course humans are absolutely peculiar;
ii) but exactly in the same sense where a a dog is not a chimp, let alone
an octopus;
iii and most if not all human features can be unsurprisingly approximated
the closer a given species is to our own in the evolutionary tree (and,
more surprisingly, by species which are relatively far from our branch, but
see in natural history the times eyes or wings have been independently
invented).

One relevant issue, however, is that we do find ourselves relatively
"insulated" in such continuous by the fact that all other species of the
genus Homo are by now extinct - were australopiteci or Neanderthals still
roaming the earth, or when we succeed in resurrecting their species, this
optical illusion could be weakened.


> And I'll quote:
>
> "We have given you, O Adam, no visage proper to yourself, nor endowment
> properly your own, in order that whatever place, whatever form, whatever
> gifts you may, with premeditation, select, these same you may have and
> possess through your own judgement and decision. The nature of all other
> creatures is defined and restricted within laws which We have laid down;
> you, by contrast, impeded by no such restrictions, may, by your own free
> will, to whose custody We have assigned you, trace for yourself the
> lineaments of your own nature. I have placed you at the very center of the
> world, so that from that vantage point you may with greater ease glance
> round about you on all that the world contains.
>
> We have made you a creature neither of heaven nor of earth, neither mortal
> nor immortal, in order that you may, as the free and proud shaper of your
> own being, fashion yourself in the form you may prefer. It will be in your
> power to descend to the lower, brutish forms of life; you will be able,
> through your own decision, to rise again to the superior orders whose life
> is divine."
>

"Nietzsche is the first thinker, who, in view of the world history emerging
for the first time, ask the decisive question and thinks through its
metaphysical implications. The question is: Is man, as man in his nature
?til now, prepared to assume dominion over the whole earth? If not, what
must happen to man as he is so that he may be able to 'subject' the earth
and thereby fulfill the world of an old testament? Must man, as he is,
then, not be brought beyond himself if he is to fulfill this task? [?] One
thing, however, we ought soon to notice: this thinking that aims at the
figure of a teacher who will teach the Superman concerns us, concerns
Europe, concerns the whole Earth ? not just today, but tomorrow even more.
It does so whether we accept it or oppose it, ignore it or imitate it in a
false accent.? :-)

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120513/580f178d/attachment.html>

From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Mon May 14 16:06:46 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 10:06:46 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Moon mining company
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwYewDzyBLqxrZeqd87YGYH4NvZrbUVcF9CgPDmdUi0NAQ@mail.gmail.com>

Does anyone here have in depth knowledge about these folk?

http://www.moonexpress.com/

They are competitors for the Google Lunar X PRIZE, a $30 million
competition that challenges space professionals and engineers from
across the globe to build and launch to the Moon a privately funded
spacecraft capable of completing a series of exploration and
transmission tasks. Team MoonEx, headquartered in San Francisco, CA,
is among 24 teams from a dozen countries that are competing for their
share of the $30 million prize purse.

Does anyone know if they are serious contenders?

-Kelly


From atymes at gmail.com  Mon May 14 17:32:10 2012
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 10:32:10 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Moon mining company
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwYewDzyBLqxrZeqd87YGYH4NvZrbUVcF9CgPDmdUi0NAQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwYewDzyBLqxrZeqd87YGYH4NvZrbUVcF9CgPDmdUi0NAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNTii8y9d9qC7EgHSh7h6HLGQzi=cE9PdNPhDOTUmsaW8w@mail.gmail.com>

Look at their board.  They're not competitors - they're hoping to
build on the GLXP.  (The momentum, PR, and quite possibly
the tech of the winning company - say, by buying the winners'
tech.)

Further, I hear the core of their team was recruited from NASA's
Dawn mission.  NASA can not commercialize asteroid mining
for many reasons, mostly organizational and/or political.  But
having the people who did the basic engineering to explore the
asteroids, hired to a private entity to actually commence mining
it?  That is allowed.

They are quite serious, and have enough money and connections
to have a chance of pulling off what they want.  I see two major
challenges they'll have to deal with, beyond the obvious technical
ones:

1) Monetization.  They seem to be focusing on delivering materials
to orbit, and getting paid to do so.  There is no market for that yet,
because the capability to do that does not yet exist.  Startups that
create a market always have this risk, but this is more dramatic
than most, because there aren't the usual similar-but-not-quite
offerings that this replaces.  (For instance, cars replaced horses,
automated farming replaced labor-intensive farming, and cell
phones replaced having to know where a traveler is so as to call a
phone near the traveler.)  IMO, they would do better to entertain the
notion of processing resources in space, so as to deliver platinum
and other valuable raw materials to Earth; they may be considering
this as a backup or supplemental revenue stream.

2) PR.  Conceptually, this is a simple matter of public education,
but it will be a larger than usual effort.  There will be:
* Disasterbationists and astroturfed efforts who yell and scream that
any effort to move asteroids will inevitably result in large, fast
asteroids slamming into the Earth, with results like the dinosaur
killer asteroid.
* Lawyers who think they have a slam-dunk case that these guys
are violating the Moon Treaty (which, as an international treaty,
would be equal to the US Constitution in legal weight...if only the US
had signed it; no space-faring nation has) or the Outer Space Treaty
(which forbids governments from claiming celestial resources, but is
silent on whether they can sidestep this by merely recognizing the
claims of private entities not under their direct control; only "national
appropriation" is forbidden), and so believe they can sue for lots of
money (much of which would go to their pockets as "legal fees").
* No end of confused folk who think NASA owns space in every
sense (see above) and is the relevant regulatory body (the FAA, not
NASA, sets the rules for things in US airspace - and then only up to
orbit, though that includes reentry for anything launched or controlled
from the US), and therefore believe (coming across as "demand") that
the operation be shut down because NASA isn't controlling it.

That said, they seem able to at least competently face these
challenges as they come up.  We'll see how well they deal with them
(assuming they don't lose interest and withdraw funding when the
technical challenges prove more expensive than they seem at first).

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
> Does anyone here have in depth knowledge about these folk?
>
> http://www.moonexpress.com/
>
> They are competitors for the Google Lunar X PRIZE, a $30 million
> competition that challenges space professionals and engineers from
> across the globe to build and launch to the Moon a privately funded
> spacecraft capable of completing a series of exploration and
> transmission tasks. Team MoonEx, headquartered in San Francisco, CA,
> is among 24 teams from a dozen countries that are competing for their
> share of the $30 million prize purse.
>
> Does anyone know if they are serious contenders?
>
> -Kelly
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


From jrd1415 at gmail.com  Mon May 14 19:37:18 2012
From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 12:37:18 -0700
Subject: [ExI] auto-catalytic sets
Message-ID: <CAHUTwkPQz4Z0Nn4bCsqwd45NistQHq5S7AJE=awqb-a9pzD1pg@mail.gmail.com>

I thought this worth sharing.  If someone got to it ahead of me, my apologies.

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27827/?nlid=nldly&nld=2012-05-08

Best, Jeff Davis

     "Everything's hard till you know how to do it."
                              Ray Charles


From jrd1415 at gmail.com  Mon May 14 20:15:32 2012
From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 13:15:32 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Wash post comment
In-Reply-To: <CAPiwVB7V78ZkdgcRPQ8NksN938Wz-zN3FVN09FFYO11jeROyuA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7V78ZkdgcRPQ8NksN938Wz-zN3FVN09FFYO11jeROyuA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHUTwkPM60WrCC-tXPjU5OT0+yQxGP_7yiDc+Ud6p_5N__OtgQ@mail.gmail.com>

With respect, every few years someone says,  all Henny Penny-like,
"We're running out of energy.  We're doomed, we're doomed."  And then
something happens -- vast new oil fields off the coast of Brazil,
Alaskan north coast, Siberian Arctic, South China Sea, etc etc.  Or
new tech makes previously unavailable resources available: deep water
drilling, tar sands refining, and lately horizontal drilling and
"fracking" in shale gas formations.

Athabasca and Orinoco tar sands:  each containing substantially more
energy reserves than Saudi Arabia.  Shale gas across the planet:
ditto, in spades, and cleaner and cheaper than tar sands..  No peak
oil, no energy crisis. All the fuss is just old fashioned media hype.
Same old same old.  Rivet those eyeballs, and then... Strangle the
chicken to scare the monkey(s).  Always keep them scared and working
hard to get the money to buy safety and happiness.

Energy is priced in dollars.  Is the price of energy going up, or is
the value of the dollar going down(or perhaps a little of both)?

The real answer lies not in today's expense for whatever, but in the
inevitable technologically-driven, increase in productivity driven by
advanced automation.  That makes everything cheaper, including, and in
particular, access to space.  Then we -- which is to say humanity --
can get the hell out of this gravity well -- Planet of the One percent
and their minion Morons -- and take up and enjoy real freedom and
independence in the vast spaces between worlds.

YMMV.

Best, Jeff Davis

       "Everything's hard till you know how to do it."
                                  Ray Charles


From spike66 at att.net  Mon May 14 20:32:03 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 13:32:03 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Wash post comment
In-Reply-To: <CAHUTwkPM60WrCC-tXPjU5OT0+yQxGP_7yiDc+Ud6p_5N__OtgQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7V78ZkdgcRPQ8NksN938Wz-zN3FVN09FFYO11jeROyuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkPM60WrCC-tXPjU5OT0+yQxGP_7yiDc+Ud6p_5N__OtgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <002a01cd3210$9fa55310$deeff930$@att.net>



-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Davis
...

>...Athabasca and Orinoco tar sands:  each containing substantially more
energy reserves than Saudi Arabia.  Shale gas across the planet:  ditto, in
spades, and cleaner and cheaper than tar sands..  No peak oil, no energy
crisis...Best, Jeff Davis


Even if technically true, the tar sands vs. Saudi oil notion is
oversimplified to the point of being misleading.  The tar sands and oil
shale takes a hell of a lot more energy to get the energy out.  Saudi Arabia
is a good comparison, because their crude is light and sweet, and at one
time came spewing out of the ground of its own free will.  The tar sands
require a lot of fresh water, a lot of scrubbing and processing, a lot of
everything.

There is no doubt we have an energy problem to solve, which is way more
urgent than worrying about global warming.

spike



From steinberg.will at gmail.com  Mon May 14 20:32:44 2012
From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg)
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 15:32:44 -0500
Subject: [ExI] auto-catalytic sets
In-Reply-To: <CAHUTwkPQz4Z0Nn4bCsqwd45NistQHq5S7AJE=awqb-a9pzD1pg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHUTwkPQz4Z0Nn4bCsqwd45NistQHq5S7AJE=awqb-a9pzD1pg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKrqSyEqyxv+uFKGgSh2OOgZtbO50CKGYjcehtHLqUBad4d7QQ@mail.gmail.com>

Very nice.  Insane amounts of energy and substrate practically guarantees
this particular mathematical happening somewhere in the universe/on a
particular planet.  Need to work in that sets adapt to their environments
(selection).  The anthropic principle does the rest, I think.

Forwarding this to ZS too.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120514/1c277a9f/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Mon May 14 21:53:45 2012
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 22:53:45 +0100
Subject: [ExI] auto-catalytic sets
In-Reply-To: <CAHUTwkPQz4Z0Nn4bCsqwd45NistQHq5S7AJE=awqb-a9pzD1pg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHUTwkPQz4Z0Nn4bCsqwd45NistQHq5S7AJE=awqb-a9pzD1pg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4FB17EE9.6090309@aleph.se>

The original paper is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0584

Nice to see that Kaufmann has not given up, but rather turned to 
quantitative analysis. Cool that the sets are not just the giant component.

What I wonder about this model is the waste set. Autocatalytic sets that 
use food sets will also produce waste chemicals that are not used by it 
and are not autocatalytic in themselves (otherwise they would be in the 
maxRAF). There needs to be a process that turns some of the waste set 
into the food set, otherwise the process will grind to a halt.

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University



From eugen at leitl.org  Tue May 15 08:45:32 2012
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 10:45:32 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Wash post comment
In-Reply-To: <CAHUTwkPM60WrCC-tXPjU5OT0+yQxGP_7yiDc+Ud6p_5N__OtgQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7V78ZkdgcRPQ8NksN938Wz-zN3FVN09FFYO11jeROyuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkPM60WrCC-tXPjU5OT0+yQxGP_7yiDc+Ud6p_5N__OtgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120515084532.GI17120@leitl.org>

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 01:15:32PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> With respect, every few years someone says,  all Henny Penny-like,
> "We're running out of energy.  We're doomed, we're doomed."  And then
> something happens -- vast new oil fields off the coast of Brazil,
> Alaskan north coast, Siberian Arctic, South China Sea, etc etc.  Or
> new tech makes previously unavailable resources available: deep water
> drilling, tar sands refining, and lately horizontal drilling and
> "fracking" in shale gas formations.

You're living in a different reality. Look at the numbers instead
of fact-empty rah-rah, go tigers.
 
> Athabasca and Orinoco tar sands:  each containing substantially more
> energy reserves than Saudi Arabia.  Shale gas across the planet:
> ditto, in spades, and cleaner and cheaper than tar sands..  No peak
> oil, no energy crisis. All the fuss is just old fashioned media hype.
> Same old same old.  Rivet those eyeballs, and then... Strangle the
> chicken to scare the monkey(s).  Always keep them scared and working
> hard to get the money to buy safety and happiness.
> 
> Energy is priced in dollars.  Is the price of energy going up, or is

Price is not a good predictor of recoverable total energy.
Markets can't predict shit, captain.

> the value of the dollar going down(or perhaps a little of both)?
> 
> The real answer lies not in today's expense for whatever, but in the
> inevitable technologically-driven, increase in productivity driven by
> advanced automation.  That makes everything cheaper, including, and in

Advanced automation will actually make EROEI worse.

> particular, access to space.  Then we -- which is to say humanity --
> can get the hell out of this gravity well -- Planet of the One percent
> and their minion Morons -- and take up and enjoy real freedom and
> independence in the vast spaces between worlds.

Aerospace is not considered essential. All nonessential activities
are reduced during crisis.
 
> YMMV.
> 
> Best, Jeff Davis
> 
>        "Everything's hard till you know how to do it."
>                                   Ray Charles
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From eugen at leitl.org  Tue May 15 08:52:07 2012
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 10:52:07 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Wash post comment
In-Reply-To: <002a01cd3210$9fa55310$deeff930$@att.net>
References: <CAPiwVB7V78ZkdgcRPQ8NksN938Wz-zN3FVN09FFYO11jeROyuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkPM60WrCC-tXPjU5OT0+yQxGP_7yiDc+Ud6p_5N__OtgQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <002a01cd3210$9fa55310$deeff930$@att.net>
Message-ID: <20120515085207.GJ17120@leitl.org>

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 01:32:03PM -0700, spike wrote:

> There is no doubt we have an energy problem to solve, which is way more
> urgent than worrying about global warming.

Both are cumulative, and causally related. E.g. fracking 
releases a far larger fraction of methane into the atmosphere
than conventional gas.

See http://cluborlov.blogspot.de/2012/05/shale-gas-view-from-russia.html
or a somewhat less optimistic view on fracking/shale.


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue May 15 14:02:17 2012
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 07:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] auto-catalytic sets
References: <CAHUTwkPQz4Z0Nn4bCsqwd45NistQHq5S7AJE=awqb-a9pzD1pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4FB17EE9.6090309@aleph.se> 
Message-ID: <1337090537.61234.YahooMailNeo@web164501.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>


?----- Original Message -----
> From: Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Cc: 
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 2:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [ExI] auto-catalytic sets
> 
>T he original paper is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0584
> 
> Nice to see that Kaufmann has not given up, but rather turned to quantitative 
> analysis. Cool that the sets are not just the giant component.
> 
> What I wonder about this model is the waste set. Autocatalytic sets that use 
> food sets will also produce waste chemicals that are not used by it and are not 
> autocatalytic in themselves (otherwise they would be in the maxRAF). There needs 
> to be a process that turns some of the waste set into the food set, otherwise 
> the process will grind to a halt.


Thanks for the link to the actual article, Anders. You are right that the process would grind to a halt without some way of regenerating the food set. From the way he defined autocatytic sets, it seems that?he was using them to model genetics instead of metabolism. Despite the fact the binary polymer model he?describes allows for both?cleavage and ligation, his example uses only?ligation. Actual metabolism?actually?goes in both directions, anabolism where?complex molecules are built up from simpler subunits and catabolism where complex molecules are broken down into their?constituent subunits. So his?algorithm seems completely biased toward anabolism.
?
Another shortcoming?is that it seems that?the autocatalytic sets/subsets require at least one element of the food set to be a catalyst. In his example, it is the {0} that is the?catalytic superfood, but I think it might be a general problem with his method that one of the food elements must?be a catalyst to bootstrap the rest of the autocatalytic set. The problem with this observation is that known biological catalysts?are polymers. If there?were a biological?monomer that could catalyze the polymerization of other monomers, then the origin of life would be obvious.
?
Stuart LaForge
?
"Man is a strange animal, he doesn't like to read the handwriting on the wall until his back is up against it."? -Adlai Stevenson



From spike66 at att.net  Wed May 16 05:11:21 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 22:11:21 -0700
Subject: [ExI] self driving cars
Message-ID: <003401cd3322$55eca850$01c5f8f0$@att.net>

Google and Stanford have shown that controls technology is now sufficient to
make a car drive itself in traffic at normal speeds.  Here's your chance to
work your mind, think deeply and be a techno-prophet by really thinking
through the question of how this will change how we drive and how we live.

 

I would say the three technologies have had the biggest impact on our lives
are computers, internet and cell phones.  I expect self-driving cars will be
the fourth biggie, and perhaps displacing cell phones for third place in the
list of huge changes.

 

Impacts: it allows cars to have vastly lower overall performance if the
human is out of the loop.  If a car is programmed to go no faster than the
speed limit ever, then there is no need to have the capability of going
faster than that.  All else being equal, the weight of a car scales as the
square of the top speed, so cars become dramatically lighter, and more fuel
efficient.

 

We could have bathrooms in our cars.  That would be cool.

 

Roads would need to be smoother, since the robo-car would not be as likely
to avoid road irregularities.  They will not swerve to miss holes.

 

Once market penetration takes hold and there are more robo-cars than human
operated cars on the road, the humans might be tempted to drive very
aggressively.  Reasoning: the robo-cars would unquestioningly yield to them.
The human in the robo-car would scarcely notice that his is constantly being
cut off by aggressive assholes, since he might be in back in the bathroom
reading his tablet.  Driving aggressively doesn't accomplish much, since
most of the cars on the road would be going right at the speed limit.

 

Eventually: way fewer accidents.  Robo-cars do not get distracted, they
don't text, they don't get drunk or stoned, they don't get pissed off and
aggressive.  They just drive, faultlessly.  It isn't that hard to do really.

 

Although trips generally will take a little longer, they become more
predictable.  So if you need to leave two sigma ahead of average, the
standard deviation for any given trip goes down.

 

What else?  This is your chance to peer into the future and record your
musings for future generations to ridicule or marvel at your wisdom.

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120515/025ea1b2/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Wed May 16 07:47:02 2012
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 08:47:02 +0100
Subject: [ExI] self driving cars
In-Reply-To: <003401cd3322$55eca850$01c5f8f0$@att.net>
References: <003401cd3322$55eca850$01c5f8f0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAL_armhcWogfa-F+6sCEYuYwuYM_iDhYxSkabdYf7FW9ODhgEw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 6:11 AM, spike wrote:
> Eventually: way fewer accidents.? Robo-cars do not get distracted, they
> don?t text, they don?t get drunk or stoned, they don?t get pissed off and
> aggressive.? They just drive, faultlessly.? It isn?t that hard to do really.
>
> What else?? This is your chance to peer into the future and record your
> musings for future generations to ridicule or marvel at your wisdom.
>

Robo-cars will in future connect to Google maps and traffic reports to
work out the best route.
Traffic jams will be reduced along with fuel consumption. Cars could
safely drive closer together and even form high-speed 'convoys' on
freeway trips.

Taxi drivers, truck drivers, chauffeurs, *all* drivers will be unemployed.

Traffic control personnel will be unemployed. Cars won't be used in
crimes any more as the police could just command the getaway car to
stop, or the other nearby robo-cars to surround it and bring it to a
halt.

Most accident repair shops will close down - more unemployment.

Mostly people won't own their own car. They will just specify their
journey, number of people, luggage, etc. and an appropriately sized
vehicle will turn up on schedule and deliver them to their
destination.

Eventually people will be banned from driving on public roads as being
just too dangerous.

Motor sport will dwindle away as it is much less interesting without
the spectacular crashes. And will humans really want to spend the day
racing each other when a robo-car can come along and beat all their
lap times and show them how it should be done?

Google Street View will be updated almost instantly as every robo-car
will have a street view camera. So viewers will see the world as 'now'
instead of a 3-year old picture.

People generally just won't travel nearly as much. The cruising for no
reason will disappear as you won't be doing the fun driving. Going to
look at the scenery will be done through Street View and your 60 inch
TV. You won't be going to fetch the groceries - just ordering via
computer and the robo-van will deliver them. Tele-presence will also
reduce the need for travel.

Maybe the peak oil problem won't matter so much if people gradually
stop needing to use oil at the same time as oil supplies gradually
reduce and become more expensive.


BillK



From anders at aleph.se  Wed May 16 08:03:01 2012
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 09:03:01 +0100
Subject: [ExI] self driving cars
In-Reply-To: <003401cd3322$55eca850$01c5f8f0$@att.net>
References: <003401cd3322$55eca850$01c5f8f0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <4FB35F35.9070402@aleph.se>

As the people on the RISKS mailing list gleefully pointed out, it also 
likely means some serious issues of outsiders messing with traffic 
systems. If the security of the cars is not much better than typical 
software security we are going to see some very nasty "accidents".

"Today AQNA took responsibility for the malware outbreak that has made 
cars heavier than one tonne in the WayNet system accelerate 
uncontrollably. So far 5,463 people have been killed worldwide. This is 
the most lethal case of traffic hacking since the Anonymous anti-MPAA 
hack in Los Angeles 2023, which killed 231..."

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University



From pharos at gmail.com  Wed May 16 08:18:47 2012
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 09:18:47 +0100
Subject: [ExI] self driving cars
In-Reply-To: <4FB35F35.9070402@aleph.se>
References: <003401cd3322$55eca850$01c5f8f0$@att.net>
 <4FB35F35.9070402@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAL_armjHMzdC8Lx=rxsyKfpM-TX8qaDrwdRdEzYxBJNSfQ41Gw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote:
> As the people on the RISKS mailing list gleefully pointed out, it also
> likely means some serious issues of outsiders messing with traffic systems.
> If the security of the cars is not much better than typical software
> security we are going to see some very nasty "accidents".
>
> "Today AQNA took responsibility for the malware outbreak that has made cars
> heavier than one tonne in the WayNet system accelerate uncontrollably. So
> far 5,463 people have been killed worldwide. This is the most lethal case of
> traffic hacking since the Anonymous anti-MPAA hack in Los Angeles 2023,
> which killed 231..."
>
>

I doubt if this will happen more than once (if ever).  The TSA,
police, FBI, etc. would actually get serious about computer crime.
Anonymous is treated just as a bit of a nuisance at present. But if
people start being killed then Anonymous members will be killed in
retaliation. Anonymous will be treated the same as terrorists. Goon
squads will kick doors in at 4 am and shoot at any sign of resistance.
Drones will blow up property where Anonymous is traced to. (Sorry
about the collateral damage, but it was necessary to destroy the
village in order to save it).

Yes, there will be less freedom and more authoritarian restrictions.
But that is happening already and will only increase as powerful
weapons become available to smaller and smaller groups.


BillK


From anders at aleph.se  Wed May 16 12:34:49 2012
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 13:34:49 +0100
Subject: [ExI] self driving cars
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armjHMzdC8Lx=rxsyKfpM-TX8qaDrwdRdEzYxBJNSfQ41Gw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <003401cd3322$55eca850$01c5f8f0$@att.net>
 <4FB35F35.9070402@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armjHMzdC8Lx=rxsyKfpM-TX8qaDrwdRdEzYxBJNSfQ41Gw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4FB39EE9.6030103@aleph.se>

On 16/05/2012 09:18, BillK wrote:
>
> I doubt if this will happen more than once (if ever).  The TSA,
> police, FBI, etc. would actually get serious about computer crime.
> Anonymous is treated just as a bit of a nuisance at present. But if
> people start being killed then Anonymous members will be killed in
> retaliation. Anonymous will be treated the same as terrorists. Goon
> squads will kick doors in at 4 am and shoot at any sign of resistance.
> Drones will blow up property where Anonymous is traced to. (Sorry
> about the collateral damage, but it was necessary to destroy the
> village in order to save it).
>
> Yes, there will be less freedom and more authoritarian restrictions.
> But that is happening already and will only increase as powerful
> weapons become available to smaller and smaller groups.

So the conclusion is, lots of burning villages filled with pissed-off 
ex+citizens. Nice to know I am on the right side of the atlantic, where 
the goons at least are polite.

I agree that the car hack is likely to be a one time big event; as soon 
as the security and safety implications become obvious people will spend 
a lot of effort on fixing them (hunting hackers is a sideshow). But I 
fear that it is going to be trickier to secure this kind of system than 
most people think. It is distributed, it involves heavy machinery, it 
involves software from many sources, it is intended to be "smart" - 
plenty of chances for exploits to crop up. And the economic impacts of 
successful hacks can be big - nice incentives for blackmail and other 
inputs to the black economy.

A real possibility is that authorities will think about this from the 
start and demand secure systems by defult - something that may prove so 
onerous to implement well that either only a few big actors can do it or 
the industry actually finds itself unable to comply well.

Basically, the computer security issue is a nontrivial headache.

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University



From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Wed May 16 06:42:26 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 00:42:26 -0600
Subject: [ExI] self driving cars
In-Reply-To: <003401cd3322$55eca850$01c5f8f0$@att.net>
References: <003401cd3322$55eca850$01c5f8f0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwbqJO3v_LfrpVxnnhzaTE1dcMw7ntDTs3K9s5S5knC+Tw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:11 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> Google and Stanford have shown that controls technology is now sufficient to
> make a car drive itself in traffic at normal speeds.? Here?s your chance to
> work your mind, think deeply and be a techno-prophet by really thinking
> through the question of how this will change how we drive and how we live.

This should be fun, I've been thinking about this one for years...

> I would say the three technologies have had the biggest impact on our lives
> are computers, internet and cell phones.? I expect self-driving cars will be
> the fourth biggie, and perhaps displacing cell phones for third place in the
> list of huge changes.

Of the three you've listed, only Cell phones have produced a
significant measurable increase in worker productivity (according to
an article I read about five years ago, the Internet may have picked
up steam since then) but I suspect autonomous vehicles will also
result in a very high measurable increase in productivity. Now all you
can do in your car is use your cell phone, which is only so
productive. In the future with autonomous vehicles, you should be able
to do reasonably passable video conferencing and computer sharing
(like gotomypc.com) and such that will be way more productive than the
uses we put our time in cars to now.

This requires better mobile Internet, which I think will happen.

It will also likely be very detrimental to broadcast radio... as an
aside. Much of the listening to broadcast radio is now done while
driving... and if you have the choice to do something else, I imagine
you will.

> Impacts: it allows cars to have vastly lower overall performance if the
> human is out of the loop.? If a car is programmed to go no faster than the
> speed limit ever, then there is no need to have the capability of going
> faster than that.? All else being equal, the weight of a car scales as the
> square of the top speed, so cars become dramatically lighter, and more fuel
> efficient.

I think you have this one all wrong Spike. As soon as all cars are
autonomous, the speed limits should go up significantly. If you can do
it safely, why wouldn't you?

> We could have bathrooms in our cars.? That would be cool.

I already have one... you can pick it up at truck stops... LOL It's
basically a cup full of the junk in diapers... pretty much for men
only I'm afraid.

> Roads would need to be smoother, since the robo-car would not be as likely
> to avoid road irregularities.? They will not swerve to miss holes.

Why not? If they can miss pedestrians, they should be able to miss
holes. And report them to the proper authorities for quicker fixing
too.

> Once market penetration takes hold and there are more robo-cars than human
> operated cars on the road, the humans might be tempted to drive very
> aggressively.

I don't think humans will ever drive as aggressively as robo-cars. If
there are still enough human drivers out there to worry about, humans
wouldn't take the chance of running into another human.

> Reasoning: the robo-cars would unquestioningly yield to
> them.

I'm sure this is true. Or at least they would drive within their
capacity to get out of the human's way no matter what the stupid human
does.

> The human in the robo-car would scarcely notice that his is
> constantly being cut off by aggressive assholes, since he might be in back
> in the bathroom reading his tablet.? Driving aggressively doesn?t accomplish
> much, since most of the cars on the road would be going right at the speed
> limit.

Maybe there will be a "car pool lane" for robo-cars for a while... In
this lane they might have a higher speed, and there would definitely
be closer following distances.

> Eventually: way fewer accidents.? Robo-cars do not get distracted, they
> don?t text, they don?t get drunk or stoned, they don?t get pissed off and
> aggressive.? They just drive, faultlessly.? It isn?t that hard to do really.

Absolutely.

Here's another thought for ya. I think perhaps the first automated
vehicles might be semi-tractor trailers. There is a huge economic
benefit to being able to drive those 24 hours a day, and humans are
now limited by law to around 8-10 hours a day (unless you pair drive).
They already have the Qualcomm GPS tracking to enforce this sort of
thing. No more truck stops. No more trucks parked with drivers
sleeping in rest areas.

> Although trips generally will take a little longer, they become more
> predictable.? So if you need to leave two sigma ahead of average, the
> standard deviation for any given trip goes down.

Trips will not take longer. One reason is that there will be no need
for traffic lights, and so any city driving will be pretty quick. The
one thing that might take a few extra minutes is if you car share and
the robo-car is delivered late to your door because you didn't
schedule it ahead of time.

> What else?? This is your chance to peer into the future and record your
> musings for future generations to ridicule or marvel at your wisdom.

It makes car ownership optional. You can just rent the car when you
need it, and the car delivers itself at your request. The rental of
the car would be much cheaper than it is today because you've got a
time-share. Once you get to your destination, you can be dropped off.
Electric cars become possible then too, as they can drive themselves
to where they switch batteries... (I believe in the switch out the
batteries method will win over the plug in and recharge method
eventually)

I know we don't usually send attachments to the list, but I thought
this one was quite appropriate.

-Kelly
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: driver of future.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1951536 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120516/7009156d/attachment.jpg>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed May 16 20:29:04 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 13:29:04 -0700
Subject: [ExI] welcome to life
Message-ID: <00eb01cd33a2$8a20db20$9e629160$@att.net>

 

 

Haaaaahahahahahahahaaaaaahahahahaaaa.

 

Some creative person knows of singularity theory and has a sense of humor:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe9wiDfb0E

 

{8^D

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120516/37e43607/attachment.html>

From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Wed May 16 20:47:36 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 14:47:36 -0600
Subject: [ExI] welcome to life
In-Reply-To: <00eb01cd33a2$8a20db20$9e629160$@att.net>
References: <00eb01cd33a2$8a20db20$9e629160$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAPy8Rwaq1q4yHc_ZJ27K5fgzXesCvQpFFv34CdMTdd9L8OoSfw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 2:29 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
> Haaaaahahahahahahahaaaaaahahahahaaaa?
>
> Some creative person knows of singularity theory and has a sense of humor:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe9wiDfb0E

Totally, completely, outrageously funny as hell!!!!

-Kelly



From natasha at natasha.cc  Wed May 16 21:19:42 2012
From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 17:19:42 -0400
Subject: [ExI] welcome to life
In-Reply-To: <00eb01cd33a2$8a20db20$9e629160$@att.net>
References: <00eb01cd33a2$8a20db20$9e629160$@att.net>
Message-ID: <20120516171942.8fyoz63y3owogcgs@webmail.natasha.cc>



   Clever. Very similar to Critical Art Ensamble's historical  
work.?http://www.critical-art.net/[1]?

   Quoting spike <spike66 at att.net>:

>
>
>
>
> Haaaaahahahahahahahaaaaaahahahahaaaa.
>
>
>
> Some creative person knows of singularity theory and has a sense of humor:
>
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe9wiDfb0E[2]
>
>
>
> {8^D
>
>
>
> spike
>
>


Links:
------
[1] http://www.critical-art.net/
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe9wiDfb0E


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120516/2f01089c/attachment.html>

From jrd1415 at gmail.com  Wed May 16 22:35:34 2012
From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 15:35:34 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Wash post comment
In-Reply-To: <20120515084532.GI17120@leitl.org>
References: <CAPiwVB7V78ZkdgcRPQ8NksN938Wz-zN3FVN09FFYO11jeROyuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkPM60WrCC-tXPjU5OT0+yQxGP_7yiDc+Ud6p_5N__OtgQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120515084532.GI17120@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <CAHUTwkNmzvHxwBSK37zWkzunt4aKS_agOE9rxwQYwijyit4sHQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 01:15:32PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
>> With respect, every few years someone says, ?all Henny Penny-like,
>> "We're running out of energy. ?We're doomed, we're doomed."

<snip>

> You're living in a different reality. Look at the numbers instead
> of fact-empty rah-rah, go tigers.

Good to see your doing well.  Spring has sprung and you're as spunky as ever.

I go to the gas station.  There I find my reality,... and my numbers.
Plenty of gas, no lines.  Numbers go up -- war and rumors of war, not
shortages; crude inventories are bulging -- folks grumble, then they
pay and go on there way.  Life goes on.

With respect, not all numbers are reality-based, like those found at
the gas pump.

>> Athabasca and Orinoco tar sands: ?each containing substantially more
>> energy reserves than Saudi Arabia. ?Shale gas across the planet:
>> ditto, in spades, and cleaner and cheaper than tar sands.. ?No peak
>> oil, no energy crisis. All the fuss is just old fashioned media hype.
>> Same old same old. ?Rivet those eyeballs, and then... Strangle the
>> chicken to scare the monkey(s). ?Always keep them scared and working
>> hard to get the money to buy safety and happiness.
>>
>> Energy is priced in dollars. ?Is the price of energy going up, or is
>
> Price is not a good predictor of recoverable total energy.

Before one can reliably predict "recoverable total energy." beyond
short term, one has to have the relevant facts.  Inventories of
resources as yet undiscovered are unavailable, as are
yet-to-be-developed technologies and the unseen synergies arising from
that mix of future tech.

> Markets can't predict shit, captain.

People predict -- with mixed success -- markets don't have to predict,
they just have to respond, which they do, quite nicely, thank you.
High gas prices predict,... electric cars, mein furor. ;-)

>> the value of the dollar going down(or perhaps a little of both)?
>>
>> The real answer lies not in today's expense for whatever, but in the
>> inevitable technologically-driven, increase in productivity driven by
>> advanced automation. ?That makes everything cheaper, including, and in
>
> Advanced automation will actually make EROEI worse.

You sir, are an imposter.  Gene would never say such a thing.
Everyone knows automation makes everything cheaper.

Who ARE you, and what have you done with the real Gene Leitl?  He's a
friend of mine, so you better not hurt him (too much).  I'm calling
the policei right now!!!

By the way, I understand "ROI". And I suspect that "EROEI" means
Energy Return on Energy Invested.  But please confirm.

>> particular, access to space. ?Then we -- which is to say humanity --
>> can get the hell out of this gravity well -- Planet of the One percent
>> and their minion Morons -- and take up and enjoy real freedom and
>> independence in the vast spaces between worlds.
>
> Aerospace is not considered essential.

Tell that to Diamandis et al, (and me, too).  There is more to life
than the "essentials".  Regarding essentials, sorry to hear that you
are strapped,  am sending you some chocolate bars and some Spam.
Plenty of essentials over here.  When did you move to Eastern Somalia?

>All nonessential activities
> are reduced during crisis.

What crisis?  The mainstream news vs cable vs internet
competition-over-eyeballs manufactured crisis?  That one?  Puleeeeese!

YMMV.

Best, Jeff Davis

 ? ? ? ?"Everything's hard till you know how to do it."
 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Ray Charles



From msd001 at gmail.com  Thu May 17 01:26:38 2012
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 21:26:38 -0400
Subject: [ExI] self driving cars
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwbqJO3v_LfrpVxnnhzaTE1dcMw7ntDTs3K9s5S5knC+Tw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <003401cd3322$55eca850$01c5f8f0$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwbqJO3v_LfrpVxnnhzaTE1dcMw7ntDTs3K9s5S5knC+Tw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOJFdb+XJcG1YL3vgHe-zKQ=RVbRAet8UpYTbjM4iCu=FPH9ug@mail.gmail.com>

I think spike was suggesting the speeds go down for engineering
reasons (mostly fuel economy)

The timeshare notion also means we need fewer cars.  However, with our
stupid schedules of "rush hour" we still need too many cars to cover
these needless peak-demand times.  If those of us who work remotely
from the cube-farms our employers provide would simply stay home, it'd
help alleviate some of that demand.  Staggered-start of the work day
to reduce "rush hour" would also provide a smoother distribution of
passenger/car/hour.

Another important side effect of on-demand cars showing up when
required is that we de-invest our identity from them.  I'm not going
to leave 'my stuff' in the car when anyone else might be using it next
or (more likely) that I may not see that particular vehicle again for
weeks.  Assuming these vehicles keep themselves clean (within
tolerances agreed-upon by service provider and consumer) there is also
less concern for how stylish the vehicle is; for it is no longer a
status object to be owned or compared to others'.

During the transition, human drivers will absolutely be more
aggressive.  Perhaps more accurately less careful because the rest of
the traffic would constantly compensate for their failure.  We already
see this in high-price Cadillacs and Lincolns: the car watches you for
signs of falling asleep or backing over your children or other forms
of neglectful driving.  At the point where cars are driving
themselves, the option of taking control will likely become a per-use
upcharge in insurance, traffic prioritization, and risk assessment.
Ultimately it'll be the same pointless tradeoff as now between
becoming irritated by the other cars and arriving 4 minutes sooner
than maintaining an economical (and less stressful) ideal speed.  You
might have the option to drive your car, but you won't want to do that
any more than you'd like to take out the trash or do the laundry once
our machines have taken-over those tasks too.

I think the real punditry comes in trying to figure out what we'll be
doing with all the "free time" we'll have when we aren't serving the
minutiae of the daily grind.  I hope that picture isn't one of a
feed-lot where consumers are bought/raised/sold by mega-corps... but I
keep seeing that as a strong possibility.  Oh I believe most of the
readers of this list are the exceptional minority who will escape that
fate - but what of the 'average' prole?


From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Thu May 17 03:57:52 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 21:57:52 -0600
Subject: [ExI] self driving cars
In-Reply-To: <CAOJFdb+XJcG1YL3vgHe-zKQ=RVbRAet8UpYTbjM4iCu=FPH9ug@mail.gmail.com>
References: <003401cd3322$55eca850$01c5f8f0$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwbqJO3v_LfrpVxnnhzaTE1dcMw7ntDTs3K9s5S5knC+Tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdb+XJcG1YL3vgHe-zKQ=RVbRAet8UpYTbjM4iCu=FPH9ug@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwZAJR3b83diejyOU3FCB278a8uxL+ADrv+_vrszYQbdgg@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think spike was suggesting the speeds go down for engineering
> reasons (mostly fuel economy)

Economics will push speeds faster if safety isn't an issue. Unless Al
Gore is in the white house, or OPEC starts throwing their weight
around ala 1973, I can't see a speed limit for fuel economy because
the overall economics is that the time of the car's occupant is more
valuable to the overall economy than the gasoline.

> The timeshare notion also means we need fewer cars.

Yup, that's part of the point.

> However, with our
> stupid schedules of "rush hour" we still need too many cars to cover
> these needless peak-demand times.

If all the data were known, there could be car pooling, larger
mini-van type cars for car poolers, etc. The best thing about pooling
cars like this is that you then have all the data you need to
facilitate real mass transit.

> If those of us who work remotely
> from the cube-farms our employers provide would simply stay home, it'd
> help alleviate some of that demand. ?Staggered-start of the work day
> to reduce "rush hour" would also provide a smoother distribution of
> passenger/car/hour.

Both awesome (if not new) ideas.

> Another important side effect of on-demand cars showing up when
> required is that we de-invest our identity from them. ?I'm not going
> to leave 'my stuff' in the car when anyone else might be using it next
> or (more likely) that I may not see that particular vehicle again for
> weeks. ?Assuming these vehicles keep themselves clean (within
> tolerances agreed-upon by service provider and consumer) there is also
> less concern for how stylish the vehicle is; for it is no longer a
> status object to be owned or compared to others'.

Right. Decoupling the American psyche from cars would be a good thing.

> During the transition, human drivers will absolutely be more
> aggressive. ?Perhaps more accurately less careful because the rest of
> the traffic would constantly compensate for their failure. ?We already
> see this in high-price Cadillacs and Lincolns: the car watches you for
> signs of falling asleep or backing over your children or other forms
> of neglectful driving. ?At the point where cars are driving
> themselves, the option of taking control will likely become a per-use
> upcharge in insurance, traffic prioritization, and risk assessment.

I absolutely agree, until eventually some lawyer brings a class action
suit that ends all human driving except in the most exceptional
conditions. Sort of like how we go drive fast at the race track now.

> Ultimately it'll be the same pointless tradeoff as now between
> becoming irritated by the other cars and arriving 4 minutes sooner
> than maintaining an economical (and less stressful) ideal speed. ?You
> might have the option to drive your car, but you won't want to do that
> any more than you'd like to take out the trash or do the laundry once
> our machines have taken-over those tasks too.

Yup. And as I showed in my picture, if you want to drive, take a nice
virtual drive down a deserted PCH... why do actual driving in an ugly
city when you can do virtual driving in a beautiful place.

> I think the real punditry comes in trying to figure out what we'll be
> doing with all the "free time" we'll have when we aren't serving the
> minutiae of the daily grind. ?I hope that picture isn't one of a
> feed-lot where consumers are bought/raised/sold by mega-corps... but I
> keep seeing that as a strong possibility. ?Oh I believe most of the
> readers of this list are the exceptional minority who will escape that
> fate - but what of the 'average' prole?

The fate of the average prole has never been all that super, in
comparison to the successful... I see no reason for that to change in
the future. So when you say feed-lot, are you thinking soilient green
or something less horrid than that?

-Kelly



From spike66 at att.net  Thu May 17 04:10:37 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 21:10:37 -0700
Subject: [ExI] self driving cars
In-Reply-To: <CAOJFdb+XJcG1YL3vgHe-zKQ=RVbRAet8UpYTbjM4iCu=FPH9ug@mail.gmail.com>
References: <003401cd3322$55eca850$01c5f8f0$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwbqJO3v_LfrpVxnnhzaTE1dcMw7ntDTs3K9s5S5knC+Tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdb+XJcG1YL3vgHe-zKQ=RVbRAet8UpYTbjM4iCu=FPH9ug@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <019b01cd33e3$04fc9fb0$0ef5df10$@att.net>




>... On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty
>...Subject: Re: [ExI] self driving cars

>...I think spike was suggesting the speeds go down for engineering reasons
(mostly fuel economy)...

Ja, but there is more to it than that.  Speed limits may not go up if we mix
human drivers with software drivers.  Human reflexes will not improve.

>...The timeshare notion also means we need fewer cars...

We can keep our current Detroits, even if we have the call-up car on demand.
I can imagine wanting to keep Mister Lincoln, even if he doesn't go out
often.  I love that car.  I love the venerable V8.  I will miss them when
they are gone.

>...Another important side effect of on-demand cars showing up when required
is that we de-invest our identity from them.  I'm not going to leave 'my
stuff' in the car ... for it is no longer a status object to be owned or
compared to others'...

Again, we can keep our stuff in our cars, in our garage, and still use the
robo-taxis for most travel.

>...During the transition, human drivers will absolutely be more aggressive.
Perhaps more accurately less careful because the rest of the traffic would
constantly compensate for their failure...

Perhaps, but the human drivers must deal with the possibility of other human
drivers, who will not compensate, and who will get pissed off and reach for
their shootin arn if you cut them offwardly.

>...  We already see this in high-price Cadillacs and Lincolns: the car
watches you for signs of falling asleep or backing over your children or
other forms of neglectful driving...

We have proximity warning systems, which would be easy to connect into an
auto-braking system.  This is one I am surprised is not already available in
the market.  I saw the technology demonstrated several years ago: guy drives
directly at a wall, car knows exactly how hard it can stop, driver never
takes his foot off the gas, the car stops 30 cm in front of the wall.  Seems
like those kinds of systems would prevent ugly pileups on a foggy or smoky
freeway.

>...  At the point where cars are driving themselves, the option of taking
control will likely become a per-use upcharge in insurance, traffic
prioritization, and risk assessment...

I see where you can get a GPS box installed in your Detroit and get charged
insurance on a per mile basis.  I might switch to that company for my
motorcycle insurance, since I have four of them and can only ride one at a
time.


>...  Oh I believe most of the readers of this list are the exceptional
minority who will escape that fate - but what of the 'average' prole?

Hey I resemble that, I am an average prole.  On a good day.

spike




From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Thu May 17 04:35:56 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 22:35:56 -0600
Subject: [ExI] self driving cars
In-Reply-To: <019b01cd33e3$04fc9fb0$0ef5df10$@att.net>
References: <003401cd3322$55eca850$01c5f8f0$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwbqJO3v_LfrpVxnnhzaTE1dcMw7ntDTs3K9s5S5knC+Tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdb+XJcG1YL3vgHe-zKQ=RVbRAet8UpYTbjM4iCu=FPH9ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <019b01cd33e3$04fc9fb0$0ef5df10$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwY6-KUHvnuH7+Mpg0ZXTxFzk2X-+RXc=Rj3NWMXJyDX4A@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:10 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>>... On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty
>>...Subject: Re: [ExI] self driving cars
>
>>...I think spike was suggesting the speeds go down for engineering reasons
> (mostly fuel economy)...
>
> Ja, but there is more to it than that. ?Speed limits may not go up if we mix
> human drivers with software drivers. ?Human reflexes will not improve.

But if there are few enough human drivers, maybe you can have one
speed limit for them, and another for autonomous vehicles. Special
lanes where autonomous vehicles go faster. There should and will be a
lot of incentives to switch. The primary determinant of how fast the
changeover occurs is how easy it will be to retrofit existing cars.
Otherwise, it will take ten years or more to get the bad cars out of
the system in meaningful numbers.

>>...The timeshare notion also means we need fewer cars...
>
> We can keep our current Detroits, even if we have the call-up car on demand.
> I can imagine wanting to keep Mister Lincoln, even if he doesn't go out
> often. ?I love that car. ?I love the venerable V8. ?I will miss them when
> they are gone.

But the youth of tomorrow won't, and that will be a good thing. When I
was 16, I lost 5 friends in a car accident. It wasn't pretty.

>>...Another important side effect of on-demand cars showing up when required
> is that we de-invest our identity from them. ?I'm not going to leave 'my
> stuff' in the car ... for it is no longer a status object to be owned or
> compared to others'...
>
> Again, we can keep our stuff in our cars, in our garage, and still use the
> robo-taxis for most travel.
>
>>...During the transition, human drivers will absolutely be more aggressive.
> Perhaps more accurately less careful because the rest of the traffic would
> constantly compensate for their failure...
>
> Perhaps, but the human drivers must deal with the possibility of other human
> drivers, who will not compensate, and who will get pissed off and reach for
> their shootin arn if you cut them offwardly.
>
>>... ?We already see this in high-price Cadillacs and Lincolns: the car
> watches you for signs of falling asleep or backing over your children or
> other forms of neglectful driving...
>
> We have proximity warning systems, which would be easy to connect into an
> auto-braking system. ?This is one I am surprised is not already available in
> the market.

It actually is in some Mercedes models now.

>?I saw the technology demonstrated several years ago: guy drives
> directly at a wall, car knows exactly how hard it can stop, driver never
> takes his foot off the gas, the car stops 30 cm in front of the wall. ?Seems
> like those kinds of systems would prevent ugly pileups on a foggy or smoky
> freeway.

2010 E class cars PRE-SAFE brake. Not a total solution, but pretty good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOH86WYyQCg

>>... ?At the point where cars are driving themselves, the option of taking
> control will likely become a per-use upcharge in insurance, traffic
> prioritization, and risk assessment...
>
> I see where you can get a GPS box installed in your Detroit and get charged
> insurance on a per mile basis. ?I might switch to that company for my
> motorcycle insurance, since I have four of them and can only ride one at a
> time.
>
>
>>... ?Oh I believe most of the readers of this list are the exceptional
> minority who will escape that fate - but what of the 'average' prole?
>
> Hey I resemble that, I am an average prole. ?On a good day.

Right.

-Kelly



From spike66 at att.net  Thu May 17 04:31:00 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 21:31:00 -0700
Subject: [ExI] self driving cars
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwZAJR3b83diejyOU3FCB278a8uxL+ADrv+_vrszYQbdgg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <003401cd3322$55eca850$01c5f8f0$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwbqJO3v_LfrpVxnnhzaTE1dcMw7ntDTs3K9s5S5knC+Tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdb+XJcG1YL3vgHe-zKQ=RVbRAet8UpYTbjM4iCu=FPH9ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZAJR3b83diejyOU3FCB278a8uxL+ADrv+_vrszYQbdgg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <019c01cd33e5$dd00ffd0$9702ff70$@att.net>


>... On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson
Subject: Re: [ExI] self driving cars

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think spike was suggesting the speeds go down for engineering reasons
(mostly fuel economy)

>...Economics will push speeds faster if safety isn't an issue. Unless Al
Gore is in the white house, or OPEC starts throwing their weight around ala
1973, I can't see a speed limit for fuel economy because the overall
economics is that the time of the car's occupant is more valuable to the
overall economy than the gasoline.  -Kelly

_______________________________________________

I do mean we have plenty of applications where slower speeds will not hurt
us much.  Plenty of us have shorty commutes, such as my own, less than ten
miles.  We can imagine software guided cars that have no need to go faster
than the speed limit, and if so, they might not have the ability to go
faster.  If so, the potential weight savings and increased fuel economy is
astonishing.  Assume a car that only needs to go the local top speed limit,
and give it 15 seconds to get to that speed.  Work backwards from just those
requirements, and assume carrying only two apes.  See how light this vehicle
can be?

But your comments and Mike's gave me an idea.  My intuition and every
instinct says that if any two or more devices have motors, there is some law
of nature which requires they must be raced against each other.  I can see
this as a terrific new breakthrough sport: robot racing.

I grew up an hour drive south of Daytona International Speedway, and I
loooved car racing as a kid, motorcycle racing even more, but if you look at
the cars now vs then, the sport hasn't changed much in the last 40 yrs.
Evolutionary changes have pushed the cars faster, sure, but from the
spectator's point of view, not so different than it was in my own misspent
youth.  I am past the half century mark now.

I would buy tickets to watch several identical Priuses (Prii?) racing around
a city-street track.  That would be a kick!  Several years ago, they made a
loop around several downtown San Jose streets for formula 1 cars, which was
a hell of a lotta fun, but it would be even more cool if they raced
robo-cars.  Let the Prii be identical engine and drive train, but let the
hackers mess with the software all they want, and the instrumentation.  It
would be like any other car race except with this one oddball rule: if any
car hits or even touches any other car, both cars are automatically
disqualified regardless of who hit who.  That motivates the programmers to
do something useful: avoid collisions and contact as top priority, higher
than getting there first.

I was present at the first DARPA challenge, robo-cars in the desert, the one
which was a total flop in 2004.  That was a time trial, with cars starting
every five minutes, the fastest cars going out first.  What I have in mind
is a dozen cars starting on a city street loop of a couple miles.  Once the
robo-cars demonstrated they are safe, we could introduce a humans vs
software races.  Would that be wicked cool or what?

When software demonstrates that it can race competently, it can be trusted
to drive.

spike



From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Thu May 17 04:57:46 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 22:57:46 -0600
Subject: [ExI] self driving cars
In-Reply-To: <019c01cd33e5$dd00ffd0$9702ff70$@att.net>
References: <003401cd3322$55eca850$01c5f8f0$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwbqJO3v_LfrpVxnnhzaTE1dcMw7ntDTs3K9s5S5knC+Tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdb+XJcG1YL3vgHe-zKQ=RVbRAet8UpYTbjM4iCu=FPH9ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZAJR3b83diejyOU3FCB278a8uxL+ADrv+_vrszYQbdgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <019c01cd33e5$dd00ffd0$9702ff70$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAPy8Rwb1EVDpX-ZrWS4pab2xKgdMUgYrOni6GsXe=ufoQKR_Ew@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:31 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>>... On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson
> Subject: Re: [ExI] self driving cars
>
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think spike was suggesting the speeds go down for engineering reasons
> (mostly fuel economy)
>
>>...Economics will push speeds faster if safety isn't an issue. Unless Al
> Gore is in the white house, or OPEC starts throwing their weight around ala
> 1973, I can't see a speed limit for fuel economy because the overall
> economics is that the time of the car's occupant is more valuable to the
> overall economy than the gasoline. ?-Kelly
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> I do mean we have plenty of applications where slower speeds will not hurt
> us much. ?Plenty of us have shorty commutes, such as my own, less than ten
> miles. ?We can imagine software guided cars that have no need to go faster
> than the speed limit, and if so, they might not have the ability to go
> faster. ?If so, the potential weight savings and increased fuel economy is
> astonishing. ?Assume a car that only needs to go the local top speed limit,
> and give it 15 seconds to get to that speed. ?Work backwards from just those
> requirements, and assume carrying only two apes. ?See how light this vehicle
> can be?

Perhaps you can pay to go faster if you want to. Autonomous vehicles
should be better at getting out of the way of people that want to go
faster... there are legitimate reasons to hurry sometimes.

On the other hand, delivering stuff in trucks could benefit
significantly from slower speeds, going 24 hours a day, they would
still get there faster than they do now. The balance there is the cost
of gasoline vs. the cost of owning the truck per hour. I suspect that
going slower would make some sense there.

> But your comments and Mike's gave me an idea. ?My intuition and every
> instinct says that if any two or more devices have motors, there is some law
> of nature which requires they must be raced against each other. ?I can see
> this as a terrific new breakthrough sport: robot racing.

I'm a big fan of robotic fights to the death... :-)  I would really
love to see autonomous fighting to the death some day. I have a great
design for same.

> I grew up an hour drive south of Daytona International Speedway, and I
> loooved car racing as a kid, motorcycle racing even more, but if you look at
> the cars now vs then, the sport hasn't changed much in the last 40 yrs.
> Evolutionary changes have pushed the cars faster, sure, but from the
> spectator's point of view, not so different than it was in my own misspent
> youth. ?I am past the half century mark now.

But would it be exciting to watch robots race? I dunno. It's the human
aspect that makes it interesting.

> I would buy tickets to watch several identical Priuses (Prii?) racing around
> a city-street track. ?That would be a kick! ?Several years ago, they made a
> loop around several downtown San Jose streets for formula 1 cars, which was
> a hell of a lotta fun, but it would be even more cool if they raced
> robo-cars. ?Let the Prii be identical engine and drive train, but let the
> hackers mess with the software all they want, and the instrumentation. ?It
> would be like any other car race except with this one oddball rule: if any
> car hits or even touches any other car, both cars are automatically
> disqualified regardless of who hit who. ?That motivates the programmers to
> do something useful: avoid collisions and contact as top priority, higher
> than getting there first.

Racing has always been a great way to develop car technologies, so
maybe you have something here. I personally don't get off on Nascar...
but lots of people do, so maybe there is something to be gained by
implementing your suggestion. I can only imagine the outcry as the
first robotic car tries to get into a Nascar race.

> I was present at the first DARPA challenge, robo-cars in the desert, the one
> which was a total flop in 2004.

Sweet. Wish I had been there, I had to watch reruns on the Internet.

> That was a time trial, with cars starting
> every five minutes, the fastest cars going out first. ?What I have in mind
> is a dozen cars starting on a city street loop of a couple miles. ?Once the
> robo-cars demonstrated they are safe, we could introduce a humans vs
> software races. ?Would that be wicked cool or what?
>
> When software demonstrates that it can race competently, it can be trusted
> to drive.

Works for me. But what happens to injured humans until then? :-)

Seriously, the greatest hurdles to face in autonomous vehicle land are
legal, not technical at this point. We haven't discussed those legal
issues at all, but you can imagine the class action lawsuits if people
die in significant numbers while the bugs are being worked out of the
system.

-Kelly



From spike66 at att.net  Thu May 17 05:03:18 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 22:03:18 -0700
Subject: [ExI] self driving cars
In-Reply-To: <019b01cd33e3$04fc9fb0$0ef5df10$@att.net>
References: <003401cd3322$55eca850$01c5f8f0$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwbqJO3v_LfrpVxnnhzaTE1dcMw7ntDTs3K9s5S5knC+Tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdb+XJcG1YL3vgHe-zKQ=RVbRAet8UpYTbjM4iCu=FPH9ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <019b01cd33e3$04fc9fb0$0ef5df10$@att.net>
Message-ID: <01bb01cd33ea$5ff22140$1fd663c0$@att.net>



>... On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty
>...Subject: Re: [ExI] self driving cars

>...I think spike was suggesting the speeds go down for engineering 
>reasons (mostly fuel economy)...

>...Ja, but there is more to it than that.  Speed limits may not go up if we
mix human drivers with software drivers.  Human reflexes will not improve...
spike


_______________________________________________


This four minute video gives you a good idea of where we were just 8 years
ago.  I was at this competition, and it was a total hoot, but disappointing.
Most of the wagering public assumed these vehicles would do better than they
did.  Recall this was all done in Nevada, so that people could legally bet
on the outcome.  Plenty of money changed hands over these dismal failures:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWLjgs2CEyE

The next year it was a whole nuther story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UVKBhKPPuc&feature=related

spike



From spike66 at att.net  Thu May 17 05:30:13 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 22:30:13 -0700
Subject: [ExI] self driving cars
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8Rwb1EVDpX-ZrWS4pab2xKgdMUgYrOni6GsXe=ufoQKR_Ew@mail.gmail.com>
References: <003401cd3322$55eca850$01c5f8f0$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwbqJO3v_LfrpVxnnhzaTE1dcMw7ntDTs3K9s5S5knC+Tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdb+XJcG1YL3vgHe-zKQ=RVbRAet8UpYTbjM4iCu=FPH9ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZAJR3b83diejyOU3FCB278a8uxL+ADrv+_vrszYQbdgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <019c01cd33e5$dd00ffd0$9702ff70$@att.net>
 <CAPy8Rwb1EVDpX-ZrWS4pab2xKgdMUgYrOni6GsXe=ufoQKR_Ew@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01bc01cd33ee$22d74a20$6885de60$@att.net>



-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson
...
> _______________________________________________
>
> I do mean we have plenty of applications where slower speeds will not 
> hurt us much. ?Plenty of us have shorty commutes, such as my own, less 
> than ten miles... ?See how light this vehicle can be?

>...Perhaps you can pay to go faster if you want to. Autonomous vehicles
should be better at getting out of the way of people that want to go
faster... there are legitimate reasons to hurry sometimes...-Kelly

_______________________________________________

Ja, but this is exactly what I am finding so frustrating Kelly.  Currently
we are being held back by the fact that small light and slow vehicles are
not safe, because they share the road with the current fast and heavies.  We
have no practical way of separating the traffic, but that puts us right back
to where we are now: even small light vehicles aren't particularly fuel
efficient.

If we can delay a real energy crisis long enough, we can deal with it.  We
can build a new sustainable energy infrastructure, redo the way we have
always thought of food production and distribution into a much more
efficient system, rethink transportation, do all the things we need to do,
and do it all in time, but we need to somehow get past certain bottlenecks.
A classic example is that nearly all ape haulers on the road today can haul
four times as many apes as they are ever called upon to haul (note how
deserted is the carpool lane most of the time) at twice the highest local
speed limit.  It doesn't need to do all that, but it really costs in weight
and fuel economy to have the capability.

If we can make it safe to drive small, light and slow vehicles, people will.
And if those cars are self-driven, the occupants scarcely care about the
wimpy acceleration, nor that human-guided cars are constantly cutting in
front.  Those two factors would make you crazy when you are behind the
wheel.  But if you are in the back seat sleeping, or getting stoned, or
playing video games, or on the toilet reading the local news on your iPad or
copulating with your sweetheart, you don't really care or even notice what
the others cars are doing.

spike




From pharos at gmail.com  Thu May 17 06:08:03 2012
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 07:08:03 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Wash post comment
In-Reply-To: <CAHUTwkNmzvHxwBSK37zWkzunt4aKS_agOE9rxwQYwijyit4sHQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7V78ZkdgcRPQ8NksN938Wz-zN3FVN09FFYO11jeROyuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkPM60WrCC-tXPjU5OT0+yQxGP_7yiDc+Ud6p_5N__OtgQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120515084532.GI17120@leitl.org>
 <CAHUTwkNmzvHxwBSK37zWkzunt4aKS_agOE9rxwQYwijyit4sHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAL_armh8ahj05CuZUT6jSfRMWj7C3BFiyzwLG+F_=f8uXraC6Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Jeff Davis  wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Eugen Leitl  wrote:
>> Advanced automation will actually make EROEI worse.
>
> You sir, are an imposter. ?Gene would never say such a thing.
> Everyone knows automation makes everything cheaper.
>

I think Eugen is referring to the fact that new oil resources are much
harder to process.

Quote:
Worldwide, the average EROEI of oil is down to 20:1 from its original
value of 100:1 eighty years ago. This means that our oil-fueled
economy simply has less capacity to generate wealth than it did back
then, because an increasing share of the energy that used to be
dedicated to producing goods and services is being plowed back into
securing energy.

Even more troubling than oil?s 20:1 global average is the figure for
new oil, just 5 to 1. It takes a lot of energy to drill five miles
under the ocean and pump crude back to a refinery, or to cook tar
sands to extract a usable fuel.

Wind and other renewable energy sources offer returns in the 17:1
range ? still a nice income flow, but nothing like the flood we once
got from oil. Everything our economy accomplishes, including health
care, government, schools, roads, defense, repairing our aging
infrastructure and re-engineering our built environment to handle the
changed weather that oil use has given us, is going to have to be
financed from a much-diminished EROEI.
-----------


>>All nonessential activities
>> are reduced during crisis.
>
> What crisis? ?The mainstream news vs cable vs internet
> competition-over-eyeballs manufactured crisis? ?That one? ?Puleeeeese!
>
>

The crisis that means your pension and Medicare will disappear and the
world will be forced to a permanent 'Make do with Less' environment.


BillK



From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Thu May 17 06:11:37 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 00:11:37 -0600
Subject: [ExI] self driving cars
In-Reply-To: <01bc01cd33ee$22d74a20$6885de60$@att.net>
References: <003401cd3322$55eca850$01c5f8f0$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwbqJO3v_LfrpVxnnhzaTE1dcMw7ntDTs3K9s5S5knC+Tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdb+XJcG1YL3vgHe-zKQ=RVbRAet8UpYTbjM4iCu=FPH9ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZAJR3b83diejyOU3FCB278a8uxL+ADrv+_vrszYQbdgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <019c01cd33e5$dd00ffd0$9702ff70$@att.net>
 <CAPy8Rwb1EVDpX-ZrWS4pab2xKgdMUgYrOni6GsXe=ufoQKR_Ew@mail.gmail.com>
 <01bc01cd33ee$22d74a20$6885de60$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwbzNwYKb-5G1+JUOGLfF2PWJjCHxptz7UA5OCHCz=3XmA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 11:30 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson
>
>>...Perhaps you can pay to go faster if you want to. Autonomous vehicles
> should be better at getting out of the way of people that want to go
> faster... there are legitimate reasons to hurry sometimes...-Kelly
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Ja, but this is exactly what I am finding so frustrating Kelly.

I'm not parsing what is frustrating to you.

> Currently
> we are being held back by the fact that small light and slow vehicles are
> not safe, because they share the road with the current fast and heavies. ?We
> have no practical way of separating the traffic, but that puts us right back
> to where we are now: even small light vehicles aren't particularly fuel
> efficient.

If we can get people who drive slow to stay to the right and people
who drive fast go to the left, then the problem is solved. So, here is
my suggestion. Any autonomous vehicle can report to the authorities
any human driving too slow in the fast lane. This person is then taken
to the public square and caned. The problem is solved in a week or
two. Slow drivers will stay in the slow lane or face the consequences.

> If we can delay a real energy crisis long enough, we can deal with it. ?We
> can build a new sustainable energy infrastructure, redo the way we have
> always thought of food production and distribution into a much more
> efficient system, rethink transportation, do all the things we need to do,
> and do it all in time, but we need to somehow get past certain bottlenecks.

What bottlenecks are you concerned about Spike? Do you think peak oil
is coming so soon that we won't have time to develop alternatives? I
believe that CNG can fill that gap, should it occur.

> A classic example is that nearly all ape haulers on the road today can haul
> four times as many apes as they are ever called upon to haul (note how
> deserted is the carpool lane most of the time) at twice the highest local
> speed limit. ?It doesn't need to do all that, but it really costs in weight
> and fuel economy to have the capability.

Apes like beefy safe-ish cars, so this isn't an engineering problem,
but rather a psychological and perhaps a safety problem.

> If we can make it safe to drive small, light and slow vehicles, people will.

The only answer to that my friend is autonomous drivers.

> And if those cars are self-driven, the occupants scarcely care about the
> wimpy acceleration, nor that human-guided cars are constantly cutting in
> front. ?Those two factors would make you crazy when you are behind the
> wheel. ?But if you are in the back seat sleeping, or getting stoned,

So, in this ideal future world of yours drugs are legalized too? I like it.

> or
> playing video games, or on the toilet reading the local news on your iPad or
> copulating with your sweetheart, you don't really care or even notice what
> the others cars are doing.

Certainly if you are copulating with your sweetheart, there is no need
to go fast. However, you might need something bigger than a Geo
Metro... LOL  :-)

-Kelly



From msd001 at gmail.com  Thu May 17 13:45:42 2012
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 09:45:42 -0400
Subject: [ExI] self driving cars
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwZAJR3b83diejyOU3FCB278a8uxL+ADrv+_vrszYQbdgg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <003401cd3322$55eca850$01c5f8f0$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwbqJO3v_LfrpVxnnhzaTE1dcMw7ntDTs3K9s5S5knC+Tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdb+XJcG1YL3vgHe-zKQ=RVbRAet8UpYTbjM4iCu=FPH9ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZAJR3b83diejyOU3FCB278a8uxL+ADrv+_vrszYQbdgg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOJFdbJ9d3FD4TGTic4cfxWAwV=D_p4+p+KdfY6-QLvgT4tyQw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
> Economics will push speeds faster if safety isn't an issue. Unless Al
> Gore is in the white house, or OPEC starts throwing their weight
> around ala 1973, I can't see a speed limit for fuel economy because
> the overall economics is that the time of the car's occupant is more
> valuable to the overall economy than the gasoline.

True.  We rarely discuss a peak for the preciously limited resource Time.

> If all the data were known, there could be car pooling, larger
> mini-van type cars for car poolers, etc. The best thing about pooling
> cars like this is that you then have all the data you need to
> facilitate real mass transit.

You just said each occupant's time was more valuable than the fuel -
now you want me to wait for this machine to go out of my way to pick
up other passengers?  Perhaps you weren't intending to trigger my
negative association with 'carpooling' where the first unlucky
participant has to be ready to go early enough to wait for every other
participant.  I guess you meant drawing as-needed from a 'pool' of
cars.  Mass transit is an equally poor name:  Are we hauling the
masses as figurative terminology for what spike calls proles or
discussing a physics problem of weight vs. volume?  Of course I know
what the term means, I sometimes wonder how subtle inflections of
meaning can bias usage long after the name has become ubiquitous.

> I absolutely agree, until eventually some lawyer brings a class action
> suit that ends all human driving except in the most exceptional
> conditions. Sort of like how we go drive fast at the race track now.

What if the self-drive software anticipates your maneuver and
communicates it to your neighbors before you can act?  I imagine this
traffic network is constantly broadcasting state (and capability) to
surrounding cars to create ad-hoc traffic streams (each car is a
router too, right?)  The driver's profile may include more than the
preference of seat and mirror positions; a heuristic on past behavior
as well as time of day, present location, etc. and the car will
probably know your mood well enough to predict your likelihood of
stomping on the accelerator.  If the traffic system approves the
human-initiated action, the car will allow it.  Those who avail
themselves the luxury of dedicated personal vehicles can pay extra for
prioritization of their desire over others - much as it is now, only
it'll be a software feature rather than social/pack order.  (pull up
to a 4-way intersection in an old beater vs newest luxury car - see
who gets the right of way)

> The fate of the average prole has never been all that super, in
> comparison to the successful... I see no reason for that to change in
> the future. So when you say feed-lot, are you thinking soilient green
> or something less horrid than that?

I wasn't in that literal a mind.  Continuing with your economic value
proposal... The average consumer is groomed via commercial
advertising, memes, etc to support corporate product lines.  Soylent
green isn't likely to be as valuable as a lifetime of purchase power
each forced-fed consumer represents.  'depends on your perspective
which is less horrid.


From spike66 at att.net  Thu May 17 13:52:07 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 06:52:07 -0700
Subject: [ExI] self driving cars
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwbzNwYKb-5G1+JUOGLfF2PWJjCHxptz7UA5OCHCz=3XmA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <003401cd3322$55eca850$01c5f8f0$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwbqJO3v_LfrpVxnnhzaTE1dcMw7ntDTs3K9s5S5knC+Tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdb+XJcG1YL3vgHe-zKQ=RVbRAet8UpYTbjM4iCu=FPH9ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZAJR3b83diejyOU3FCB278a8uxL+ADrv+_vrszYQbdgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <019c01cd33e5$dd00ffd0$9702ff70$@att.net>
 <CAPy8Rwb1EVDpX-ZrWS4pab2xKgdMUgYrOni6GsXe=ufoQKR_Ew@mail.gmail.com>
 <01bc01cd33ee$22d74a20$6885de60$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwbzNwYKb-5G1+JUOGLfF2PWJjCHxptz7UA5OCHCz=3XmA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01f601cd3434$3fe94b90$bfbbe2b0$@att.net>



-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson
...
> _______________________________________________
>
> Ja, but this is exactly what I am finding so frustrating Kelly.
...
> puts us right back to where we are now: even [our current ]small light
vehicles aren't particularly fuel efficient.

>...I'm not parsing what is frustrating to you.

I didn't explain that very well.  If you look at our current crop of really
small cars, such as the Mini and others, they are surprisingly heavy for
what little bit of room they have.  They are built with the current
auto-parts shelf, the currently produced tires, the metal-shell paradigm.
So they end up heavy and not particularly efficient.  They are better, but
not great.

Now think of those little harness racing buggies that are pulled by horses:
narrow wiry wheels, light as a feather:

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

My suggestion is to rethink the design of an ape hauler and start with the
kinds of parts used in a harness racer and build up to handle the loads of a
small IC engine, rather than start with a current car and work down.  If you
assume a top speed of about 55 mph, you don't need a hard metal shell.  A
plastic one will do fine.  If you assume a super smooth road surface, you
don't need those super rugged tires, the ones we see on all modern cars.  We
can use super light super low rolling resistance tires more like what you
see on a light motorcycle today, or a sturdy bicycle.

If we can only figure out a way to divide the lanes and let software do the
driving, we can have vehicles that get five times the distance on a volume
of gasoline compared to my beloved Mister Lincoln.  If we do that, soon, we
probably have enough time to avert TBCs (Truly Bad Consequences.)

>...So, in this ideal future world of yours drugs are legalized too? I like
it...

Ja.  If stoners don't drive, I don't care what they smoke or poke into their
veins, or whatever people do with dope.  Most of our society's disdain for
that sort of thing comes from stoners getting behind the wheel and
threatening my life.  Ja I do resent the hell outta that aspect.  If they
have a robo-car and don't commit crimes, then they can go right on ahead and
play, I don't mind a bit, and there are plenty of others like me.

>...Certainly if you are copulating with your sweetheart, there is no need
to go fast. However, you might need something bigger than a Geo Metro... LOL
:-) -Kelly

Hmmm, think that over Kelly, and here's your design exercise: imagine an ape
hauler big enough to use for copulation but still a featherweight.  It
doesn't need to go fast: you and your sweetheart are in no desperate hurry.
This is a good exercise for your mechanical engineering talents.  Assume top
speed 55 mph, software driven and no need to be tall enough to be seen on
the road (we will find alternate solutions to the visibility problem.)  Can
you get this rig down to less than 500 kg?  I bet I can.

spike





From spike66 at att.net  Thu May 17 20:37:29 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 13:37:29 -0700
Subject: [ExI] post forward for tara maya
Message-ID: <026901cd346c$e163f870$a42be950$@att.net>

Posted for Tara:

 

[Could you please pass this on to the extropy list for me? I still have my
messages bounced by my server when I try to post.]

 

 

Robo-cars will probably start coming with a lot of apps to entertain
passengers as they drive. This will probably happen in three ways:

 

1. They will integrate with existing tech, i.e. you stick your iPad in the
slot and watch it as a tv.

2. They will have their own integrated tech, i.e. a giant tv/computer
already in the car, chairs that massage you, sleep lighting, 360 degree
windows for sightseeing, etc.

3. They will make present day limo perks look tame. Food and alcohol will be
commonly available in robo-cars. Driving drunk will be popular again, since
there's no reason not to. Fridges may become standard features.

 

Kelly Anderson wrote: 

I suspect autonomous vehicles will also
result in a very high measurable increase in productivity. Now all you
can do in your car is use your cell phone, which is only so
productive. In the future with autonomous vehicles, you should be able
to do reasonably passable video conferencing and computer sharing
(like gotomypc.com) and such that will be way more productive than the
uses we put our time in cars to now.

 

Yes, I think there would be a tremendous gain in productivity. 

 

Right now you have millions of people spending hours per day doing nothing
but trying to get from one spot to another without killing anyone along the
way. It's tiring, it's stressful, it's a waste of time. On a train or a bus,
you can do some work while you ride, but you still have disadvantages. The
main one is that they don't pick you up from your house and drop you off at
your work, but don't forget the others. It might be too crowded to get out
your computer, or you might be afraid of thieves;  for women, especially,
there is the need to be vigilant about predators, which can make public
transportation just as stressful as driving (whenever people trumpet about
the supposed virtues of public over private transportation, I cannot help
but recall certain unpleasant experiences in this area); and if you forget
your stop, or leave behind your bag, you are screwed. 

 

A robo-car would be like having your own private train, without any of those
disadvantages. You could have your workspace all ready for you, without fear
of being robbed, crowded, harassed or dropped at the wrong place. I think
many people will start their work day as soon as they sit in their robo-car.

 

But even the slackers and the students and the folks just on their way to
the mall or a movie will still contribute to the economy in their robo-car,
because they will probably be surfing the net, buying apps, playing games,
reading, watching movies, etc. 

 

If robo-cars made it easier to drive a long way in a shorter period of time,
then longer commutes would be possible. Case in point: we would love to move
our family further from the city center in order to buy a house with an
actual yard. However, the commute to work already wastes two hours a day, an
hour each way. Furthermore, that time is completely wasted, since it must be
spent avoiding high-impact death, rather than, say, answering emails. Even
if a robo-car couldn't make the commute one minute faster, by freeing the
driver to do something else (like on a train), that would free up two work
hours. And if the robo-car system could reduce traffic and increase speeds
safely, then perhaps we could live twice as far away, in a nicer house, with
the same over all commute time, which is now also work time. Big win.

 

Robo-cars could also allow families to safely send kids to their various
lessons and games without doing all the "chauffeur" work themselves. I don't
know how many parent-hours are spent just driving, but it sure would be nice
to use that time otherwise. Even if you went with your kids to the soccer
game, you could sit and talk with them in the car rather than spend your
time swearing at other drivers.  ;)

 

On May 16, 2012, at 12:47 AM, BillK wrote:


Most accident repair shops will close down - more unemployment.

 

Repair shops might do less repairs (I am actually dubious even about that,
since even if robo-cars have less accidents, they can still break), but will
still be active. Service shops will include something like the "genius desk"
to help all of the older citizens and liberal arts majors actually *operate*
their robo-cars, which will be more like operating a computer than a
machine, and thus baffle a good portion of the population. 

 

Every new feature the robo-car engineers and app developers add to make it
"easier" to use robo-cars will only confuse the tech-challenged portion of
the population more. They will need more service assistance. 

 

On May 16, 2012, at 12:47 AM, BillK wrote:



Mostly people won't own their own car. They will just specify their
journey, number of people, luggage, etc. and an appropriately sized
vehicle will turn up on schedule and deliver them to their
destination.

 

I can't think of any reason people wouldn't want their own car. Most people
will still commute to work, and so need the car daily. Unless for the
reasons some have suggested it is *significantly* cheaper to rent a rob-car
daily than to leave it in your garage, and I'm not sure it would be, people
would buy and own cars. Maybe this would depend on the city one lived in,
since of course there's already a difference in car ownership in, say, Los
Angeles vs New York. 

 

However, maybe this is just my own hang-up. I'm not big on rentals. I don't
rent my house, I don't rent my computer, I don't even loan school books if I
can buy them. I'd rather own my own vehicle. If it's my own car, I can pack
it with a diaper and toy bag for the kids, water bottles and power bars in
case I am stuck in a snowstorm or earthquake or alien invasion. The kids can
put stickers on the window. And if the baby barfs on the seat, I don't have
to worry about paying some company a fine. (And really, would you *want* to
be the next customer in the car after me on the day the baby is sick? No, my
friend. No, you really wouldn't. You'd want me to own my own car too.)

 

Unless of course, it was really, really much cheaper and almost as fast to
get a rental to my house whenever I needed it. Speed is important. If I live
out in the boondocks because robo-cars have made it easy to commute a long
way, I don't want to have to wait half an hour every time I call a car to my
house. The price difference would have to significant too. Right now, if I
wanted, I could ride the bus and train to work, but it would cost me almost
as much as my car, and that's just for my commute. It doesn't count all the
other trips I make chauffeuring the kids around.

 

In that case, sure, you'd have to put up with my baby possibly barfing on
your seat. So a lot depends on price point. I guess I just don't see why
robo-cars would be more expensive to own compared to always taking
taxi-robo-cars. 

 

By the way, my 3 little boys absolutely LOVE cars. I don't pretend to
understand it, but good luck decoupling cars from the American (really? no
one else in the world loves cars? really?) psyche. 

 

On May 16, 2012, at 6:26 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote:

 

Another important side effect of on-demand cars showing up when
required is that we de-invest our identity from them.  I'm not going
to leave 'my stuff' in the car when anyone else might be using it next
or (more likely) that I may not see that particular vehicle again for
weeks.  Assuming these vehicles keep themselves clean (within
tolerances agreed-upon by service provider and consumer) there is also
less concern for how stylish the vehicle is; for it is no longer a
status object to be owned or compared to others'.

 

Certain people who at present don't care much about cars will buy new cars
more often to get the latest features.

 

I don't really see why people would de-invest their identity from their cars
just when the cars get cooler and more awesome than ever. That hardly fits
with human nature. A phone was always something of a status symbol, but that
has only increased as phones have gotten "smarter" and the gap between the
most basic phone and the most feature-loaded phone increases. As robo-cars
are likely to increasingly load cars with new apps and features, we are
likely to see their status-value increase or at least continue to be of
importance. The main change will be that it will no longer be merely speed
and style that is important in judging a car, but things like its
connectivity to larger systems.

 

On May 16, 2012, at 12:47 AM, BillK wrote:



Eventually people will be banned from driving on public roads as being
just too dangerous.

 

Indeed. Which would open a market for privately owned courses where ordinary
people could take their hobby cars to drive. Much as people do with horses.
It might even be cheaper than keeping a horse, since you only need to "feed"
it when you drive it.

 

Motor sport will dwindle away as it is much less interesting without
the spectacular crashes. And will humans really want to spend the day
racing each other when a robo-car can come along and beat all their
lap times and show them how it should be done?

 

Motor sport will split into robo-car racing and human driver racing. It will
still be popular. Drivers will still die. Otherwise, they wouldn't do it.
Some people crave danger, and the safer the rest of the world becomes, the
more they will turn to artificial ways to inject danger into their lives.
Fans will love watching it for the same reason on a lesser scale.

 

People generally just won't travel nearly as much. 

 

Are you kidding? I would travel a lot more. 

 

Travel time would no longer be wasted time. In fact, if your really enjoyed
the feeling of movement, you might even choose to work from your car, as you
would probably have full connectivity. You could drive and work four hours
in the morning, stop in a brand new city every day for lunch and a bit of
sightseeing, then work another four hours on the commute home.





The cruising for no
reason will disappear as you won't be doing the fun driving. 

 

Except you could be drunk. And going very, very fast. I imagine some people
would indulge in that just for the hell of it. 

 

 problem won't matter so much if people gradually
stop needing to use oil at the same time as oil supplies gradually
reduce and become more expensive.

 

Obviously, a lot depends on how cheap it is to buy and run a robo-car vs
what we have now. But in general, I think that if robo-cars could go faster
in a shorter period of time with less stress for the driver, then we will
see an *increase* in mobility, not a decrease.

 

Just for the record, I think increased mobility is to be welcomed, not
feared.

 

Tara Maya

The Unfinished Song: Initiate <http://goo.gl/My1if>  (Book 1)

The Unfinished Song: Taboo <http://goo.gl/6YT1F>  (Book 2)

The Unfinished Song: Sacrifice <http://goo.gl/tIr4u>  (Book 3) 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120517/be669220/attachment.html>

From estropico at gmail.com  Fri May 18 07:31:36 2012
From: estropico at gmail.com (estropico)
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 08:31:36 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Large Study Finds Coffee Drinkers Live Longer
Message-ID: <CAMprzzfB==muO-SfzGX8vVvomed19zafO9qF28sis4m_rosGCg@mail.gmail.com>

Large Study Finds Coffee Drinkers Live Longer
http://extremelongevity.net/2012/05/17/large-study-finds-coffee-drinkers-live-longer/

>From the study:
http://extremelongevity.net/wp-content/uploads/coffee-longer.pdf

Association of Coffee Drinking with Total
and Cause-Specific Mortality

Inverse associations were
observed for deaths due to heart disease, respiratory disease, stroke,
injuries and accidents,
diabetes, and infections, but not for deaths due to cancer. Results were
similar in subgroups, including persons who had never smoked and
persons who reported
very good to excellent health at baseline.

Conclusions
In this large prospective study, coffee consumption was inversely
associated with
total and cause-specific mortality. Whether this was a causal or
associational finding
cannot be determined from our data.


From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Fri May 18 15:03:04 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 09:03:04 -0600
Subject: [ExI] self driving cars
In-Reply-To: <CAOJFdbJ9d3FD4TGTic4cfxWAwV=D_p4+p+KdfY6-QLvgT4tyQw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <003401cd3322$55eca850$01c5f8f0$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwbqJO3v_LfrpVxnnhzaTE1dcMw7ntDTs3K9s5S5knC+Tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdb+XJcG1YL3vgHe-zKQ=RVbRAet8UpYTbjM4iCu=FPH9ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZAJR3b83diejyOU3FCB278a8uxL+ADrv+_vrszYQbdgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbJ9d3FD4TGTic4cfxWAwV=D_p4+p+KdfY6-QLvgT4tyQw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8Rwbyrq1OD_WROMogHzW-AkDog-FQb4R8dfhYSMfb1ED5nQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Economics will push speeds faster if safety isn't an issue. Unless Al
>> Gore is in the white house, or OPEC starts throwing their weight
>> around ala 1973, I can't see a speed limit for fuel economy because
>> the overall economics is that the time of the car's occupant is more
>> valuable to the overall economy than the gasoline.
>
> True. ?We rarely discuss a peak for the preciously limited resource Time.

Time is the most limited resource any of us has.  Though it has no
peak because we are in constant shortage of it. However, since time is
money, sometimes we will trade time for money (like a job) and we will
use extra time to save money (like running to two stores instead of
just one because of a sale)...

>> If all the data were known, there could be car pooling, larger
>> mini-van type cars for car poolers, etc. The best thing about pooling
>> cars like this is that you then have all the data you need to
>> facilitate real mass transit.
>
> You just said each occupant's time was more valuable than the fuel -

True. And in some cases, you'll want to ride alone.

> now you want me to wait for this machine to go out of my way to pick
> up other passengers? ?Perhaps you weren't intending to trigger my
> negative association with 'carpooling' where the first unlucky
> participant has to be ready to go early enough to wait for every other
> participant.

I did mean car pooling in that sense, and it would make sense for some
people for some trips. It's a time vs. money choice you can make each
time if the system is flexible enough.

> I guess you meant drawing as-needed from a 'pool' of
> cars.

I meant that too, but separately.

> Mass transit is an equally poor name: ?Are we hauling the
> masses as figurative terminology for what spike calls proles or
> discussing a physics problem of weight vs. volume? ?Of course I know
> what the term means, I sometimes wonder how subtle inflections of
> meaning can bias usage long after the name has become ubiquitous.

I assume you are familiar with the coffee house argument for why
England became an industrial superpower. What if car pools became that
kind of social force? Design self driving cars with a round table
around which people sit. Then there would be the opportunity to meet
people by chance again. Something our society severely lacks at this
point. Maybe it will be seen as community building. Maybe you can hold
out to ride with people with similar interests or careers, or maybe
even the computer could be smart enough to say, "These two people
really should talk, I'll arrange a ride for them, and even propose a
topic for discussion"... it could be a really good thing.

>> I absolutely agree, until eventually some lawyer brings a class action
>> suit that ends all human driving except in the most exceptional
>> conditions. Sort of like how we go drive fast at the race track now.
>
> What if the self-drive software anticipates your maneuver and
> communicates it to your neighbors before you can act? ?I imagine this
> traffic network is constantly broadcasting state (and capability) to
> surrounding cars to create ad-hoc traffic streams (each car is a
> router too, right?)

I'm sure that will be the case. Think of the smart car like your smart
phone. It will have an app store where you can download all kinds of
extra software to accomplish all kinds of things.

> The driver's profile may include more than the
> preference of seat and mirror positions; a heuristic on past behavior
> as well as time of day, present location, etc. and the car will
> probably know your mood well enough to predict your likelihood of
> stomping on the accelerator. ?If the traffic system approves the
> human-initiated action, the car will allow it. ?Those who avail
> themselves the luxury of dedicated personal vehicles can pay extra for
> prioritization of their desire over others - much as it is now, only
> it'll be a software feature rather than social/pack order. ?(pull up
> to a 4-way intersection in an old beater vs newest luxury car - see
> who gets the right of way)

So are you proposing a kind of system where the human gets to think he
is driving, but the car is actually in charge to the extent of
avoiding accidents and such? That might be a nice transitional
technology.

>> The fate of the average prole has never been all that super, in
>> comparison to the successful... I see no reason for that to change in
>> the future. So when you say feed-lot, are you thinking soilient green
>> or something less horrid than that?
>
> I wasn't in that literal a mind. ?Continuing with your economic value
> proposal... The average consumer is groomed via commercial
> advertising, memes, etc to support corporate product lines. ?Soylent
> green isn't likely to be as valuable as a lifetime of purchase power
> each forced-fed consumer represents. ?'depends on your perspective
> which is less horrid.

LOL... I suppose so. Soylent green never made any sense to me either.

-Kelly



From spike66 at att.net  Fri May 18 19:45:09 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 12:45:09 -0700
Subject: [ExI] self driving cars
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8Rwbyrq1OD_WROMogHzW-AkDog-FQb4R8dfhYSMfb1ED5nQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <003401cd3322$55eca850$01c5f8f0$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwbqJO3v_LfrpVxnnhzaTE1dcMw7ntDTs3K9s5S5knC+Tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdb+XJcG1YL3vgHe-zKQ=RVbRAet8UpYTbjM4iCu=FPH9ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZAJR3b83diejyOU3FCB278a8uxL+ADrv+_vrszYQbdgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbJ9d3FD4TGTic4cfxWAwV=D_p4+p+KdfY6-QLvgT4tyQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwbyrq1OD_WROMogHzW-AkDog-FQb4R8dfhYSMfb1ED5nQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00c001cd352e$bbd3a570$337af050$@att.net>


>... On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson
...
>
>>... each occupant's time was more valuable than the fuel ...

It is now, ja.  May not be in the future.  I can imagine proles' time
becoming very plentiful and cheap in comparison to energy costs.

>...True. And in some cases, you'll want to ride alone...

I think in most cases you would want to ride alone.  Read on.

...

>> I guess you meant drawing as-needed from a 'pool' of cars.

>...I meant that too, but separately...

Ja and that was good thinking.  You can have pool cars, call-up, on-demand,
with seats like what you see on a speedboat:  vinyl ov closed-cell foam, so
the interiors of the cars can be hosed down (by robot) for cleaning.   You
know some drunken prole is going to barf in there, and she is going to be
copulating with her sweetheart.  We need to be able to wash the insides of
these cars regularly, probably daily.


>>... Mass transit is an equally poor name: ?Are we hauling the masses as
figurative terminology for what spike calls proles...

I didn't make up the name, credit the brilliant George Orwell.

>...I assume you are familiar with the coffee house argument for why England
became an industrial superpower...

Don't know it.  Why?

>... What if car pools became that kind of social force? Design self driving
cars with a round table around which people sit...-Kelly

Hmmm, possibly for some purposes but remember that cars in the US can only
be 8 ft wide.  I had in mind single ape-haulers which are very close to the
ground (enabled by resurfacing of current roads) and with a low roof.
Reasoning: most fuel is burned pushing air out of the way.  In that regard,
air resistance is proportional to frontal area, whereas length is almost
free, and even that is an understatement: a longer vehicle can have a lower
drag coefficient if it is designed right.  So imagine ape haulers that are
long, low and narrow.  Of course these will not fly if human operated: the
wheelbase makes them unpleasant handlers.  But the software wouldn't care
about that.

One other thing that may be consistently underestimated: the value of one
prole one car, for both privacy and security purposes.  Mister Lincoln has a
roomy center console at my right hand: the bad guy doesn't know what caliber
persuasion I keep in there, and the local constabulary never ask either.
The bad guy doesn't need to know; let him speculate and bet his damn life on
a correct guess.  One of the biggest problems with mass transit is that it
affords fewer opportunities to have instant access to our good friends Mr.
Smith and Mr. Wesson.  Think that over carefully, it is important now and
may become more so in the future.

spike





From pharos at gmail.com  Fri May 18 20:37:27 2012
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 21:37:27 +0100
Subject: [ExI] self driving cars
In-Reply-To: <00c001cd352e$bbd3a570$337af050$@att.net>
References: <003401cd3322$55eca850$01c5f8f0$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwbqJO3v_LfrpVxnnhzaTE1dcMw7ntDTs3K9s5S5knC+Tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdb+XJcG1YL3vgHe-zKQ=RVbRAet8UpYTbjM4iCu=FPH9ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZAJR3b83diejyOU3FCB278a8uxL+ADrv+_vrszYQbdgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbJ9d3FD4TGTic4cfxWAwV=D_p4+p+KdfY6-QLvgT4tyQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwbyrq1OD_WROMogHzW-AkDog-FQb4R8dfhYSMfb1ED5nQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c001cd352e$bbd3a570$337af050$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAL_armgas3pcaL2MUyUj84rf8MQ6LkTgmHCywnKhVU_s=_5Osg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 8:45 PM, spike wrote:
> It is now, ja. ?May not be in the future. ?I can imagine proles' time
> becoming very plentiful and cheap in comparison to energy costs.
>
> I think in most cases you would want to ride alone. ?Read on.
>
> Ja and that was good thinking. ?You can have pool cars, call-up, on-demand,
> with seats like what you see on a speedboat: ?vinyl ov closed-cell foam, so
> the interiors of the cars can be hosed down (by robot) for cleaning. ? You
> know some drunken prole is going to barf in there, and she is going to be
> copulating with her sweetheart. ?We need to be able to wash the insides of
> these cars regularly, probably daily.
>
>

That's the problem with speculating about future technology.
The whole world changes, not just the tech under consideration.

By the time robot taxis are running around in widespread use, (10, 15 years?),
the whole commuting to work thing could well have disappeared.
In fact the 'death of work' might be well under way with huge numbers
of unemployed proles being supported on food stamps by the state.

The coffee house theory is quite fun. Worth reading about.
Think about it. Before coffee (and tea) arrived in England they used
to drink weak beer and wine with breakfast and spend the mornings in a
pleasant daze.
Lloyd's of London was founded in a coffee house.


BillK



From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Fri May 18 20:22:58 2012
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 13:22:58 -0700
Subject: [ExI] NanotubeTV announcement
In-Reply-To: <CAMd8APwp0GBRNZKHcyMTeMsZneBCv+6z2zXYHcNzTwFvJL-pLg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMd8APwp0GBRNZKHcyMTeMsZneBCv+6z2zXYHcNzTwFvJL-pLg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGSKFy12BGRRafxnfb2RJRou-N9Ki2a1+L0Wkbh2pXC09CPe+g@mail.gmail.com>

Gina, my best wishes to you in this exciting endeavor!  I will definitely
be tuning in to see how things develop.


Best wishes,

John

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Gina Miller <ginakathleenmiller at gmail.com>wrote:

> Nanotechnology Industries is proud to present the first episode of the
> NanotubeTV series. NanotubeTV is a monthly series about
> nanotechnology. Nanotechnology is an emerging technology that is on the
> nanoscale which is at the atomic level. While in it's current state it is
> used to enhance products, for example shoes that repel water - in it's
> future state it has the potential to create cures for all diseases, clean
> up nuclear pollution, repair the ozone layer and provide food for all.
> NanotubeTV will cover the history of nanotechnology, current news and the
> future applications. Nanotechnology Industries was formed in 1998 by long
> term nanotechnology advocate Gina Miller, famously nicknamed Nanogirl. With
> an interest in both art and science Gina Miller has had her nanotechnology
> animations shown on the History Channel, documentaries and television
> shows. Gina Miller had the vision for NanotubeTV years ago and this year
> the vision came to fruition when she began filming in her newly created
> production studio. She asked Dr. James B. Lewis to be the host of the show
> as he has 25 years experience as a molecular biologist and has been
> involved in the nano community since it's onset. NanotubeTV will be
> available free online. Watch the  first episode of NanotubeTV (any many
> more to come)    at www.nanoindustries.com.
>
> Fellow Extropians, I can't make these without you, so I thank you ahead of
> time for your support! Gina
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120518/27cd3204/attachment.html>

From jrd1415 at gmail.com  Fri May 18 21:28:31 2012
From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 14:28:31 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Wash post comment
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armh8ahj05CuZUT6jSfRMWj7C3BFiyzwLG+F_=f8uXraC6Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7V78ZkdgcRPQ8NksN938Wz-zN3FVN09FFYO11jeROyuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkPM60WrCC-tXPjU5OT0+yQxGP_7yiDc+Ud6p_5N__OtgQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120515084532.GI17120@leitl.org>
 <CAHUTwkNmzvHxwBSK37zWkzunt4aKS_agOE9rxwQYwijyit4sHQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armh8ahj05CuZUT6jSfRMWj7C3BFiyzwLG+F_=f8uXraC6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHUTwkPL+OWr7GWpqUfmQfpTJ_F-5SjB1iEoT_F95WhhBK+qcg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Bill,

I'm very pleased at your even-tempered sensible shoes response.
Here's the deal:  I think there is a biological -- ie genetic --
predisposition in humans to be
fearful/wary/suspicious/cautious/panicky/hysterical/gloomy/pessimistic/twitchy/paranoid.
The protohuman who stayed near a tree and dashed up to safety at the
first rustling of leaves, lived to pass on his/her genes.
Conservatism was selected first, intelligence later.

In the last twelve years, the US has descended into paranoid
psychosis, triggered by an hysterical over-reaction to 9/11.  And the
rest of the world has been dragged along into the darkness. The
attendant gloom has colored every human "challenge" with forebodings
of full-blown, civilization-ending catastrophe.  At the very least
this is pessimism on steroids, fueled by that human predisposition to
get caught up in the dance of doom.

But is it objectively real, or is it just a global emotional "bad hair
decade"?  Because from where I stand -- if I don't let the "doomers"
infect me -- life is abundantly fine.  Life is filled with all manner
of dynamically optimistic enterprises as well as more low hanging
fruit of possibilities than there are entrepreneurs to exploit them.
Problems?  Sure there are problems.  When have there ever not been
problems?  Only the dead have no problems.

I'm so tired of the dance of doom.  I prefer enhancement, starships,
and a sunny singularity.  I choose joy.

Regarding the fact-based rejection of energy-shortage gloom, check this out:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/05/zero-hedge-clueless-about-planetary.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29

And on my own, I find this EROEI business a bit suspicious. I wonder
if it's just an artfully authoritative-sounding but irrelevant
"metric".  "Wow!, the guy's wearing a nicely-starched white lab coat.
He MUST know what he's talking about."  If tar sands are economically
feasible at oil prices above $20/barrel -- and as you no doubt know,
we're currently hovering around $95 per, with a $20 "all war all the
time" speculation surcharge -- how is EROEI relevant?  (Though I grant
you the carbon emissions issue.)

But hey, Bill, I hope things are as good for you as they are for me.

Best, Jeff Davis

 "We don't see things as they are,
      we see them as we are."
                 Anais Nin


On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 11:08 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Jeff Davis ?wrote:
>> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Eugen Leitl ?wrote:
>>> Advanced automation will actually make EROEI worse.
>>
>> You sir, are an imposter. ?Gene would never say such a thing.
>> Everyone knows automation makes everything cheaper.
>>
>
> I think Eugen is referring to the fact that new oil resources are much
> harder to process.
>
> Quote:
> Worldwide, the average EROEI of oil is down to 20:1 from its original
> value of 100:1 eighty years ago. This means that our oil-fueled
> economy simply has less capacity to generate wealth than it did back
> then, because an increasing share of the energy that used to be
> dedicated to producing goods and services is being plowed back into
> securing energy.
>
> Even more troubling than oil?s 20:1 global average is the figure for
> new oil, just 5 to 1. It takes a lot of energy to drill five miles
> under the ocean and pump crude back to a refinery, or to cook tar
> sands to extract a usable fuel.
>
> Wind and other renewable energy sources offer returns in the 17:1
> range ? still a nice income flow, but nothing like the flood we once
> got from oil. Everything our economy accomplishes, including health
> care, government, schools, roads, defense, repairing our aging
> infrastructure and re-engineering our built environment to handle the
> changed weather that oil use has given us, is going to have to be
> financed from a much-diminished EROEI.
> -----------
>
>
>>>All nonessential activities
>>> are reduced during crisis.
>>
>> What crisis? ?The mainstream news vs cable vs internet
>> competition-over-eyeballs manufactured crisis? ?That one? ?Puleeeeese!
>>
>>
>
> The crisis that means your pension and Medicare will disappear and the
> world will be forced to a permanent 'Make do with Less' environment.
>
>
> BillK
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From ginakathleenmiller at gmail.com  Fri May 18 21:12:50 2012
From: ginakathleenmiller at gmail.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 15:12:50 -0600
Subject: [ExI] NanotubeTV announcement
In-Reply-To: <CAGSKFy12BGRRafxnfb2RJRou-N9Ki2a1+L0Wkbh2pXC09CPe+g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMd8APwp0GBRNZKHcyMTeMsZneBCv+6z2zXYHcNzTwFvJL-pLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGSKFy12BGRRafxnfb2RJRou-N9Ki2a1+L0Wkbh2pXC09CPe+g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMd8APzbDgTFHiZqkB964PGt0O6cbaR4Y_71=DCSzkNdGQbdZQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks a lot John, I appreciate that! Gina

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 2:22 PM, John Grigg <possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Gina, my best wishes to you in this exciting endeavor!  I will definitely
> be tuning in to see how things develop.
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> John
>
> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Gina Miller <ginakathleenmiller at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Nanotechnology Industries is proud to present the first episode of the
>> NanotubeTV series. NanotubeTV is a monthly series about
>> nanotechnology. Nanotechnology is an emerging technology that is on the
>> nanoscale which is at the atomic level. While in it's current state it is
>> used to enhance products, for example shoes that repel water - in it's
>> future state it has the potential to create cures for all diseases, clean
>> up nuclear pollution, repair the ozone layer and provide food for all.
>> NanotubeTV will cover the history of nanotechnology, current news and the
>> future applications. Nanotechnology Industries was formed in 1998 by long
>> term nanotechnology advocate Gina Miller, famously nicknamed Nanogirl. With
>> an interest in both art and science Gina Miller has had her nanotechnology
>> animations shown on the History Channel, documentaries and television
>> shows. Gina Miller had the vision for NanotubeTV years ago and this year
>> the vision came to fruition when she began filming in her newly created
>> production studio. She asked Dr. James B. Lewis to be the host of the show
>> as he has 25 years experience as a molecular biologist and has been
>> involved in the nano community since it's onset. NanotubeTV will be
>> available free online. Watch the  first episode of NanotubeTV (any many
>> more to come)    at www.nanoindustries.com.
>>
>> Fellow Extropians, I can't make these without you, so I thank you ahead
>> of time for your support! Gina
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120518/749df6b5/attachment.html>

From msd001 at gmail.com  Sat May 19 02:18:22 2012
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 22:18:22 -0400
Subject: [ExI] self driving cars
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8Rwbyrq1OD_WROMogHzW-AkDog-FQb4R8dfhYSMfb1ED5nQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <003401cd3322$55eca850$01c5f8f0$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwbqJO3v_LfrpVxnnhzaTE1dcMw7ntDTs3K9s5S5knC+Tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdb+XJcG1YL3vgHe-zKQ=RVbRAet8UpYTbjM4iCu=FPH9ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZAJR3b83diejyOU3FCB278a8uxL+ADrv+_vrszYQbdgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbJ9d3FD4TGTic4cfxWAwV=D_p4+p+KdfY6-QLvgT4tyQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwbyrq1OD_WROMogHzW-AkDog-FQb4R8dfhYSMfb1ED5nQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOJFdbKhBN5CnLk0=-kR0L_uq7VJAU5hLgyo36ZkUOM-Y+KuyQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
> I assume you are familiar with the coffee house argument for why
> England became an industrial superpower. What if car pools became that
> kind of social force? Design self driving cars with a round table
...
> even the computer could be smart enough to say, "These two people
> really should talk, I'll arrange a ride for them, and even propose a
> topic for discussion"... it could be a really good thing.

F2F is better accomplished via skype [or equivalent] the only reason
for body-to-body contact is Spike's copulating couples scenario.  I
think that's still better served by each driving/riding alone to a
common destination [proverbial hotel room] than engineering vehicles
for such.  We have enough other opportunity for social interaction,
traffic happenstance is possibly the last place I want AI-generated
meetups.  Well no, the restroom is likely the last place - but traffic
system regulation of  who I meet is next-to-last place I want
strangers forced upon me.

> So are you proposing a kind of system where the human gets to think he
> is driving, but the car is actually in charge to the extent of
> avoiding accidents and such? That might be a nice transitional
> technology.

Yes.  You can exercise complete freedom with commensurate increase in
insurance premiums, use tax, etc. for variance from regulated optimums
as long as it does not adversely affect the experience of other users-
who also expect the pay-as-you-go tiers of service and performance.
Instead of the selective enforcement of law that we have now with
sparse police coverage, the vehicles would track [police/charge for]
non-compliance with regulations.

I've grown completely tired of the responsibility of driving.  What
once was the freedom to go where I wanted is now a chore.  If someone
else can accept the responsibility without causing me inconvenience as
punishment for my laziness I will gladly let "the system" get me to my
destination.  I consider the current implementation of public
transportation to be too high an inconvenience for where I live to be
worth the trade.


From msd001 at gmail.com  Sat May 19 02:27:38 2012
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 22:27:38 -0400
Subject: [ExI] self driving cars
In-Reply-To: <00c001cd352e$bbd3a570$337af050$@att.net>
References: <003401cd3322$55eca850$01c5f8f0$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwbqJO3v_LfrpVxnnhzaTE1dcMw7ntDTs3K9s5S5knC+Tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdb+XJcG1YL3vgHe-zKQ=RVbRAet8UpYTbjM4iCu=FPH9ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZAJR3b83diejyOU3FCB278a8uxL+ADrv+_vrszYQbdgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbJ9d3FD4TGTic4cfxWAwV=D_p4+p+KdfY6-QLvgT4tyQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwbyrq1OD_WROMogHzW-AkDog-FQb4R8dfhYSMfb1ED5nQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c001cd352e$bbd3a570$337af050$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAOJFdbK0W2A6auckkrDGTeu7MJrA25RwsqOVMYhDs2JRB+qSAg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 3:45 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>>>... Mass transit is an equally poor name: ?Are we hauling the masses as
> figurative terminology for what spike calls proles...
>
> I didn't make up the name, credit the brilliant George Orwell.

Yeah right, but he's not contributing daily to the list.  Also, nobody
else I know has the nerve to call 'em "proles" - so it makes me laugh
when I imagine you using the term with simultaneous respect and
disdain.  (as a most-important majority and an equally unfortunate
majority)

>>...I assume you are familiar with the coffee house argument for why England
> became an industrial superpower...
>
> Don't know it. ?Why?

I heard it was French Revolution via coffee house.  Whatever.  The
underlying argument is that hyped up on caffeine and rabble-rousing
the organizers of change are more energized to overcome the inertia of
the status quo and actually DO something.

> Reasoning: most fuel is burned pushing air out of the way. ?In that regard,
> air resistance is proportional to frontal area, whereas length is almost
> free, and even that is an understatement: a longer vehicle can have a lower

Hmm... pneumatic tubes?  At least then we'd be saying, "If this ride
could suck any harder I'd be there by now"



From spike66 at att.net  Sat May 19 02:55:41 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 19:55:41 -0700
Subject: [ExI] self driving cars
In-Reply-To: <CAOJFdbKhBN5CnLk0=-kR0L_uq7VJAU5hLgyo36ZkUOM-Y+KuyQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <003401cd3322$55eca850$01c5f8f0$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwbqJO3v_LfrpVxnnhzaTE1dcMw7ntDTs3K9s5S5knC+Tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdb+XJcG1YL3vgHe-zKQ=RVbRAet8UpYTbjM4iCu=FPH9ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZAJR3b83diejyOU3FCB278a8uxL+ADrv+_vrszYQbdgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbJ9d3FD4TGTic4cfxWAwV=D_p4+p+KdfY6-QLvgT4tyQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwbyrq1OD_WROMogHzW-AkDog-FQb4R8dfhYSMfb1ED5nQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbKhBN5CnLk0=-kR0L_uq7VJAU5hLgyo36ZkUOM-Y+KuyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <013501cd356a$e18bbf50$a4a33df0$@att.net>


>... On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty

>...Also, nobody else I know has the nerve to call 'em "proles"...

'em as in them?  It is us.  I is a prole too.  In these days of class
warfare, being a member of the proletariat is a matter of pride.
Furthermore, it is difficult to get away from the riff raff when one is riff
raff oneself.

>...F2F is better accomplished via skype [or equivalent] the only reason for
body-to-body contact is Spike's copulating couples scenario...

It wouldn't need to be "couples" assuming one could find three or more
adventurous types.

Regarding your notion of rolling business meetings, such a thing could be a
great way to have some privacy for the purposes of a secure meeting.

>...  I think that's still better served by each driving/riding alone to a
common destination [proverbial hotel room] than engineering vehicles for
such...

Have you checked the prices of hotel rooms?  Especially around the Bay Area,
oy vey.

>... but traffic system regulation of  who I meet is next-to-last place I
want strangers forced upon me...

That whole share-a-ride-with-a-stranger notion is DOA, a non-starter.
Enabling rolling copulation in otherwise wasted time is a huge selling
point.  One could imagine professionals who ride around town all day
entertaining clientele, for instance.  Overhead expenses would be held down,
low risk of being bothered by the local constabulary, fits well with a busy
tech worker's schedule, etc.


> So are you proposing a kind of system where the human gets to think he 
> is driving, but the car is actually in charge to the extent of 
> avoiding accidents and such? That might be a nice transitional 
> technology...

Ja, and in a limited sense we already have that.  I have reverse proximity
sensors on the rear bumper of Mister Lincoln.  Now I don't even look behind
me when I back out of my garage.  It works extremely well, alerting me to
anything in the way, even a bush.  It works really well.  I have turned over
to that device the task of checking behind me.

>...I've grown completely tired of the responsibility of driving...Mike

I like driving, but I covet the 20-25 minutes each way commute to work.  I
want that time back, even if don't do the intensely exciting stuff in there.





From msd001 at gmail.com  Sat May 19 04:09:27 2012
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 00:09:27 -0400
Subject: [ExI] self driving cars
In-Reply-To: <013501cd356a$e18bbf50$a4a33df0$@att.net>
References: <003401cd3322$55eca850$01c5f8f0$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwbqJO3v_LfrpVxnnhzaTE1dcMw7ntDTs3K9s5S5knC+Tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdb+XJcG1YL3vgHe-zKQ=RVbRAet8UpYTbjM4iCu=FPH9ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZAJR3b83diejyOU3FCB278a8uxL+ADrv+_vrszYQbdgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbJ9d3FD4TGTic4cfxWAwV=D_p4+p+KdfY6-QLvgT4tyQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwbyrq1OD_WROMogHzW-AkDog-FQb4R8dfhYSMfb1ED5nQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbKhBN5CnLk0=-kR0L_uq7VJAU5hLgyo36ZkUOM-Y+KuyQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <013501cd356a$e18bbf50$a4a33df0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAOJFdbJ4f6_wf9p=a0T=PD9bb6DwhoWeGsH0HQWFO8yoTz+GNg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 10:55 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>>... On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty
>>...Also, nobody else I know has the nerve to call 'em "proles"...
>
> 'em as in them? ?It is us. ?I is a prole too. ?In these days of class
> warfare, being a member of the proletariat is a matter of pride.
> Furthermore, it is difficult to get away from the riff raff when one is riff
> raff oneself.

It seems the term predates Orwell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat

I think it's the commonly derogatory connotation that makes it
impolite.  That you view yourself a member of this oft-derided class
amuses me because you don't have a "lower class" signature to your
written expression.  It's also funny to me that we assign so much
importance to words then hold people accountable to our preconceived
rules for their use.  You could equally use the words for various
produce in place of class names much like you arbitrarily substitute
religious groups and it would have both comedic value and social
commentary.  So anyway, that's why I keep citing your particular
nuance for this term - because I agree we're either all proles or none
of us are proles according to context.

> Regarding your notion of rolling business meetings, such a thing could be a
> great way to have some privacy for the purposes of a secure meeting.

By the time this dream-world car is deployed for general consumption
the concept of privacy will be inexplicable as your petrol-guzzling V8
and whatever-the-hell a cassette was used for.

> That whole share-a-ride-with-a-stranger notion is DOA, a non-starter.
> Enabling rolling copulation in otherwise wasted time is a huge selling
> point. ?One could imagine professionals who ride around town all day
> entertaining clientele, for instance. ?Overhead expenses would be held down,
> low risk of being bothered by the local constabulary, fits well with a busy
> tech worker's schedule, etc.

Wait, are you talking about a mobile brothel?  So is this
share-a-ride, give-a-ride, or buy-a-ride with a stranger?  That was
the kind of professional you meant, right?  No? sorry.  :)



From spike66 at att.net  Sat May 19 05:17:28 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 22:17:28 -0700
Subject: [ExI] self driving cars
In-Reply-To: <CAOJFdbJ4f6_wf9p=a0T=PD9bb6DwhoWeGsH0HQWFO8yoTz+GNg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <003401cd3322$55eca850$01c5f8f0$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwbqJO3v_LfrpVxnnhzaTE1dcMw7ntDTs3K9s5S5knC+Tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdb+XJcG1YL3vgHe-zKQ=RVbRAet8UpYTbjM4iCu=FPH9ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZAJR3b83diejyOU3FCB278a8uxL+ADrv+_vrszYQbdgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbJ9d3FD4TGTic4cfxWAwV=D_p4+p+KdfY6-QLvgT4tyQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwbyrq1OD_WROMogHzW-AkDog-FQb4R8dfhYSMfb1ED5nQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbKhBN5CnLk0=-kR0L_uq7VJAU5hLgyo36ZkUOM-Y+KuyQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <013501cd356a$e18bbf50$a4a33df0$@att.net>
 <CAOJFdbJ4f6_wf9p=a0T=PD9bb6DwhoWeGsH0HQWFO8yoTz+GNg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <014201cd357e$afb1f800$0f15e800$@att.net>


>... On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty

>>...One could imagine professionals who ride around town all day
entertaining clientele, for instance... ?

>...Wait, are you talking about a mobile brothel?  

What I had in mind is a deal where you get on the internet and place an
order for a specific time with an intricate network of no-collar workers.  

We could call it Harlot's Web.

{8^D

spike




Note: I plead innocent, I did not make the last several posts setting up
that lame gag.  It was a cheerful accident.






From gsantostasi at gmail.com  Sat May 19 05:12:17 2012
From: gsantostasi at gmail.com (Giovanni Santostasi)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 00:12:17 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Waking up tomorrow: Cryonic poem
Message-ID: <CAL+RtPe1KXEfPW168+JDhJZX_X=fFUy+VXy7TS+r8ooLvq7=og@mail.gmail.com>

Waking up Tomorrow

I saw you Death, and I laughed
maybe at first because of fear
then I realized I had knowledge and science
as my Charon, few coins in my mouth
to pay a passage on the other side
my body was frozen in an artificial Hades
but I was asleep and I didn't see
the Nothingness that waits beyond
I closed my eyes and they were already open
Lights around me
a robotic arm caressing me
Gently bringing back to Life
it was already tomorrow
Surely brighter than today

Giovanni Santostasi

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 2:31 AM, estropico <estropico at gmail.com> wrote:

> Large Study Finds Coffee Drinkers Live Longer
>
> http://extremelongevity.net/2012/05/17/large-study-finds-coffee-drinkers-live-longer/
>
> From the study:
> http://extremelongevity.net/wp-content/uploads/coffee-longer.pdf
>
> Association of Coffee Drinking with Total
> and Cause-Specific Mortality
>
> Inverse associations were
> observed for deaths due to heart disease, respiratory disease, stroke,
> injuries and accidents,
> diabetes, and infections, but not for deaths due to cancer. Results were
> similar in subgroups, including persons who had never smoked and
> persons who reported
> very good to excellent health at baseline.
>
> Conclusions
> In this large prospective study, coffee consumption was inversely
> associated with
> total and cause-specific mortality. Whether this was a causal or
> associational finding
> cannot be determined from our data.
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120519/5faa75f0/attachment.html>

From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Sat May 19 08:37:47 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 02:37:47 -0600
Subject: [ExI] self driving cars
In-Reply-To: <00c001cd352e$bbd3a570$337af050$@att.net>
References: <003401cd3322$55eca850$01c5f8f0$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwbqJO3v_LfrpVxnnhzaTE1dcMw7ntDTs3K9s5S5knC+Tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdb+XJcG1YL3vgHe-zKQ=RVbRAet8UpYTbjM4iCu=FPH9ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZAJR3b83diejyOU3FCB278a8uxL+ADrv+_vrszYQbdgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbJ9d3FD4TGTic4cfxWAwV=D_p4+p+KdfY6-QLvgT4tyQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwbyrq1OD_WROMogHzW-AkDog-FQb4R8dfhYSMfb1ED5nQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c001cd352e$bbd3a570$337af050$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAPy8Rwaqt8+DD-CTDdz-EX9nb=C8yObyQ8AW+hz6B4x8SUHHhA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 1:45 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
>>... On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson
> ...
>>
>>>... each occupant's time was more valuable than the fuel ...
>
> It is now, ja. ?May not be in the future. ?I can imagine proles' time
> becoming very plentiful and cheap in comparison to energy costs.

Possible, but improbable in my book. I believe that solar photovoltaic
panels are going to make energy quite inexpensive (unless the
conspiracy theorists are right).

>>...True. And in some cases, you'll want to ride alone...
>
> I think in most cases you would want to ride alone. ?Read on.

Probably, but meeting people is often a nice thing to be able to do. I
enjoy riding on airplanes ONLY for this reason. The rest of flying I
could do without.

>>> I guess you meant drawing as-needed from a 'pool' of cars.
>
>>...I meant that too, but separately...
>
> Ja and that was good thinking. ?You can have pool cars, call-up, on-demand,
> with seats like what you see on a speedboat: ?vinyl ov closed-cell foam, so
> the interiors of the cars can be hosed down (by robot) for cleaning. ? You
> know some drunken prole is going to barf in there, and she is going to be
> copulating with her sweetheart. ?We need to be able to wash the insides of
> these cars regularly, probably daily.

Yes, definitely. Like hotel rooms. Perhaps between each use... LOL.

>>>... Mass transit is an equally poor name: ?Are we hauling the masses as
> figurative terminology for what spike calls proles...
>
> I didn't make up the name, credit the brilliant George Orwell.

He was smart.

>>...I assume you are familiar with the coffee house argument for why England
> became an industrial superpower...
>
> Don't know it. ?Why?

Some economists have postulated that the coffee houses that became
popular around the beginning of the industrial revolution actually
increased the productivity of the English in two important ways.
First, it gave them something aside from hard liquor to safely drink,
and second that it provided a place for people to meet strangers and
exchange ideas. Kind of an Internet of the day... a communication hub
with serendipity. We hardly get any chance for serendipitous
communications these days, with airplane travel being the one
exception.

>>... What if car pools became that kind of social force? Design self driving
> cars with a round table around which people sit...-Kelly
>
> Hmmm, possibly for some purposes but remember that cars in the US can only
> be 8 ft wide. ?I had in mind single ape-haulers which are very close to the
> ground (enabled by resurfacing of current roads) and with a low roof.
> Reasoning: most fuel is burned pushing air out of the way. ?In that regard,
> air resistance is proportional to frontal area, whereas length is almost
> free, and even that is an understatement: a longer vehicle can have a lower
> drag coefficient if it is designed right. ?So imagine ape haulers that are
> long, low and narrow. ?Of course these will not fly if human operated: the
> wheelbase makes them unpleasant handlers. ?But the software wouldn't care
> about that.

True enough, but for car pools designed to promote serendipitous
communication, you would want to be sitting face to face. Engineering
has to take ergonomics, not just aerodynamics into account.

> One other thing that may be consistently underestimated: the value of one
> prole one car, for both privacy and security purposes. ?Mister Lincoln has a
> roomy center console at my right hand: the bad guy doesn't know what caliber
> persuasion I keep in there, and the local constabulary never ask either.
> The bad guy doesn't need to know; let him speculate and bet his damn life on
> a correct guess. ?One of the biggest problems with mass transit is that it
> affords fewer opportunities to have instant access to our good friends Mr.
> Smith and Mr. Wesson. ?Think that over carefully, it is important now and
> may become more so in the future.

You can still carry concealed weapons. If we were car pooling with
strangers, I would want one. In fact, if I traveled on mass transit
much, I'd probably get something. There's a certain hitchhiker I'd
kinda like to shoot... LOL.

-Kelly



From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Sat May 19 08:55:23 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 02:55:23 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Wash post comment
In-Reply-To: <CAHUTwkPL+OWr7GWpqUfmQfpTJ_F-5SjB1iEoT_F95WhhBK+qcg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7V78ZkdgcRPQ8NksN938Wz-zN3FVN09FFYO11jeROyuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkPM60WrCC-tXPjU5OT0+yQxGP_7yiDc+Ud6p_5N__OtgQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120515084532.GI17120@leitl.org>
 <CAHUTwkNmzvHxwBSK37zWkzunt4aKS_agOE9rxwQYwijyit4sHQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armh8ahj05CuZUT6jSfRMWj7C3BFiyzwLG+F_=f8uXraC6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkPL+OWr7GWpqUfmQfpTJ_F-5SjB1iEoT_F95WhhBK+qcg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwY+syLiarJsMqfs8nVtSkyP7YALcE4UYWzBTRt-HpW_XQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Jeff Davis <jrd1415 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm so tired of the dance of doom. ?I prefer enhancement, starships,
> and a sunny singularity. ?I choose joy.

I choose abundance with you.

> If tar sands are economically
> feasible at oil prices above $20/barrel -- and as you no doubt know,
> we're currently hovering around $95 per,

When I hear about the economics of tar sands, I often wonder if they
compute in the cost of the environmental cleanup that will have to
come later. The tar sands mines in Canada make strip mining coal look
downright clean. So while I'm not a rabid environmentalist, I do have
some concerns about that. Sure, fracking might mess up some ground
water here and there, but those tar sand mines, whew!

I read the other day that there are seven times the value of oil based
derivatives than the known world reserves of oil. I don't know if it
is true, or if it is even relevant to our lives or reality in general,
but if someone knows whether this is a real problem or not would try
to explain it to the rest of us, I'm all ears.

-Kelly



From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Sat May 19 09:35:14 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 03:35:14 -0600
Subject: [ExI] post forward for tara maya
In-Reply-To: <026901cd346c$e163f870$a42be950$@att.net>
References: <026901cd346c$e163f870$a42be950$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwZPUoB0FRemCO-sUAzz87G5tVB54e8=+t5VhREvRiSVXg@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 2:37 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> Robo-cars will probably start coming with a lot of apps to entertain
> passengers as they drive. This will probably happen in three ways:
>
> 1. They will integrate with existing tech, i.e. you stick your iPad in the
> slot and watch it as a tv.
>
> 2. They will have their own integrated tech, i.e. a giant tv/computer
> already in the car, chairs that massage you, sleep lighting, 360 degree
> windows for sightseeing, etc.
>
> 3. They will make present day limo perks look tame. Food and alcohol will be
> commonly available in robo-cars. Driving drunk will be popular again, since
> there's no reason not to. Fridges may become standard features.

Don't forget Spike's favorite past time... :-)

> Yes, I think there would be a tremendous gain in productivity.

Yup.

> (whenever people trumpet about
> the supposed virtues of public over private transportation, I cannot help
> but recall certain unpleasant experiences in this area);

Public transportation is seen as a risk by a lot of people. I'm sure
bad things happen sometimes. I wonder if the risk is blown up by the
media, and I always wonder what the REAL risk of things are as opposed
to the perceived risks. For example, the REAL risk of driving his
higher than the perceived risk. I wouldn't be surprised if the
perceived risk of mass transit is higher than the real risk, just as
it is for airline travel. But I don't have any numbers, just a gut
feeling that it's probably overblown.

> A robo-car?would be like having your own private train, without any of those
> disadvantages. You could have your workspace all ready for you, without fear
> of being robbed, crowded, harassed or dropped at the wrong place.?I think
> many people will start their work day as soon as they sit in their robo-car.

I'm sure. Hopefully, if you can be that productive in a robo-car, you
could be that productive at home and avoid the commute altogether. On
those rare days when you need to go in... it would be nice not to have
to totally waste the time. I would probably read myself. (If I didn't
have anyone to copulate with, of course... LOL.)

> If robo-cars made it easier to drive a long way in a shorter period of time,
> then longer commutes would be possible.

Working at home more also makes this possible. Flying cars make longer
commutes of several hundred miles possible, but all of these options
come at a high energy cost, so I hope it doesn't catch on too much.
Also, I like the country side empty, but that's just a personal
preference.

> Robo-cars could also allow families to safely send kids to their various
> lessons and games without doing all the "chauffeur" work themselves.

Oh heck, wouldn't that be great!

> Most accident repair shops will close down - more unemployment.

Hmm. I'm not worried about unemployment caused by new technologies.
That just means people can have better jobs, if they work to stay
relevant.

> Repair shops might do less repairs (I am actually dubious even about that,
> since even if robo-cars have less accidents, they can still break), but will
> still be active. Service shops will include something like the "genius desk"
> to help all of the older citizens and liberal arts majors actually *operate*
> their robo-cars, which will be more like operating a computer than a
> machine, and thus baffle a good portion of the population.

I figure something like On-Star will be quite popular for these
vehicles. Real people helping you get around.

> Every new feature the robo-car engineers and app developers add to make it
> "easier" to use robo-cars will only confuse the tech-challenged portion of
> the population more. They will need more service assistance.

But sometimes tech does actually make things easier. It's rare, but it
does happen. Like automatic transmissions, for example.

> Mostly people won't own their own car. They will just specify their
> journey, number of people, luggage, etc. and an appropriately sized
> vehicle will turn up on schedule and deliver them to their
> destination.

I don't know when or if it will be "most", but I do see this as a
viable option for lots of folks.

> I can't think of any reason people wouldn't want their own car. Most people
> will still commute to work, and so need the car daily. Unless for the
> reasons some have suggested it is *significantly* cheaper to rent a rob-car
> daily than to leave it in your garage, and I'm not sure it would be, people
> would buy and own cars. Maybe this would depend on the city one lived in,
> since of course there's already a difference in car ownership in, say, Los
> Angeles vs New York.

There is a big difference between Los Angeles and New York... I think
for some people renting a robo-car would conceivably be a LOT cheaper.
It's not just the car, there is insurance, repair, hassles, washing,
changing oil, etc. I have an acquaintance that drives a lot and she
just rents a car on a permanent basis now. Of course she's driving
1000 miles a week, but she says it makes sense for her.

> However, maybe this is just my own hang-up. I'm not big on rentals. I don't
> rent my house, I don't rent my computer, I don't even loan school books if I
> can buy them.?I'd rather own my own vehicle. If it's my own car, I can pack
> it with a diaper and toy bag for the kids, water bottles and power bars in
> case I am stuck in a snowstorm or earthquake or alien invasion. The kids can
> put stickers on the window. And if the baby barfs on the seat, I don't have
> to worry about paying some company a fine. (And really, would you *want* to
> be the next customer in the car after me on the day the baby is sick? No, my
> friend. No, you really wouldn't. You'd want me to own my own car too.)

There are benefits to ownership, but there are also benefits to
renting. As the former owner of snow machines, I can tell you than if
you can rent, you really want to. As with all of life, there are
tradeoffs involved.

> Unless of course, it was really, really much cheaper and almost as fast to
> get a rental to my house whenever I needed it. Speed is important. If I live
> out in the boondocks because robo-cars have made it easy to commute a long
> way, I don't want to have to wait half an hour every time I call a car to my
> house.

I think that to be effective, they would have to program the robo-cars
to be pre-positioned for immediate use, and as soon as one was called,
another would have to be moved into position in that area. It's not
the most difficult algorithm to conceive of, but there would still be
occasional waits, no matter what.

>The price difference would have to significant too. Right now, if I
> wanted, I could ride the bus and train to work, but it would cost me almost
> as much as my car, and that's just for my commute. It doesn't count all the
> other trips I make chauffeuring the kids around.

I don't think we often reflect on the total cost of ownership of cars.
It really is a lot!

> In that case, sure, you'd have to put up with my baby possibly barfing on
> your seat. So a lot depends on price point. I guess I just don't see why
> robo-cars would be more expensive to own compared to always taking
> taxi-robo-cars.

There will also be advances in nano-fabrics... hose it out my friend!

> By the way, my 3 little boys absolutely LOVE cars. I don't pretend to
> understand it, but good luck decoupling cars from the American (really? no
> one else in the world loves cars? really?) psyche.

Because America is physically large, and because we've had cars longer
than folks in many countries, we do have a somewhat special, though
not unique relationship with our cars. Lots has been written on this
subject, of course. And yes, it will be very difficult. But, if you
can have a fancy car when you want it for not too much extra, for that
special date or prom or whatever, there is benefit to that as well.

> Another important side effect of on-demand cars showing up when
> required is that we de-invest our identity from them. ?I'm not going
> to leave 'my stuff' in the car when anyone else might be using it next
> or (more likely) that I may not see that particular vehicle again for
> weeks. ?Assuming these vehicles keep themselves clean (within
> tolerances agreed-upon by service provider and consumer) there is also
> less concern for how stylish the vehicle is; for it is no longer a
> status object to be owned or compared to others'.

Clearly.

> Indeed. Which would open a market for privately owned courses where ordinary
> people could take their hobby cars to drive. Much as people do with horses.
> It might even be cheaper than keeping a horse, since you only need to "feed"
> it when you drive it.

Great analogy. The current car will be viewed much as the horse is
now. I really hadn't thought of it in those terms, but this is exactly
the way to think of it!

> Obviously, a lot depends on how cheap it is to buy and run a robo-car vs
> what we have now. But in general, I think that if robo-cars could go faster
> in a shorter period of time with less stress for the driver, then we will
> see an *increase* in mobility, not a decrease.

I see it increasing mobility rather than decreasing. Especially if you
have video conferencing as you drive.

> Just for the record, I think increased mobility is to be welcomed, not
> feared.

It would be good for the economy, if we aren't having endless energy
crisis fears.

Sorry for the sloppiness in who said what in this post, Tara's post
included things from everyone.

-Kelly



From eugen at leitl.org  Sat May 19 09:58:55 2012
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 11:58:55 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Wash post comment
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwY+syLiarJsMqfs8nVtSkyP7YALcE4UYWzBTRt-HpW_XQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7V78ZkdgcRPQ8NksN938Wz-zN3FVN09FFYO11jeROyuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkPM60WrCC-tXPjU5OT0+yQxGP_7yiDc+Ud6p_5N__OtgQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120515084532.GI17120@leitl.org>
 <CAHUTwkNmzvHxwBSK37zWkzunt4aKS_agOE9rxwQYwijyit4sHQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armh8ahj05CuZUT6jSfRMWj7C3BFiyzwLG+F_=f8uXraC6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkPL+OWr7GWpqUfmQfpTJ_F-5SjB1iEoT_F95WhhBK+qcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwY+syLiarJsMqfs8nVtSkyP7YALcE4UYWzBTRt-HpW_XQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120519095855.GE17120@leitl.org>

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 02:55:23AM -0600, Kelly Anderson wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Jeff Davis <jrd1415 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm so tired of the dance of doom. ?I prefer enhancement, starships,
> > and a sunny singularity. ?I choose joy.
> 
> I choose abundance with you.

Excellent. What are you personally doing to make it happen?


From pharos at gmail.com  Sat May 19 12:52:36 2012
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 13:52:36 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Wash post comment
In-Reply-To: <CAHUTwkPL+OWr7GWpqUfmQfpTJ_F-5SjB1iEoT_F95WhhBK+qcg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7V78ZkdgcRPQ8NksN938Wz-zN3FVN09FFYO11jeROyuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkPM60WrCC-tXPjU5OT0+yQxGP_7yiDc+Ud6p_5N__OtgQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120515084532.GI17120@leitl.org>
 <CAHUTwkNmzvHxwBSK37zWkzunt4aKS_agOE9rxwQYwijyit4sHQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armh8ahj05CuZUT6jSfRMWj7C3BFiyzwLG+F_=f8uXraC6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkPL+OWr7GWpqUfmQfpTJ_F-5SjB1iEoT_F95WhhBK+qcg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAL_armhyUH30ZcRRXzoNJJLw991uXybwkQA6PET+JM5K3ASRTQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> But is it objectively real, or is it just a global emotional "bad hair
> decade"? ?Because from where I stand -- if I don't let the "doomers"
> infect me -- life is abundantly fine. ?Life is filled with all manner
> of dynamically optimistic enterprises as well as more low hanging
> fruit of possibilities than there are entrepreneurs to exploit them.
> Problems? ?Sure there are problems. ?When have there ever not been
> problems? ?Only the dead have no problems.
>
> I'm so tired of the dance of doom. ?I prefer enhancement, starships,
> and a sunny singularity. ?I choose joy.


That sounds rather like praying that things will get better (or at
least continue as good as they are now).
We might indeed be lucky and a new source of cheap energy will turn
up. But hoping may not be the most sensible course of action at
present.

Most of us on this list are in a very privileged position. Bright,
well-educated, no money worries....
If you were one of the 46 million subsisting on food stamps or one of
the many others barely getting by on low wage or part-time jobs, then
you might have a different outlook.


>
> Regarding the fact-based rejection of energy-shortage gloom, check this out:
>
> http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/05/zero-hedge-clueless-about-planetary.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29
>
> And on my own, I find this EROEI business a bit suspicious. I wonder
> if it's just an artfully authoritative-sounding but irrelevant
> "metric". ?"Wow!, the guy's wearing a nicely-starched white lab coat.
> He MUST know what he's talking about." ?If tar sands are economically
> feasible at oil prices above $20/barrel -- and as you no doubt know,
> we're currently hovering around $95 per, with a $20 "all war all the
> time" speculation surcharge -- how is EROEI relevant? ?(Though I grant
> you the carbon emissions issue.)
>


You have to be careful with EROEI. It is easy to get confused, (or
deliberately misuse it) as a search for internet articles will quickly
demonstrate. One example is that many people think of it as Energy
Returned on Dollars Invested, which is a completely different concept.
For example, the US military ends up paying hundreds of dollars per
gallon for fuel in the Afghan war zone because they have to keep their
vehicles running no matter what it costs them.
That's why Al Qaeda is waiting for the military to bankrupt the US.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI>

The fall of the Roman Empire was in large part due to falling EROEI on
food production due to ecological damage (deforestation, soil
fertility loss, drought, etc.). i.e. Investing more money didn't help
as the resources just weren't there to exploit. This probably applies
the Mayan civilization as well (and others).

Another way of looking at it is to look at EROEI measured over time,
rather than try and do an on-the-spot calculation with possibly some
skewed numbers. That's how we see the trend in oil production EROEI
falling from about 100:1 to about 5:1 for the latest deep wells. The
trend speaks loudly even though day-to-day life still carries on
fairly normally.

The point is that our civilization needs to switch to different energy
resources. And this is happening already. But a bit quicker would be
nice.  :)


BillK



From spike66 at att.net  Sat May 19 14:52:55 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 07:52:55 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Wash post comment
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armhyUH30ZcRRXzoNJJLw991uXybwkQA6PET+JM5K3ASRTQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7V78ZkdgcRPQ8NksN938Wz-zN3FVN09FFYO11jeROyuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkPM60WrCC-tXPjU5OT0+yQxGP_7yiDc+Ud6p_5N__OtgQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120515084532.GI17120@leitl.org>
 <CAHUTwkNmzvHxwBSK37zWkzunt4aKS_agOE9rxwQYwijyit4sHQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armh8ahj05CuZUT6jSfRMWj7C3BFiyzwLG+F_=f8uXraC6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkPL+OWr7GWpqUfmQfpTJ_F-5SjB1iEoT_F95WhhBK+qcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armhyUH30ZcRRXzoNJJLw991uXybwkQA6PET+JM5K3ASRTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <017501cd35cf$1387ed30$3a97c790$@att.net>


... On Behalf Of BillK
...
>
> I'm so tired of the dance of doom. ?I prefer enhancement, starships, 
> and a sunny singularity. ?I choose joy...  Jeff

Jeff if it is one of my options, I aslo choose to have unlimited oil
supplies underground bubbling up under its own pressure.  Light, sweet crude
please.


>...Most of us on this list are in a very privileged position. Bright,
well-educated, no money worries....
If you were one of the 46 million subsisting on food stamps or one of the
many others barely getting by on low wage or part-time jobs, then you might
have a different outlook...  BillK

BillK I agree with your notion that most of us reading here are in a very
privileged position, but being well fed, warm and safe are only part of it.
The real blessing we have is that we have access to mathematical tools that
few in history have had, and information in unlimited supply.  Our task is
to use our math and engineering skills to filter the good information from
the piles and piles of worthless noise.

That being said, (uhoh, here he goes again) everyone here should look
carefully at how we use energy and how our lives are the way they are
because of our wacky high energy use.  Then extrapolate forward, assuming
the kinds of growth rates that are associated with enormous energy use.  It
isn't that hard to see how this end game plays out.  

All this assumes no singularity of course, which changes everything in
completely unpredictable ways.  The doomsday crowd all assume no
singularity.  So I request you do some serious thinking about your expected
lifespan and that of your children, assuming no singularity comes along to
save the day.

spike 







From spike66 at att.net  Sat May 19 18:44:26 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 11:44:26 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Wash post comment
In-Reply-To: <017501cd35cf$1387ed30$3a97c790$@att.net>
References: <CAPiwVB7V78ZkdgcRPQ8NksN938Wz-zN3FVN09FFYO11jeROyuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkPM60WrCC-tXPjU5OT0+yQxGP_7yiDc+Ud6p_5N__OtgQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120515084532.GI17120@leitl.org>
 <CAHUTwkNmzvHxwBSK37zWkzunt4aKS_agOE9rxwQYwijyit4sHQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armh8ahj05CuZUT6jSfRMWj7C3BFiyzwLG+F_=f8uXraC6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkPL+OWr7GWpqUfmQfpTJ_F-5SjB1iEoT_F95WhhBK+qcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armhyUH30ZcRRXzoNJJLw991uXybwkQA6PET+JM5K3ASRTQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <017501cd35cf$1387ed30$3a97c790$@att.net>
Message-ID: <019101cd35ef$6ad56c00$40804400$@att.net>

>... On Behalf Of spike
...


>>...Most of us on this list are in a very privileged position. Bright,
well-educated, no money worries...  BillK

>...BillK I agree with your notion that most of us reading here are in a
very privileged position, but being well fed, warm and safe are only part of
it.
The real blessing we have is that we have access to mathematical tools that
few in history have had, and information in unlimited supply.  Our task is
to use our math and engineering skills to filter the good information from
the piles and piles of worthless noise...spike 


Here is a good example of noise, one which you can detect easily.  View this
video with the appropriate sense of humor, and the observation that the news
reporters apparently have not the basic grasp of physics to understand why
we cannot run a car from the electricity generated by a wind-driven turbine
on the front of the car:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1642893401001/wind-powered-car-turns-heads?intcmp
=features

Disregard for a moment the silliness, and note the size of the vehicle.
With that in mind, recognize what I was commenting on yesterday, a
frustration I sometimes feel with a particular paradigm we have for road
vehicles: we drive these sturdy metal shells, heavy beasts all.  This is
quite necessary for safety, since the road is filled with heavy metal shells
hurtling about.  So we need a heavy metal shell to protect ourselves in a
collision with heavy metal shells.

In recent memory, China's streets were filled with bicycles and light
scooters.  But more recently, some Chinese began to get cars, which created
a new risk to the bicycles and scooters.  This problem was solved by the
former bicycle and scooter riders by getting cars to protect the drivers
from the other cars.

Note in the video the microcar running on the same street with the bus.  For
decades we have heard the drumbeat droning from the mass-transit-istas how
wonderful it is if everyone uses city buses.  But the first step in making
the road safe for microcars might be to get rid of all buses, for these
introduce a still greater safety risk with their inherently limited driver
visibility.  After all the jaw ratcheting, the city bus might be the problem
rather than the solution.

spike



From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Sat May 19 19:42:27 2012
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 12:42:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] self driving cars
In-Reply-To: <mailman.766.1337421541.17650.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <1337456547.27401.YahooMailClassic@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

spike (or maybe it was really someone else!) wrote:

> maybe even the computer could be smart enough to say, "These two people
> really should talk, I'll arrange a ride for them, and even propose a
> topic for discussion"... it could be a really good thing.

This remark really made me blink.  And think.  And go pale.

What does "the computer could be smart enough to..." actually mean?

I strongly suspect it means "the company that controls the software running on the computer wants to..."

I can see whole new vistas of abuse opening up here, with software giants able to influence who gets to meet (or not) who, not to mention the irresistible lure of a captive audience for 'targeted advertising' (aka spam), and a superb way of tracking individuals movements for those interested in such things.  If you thought Facebook was bad, just wait until every single trip you make is recorded, analysed and cross-referenced with information about who you associate with, your medical records and your taste in music, sexual preferences, and any number of other things.

Oh, yes, and what self-respecting gubmint will bypass the opportunity to impose Compulsory Automated Security Checks on all travellers?

(I'm also trying to think how the convergence of Augmented Reality and self-driving cars can go horribly wrong..)

Sorry to be so negative, but we must anticipate the negative as well as positive aspects of a development like this.  Given that the advent of automated cars presents a good case for some kind of centralised control, resistant to hacking and probably hostile to the spirit of Open Source (opinions on this, please!) it opens up a can of poisonous worms, of many kinds, as well as the exciting and positive things that have already been mentioned.

Ben Zaiboc



From spike66 at att.net  Sat May 19 20:20:15 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 13:20:15 -0700
Subject: [ExI] self driving cars
In-Reply-To: <1337456547.27401.YahooMailClassic@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.766.1337421541.17650.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <1337456547.27401.YahooMailClassic@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <01aa01cd35fc$cdeb19e0$69c14da0$@att.net>



>... On Behalf Of Ben Zaiboc
...

spike (or maybe it was really someone else!) wrote:


Ja it was someone else, and I disagree in principle with the notion.  Read
on please.

>> ...maybe even the computer could be smart enough to say, "These two 
> people really should talk, I'll arrange a ride for them, and even 
> propose a topic for discussion"... it could be a really good thing.
Author unknown

>...This remark really made me blink.  And think.  And go pale.  Ben Zaiboc


_______________________________________________

Me too.  The whole notion in self-drivers is to keep the individual car with
all its advantages.  Social interaction should never be compelled by
controllable influences.  They carry too much risk, including things we
don't think about much today: communicable diseases.  I am thinking not of
the venereal diseases my earlier posts on this topic may have brought to
mind, but rather antibiotic bred superbugs.  Another thing I am thinking
about is a problem I have persistently seen on the local public transit:
homeless people use them as temporary sleeping quarters, a safe, warm
rolling bedroom.  Whereas I sympathize with their need for that kind of
thing, it is a very expensive and ineffective use of public funds.  Charging
fares doesn't really help: a city bus is the cheapest hotel around.  I see
this as an example of an intractable problem with city buses, and would like
to see them parked, even if heated and used as stationary homeless shelters.
They contribute to additional risk to microcars and bicycles as well as cost
the taxpayers a lot of money.

Self-drivers are the way.

spike



From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Sat May 19 22:31:34 2012
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 15:31:34 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Wash post comment
Message-ID: <CAPiwVB7OULaL0F6L8A+r+JZokajFX_ojpESv5bPd2mZc91zigg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 2:59 AM,  Jeff Davis <jrd1415 at gmail.com> wrote:

snip

> And on my own, I find this EROEI business a bit suspicious. I wonder
> if it's just an artfully authoritative-sounding but irrelevant
> "metric".

No, it is a real problem.  Sets the lower limit on what is useful.
It's not hard to explain in a real world model

For simplicity, imagine a village that can't be moved due to a
resource like water and a food supply that is some distance away.
Long as the walk to the food source takes a small fraction of the time
the villagers have available, all is ok.  But as you move the food
source (call it manna) further and further away, it takes more and
more of the caloric value in the food to go get it.  Eventually it
takes more to get the food than it contains and the village starves.

That's the situation with oil, there is still a lot of oil out there,
but it's getting harder to find and harder to extract.  Eventually it
will take more energy to get it out than it is worth, in which case we
quit using oil.  Because oil is mostly used for transport, that has
big effects as does the use of oil in farming.  I.e., run out of oil
and people die, lots and lots of them, at least if we are using
current technology.

> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 11:08 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

snip

>> Wind and other renewable energy sources offer returns in the 17:1
>> range ? still a nice income flow, but nothing like the flood we once
>> got from oil.

For extraction over a relatively short term, EROEI is a good metric.
A more useful one for renewable energy is energy repayment time.  For
solar or wind this is in the 1-2 year range.  That sets a slow
doubling time for these technologies to get us out of the use of
fossil fuels.   For power satellites the energy repayment is under two
months.

But what's the chance of that happening?

Keith


From jrd1415 at gmail.com  Sun May 20 01:25:49 2012
From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 18:25:49 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Wash post comment
In-Reply-To: <CAPiwVB7OULaL0F6L8A+r+JZokajFX_ojpESv5bPd2mZc91zigg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7OULaL0F6L8A+r+JZokajFX_ojpESv5bPd2mZc91zigg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHUTwkN2b_dLyFvr4HAHk72U6_D3RvKtBhprgWFiLj6oD08Sqg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 2:59 AM, ?Jeff Davis <jrd1415 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>> And on my own, I find this EROEI business a bit suspicious. I wonder
>> if it's just an artfully authoritative-sounding but irrelevant
>> "metric".
>
> No, it is a real problem. ?Sets the lower limit on what is useful.

Sets the lower limit.....  Yes, it does that.  The lower "limit" is
1:1.  That's where you put in as much as you get out, so you actually
get nothing out.

Yes this is informative.  Yes, this is helpful,... educationally,... I
suppose.  But, with respect, as long as one gets 2, or 3, or 4:1,
what's the problem?  If abundant tar sands and abundant shale oil/gas
mean even 100 years of affordable energy -- ie sufficient for steady
global economic growth -- then we have plenty of time to transition to
replacement energy sources, and the whole "We're doomed, we're
doomed!" thing is commercial and political hysteria fomented for
commercial and political profit.

Your "real world" example ***explains*** EROEI well enough, but can't
make it relevant if there is not no chance of getting to 1:1..
***IF*** food gets to 1:1, people are in trouble.  ***IF*** energy
gets to 1:1 modern civilization is in trouble.  But these things are
not happening, so it's like saying "If an asteroid strikes the earth,
we're in trouble."  So what?  It's not happening.  Going from an EROEI
of 100:1 to an EROEI of 5:1 is irrelevant if we never get to 1:1, and
as long as there is enough at 5:1 to do the job. Sure, 1:1 is doom,
but since we won't ever get there, it's just scaremongering.

                               ***************************************

For the record, I'm on board with your space solar advocacy, though
personally I value it more for its usefulness in space than down here
in the gravity well (where it's also useful).

Best, Jeff Davis

"When I am working on a problem I never think about beauty. I only
think about how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the
solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong."
               - Buckminster Fuller



From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Sun May 20 02:39:03 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 20:39:03 -0600
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Eric Messick
<eric at m056832107.syzygy.com> wrote:
> Keith writes:
> The media was questioning their economic sanity, saying that it
> wouldn't even be worth it to de-orbit gold, so clearly they're
> thinking along the lines of mass resources in orbit.

Seriously? It would not pay to de-orbit gold??? That seems crazy.
Let's do a back of the envelope calculation.

Spot price of gold today is: $1592.10

Gold is measured in Troy ounces. However, the typical "pound" is not a
troy measurement (it is technically called an Avoirdupois pound -- a
typical American pound). There are ~14.583 Troy ounces in one American
(Avoirdupois) pound.

So to find the current value of of one pound of gold, simply multiply
14.583 times the current price of gold (look at goldprice.com for a
current valuation).

So today a pound of gold is $23,217.59... or $51,078.70 per kilo...

A price I've often heard is that it costs $10,000 per pound to get
something up into LEO... The price to bring something DOWN must be
less than that!

So this is pure silliness on the part of whoever is dishing this
information. Aside from that, I would pay to own gold in LEO... seems
pretty secure... better than a bank vault. :-)

-Kelly


From atymes at gmail.com  Sun May 20 03:08:57 2012
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 20:08:57 -0700
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>

I believe the usual calculation assumes you launch a rocket into
space just to deorbit the gold, and that the rocket + fuel mass
many times the gold.  (Going by your numbers, 10 times
$10,000/pound > $23,217.59.)  And then there are engineering
costs, assuming you will take the standard model of essentially
custom-designing each rocket from scratch, with a full
development program and scale tests, for each individual rocket.

Things like reusable deorbiters - which slow down gold just
enough to send it into the atmosphere, then boost back up to
wait for the next chunk, and can use mass-efficient ion engines
or solar sails - are simply not considered.

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Eric Messick
> <eric at m056832107.syzygy.com> wrote:
>> Keith writes:
>> The media was questioning their economic sanity, saying that it
>> wouldn't even be worth it to de-orbit gold, so clearly they're
>> thinking along the lines of mass resources in orbit.
>
> Seriously? It would not pay to de-orbit gold??? That seems crazy.
> Let's do a back of the envelope calculation.
>
> Spot price of gold today is: $1592.10
>
> Gold is measured in Troy ounces. However, the typical "pound" is not a
> troy measurement (it is technically called an Avoirdupois pound -- a
> typical American pound). There are ~14.583 Troy ounces in one American
> (Avoirdupois) pound.
>
> So to find the current value of of one pound of gold, simply multiply
> 14.583 times the current price of gold (look at goldprice.com for a
> current valuation).
>
> So today a pound of gold is $23,217.59... or $51,078.70 per kilo...
>
> A price I've often heard is that it costs $10,000 per pound to get
> something up into LEO... The price to bring something DOWN must be
> less than that!
>
> So this is pure silliness on the part of whoever is dishing this
> information. Aside from that, I would pay to own gold in LEO... seems
> pretty secure... better than a bank vault. :-)
>
> -Kelly
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


From spike66 at att.net  Sun May 20 04:21:25 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 21:21:25 -0700
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000901cd3640$05885500$1098ff00$@att.net>


>... On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson
...

Snipped a bunch of stuff that was right.

>...So today a pound of gold is $23,217.59... or $51,078.70 per kilo...

Right.

>...A price I've often heard is that it costs $10,000 per pound to get
something up into LEO...

If you take a lot of stuff, ja.  Higher per pound for smaller payloads.

>... The price to bring something DOWN must be less than that!...

No.  Not necessarily.  Once you get the re-entry system on orbit at 10k per
pound, which is actually low probably, then you still need some delta V to
get into a deorbit configuration, you need a reentry shield, you need a dang
good control system, you need some kind of recovery scheme.  All that stuff
has mass and has risk of failure.

>...So this is pure silliness on the part of whoever is dishing this
information...

Hmmm.  Consider the space shuttle.  The theoretical landing mass is about
12000 kg, so your gold is worth 600 million bucks.  But wait, there's more.
You need some way of stabilizing the gold for the reentry process, and that
might weigh nearly as much as the gold once you figure out how to hold the
CG right where it needs to go.  Recall that when reentering with the shuttle
with maximum mass, the CG tolerance is very tight, within about 3 cm in the
fore/aft direction and about 8 cm port/starboard, and I don't recall what it
is in the Z axis, but the point is you can't put your gold in leather sacks
and toss it in the trunk.  If it gets out of tolerance, the control system
will not be able to keep you flying pointy end first.

So I would estimate by the time you get a structure to hold that gold where
it needs to be for a high-G reentry event, you might get back with 300
Megabucks, which wouldn't pay for a shuttle mission.  Then recall two other
factors: there are no other reentry systems designed for returning much of
anything from orbit.  That one time when we returned LDEF from orbit in
1990, which was almost 12000 kg, that was perhaps the scariest thing we ever
did with the shuttle.  Afterwards, NASA said never, never again, will we
carry a payload that size which needs to be reentered, never.  Too scary.
Once could scarcely hear the radio communication over the sound of buttholes
slamming shut.  

Kelly I agree with those would say if you had a bunch of gold in LEO it
wouldn't be worth the cost of retrieving it.

 >...Aside from that, I would pay to own gold in LEO... seems pretty
secure... better than a bank vault. :-)  -Kelly

Ja!  There are things we could do with gold in orbit.  It wouldn't be the
best material to have out there, but not the worst either.  It is soft, but
also very malleable and ductile, and makes good reflective surfaces.  Silver
is better, but gold is passable.



From spike66 at att.net  Sun May 20 04:33:43 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 21:33:43 -0700
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com> 
Message-ID: <000f01cd3641$bd80c740$388255c0$@att.net>



-----Original Message-----
From: spike [mailto:spike66 at att.net] 

>...  That one time when we returned LDEF from orbit in 1990, which was
almost 12000 kg, that was perhaps the scariest thing we ever did with the
shuttle...spike


As soon as I sent this, I thought something was wrong with it.  I realized
the deployment mass of LDEF was way higher than its reentry mass.  Reentry
mass was about 3625 kg.  So disregard previous as wildly optimistic.  The
12000kg was the highest payload the shuttle could theoretically reenter, but
noooobody wanted to try it, nobody.  The LDEF's 4 tons was too much for the
comfort zone.

spike



From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Sun May 20 06:15:56 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 00:15:56 -0600
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>

Ok, so maybe I'm not a rocket scientist... but what would happen if
you had say a one meter diameter ball of solid gold, perhaps covered
with a three meter thick coating of copper (total 7 meters), and you
just decelerated it as much as possible and dropped it into the middle
of the Sahara Dessert. Ok, so you would have a huge hole, maybe a dead
camel, possibly a bit of a mess to clean up.. but why wouldn't
something relatively simple like that work? You make the copper thick
enough and the reentry wouldn't even heat the gold up.

This isn't the same as retrieving a sensitive satellite, it's a big
dang ball of gold... unhurt by being jostled around, crushed or even
broken apart, come on?!?

You would design the trajectory for the minimal speed of reentry as
possible, and the heating seems like it could be kept under control
somehow. What am I missing here?

-Kelly


From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Sun May 20 06:19:14 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 00:19:14 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Wash post comment
In-Reply-To: <20120519095855.GE17120@leitl.org>
References: <CAPiwVB7V78ZkdgcRPQ8NksN938Wz-zN3FVN09FFYO11jeROyuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkPM60WrCC-tXPjU5OT0+yQxGP_7yiDc+Ud6p_5N__OtgQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120515084532.GI17120@leitl.org>
 <CAHUTwkNmzvHxwBSK37zWkzunt4aKS_agOE9rxwQYwijyit4sHQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armh8ahj05CuZUT6jSfRMWj7C3BFiyzwLG+F_=f8uXraC6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkPL+OWr7GWpqUfmQfpTJ_F-5SjB1iEoT_F95WhhBK+qcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwY+syLiarJsMqfs8nVtSkyP7YALcE4UYWzBTRt-HpW_XQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120519095855.GE17120@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <CAPy8Rwb3-HbQ+Sd9yK2TAv8AYEzqeW=M5M2L6PmFAH78TrC8HQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 02:55:23AM -0600, Kelly Anderson wrote:
>> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Jeff Davis <jrd1415 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I'm so tired of the dance of doom. ?I prefer enhancement, starships,
>> > and a sunny singularity. ?I choose joy.
>>
>> I choose abundance with you.
>
> Excellent. What are you personally doing to make it happen?

Raising four kids that nobody else could take care of? At the moment,
that is the most world changing thing I am involved in.

-Kelly



From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Sun May 20 06:31:18 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 00:31:18 -0600
Subject: [ExI] self driving cars
In-Reply-To: <1337456547.27401.YahooMailClassic@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.766.1337421541.17650.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <1337456547.27401.YahooMailClassic@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwZ_TuRhaokuyNdrPZ-ebVLy-vBN+Fw7OaX4OEPaCxgTdw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Ben Zaiboc <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:
> spike (or maybe it was really someone else!) wrote:

Sorry to say, it was me, Kelly.

>> maybe even the computer could be smart enough to say, "These two people
>> really should talk, I'll arrange a ride for them, and even propose a
>> topic for discussion"... it could be a really good thing.
>
> This remark really made me blink. ?And think. ?And go pale.

Well, what I had in mind was knowing that person A was working on
software to solve problem B, and that Person C was working on a device
to solve problem D, and that there might be some kind of interesting
overlap... but rolling spam or porn is probably the more likely
outcome of such a system.

> What does "the computer could be smart enough to..." actually mean?
>
> I strongly suspect it means "the company that controls the software running on the computer wants to..."

Ya, that could be a real problem.

Any technology can be used for good or ill. Autonomous cars are likely
no exception.

So how will people meet serendipitously in the future?? Or must it all
be planned out?

-Kelly



From atymes at gmail.com  Sun May 20 06:22:07 2012
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 23:22:07 -0700
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNRh6qP=bi78MAMuDmRZmFUf5YOGXrSvXoSzBQ3rGhYahQ@mail.gmail.com>

Nothing.

What the common analyses miss is that this sort of thing is
even possible, let alone practical.  They think the deceleration
must follow the same rules as every previous deceleration -
which means launching specially designed hardware up, in
order to bring this down.

They may argue about how you're going to decelerate this -
ignoring that, since it's roughly shaped metal anyway,
lasers could do the trick.

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 11:15 PM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, so maybe I'm not a rocket scientist... but what would happen if
> you had say a one meter diameter ball of solid gold, perhaps covered
> with a three meter thick coating of copper (total 7 meters), and you
> just decelerated it as much as possible and dropped it into the middle
> of the Sahara Dessert. Ok, so you would have a huge hole, maybe a dead
> camel, possibly a bit of a mess to clean up.. but why wouldn't
> something relatively simple like that work? You make the copper thick
> enough and the reentry wouldn't even heat the gold up.
>
> This isn't the same as retrieving a sensitive satellite, it's a big
> dang ball of gold... unhurt by being jostled around, crushed or even
> broken apart, come on?!?
>
> You would design the trajectory for the minimal speed of reentry as
> possible, and the heating seems like it could be kept under control
> somehow. What am I missing here?
>
> -Kelly
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


From spike66 at att.net  Sun May 20 06:52:59 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 23:52:59 -0700
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <002501cd3655$32447640$96cd62c0$@att.net>


>... On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson
Subject: Re: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold

>...Ok, so maybe I'm not a rocket scientist... but what would happen if you
had say a one meter diameter ball of solid gold, perhaps covered with a
three meter thick coating of copper (total 7 meters), and you just
decelerated it as much as possible and dropped it into the middle of the
Sahara Dessert. Ok, so you would have a huge hole, maybe a dead camel,
possibly a bit of a mess to clean up.. but why wouldn't something relatively
simple like that work? You make the copper thick enough and the reentry
wouldn't even heat the gold up.

>...This isn't the same as retrieving a sensitive satellite, it's a big dang
ball of gold... unhurt by being jostled around, crushed or even broken
apart, come on?!?

>...You would design the trajectory for the minimal speed of reentry as
possible, and the heating seems like it could be kept under control somehow.
What am I missing here?  -Kelly
_______________________________________________

Kelly in order to drop this device in a particular place, you need a lot of
delta V.  For the system you describe, I will do a calc in my head, the gold
sphere is about half a cubic meter, that's about 10 tons, and the copper is
about 400 cubic meters, that's another 4000 tons, so the mass of the fuel to
get a minimum delta V for a controlled reentry is enormous.  Then you take
into account this thing is going to create a huge crater and mostly vaporize
on impact.  Then the desert for some distance around will be have a slightly
elevated concentration of gold in it.

This particular scheme wouldn't work, but keep thinking, there might be some
way to get this done.  Not by dropping a huge ball with copper however.

spike



From eugen at leitl.org  Sun May 20 08:40:58 2012
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 10:40:58 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Wash post comment
In-Reply-To: <CAHUTwkN2b_dLyFvr4HAHk72U6_D3RvKtBhprgWFiLj6oD08Sqg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7OULaL0F6L8A+r+JZokajFX_ojpESv5bPd2mZc91zigg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkN2b_dLyFvr4HAHk72U6_D3RvKtBhprgWFiLj6oD08Sqg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120520084058.GC17120@leitl.org>

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 06:25:49PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:

> > No, it is a real problem. ?Sets the lower limit on what is useful.
> 
> Sets the lower limit.....  Yes, it does that.  The lower "limit" is
> 1:1.  That's where you put in as much as you get out, so you actually
> get nothing out.
> 
> Yes this is informative.  Yes, this is helpful,... educationally,... I
> suppose.  But, with respect, as long as one gets 2, or 3, or 4:1,
> what's the problem?  If abundant tar sands and abundant shale oil/gas
> mean even 100 years of affordable energy -- ie sufficient for steady
> global economic growth -- then we have plenty of time to transition to
> replacement energy sources, and the whole "We're doomed, we're
> doomed!" thing is commercial and political hysteria fomented for
> commercial and political profit.

Jeff, I know that you're very good with finding information.
It's strange that you do not put these talents into use to
find materials like this
http://resourceinsights.blogspot.de/2008/09/net-energy-cliff.html
and http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8625
 
> Your "real world" example ***explains*** EROEI well enough, but can't
> make it relevant if there is not no chance of getting to 1:1..
> ***IF*** food gets to 1:1, people are in trouble.  ***IF*** energy
> gets to 1:1 modern civilization is in trouble.  But these things are

If oil goes below 25:1 the economy is in trouble.
If fossil goes below 7:1 to 5:1 than the civilization is in trouble.

> not happening, so it's like saying "If an asteroid strikes the earth,
> we're in trouble."  So what?  It's not happening.  Going from an EROEI
> of 100:1 to an EROEI of 5:1 is irrelevant if we never get to 1:1, and
> as long as there is enough at 5:1 to do the job. Sure, 1:1 is doom,
> but since we won't ever get there, it's just scaremongering.
> 
>                                ***************************************
> 
> For the record, I'm on board with your space solar advocacy, though

I'm not against space solar at all. 

I'm just against spending any resources we don't have while we're
sliding along towards the energy cliff.

> personally I value it more for its usefulness in space than down here
> in the gravity well (where it's also useful).


From anders at aleph.se  Sun May 20 10:12:21 2012
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 11:12:21 +0100
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4FB8C385.9040208@aleph.se>

On 20/05/2012 07:15, Kelly Anderson wrote:
> Ok, so maybe I'm not a rocket scientist... but what would happen if
> you had say a one meter diameter ball of solid gold, perhaps covered
> with a three meter thick coating of copper (total 7 meters), and you
> just decelerated it as much as possible and dropped it into the middle
> of the Sahara Dessert.

As Spike pointed out, the big problem is that you still need delta-v to 
change the orbit into an Earth-intersector. LEO orbital velocity is 
around 7.8 km/s, so it is going to be a few km/s. Also, if you don't 
like vaporised gold you need to reduce it to near zero in the end.

Aerobraking can deal with up to 3 km/s, so if you put your gold in a 
wing with some automated control and give it some hefty parachute you 
might be able to shave some km/s off.


-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University



From spike66 at att.net  Sun May 20 13:44:27 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 06:44:27 -0700
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <4FB8C385.9040208@aleph.se>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <4FB8C385.9040208@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <004d01cd368e$ad4bbbd0$07e33370$@att.net>



-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg
...Subject: Re: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold

On 20/05/2012 07:15, Kelly Anderson wrote:
> Ok, so maybe I'm not a rocket scientist... but what would happen if 
> you had say a one meter diameter ball of solid gold, perhaps covered 
> with a three meter thick coating of copper (total 7 meters), and you 
> just decelerated it as much as possible and dropped it into the middle 
> of the Sahara Dessert.

>As Spike pointed out, the big problem is that you still need delta-v to
change the orbit into an Earth-intersector. LEO orbital velocity is around
7.8 km/s, so it is going to be a few km/s. Also, if you don't like vaporised
gold you need to reduce it to near zero in the end.

>Aerobraking can deal with up to 3 km/s, so if you put your gold in a wing
with some automated control and give it some hefty parachute you might be
able to shave some km/s off. -- Anders Sandberg,


In addition, if you go the aero-braking route, you still need some sort of
propulsion method to do the final deceleration, if you want that sphere of
gold to land in some particular location, rather than in the sea somewhere.
If propulsion, you need some kind of thrust vector control and a
stabilization system, such as a gyro and a power source to run it, and a
guidance system, and it wouldn't be at all easy to do.  It could be done,
but you wouldn't go up and get gold on orbit probably, not with currently
existing technology.



From eugen at leitl.org  Sun May 20 15:23:59 2012
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 17:23:59 +0200
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <002501cd3655$32447640$96cd62c0$@att.net>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <002501cd3655$32447640$96cd62c0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <20120520152359.GH17120@leitl.org>

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 11:52:59PM -0700, spike wrote:

> This particular scheme wouldn't work, but keep thinking, there might be some
> way to get this done.  Not by dropping a huge ball with copper however.

We're assuming you're deccelerating by way of ion/plasma thruster (some half of
payload for reaction mass) until you hit the upper atmosphere or you've 
fired into an initial aerobraking corridor resulting in a decaying 
richochette trajectory of a self-guiding ceramics foam coated metal 
payload from a linear motor on the Moon.

You don't have to worry about canned monkeys or even finicky payload,
so you can hit 100-300 g decceleration with no problem. This will make
plenty of nice pyrotechnics, if seen from the ground.

Once you're no longer in a plasma sheath and gliding you can can
have a controlled glide halfway around the world, to delivery precision 
would be ICBM-grade.

However, I'm questioning the whole basic assumptions of Sqrat 
spaceflight (gather *all* the nuts and drag them home). A more
advanced Sqrat would set up nests where all the nuts are.


From brent.allsop at canonizer.com  Sun May 20 15:04:51 2012
From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 09:04:51 -0600
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <004d01cd368e$ad4bbbd0$07e33370$@att.net>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <4FB8C385.9040208@aleph.se> <004d01cd368e$ad4bbbd0$07e33370$@att.net>
Message-ID: <4FB90813.4070305@canonizer.com>


And I don't think you can  use the horribly inflated price of gold 
today, as your price point.  The current price of gold is only due to 
the immoral fear mongering hording bastards that "invest" in  gold and 
pay to store it in some vault someplace, for fear of some economic or 
social calamity, - all making the world a worse place,  instead of 
investing in something hopeful and moral like Google or Canonizer LLC.

Often times when I try to start my old 2001 Saturn in the morning, it 
fails, till I grind the clutch to clean off the non gold switch 
contacts, before it will start.  I always swear at the bastard immoral 
gold hordes that drive the cost of the stuff up, so manufactures can't 
use the stuff to make better products.  I always curse the immoral 
bastards every morning.

So, even if you did get the price of de-orbiting gold under the current 
inflated price of gold today, that is going to further depress the price 
of gold, and hopefully help the imoral horders to see the evill in their 
ways, and drive them out of the market, towards a more socially 
responsible investment, bring the price more in line of where it should 
be - far cheaper.

So what about other stuff, like maybe platinum or diamonds, or other 
precious metals?  And didn't someone say there was lots of He3 on the 
moon, and that a small amount of that could power a nation for a year or 
something like that?  Finding stuff like gold is also very hard, right?  
Unlike He3??  You got to remember those costs.

I'm still in the camp that thinks all that space stuff is still an 
immoral waste, significantly slowing society down, causing how many more 
souls to fail to reach the millennium to eternally rot in hell or the 
grave?  We've got to focus on the brain, first, and get to where we can 
upload and back our selves up.  Then Everyone, not just the selfish 
rich, can start to easily afford to play in space.

Brent Allsop





On 5/20/2012 7:44 AM, spike wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg
> ...Subject: Re: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
>
> On 20/05/2012 07:15, Kelly Anderson wrote:
>> Ok, so maybe I'm not a rocket scientist... but what would happen if
>> you had say a one meter diameter ball of solid gold, perhaps covered
>> with a three meter thick coating of copper (total 7 meters), and you
>> just decelerated it as much as possible and dropped it into the middle
>> of the Sahara Dessert.
>> As Spike pointed out, the big problem is that you still need delta-v to
> change the orbit into an Earth-intersector. LEO orbital velocity is around
> 7.8 km/s, so it is going to be a few km/s. Also, if you don't like vaporised
> gold you need to reduce it to near zero in the end.
>
>> Aerobraking can deal with up to 3 km/s, so if you put your gold in a wing
> with some automated control and give it some hefty parachute you might be
> able to shave some km/s off. -- Anders Sandberg,
>
>
> In addition, if you go the aero-braking route, you still need some sort of
> propulsion method to do the final deceleration, if you want that sphere of
> gold to land in some particular location, rather than in the sea somewhere.
> If propulsion, you need some kind of thrust vector control and a
> stabilization system, such as a gyro and a power source to run it, and a
> guidance system, and it wouldn't be at all easy to do.  It could be done,
> but you wouldn't go up and get gold on orbit probably, not with currently
> existing technology.
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From painlord2k at libero.it  Sun May 20 16:05:49 2012
From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 18:05:49 +0200
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <4FB90813.4070305@canonizer.com>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <4FB8C385.9040208@aleph.se> <004d01cd368e$ad4bbbd0$07e33370$@att.net>
 <4FB90813.4070305@canonizer.com>
Message-ID: <4FB9165D.8080005@libero.it>

Il 20/05/2012 17:04, Brent Allsop ha scritto:

> And I don't think you can use the horribly inflated price of gold today,
> as your price point. The current price of gold is only due to the
> immoral fear mongering hording bastards that "invest" in gold and pay to
> store it in some vault someplace, for fear of some economic or social
> calamity, - all making the world a worse place, instead of investing in
> something hopeful and moral like Google or Canonizer LLC.

Or being robbed blind by the governments via inflations or heavy taxes 
or some social calamity caused  by some social engineer.
Sorry for thinking self-preserving and self-protection is a good thing.

By the Way, the current costs of extracting gold from the ground is 
around 1200 US$ or something like this. Add the risk to be nationalized 
or taxed. Not a surprise mining shares for precious metal miners are so low.

> I'm still in the camp that thinks all that space stuff is still an
> immoral waste, significantly slowing society down, causing how many more
> souls to fail to reach the millennium to eternally rot in hell or the
> grave? We've got to focus on the brain, first, and get to where we can
> upload and back our selves up. Then Everyone, not just the selfish rich,
> can start to easily afford to play in space.

To have immortality (or very long life spans) we need resources to 
support the research. Rich people have them and more rich people is out 
there, more wealth they have (inherited or produced), more is probable 
one of the or more will finance the research of rejuvenating 
technologyes and likes.

Space is where resources are plenty and untapped and where government 
have difficult to reach and control.

Mirco


From msd001 at gmail.com  Sun May 20 16:19:19 2012
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 12:19:19 -0400
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <20120520152359.GH17120@leitl.org>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <002501cd3655$32447640$96cd62c0$@att.net>
 <20120520152359.GH17120@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <CAOJFdbLYPiM3Wv33+_ROPHyNh9eypFujosAnwGEfFEjPsFRJYg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> However, I'm questioning the whole basic assumptions of Sqrat
> spaceflight (gather *all* the nuts and drag them home). A more
> advanced Sqrat would set up nests where all the nuts are.

I kept thinking through this thread, "why bring anything DOWN to
earth?"  It's so difficult to get things out of earth gravity well,
what possible value is there for bringing anything down here?  If you
gather a bunch of rocks and put them in place for space elevator
counterweights they'd have more value than as coins and jewelry over
the counter.  If you extract the gold from those rocks you can make
wires with it for all the other stuff you want to build in-place
without having to pay to lift it off the ground.

Remember that thread about how we'd bootstrap modern technology if we
found ourselves fallen through time 200+ years?  It's the same
scenario to be pioneers in space.  You know what you know now and
you're equipped only with what you managed to carry into orbit.  Now
how to build all the comforts from scratch?


From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Sun May 20 16:43:24 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 10:43:24 -0600
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <002501cd3655$32447640$96cd62c0$@att.net>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <002501cd3655$32447640$96cd62c0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAPy8Rwb1z7WEtcmu7KfrOtNySU9y5WmCUscKN6fT8Xb0tJkx+w@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 12:52 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
>>... On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson
> Subject: Re: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
>
>>...Ok, so maybe I'm not a rocket scientist... but what would happen if you
> had say a one meter diameter ball of solid gold, perhaps covered with a
> three meter thick coating of copper (total 7 meters), and you just
> decelerated it as much as possible and dropped it into the middle of the
> Sahara Dessert. Ok, so you would have a huge hole, maybe a dead camel,
> possibly a bit of a mess to clean up.. but why wouldn't something relatively
> simple like that work? You make the copper thick enough and the reentry
> wouldn't even heat the gold up.
>
>>...This isn't the same as retrieving a sensitive satellite, it's a big dang
> ball of gold... unhurt by being jostled around, crushed or even broken
> apart, come on?!?
>
>>...You would design the trajectory for the minimal speed of reentry as
> possible, and the heating seems like it could be kept under control somehow.
> What am I missing here? ?-Kelly
> _______________________________________________
>
> Kelly in order to drop this device in a particular place, you need a lot of
> delta V. ?For the system you describe, I will do a calc in my head, the gold
> sphere is about half a cubic meter, that's about 10 tons, and the copper is
> about 400 cubic meters, that's another 4000 tons, so the mass of the fuel to
> get a minimum delta V for a controlled reentry is enormous. ?Then you take
> into account this thing is going to create a huge crater and mostly vaporize
> on impact. ?Then the desert for some distance around will be have a slightly
> elevated concentration of gold in it.
>
> This particular scheme wouldn't work, but keep thinking, there might be some
> way to get this done. ?Not by dropping a huge ball with copper however.

Ok, so what about a limited version of how they put the mars rovers
down? heat shield, Air bags, parachutes, that whole gig?  Again, you
don't have to get it down to 5 Gs, just 200 Gs... so it doesn't have
to have the full size parachute and so forth... Is that going to be
terribly expensive? Is the weight of the whole mass what will cause
the problem?

As for the current high price of gold, if you can get this right, gold
is a very useful industrial metal. I'm sure gold will be an important
part of many future computers and nano tech solutions. If it became
very useful in even very small quantities, it could be even more
expensive than the politically motivated prices of today. Get it cheap
enough, and we could even drop silver, then copper and nickel for
profit.

Ideally, I wouldn't drop any of it until we had enough of a
counterweight to build the space elevator... LOL, but you have to pay
for that stuff somehow. Show space as profitable first, then optimize
later?

-Kelly



From pharos at gmail.com  Sun May 20 18:08:49 2012
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 19:08:49 +0100
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8Rwb1z7WEtcmu7KfrOtNySU9y5WmCUscKN6fT8Xb0tJkx+w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <002501cd3655$32447640$96cd62c0$@att.net>
 <CAPy8Rwb1z7WEtcmu7KfrOtNySU9y5WmCUscKN6fT8Xb0tJkx+w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAL_armjNdfU1NH7GYh+ZPr-AqSj6XFarXMSV1Gt3S6i96V5q6g@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Kelly Anderson wrote:
> Ok, so what about a limited version of how they put the mars rovers
> down? heat shield, Air bags, parachutes, that whole gig? ?Again, you
> don't have to get it down to 5 Gs, just 200 Gs... so it doesn't have
> to have the full size parachute and so forth... Is that going to be
> terribly expensive? Is the weight of the whole mass what will cause
> the problem?
>
>

I think we have to remember that these recovered asteroids will have
to be small.

Nobody will be allowed to send a large object towards earth with the
intention of aerobraking it into orbit. Safety precautions would have
to assume the worst case scenario that something could go wrong and
the asteroid might dive straight into the atmosphere. Energy = mass x
velocity.  So it would have to be small enough that mistakes would
burn up harmlessly high in the atmosphere.

How small is safe?

I think Spike's 7 meter total diameter is too big. You don't want
anything that makes a crater.  :)

I suspect we are probably considering pretty small asteroids, (maybe
about football size) which might well be suitable for the type of
landing you are describing. But as I think Spike mentioned, you then
have the cost problem of getting your landing equipment up into orbit
and attaching it to a small asteroid for retrieval. So the value of
the package retrieved may not cover the cost of retrieval.

Alternatively, if you have lots of these tiny asteroids in orbit (like
we don't have enough space junk in orbit already!) you could have a
robot shuttle type vehicle which could go up and wander around
scooping up these asteroids and filling up the hold, before re-entry.
A similar type of robot vehicle has already been proposed for cleaning
up space junk in earth orbit.


BillK



From atymes at gmail.com  Sun May 20 18:18:44 2012
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 11:18:44 -0700
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <CAOJFdbLYPiM3Wv33+_ROPHyNh9eypFujosAnwGEfFEjPsFRJYg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <002501cd3655$32447640$96cd62c0$@att.net>
 <20120520152359.GH17120@leitl.org>
 <CAOJFdbLYPiM3Wv33+_ROPHyNh9eypFujosAnwGEfFEjPsFRJYg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNS_yWcqMBiJ33r5B1=OcM9DQ-OhrN47Nca+3WVeSX0D7A@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I kept thinking through this thread, "why bring anything DOWN to
> earth?"

Because, at this time, no one will buy raw materials in orbit - at
least, not for any price that someone capable of delivering it would
accept.

Without that, the value is zero, by definition.

>?It's so difficult to get things out of earth gravity well,

Irrelevant.  No customers = no value.

>?If you
> gather a bunch of rocks and put them in place for space elevator
> counterweights they'd have more value than as coins and jewelry over
> the counter.

Nope.  No customers = no value.  Coins and jewelry can be sold;
space elevator counterweights can not.

> ?If you extract the gold from those rocks you can make
> wires with it for all the other stuff you want to build in-place
> without having to pay to lift it off the ground.

Irrelevant, until there is actually a way to make said wires.

Which gets to the heart of the problem: lack of fabrication capability
in space.  Once someone launches the equivalent of a machine
shop, or some other way to make use of raw materials in orbit (such
as there actually being a space elevator, or one under construction),
then and only then might raw materials in orbit gain value.

> Remember that thread about how we'd bootstrap modern technology if we
> found ourselves fallen through time 200+ years? ?It's the same
> scenario to be pioneers in space. ?You know what you know now and
> you're equipped only with what you managed to carry into orbit. ?Now
> how to build all the comforts from scratch?

Start with a detailed plan - hundreds, at least, of relevant line items in the
budget - for how you're going to do that.  Once you have the plan,
acquire resources, the most critical of which will be funding: you'll need
millions, possibly billions, of dollars - and if you're the only one likely to
benefit, you'll need to provide all this yourself.

Or, of course, you could plan to deorbit some of that gold, for the benefit
of others who have no desire to join you or work extensively with you (as
in, most of the people with money).  If the resources of space really are
all that vast, what's the problem with "wasting" the first bits of it you
recover, until you can get mostly self-sufficient?  Waste is only a problem
for sufficiently limited resources, and the amount of gold in space is
nowhere near as precious and rationed as the amount of money in your
bank account right now.



From anders at aleph.se  Sun May 20 20:33:15 2012
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 21:33:15 +0100
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armjNdfU1NH7GYh+ZPr-AqSj6XFarXMSV1Gt3S6i96V5q6g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <002501cd3655$32447640$96cd62c0$@att.net>
 <CAPy8Rwb1z7WEtcmu7KfrOtNySU9y5WmCUscKN6fT8Xb0tJkx+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armjNdfU1NH7GYh+ZPr-AqSj6XFarXMSV1Gt3S6i96V5q6g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4FB9550B.3050003@aleph.se>

On 20/05/2012 19:08, BillK wrote:
> Nobody will be allowed to send a large object towards earth with the
> intention of aerobraking it into orbit. Safety precautions would have
> to assume the worst case scenario that something could go wrong and
> the asteroid might dive straight into the atmosphere. Energy = mass x
> velocity.

Energy = 0.5 mass x velocity ^2 ! Always remember that square. Speed 
kills. And in space everything moves fast, even when it seems to be 
gently going nowhere.


> I think Spike's 7 meter total diameter is too big. You don't want
> anything that makes a crater.  :)

I was thinking that too. After all, dumping it on the White House, the 
Great Hall of the People or Wall Street might have some consequences... 
and hence blackmail potential.

This is one of the big issues with private space flight and space 
industrialisation. It also means that we are privatizing weapons of mass 
destruction. After all, a ballistic missile is just a spacecraft with an 
Earth-intersecting orbit and any ground delivery system can deliver 
other things than gold. It might not be an argument against space, but 
it certainly implies that we should want to think through how to keep 
these capabilities from being misused.

(The standard libertarian argument that private space companies would 
not misbehave because they would lose customers only works if we are 
assuming a single global market. If the misbehaving company doesn't have 
any business with (say) North Korea and drops an ore load on Pyongyang 
normal market mechanisms would be weak in punishing them for it. In the 
real world they would of course be punished by various state actors 
acting in an international system. But it is not entirely clear that 
this fixes the problem since now companies aligned with some of the 
great powers would have a chance to act with impunity - especially if 
governments are their main customers rather than individual citizens or 
other companies.)


I think energy (either beamed or He3 is we ever get fusion anywhere) is 
the main thing to export Earthside. Maybe platinum since it might have 
unique catalytic properties (I dare the nanotechnologists to beat this 
one!) and is very rare on Earth compared to space (hence the mines in 
the Sudbury impact basin). Most other compounds that can be extracted 
are valuable mostly because they are matter up there, not because they 
would sell at high prices down here.


-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Faculty of Philosophy
Oxford University



From jrd1415 at gmail.com  Sun May 20 20:38:36 2012
From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 13:38:36 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Wash post comment
In-Reply-To: <20120520084058.GC17120@leitl.org>
References: <CAPiwVB7OULaL0F6L8A+r+JZokajFX_ojpESv5bPd2mZc91zigg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkN2b_dLyFvr4HAHk72U6_D3RvKtBhprgWFiLj6oD08Sqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120520084058.GC17120@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <CAHUTwkM8n+C7UtD5gBOd8SNEURnGqVe5hZ4WE2RLD9U6-8jLjg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> Jeff, I know that you're very good with finding information.
> It's strange that you do not put these talents into use to
> find materials like this
> http://resourceinsights.blogspot.de/2008/09/net-energy-cliff.html
> and http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8625


Gene,

I checked out the two links.

We've been acquainted for goin' on fifteen years now.  I've admired --
and still do -- your talent and your accomplishments, even to the
point of concluding that you're smarter than I am, which is saying
something considering the size of my ego.  But I think you've fallen
off the cliff on this one.

I read the two links, and it looks to me like the "We're doomed!
We're doomed!" energy catastrophe echo chamber. (That's been my
impression of The Oil Drum for some time now.)   It's a version of
that human weirdness that gives us the "Truthers" and the "Birthers".
When enough people get together and reinforce each other's belief in
something, it becomes like received truth.  It's religious, it's
tribal, it's weird, and it can sometimes be scary.  And I'm not saying
I'm above it all, under the right circumstances any of us can fall
victim to this kind of "stuff".  Just the right kind of
misinterpretable "evidence" is all it takes. (For the Truthers it was
the striking visual similarity between the collapse of the WTC towers
and the collapse of buildings in fact brought down by controlled
demolition.)  At which point otherwise level-headed people just go all
"whacko".

So, on this one issue, let's just agree to disagree.

Best, Jeff Davis

        "Everything's hard till you know how to do it."
                                         Ray Charles


From pharos at gmail.com  Sun May 20 21:06:45 2012
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 22:06:45 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Wash post comment
In-Reply-To: <CAHUTwkM8n+C7UtD5gBOd8SNEURnGqVe5hZ4WE2RLD9U6-8jLjg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7OULaL0F6L8A+r+JZokajFX_ojpESv5bPd2mZc91zigg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkN2b_dLyFvr4HAHk72U6_D3RvKtBhprgWFiLj6oD08Sqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120520084058.GC17120@leitl.org>
 <CAHUTwkM8n+C7UtD5gBOd8SNEURnGqVe5hZ4WE2RLD9U6-8jLjg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAL_armiu2s7BH7svgVFn5=iNeKFcK-5csqXPT7bc6jjcX+Yy0Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Jeff Davis  wrote:
> I read the two links, and it looks to me like the "We're doomed!
> We're doomed!" energy catastrophe echo chamber. (That's been my
> impression of The Oil Drum for some time now.) ? It's a version of
> that human weirdness that gives us the "Truthers" and the "Birthers".
> When enough people get together and reinforce each other's belief in
> something, it becomes like received truth. ?It's religious, it's
> tribal, it's weird, and it can sometimes be scary. ?And I'm not saying
> I'm above it all, under the right circumstances any of us can fall
> victim to this kind of "stuff". ?Just the right kind of
> misinterpretable "evidence" is all it takes. (For the Truthers it was
> the striking visual similarity between the collapse of the WTC towers
> and the collapse of buildings in fact brought down by controlled
> demolition.) ?At which point otherwise level-headed people just go all
> "whacko".
>
>

Ahh, Professor. I think we have a severe case of Optimism Bias here.

<http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2074067,00.html>
Quotes:
We like to think of ourselves as rational creatures. We watch our
backs, weigh the odds, pack an umbrella. But both neuroscience and
social science suggest that we are more optimistic than realistic. On
average, we expect things to turn out better than they wind up being.
People hugely underestimate their chances of getting divorced, losing
their job or being diagnosed with cancer;
------
The belief that the future will be much better than the past and
present is known as the optimism bias. It abides in every race, region
and socioeconomic bracket.
------
Even if that better future is often an illusion, optimism has clear
benefits in the present. Hope keeps our minds at ease, lowers stress
and improves physical health.
------
While healthy people expect the future to be slightly better than it
ends up being, people with severe depression tend to be
pessimistically biased: they expect things to be worse than they end
up being. People with mild depression are relatively accurate when
predicting future events. They see the world as it is. In other words,
in the absence of a neural mechanism that generates unrealistic
optimism, it is possible all humans would be mildly depressed.
------

Are we all depressed now?   :)


BillK



From jrd1415 at gmail.com  Sun May 20 21:14:06 2012
From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 14:14:06 -0700
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHUTwkPPGr7XP5K8E3yG8k+Nv3HihRT5MfrOKw2L3jjhqLPQaw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 11:15 PM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:

> This isn't the same as retrieving a sensitive satellite, it's a big
> dang ball of gold... unhurt by being jostled around, crushed or even
> broken apart, come on?!?
>
> You would design the trajectory for the minimal speed of reentry as
> possible, and the heating seems like it could be kept under control
> somehow. What am I missing here?
>
> -Kelly

I'm with you on this one, Kelly.  The others seem to be saying that
you have to factor in and pay for everything since the industrial
revolution, and then you have to de-orbit the thing in some kind of
high tech package to keep it safe.  Puleeeese!

It's a lump of gold fer God's sake!  Stop making it difficult.  Hollow
it out, make it a long, slim tear-drop, spray on some ablative silica
heat shield stuff, and drop it in the ocean.  Add a drogue chute and
marker buoy if you want to get fancy.

When a bear craps in the woods, he doesn't need a six-hundred dollar
toilet seat! (Unless he works for Lockheed-Martin.)

Best, Jeff Davis

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
     Inside a dog it's too dark to read."
                  Groucho Marx


From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Sun May 20 21:53:21 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 15:53:21 -0600
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNS_yWcqMBiJ33r5B1=OcM9DQ-OhrN47Nca+3WVeSX0D7A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <002501cd3655$32447640$96cd62c0$@att.net>
 <20120520152359.GH17120@leitl.org>
 <CAOJFdbLYPiM3Wv33+_ROPHyNh9eypFujosAnwGEfFEjPsFRJYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS_yWcqMBiJ33r5B1=OcM9DQ-OhrN47Nca+3WVeSX0D7A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwYPNjq=aQsMGamk7gRnQmSNM80vPXX=rayDYaN1QXCXsg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Because, at this time, no one will buy raw materials in orbit - at
> least, not for any price that someone capable of delivering it would
> accept.
>
> Without that, the value is zero, by definition.

Tis sad, but true. I think you could, however, set up a kind of space
bank. Adrian, you pay me $1000 for an ounce of gold in orbit, and
Mike, you pay me $4000 for a ton of copper in orbit, and you just hold
that as stored value (money) until you exchange it for something else,
or you create something with it. This kind of money is probably
preferable by many people to fiat currency. At least there is
something real that some day you can hope to recover and put to use.

> Nope. ?No customers = no value. ?Coins and jewelry can be sold;
> space elevator counterweights can not.

I disagree, I think it could be sold. Especially when once the space
elevator is built, you can put granite up and bring gold and copper
down. I would buy a piece of a space elevator counterweight. It's
great money...

> Which gets to the heart of the problem: lack of fabrication capability
> in space.

That is a problem for sure, but it is a different problem.

> Once someone launches the equivalent of a machine
> shop, or some other way to make use of raw materials in orbit (such
> as there actually being a space elevator, or one under construction),
> then and only then might raw materials in orbit gain value.

Again, if you think of it as stored money, where every ounce is
assigned to someone, that's real money folks!

> Or, of course, you could plan to deorbit some of that gold, for the benefit
> of others who have no desire to join you or work extensively with you (as
> in, most of the people with money). ?If the resources of space really are
> all that vast, what's the problem with "wasting" the first bits of it you
> recover, until you can get mostly self-sufficient? ?Waste is only a problem
> for sufficiently limited resources, and the amount of gold in space is
> nowhere near as precious and rationed as the amount of money in your
> bank account right now.

Clearly not. However, gold will always be a rare commodity because of
it's position in the table of elements. Surely you've seen Cowboys and
Aliens... LOL

-Kelly



From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Sun May 20 22:00:38 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 16:00:38 -0600
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <CAHUTwkPPGr7XP5K8E3yG8k+Nv3HihRT5MfrOKw2L3jjhqLPQaw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkPPGr7XP5K8E3yG8k+Nv3HihRT5MfrOKw2L3jjhqLPQaw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwbSxoZYEL4SqiO=pU3TqrQsEGUtnc21hp8zGS0z+M3x9A@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Jeff Davis <jrd1415 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 11:15 PM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This isn't the same as retrieving a sensitive satellite, it's a big
>> dang ball of gold... unhurt by being jostled around, crushed or even
>> broken apart, come on?!?
>>
>> You would design the trajectory for the minimal speed of reentry as
>> possible, and the heating seems like it could be kept under control
>> somehow. What am I missing here?
>>
>> -Kelly
>
> I'm with you on this one, Kelly. ?The others seem to be saying that
> you have to factor in and pay for everything since the industrial
> revolution, and then you have to de-orbit the thing in some kind of
> high tech package to keep it safe. ?Puleeeese!
>
> It's a lump of gold fer God's sake! ?Stop making it difficult. ?Hollow
> it out, make it a long, slim tear-drop, spray on some ablative silica
> heat shield stuff, and drop it in the ocean. ?Add a drogue chute and
> marker buoy if you want to get fancy.
>
> When a bear craps in the woods, he doesn't need a six-hundred dollar
> toilet seat! (Unless he works for Lockheed-Martin.)

It sure seems like you could come up with an approach for dropping
stuff that would work. Returning the Apollo spacecraft took just a
heat shield and some parachutes... getting stuff to the surface of
mars took parachutes, heat shields and air bags.... going down seems
easier than going up.

However, after thinking it through more completely, I really think the
idea of having your money in orbit, perhaps even outside the reach of
governments... has some real merit. And eventually, with a space
elevator, or laser lifters or whatever, we can get industry into
space, or get the stuff down where we can use it.

Who thinks my idea of orbiting money is ridiculous? And whoever does
think that better say the same for Federal Reserve notes... LOL...
Bitcoin is every bit as ridiculous as orbiting gold, or gold in a
facility on the moon if you would rather... and yet it has support of
at least some people.

-Kelly



From painlord2k at libero.it  Sun May 20 22:52:55 2012
From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 00:52:55 +0200
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwbSxoZYEL4SqiO=pU3TqrQsEGUtnc21hp8zGS0z+M3x9A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkPPGr7XP5K8E3yG8k+Nv3HihRT5MfrOKw2L3jjhqLPQaw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwbSxoZYEL4SqiO=pU3TqrQsEGUtnc21hp8zGS0z+M3x9A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4FB975C7.1090401@libero.it>

Il 21/05/2012 00:00, Kelly Anderson ha scritto:

> Who thinks my idea of orbiting money is ridiculous? And whoever does
> think that better say the same for Federal Reserve notes... LOL...
> Bitcoin is every bit as ridiculous as orbiting gold, or gold in a
> facility on the moon if you would rather... and yet it has support of
> at least some people.

Gold on the Dark Side of the Moon.
I bet the Nazis living and plotting on the Dark Side of the Moon use 
gold to finance their plans.

Mirco


From anders at aleph.se  Sun May 20 22:44:02 2012
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 23:44:02 +0100
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwbSxoZYEL4SqiO=pU3TqrQsEGUtnc21hp8zGS0z+M3x9A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkPPGr7XP5K8E3yG8k+Nv3HihRT5MfrOKw2L3jjhqLPQaw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwbSxoZYEL4SqiO=pU3TqrQsEGUtnc21hp8zGS0z+M3x9A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4FB973B2.4010902@aleph.se>

On 20/05/2012 23:00, Kelly Anderson wrote:
> Who thinks my idea of orbiting money is ridiculous?

Well, given the success of Rai stones even dropped into the lagoon as 
currency on Yap, orbiting money is probably not that bad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yap#Stone_money

However, the real problem is of course that all the value lies in the 
perception of value. Bitcoin is very volatile because it is a small 
currency. A currency better be either large or backed by some stable 
institution to remain stable.

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Faculty of Philosophy
Oxford University



From brent.allsop at canonizer.com  Mon May 21 00:40:29 2012
From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 18:40:29 -0600
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <4FB973B2.4010902@aleph.se>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkPPGr7XP5K8E3yG8k+Nv3HihRT5MfrOKw2L3jjhqLPQaw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwbSxoZYEL4SqiO=pU3TqrQsEGUtnc21hp8zGS0z+M3x9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <4FB973B2.4010902@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <4FB98EFD.5040607@canonizer.com>

On 5/20/2012 4:44 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote:
> On 20/05/2012 23:00, Kelly Anderson wrote:
>> Who thinks my idea of orbiting money is ridiculous?
>
> Well, given the success of Rai stones even dropped into the lagoon as 
> currency on Yap, orbiting money is probably not that bad.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yap#Stone_money
>
> However, the real problem is of course that all the value lies in the 
> perception of value. Bitcoin is very volatile because it is a small 
> currency. A currency better be either large or backed by some stable 
> institution to remain stable.
>

All forms of money that are expensive are crap, from Gold, to coins, and 
especially if it is up in space.  The only problem with money, is the 
inability to control how much of it there is, in any given society.  
Making it more expensive, or more rare, makes things far worse, and 
likely to be more volatile.

Also, money needs to be VERY flexible.  the herd goes in waves, where 
during boom times, everyone thinks they have far more wealth, than they 
really have, so this drives things, in a compounding way, to be even 
more bubbly.  And when the bubble pops, the herd swings way to the far 
other extreme, thinking they are far more poor than they really are, 
becoming a self fulfilling prophesy.  Being on a "gold standard" can 
really work in the opposite way that it needs to, depending on how much 
we find, and how much is being consumed, at any given time.

You desperately need to have a controlling institution, that can be very 
flexible, and create money very cheaply, to fund governmental like 
projects to help when this happens, and do the opposite when bubbles are 
forming.

Right now, we have a reasonably good way of doing this, (at least better 
than the gold standard, or any other more primitive method used in the 
past) via the Federal reserve, under the direction of someone like 
Bernanke.  In my opinion, Bernanke, and his flooding the system with 
money, is what kept us from making the same mistake of the last 
generation, and why today we only have "the great rescission" when the 
last generation had "the great depression".

Now, if we could have something way more intelligent and trustworthy, 
than Bernanke, perhaps an amplification of the wisdom of the expert 
crowd survey system, like canonizer.com, we could implement a completely 
free monetary system - with completely freely created money, enabling us 
to get to the millennium that much faster.  And we wouldn't need  a 
government or any other big institution to 'back it up'.

And as far as anything in space, like what is the maximum size of 
something in space we could de-orbit, all of that is moot, and all of it 
is dangerous.  Anything we put in orbit, money or whatever, could come 
crashing down, and it's only a matter of time before yet another person 
is doomed to eternally rotting in the grave, when they could potentially 
make it to the millennium.

Again, instead of focusing on space, we should be focusing on the brain, 
so we can have sooner have backups and uploads of everyone.  Then we can 
de-orbat anything we want.  If we goof, we just restore everyone from 
backups, no big deal.

Does anyone think Elon is ever going to go up in one of his rockets, and 
risk a chance at making it to the millennium?  Would any similarly rich 
trans-humanist ever risk that, especially the closer we get to the 
millennium?

You've got to do first things first.  Everything else just condemns that 
many more people to eternally rotting in the hell that is the grave, or 
worse, complete obliteration in space.

Brent Allsop




















From atymes at gmail.com  Mon May 21 03:26:59 2012
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 20:26:59 -0700
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwYPNjq=aQsMGamk7gRnQmSNM80vPXX=rayDYaN1QXCXsg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <002501cd3655$32447640$96cd62c0$@att.net>
 <20120520152359.GH17120@leitl.org>
 <CAOJFdbLYPiM3Wv33+_ROPHyNh9eypFujosAnwGEfFEjPsFRJYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS_yWcqMBiJ33r5B1=OcM9DQ-OhrN47Nca+3WVeSX0D7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYPNjq=aQsMGamk7gRnQmSNM80vPXX=rayDYaN1QXCXsg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNTFxpyRWPLix_gdKaCBafRtaLzASooFFESBF6rZ-45gJA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Because, at this time, no one will buy raw materials in orbit - at
>> least, not for any price that someone capable of delivering it would
>> accept.
>>
>> Without that, the value is zero, by definition.
>
> Tis sad, but true. I think you could, however, set up a kind of space
> bank. Adrian, you pay me $1000 for an ounce of gold in orbit, and
> Mike, you pay me $4000 for a ton of copper in orbit, and you just hold
> that as stored value (money) until you exchange it for something else,
> or you create something with it. This kind of money is probably
> preferable by many people to fiat currency. At least there is
> something real that some day you can hope to recover and put to use.

Not really.  Currency has value because people believe in its worth.
Most people believe that raw materials in space are currently worth
nothing.  Until after you convince them otherwise - which is probably
going to require the existence of fabrication equipment in space - you
still have no customers.

>> Nope. ?No customers = no value. ?Coins and jewelry can be sold;
>> space elevator counterweights can not.
>
> I disagree, I think it could be sold. Especially when once the space
> elevator is built

And here is where you miss my point.

Once the space elevator is built...

Once there is a way to use the stuff in orbit...

At some future date, when X happens...

I'm talking about right now, when none of that has happened yet.  So
are most people, especially those outside this list.

I agree, there is a way to make these things have value.  But that
is a far cry from these things already having value - even significant
speculative value - today, that you can draw from.

> I would buy a piece of a space elevator counterweight. It's
> great money...

Would you?  Then would you invest in a venture that sought to
create a space elevator?  How much are you willing to part with?

The answer, of course, is not a high enough price that anyone
capable of delivering would accept your contract.

>> Which gets to the heart of the problem: lack of fabrication capability
>> in space.
>
> That is a problem for sure, but it is a different problem.

Nope.  It is the problem at hand here.

>> Once someone launches the equivalent of a machine
>> shop, or some other way to make use of raw materials in orbit (such
>> as there actually being a space elevator, or one under construction),
>> then and only then might raw materials in orbit gain value.
>
> Again, if you think of it as stored money, where every ounce is
> assigned to someone, that's real money folks!

Convince a bunch of people to think of it that way, and then it will be.
We're talking many thousands of people, at a bare minimum, to be
what most would consider "money"

Haven't convinced that many yet?  Then, sorry, it is not stored money
yet.



From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Mon May 21 05:12:11 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 23:12:11 -0600
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <4FB973B2.4010902@aleph.se>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkPPGr7XP5K8E3yG8k+Nv3HihRT5MfrOKw2L3jjhqLPQaw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwbSxoZYEL4SqiO=pU3TqrQsEGUtnc21hp8zGS0z+M3x9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <4FB973B2.4010902@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwZ+S4Gz+461KehijNjRCd2-_EPjgFqgPi5mDe9gcvx3_A@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
> On 20/05/2012 23:00, Kelly Anderson wrote:
>>
>> Who thinks my idea of orbiting money is ridiculous?
>
>
> Well, given the success of Rai stones even dropped into the lagoon as
> currency on Yap, orbiting money is probably not that bad.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yap#Stone_money
>
> However, the real problem is of course that all the value lies in the
> perception of value. Bitcoin is very volatile because it is a small
> currency. A currency better be either large or backed by some stable
> institution to remain stable.

Physical gold is not a "currency" per se. If you have computerized or
paper documentation that you own gold, it doesn't really matter that
it isn't easily de-orbited at the moment. Now, if I tried to back a
currency with gold in the asteroid belt, that's a bit different...
because I don't know which piece of that gold is mine... but once it
is purified and in orbit with my name on it, that seems like a
completely different story.

-Kelly


From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Mon May 21 05:41:27 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 23:41:27 -0600
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <4FB98EFD.5040607@canonizer.com>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkPPGr7XP5K8E3yG8k+Nv3HihRT5MfrOKw2L3jjhqLPQaw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwbSxoZYEL4SqiO=pU3TqrQsEGUtnc21hp8zGS0z+M3x9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <4FB973B2.4010902@aleph.se> <4FB98EFD.5040607@canonizer.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8Rwac2uPTh7tQTOSuXqe0-XJzX0avqEWO9t+bJaWxNksDdw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Brent Allsop
<brent.allsop at canonizer.com> wrote:
> On 5/20/2012 4:44 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote:
>>
>> On 20/05/2012 23:00, Kelly Anderson wrote:
>>>
>>> Who thinks my idea of orbiting money is ridiculous?
>>
>>
>> Well, given the success of Rai stones even dropped into the lagoon as
>> currency on Yap, orbiting money is probably not that bad.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yap#Stone_money
>>
>> However, the real problem is of course that all the value lies in the
>> perception of value. Bitcoin is very volatile because it is a small
>> currency. A currency better be either large or backed by some stable
>> institution to remain stable.
>>
>
> All forms of money that are expensive are crap, from Gold, to coins, and
> especially if it is up in space. ?The only problem with money, is the
> inability to control how much of it there is, in any given society. ?Making
> it more expensive, or more rare, makes things far worse, and likely to be
> more volatile.

This makes very little sense to me Brent. You want cheap worthless
money? Or you want no money at all? Money is simply "frozen desire",
that is a form that acts as an intermediate holder of value so that I
don't have to barter directly for what I want. Control of the money
supply is of course important to avoid inflation or deflation, but if
you are mining gold and other minerals from outer space, you are
literally creating new value, and that kind of increase in the money
supply is almost always good because it's the root of our economy.

There are only a few truly basic creative actions at the roots of our
civilization. Farming, mining, hunting, fishing, lumber harvesting,
etc. and everything else is just transforming these raw materials into
goods that the rest of us use or service.

> Also, money needs to be VERY flexible. ?the herd goes in waves, where during
> boom times, everyone thinks they have far more wealth, than they really
> have, so this drives things, in a compounding way, to be even more bubbly.
>?And when the bubble pops, the herd swings way to the far other extreme,
> thinking they are far more poor than they really are, becoming a self
> fulfilling prophesy. ?Being on a "gold standard" can really work in the
> opposite way that it needs to, depending on how much we find, and how much
> is being consumed, at any given time.

Again, this is rambling that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. What
is more flexible as money than gold? Everyone will take it as money,
and it's NEVER gone out of style in thousands of years. It won't go
out of style even after the singularity. It's one of the few things
you can really say will survive through the singulary, imho. Unless
they figure out how to turn lead into gold in an economic fashion...
then there is NOTHING of value, save matter itself.

> You desperately need to have a controlling institution, that can be very
> flexible, and create money very cheaply, to fund governmental like projects
> to help when this happens, and do the opposite when bubbles are forming.

This I understand, AND I completely disagree with you. Government
shenanigans is one of the most common sources of bubbles these days!
The housing crisis and bubble, government caused. The Internet bubble,
maybe not so much.

> Right now, we have a reasonably good way of doing this, (at least better
> than the gold standard, or any other more primitive method used in the past)
> via the Federal reserve, under the direction of someone like Bernanke. ?In
> my opinion, Bernanke, and his flooding the system with money, is what kept
> us from making the same mistake of the last generation, and why today we
> only have "the great rescission" when the last generation had "the great
> depression".

Good lord. What the Fed is doing now is only pushing the inevitable
day of reckoning out further and making the eventual landing harder.
OK, they did have to do something on September 18, 2008 to keep the
world from collapsing, but why was the world in danger of collapsing
in the first place?

> Now, if we could have something way more intelligent and trustworthy, than
> Bernanke, perhaps an amplification of the wisdom of the expert crowd survey
> system, like canonizer.com, we could implement a completely free monetary
> system - with completely freely created money, enabling us to get to the
> millennium that much faster. ?And we wouldn't need ?a government or any
> other big institution to 'back it up'.

I'm very sorry Brent, but the canonizer isn't the solution to every
problem on the planet. We need free money, a free market, independent
of government hooligans. And it isn't just the ones in Washington.
Bejing is playing fast and loose with their money policy too, and some
day, we're all going to pay for it, big time.

> And as far as anything in space, like what is the maximum size of something
> in space we could de-orbit, all of that is moot, and all of it is dangerous.
> ?Anything we put in orbit, money or whatever, could come crashing down, and
> it's only a matter of time before yet another person is doomed to eternally
> rotting in the grave, when they could potentially make it to the millennium.

What millennium are you referring to Brent? You haven't gotten all
religious on us have you?

> Again, instead of focusing on space, we should be focusing on the brain, so
> we can have sooner have backups and uploads of everyone. ?Then we can
> de-orbat anything we want. ?If we goof, we just restore everyone from
> backups, no big deal.

Look, there are people doing work on the brain... but it is pointless
to invest too much there prior to having the basic technologies
available to do something with that knowledge. Even if we knew how the
brain worked today, it seems doubtful that we would have the
computational power to upload anyone.

> Does anyone think Elon is ever going to go up in one of his rockets, and
> risk a chance at making it to the millennium? ?Would any similarly rich
> trans-humanist ever risk that, especially the closer we get to the
> millennium?

Probably, because if you don't live while you are alive, then what's
the point of living longer?

> You've got to do first things first. ?Everything else just condemns that
> many more people to eternally rotting in the hell that is the grave, or
> worse, complete obliteration in space.

Immortality first, everything else can wait? Well, that's a good
slogan, but how do you know what technology will lead to the
breakthrough necessary to achieve it? The NASA space program gave us a
lot of the basic technologies we have today, computers, disposable
diapers, pens that can write upside down... so how can you say what to
work on and what not to work on when we don't know the direction that
the real break through to immortality will come from?

I don't want to pry or offend, I like you Brent, but you seem a little
edgy lately... everything OK?

-Kelly



From eugen at leitl.org  Mon May 21 09:35:53 2012
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 11:35:53 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Wash post comment
In-Reply-To: <CAHUTwkM8n+C7UtD5gBOd8SNEURnGqVe5hZ4WE2RLD9U6-8jLjg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7OULaL0F6L8A+r+JZokajFX_ojpESv5bPd2mZc91zigg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkN2b_dLyFvr4HAHk72U6_D3RvKtBhprgWFiLj6oD08Sqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120520084058.GC17120@leitl.org>
 <CAHUTwkM8n+C7UtD5gBOd8SNEURnGqVe5hZ4WE2RLD9U6-8jLjg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120521093553.GO17120@leitl.org>

On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 01:38:36PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:

> We've been acquainted for goin' on fifteen years now.  I've admired --
> and still do -- your talent and your accomplishments, even to the
> point of concluding that you're smarter than I am, which is saying
> something considering the size of my ego.  But I think you've fallen
> off the cliff on this one.

Well, flattery will get you everywhere ;)
 
> I read the two links, and it looks to me like the "We're doomed!
> We're doomed!" energy catastrophe echo chamber. (That's been my

It describes simple concept: EROEI and what happens when
EROEI approaches unity. As you haven't gone broke yet (you've
been spending less than you've earned, hopefully, with a
sufficient safety margin to weather some hard times) nor have you starved
(you have been matching your caloric intake to your metabolism)
the concept of EROEI is a complete no-brainer. 

And you can easily feel what it means to be a hunter-gatherer,
who must spend energy and time to hunt and gather food. As the
quality declines, she must spend more and more time and energy
to gather a larger volume of lower-quality grub until eventually
she spends all her waking hours looking for food (no time for
making plans, or repairing tools or housing, or art) and eventually
wastes away as the quality and quantity declines beyond where
she spends more than she gets back. (In reality,
the starving tribe will begin war on its neighbors, either
annexing enough resources and/or reducing the number of eaters
via war casualties). 

We as a society are used to 100:1 EROEI and growth, energy much cheaper
and more plentiful, and of higher quality than we must live
with now (25:1 and falling fast). I hate to sound monocausal, but
some of that diffuse malaise we've been feeling is due to very
boring, ordinary problems: we're out of easy and cheap energy,
and other resources, and now we're stretching outselves thin
to make demand meet supply. That's the diagnosis.

So in order to continue to enjoy the good life we must use
whatever energy and resources we still have to rebuild our
society into sustainability. The doom and gloom will only happen
if we further engange into the convenient "What, me, worry?"
policy we've been into collectively. Because, if you've read
Collapse and the Limits to Growth (the "standard run" scenario)
you know how that one will play out. 

So there's still time for the therapy. But, the longer you
wait, the bitter the medicine will be. And if you wait too long,
then no amount of therapy will save the patient.

> impression of The Oil Drum for some time now.)   It's a version of
> that human weirdness that gives us the "Truthers" and the "Birthers".
> When enough people get together and reinforce each other's belief in
> something, it becomes like received truth.  It's religious, it's
> tribal, it's weird, and it can sometimes be scary.  And I'm not saying
> I'm above it all, under the right circumstances any of us can fall
> victim to this kind of "stuff".  Just the right kind of
> misinterpretable "evidence" is all it takes. (For the Truthers it was
> the striking visual similarity between the collapse of the WTC towers
> and the collapse of buildings in fact brought down by controlled
> demolition.)  At which point otherwise level-headed people just go all
> "whacko".
> 
> So, on this one issue, let's just agree to disagree.

What are your thoughts on evolution? How about gravity? Can
we agree to disagree on that? 


From aleksei at iki.fi  Mon May 21 09:31:58 2012
From: aleksei at iki.fi (Aleksei Riikonen)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 12:31:58 +0300
Subject: [ExI] Wired article on AI risk
Message-ID: <CAF=HMECg4XE2A2R29oiSsnrUsbw8uPtPiSmfrR-nmVwr1DR9eA@mail.gmail.com>

This recent Wired article on AI risk was rather ok:

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-05/17/the-dangers-of-an-ai-smarter-than-us

-- 
Aleksei Riikonen - http://www.iki.fi/aleksei


From aleksei at iki.fi  Mon May 21 11:33:48 2012
From: aleksei at iki.fi (Aleksei Riikonen)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 14:33:48 +0300
Subject: [ExI] [Hplus-talk] Wired article on AI risk
In-Reply-To: <8CF055AA594A2C8-159C-45F58@webmail-stg-m05.sysops.aol.com>
References: <CAF=HMECg4XE2A2R29oiSsnrUsbw8uPtPiSmfrR-nmVwr1DR9eA@mail.gmail.com>
 <8CF055AA594A2C8-159C-45F58@webmail-stg-m05.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <CAF=HMEBADtsasPBdLvvc+cvr9zByM0pyY6eZqFrVgYyqdNjPeg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 2:18 PM, James W. Meritt <jwmeritt at aol.com> wrote:
>
> I thought higher of Wired until I personally saw how poor their
> fact-checking was. ?I saw a number of items declared as fact that I knew
> were not true. ?Ever since then, I have read their articles with a very,
> very large grain of salt and a very large chunk of disbelief.

*All* of their articles since then have elicited great disbelief in
you? It seems unlikely to me that they wouldn't have managed to write
something that happened to be competent. (Sorry, just being facetious
here.)

Personally, I've never thought particularly highly of Wired, but they
do sometimes write stuff that is good.

-- 
Aleksei Riikonen - http://www.iki.fi/aleksei



From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Mon May 21 12:11:18 2012
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 14:11:18 +0200
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <4FB973B2.4010902@aleph.se>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkPPGr7XP5K8E3yG8k+Nv3HihRT5MfrOKw2L3jjhqLPQaw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwbSxoZYEL4SqiO=pU3TqrQsEGUtnc21hp8zGS0z+M3x9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <4FB973B2.4010902@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAPoR7a52ujkGfentqxU6Xku-9u-kTCO2gD78GrFgF=Yy+5-QMg@mail.gmail.com>

On 21 May 2012 00:44, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> However, the real problem is of course that all the value lies in the
> perception of value.


Yes, I agree.

Bitcoin is very volatile because it is a small currency. A currency better
> be either large or backed by some stable institution to remain stable.


I look at Bitcoin with interest, by it is still unclear to me whether we
still need a currency, and/or whether a system such as that suggested in Money
as Debt III: Evolution Beyond
Money<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3P7izAUe3ZM>would not be more
practical, and/or whether such currency should be scarce,
the problem with fiat money being possibly that of its control by private
monopolists lending it against interest more than of its very existence.


-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120521/20fbccef/attachment.html>

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Mon May 21 12:03:51 2012
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 14:03:51 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Wired article on AI risk
In-Reply-To: <CAF=HMECg4XE2A2R29oiSsnrUsbw8uPtPiSmfrR-nmVwr1DR9eA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF=HMECg4XE2A2R29oiSsnrUsbw8uPtPiSmfrR-nmVwr1DR9eA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPoR7a45zUbMb0AiLTkShT=B4WyJB1ifE1MSXheA+mbwz5Y30w@mail.gmail.com>

On 21 May 2012 11:31, Aleksei Riikonen <aleksei at iki.fi> wrote:

> This recent Wired article on AI risk was rather ok:
>
> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-05/17/the-dangers-of-an-ai-smarter-than-us
>

Nothing really new, and nothing I could agree with less.

As far as I can tell, my rebuttal of the relevant assumptions and
platitudes still stands (English translation by Catarina Lamm still
available full-text online at
http://www.divenire.org/articolo_versione.asp?id=1).

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120521/4863eafd/attachment.html>

From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Mon May 21 15:58:02 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 09:58:02 -0600
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNTFxpyRWPLix_gdKaCBafRtaLzASooFFESBF6rZ-45gJA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <002501cd3655$32447640$96cd62c0$@att.net>
 <20120520152359.GH17120@leitl.org>
 <CAOJFdbLYPiM3Wv33+_ROPHyNh9eypFujosAnwGEfFEjPsFRJYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS_yWcqMBiJ33r5B1=OcM9DQ-OhrN47Nca+3WVeSX0D7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYPNjq=aQsMGamk7gRnQmSNM80vPXX=rayDYaN1QXCXsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNTFxpyRWPLix_gdKaCBafRtaLzASooFFESBF6rZ-45gJA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8Rwb6=DUOPELUtGHZgbTca0G4i+xi0fyA8tR+P7T22DRQhw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tis sad, but true. I think you could, however, set up a kind of space
>> bank. Adrian, you pay me $1000 for an ounce of gold in orbit, and
>> Mike, you pay me $4000 for a ton of copper in orbit, and you just hold
>> that as stored value (money) until you exchange it for something else,
>> or you create something with it. This kind of money is probably
>> preferable by many people to fiat currency. At least there is
>> something real that some day you can hope to recover and put to use.
>
> Not really. ?Currency has value because people believe in its worth.

I think this story could be sold. If you can sell Bitcoin to some
people as a valid government independent monetary unit, how much
easier would gold in orbit be? I can't imagine that it would be
harder.

> Most people believe that raw materials in space are currently worth
> nothing. ?Until after you convince them otherwise - which is probably
> going to require the existence of fabrication equipment in space - you
> still have no customers.

Just as a holder of value, I think it would work. Honestly.

> And here is where you miss my point.

No, I don't think I've missed your point, you see gold and other
precious metals in orbit as currently having zero value. I merely
disagree.

> Once the space elevator is built...
>
> Once there is a way to use the stuff in orbit...
>
> At some future date, when X happens...

I'll admit to living in the future a bit more than is healthy. But on
this point, I'm living in the present. I can almost guarantee you that
if I had an orbiting bank that demonstrably held a thousand pounds or
more of gold, that I could sell shares in that bank TODAY and that I
could create a currency based upon that gold that would circulate
TODAY. As a numismatist with 30+ years experience in studying money in
its myriad forms, I can assure you that this would be accepted as real
money by a very large number of people. It might even become more
accepted than government fiat money if there were enough precious
metals collected.

By the way, I would probably park it at one of the Lagrange points so
you wouldn't have to worry about it plummeting to earth as it's orbit
decayed.

> I'm talking about right now, when none of that has happened yet. ?So
> are most people, especially those outside this list.

So am I. The only part that is imaginary is the actual asteroid
mining. The currency would be a slam dunk once you actually collected
the metals.

> I agree, there is a way to make these things have value. ?But that
> is a far cry from these things already having value - even significant
> speculative value - today, that you can draw from.

Well, the one thing we don't have today is actual collected gold.

>> I would buy a piece of a space elevator counterweight. It's
>> great money...
>
> Would you? ?Then would you invest in a venture that sought to
> create a space elevator? ?How much are you willing to part with?

If a company had a plan that sounded plausible, primarily in terms of
the material to build the tether, I would definitely invest in it.

> The answer, of course, is not a high enough price that anyone
> capable of delivering would accept your contract.
>
>>> Which gets to the heart of the problem: lack of fabrication capability
>>> in space.
>>
>> That is a problem for sure, but it is a different problem.
>
> Nope. ?It is the problem at hand here.

Listen very carefully... Precious metals have value because of what
can be built out of them, however, they also have INTRINSIC value to
many people... That value is there whether the gold is in a safe
underneath the collapsed twin towers, or in outer space. It may take a
few years to dig it out of the rubble, or a few more to actually
retrieve it from outer space, but it has value today.

In fact, if you really want to stretch it, you might be able to build
a currency based on the gold that a certain company WILL collect at
some time in the future. Obviously this would have a very low value
compared to currently available terrestrial gold, but it would have
value.

So here is my proposal to whoever is thinking about mining
asteroids... Create a currency redeemable in gold, another for silver,
platinum, copper and so on... Sell it on the open market today... It
would have to be an electronic currency, and you would have to know
from the currency whether you were entitled to the first ounce of gold
retrieved or the millionth. Then you open that currency up to the
world just like Bitcoin. If and when they or their successor retrieves
actual physical gold, that currency is redeemable in that physical
metal. Now, maybe today the value of an ounce of gold orbiting out in
the asteroid belt might only be a dollar or two, maybe less, let the
market decide... but I can guarantee that it's worth SOMETHING, and it
could pay for the development of space mining.

Much crazier schemes have been sold in the past, I assure you!!! And
while this may have a flavor of P.T. Barnum to it, I can assure you
that it would work. Some of the people, some of the time, would buy
into this scheme.

> Convince a bunch of people to think of it that way, and then it will be.
> We're talking many thousands of people, at a bare minimum, to be
> what most would consider "money"

Absolutely. Though it only takes two parties to create a market. You
could think of it as a kind of speculative stock if you would rather,
instead of "money"... but it is something with real value that could
be exchanged today in the same way as Bitcoin... with the difference
being that some day it could convert into something with tangible
value.

> Haven't convinced that many yet? ?Then, sorry, it is not stored money
> yet.

Crap, I just came up with the idea yesterday... it takes time to build
up trust in a currency... LOL :-)

-Kelly



From spike66 at att.net  Mon May 21 17:34:38 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 10:34:38 -0700
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <20120520152359.GH17120@leitl.org>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <002501cd3655$32447640$96cd62c0$@att.net> <20120520152359.GH17120@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <00aa01cd3777$ffc09720$ff41c560$@att.net>


>... On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl
Subject: Re: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 11:52:59PM -0700, spike wrote:

>>... This particular scheme wouldn't work, but keep thinking, there might
be some way to get this done.  Not by dropping a huge ball with copper
however.

...

>...You don't have to worry about canned monkeys or even finicky payload, so
you can hit 100-300 g decceleration with no problem...


Hmmm, actually you cannot.  The payload ins not the problem, but rather that
those kinds of decelerations are not available from any aerobraking reentry
event.  I don't have those equations memorized, but I worked with them
extensively a long time ago, and can look it up and post it here if anyone
is interested, or perhaps write up a spreadsheet.  The equations predict
maximum deceleration as a function of reentry angle.

In order to get high angles of reentry (which go with high G decelerations,
the kind you would need if you wanted to drop your payload in a specific
place) you need a lot of delta V delivered in a short span with a good
sturdy competent control system.  If on the other hand, you use minimal
control aerobraking, you will likely drop your payload into the sea, and
even if you hit land somewhere it would likely be lost in the jungle or in
some commie's backyard, who then would be unwilling to give it back, without
your paying her a pile-ski of rubles.

spike 



From atymes at gmail.com  Mon May 21 17:53:19 2012
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 10:53:19 -0700
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8Rwb6=DUOPELUtGHZgbTca0G4i+xi0fyA8tR+P7T22DRQhw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <002501cd3655$32447640$96cd62c0$@att.net>
 <20120520152359.GH17120@leitl.org>
 <CAOJFdbLYPiM3Wv33+_ROPHyNh9eypFujosAnwGEfFEjPsFRJYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS_yWcqMBiJ33r5B1=OcM9DQ-OhrN47Nca+3WVeSX0D7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYPNjq=aQsMGamk7gRnQmSNM80vPXX=rayDYaN1QXCXsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNTFxpyRWPLix_gdKaCBafRtaLzASooFFESBF6rZ-45gJA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwb6=DUOPELUtGHZgbTca0G4i+xi0fyA8tR+P7T22DRQhw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNQKCNV5M1pO3Lueszjog45jo4hHH_YgMHFDszfJqb-xOg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think this story could be sold. If you can sell Bitcoin to some
> people as a valid government independent monetary unit, how much
> easier would gold in orbit be? I can't imagine that it would be
> harder.

You have no idea of how many years of effort, and how many
peoples' labors, it took to get Bitcoin even the nominal legitimacy it
now has, do you?

Just because a thing is possible, does not mean it has already
been accomplished.

> I'll admit to living in the future a bit more than is healthy. But on
> this point, I'm living in the present. I can almost guarantee you that
> if I had an orbiting bank that demonstrably held a thousand pounds or
> more of gold, that I could sell shares in that bank TODAY and that I
> could create a currency based upon that gold that would circulate
> TODAY.

I disagree (at least on the currency part - you can sell shares in a
company with no assets, as I've seen people do way too often, so of
course you can sell shares of a company that arguably does have
assets), for reasons that have little to do with it being in orbit.

If those thousand pounds of gold were in a vault at the bottom of the
middle of the Pacific or Atlantic, could you do it?

What if they were in a vault somewhere within the continental US?

Unless by "currency" you mean "bank notes denominated in some
already existing currency, probably $US" - but then, are you
actually creating a currency?

> As a numismatist with 30+ years experience in studying money in
> its myriad forms, I can assure you that this would be accepted as real
> money by a very large number of people. It might even become more
> accepted than government fiat money if there were enough precious
> metals collected.

And what would you do when - not if - lawyers come after you for
trying to force the US to break its treaty obligations against
nationally appropriating a celestial object by recognizing private
ownership of one?  This is different from private ownership of a
satellite launched from Earth, since we're talking about gold that
never was on the ground in the first place.

>> Would you? ?Then would you invest in a venture that sought to
>> create a space elevator? ?How much are you willing to part with?
>
> If a company had a plan that sounded plausible, primarily in terms of
> the material to build the tether, I would definitely invest in it.

What about a company that's aiming to dramatically increase
public access to space, so that enough demand for space access
arises that funding for a space elevator may materialize?  If you're
serious about that, and have a few million dollars to spare...well,
so am I.  If you really mean it, let me know and I'll brief you on my
idea offlist; it's something that could be started today if the funding
was in place, and could be profitable (with enough customer
acquisition) in less than 5 years.

> In fact, if you really want to stretch it, you might be able to build
> a currency based on the gold that a certain company WILL collect at
> some time in the future.

That currency is called "derivatives".  I reject the notion that it is
possible to build this currency, only because this currency already
exists, and any effort to build it anew would almost inevitably fall
back into using what already exists.



From spike66 at att.net  Mon May 21 17:50:08 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 10:50:08 -0700
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8Rwb1z7WEtcmu7KfrOtNySU9y5WmCUscKN6fT8Xb0tJkx+w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <002501cd3655$32447640$96cd62c0$@att.net>
 <CAPy8Rwb1z7WEtcmu7KfrOtNySU9y5WmCUscKN6fT8Xb0tJkx+w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00b101cd377a$29c1b1b0$7d451510$@att.net>


>... On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson
...
>
> This particular scheme wouldn't work, but keep thinking, there might 
> be some way to get this done. ?Not by dropping a huge ball with copper
however.

Ok, so what about a limited version of how they put the mars rovers down?
heat shield, Air bags, parachutes, that whole gig?  Again, you don't have to
get it down to 5 Gs, just 200 Gs... so it doesn't have to have the full size
parachute and so forth... Is that going to be terribly expensive? Is the
weight of the whole mass what will cause the problem?  -Kelly

_______________________________________________

Ja something like that might be possible, but I keep going back to
questioning the premise.  Gold in space can be used for more than wire.  A
better use might be to create a solar concentrator by taking a mylar
balloon, inflating on orbit, vapor depositing gold on the inside of the
balloon a layer thick enough to reflect most of the solar spectrum, then cut
pieces of the balloon, shape it into a parabola with minimal structure, then
you have concentrated solar energy at your disposal.

Gold on orbit can be used to make great antennas too.  The stuff is a great
reflector for the higher frequency end of the EM spectrum.

Kelly, I agree that in principle it might be possible to recover gold on
orbit, but I can't rally much enthusiasm for the plan when I can think of
plenty of good uses for a hunk of gold already out there, especially as our
control techniques get better, and move us closer to semi-autonomous
manufacturing robots.  We don't need to haul gold down from space when any
bonehead can go out in a mountain stream with a pie pan and sluice the stuff
out of the gravel, just like they did back in '49.  There really is no point
in wasting the resources already out there dropping down a gravity well.

spike




From spike66 at att.net  Mon May 21 17:53:24 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 10:53:24 -0700
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armjNdfU1NH7GYh+ZPr-AqSj6XFarXMSV1Gt3S6i96V5q6g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <002501cd3655$32447640$96cd62c0$@att.net>
 <CAPy8Rwb1z7WEtcmu7KfrOtNySU9y5WmCUscKN6fT8Xb0tJkx+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armjNdfU1NH7GYh+ZPr-AqSj6XFarXMSV1Gt3S6i96V5q6g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00b201cd377a$9ed63a70$dc82af50$@att.net>



-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK
...

>...Alternatively, if you have lots of these tiny asteroids in orbit (like
we don't have enough space junk in orbit already!) you could have a robot
shuttle type vehicle which could go up and wander around scooping up these
asteroids and filling up the hold, before re-entry.
A similar type of robot vehicle has already been proposed for cleaning up
space junk in earth orbit.  BillK

_______________________________________________

BillK, when you make these kinds of suggestions, estimate the delta V
required to do it.  Once you do those calculations a few times, you see why
we don't have some kind of robot shuttle wandering around scooping up space
debris, and why we will not be getting that capability any time soon.

spike



From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Mon May 21 17:56:11 2012
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 10:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Wired article on AI risk
In-Reply-To: <CAF=HMECg4XE2A2R29oiSsnrUsbw8uPtPiSmfrR-nmVwr1DR9eA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF=HMECg4XE2A2R29oiSsnrUsbw8uPtPiSmfrR-nmVwr1DR9eA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1337622971.56986.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

On Monday, May 21, 2012 5:31 AM Aleksei Riikonen <aleksei at iki.fi> wrote:

> This recent Wired article on AI risk was rather ok:
>
> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-05/17/the-dangers-of-an-ai-smarter-than-us


I wonder if we could look back 50, 100, 150, and 200 years ago, what most intelligent people would think the biggest existential risks were to humanity -- and if the current fears will last 50, 100, etc. years into the future. And also it would be interesting to consider whether worrying and "doing something" about those fears amounted to anything positive.


Regards,

Dan


From spike66 at att.net  Mon May 21 18:10:03 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 11:10:03 -0700
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNTFxpyRWPLix_gdKaCBafRtaLzASooFFESBF6rZ-45gJA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <002501cd3655$32447640$96cd62c0$@att.net> <20120520152359.GH17120@leitl.org>
 <CAOJFdbLYPiM3Wv33+_ROPHyNh9eypFujosAnwGEfFEjPsFRJYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS_yWcqMBiJ33r5B1=OcM9DQ-OhrN47Nca+3WVeSX0D7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYPNjq=aQsMGamk7gRnQmSNM80vPXX=rayDYaN1QXCXsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNTFxpyRWPLix_gdKaCBafRtaLzASooFFESBF6rZ-45gJA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00b901cd377c$f1d1e6f0$d575b4d0$@att.net>



-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes

>...Most people believe that raw materials in space are currently worth
nothing.  Until after you convince them otherwise - which is probably going
to require the existence of fabrication equipment in space - you still have
no customers.

Ja!  Once we get semi-autonomous manufacturing, we will see everything in a
new light.  It is coming along, slowly, but it is coming.  Control systems
and algorithms are being developed over time.

The last three decades in mechanical engineering have been all about making
microprocessors smaller, faster and better.  Now they are really small, fast
and excellent.  So now I can see the next couple decades in mechanical
engineering being all about better automated control.  We can use these
wonderful tools the last three decades have given us, and really sail.  We
on this list may have been sidetracked to some extent by the notion of
nanotechnology, which didn't really play out the way we expected, or hasn't
yet.  But even without nanotech, machines can still build machines, even
copies of themselves, given the right raw materials, energy and software.
That's what we need before we can do much more in space than has already
been done.

spike



From pizerdavid at yahoo.com  Mon May 21 18:28:13 2012
From: pizerdavid at yahoo.com (david pizer)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 11:28:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Cryonics Trust sample
Message-ID: <1337624893.65467.YahooMailNeo@web161705.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

Some cryoncists would like to have a trust that holds their assets while they are in suspension and then they get their assets back when they are reanimated.??I have a trust that I hope does that for me.? I have posted it on the Venturist site at venturist.info
?
The object of?my trust is to hold the assets and try to make them grow to keep up with inflation while providing some income for the Venturist organization which my wife and I have chosen to be the Trustor while we are in suspension.? By keeping the Venturist Organization strong and allowing them to have some of the income each year to put in their back up protection trust, all Venturist Members are more strongly protected as the money in the Venturist Back Up Protection Trust grows.
?
We make no suggestions or guarantees to others who may or may not want to use ideas from my trust for their own use.? I suggest you see an attorney for that advice.
?
Feel free to look at?my trust?and make any comments if you care to.
?
It might be the case that other?cryonicists will want to have their own trust and will also want to help the Venturist Organization accumulate money to protect Venturists Members in suspension?by selecting?The Society?for Venturism?as the Trustor for their trust during the period of their suspension.
?
We will be discussing this and taking questions at the June Cryonics Conference at the Creekside Lodge in Mayer Arizona in a few weeks.? Hope to see you there.
?
Best to everyone,
?
David Pizer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120521/349874a5/attachment.html>

From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk  Mon May 21 18:28:19 2012
From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 19:28:19 +0100 (BST)
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1337515201.19578.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.1.1337515201.19578.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <1337624899.73142.YahooMailNeo@web132103.mail.ird.yahoo.com>

Folks, between us there must be a good few people who've read up on various schemes for space commerce and exploiting space. Yes, a lot of the plans and studies handwave over crucial aspects, but surely some must have given serious thought to de-orbiting materials.

I remember reading "Man and the Planets" by Duncan Lunan when I was young, a 1980 tome covering large numbers of 70s ideas on how to exploit the solar system for the human race. Sure, a lot of the ideas have dated horrifically, but some still have relevance. There's a whole section on waverider designs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waverider?), mostly because Prof Nonweiler was working at a Scottish university at the same time the Scottish author was compiling ideas, but there are things you can do with hypersonic lifting bodies which blunt re-entry vehicles can't. In fact, doing a quick web search on re-entry yields a variety of ideas on how you could try to re-enter. For inert loads like precious metals, the harsher varieties of aerobraking and lithobraking (ie letting it smash into the ground as long as what survives is still useful) can be used.

Regarding the current lack of fabrication in orbit - it was a criticism of NASA in the 90s that not enough work was being done on materials science and fabrication in microgravity, as the huge advantage of orbit compared to earthbound facilities was access to microgravity. I don't know how much more work has been done since, but maybe a trawl through materials science might yield a few products than are sufficiently valuable to consider making with near-term technology.

I remember there are a couple of journals on space economics and space policy - does anyone have access to these? Are there any neglected ideas worth a second look?

I appeal to our very knowledgeable extropian community - between us we must know of some proposals that make some sort of sense or that can be re-examined in the light of today's situation.

Tom
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120521/efe9af83/attachment.html>

From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Mon May 21 19:01:23 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 13:01:23 -0600
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <00aa01cd3777$ffc09720$ff41c560$@att.net>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <002501cd3655$32447640$96cd62c0$@att.net>
 <20120520152359.GH17120@leitl.org>
 <00aa01cd3777$ffc09720$ff41c560$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwZn5Mw8sJ10-45eFCUpw+BugaP65F9sNROW3HX1O0k+9w@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:34 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> Hmmm, actually you cannot. ?The payload ins not the problem, but rather that
> those kinds of decelerations are not available from any aerobraking reentry
> event. ?I don't have those equations memorized, but I worked with them
> extensively a long time ago, and can look it up and post it here if anyone
> is interested, or perhaps write up a spreadsheet. ?The equations predict
> maximum deceleration as a function of reentry angle.

What if the package were made to break up in some predictable fashion
half way in... Imagine, if you will a gold hand grenade... At the key
point of reentry, a charge (huge air bag?) inside blows up the hand
grenade breaking the large object into a number of smaller objects...
Inside of each chunk of the grenade would be a parachute that would
slow down it's piece. Each piece would have a transponder in it so it
could be tracked down.

> In order to get high angles of reentry (which go with high G decelerations,
> the kind you would need if you wanted to drop your payload in a specific
> place) you need a lot of delta V delivered in a short span with a good
> sturdy competent control system. ?If on the other hand, you use minimal
> control aerobraking, you will likely drop your payload into the sea, and
> even if you hit land somewhere it would likely be lost in the jungle or in
> some commie's backyard, who then would be unwilling to give it back, without
> your paying her a pile-ski of rubles.

So you're saying that I couldn't predict where it would come down
without rapid deceleration? That seems a little hard to believe. At
least I could predict where it might come down a day or two before it
does. They always seem to be able to give a range for falling
satellites within that kind of range, don't they? And could you
install some very simple lower power rocketry that would give it a
nudge at the last minute before it fell of it's own accord? To keep it
from falling in Iran, or North Korea, for example, not flyover
country.

Remember that weird retrieval thing where they got a hook on an
airplane to catch the load from outer space as it was dropping? Some
kind of sample return mission as I recall. Something like that might
keep the gold from falling in the wrong back yard... LOL...

I'll keep thinking, you keep shooting me down. Eventually, maybe we'll
come up with something that will work.

And maybe I don't care if it drops into the sea... If it has
transponders, we have submarine technology able to pick it up from
anywhere if the airplane misses it.

Spike, I have tremendous respect for your knowledge in this area...
but I think you may be thinking inside of a box drawn by the fact that
previous loads were delicate sensitive equipment or primates. If we
can escape from that precondition, I think we could come up with
something cheap and workable. What is the maximum G force or speed
that would not vaporize our little ball 'o gold?

-Kelly



From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Mon May 21 19:28:51 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 13:28:51 -0600
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNQKCNV5M1pO3Lueszjog45jo4hHH_YgMHFDszfJqb-xOg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <002501cd3655$32447640$96cd62c0$@att.net>
 <20120520152359.GH17120@leitl.org>
 <CAOJFdbLYPiM3Wv33+_ROPHyNh9eypFujosAnwGEfFEjPsFRJYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS_yWcqMBiJ33r5B1=OcM9DQ-OhrN47Nca+3WVeSX0D7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYPNjq=aQsMGamk7gRnQmSNM80vPXX=rayDYaN1QXCXsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNTFxpyRWPLix_gdKaCBafRtaLzASooFFESBF6rZ-45gJA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwb6=DUOPELUtGHZgbTca0G4i+xi0fyA8tR+P7T22DRQhw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNQKCNV5M1pO3Lueszjog45jo4hHH_YgMHFDszfJqb-xOg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwbnGoaJwfsh9jyE-RXBpc5LiJOCrBSrY-1HyAmU3SBcig@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think this story could be sold. If you can sell Bitcoin to some
>> people as a valid government independent monetary unit, how much
>> easier would gold in orbit be? I can't imagine that it would be
>> harder.
>
> You have no idea of how many years of effort, and how many
> peoples' labors, it took to get Bitcoin even the nominal legitimacy it
> now has, do you?

More or less. In 2007 "Nakamoto" started writing software that he
released to open source in January 2009. There are currently six
developers on the team. It is now May 2012... So the software side has
probably been less than 20 man years, not a huge project as software
goes and it is probably less since most open source software
developers don't work full time on their projects.

In addition, there are around 1000 businesses and a few thousand
individuals who accept bitcoin payments, so let's assume that the
businesses spent two days each modifying their shopping carts to
accept bitcoin, so that's another 6 man years. The individuals had to
set up their wallets, but I won't count that because that's using, not
creating the system.

Then there is the political side. I have no idea how many people are
lobbying for Bitcoin against politicians that don't want to lose
control over currency or fear that Bitcoin is primarily used for
illicit activities (which it may well be)... but I'll assume a couple
of man years on that.

So the total throwing in 10 miscellaneous man years is far short of 50
man years of effort. The treasury department of the United States
employs 117,000 people, which is more than 50 man years of effort
(assuming they are mostly working) every hour. I throw that in just
for comparison, not that it means anything.

> Just because a thing is possible, does not mean it has already
> been accomplished.

Of course.

>> I'll admit to living in the future a bit more than is healthy. But on
>> this point, I'm living in the present. I can almost guarantee you that
>> if I had an orbiting bank that demonstrably held a thousand pounds or
>> more of gold, that I could sell shares in that bank TODAY and that I
>> could create a currency based upon that gold that would circulate
>> TODAY.
>
> I disagree (at least on the currency part - you can sell shares in a
> company with no assets, as I've seen people do way too often, so of
> course you can sell shares of a company that arguably does have
> assets), for reasons that have little to do with it being in orbit.

Heck yes, I've done that too. :-)

> If those thousand pounds of gold were in a vault at the bottom of the
> middle of the Pacific or Atlantic, could you do it?

Yes.

> What if they were in a vault somewhere within the continental US?

Already done every day, in fact. Many people hold "paper gold" that is
stored in vaults. They have never seen it, and can't get a hold of the
physical gold without a certain amount of difficulty.

> Unless by "currency" you mean "bank notes denominated in some
> already existing currency, probably $US" - but then, are you
> actually creating a currency?

I think it would have to be a floating currency like Bitcoin because
the value of the metals would go up as it became more certain that
there would be either a market to sell the stuff to space based
manufacturers, or it became more certain that there would be
technology to bring it safely and cheaply down to earth.

>> As a numismatist with 30+ years experience in studying money in
>> its myriad forms, I can assure you that this would be accepted as real
>> money by a very large number of people. It might even become more
>> accepted than government fiat money if there were enough precious
>> metals collected.
>
> And what would you do when - not if - lawyers come after you for
> trying to force the US to break its treaty obligations against
> nationally appropriating a celestial object by recognizing private
> ownership of one? ?This is different from private ownership of a
> satellite launched from Earth, since we're talking about gold that
> never was on the ground in the first place.

The current group of would be asteroid miners have to deal with this
anyway. While it is not a solved problem, I assume they'll figure that
one out without me.

>>> Would you? ?Then would you invest in a venture that sought to
>>> create a space elevator? ?How much are you willing to part with?
>>
>> If a company had a plan that sounded plausible, primarily in terms of
>> the material to build the tether, I would definitely invest in it.
>
> What about a company that's aiming to dramatically increase
> public access to space, so that enough demand for space access
> arises that funding for a space elevator may materialize? ?If you're
> serious about that, and have a few million dollars to spare...well,
> so am I. ?If you really mean it, let me know and I'll brief you on my
> idea offlist; it's something that could be started today if the funding
> was in place, and could be profitable (with enough customer
> acquisition) in less than 5 years.

Unfortunately, my millions are now gone. It's a very sad story. If I
get millions again, we can have a chat. It does sound like you have
some very interesting ideas, and I wish you the very best of luck with
all of them. Access to space is important to all of us.

>> In fact, if you really want to stretch it, you might be able to build
>> a currency based on the gold that a certain company WILL collect at
>> some time in the future.
>
> That currency is called "derivatives". ?I reject the notion that it is
> possible to build this currency, only because this currency already
> exists, and any effort to build it anew would almost inevitably fall
> back into using what already exists.

I don't doubt that you could create and sell a derivative based on
metals in outer space. But even a derivative has to anchor to reality
at some point, and that is the point at which the interesting part
will happen.

It would sure be awesome to have a government independent currency
based in space metals though... that would be cool. Perhaps I'm
thinking too much of libertarian utopia... but this seems to fit my
view as part of a better future.

-Kelly



From pharos at gmail.com  Mon May 21 19:39:39 2012
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 20:39:39 +0100
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <00b201cd377a$9ed63a70$dc82af50$@att.net>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <002501cd3655$32447640$96cd62c0$@att.net>
 <CAPy8Rwb1z7WEtcmu7KfrOtNySU9y5WmCUscKN6fT8Xb0tJkx+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armjNdfU1NH7GYh+ZPr-AqSj6XFarXMSV1Gt3S6i96V5q6g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00b201cd377a$9ed63a70$dc82af50$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAL_armj6mUQTG_0ZpC+LBpDOk-TYj24-LLJJu74HurTCQViVgw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:53 PM, spike wrote:
> BillK, when you make these kinds of suggestions, estimate the delta V
> required to do it. ?Once you do those calculations a few times, you see why
> we don't have some kind of robot shuttle wandering around scooping up space
> debris, and why we will not be getting that capability any time soon.
>
>

Hey, I know we don't have orbital vacuum cleaners yet. That's what the
word 'proposed' means. :)
We don't have asteroid retrieval systems yet either.

But NASA, DARPA and others are discussing active orbital debris removal systems.
It will probably have to be an international discussion, as old
Russian rocket stages and dead satellites are still their property and
they might not take kindly to other people interfering with them.

And there is also the 'space weapon' problem, If you have the
capability to de-orbit a dead satellite, then you could also de-orbit
live satellites. That must be why the US military is also interested.


BillK



From spike66 at att.net  Mon May 21 20:29:56 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 13:29:56 -0700
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <1337624899.73142.YahooMailNeo@web132103.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.1.1337515201.19578.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <1337624899.73142.YahooMailNeo@web132103.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <008a01cd3790$7d148ed0$773dac70$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Tom Nowell
.

 

>.Regarding the current lack of fabrication in orbit - it was a criticism of
NASA in the 90s that not enough work was being done on materials science and
fabrication in microgravi.  Tom

 

Over fifty yrs ago, the US president issued a technical challenge to take a
man to the moon and back in this decade etc.  American rose to that
challenge and made happen.  Now we face another worthwhile space goal: take
any existing space material, including spent rocket motors, dead satellites,
etc, dock with it in orbit, take the materials and process it into something
else, anything useful.  

 

An example would be dock with an dead satellite, strip off the aluminized
mylar, grind it, recover the aluminum, make a solar sail using the design I
proposed in a technical paper last fall.  That sail had a microprocessor
(which we would be allowed to make down here and take along) and was guided
by three LCD variable reflectors (which could also be made down here.  That
design was 15 cm across and had a mass of one gram, but I would be open
minded on what qualifies as "anything useful."  Making some kind of
semi-autonomous on-orbit manufacturing device is a good way forward from
here and a cool interesting new technical challenge.

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120521/321f44c9/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Mon May 21 20:43:06 2012
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 22:43:06 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Wired article on AI risk
In-Reply-To: <1337622971.56986.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <CAF=HMECg4XE2A2R29oiSsnrUsbw8uPtPiSmfrR-nmVwr1DR9eA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1337622971.56986.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20120521204306.GJ17120@leitl.org>

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 10:56:11AM -0700, Dan wrote:
> On Monday, May 21, 2012 5:31 AM Aleksei Riikonen <aleksei at iki.fi> wrote:
> 
> > This recent Wired article on AI risk was rather ok:
> >
> > http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-05/17/the-dangers-of-an-ai-smarter-than-us
> 
> 
> I wonder if we could look back 50, 100, 150, and 200 years ago, what most intelligent people would think the biggest existential risks were to humanity -- and if the current fears will last 50, 100, etc. years into the future. And also it would be interesting to consider whether worrying and "doing something" about those fears amounted to anything positive.

Malthus, first addressed by Liebig and then Haber-Bosch?
(Apart from the comet scares, which were obviously bogus
to anyone borderline scientifically literate, back then).


From jrd1415 at gmail.com  Mon May 21 21:21:14 2012
From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 14:21:14 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Wash post comment
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armiu2s7BH7svgVFn5=iNeKFcK-5csqXPT7bc6jjcX+Yy0Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7OULaL0F6L8A+r+JZokajFX_ojpESv5bPd2mZc91zigg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkN2b_dLyFvr4HAHk72U6_D3RvKtBhprgWFiLj6oD08Sqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120520084058.GC17120@leitl.org>
 <CAHUTwkM8n+C7UtD5gBOd8SNEURnGqVe5hZ4WE2RLD9U6-8jLjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armiu2s7BH7svgVFn5=iNeKFcK-5csqXPT7bc6jjcX+Yy0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHUTwkOJgxKuH7xXLfKpuVPaf9PnC37JaUW3s2spB5YrqWtssw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 2:06 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ahh, Professor. I think we have a severe case of Optimism Bias here.
>
> <http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2074067,00.html>

To the charge of being an optimist, I plead enthusiastically in
agreement.  Guiltlessly, enthusiastically, dynamically in agreement.
And I invite one and all to join with me in optimarchy.

Re the above link: I read the first couple of pages, thank you.  It
seemed more puff piece -- As in "Well, duh!" -- than scientifically
informative.   But I genuinely appreciate our "discussion", and am at
pains to make sure you to feel treated with respect, despite the fact
that I find the materials you provided not persuasive.

Are we good, then?
Best, Jeff Davis

"Enjoying being insulting is a youthful corruption of power. You lose
your taste for it when you realize how hard people try, how much they
mind, and how long they remember."
                     Martin Amis


From jrd1415 at gmail.com  Mon May 21 21:56:05 2012
From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 14:56:05 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Wash post comment
In-Reply-To: <20120521093553.GO17120@leitl.org>
References: <CAPiwVB7OULaL0F6L8A+r+JZokajFX_ojpESv5bPd2mZc91zigg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkN2b_dLyFvr4HAHk72U6_D3RvKtBhprgWFiLj6oD08Sqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120520084058.GC17120@leitl.org>
 <CAHUTwkM8n+C7UtD5gBOd8SNEURnGqVe5hZ4WE2RLD9U6-8jLjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120521093553.GO17120@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <CAHUTwkPMCT7PwLRgwDa9R13vC94b9pN2PtPwHogHSAfXfbFfvg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 2:35 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 01:38:36PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
>
>> We've been acquainted for goin' on fifteen years now. ?I've admired --
>> and still do -- your talent and your accomplishments, even to the
>> point of concluding that you're smarter than I am, which is saying
>> something considering the size of my ego. ?But I think you've fallen
>> off the cliff on this one.
>
> Well, flattery will get you everywhere ;)
>
>> I read the two links, and it looks to me like the "We're doomed!
>> We're doomed!" energy catastrophe echo chamber. (That's been my
>
> It describes simple concept: EROEI and what happens when
> EROEI approaches unity. As you haven't gone broke yet (you've
> been spending less than you've earned, hopefully, with a
> sufficient safety margin to weather some hard times) nor have you starved
> (you have been matching your caloric intake to your metabolism)
> the concept of EROEI is a complete no-brainer.

Sorry, Gene, but I find the EROEI business to be mathematical smoke
and mirrors.  Math intended to impress people who are intimidated by
math.  Intimidated into thinking that the provider of said math is
smart, smarter than them, and probably right.

A better argument would have been "We have plenty of energy -- coal,
for instance EROEI 80:1-- but we'll choke to death on pollution if we
use it."

> And you can easily feel what it means to be a hunter-gatherer,
> who must spend energy and time to hunt and gather food. As the
> quality declines, she must spend more and more time and energy
> to gather a larger volume of lower-quality grub until eventually
> she spends all her waking hours looking for food (no time for
> making plans, or repairing tools or housing, or art) and eventually
> wastes away as the quality and quantity declines beyond where
> she spends more than she gets back.

I reject the hunter gather food analogy for precisely the reason you state:

                                        > (In reality,

Yes, ***REALITY***.

Thank you.


> (In reality, the starving tribe will begin war on its neighbors, either
> annexing enough resources and/or reducing the number of eaters
> via war casualties).

In reality, as current sources of energy ***gradually*** becomes more
expensive -- or excessively polluting, which is another kind of
expense -- alternative sources will be developed and structural
adjustments made so as to permit a similar standard of living with
lower energy usage.  (One such adjustment -- per your "realistic"
scenario above -- would be making war on those whose competing demand
is pushing up the price of energy for others.  But I do not favor that
approach.)

> We as a society are used to 100:1 EROEI and growth, energy much cheaper
> and more plentiful, and of higher quality than we must live
> with now (25:1 and falling fast). I hate to sound monocausal, but
> some of that diffuse malaise we've been feeling is due to very
> boring, ordinary problems: we're out of easy and cheap energy,
> and other resources, and now we're stretching outselves thin
> to make demand meet supply. That's the diagnosis.
>
> So in order to continue to enjoy the good life we must use
> whatever energy and resources we still have to rebuild our
> society into sustainability. The doom and gloom will only happen
> if we further engange into the convenient "What, me, worry?"
> policy we've been into collectively. Because, if you've read
> Collapse and the Limits to Growth (the "standard run" scenario)
> you know how that one will play out.
>
> So there's still time for the therapy. But, the longer you
> wait, the bitter the medicine will be. And if you wait too long,
> then no amount of therapy will save the patient.

>> So, on this one issue, let's just agree to disagree.
>
> What are your thoughts on evolution? How about gravity? Can
> we agree to disagree on that?

As a courtesy, and to maintain our cordial relations, if you prove to
have similar misguided notions regarding evolution or gravity, notions
similarly resistant to correction, I would be honored to give you
another free pass.

Best, Jeff

"We call someone insane who does not believe as we do
   to an outrageous extent."
              Charles McCabe



From pharos at gmail.com  Mon May 21 21:57:01 2012
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 22:57:01 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Wash post comment
In-Reply-To: <CAHUTwkOJgxKuH7xXLfKpuVPaf9PnC37JaUW3s2spB5YrqWtssw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7OULaL0F6L8A+r+JZokajFX_ojpESv5bPd2mZc91zigg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkN2b_dLyFvr4HAHk72U6_D3RvKtBhprgWFiLj6oD08Sqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120520084058.GC17120@leitl.org>
 <CAHUTwkM8n+C7UtD5gBOd8SNEURnGqVe5hZ4WE2RLD9U6-8jLjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armiu2s7BH7svgVFn5=iNeKFcK-5csqXPT7bc6jjcX+Yy0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkOJgxKuH7xXLfKpuVPaf9PnC37JaUW3s2spB5YrqWtssw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAL_armhqQMe0W2YvzL8a03_CqWT5e3DRQT5h61igESCdNHbpew@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> To the charge of being an optimist, I plead enthusiastically in
> agreement. ?Guiltlessly, enthusiastically, dynamically in agreement.
> And I invite one and all to join with me in optimarchy.
>
> Re the above link: I read the first couple of pages, thank you. ?It
> seemed more puff piece -- As in "Well, duh!" -- than scientifically
> informative. ? But I genuinely appreciate our "discussion", and am at
> pains to make sure you to feel treated with respect, despite the fact
> that I find the materials you provided not persuasive.
>
> Are we good, then?
>

Yes, the article was a 'pop' easy read version.
It is a real effect though.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_bias>
has more scholarly references for you if you want more detail.

Optimism seems to be a pretty universal human characteristic.
As the article says, it is good for you. Keeps you happier and healthier.
Gives you incentive to get out and do seemingly impossible things.
What's not to like?

Well, the problem is neglecting to plan for when your endeavors fail
to turn out as well as you hoped for.
Being slightly depressed (cautious?) means 'Hope for the best but plan
for the worst'.
Whereas a supreme optimist says 'Don't worry - it will never happen'.

Humanity needs optimists to be entrepreneurs, start new businesses, do
scientific breakthroughs, etc. But remember that most new businesses
fail.  It is very reasonable to include backup plans.
Just sayin'.  :)

BillK



From spike66 at att.net  Mon May 21 22:48:05 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 15:48:05 -0700
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwZn5Mw8sJ10-45eFCUpw+BugaP65F9sNROW3HX1O0k+9w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <002501cd3655$32447640$96cd62c0$@att.net> <20120520152359.GH17120@leitl.org>
 <00aa01cd3777$ffc09720$ff41c560$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwZn5Mw8sJ10-45eFCUpw+BugaP65F9sNROW3HX1O0k+9w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00bc01cd37a3$c90c0ee0$5b242ca0$@att.net>



-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson
...
> In order to get high angles of reentry (which go with high G 
> decelerations, the kind you would need if you wanted to drop your 
> payload in a specific
> place) you need a lot of delta V delivered in a short span with a good 
> sturdy competent control system. ?If on the other hand, you use 
> minimal control aerobraking, you will likely drop your payload into 
> the sea...

>...So you're saying that I couldn't predict where it would come down
without rapid deceleration? That seems a little hard to believe...Spike, I
have tremendous respect for your knowledge in this area...-Kelly

_______________________________________________


Thanks Kelly, I didn't explain that very well.  If we go for aerobraking, we
are talking about very shallow reentry angles.  That means high uncertainty
on the reentry path.  Small uncertainties in atmospheric density mean large
uncertainties in landing spot.  Recall the event burning into my brain from
my childhood, the reentry of the ill-fated Apollo 13.  That was a case where
one of the biggest dangers was avoided when mission control realized the
reentry vehicle was about 300 pounds light, since it was not carrying the
moon rocks it had planned to return.  Had that not been found
(understandable under the circumstances) that alone would have caused the
landing site to be off far enough the astronauts would likely have perished
out at sea before they were found.

The reason is that the density of the upper atmosphere is difficult to
predict with the precision that we know the density of the air down here: it
varies by time of day, by F10.7 radiation from the sun up to a factor of 3
at very high altitude, by position of the moon (the atmosphere has tides way
bigger than the seas), by geomagnetic index and a handful of smaller
effects.  Add to all this the fact that the upper atmosphere has waves and
surges, like the ocean only thousands of times bigger.  

If the reentry angle is too shallow, the reentry body (RB) might actually
start to go back out, a skip-off event a little like a flat stone skipping
off the surface of a lake.  Even a small event like that has enormous
consequences when you realize an RB has a velocity of 11 km per second.  You
can have a piece break off, which changes the ballistic coefficient, which
again adds to unpredictability of the landing spot.

So in a very shallow reentry event is difficult to predict exactly where a
payload will reenter.  So back in the Mercury days when we were trying to
work out atmospheric reentry, the trick was to have the RB come in as
steeply as practical (steeper means higher G decelerations, which means
greater heat load and structural load on the shield as well as more
discomfort for the apes aboard) for if they went for shallower angles (less
delta V needed) there was increased risk of losing the capsule to some
unknown location never to be found.

All that being said, there probably is some way to reenter high value
payloads without the shuttle, but all I have seen so far is a number of
approaches which will not work for known reasons or are very high risk.

spike

ps Since I am running over the five a day posting limit, do let me make a
short comment with respect to Brent's commentary on the immorality of
hoarding gold.  On the contrary sir, gold hoarders do a service: they keep
governments honest.  We are a planet awash in fiat currencies that various
governments claim have value.  The test of these claims is in how much gold
(or other predicable-supply substance) the market will give for that
currency.  This is how we know that Monopoly money and anything minted by
the government of Zimbabwe is worthless: no one will give you gold for it.
But they will cheerfully trade you these currencies for gold, plenty of it.
Any fiat currency can be converted to gold if it has actual value.  So gold
hoarding is not immoral, gold traders keep governments honest.

s





From painlord2k at libero.it  Mon May 21 23:38:20 2012
From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 01:38:20 +0200
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <4FB98EFD.5040607@canonizer.com>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkPPGr7XP5K8E3yG8k+Nv3HihRT5MfrOKw2L3jjhqLPQaw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwbSxoZYEL4SqiO=pU3TqrQsEGUtnc21hp8zGS0z+M3x9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <4FB973B2.4010902@aleph.se> <4FB98EFD.5040607@canonizer.com>
Message-ID: <4FBAD1EC.7030500@libero.it>

Il 21/05/2012 02:40, Brent Allsop ha scritto:

> All forms of money that are expensive are crap, from Gold, to coins, and
> especially if it is up in space. The only problem with money, is the
> inability to control how much of it there is, in any given society.
> Making it more expensive, or more rare, makes things far worse, and
> likely to be more volatile.

A commodity must have some features to be used as money:

The four primary characteristics of money are: (1) durability, (2) 
divisibility, (3) transportability, and (4) noncounterfeitability. 
Although a number of items or assets have served as money, those that 
best match these four characteristics are the ones that best function as 
money, the ones that best operate as a medium of exchange.

The quantity of money (or better, the quantity f the commodity used as 
money) is never a problem. The divisibility feature help a lot in this.

The problem with money (or better, with the commodity used as money) is 
how much is easy to counterfeit it. The government prefer paper money or 
electronic bits because they are easy to counterfeit. They counterfeit 
it because stealing purchaising power from the people is easier and 
often go unnoticed, laying the blame to others for the rising of good's 
prices.

More the commodity is costly, more difficult is to counterfeit it.
So, more costly it is, better it is.

You also want the commodity used as money to be not used much and to be 
easy to recycle. Gold have little use apart as money, jewelery and a few 
industrial applications. So the flow/supply ratio is very small.
Gold supply over ground is 70 times the yearly net production. This is 
important because the price of gold is determined mainly by the people 
owning it, not by the people mining it.

> Also, money needs to be VERY flexible.

Money need to be very unelastic. Totally rigid. It must not flex to the 
will or need of anyone. If you want money, you must work for it, not 
produce it with little effort. This because the increase in the quantity 
of money in any economic system is a damage for the purchaising power of 
the people. The people causing the increase are the people profiting 
from it.

> The herd goes in waves, where
> during boom times, everyone thinks they have far more wealth, than they
> really have, so this drives things, in a compounding way, to be even
> more bubbly.

Just because the heard, it need a negative feedback in the form of 
something impossible to inflate.
The housing bubble would be impossible without interest rates too much 
low. And the Fed. would be unable to keep the interest rates so low if 
they where forced to back their paper with gold. They would end their 
gold long before the housing bubble was able to form. The same is true 
for the Dot.Com bubble and the current commodities bubble.
There would not be import/export imbalances, if countries were forced to 
pay in gold/silver to import stuff. They would be able to import exactly 
as much they export (priced in gold) and they would be able to export as 
much the import.

> And when the bubble pops, the herd swings way to the far
> other extreme, thinking they are far more poor than they really are,
> becoming a self fulfilling prophesy. Being on a "gold standard" can
> really work in the opposite way that it needs to, depending on how much
> we find, and how much is being consumed, at any given time.

Under a gold standard would be impossible to create a series of bubbles 
so big. As gold flew to housing, it would withdraw from other assets. So 
the production of these assets would reduce and the consumption increase 
as the price fall.

Take away the printing presses and the bank's fractional reserve system 
and you take away 90% of the existing credit (at least). And with the 
credit, you will reduce the demand and with the demand, the price of 
things would fall (making them much more affordable than now).

Better have an higher interest rates and low prices than the reverse, 
because with an higher interest rates people is interested in saving and 
is able to pay the stuff they buy long before than today.

> You desperately need to have a controlling institution, that can be very
> flexible, and create money very cheaply, to fund governmental like
> projects to help when this happens, and do the opposite when bubbles are
> forming.

They never, ever, do the opposite when bubbles are forming.
Their intervention is what cause the bubbles to form.
They help to make them much bigger, because this help them to stay in 
power and profit from speculations with cheap money.

Controlling institutions are what put people in shantytowns, in showers 
and then in ovens. Humans don't need controlling, they need freedom and 
the responsibility of themselves.

> Right now, we have a reasonably good way of doing this, (at least better
> than the gold standard, or any other more primitive method used in the
> past) via the Federal reserve, under the direction of someone like
> Bernanke.

If you are really thinking this, I want to know what are you smoking. It 
must be very strong stuff.

Bernanke, Draghi, Monti, they are technocrats selling the illusion of 
their competence and the illusion of their ability to control what no 
human is able to control: the economy.

This is because after February 1, 2006 until today Bernanke have so much 
accomplishments to show. Nothing good.
The power of the printing presses is his only power and all the paper 
and bit he could print out of thin air will not change the current 
economy. At best he is able to delay the inevitable reckoning making it 
bigger and more damaging.
If you go to YouTube you could be able to find Helicopter Ben declaring 
there is no housing bubble and there are no problems just before the 
bubbles popped.

> In my opinion, Bernanke, and his flooding the system with
> money, is what kept us from making the same mistake of the last
> generation, and why today we only have "the great rescission" when the
> last generation had "the great depression".

If you are a bit more patient you will see "The Greatest Depression" 
before the end of this decades, probably before a few years.
Just now the US$ is the pavlovian safe haven of investors of other 
countries in turmoil (the EU mainly). Wait until the dust settle in the 
EU; after the Euro break up, it is the timeof the US$ crack-up boom.

> Now, if we could have something way more intelligent and trustworthy,
> than Bernanke, perhaps an amplification of the wisdom of the expert
> crowd survey system, like canonizer.com, we could implement a completely
> free monetary system - with completely freely created money, enabling us
> to get to the millennium that much faster. And we wouldn't need a
> government or any other big institution to 'back it up'.

I stopped to belive in Santa Claus many many years ago, at a very young 
age. I think you stopped believeing in him but want substitute Santa (or 
the Tooth Fairy) with canonizer.com.

> And as far as anything in space, like what is the maximum size of
> something in space we could de-orbit, all of that is moot, and all of it
> is dangerous. Anything we put in orbit, money or whatever, could come
> crashing down, and it's only a matter of time before yet another person
> is doomed to eternally rotting in the grave, when they could potentially
> make it to the millennium.

The current gravest danger for people is the meddling of governments and 
central bankers (and their cronies in the finance). They are destoying 
wealth and forcing people to a life of servitude to service the debts 
the people was forced or enticed to do.

> Again, instead of focusing on space, we should be focusing on the brain,
> so we can have sooner have backups and uploads of everyone. Then we can
> de-orbat anything we want. If we goof, we just restore everyone from
> backups, no big deal.

Again, if we focused on brain before we would not have the computers and 
without the Microsoft we would not have Mr. Paul Allen financing the 
Brain Atlas and the XPrice.

With billionaries investing in space we have people able in future to 
command hundred of billion in research. If Paul Allen had 30 trillions 
instead of 30 billions of personal wealth he could finance much larger 
research projects and many more research.

I think was Moravec writing that you could have one large team of the 
best minds financed with x millions of hardware working for ten years or 
ten medium/small team financed with the same money working one year (if 
you wait nine years for the hardware to become cheaper).
At the end the research is like a lottery, more tickets (research and 
researcher) you are able to buy, higher is the chance to success.

> Does anyone think Elon is ever going to go up in one of his rockets, and
> risk a chance at making it to the millennium? Would any similarly rich
> trans-humanist ever risk that, especially the closer we get to the
> millennium?

This is their business, not your, not mine.

> You've got to do first things first.

You go to do your first things first.
Let others do their first things first.
It is their wealth, their life.

> Everything else just condemns that
> many more people to eternally rotting in the hell that is the grave, or
> worse, complete obliteration in space.

I don't think you are really worring about other people.
You want live forever, you fear to be unable to do so.
And you want others to pay for your eternity ticket.

Mirco


From max at maxmore.com  Mon May 21 23:45:52 2012
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 16:45:52 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Wash post comment
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armhqQMe0W2YvzL8a03_CqWT5e3DRQT5h61igESCdNHbpew@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7OULaL0F6L8A+r+JZokajFX_ojpESv5bPd2mZc91zigg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkN2b_dLyFvr4HAHk72U6_D3RvKtBhprgWFiLj6oD08Sqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120520084058.GC17120@leitl.org>
 <CAHUTwkM8n+C7UtD5gBOd8SNEURnGqVe5hZ4WE2RLD9U6-8jLjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armiu2s7BH7svgVFn5=iNeKFcK-5csqXPT7bc6jjcX+Yy0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkOJgxKuH7xXLfKpuVPaf9PnC37JaUW3s2spB5YrqWtssw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armhqQMe0W2YvzL8a03_CqWT5e3DRQT5h61igESCdNHbpew@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJX-7wW3e41PPai4eU3Cz8kkkiN=vNujgvbnKJrM4j9FY8C1vA@mail.gmail.com>

The optimism bias appears to apply to individual's assessments of their own
capabilities and chances of success. It does not seem to apply to judgments
of the future in general. It's perfectly possible -- and seems to be common
-- for humans in our society to be unrealistically optimistic about their
own changes while being pessimistic about the world in general.

A fascinating book on this topic is Shelly E. Taylor's Positive Illusions.

--Max


On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 2:57 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > To the charge of being an optimist, I plead enthusiastically in
> > agreement.  Guiltlessly, enthusiastically, dynamically in agreement.
> > And I invite one and all to join with me in optimarchy.
> >
> > Re the above link: I read the first couple of pages, thank you.  It
> > seemed more puff piece -- As in "Well, duh!" -- than scientifically
> > informative.   But I genuinely appreciate our "discussion", and am at
> > pains to make sure you to feel treated with respect, despite the fact
> > that I find the materials you provided not persuasive.
> >
> > Are we good, then?
> >
>
> Yes, the article was a 'pop' easy read version.
> It is a real effect though.
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_bias>
> has more scholarly references for you if you want more detail.
>
> Optimism seems to be a pretty universal human characteristic.
> As the article says, it is good for you. Keeps you happier and healthier.
> Gives you incentive to get out and do seemingly impossible things.
> What's not to like?
>
> Well, the problem is neglecting to plan for when your endeavors fail
> to turn out as well as you hoped for.
> Being slightly depressed (cautious?) means 'Hope for the best but plan
> for the worst'.
> Whereas a supreme optimist says 'Don't worry - it will never happen'.
>
> Humanity needs optimists to be entrepreneurs, start new businesses, do
> scientific breakthroughs, etc. But remember that most new businesses
> fail.  It is very reasonable to include backup plans.
> Just sayin'.  :)
>
> BillK
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



-- 
Max More, PhD
Strategic Philosopher
Co-editor, *The Transhumanist Reader*
CEO, Alcor Life Extension Foundation
7895 E. Acoma Dr # 110
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
480/905-1906 ext 113
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120521/b1a5ffd1/attachment.html>

From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Tue May 22 00:39:36 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 18:39:36 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Wash post comment
In-Reply-To: <CAJX-7wW3e41PPai4eU3Cz8kkkiN=vNujgvbnKJrM4j9FY8C1vA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7OULaL0F6L8A+r+JZokajFX_ojpESv5bPd2mZc91zigg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkN2b_dLyFvr4HAHk72U6_D3RvKtBhprgWFiLj6oD08Sqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120520084058.GC17120@leitl.org>
 <CAHUTwkM8n+C7UtD5gBOd8SNEURnGqVe5hZ4WE2RLD9U6-8jLjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armiu2s7BH7svgVFn5=iNeKFcK-5csqXPT7bc6jjcX+Yy0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUTwkOJgxKuH7xXLfKpuVPaf9PnC37JaUW3s2spB5YrqWtssw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armhqQMe0W2YvzL8a03_CqWT5e3DRQT5h61igESCdNHbpew@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJX-7wW3e41PPai4eU3Cz8kkkiN=vNujgvbnKJrM4j9FY8C1vA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwadWmWBRc2ewB0rsxL1bayM06dbA5FfZEV5Y4XZwcFsVA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:
> The optimism bias appears to apply to individual's assessments of their own
> capabilities and chances of success. It does not seem to apply to judgments
> of the future in general. It's perfectly possible -- and seems to be common
> -- for humans in our society to be unrealistically optimistic about their
> own changes while being pessimistic about the world in general.
>
> A fascinating book on this topic is Shelly E. Taylor's?Positive Illusions.

I think Ray K is right... we are overly optimistic about what we can
achieve in the short term, and overly pessimistic about what we can
achieve in the long term. That fits with my experiences....

-Kelly



From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Tue May 22 00:43:12 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 18:43:12 -0600
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <008a01cd3790$7d148ed0$773dac70$@att.net>
References: <mailman.1.1337515201.19578.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <1337624899.73142.YahooMailNeo@web132103.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
 <008a01cd3790$7d148ed0$773dac70$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwZm=Tfr_sxyseLvFQgsNLs1znaksai=9eHtm3zc34F24w@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 2:29 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> An example would be dock with an dead satellite, strip off the aluminized
> mylar, grind it, recover the aluminum, make a solar sail using the design I
> proposed in a technical paper last fall.? That sail had a microprocessor
> (which we would be allowed to make down here and take along) and was guided
> by three LCD variable reflectors (which could also be made down here.? That
> design was 15 cm across and had a mass of one gram, but I would be open
> minded on what qualifies as ?anything useful.?? Making some kind of
> semi-autonomous on-orbit manufacturing device is a good way forward from
> here and a cool interesting new technical challenge.

Here's an interesting challenge... build a machine that can go into
space, intercept space junk, and create a copy of itself which then
goes off looking for more space junk... :-)  Kind of a grey goo
approach to the problem... without the nanotech part.

-Kelly



From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Tue May 22 03:45:40 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 21:45:40 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Wired article on AI risk
In-Reply-To: <CAPoR7a45zUbMb0AiLTkShT=B4WyJB1ifE1MSXheA+mbwz5Y30w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF=HMECg4XE2A2R29oiSsnrUsbw8uPtPiSmfrR-nmVwr1DR9eA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a45zUbMb0AiLTkShT=B4WyJB1ifE1MSXheA+mbwz5Y30w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwZrbP1KDBj-26XBNjZEYkY140rfUZ8Xyj2yRg_7mg4=eQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:03 AM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21 May 2012 11:31, Aleksei Riikonen <aleksei at iki.fi> wrote:
>>
>> This recent Wired article on AI risk was rather ok:
>>
>> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-05/17/the-dangers-of-an-ai-smarter-than-us
>
> Nothing really new, and nothing I could agree with less.

My favorite quote from the article is: "the space beyond human
intelligence is vast"... I'm not sure how anyone could disagree with
that one... LOL!

> As far as I can tell, my rebuttal of the relevant assumptions and platitudes
> still stands (English translation by Catarina Lamm still available full-text
> online at http://www.divenire.org/articolo_versione.asp?id=1).

Stefano, this article seems to downplay the importance of getting the
software right. I don't think we know the algorithms for
"intelligence" in the sense of general learning mechanisms that can
grok language and parse visual scenes, for example. While
understanding the neural layout of a fruit fly is a great step
forward, I don't know how much "intelligence" you get from that.
Scaling up a fruit fly brain doesn't give you human level
intelligence, if that's what you were implying.

I think you are correct that the brain does not have "irreducable
peculiarities", but we still have an awful lot to learn.

Honestly, I found the Wired article to be far more readable and
understandable (whether more believable or not, I cannot say). I don't
know if your paper was published for some journal of philosophy, but I
found it to be a bit hard to read in that it used a LOT of big words,
and referred to a LOT of external literature (some of which I've
actually read and still didn't get the reference) and didn't seem to
draw a whole lot of firm conclusions. I'm not sure I understood the
points you were making for the most part, which is sad because I'd
really like to understand your point of view better.

btw, typo in your article..:"weak in a Turing text" should be "weak in
a Turing test"...

You know I'm sympathetic, I just couldn't understand a lot of what was
in your paper.

-Kelly


From meatextropy at gmail.com  Tue May 22 05:35:44 2012
From: meatextropy at gmail.com (Colextropy H)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 15:35:44 +1000
Subject: [ExI] 20 Years of the Science of Consciousness
Message-ID: <CAFqFpXuc2Rb8P1fx-DbpwzECQzkZVxz6L2OEuogAHGYPBaZ_qQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I thought you might be interested in an article I wrote about the impact,
on science itself, of 20 years of a ?science of consciousness?. It is
directed at the wider lay public, and mercifully short, so it?s readable by
all (unlike most of my scribblings :-P).

http://theconversation.edu.au/learning-experience-lets-take-consciousness-in-from-the-cold-6739

enjoy!

Colin Hales
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120522/a4798655/attachment.html>

From meatextropy at gmail.com  Tue May 22 05:15:52 2012
From: meatextropy at gmail.com (Colextropy H)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 15:15:52 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Test
Message-ID: <CAFqFpXvyCpUqcOuGwThzpQjt_rW_Fq02ma6P5x5ipxn7rC=1Jw@mail.gmail.com>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120522/62b61a9a/attachment.html>

From meatextropy at gmail.com  Tue May 22 05:49:39 2012
From: meatextropy at gmail.com (Colextropy H)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 15:49:39 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Test
Message-ID: <CAFqFpXv7ZOnP9OenOt=3=shL21iJ5KdCnWuyteNcfVvA=Nsecw@mail.gmail.com>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120522/c5cb0841/attachment.html>

From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Tue May 22 11:03:57 2012
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan Ust)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 07:03:57 -0400
Subject: [ExI] SpaceX launch succcessful
In-Reply-To: <CAFqFpXvyCpUqcOuGwThzpQjt_rW_Fq02ma6P5x5ipxn7rC=1Jw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFqFpXvyCpUqcOuGwThzpQjt_rW_Fq02ma6P5x5ipxn7rC=1Jw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F426D7D3-4BF7-4FEB-BAAA-D2EF0C2667DD@yahoo.com>

> http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/22/tech/us-spacex/index.html?c=homepage-t&page=1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120522/e0a395a1/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue May 22 13:23:47 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 06:23:47 -0700
Subject: [ExI] SpaceX launch succcessful
In-Reply-To: <F426D7D3-4BF7-4FEB-BAAA-D2EF0C2667DD@yahoo.com>
References: <CAFqFpXvyCpUqcOuGwThzpQjt_rW_Fq02ma6P5x5ipxn7rC=1Jw@mail.gmail.com>
 <F426D7D3-4BF7-4FEB-BAAA-D2EF0C2667DD@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <01ba01cd381e$1f0862b0$5d192810$@att.net>

Life?is?gooooooood?

 

{8-]

 

spike

 

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dan Ust
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 4:04 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: [ExI] SpaceX launch succcessful

 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/22/tech/us-spacex/index.html?c=homepage-t <http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/22/tech/us-spacex/index.html?c=homepage-t&page=1> &page=1

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120522/14478417/attachment.html>

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue May 22 14:53:33 2012
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 16:53:33 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Wired article on AI risk
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwZrbP1KDBj-26XBNjZEYkY140rfUZ8Xyj2yRg_7mg4=eQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF=HMECg4XE2A2R29oiSsnrUsbw8uPtPiSmfrR-nmVwr1DR9eA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a45zUbMb0AiLTkShT=B4WyJB1ifE1MSXheA+mbwz5Y30w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZrbP1KDBj-26XBNjZEYkY140rfUZ8Xyj2yRg_7mg4=eQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPoR7a73fAy8koK=iSSiMEZ3bvppP-KmyROPmoDnDPt+Ptqepw@mail.gmail.com>

On 22 May 2012 05:45, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:

> My favorite quote from the article is: "the space beyond human
> intelligence is vast"... I'm not sure how anyone could disagree with
> that one... LOL!
>

Indeed. Even a pocket calculator is for istance more performing than an
unaided human mind when dealing with complex arithmetic...


>  > As far as I can tell, my rebuttal of the relevant assumptions and
> platitudes
> > still stands (English translation by Catarina Lamm still available
> full-text
> > online at http://www.divenire.org/articolo_versione.asp?id=1).
>
> Stefano, this article seems to downplay the importance of getting the
> software right. I don't think we know the algorithms for
> "intelligence" in the sense of general learning mechanisms that can
> grok language and parse visual scenes, for example. While
> understanding the neural layout of a fruit fly is a great step
> forward, I don't know how much "intelligence" you get from that.
> Scaling up a fruit fly brain doesn't give you human level
> intelligence, if that's what you were implying.
>

First of all, thank you for your interest.

Yes, the software is not only important, but essential, because if we
accept the Principle of Computational Equivalence, there is basically
nothing else to say on any given system other than the program executed and
the performance it exhibits in executing it.

Accordingly, to emulate a fruit fly brain you have to emulate its overall
internal working, and to emulate a human you have to do just the same.
Only, while doing that with a (relatively) low-level, bottom-up approach
leads in both cases to finite problems, the first thing is much simpler.


> Honestly, I found the Wired article to be far more readable and
> understandable (whether more believable or not, I cannot say). I don't
> know if your paper was published for some journal of philosophy, but I
> found it to be a bit hard to read in that it used a LOT of big words,
> and referred to a LOT of external literature (some of which I've
> actually read and still didn't get the reference) and didn't seem to
> draw a whole lot of firm conclusions.
>

Why, my piece *is* an academic essay for a philosophic journal, and in
English it probably sounds even a little more difficult than in the
original version, but it does present a number of firm, and quite radical,
conclusions.

Inter alia:
- Intelligence (as, for instance, in "IQ" or in "intelligent response") has
little or nothing to do with "classic" AI.
- The main real interest of AIs is the emulation of actual individuals
- AIs are by definition possible, most of them being OTOH very likely to
work more slowly or at least inefficiently than organic brains.
- AIs are by definition not distinguishable from fyborgs with equivalent
processing powers at their fingertips.
- AIs are by definition neither more (nor less!) dangerous than "stupid"
computers of equivalent processing powers
- "Friendly" AIs is a contradiction in terms.
- In the relevant literature, the terms "friendly", "danger", "comparative
risk", "humanity", etc. can be deconstructed as ill-defined concepts based
on a number of assumptions that do not really bear closer inspection and
represent only monotheistic archetypes under a thin secular veneer.

Hey, if somebody is interested I would be very happy to elaborate on any of
those points and more... :-)

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120522/fed14d18/attachment.html>

From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Tue May 22 16:23:54 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 10:23:54 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Wired article on AI risk
In-Reply-To: <CAPoR7a73fAy8koK=iSSiMEZ3bvppP-KmyROPmoDnDPt+Ptqepw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF=HMECg4XE2A2R29oiSsnrUsbw8uPtPiSmfrR-nmVwr1DR9eA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a45zUbMb0AiLTkShT=B4WyJB1ifE1MSXheA+mbwz5Y30w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZrbP1KDBj-26XBNjZEYkY140rfUZ8Xyj2yRg_7mg4=eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a73fAy8koK=iSSiMEZ3bvppP-KmyROPmoDnDPt+Ptqepw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwZiR2EVYo50qmW_FPwwNeazKDN=Co7pLm4fx172WbcpTg@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22 May 2012 05:45, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> My favorite quote from the article is: "the space beyond human
>> intelligence is vast"... I'm not sure how anyone could disagree with
>> that one... LOL!
>
> Indeed. Even a pocket calculator is for istance more performing than an
> unaided human mind when dealing with complex arithmetic...

You are a very reasonable person Stefano. :-)

>> > As far as I can tell, my rebuttal of the relevant assumptions and
>> > platitudes
>> > still stands (English translation by Catarina Lamm still available
>> > full-text
>> > online at http://www.divenire.org/articolo_versione.asp?id=1).
>>
>> Stefano, this article seems to downplay the importance of getting the
>> software right. I don't think we know the algorithms for
>> "intelligence" in the sense of general learning mechanisms that can
>> grok language and parse visual scenes, for example. While
>> understanding the neural layout of a fruit fly is a great step
>> forward, I don't know how much "intelligence" you get from that.
>> Scaling up a fruit fly brain doesn't give you human level
>> intelligence, if that's what you were implying.
>
>
> First of all, thank you for your interest.

I'm always up for learning something new.

> Yes, the software is not only important, but essential, because if we accept
> the Principle of Computational Equivalence, there is basically nothing else
> to say on any given system other than the program executed and the
> performance it exhibits in executing it.

Ok, I agree with that. Though it is also true that faster processing
is equivalent, in some sense, to higher intelligence.

> Accordingly, to emulate a fruit fly brain you have to emulate its overall
> internal working, and to emulate a human you have to do just the same. Only,
> while doing that with a (relatively) low-level, bottom-up approach leads in
> both cases to finite problems, the first thing is much simpler.

Meaning that it is simpler to emulate a fruit fly than a human? Yes,
if that's what you mean, surely that is the case!

>> Honestly, I found the Wired article to be far more readable and
>> understandable (whether more believable or not, I cannot say). I don't
>> know if your paper was published for some journal of philosophy, but I
>> found it to be a bit hard to read in that it used a LOT of big words,
>> and referred to a LOT of external literature (some of which I've
>> actually read and still didn't get the reference) and didn't seem to
>> draw a whole lot of firm conclusions.
>
> Why, my piece *is* an academic essay for a philosophic journal, and in
> English it probably sounds even a little more difficult than in the original
> version, but it does present a number of firm, and quite radical,
> conclusions.

I am not a philosopher, but I like philosophy.

> Inter alia:
> - Intelligence (as, for instance, in "IQ" or in "intelligent response") has
> little or nothing to do with "classic" AI.

That's possible, though that does not imply that classic AI has no
practical applications, it does.

> - The main real interest of AIs is the emulation of actual individuals

i.e. uploading. Specific individuals.

> - AIs are by definition possible, most of them being OTOH very likely to
> work more slowly or at least inefficiently than organic brains.

I would agree with that... thought it is something of a matter of
faith or lack thereof.

> - AIs are by definition not distinguishable from fyborgs with equivalent
> processing powers at their fingertips.

Fair enough.

> - AIs are by definition neither more (nor less!) dangerous than "stupid"
> computers of equivalent processing powers

As a computer scientist I would have to disagree slightly with this,
at least the way we use "stupid" computers today. The issue with AI
isn't that it is dangerous, but rather by its very nature it is not as
predictable as a programmed computer. Yes, programmed computers with
bugs can cause airplanes to crash, but it is unlikely that a stupid
computer of today is going to rise up and take over the world. Yet
just such things are possible with AGI. If you can counter this
argument, I'm certainly interested in what you would have to say.

> - "Friendly" AIs is a contradiction in terms.

Yes, Understood.

> - In the relevant literature, the terms "friendly", "danger", "comparative
> risk", "humanity", etc. can be deconstructed as ill-defined concepts based
> on a number of assumptions that do not really bear closer inspection and
> represent only monotheistic archetypes under a thin secular veneer.

I see where you are coming from there. I don't think "unpredictable"
is in this same category.

> Hey, if somebody is interested I would be very happy to elaborate on any of
> those points and more... :-)

Just on the "no more dangerous" point...

I also don't see how what you say so strongly contradicts what was in
the Wired article. What in that article do you strenuously disagree
with?

-Kelly


From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Tue May 22 16:48:01 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 10:48:01 -0600
Subject: [ExI] SpaceX launch succcessful
In-Reply-To: <01ba01cd381e$1f0862b0$5d192810$@att.net>
References: <CAFqFpXvyCpUqcOuGwThzpQjt_rW_Fq02ma6P5x5ipxn7rC=1Jw@mail.gmail.com>
 <F426D7D3-4BF7-4FEB-BAAA-D2EF0C2667DD@yahoo.com>
 <01ba01cd381e$1f0862b0$5d192810$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwYUZXhy3Q3-ppK7o8HboyqwSDrkYHaRZxPwKRTdJMr03w@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 7:23 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> Life?is?gooooooood?

This is very exciting! I suppose we shall see if taking the
libertarian approach to space will work out better than the previous
endeavors... (Ok, not ENTIRELY fair, since they are standing on the
shoulders of giants...)  But time should tell... If SpaceX actually
can create rockets that will go to mars and the asteroids relatively
quickly, THEN we'll know this is the right approach.

The most interesting factoid for me was that SpaceX was founded in
2002, and that Boeing hasn't been able to get something going to this
point. I will take this as validation that smaller groups of people
can be more efficient and focused than large groups of people. I
wonder how many employee years SpaceX has expended thus far...

-Kelly



From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Tue May 22 17:37:17 2012
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 10:37:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] SpaceX launch succcessful
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwYUZXhy3Q3-ppK7o8HboyqwSDrkYHaRZxPwKRTdJMr03w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFqFpXvyCpUqcOuGwThzpQjt_rW_Fq02ma6P5x5ipxn7rC=1Jw@mail.gmail.com>
 <F426D7D3-4BF7-4FEB-BAAA-D2EF0C2667DD@yahoo.com>
 <01ba01cd381e$1f0862b0$5d192810$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwYUZXhy3Q3-ppK7o8HboyqwSDrkYHaRZxPwKRTdJMr03w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1337708237.14797.YahooMailNeo@web160601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 12:48 PM Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is very exciting! I suppose we shall see if taking
> the libertarian approach to space will work out better
> than the previous endeavors...

This is not a "libertarian approach to space" transport. It is, at best, a partly private approach to supporting a basically non-libertarian approach to space exploration. NASA isn't ponying up money it got justly to pay for a ride on SpaceX rockets. Instead, it relies on involuntary contributions from viewers like you. :/

A truly libertarian approach here would be one where no one's rights were violated [routinely and inherently] to get to space.

This is not to say all is not well with this plan. It's better than the old cost-plus contracting used to finance space launchers in the past. The big problem, though, remains: an involuntarily funded space agency is the big player in this market. (This is setting aside the nest of regulations and the context of wider coercive interferences in society.)

> (Ok, not ENTIRELY fair, since they are standing on the
> shoulders of giants...)? But time should tell... If SpaceX
> actually can create rockets that will go to mars and the
> asteroids relatively quickly, THEN we'll know this is the
> right approach.

I have no doubts that space transportation can be privatized. It might take a while to do, since the big players -- and this includes SpaceX -- rely on government support and this tends to distort costs upward. But I'm not really sure what you say makes sense. If one is merely looking at results, governments have already built rockets -- or paid for big aerospace firms to build them -- to get to Mars and the asteroids. Would this result -- many successful missions to those destinations -- prove to you that government is the "right approach"? (To me, it sounds like you're setting yourself up for the TVA response a proponent of government might answer you with: if you merely look at results, the TVA seemed to work really well. If you look at the whole picture, though, the TVA was (and is) great at making electricity at low rates for people in its district as long as it got a huge subsidy from the federal government to begin with. This is like me giving you
 a billion pounds, which to you put into a business that sells products below costs, but, hey, you've got a billion pounds to sink into satisfying your customers.:)

> The most interesting factoid for me was that SpaceX was
> founded in 2002, and that Boeing hasn't been able to get
> something going to this point. I will take this as validation
> that smaller groups of people can be more efficient and
> focused than large groups of people. I wonder how many
> employee years SpaceX has expended thus far...

I wouldn't make too many generalizations from such a small sample. Plus, I don't know, and from your comments I'm guessing you don't know, what the culture at Boeing is like, especially in their spacecraft division. It might be a lot like Amazon's approach to not having large groups of people working on one project. (According to a recent issue of Forbes, Jeff Bezos has a "two pizza" rule. Teams working on projects should no bigger than can be fed with two pizzas. Presumably, they've no heard of the paleo diet.:) Also, it could be that you're right and still that Boeing, given some stiff competition from start ups like SpaceX, might modify the way it approaches these projects. Remember, for a long time, the US space launch industry has been facing little competition* and basically does business under a monopsony, with NASA being the biggest market buyer for launchers, especially big launchers.

Regards,

Dan

* Of course, this did change with communication satellite launches. And, also, the US military is the other big player here with launches of its satellites. Notably, that military, like all militaries, is also coercively funded -- as well as being the major coercer.




From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Tue May 22 18:55:08 2012
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 11:55:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <008a01cd3790$7d148ed0$773dac70$@att.net>
References: <mailman.1.1337515201.19578.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <1337624899.73142.YahooMailNeo@web132103.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
 <008a01cd3790$7d148ed0$773dac70$@att.net>
Message-ID: <1337712908.82747.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

On Monday, May 21, 2012 4:29 PM spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> Over fifty yrs ago, the US president issued a technical challenge to
> take a man to the moon and back in this decade etc.? American
> rose to that challenge and made happen.? Now we face another
> worthwhile space goal: take any existing space material, including
> spent rocket motors, dead satellites, etc, dock with it in orbit, take
> the materials and process it into something else, anything useful.??

My suspicion is the problem is not as big as it's made out to be. I don't mean the clean up problem is an easy one to solve, but that the problem itself is being made into something more than it is. Also, rather than focus on the engineering solution, take a look at what might be called the root of the problem, if there is one: the tragedy of the commons. Earth orbit is basically being treated as a commons where others can externalize the costs of their use. If it were treated more as something to be homesteaded, it might be easy to visit those costs of those who originate them. For instance, if someone owns an arc of an orbit (for a period of time; I'd allow for abandonment here), then someone else dumping stuff on that property would be nuisance or a tort. This would disincentivize such dumping in the first place and also incentivize monitoring of potential dumping on orbit.

This, of course, does not resolve the problem of existing junk or the engineering problem of how to both avoid such dumping or deal with it afterwards.

Regards,

Dan




From spike66 at att.net  Tue May 22 20:19:40 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 13:19:40 -0700
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <1337712908.82747.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.1.1337515201.19578.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <1337624899.73142.YahooMailNeo@web132103.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
 <008a01cd3790$7d148ed0$773dac70$@att.net>
 <1337712908.82747.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00c901cd3858$37d29ec0$a777dc40$@att.net>


>... On Behalf Of Dan
Subject: Re: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold

On Monday, May 21, 2012 4:29 PM spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>> ... worthwhile space 
> goal: take any existing space material... and 
> process it into something else, anything useful... spike

>...This, of course, does not resolve the problem of existing junk or the
engineering problem of how to both avoid such dumping or deal with it
afterwards.  Dan


_______________________________________________


If we figure out how to process it into something else, space junk becomes
enormously valuable.  The dumping of junk in orbit becomes more analogous to
going out to the garbage dump and giving away money.  Of course we now have
a new problem: the nations that dumped the junk to start with want to claim
it again.

spike



From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Tue May 22 20:32:22 2012
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 13:32:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <00c901cd3858$37d29ec0$a777dc40$@att.net>
References: <mailman.1.1337515201.19578.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <1337624899.73142.YahooMailNeo@web132103.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
 <008a01cd3790$7d148ed0$773dac70$@att.net>
 <1337712908.82747.YahooMailNeo@web160604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <00c901cd3858$37d29ec0$a777dc40$@att.net>
Message-ID: <1337718742.18830.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 4:19 PM spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>>> ... worthwhile space
>> goal: take any existing space material... and
>> process it into something else, anything useful... spike
>
>> ...This, of course, does not resolve the problem of existing
>> junk or the engineering problem of how to both avoid such
>> dumping or deal with it afterwards.? Dan
>
> If we figure out how to process it into something else, space
> junk becomes enormously valuable.? The dumping of junk in
> orbit becomes more analogous to going out to the garbage dump
> and giving away money.? Of course we now have a new problem:
> the nations that dumped the junk to start with want to claim
> it again.

I think space junk as a resource in general would be valuable only to the degree that the price to orbit remains inflated -- inflated mostly, in my view, because of massive government subsidies to and involvement in the space sector which keep prices high. If and when these drop, if they drop enough, it'll be little different than litter in a very wealthy nation: yes, someone can recycle it, but that won't be cost effective compared with just getting a new one of whatever it is.

As for claims, the problem there would be twofold. One, nation states don't really own anything justly. (You know, ill gotten gains?) Of course, that won't persuade many unenlightened people. Two, perhaps more convincing, the junk was abandoned. This is little different than if you throw a gold bar through my window, run away laughing after if smashes my flat panel TV, which I keep and only realize its market value ten years later at which time you show up at my door asking for it back. :)

Regards,

Dan




From msd001 at gmail.com  Wed May 23 02:49:17 2012
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 22:49:17 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Wired article on AI risk
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwZiR2EVYo50qmW_FPwwNeazKDN=Co7pLm4fx172WbcpTg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF=HMECg4XE2A2R29oiSsnrUsbw8uPtPiSmfrR-nmVwr1DR9eA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a45zUbMb0AiLTkShT=B4WyJB1ifE1MSXheA+mbwz5Y30w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZrbP1KDBj-26XBNjZEYkY140rfUZ8Xyj2yRg_7mg4=eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a73fAy8koK=iSSiMEZ3bvppP-KmyROPmoDnDPt+Ptqepw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZiR2EVYo50qmW_FPwwNeazKDN=Co7pLm4fx172WbcpTg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOJFdbKBwwDrtyYUHanhkGnjOfV2uKr-LP4m=-J2PSgBMXgLYg@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
> As a computer scientist I would have to disagree slightly with this,
> at least the way we use "stupid" computers today. The issue with AI
> isn't that it is dangerous, but rather by its very nature it is not as
> predictable as a programmed computer. Yes, programmed computers with
> bugs can cause airplanes to crash, but it is unlikely that a stupid
> computer of today is going to rise up and take over the world. Yet
> just such things are possible with AGI. If you can counter this
> argument, I'm certainly interested in what you would have to say.

Though stupid computers, as tools, can be instructed to "act" by AGI
before mere humans can counter that action.  Clearly the only way to
be "safe" is to turn off your computer right now and be "friendly" to
all the other newly displaced former computer users.  Of course this
safety will only last until the largest neighbor decides he wants what
you have.

j/k I'm sure nothing we build can ever be used against us even by accident.

j/k still, I'm actually pretty sure the future is somewhere between
the two extremes.  I hope to benefit from more than suffer because of
whatever the future brings, but that might be optimism speaking.


From brent.allsop at canonizer.com  Wed May 23 04:22:31 2012
From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 22:22:31 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Wired article on AI risk
In-Reply-To: <CAF=HMECg4XE2A2R29oiSsnrUsbw8uPtPiSmfrR-nmVwr1DR9eA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF=HMECg4XE2A2R29oiSsnrUsbw8uPtPiSmfrR-nmVwr1DR9eA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4FBC6607.80700@canonizer.com>



Extropians,

I'm glad you only think this wired article is only "rather ok".  In my 
opinion, it was clueless immoral fear mongering, further contributing to 
what I believe is already, guaranteed to be the greatest threat to 
humanity.  And I've started a survey topic, in which I state the reasons 
for why I believe such there.  (see: 
http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/13/2).  It'd be great to know what all of 
you think is the most significant threat to humanity.

The topic on the stupidity of concern over "Frienly  AI" has less 
consensus, so far, than any other topic on Canonizer.com.  But the 
consensus is still for the non fear mongering camp.  (see: 
http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/16/3 )  It'd sure be great if this, and 
the above survey was a bit more comprehensive, and more of you would 
take a moment to participate.  It takes far less time than re-iterating 
all those naive arguments  everyone keeps repeating, add infinitem, for 
years on end, as is happening, yet again, here, now for how many years?

Did anyone notice that the only two "highly ranked' comments on that 
wired article are not fear mongering comments?

Anyone want to bet what the emerging expert consensus says the most 
significant threat to humanity will turn out to be, in this survey 
topic, on for the most significant threats to humanity, after another 
year, after 10 years...?

It'd sure be great to know, consistently, concisely, and quantitatively, 
what all of you think, so we can significantly amplify the wisdom of 
this crowd on this topic, instead eternally providing all these naive 
clueless mistaken arguments, over and over again,  year after year, 
after year.  Am I the only one that gets tired of all this?

Has anyone noticed, how we never have these kinds of eternally 
repetitive and very painful arguments, like we once did here or in any 
other transhumanist forum, on the topic of qualia?  And notice that the 
qualophobes who once dominated these silly naieve discussion, no longer 
drown out the expert consensus? Why do you think that is?    I know some 
of you dislike Canonizer.com, because of things like that, but do you 
think such hate is justified, or is the wisdom of this crowd finally 
being significantly amplified, above the clueless and mistaken 
arguments, now on at least this topic?  (see the significant consensus 
camp: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/6 which continues to extend its 
lead, compared to all other theories.).

Brent Allsop





On 5/21/2012 3:31 AM, Aleksei Riikonen wrote:
> This recent Wired article on AI risk was rather ok:
>
> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-05/17/the-dangers-of-an-ai-smarter-than-us
>




From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Wed May 23 13:58:33 2012
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 15:58:33 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Wired article on AI risk
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwZiR2EVYo50qmW_FPwwNeazKDN=Co7pLm4fx172WbcpTg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF=HMECg4XE2A2R29oiSsnrUsbw8uPtPiSmfrR-nmVwr1DR9eA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a45zUbMb0AiLTkShT=B4WyJB1ifE1MSXheA+mbwz5Y30w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZrbP1KDBj-26XBNjZEYkY140rfUZ8Xyj2yRg_7mg4=eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a73fAy8koK=iSSiMEZ3bvppP-KmyROPmoDnDPt+Ptqepw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZiR2EVYo50qmW_FPwwNeazKDN=Co7pLm4fx172WbcpTg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPoR7a5qjmTJv2-VhXQA9oVJcS-cvXBhjdEkoGLeSxLxR=8O0g@mail.gmail.com>

On 22 May 2012 18:23, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Yes, the software is not only important, but essential, because if we
> accept
> > the Principle of Computational Equivalence, there is basically nothing
> else
> > to say on any given system other than the program executed and the
> > performance it exhibits in executing it.
>
> Ok, I agree with that. Though it is also true that faster processing
> is equivalent, in some sense, to higher intelligence.
>

Absolutely. In fact, I contend that given that beyond a very low level of
complexity there is no qualitative difference in the capacity of
information-processing systems, the only plausible definition of
intelligence is "speed in executing a given program". This suggests that:
i) all systems achieving the level of universal computation are in a way
"intelligent";
ii) it does not make sense to measure the intelligence of a given system
unless with reference to a given task.

> English it probably sounds even a little more difficult than in the
> original
> > version, but it does present a number of firm, and quite radical,
> > conclusions.
>
> > Inter alia:
> > - Intelligence (as, for instance, in "IQ" or in "intelligent response")
> has
> > little or nothing to do with "classic" AI.
>
> That's possible, though that does not imply that classic AI has no
> practical applications, it does.
>

Agreed, one being that mentioned below.

 > - The main real interest of AIs is the emulation of actual individuals
>
> i.e. uploading. Specific individuals.
>

Exactly.


>  > - AIs are by definition possible, most of them being OTOH very likely to
> > work more slowly or at least inefficiently than organic brains.
>
> I would agree with that... thought it is something of a matter of
> faith or lack thereof.
>

As to the first part, I think I have persuasive arguments (in a shell: if
the universe with all its content can be emulated by any given system  -
although it is possible that a quantistic processor be required for
practical purposes - this applies as well to any of its parts, including
organic brains). For the second, I think that the evidence that indicates
that is anedoctical, but eloquent.


> > computers of equivalent processing powers
>
> The issue with AI isn't that it is dangerous, but rather by its very
> nature it is not as
> predictable as a programmed computer. Yes, programmed computers with
> bugs can cause airplanes to crash, but it is unlikely that a stupid
> computer of today is going to rise up and take over the world. Yet
> just such things are possible with AGI. If you can counter this
> argument, I'm certainly interested in what you would have to say.
>

There again, I think that Wolfram is right in remarking that everything is
"programmed" after a fashion, the only difference being that for a very
small subset thereof we have an algorithmic trick to access the status of
the system without running it step by step to the end.

For the very large majority of systems, however, including most non-organic
ones, we simply have to do that, and in that sense they are
"impredictable". A system need not to be "intelligent" in any classic AI
sense to fall in the last category, since many cellular automata already do.



> - In the relevant literature, the terms "friendly", "danger", "comparative
> > risk", "humanity", etc. can be deconstructed as ill-defined concepts
> based
> > on a number of assumptions that do not really bear closer inspection and
> > represent only monotheistic archetypes under a thin secular veneer.
>
> I see where you are coming from there. I don't think "unpredictable"
> is in this same category.
>

No, in fact the issues are "what is a danger?", "a danger for whom?",
"whose 'existence' are we speaking when we say 'x-risks'?". "what adds to
what risk and what is the atlernative?", "why should one care?", etc. The
best that has been produced in the more of less implicit utilitarianism of
Bostrom, but while being ethically utilitarianists is not mandated by any
law or cogent philosophical reason, even there a number of choices and
assumptions which are pretty arbitrary in nature can be easily identified,
IMHO.

I also don't see how what you say so strongly contradicts what was in
> the Wired article. What in that article do you strenuously disagree
> with?
>

If anything, the vision of AIs suggested therein and the idea that we
should be concerned of a related x-risk.

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120523/0783b680/attachment.html>

From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Wed May 23 19:14:38 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 13:14:38 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Wired article on AI risk
In-Reply-To: <CAOJFdbKBwwDrtyYUHanhkGnjOfV2uKr-LP4m=-J2PSgBMXgLYg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF=HMECg4XE2A2R29oiSsnrUsbw8uPtPiSmfrR-nmVwr1DR9eA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a45zUbMb0AiLTkShT=B4WyJB1ifE1MSXheA+mbwz5Y30w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZrbP1KDBj-26XBNjZEYkY140rfUZ8Xyj2yRg_7mg4=eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a73fAy8koK=iSSiMEZ3bvppP-KmyROPmoDnDPt+Ptqepw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZiR2EVYo50qmW_FPwwNeazKDN=Co7pLm4fx172WbcpTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbKBwwDrtyYUHanhkGnjOfV2uKr-LP4m=-J2PSgBMXgLYg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwaasEuEAgBkMKEavqdvdeob9XU381NA46Aa_Dg8rKQQSA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
>> As a computer scientist I would have to disagree slightly with this,
>> at least the way we use "stupid" computers today. The issue with AI
>> isn't that it is dangerous, but rather by its very nature it is not as
>> predictable as a programmed computer. Yes, programmed computers with
>> bugs can cause airplanes to crash, but it is unlikely that a stupid
>> computer of today is going to rise up and take over the world. Yet
>> just such things are possible with AGI. If you can counter this
>> argument, I'm certainly interested in what you would have to say.
>
> Though stupid computers, as tools, can be instructed to "act" by AGI
> before mere humans can counter that action.

Yes, and an AGI can also instruct a "stupid" robot to pick up a shovel
and bash you in the head... so that argument is weak.

> Clearly the only way to
> be "safe" is to turn off your computer right now and be "friendly" to
> all the other newly displaced former computer users. ?Of course this
> safety will only last until the largest neighbor decides he wants what
> you have.

Total avoidance of risk ensures starvation.

> j/k I'm sure nothing we build can ever be used against us even by accident.
>
> j/k still, I'm actually pretty sure the future is somewhere between
> the two extremes. ?I hope to benefit from more than suffer because of
> whatever the future brings, but that might be optimism speaking.

If it's 51% better and 49% worse, that's still progress, or so says Kevin Kelly.

-Kelly



From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Wed May 23 19:17:39 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 13:17:39 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Wired article on AI risk
In-Reply-To: <4FBC6607.80700@canonizer.com>
References: <CAF=HMECg4XE2A2R29oiSsnrUsbw8uPtPiSmfrR-nmVwr1DR9eA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4FBC6607.80700@canonizer.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwbFTM00vptLq1KdpSOVRN+n1Z5iUvNsUva5eVRaKyauiw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Brent Allsop
<brent.allsop at canonizer.com> wrote:
> I'm glad you only think this wired article is only "rather ok".  In my
> opinion, it was clueless immoral fear mongering, further contributing to
> what I believe is already, guaranteed to be the greatest threat to humanity.

If some day we are consistently out-performed by AI and robotics, how
will we make a living in the future?

What will be the basis for the human economy?

-Kelly


From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Wed May 23 19:38:12 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 13:38:12 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Wired article on AI risk
In-Reply-To: <CAPoR7a5qjmTJv2-VhXQA9oVJcS-cvXBhjdEkoGLeSxLxR=8O0g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF=HMECg4XE2A2R29oiSsnrUsbw8uPtPiSmfrR-nmVwr1DR9eA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a45zUbMb0AiLTkShT=B4WyJB1ifE1MSXheA+mbwz5Y30w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZrbP1KDBj-26XBNjZEYkY140rfUZ8Xyj2yRg_7mg4=eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a73fAy8koK=iSSiMEZ3bvppP-KmyROPmoDnDPt+Ptqepw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZiR2EVYo50qmW_FPwwNeazKDN=Co7pLm4fx172WbcpTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a5qjmTJv2-VhXQA9oVJcS-cvXBhjdEkoGLeSxLxR=8O0g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwYb+ZQEqVNPH5-YUUfKeGqy3es9mxXX2RiyMVxZ2DEPjQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22 May 2012 18:23, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ok, I agree with that. Though it is also true that faster processing
>> is equivalent, in some sense, to higher intelligence.
>
> Absolutely. In fact, I contend that given that beyond a very low level of
> complexity

I grant this if the "low" level of complexity is far above the levels
we have achieved today.

> there is no qualitative difference in the capacity of
> information-processing systems, the only plausible definition of
> intelligence is "speed in executing a given program". This suggests that:
> i) all systems achieving the level of universal computation are in a way
> "intelligent";

Clearly.

> ii) it does not make sense to measure the intelligence of a given system
> unless with reference to a given task.

But if the task is broadly defined, such as Darwinian "fitness within
a given environment" you can get pretty close to what lay people call
intelligence. If such fitness is in the environment of Wall Street,
then there are machines that are already smarter than most people.

>> That's possible, though that does not imply that classic AI has no
>> practical applications, it does.
>
> Agreed, one being that mentioned below.
>
>> > - The main real interest of AIs is the emulation of actual individuals
>>
>> i.e. uploading. Specific individuals.
>
>
> Exactly.

I'm not sure this is the main interest, but it is certainly an
important one. I think another main problem for AIs to solve is the
optimal employment of all available resources, which probably isn't
best accomplished with human-like intelligence, but something that is
far more capable in statistics. Human thought patterns are downright
contraindicated when compared with cold statistical analysis.

>> > - AIs are by definition possible, most of them being OTOH very likely to
>> > work more slowly or at least inefficiently than organic brains.
>>
>> I would agree with that... thought it is something of a matter of
>> faith or lack thereof.
>
> As to the first part, I think I have persuasive arguments (in a shell: if
> the universe with all its content can be emulated by any given system? -
> although it is possible that a quantistic processor be required for
> practical purposes - this applies as well to any of its parts, including
> organic brains).

I personally agree with you, though I don't think it's proven to the
average prole.

> For the second, I think that the evidence that indicates
> that is anedoctical, but eloquent.

We'll see. Time will tell for sure.

>> > computers of equivalent processing powers
>>
>> The issue with AI isn't that it is dangerous, but rather by its very
>> nature it is not as
>> predictable as a programmed computer. Yes, programmed computers with
>> bugs can cause airplanes to crash, but it is unlikely that a stupid
>> computer of today is going to rise up and take over the world. Yet
>> just such things are possible with AGI. If you can counter this
>> argument, I'm certainly interested in what you would have to say.
>
> There again, I think that Wolfram is right in remarking that everything is
> "programmed" after a fashion, the only difference being that for a very
> small subset thereof we have an algorithmic trick to access the status of
> the system without running it step by step to the end.

I'm about a third of the way through Wolfram's NKS right now, so I may
not have gotten the full force of his argument yet... but the main
thing that I get from him so far is that you can't predict the outcome
of chaotic systems from the initial state. I guess that's what you're
saying too.

> For the very large majority of systems, however, including most non-organic
> ones, we simply have to do that, and in that sense they are "impredictable".
> A system need not to be "intelligent" in any classic AI sense to fall in the
> last category, since many cellular automata already do.

But most computer science, as it is practiced today, is highly
predictable. It doesn't use Wolfram's approach. Indeed, I have seen
nothing thus far in Wolfram that is practical. (Again, only a third of
the way through at this point, I reserve the right to change my mind
as I finish; It is a VERY big book... LOL)

>> > - In the relevant literature, the terms "friendly", "danger",
>> > "comparative
>> > risk", "humanity", etc. can be deconstructed as ill-defined concepts
>> > based
>> > on a number of assumptions that do not really bear closer inspection and
>> > represent only monotheistic archetypes under a thin secular veneer.
>>
>> I see where you are coming from there. I don't think "unpredictable"
>> is in this same category.
>
> No, in fact the issues are "what is a danger?", "a danger for whom?", "whose
> 'existence' are we speaking when we say 'x-risks'?". "what adds to what risk
> and what is the atlernative?", "why should one care?", etc.

I think most of the discussion takes place from the perspective of
unenhanced human beings. Asked succinctly, Will the resources made
available to unenhanced human beings in the future be sufficient for
their needs (including survival into the indefinite future) and many
of their wants?

> The best that
> has been produced in the more of less implicit utilitarianism of Bostrom,
> but while being ethically utilitarianists is not mandated by any law or
> cogent philosophical reason, even there a number of choices and assumptions
> which are pretty arbitrary in nature can be easily identified, IMHO.

I don't feel qualified to discuss this point.

>> I also don't see how what you say so strongly contradicts what was in
>> the Wired article. What in that article do you strenuously disagree
>> with?
>
>
> If anything, the vision of AIs suggested therein and the idea that we should
> be concerned of a related x-risk.

Bostrom's existential risk applies to "earth-originated intelligence",
but most proles are more concerned about their skin and that of their
progeny. Those are not the same things at all. People are worried how
they are going to earn money to buy bread. That is a personal
extistential risk, not a global one.

Emergence of societal behavior is based on the acts of the individual
agents (proles), and it will be hard to convince the unwashed masses
that the better future lies in their not being the most intelligent
kids on the block. It seems to interfere with their economic well
being. So the trick is figuring out how to convince them that this is
so.

It's the same problem we have convincing them that they are actually
better off letting the 1% run the world rather than the 99%. The OWS
movement says basically that we should let the least capable people
have equal say in how to run the world as the most capable. That is a
recipe for disaster. It will be no different when the 1% is more
intelligent rather than more rich as they are functionally correlated.

I for one welcome our new computer overlords...

-Kelly



From eugen at leitl.org  Wed May 23 19:51:11 2012
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 21:51:11 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Wired article on AI risk
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwbFTM00vptLq1KdpSOVRN+n1Z5iUvNsUva5eVRaKyauiw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF=HMECg4XE2A2R29oiSsnrUsbw8uPtPiSmfrR-nmVwr1DR9eA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4FBC6607.80700@canonizer.com>
 <CAPy8RwbFTM00vptLq1KdpSOVRN+n1Z5iUvNsUva5eVRaKyauiw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120523195111.GD17120@leitl.org>

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 01:17:39PM -0600, Kelly Anderson wrote:

> What will be the basis for the human economy?

Ambulatory source of organics and energy.


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Wed May 23 22:23:38 2012
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 00:23:38 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Wired article on AI risk
In-Reply-To: <CAOJFdbKBwwDrtyYUHanhkGnjOfV2uKr-LP4m=-J2PSgBMXgLYg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF=HMECg4XE2A2R29oiSsnrUsbw8uPtPiSmfrR-nmVwr1DR9eA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a45zUbMb0AiLTkShT=B4WyJB1ifE1MSXheA+mbwz5Y30w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZrbP1KDBj-26XBNjZEYkY140rfUZ8Xyj2yRg_7mg4=eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a73fAy8koK=iSSiMEZ3bvppP-KmyROPmoDnDPt+Ptqepw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZiR2EVYo50qmW_FPwwNeazKDN=Co7pLm4fx172WbcpTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbKBwwDrtyYUHanhkGnjOfV2uKr-LP4m=-J2PSgBMXgLYg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPoR7a54K=QOnzus4jbS7CK23Vo2zk3_WZek4v_qFY3paA7big@mail.gmail.com>

On 23 May 2012 04:49, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Though stupid computers, as tools, can be instructed to "act" by AGI
> before mere humans can counter that action.


How do you define stupid vs intelligent?

j/k I'm sure nothing we build can ever be used against us even by accident.
>

"We" who?

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120524/2d724480/attachment.html>

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Wed May 23 22:45:17 2012
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 00:45:17 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Wired article on AI risk
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwYb+ZQEqVNPH5-YUUfKeGqy3es9mxXX2RiyMVxZ2DEPjQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF=HMECg4XE2A2R29oiSsnrUsbw8uPtPiSmfrR-nmVwr1DR9eA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a45zUbMb0AiLTkShT=B4WyJB1ifE1MSXheA+mbwz5Y30w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZrbP1KDBj-26XBNjZEYkY140rfUZ8Xyj2yRg_7mg4=eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a73fAy8koK=iSSiMEZ3bvppP-KmyROPmoDnDPt+Ptqepw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZiR2EVYo50qmW_FPwwNeazKDN=Co7pLm4fx172WbcpTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a5qjmTJv2-VhXQA9oVJcS-cvXBhjdEkoGLeSxLxR=8O0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYb+ZQEqVNPH5-YUUfKeGqy3es9mxXX2RiyMVxZ2DEPjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPoR7a7BjduQrz9N=yn2996QBGfWmcequ8Ff+4yvJg7knZXUgw@mail.gmail.com>

On 23 May 2012 21:38, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Absolutely. In fact, I contend that given that beyond a very low level of
> > complexity
>
> I grant this if the "low" level of complexity is far above the levels
> we have achieved today.
>

Not at all. From a cellular automaton to a Turing machine to the original
1980 PC, every system exhibiting the property of universal computation is
beyond that level. See http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/section-12.1.


> But if the task is broadly defined, such as Darwinian "fitness within
> a given environment" you can get pretty close to what lay people call
> intelligence. If such fitness is in the environment of Wall Street,
> then there are machines that are already smarter than most people.
>

Absolutely, as are a number of very simple biological organisms.


> I'm not sure this is the main interest, but it is certainly an
> important one. I think another main problem for AIs to solve is the
> optimal employment of all available resources, which probably isn't
> best accomplished with human-like intelligence, but something that is
> far more capable in statistics. Human thought patterns are downright
> contraindicated when compared with cold statistical analysis.
>

OTOH, this require processing power, but not necessarily any kind of
anthropomorphic, "classic AI", kind of intelligence.


> > that is anedoctical, but eloquent.
>
> I'm about a third of the way through Wolfram's NKS right now, so I may
> not have gotten the full force of his argument yet... but the main
> thing that I get from him so far is that you can't predict the outcome
> of chaotic systems from the initial state. I guess that's what you're
> saying too.
>

He makes a distinction between "predictable" (a program enumerating the
powers of 2), chaotic (a program calculating the effect of the butterfly
wings on hurricanes the other end of the world), and "truly unpredictable",
which remain fully deterministic, but where the only way to calculate the
final status is to run the program step by step to the end.

 But most computer science, as it is practiced today, is highly
> predictable.


Yes, even extremely simple programs can be shown to be fully unpredictable,
that is, able to generate arbitrary degrees of complexity, even though they
do not exhibit any especially intelligent behaviours.


> I think most of the discussion takes place from the perspective of
> unenhanced human beings. Asked succinctly, Will the resources made
> available to unenhanced human beings in the future be sufficient for
> their needs (including survival into the indefinite future) and many
> of their wants?
>

"Unenhanced human beings" are going to create new entities, who will demand
careful programming at the beginning, and then will become more and more
essential to the working of their societies, and eventually marginalise
them altogether, while they gradually go extinct. This is called the
succession of generations, and has gone on since human beings came first
into existence. What else is new?

Bostrom's existential risk applies to "earth-originated intelligence",
> but most proles are more concerned about their skin and that of their
> progeny.


OK, as for their personal skin, they are under the much more actual threat
of being dead *anyway* within less than a century in average, and in most
cases much sooner, unless something drastic happens. As for their progeny,
we have to define first what "progeny" is. Immediate children? Genetic
successors? Co-specifics? "Children of the mind"? I am not sure there any
final reason to opt for one definition or another, but I have an answer for
each.

It's the same problem we have convincing them that they are actually
> better off letting the 1% run the world rather than the 99%.
>

I have some views about that as well, but perhaps this will bring us too
far... :-)

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120524/addaeaee/attachment.html>

From msd001 at gmail.com  Thu May 24 00:16:26 2012
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 20:16:26 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Wired article on AI risk
In-Reply-To: <CAPoR7a54K=QOnzus4jbS7CK23Vo2zk3_WZek4v_qFY3paA7big@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF=HMECg4XE2A2R29oiSsnrUsbw8uPtPiSmfrR-nmVwr1DR9eA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a45zUbMb0AiLTkShT=B4WyJB1ifE1MSXheA+mbwz5Y30w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZrbP1KDBj-26XBNjZEYkY140rfUZ8Xyj2yRg_7mg4=eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a73fAy8koK=iSSiMEZ3bvppP-KmyROPmoDnDPt+Ptqepw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZiR2EVYo50qmW_FPwwNeazKDN=Co7pLm4fx172WbcpTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbKBwwDrtyYUHanhkGnjOfV2uKr-LP4m=-J2PSgBMXgLYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a54K=QOnzus4jbS7CK23Vo2zk3_WZek4v_qFY3paA7big@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOJFdbLkDmAeN1uNvmxCOcwuxTyygq+0bkSD45S0a793WozdxA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 May 2012 04:49, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Though stupid computers, as tools, can be instructed to "act" by AGI
>> before mere humans can counter that action.
>
> How do you define stupid vs intelligent?

It's a complex algorithm.  If it quacks like a duck... and it's a
duck... it's not that intelligent.  But if it quacks like a duck...
and it's a wolf trying to get close enough to eat a duck... that's
intelligent.  I'm not really sure how to model this rigorous proof so
I can make a gazillion megabucks.  (perhaps I lack requisite
intelligence)

>> j/k I'm sure nothing we build can ever be used against us even by accident.
>
> "We" who?

The smart people on this list?  The proles on this list?  Humanity in
general?  To be honest, I was making a counterpoint to my first
facetious argument with a second facetious argument.


From member at linkedin.com  Thu May 24 01:50:34 2012
From: member at linkedin.com (Kevin Haskell via LinkedIn)
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 01:50:34 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ExI] Invitation to connect on LinkedIn
Message-ID: <847967757.125300.1337824234518.JavaMail.app@ela4-app2310.prod>

LinkedIn
------------




    Kevin Haskell requested to add you as a connection on LinkedIn:
  

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

Stephan,

I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn.

- Kevin

Accept invitation from Kevin Haskell
http://www.linkedin.com/e/z8t35u-h2l609u1-1t/XBa26G2kpQwFwjjrc_ZyPpnwp5oQcReweNnhW82Ht8-pIT/blk/I353727288_15/1BpC5vrmRLoRZcjkkZt5YCpnlOt3RApnhMpmdzgmhxrSNBszYRclYUe38TczsPdjd9bSZnpj9dkmVbbP0MdzoMejwNczsLrCBxbOYWrSlI/EML_comm_afe/?hs=false&tok=34QhEqaVTKelg1

View invitation from Kevin Haskell
http://www.linkedin.com/e/z8t35u-h2l609u1-1t/XBa26G2kpQwFwjjrc_ZyPpnwp5oQcReweNnhW82Ht8-pIT/blk/I353727288_15/3kNnPwUczsOdPcRcQALqnpPbOYWrSlI/svi/?hs=false&tok=2V1zbYzXvKelg1

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

Why might connecting with Kevin Haskell be a good idea?

Kevin Haskell's connections could be useful to you:

After accepting Kevin Haskell's invitation, check Kevin Haskell's connections to see who else you may know and who you might want an introduction to. Building these connections can create opportunities in the future.
 
-- 
(c) 2012, LinkedIn Corporation
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120524/37214415/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Thu May 24 02:12:30 2012
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 12:12:30 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Invitation to connect on LinkedIn
In-Reply-To: <847967757.125300.1337824234518.JavaMail.app@ela4-app2310.prod>
References: <847967757.125300.1337824234518.JavaMail.app@ela4-app2310.prod>
Message-ID: <CAH=2ypXaTU=a23qJ4f7FMP352o_q6R_agaTr3r_ZmLSSHquKmg@mail.gmail.com>

I'm not Stephan.

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Kevin Haskell via LinkedIn <
member at linkedin.com> wrote:

>  LinkedIn
> Kevin Haskell requested to add you as a connection on LinkedIn:
>
> Stephan,
>
> I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn.
>
> - Kevin
>
>   Accept<http://www.linkedin.com/e/z8t35u-h2l609u1-1t/XBa26G2kpQwFwjjrc_ZyPpnwp5oQcReweNnhW82Ht8-pIT/blk/I353727288_15/1BpC5vrmRLoRZcjkkZt5YCpnlOt3RApnhMpmdzgmhxrSNBszYRclYUe38TczsPdjd9bSZnpj9dkmVbbP0MdzoMejwNczsLrCBxbOYWrSlI/EML_comm_afe/?hs=false&tok=34QhEqaVTKelg1>
>   View invitation from Kevin Haskell<http://www.linkedin.com/e/z8t35u-h2l609u1-1t/XBa26G2kpQwFwjjrc_ZyPpnwp5oQcReweNnhW82Ht8-pIT/blk/I353727288_15/3kNnPwUczsOdPcRcQALqnpPbOYWrSlI/S2_svi/?hs=false&tok=2XjIowZYLKelg1>
>
>
> *WHY MIGHT CONNECTING WITH KEVIN HASKELL BE A GOOD IDEA?*
>
> *Kevin Haskell's connections could be useful to you*
>
> After accepting Kevin Haskell's invitation, check Kevin Haskell's
> connections to see who else you may know and who you might want an
> introduction to. Building these connections can create opportunities in the
> future.
>
>
> ? 2012, LinkedIn Corporation
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120524/2ac713b5/attachment.html>

From steinberg.will at gmail.com  Thu May 24 04:29:32 2012
From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 23:29:32 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Invitation to connect on LinkedIn
In-Reply-To: <CAH=2ypXaTU=a23qJ4f7FMP352o_q6R_agaTr3r_ZmLSSHquKmg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <847967757.125300.1337824234518.JavaMail.app@ela4-app2310.prod>
 <CAH=2ypXaTU=a23qJ4f7FMP352o_q6R_agaTr3r_ZmLSSHquKmg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKrqSyEm5ticTqiy5WsMhnH-6Rjn-SC=+-Qg-XbVMZgODf_qsQ@mail.gmail.com>

Well, I'M sure not Stephan!

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com>wrote:

> I'm not Stephan.
>
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Kevin Haskell via LinkedIn <
> member at linkedin.com> wrote:
>
>>  LinkedIn
>> Kevin Haskell requested to add you as a connection on LinkedIn:
>>
>> Stephan,
>>
>> I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn.
>>
>> - Kevin
>>
>>   Accept<http://www.linkedin.com/e/z8t35u-h2l609u1-1t/XBa26G2kpQwFwjjrc_ZyPpnwp5oQcReweNnhW82Ht8-pIT/blk/I353727288_15/1BpC5vrmRLoRZcjkkZt5YCpnlOt3RApnhMpmdzgmhxrSNBszYRclYUe38TczsPdjd9bSZnpj9dkmVbbP0MdzoMejwNczsLrCBxbOYWrSlI/EML_comm_afe/?hs=false&tok=34QhEqaVTKelg1>
>>   View invitation from Kevin Haskell<http://www.linkedin.com/e/z8t35u-h2l609u1-1t/XBa26G2kpQwFwjjrc_ZyPpnwp5oQcReweNnhW82Ht8-pIT/blk/I353727288_15/3kNnPwUczsOdPcRcQALqnpPbOYWrSlI/S2_svi/?hs=false&tok=2XjIowZYLKelg1>
>>
>>
>> *WHY MIGHT CONNECTING WITH KEVIN HASKELL BE A GOOD IDEA?*
>>
>> *Kevin Haskell's connections could be useful to you*
>>
>> After accepting Kevin Haskell's invitation, check Kevin Haskell's
>> connections to see who else you may know and who you might want an
>> introduction to. Building these connections can create opportunities in the
>> future.
>>
>>
>> ? 2012, LinkedIn Corporation
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120523/716db4e5/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Thu May 24 07:00:53 2012
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 08:00:53 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Invitation to connect on LinkedIn
In-Reply-To: <CAH=2ypXaTU=a23qJ4f7FMP352o_q6R_agaTr3r_ZmLSSHquKmg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <847967757.125300.1337824234518.JavaMail.app@ela4-app2310.prod>
 <CAH=2ypXaTU=a23qJ4f7FMP352o_q6R_agaTr3r_ZmLSSHquKmg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAL_armi57FRtj5Yj086VnA3BwE9Lk=AOi-RCu4En-zJCe3rY+A@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 3:12 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> I'm not Stephan.
>
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Kevin Haskell via LinkedIn
> <member at linkedin.com> wrote:
>>
>> LinkedIn
>> Kevin Haskell requested to add you as a connection on LinkedIn:
>>
>> Stephan,
>> I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn.
>>


So far as I can tell this is a genuine message from Linkedin, just
sent to the wrong email address.

But there have been many fake invites pretending to be from social
sites like Linkedin. When you click on the Accept or View invitation
link, it takes you to a fake site which within a few seconds infects
your (Windows) PC with a virus.
See this article for more information.
<http://www.linkedinpersonaltrainer.com/2012/02/21/virus-threat-through-fake-linkedin-email/>

You should hover your mouse over any links in an email to see what the
actual link is, as it can be very different to that shown in the
email. You can also scan the linked site for viruses before going
there
Via Virustotal -  <https://www.virustotal.com/ >
Or if you are a Linkedin member, you can go direct to Linkedin and
check your messages there.

Apart from virus infections, Linkedin (and other social site members)
need to also watch out for phishing 'friend' requests from our friends
in Nigeria. Some people suggest never accepting 'friend' requests from
people you don't know in Real Life (TM), but you might miss out on
some useful / interesting contacts. You should at least check them out
first.

Best wishes, BillK


From eugen at leitl.org  Thu May 24 07:15:23 2012
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 09:15:23 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Invitation to connect on LinkedIn
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armi57FRtj5Yj086VnA3BwE9Lk=AOi-RCu4En-zJCe3rY+A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <847967757.125300.1337824234518.JavaMail.app@ela4-app2310.prod>
 <CAH=2ypXaTU=a23qJ4f7FMP352o_q6R_agaTr3r_ZmLSSHquKmg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armi57FRtj5Yj086VnA3BwE9Lk=AOi-RCu4En-zJCe3rY+A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120524071523.GL17120@leitl.org>

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 08:00:53AM +0100, BillK wrote:

> Apart from virus infections, Linkedin (and other social site members)
> need to also watch out for phishing 'friend' requests from our friends
> in Nigeria. Some people suggest never accepting 'friend' requests from
> people you don't know in Real Life (TM), but you might miss out on
> some useful / interesting contacts. You should at least check them out
> first.

By the way, since we're spamming the list with LinkedIn requests,
feel free to link up to http://www.linkedin.com/in/eleitl


From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Thu May 24 10:37:42 2012
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 06:37:42 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Invitation to connect on LinkedIn
In-Reply-To: <CAKrqSyEm5ticTqiy5WsMhnH-6Rjn-SC=+-Qg-XbVMZgODf_qsQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <847967757.125300.1337824234518.JavaMail.app@ela4-app2310.prod>
 <CAH=2ypXaTU=a23qJ4f7FMP352o_q6R_agaTr3r_ZmLSSHquKmg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyEm5ticTqiy5WsMhnH-6Rjn-SC=+-Qg-XbVMZgODf_qsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <35b5c10adf928fdbaaf28bde02f5e02c.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>

Nor am I, and I'm beginning to think LinkedIn is just
another spam organization. :(


> Well, I'M sure not Stephan!
>
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Stathis Papaioannou
> <stathisp at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I'm not Stephan.
>>
>> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Kevin Haskell via
>> LinkedIn <
>> member at linkedin.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  LinkedIn
>>> Kevin Haskell requested to add you as a connection on
>>> LinkedIn:
>>>
>>> Stephan,
>>>
>>> I'd like to add you to my professional network on
>>> LinkedIn.
>>>
>>> - Kevin
>>>
>>>   Accept<http://www.linkedin.com/e/z8t35u-h2l609u1-1t/XBa26G2kpQwFwjjrc_ZyPpnwp5oQcReweNnhW82Ht8-pIT/blk/I353727288_15/1BpC5vrmRLoRZcjkkZt5YCpnlOt3RApnhMpmdzgmhxrSNBszYRclYUe38TczsPdjd9bSZnpj9dkmVbbP0MdzoMejwNczsLrCBxbOYWrSlI/EML_comm_afe/?hs=false&tok=34QhEqaVTKelg1>
>>>   View invitation from Kevin
>>> Haskell<http://www.linkedin.com/e/z8t35u-h2l609u1-1t/XBa26G2kpQwFwjjrc_ZyPpnwp5oQcReweNnhW82Ht8-pIT/blk/I353727288_15/3kNnPwUczsOdPcRcQALqnpPbOYWrSlI/S2_svi/?hs=false&tok=2XjIowZYLKelg1>
>>>
>>>
>>> *WHY MIGHT CONNECTING WITH KEVIN HASKELL BE A GOOD
>>> IDEA?*
>>>
>>> *Kevin Haskell's connections could be useful to you*
>>>
>>> After accepting Kevin Haskell's invitation, check Kevin
>>> Haskell's
>>> connections to see who else you may know and who you
>>> might want an
>>> introduction to. Building these connections can create
>>> opportunities in the
>>> future.
>>>
>>>
>>> ? 2012, LinkedIn Corporation
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stathis Papaioannou
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>




From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Thu May 24 11:56:58 2012
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 04:56:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Invitation to connect on LinkedIn
In-Reply-To: <CAKrqSyEm5ticTqiy5WsMhnH-6Rjn-SC=+-Qg-XbVMZgODf_qsQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <847967757.125300.1337824234518.JavaMail.app@ela4-app2310.prod>
 <CAH=2ypXaTU=a23qJ4f7FMP352o_q6R_agaTr3r_ZmLSSHquKmg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyEm5ticTqiy5WsMhnH-6Rjn-SC=+-Qg-XbVMZgODf_qsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1337860618.78685.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

I think all of you are missing the point: In the future, everyone will be named Stephan. :)


Regards,

Dan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120524/8ee12b03/attachment.html>

From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Thu May 24 12:29:10 2012
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 05:29:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] SpaceX capsule ISS flyby successful
Message-ID: <1337862550.38679.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

http://www.space.com/15852-spacex-dragon-space-station-flyby.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120524/5b61e908/attachment.html>

From ddraig at gmail.com  Thu May 24 13:13:53 2012
From: ddraig at gmail.com (ddraig)
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 23:13:53 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Invitation to connect on LinkedIn
In-Reply-To: <1337860618.78685.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <847967757.125300.1337824234518.JavaMail.app@ela4-app2310.prod>
 <CAH=2ypXaTU=a23qJ4f7FMP352o_q6R_agaTr3r_ZmLSSHquKmg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyEm5ticTqiy5WsMhnH-6Rjn-SC=+-Qg-XbVMZgODf_qsQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1337860618.78685.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAGfkSy3t6qG7VjDmR6q=Yqs7mh=nGKvUN3F-3sJU599V4yFBhQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 24 May 2012 21:56, Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think all of you are missing the point: In the future, everyone will be
> named Stephan. :)

"I'm Stephan, and so is my wife!"


Dwayne
-- 
? ddraig at pobox.com irc.bluesphereweb.com #dna
? ? ? ?? ...r.e.t.u.r.n....t.o....t.h.e....s.o.u.r.c.e...
? ? ? ? http://tinyurl.com/he-is-right-you-know-jpg
our aim is wakefulness,? our enemy is dreamless sleep



From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Thu May 24 13:49:40 2012
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 15:49:40 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Wired article on AI risk
In-Reply-To: <CAOJFdbLkDmAeN1uNvmxCOcwuxTyygq+0bkSD45S0a793WozdxA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF=HMECg4XE2A2R29oiSsnrUsbw8uPtPiSmfrR-nmVwr1DR9eA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a45zUbMb0AiLTkShT=B4WyJB1ifE1MSXheA+mbwz5Y30w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZrbP1KDBj-26XBNjZEYkY140rfUZ8Xyj2yRg_7mg4=eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a73fAy8koK=iSSiMEZ3bvppP-KmyROPmoDnDPt+Ptqepw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZiR2EVYo50qmW_FPwwNeazKDN=Co7pLm4fx172WbcpTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbKBwwDrtyYUHanhkGnjOfV2uKr-LP4m=-J2PSgBMXgLYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a54K=QOnzus4jbS7CK23Vo2zk3_WZek4v_qFY3paA7big@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbLkDmAeN1uNvmxCOcwuxTyygq+0bkSD45S0a793WozdxA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPoR7a6-u5Dr0Zx_T5seGhRwa6BcGcNL86YSzH=JEi995e_C0A@mail.gmail.com>

On 24 May 2012 02:16, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On 23 May 2012 04:49, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Though stupid computers, as tools, can be instructed to "act" by AGI
> >> before mere humans can counter that action.
> >
> > How do you define stupid vs intelligent?
>
> It's a complex algorithm.  If it quacks like a duck... and it's a
> duck... it's not that intelligent.  But if it quacks like a duck...
> and it's a wolf trying to get close enough to eat a duck... that's
> intelligent.


Cool. So, no need to be an AGI to be exceedingly performant in quack
imitation. Even though a criterium would seem more plausible that allow to
discriminate as well stupider ducks from more intelligent ducks and be
generalised to this sort of problem.

 >> j/k I'm sure nothing we build can ever be used against us even by
> accident.
> >
> > "We" who?
>
> The smart people on this list?  The proles on this list?  Humanity in
> general?  To be honest, I was making a counterpoint to my first
> facetious argument with a second facetious argument.
>

Ah, OK. :-)

But I have developed an allergy to the pronoun, especially in contexts such
as "us vs them". Nothing against the concept per se, but I want to know at
least which "team" are we referring to, to see if it is the one I
support... :-)

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120524/0aceabbf/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Thu May 24 13:48:15 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 06:48:15 -0700
Subject: [ExI] scammers sending LinkedIn,
	RE:  Invitation to connect on LinkedIn
Message-ID: <006601cd39b3$df2f7150$9d8e53f0$@att.net>


>... On Behalf Of BillK
...

>...Apart from virus infections, Linkedin (and other social site members)
need to also watch out for phishing 'friend' requests...

Cool thanks BillK.

Kevin Haskell is one of ours, posted a few notes on ExI within the last
year, seemed sane to me.  I took him off moderation, but he didn't post much
after that.

>... from our friends in Nigeria... BillK

Nigeria again!  Oh the hapless Nigerians.  For some odd reason that
benighted land became ground zero for scammers.  I can't explain it, just
happened that way. But what if... a truly honest, charitable rich person
from Nigeria really did want to give away a ton of money?  Could she do it?


Think of it this way: we have at least one major religious system (vaguely
embraced by perhaps a quarter of humanity (depending on how you count (let
us assume loosely embrace))) that rewards gullibility with eternal life.  In
that system one need not be righteous exactly, but rather just to believe in
the religion, at which time the deity ignores one's sins, etc.  So it is so
amazing that some really rich person would want to lavish rewards on the
gullible?  And if so, Nigeria would be the perfect spot to base one's
operation, ja?  And the more implausible (but perfectly true) the scenario,
the better the scheme would work.

That could be the perfect gag, if not for the fact that it would be so
expensive.

spike




From sm at vreedom.de  Thu May 24 14:04:56 2012
From: sm at vreedom.de (sm at vreedom.de)
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 15:04:56 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The truth about Stephan
Message-ID: <012301cd39b6$33ae6270$9b0b2750$@vreedom.de>

 

I would guess the "Stephan" is me, because I also got the mail directly from
LinkedIn.

No idea how the copy reached ExI . . . 

Identity topics resolved, back to work :)

 

Stephan (Magnus)

http://www.VReedom.com
Twitter <http://twitter.com/stephmag>  stephmag

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120524/c44d6e33/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Thu May 24 14:07:15 2012
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 16:07:15 +0200
Subject: [ExI] scammers sending LinkedIn,
	RE:  Invitation to connect on	LinkedIn
In-Reply-To: <006601cd39b3$df2f7150$9d8e53f0$@att.net>
References: <006601cd39b3$df2f7150$9d8e53f0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <20120524140715.GS17120@leitl.org>

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 06:48:15AM -0700, spike wrote:

> >... from our friends in Nigeria... BillK
> 
> Nigeria again!  Oh the hapless Nigerians.  For some odd reason that
> benighted land became ground zero for scammers.  I can't explain it, just
> happened that way. But what if... a truly honest, charitable rich person
> from Nigeria really did want to give away a ton of money?  Could she do it?

It is funny you mention Nigeria. A friend of mine is building
a BTC-related business in Lagos.


From ddraig at gmail.com  Thu May 24 14:55:22 2012
From: ddraig at gmail.com (ddraig)
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 00:55:22 +1000
Subject: [ExI] scammers sending LinkedIn,
	RE: Invitation to connect on LinkedIn
In-Reply-To: <20120524140715.GS17120@leitl.org>
References: <006601cd39b3$df2f7150$9d8e53f0$@att.net>
 <20120524140715.GS17120@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <CAGfkSy3TqujXEW21n9-rbtJV26Oe4y_gGpgJ2EZSumffpP0GRw@mail.gmail.com>

On 25 May 2012 00:07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

> It is funny you mention Nigeria. A friend of mine is building
> a BTC-related business in Lagos.


Where else?   :-)

Dwayne
-- 
? ddraig at pobox.com irc.bluesphereweb.com #dna
? ? ? ?? ...r.e.t.u.r.n....t.o....t.h.e....s.o.u.r.c.e...
? ? ? ? http://tinyurl.com/he-is-right-you-know-jpg
our aim is wakefulness,? our enemy is dreamless sleep



From pharos at gmail.com  Thu May 24 14:50:48 2012
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 15:50:48 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Get Free books online
Message-ID: <CAL_armj21H0caPS4Ye2_DUS8Db0f22bKSQtmg8iQc1QZEXxMww@mail.gmail.com>

These links should be of interest.

102 Places For Free Science Fiction & Fantasy eBooks Online
446 Places for Free Books Online
90 Places For Free Audio Books Online
Also Book Genre pages.

<https://www.techsupportalert.com/free-books-science-fiction-fantasy>
<https://www.techsupportalert.com/content/50-places-free-books-online.htm>
<https://www.techsupportalert.com/free-books-audio>
<https://www.techsupportalert.com/content/50-places-free-books-online.htm#genre_pages>


BillK


From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Thu May 24 19:29:48 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 13:29:48 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Wired article on AI risk
In-Reply-To: <CAPoR7a7BjduQrz9N=yn2996QBGfWmcequ8Ff+4yvJg7knZXUgw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF=HMECg4XE2A2R29oiSsnrUsbw8uPtPiSmfrR-nmVwr1DR9eA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a45zUbMb0AiLTkShT=B4WyJB1ifE1MSXheA+mbwz5Y30w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZrbP1KDBj-26XBNjZEYkY140rfUZ8Xyj2yRg_7mg4=eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a73fAy8koK=iSSiMEZ3bvppP-KmyROPmoDnDPt+Ptqepw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZiR2EVYo50qmW_FPwwNeazKDN=Co7pLm4fx172WbcpTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a5qjmTJv2-VhXQA9oVJcS-cvXBhjdEkoGLeSxLxR=8O0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYb+ZQEqVNPH5-YUUfKeGqy3es9mxXX2RiyMVxZ2DEPjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a7BjduQrz9N=yn2996QBGfWmcequ8Ff+4yvJg7knZXUgw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwYhyX-3Bkb6pb0GLEM9WjTc4kznAj-j6AR8Ywowv2rD1g@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 May 2012 21:38, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Absolutely. In fact, I contend that given that beyond a very low level
>> > of
>> > complexity
>>
>> I grant this if the "low" level of complexity is far above the levels
>> we have achieved today.
>
>
> Not at all. From a cellular automaton to a Turing machine to the original
> 1980 PC, every system exhibiting the property of universal computation is
> beyond that level. See http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/section-12.1.

Ok Stefano, now you're playing in my sandbox... :-)

Computational equivalence means simply that one machine possesses the
same capacity as another to execute instructions. It says nothing of
speed. Even more importantly, it says nothing of memory. When you say
two machines are computationally equivalent, you aren't saying that
any program that runs on one will also run on the other because the
memory requirements could greatly outstrip the capacity of one or the
other of the machines.

To take Newton's approach of limits, imagine a machine with a total
memory (Disk and RAM) of only 10 bytes. Do you think you could
implement universal computation on that? I think not. The
computational equivalence math assumes infinite memory. Given infinite
memory and near infinite time, yes, an Atari 800 XL could simulate a
human brain, but it would be like watching a redwood tree grow, so
it's of little practical use.

>> But if the task is broadly defined, such as Darwinian "fitness within
>> a given environment" you can get pretty close to what lay people call
>> intelligence. If such fitness is in the environment of Wall Street,
>> then there are machines that are already smarter than most people.
>
> Absolutely, as are a number of very simple biological organisms.

If what you are saying is that there are simple biological organisms
that are better suited to a particular environment than we are, then
yes, by all means... One need go no further than extremophiles.

>> I'm not sure this is the main interest, but it is certainly an
>> important one. I think another main problem for AIs to solve is the
>> optimal employment of all available resources, which probably isn't
>> best accomplished with human-like intelligence, but something that is
>> far more capable in statistics. Human thought patterns are downright
>> contraindicated when compared with cold statistical analysis.
>
> OTOH, this require processing power, but not necessarily any kind of
> anthropomorphic, "classic AI", kind of intelligence.

I think the kinds of problems I'm thinking about would be best handled
by a hybrid intelligence. A human like pattern recognition module
linked tightly to a statistical engine of immense power.

>> > that is anedoctical, but eloquent.
>>
>> I'm about a third of the way through Wolfram's NKS right now, so I may
>> not have gotten the full force of his argument yet... but the main
>> thing that I get from him so far is that you can't predict the outcome
>> of chaotic systems from the initial state. I guess that's what you're
>> saying too.
>
> He makes a distinction between "predictable" (a program enumerating the
> powers of 2), chaotic (a program calculating the effect of the butterfly
> wings on hurricanes the other end of the world), and "truly unpredictable",
> which remain fully deterministic, but where the only way to calculate the
> final status is to run the program step by step to the end.

Ok. Not sure how it applies, but I get that.

>> But most computer science, as it is practiced today, is highly
>> predictable.
>
> Yes, even extremely simple programs can be shown to be fully unpredictable,
> that is, able to generate arbitrary degrees of complexity, even though they
> do not exhibit any especially intelligent behaviours.

Complexity and intelligence are not the same thing... I agree with
that. The digits of Pi are terribly complex but not at all
intelligent.

>> I think most of the discussion takes place from the perspective of
>> unenhanced human beings. Asked succinctly, Will the resources made
>> available to unenhanced human beings in the future be sufficient for
>> their needs (including survival into the indefinite future) and many
>> of their wants?
>
> "Unenhanced human beings" are going to create new entities, who will demand
> careful programming

Or training... which is different in a subtle way.

> at the beginning, and then will become more and more
> essential to the working of their societies, and eventually marginalise them
> altogether, while they gradually go extinct. This is called the succession
> of generations, and has gone on since human beings came first into
> existence. What else is new?

This clearly predates humans, and will survive us too. I hope.

>> Bostrom's existential risk applies to "earth-originated intelligence",
>> but most proles are more concerned about their skin and that of their
>> progeny.
>
> OK, as for their personal skin, they are under the much more actual threat
> of being dead *anyway* within less than a century in average, and in most
> cases much sooner, unless something drastic happens. As for their progeny,
> we have to define first what "progeny" is. Immediate children? Genetic
> successors? Co-specifics? "Children of the mind"? I am not sure there any
> final reason to opt for one definition or another, but I have an answer for
> each.

Yes, I realize it is a complex subject. But most proles care more for
their DNA progeny than the children of humanity's mind. There may be a
few AI researchers who would not fit this characterization, but they
are outliers.

I can accept that we will be inevitably out evolved by our creations,
but it took me a long time to get there.

>> It's the same problem we have convincing them that they are actually
>> better off letting the 1% run the world rather than the 99%.
>
> I have some views about that as well, but perhaps this will bring us too
> far... :-)

LOL... If we are uncomfortable in any way having the elites run the
world today, then how much more uncomfortable will we be about it when
the elites are not even human? Or, will it be like an autonomous
vehicle? More trustworthy than a chauffeur.

-Kelly


From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Thu May 24 19:34:04 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 13:34:04 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Invitation to connect on LinkedIn
In-Reply-To: <847967757.125300.1337824234518.JavaMail.app@ela4-app2310.prod>
References: <847967757.125300.1337824234518.JavaMail.app@ela4-app2310.prod>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwYW=JRLyfgVceNajJwnYg3TSZx+K9+uVKMg6d8wAotybQ@mail.gmail.com>

I think Linked in has a bug. It bit me last week. I used the feature to
invite selected individuals that I had emailed in the past. It let me
select which individuals to send the invitation to, then promptly ignored
the selected set and rather sent the invitation to EVERYONE I had ever
emailed, including mailing lists, ex wives and various other people.

So I don't think this was malicious, nor do I think it's the last time
we'll see this.

So for now, I would advise everyone to avoid using that particular linked
in feature.

-Kelly
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120524/cfc8e037/attachment.html>

From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Thu May 24 19:43:58 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 13:43:58 -0600
Subject: [ExI] SpaceX capsule ISS flyby successful
In-Reply-To: <1337862550.38679.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <1337862550.38679.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwYj5LZon74uXH4AEYzsj6yXyav0BqHD7FQH0C6LRdubKQ@mail.gmail.com>

"Dragon is due to spend just under a week berthed at the space
station. On Thursday (May 31), the vehicle will be packed with
completed science experiments and equipment ready to send back to
Earth. The capsule is equipped with a heat shield to withstand its
fiery re-entry through Earth's atmosphere, and is due to be recovered
by a team of ships in the Pacific Ocean."

If only it were packed with 500 kilograms of gold... LOL  Seriously,
this is the first time I had heard that it wasn't a one way trip.

Future versions will be able to land the capsule on land...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2FpFZXWrvs
Very cool, but unnecessarily complex for ore delivery... ;-)

-Kelly

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.space.com/15852-spacex-dragon-space-station-flyby.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Thu May 24 19:49:42 2012
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 12:49:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] SpaceX capsule ISS flyby successful
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwYj5LZon74uXH4AEYzsj6yXyav0BqHD7FQH0C6LRdubKQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1337862550.38679.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAPy8RwYj5LZon74uXH4AEYzsj6yXyav0BqHD7FQH0C6LRdubKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1337888982.64119.YahooMailNeo@web160601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

On Thursday, May 24, 2012 3:43 PM Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:

> "Dragon is due to spend just under a week berthed at the
> space station. On Thursday (May 31), the vehicle will be
> packed with completed science experiments and equipment
> ready to send back to Earth. The capsule is equipped with a
> heat shield to withstand its fiery re-entry through Earth's
> atmosphere, and is due to be recovered by a team of ships in
> the Pacific Ocean."
>
> If only it were packed with 500 kilograms of gold... LOL 

Where
 would it come from? That would have meant spending more than the gold 
is worth on the market to get it up to the ISS and back.

> Seriously, this is the first time I had heard that it wasn't a one
> way trip.

I'm surprised you didn't know as this was mentioned often in news reports on the mission.

> Future versions will be able to land the capsule on land...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2FpFZXWrvs
> Very cool, but unnecessarily complex for ore delivery... ;-)

Maybe so, but I don't think ore delivery was in any of the mission profiles. :)

Regards,

Dan


From rtomek at ceti.pl  Thu May 24 20:38:11 2012
From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola)
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 22:38:11 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [ExI] Get Free books online
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armj21H0caPS4Ye2_DUS8Db0f22bKSQtmg8iQc1QZEXxMww@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armj21H0caPS4Ye2_DUS8Db0f22bKSQtmg8iQc1QZEXxMww@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205242237020.10110@tau.ceti.pl>

On Thu, 24 May 2012, BillK wrote:

> These links should be of interest.
> 
> 102 Places For Free Science Fiction & Fantasy eBooks Online
> 446 Places for Free Books Online
> 90 Places For Free Audio Books Online
> Also Book Genre pages.
> 
> <https://www.techsupportalert.com/free-books-science-fiction-fantasy>
> <https://www.techsupportalert.com/content/50-places-free-books-online.htm>
> <https://www.techsupportalert.com/free-books-audio>
> <https://www.techsupportalert.com/content/50-places-free-books-online.htm#genre_pages>

Thanks,

Now I will have even less time if I start looking too deep into those 
links...

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **


From max at maxmore.com  Thu May 24 22:19:57 2012
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 15:19:57 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Get Free books online
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205242237020.10110@tau.ceti.pl>
References: <CAL_armj21H0caPS4Ye2_DUS8Db0f22bKSQtmg8iQc1QZEXxMww@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205242237020.10110@tau.ceti.pl>
Message-ID: <CAJX-7wXf76L9poY-As6Bv1DTb8EjiY6zwTayzWFStcpg6BHuUA@mail.gmail.com>

For those pages, Chrome warms me: "This link has insecure content".

--Max


On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Tomasz Rola <rtomek at ceti.pl> wrote:

> On Thu, 24 May 2012, BillK wrote:
>
> > These links should be of interest.
> >
> > 102 Places For Free Science Fiction & Fantasy eBooks Online
> > 446 Places for Free Books Online
> > 90 Places For Free Audio Books Online
> > Also Book Genre pages.
> >
> > <https://www.techsupportalert.com/free-books-science-fiction-fantasy>
> > <
> https://www.techsupportalert.com/content/50-places-free-books-online.htm>
> > <https://www.techsupportalert.com/free-books-audio>
> > <
> https://www.techsupportalert.com/content/50-places-free-books-online.htm#genre_pages
> >
>
> Thanks,
>
> Now I will have even less time if I start looking too deep into those
> links...
>
> Regards,
> Tomasz Rola
>
> --
> ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
> ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
> ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
> **                                                                 **
> ** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



-- 
Max More, PhD
Strategic Philosopher
Co-editor, *The Transhumanist Reader*
CEO, Alcor Life Extension Foundation
7895 E. Acoma Dr # 110
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
480/905-1906 ext 113
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120524/9f5912ea/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Thu May 24 22:43:15 2012
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 23:43:15 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Get Free books online
In-Reply-To: <CAJX-7wXf76L9poY-As6Bv1DTb8EjiY6zwTayzWFStcpg6BHuUA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armj21H0caPS4Ye2_DUS8Db0f22bKSQtmg8iQc1QZEXxMww@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205242237020.10110@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAJX-7wXf76L9poY-As6Bv1DTb8EjiY6zwTayzWFStcpg6BHuUA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAL_armiTSCPykFzyo_h6Oix2iks+QuYXCGHxb9bECy_BaBOh9g@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Max More wrote:
> For those pages, Chrome warms me: "This link has insecure content".
>
>

That is a known problem with Chrome. Apparently it is driving site
owners mad as they are losing traffic.

Chrome is detecting an SSL problem on many sites that have nothing
wrong with them.
Chrome forums have instructions on how to turn the SSL checks off.
This is not necessarily a good idea.  ;)

I use Firefox which also warns about dodgy websites and finds no
problem with the links I gave.
www.techsupportalert.com is one of the most reliable sites on the web.
I visit there almost every day and none of my defences are ever
triggered by them.


BillK


From max at maxmore.com  Fri May 25 01:58:27 2012
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 18:58:27 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Get Free books online
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armiTSCPykFzyo_h6Oix2iks+QuYXCGHxb9bECy_BaBOh9g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armj21H0caPS4Ye2_DUS8Db0f22bKSQtmg8iQc1QZEXxMww@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205242237020.10110@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAJX-7wXf76L9poY-As6Bv1DTb8EjiY6zwTayzWFStcpg6BHuUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armiTSCPykFzyo_h6Oix2iks+QuYXCGHxb9bECy_BaBOh9g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJX-7wXyz4qN5QeS29xKY0GLaWb6Xsjck=Dh-KfCM9oQ88r+gg@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks, Bill. I do also use Firefox and IE, so I'll retry the sites with
one of those. In my experience, every browser has a problem that others
don't. Hence my using three of them.

--Max


On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 3:43 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Max More wrote:
> > For those pages, Chrome warms me: "This link has insecure content".
> >
> >
>
> That is a known problem with Chrome. Apparently it is driving site
> owners mad as they are losing traffic.
>
> Chrome is detecting an SSL problem on many sites that have nothing
> wrong with them.
> Chrome forums have instructions on how to turn the SSL checks off.
> This is not necessarily a good idea.  ;)
>
> I use Firefox which also warns about dodgy websites and finds no
> problem with the links I gave.
> www.techsupportalert.com is one of the most reliable sites on the web.
> I visit there almost every day and none of my defences are ever
> triggered by them.
>
>
> BillK
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



-- 
Max More, PhD
Strategic Philosopher
Co-editor, *The Transhumanist Reader*
CEO, Alcor Life Extension Foundation
7895 E. Acoma Dr # 110
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
480/905-1906 ext 113
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120524/2411ad32/attachment.html>

From rtomek at ceti.pl  Fri May 25 04:53:23 2012
From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola)
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 06:53:23 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [ExI] Get Free books online
In-Reply-To: <CAJX-7wXyz4qN5QeS29xKY0GLaWb6Xsjck=Dh-KfCM9oQ88r+gg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armj21H0caPS4Ye2_DUS8Db0f22bKSQtmg8iQc1QZEXxMww@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205242237020.10110@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAJX-7wXf76L9poY-As6Bv1DTb8EjiY6zwTayzWFStcpg6BHuUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armiTSCPykFzyo_h6Oix2iks+QuYXCGHxb9bECy_BaBOh9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJX-7wXyz4qN5QeS29xKY0GLaWb6Xsjck=Dh-KfCM9oQ88r+gg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205250622500.22225@tau.ceti.pl>

On Thu, 24 May 2012, Max More wrote:

> Thanks, Bill. I do also use Firefox and IE, so I'll retry the sites with
> one of those. In my experience, every browser has a problem that others
> don't. Hence my using three of them.
> 
> --Max

Myself, I find Opera quite good for reading pages containing mostly text 
(documentation, manuals, news, tutorials etc). It has some nice keyboard 
tricks, at least my fingers like them. Of course it can be used as normal 
multimedia browser (or so they say), but I like it's ability to quickly 
switch on/off various aspects of browsing, cookies, Javascripts and 
plugins, and so on. No mouse required for this, that's my browser.

It is also nice to quickly dumb the browser down to text+images level for 
combat reconnaisance of possibly baad pages.

The common denominator is of course browsing with no cookies, scripts and 
plugins and surprisingly, sites with informational content render quite 
well. Those other sites I watch with Mozilla/Firefox (running IE under 
Linux would be too much trouble to be worth it), but under different user 
so that if the hell breaks loose it doesn't go very far.

Under Windows there is runas command that could be used for similar effect 
(I don't know if all Windows versions treat different users as different 
users - I guess I have read once there were some lobotimised Windows 
Cheap/Home where every user could sh*t into every other user's files even 
though they too had runas onboard, they just ignored it - or maybe they 
had only one user really, so changing had no effect, it was long ago).

I think it would serve folks  well if they learned to run software under 
different users, at least in case of browsing. OTOH, a nice program 
shielding from malice is ok, too.

BTW, there are some nice plugins for Firefox, like NoScript.

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Fri May 25 13:39:23 2012
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 15:39:23 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Wired article on AI risk
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwYhyX-3Bkb6pb0GLEM9WjTc4kznAj-j6AR8Ywowv2rD1g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF=HMECg4XE2A2R29oiSsnrUsbw8uPtPiSmfrR-nmVwr1DR9eA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a45zUbMb0AiLTkShT=B4WyJB1ifE1MSXheA+mbwz5Y30w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZrbP1KDBj-26XBNjZEYkY140rfUZ8Xyj2yRg_7mg4=eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a73fAy8koK=iSSiMEZ3bvppP-KmyROPmoDnDPt+Ptqepw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZiR2EVYo50qmW_FPwwNeazKDN=Co7pLm4fx172WbcpTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a5qjmTJv2-VhXQA9oVJcS-cvXBhjdEkoGLeSxLxR=8O0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYb+ZQEqVNPH5-YUUfKeGqy3es9mxXX2RiyMVxZ2DEPjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a7BjduQrz9N=yn2996QBGfWmcequ8Ff+4yvJg7knZXUgw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYhyX-3Bkb6pb0GLEM9WjTc4kznAj-j6AR8Ywowv2rD1g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPoR7a5dpFjTEtdCMC1edaRXMaTa+MgJgB=26cPHRoGdUWRuZg@mail.gmail.com>

On 24 May 2012 21:29, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ok Stefano, now you're playing in my sandbox... :-)
>

Hey, happy to hear that.

Computational equivalence means simply that one machine possesses the
> same capacity as another to execute instructions. It says nothing of
> speed. Even more importantly, it says nothing of memory. When you say
> two machines are computationally equivalent, you aren't saying that
> any program that runs on one will also run on the other because the
> memory requirements could greatly outstrip the capacity of one or the
> other of the machines.
>

My understanding is exactly that. A Power Macintosh could emulate an Intel
PC because given unlimited time and unlimited memory anything that is a
"universal computer" can emulate any system at all - even though this may
be true for quantum processors only in theory.


> To take Newton's approach of limits, imagine a machine with a total
> memory (Disk and RAM) of only 10 bytes. Do you think you could
> implement universal computation on that? I think not. The
> computational equivalence math assumes infinite memory. Given infinite
> memory and near infinite time, yes, an Atari 800 XL could simulate a
> human brain, but it would be like watching a redwood tree grow, so
> it's of little practical use.
>

Absolutely. I am note sure whether a Chinese Room is a universal computer,
but if it is, the solution of the Searle objection is that its intelligence
given whatever software is counterintuitive not for any structural reason,
but simply because a real-world implementation would require multiples of
the age of the universe for each interaction.

> He makes a distinction between "predictable" (a program enumerating the
> > powers of 2), chaotic (a program calculating the effect of the butterfly
> > wings on hurricanes the other end of the world), and "truly
> unpredictable",
> > which remain fully deterministic, but where the only way to calculate the
> > final status is to run the program step by step to the end.
>
> Ok. Not sure how it applies, but I get that.
>

In this sense, an organic brain, human or otherwise, would be
"unpredictable", and yet fully deterministic, not because of some
misterious "free will", but similarly to innumerable other physical
processes, and even to a few very simple computer programs. A classic,
anthropomorphic, Turing-qualified AGI would certainly exhibit the same
property, but Wolfram's point is that this property is nothing special and
is actually shared by the vast majority of possible processes and
phenomena, the contrary opinion arising from a selection bias where
scientific thought has so far concentrated exclusively to the subset of
problems amenable to an easy algorithimic solution, and generalised the
idea that this must be true for all or almost all problem (human mind
perhaps exceptionally excluded for metaphysical reasons).

> OK, as for their personal skin, they are under the much more actual threat
> > of being dead *anyway* within less than a century in average, and in most
> > cases much sooner, unless something drastic happens. As for their
> progeny,
> > we have to define first what "progeny" is. Immediate children? Genetic
> > successors? Co-specifics? "Children of the mind"? I am not sure there any
> > final reason to opt for one definition or another, but I have an answer
> for
> > each.
>
> Yes, I realize it is a complex subject. But most proles care more for
> their DNA progeny than the children of humanity's mind.
>

This would have indeed little to do with "x-risk" rhetoric, because every
human who is not a direct descendant of the individual concerned does not
qualify. And while children share 50% of the genetic endowment of each
parent, already grand-children share only 25%, and so on. Accordingly, in
terms "caring for one's DNA", AGIs increasing by 10% the life of one's
children at the price of the immediate extinction of the rest of humankind,
and the extinction of the offspring itself of the invidual concerned but
only after a few generation, should be heartily welcome by the said proles.

OTOH, humans easily extend their "survival" istinct to adoptive children,
to disciples, and to collective identities (say, France, or the catholic
church, or the family business, or the communist party), and this even when
this may have a cost for their own personal interest of that of their
immediate biological children; so, not only this is not the ethical POV of
the AGI doom-mongers, but has little to do with real-world priority
scales...

> I have some views about that as well, but perhaps this will bring us too
> > far... :-)
>
> LOL... If we are uncomfortable in any way having the elites run the
> world today, then how much more uncomfortable will we be about it when
> the elites are not even human?
>

Let us say that I am a British lady, who is uncomfortable with the rule of
Queen Elizabeth II. Should I really be concerned upon how much more
uncomfortable I will be when the monarch will "not even be a woman"? :-)

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120525/90ee7c34/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Fri May 25 14:40:21 2012
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 15:40:21 +0100
Subject: [ExI] SpaceX capsule ISS flyby successful
In-Reply-To: <1337862550.38679.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <1337862550.38679.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAL_armj+5k30TCy3BP5u7Lqbc40upZ-gc9Ss-RrxdoUfgE7kjg@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Dan  wrote:
> http://www.space.com/15852-spacex-dragon-space-station-flyby.html
>
>


Dragon is now being held by the ISS robotic arm.
After some more checkouts, Pettit will use the arm to move the capsule
to the station's Earth-facing Harmony node and dock it there.

You can watch a live TV feed here:
<http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/05/spacex-rendezvous-iss/>
Currently about 18,000 people watching.


BillK


From max at maxmore.com  Fri May 25 17:29:36 2012
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 10:29:36 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter
Message-ID: <CAJX-7wXQ45FPy0cadUMk73W9GQwBoCsrLa608680EpxVQm439A@mail.gmail.com>

Interesting to see this piece on Spiked Online:
http://www.spiked-online.com/site/earticle/12470/


-- 
Max More, PhD
Strategic Philosopher
Co-editor, *The Transhumanist Reader*
CEO, Alcor Life Extension Foundation
7895 E. Acoma Dr # 110
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
480/905-1906 ext 113
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120525/9f2edaaf/attachment.html>

From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Fri May 25 19:42:15 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 13:42:15 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter
In-Reply-To: <CAJX-7wXQ45FPy0cadUMk73W9GQwBoCsrLa608680EpxVQm439A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJX-7wXQ45FPy0cadUMk73W9GQwBoCsrLa608680EpxVQm439A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8Rwa9X2dYMjZp1G8RP54zPLxrC70Zr0=ogw2kJGhwHmwTAQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:
> Interesting to see this piece on Spiked Online:
> http://www.spiked-online.com/site/earticle/12470/

Seems like someone has been paying attention. :-)

I especially liked the insight that equilibrium is death and that the
gospel of sustainability is a play for equilibrium. That seems like an
especially important idea. While conservation is to be admired when it
can be achieved, in the long term it isn't the solution.

I disagree with his assertion that only nuclear power can see us
forward... I think solar photovoltaics also have the potential to meet
the need. Other than that, I thought the article was pretty dead on.

The humans as grey goo argument was also interesting.

-Kelly


From steinberg.will at gmail.com  Fri May 25 20:15:15 2012
From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg)
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 15:15:15 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8Rwa9X2dYMjZp1G8RP54zPLxrC70Zr0=ogw2kJGhwHmwTAQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJX-7wXQ45FPy0cadUMk73W9GQwBoCsrLa608680EpxVQm439A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa9X2dYMjZp1G8RP54zPLxrC70Zr0=ogw2kJGhwHmwTAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKrqSyFaG3YzHvj9oYktL+FvkT6bFjLteR+y-Deww-5+1x6rLg@mail.gmail.com>

I disagree with his ascription of consciousness to humans only.  I believe
consciousness is a byproduct of energy flows intricately related to
entropy/complexity. The annihilation of complements provides energy and
entropy, and this is the forge of conscious perception and experience.  We
can only perceive of consciousness on neurological time scales, but I have
been questioning recently whether we are in the looooong cognition of
"Gaia" through breeding and selection, as gods small and large, planets and
humans, learn about themselves through the lens of the complement.
Obviously we can't cogitate Gaia thoughts as a neuron cannot cogitate human
thoughts.
On May 25, 2012 2:43 PM, "Kelly Anderson" <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:
> > Interesting to see this piece on Spiked Online:
> > http://www.spiked-online.com/site/earticle/12470/
>
> Seems like someone has been paying attention. :-)
>
> I especially liked the insight that equilibrium is death and that the
> gospel of sustainability is a play for equilibrium. That seems like an
> especially important idea. While conservation is to be admired when it
> can be achieved, in the long term it isn't the solution.
>
> I disagree with his assertion that only nuclear power can see us
> forward... I think solar photovoltaics also have the potential to meet
> the need. Other than that, I thought the article was pretty dead on.
>
> The humans as grey goo argument was also interesting.
>
> -Kelly
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120525/2743ba68/attachment.html>

From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Fri May 25 21:37:03 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 15:37:03 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter
In-Reply-To: <CAKrqSyFaG3YzHvj9oYktL+FvkT6bFjLteR+y-Deww-5+1x6rLg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJX-7wXQ45FPy0cadUMk73W9GQwBoCsrLa608680EpxVQm439A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa9X2dYMjZp1G8RP54zPLxrC70Zr0=ogw2kJGhwHmwTAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyFaG3YzHvj9oYktL+FvkT6bFjLteR+y-Deww-5+1x6rLg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwYtzNeA80C4sLN7_h3DfoE6Nz62z2bU_iWSs=haQTWoJg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Will Steinberg
<steinberg.will at gmail.com> wrote:
> I disagree with his ascription of consciousness to humans only.? I believe
> consciousness is a byproduct of energy flows intricately related to
> entropy/complexity. The annihilation of complements provides energy and
> entropy, and this is the forge of conscious perception and experience.? We
> can only perceive of consciousness on neurological time scales, but I have
> been questioning recently whether we are in the looooong cognition of "Gaia"
> through breeding and selection, as gods small and large, planets and humans,
> learn about themselves through the lens of the complement.? Obviously we
> can't cogitate Gaia thoughts as a neuron cannot cogitate human thoughts.

There is no question that the earth is a super-organism, and that we
make up some of it's moving parts. But "consciousness" involves
self-awareness... thoughts that come from sensory organs. Earth
doesn't have sensory organs... In other words, while you can argue
that earth has "organs", you can't point to one of those organs and
say, "there is the seat of thought." Does the earth "process data",
yes, in the same sense that your pancreas does. Do you think your
pancreas is conscious? It is a self-regulating system, which is cool,
but doesn't rise to my definition of consciousness.

Now, if you throw in the Internet, a kind of nervous system for the
earth, then the earth as a whole might have consciousness someday...
but not the raw earth. This may be a religious viewpoint, but it's my
opinion. How would you argue differently Will? The only way you could
(that I can think of) is to redefine consciousness in such a way that
it loses the little firmness in meaning that it already has.

-Kelly



From steinberg.will at gmail.com  Fri May 25 22:09:32 2012
From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg)
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 17:09:32 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwYtzNeA80C4sLN7_h3DfoE6Nz62z2bU_iWSs=haQTWoJg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJX-7wXQ45FPy0cadUMk73W9GQwBoCsrLa608680EpxVQm439A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa9X2dYMjZp1G8RP54zPLxrC70Zr0=ogw2kJGhwHmwTAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyFaG3YzHvj9oYktL+FvkT6bFjLteR+y-Deww-5+1x6rLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYtzNeA80C4sLN7_h3DfoE6Nz62z2bU_iWSs=haQTWoJg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKrqSyH_xVtGR2Aa6d2Jd5Y5PDyXohnL7GcsoznU+BNHKompbA@mail.gmail.com>

Yes, I think consciousness needs redefinition somehow.  I think the insane
force of my conscious perception is not really related to my intelligence
or the complexity of my thoughts but of a simpler, universal standard of
how energy and information are transmuted and encoded between various
systems.  The human brain is more conscious only in that it contains many
learned universal facts in it.  We acquire these by observing
cause-and-effect scenarios--physical and chemical reactions.  We are more
noticeably conscious because we have memories of these reactions.  I think
your pancreas is as conscious as the information it needs to process.  In
essence I am saying there is no seat of consciousness, only an emergent,
holographic pattern, called the "self" that the brain develops to cope with
the insane amount of data it receives, and that a pancreas has some
confusing pancreatic form of perception and no overarching data management
system, so it perceives selflessly as part of universal conscious force.

I think the self develops out of "oceanic consciousness" as a platform to
understand language and culture.
On May 25, 2012 4:37 PM, "Kelly Anderson" <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Will Steinberg
> <steinberg.will at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I disagree with his ascription of consciousness to humans only.  I
> believe
> > consciousness is a byproduct of energy flows intricately related to
> > entropy/complexity. The annihilation of complements provides energy and
> > entropy, and this is the forge of conscious perception and experience.
> We
> > can only perceive of consciousness on neurological time scales, but I
> have
> > been questioning recently whether we are in the looooong cognition of
> "Gaia"
> > through breeding and selection, as gods small and large, planets and
> humans,
> > learn about themselves through the lens of the complement.  Obviously we
> > can't cogitate Gaia thoughts as a neuron cannot cogitate human thoughts.
>
> There is no question that the earth is a super-organism, and that we
> make up some of it's moving parts. But "consciousness" involves
> self-awareness... thoughts that come from sensory organs. Earth
> doesn't have sensory organs... In other words, while you can argue
> that earth has "organs", you can't point to one of those organs and
> say, "there is the seat of thought." Does the earth "process data",
> yes, in the same sense that your pancreas does. Do you think your
> pancreas is conscious? It is a self-regulating system, which is cool,
> but doesn't rise to my definition of consciousness.
>
> Now, if you throw in the Internet, a kind of nervous system for the
> earth, then the earth as a whole might have consciousness someday...
> but not the raw earth. This may be a religious viewpoint, but it's my
> opinion. How would you argue differently Will? The only way you could
> (that I can think of) is to redefine consciousness in such a way that
> it loses the little firmness in meaning that it already has.
>
> -Kelly
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120525/6f0c8cba/attachment.html>

From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Sat May 26 19:54:11 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 13:54:11 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter
In-Reply-To: <CAKrqSyH_xVtGR2Aa6d2Jd5Y5PDyXohnL7GcsoznU+BNHKompbA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJX-7wXQ45FPy0cadUMk73W9GQwBoCsrLa608680EpxVQm439A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa9X2dYMjZp1G8RP54zPLxrC70Zr0=ogw2kJGhwHmwTAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyFaG3YzHvj9oYktL+FvkT6bFjLteR+y-Deww-5+1x6rLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYtzNeA80C4sLN7_h3DfoE6Nz62z2bU_iWSs=haQTWoJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyH_xVtGR2Aa6d2Jd5Y5PDyXohnL7GcsoznU+BNHKompbA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwbYANC603grrYZ7KqF2bGQ=NoOeAoTW4-TTy0KzV+K4bQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Will Steinberg
<steinberg.will at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, I think consciousness needs redefinition somehow.

OK, if you want to redefine it, then I suppose my bedroom slippers are
conscious too. :-)

>I think the insane
> force of my conscious perception is not really related to my intelligence or
> the complexity of my thoughts but of a simpler, universal standard of how
> energy and information are transmuted and encoded between various systems.

And your evidence for this is...

> The human brain is more conscious only in that it contains many learned
> universal facts in it.? We acquire these by observing cause-and-effect
> scenarios--physical and chemical reactions.? We are more noticeably
> conscious because we have memories of these reactions.? I think your
> pancreas is as conscious as the information it needs to process.? In essence
> I am saying there is no seat of consciousness, only an emergent, holographic
> pattern, called the "self" that the brain develops to cope with the insane
> amount of data it receives, and that a pancreas has some confusing
> pancreatic form of perception and no overarching data management system, so
> it perceives selflessly as part of universal conscious force.

How do you "perceive" if you are a pancreas? I must admit that I find
your understanding of consciousness to be very foreign from mine.

> I think the self develops out of "oceanic consciousness" as a platform to
> understand language and culture.

So if a pancreas doesn't understand language and culture, then is it
conscious? I think that at a minimum consciousness would involve
communicating with similar creatures. Thus dogs and cats are
conscious. Ants might be conscious, but perhaps less so. It's probably
a continuum. But the earth doesn't "communicate" with any other
planets, does it?

-Kelly



From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sat May 26 21:13:24 2012
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 23:13:24 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter
In-Reply-To: <CAKrqSyH_xVtGR2Aa6d2Jd5Y5PDyXohnL7GcsoznU+BNHKompbA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJX-7wXQ45FPy0cadUMk73W9GQwBoCsrLa608680EpxVQm439A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa9X2dYMjZp1G8RP54zPLxrC70Zr0=ogw2kJGhwHmwTAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyFaG3YzHvj9oYktL+FvkT6bFjLteR+y-Deww-5+1x6rLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYtzNeA80C4sLN7_h3DfoE6Nz62z2bU_iWSs=haQTWoJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyH_xVtGR2Aa6d2Jd5Y5PDyXohnL7GcsoznU+BNHKompbA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPoR7a6VEgJ=M5KDNo1zmDo_GyQMrfYubqtRUD4_bWSDOs_oAw@mail.gmail.com>

On 26 May 2012 00:09, Will Steinberg <steinberg.will at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, I think consciousness needs redefinition somehow.
>
It need not really be a "subjective" or "essentialist" consciousness
definition, OTOH.

Let us just say that a universe where an increasing presence exists of
entities exhibiting behaviours making it easy to hallucinate our internal
states on them is aesthetically more pleasant in cosmic terms for most of
us. :-)

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120526/f8832567/attachment.html>

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sat May 26 21:05:46 2012
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 23:05:46 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8Rwa9X2dYMjZp1G8RP54zPLxrC70Zr0=ogw2kJGhwHmwTAQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJX-7wXQ45FPy0cadUMk73W9GQwBoCsrLa608680EpxVQm439A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa9X2dYMjZp1G8RP54zPLxrC70Zr0=ogw2kJGhwHmwTAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPoR7a6gz9x047L5Ts6MA1n_Bs24n9du+Mn68X1-PCGYoLLigg@mail.gmail.com>

On 25 May 2012 21:42, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:

> I especially liked the insight that equilibrium is death and that the
> gospel of sustainability is a play for equilibrium.
>

So did I. Nothing especially new for those participating in the H+ culture,
but a concise, cogent and inspirational piece nevertheless.

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120526/22b9b203/attachment.html>

From lubkin at unreasonable.com  Sat May 26 21:58:25 2012
From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 17:58:25 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Invitation to connect on LinkedIn
In-Reply-To: <1337860618.78685.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
 >
References: <847967757.125300.1337824234518.JavaMail.app@ela4-app2310.prod>
 <CAH=2ypXaTU=a23qJ4f7FMP352o_q6R_agaTr3r_ZmLSSHquKmg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyEm5ticTqiy5WsMhnH-6Rjn-SC=+-Qg-XbVMZgODf_qsQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1337860618.78685.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <201205262303.q4QN3FMo012220@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

I find LinkedIn very useful but the "feature" that these sites have of
letting you blast an invite to everyone in your address book is
obnoxious. You'd *think* anyone you knew was smart enough to
know better.

List owners -- The first time I got a LinkedIn invite sent to a list
I run, I added a spam filter to reject them. It's trivial in Mailman --
just match on the header pattern

X-LinkedIn.*: .*


-- David.



From steinberg.will at gmail.com  Sat May 26 23:04:39 2012
From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg)
Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 18:04:39 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter
In-Reply-To: <CAPoR7a6VEgJ=M5KDNo1zmDo_GyQMrfYubqtRUD4_bWSDOs_oAw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJX-7wXQ45FPy0cadUMk73W9GQwBoCsrLa608680EpxVQm439A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa9X2dYMjZp1G8RP54zPLxrC70Zr0=ogw2kJGhwHmwTAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyFaG3YzHvj9oYktL+FvkT6bFjLteR+y-Deww-5+1x6rLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYtzNeA80C4sLN7_h3DfoE6Nz62z2bU_iWSs=haQTWoJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyH_xVtGR2Aa6d2Jd5Y5PDyXohnL7GcsoznU+BNHKompbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a6VEgJ=M5KDNo1zmDo_GyQMrfYubqtRUD4_bWSDOs_oAw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKrqSyH4DAxRueCCQhsFonVhXoXCMJY7-tGzyiuiztBURYTPCA@mail.gmail.com>

This guy gets it!

On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 26 May 2012 00:09, Will Steinberg <steinberg.will at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I think consciousness needs redefinition somehow.
>>
> It need not really be a "subjective" or "essentialist" consciousness
> definition, OTOH.
>
> Let us just say that a universe where an increasing presence exists of
> entities exhibiting behaviours making it easy to hallucinate our internal
> states on them is aesthetically more pleasant in cosmic terms for most of
> us. :-)
>
> --
> Stefano Vaj
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120526/98196633/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun May 27 02:30:39 2012
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 19:30:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwbYANC603grrYZ7KqF2bGQ=NoOeAoTW4-TTy0KzV+K4bQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJX-7wXQ45FPy0cadUMk73W9GQwBoCsrLa608680EpxVQm439A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa9X2dYMjZp1G8RP54zPLxrC70Zr0=ogw2kJGhwHmwTAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyFaG3YzHvj9oYktL+FvkT6bFjLteR+y-Deww-5+1x6rLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYtzNeA80C4sLN7_h3DfoE6Nz62z2bU_iWSs=haQTWoJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyH_xVtGR2Aa6d2Jd5Y5PDyXohnL7GcsoznU+BNHKompbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwbYANC603grrYZ7KqF2bGQ=NoOeAoTW4-TTy0KzV+K4bQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1338085839.56273.YahooMailNeo@web164502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

----- Original Message -----
> From: Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Cc: 
> Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2012 12:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter
> 
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Will Steinberg
> <steinberg.will at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes, I think consciousness needs redefinition somehow.
> 
> OK, if you want to redefine it, then I suppose my bedroom slippers are
> conscious too. :-)

At the very least, your slippers seem to remember they are slippers rather than amourphous fuzzy blobs. Will's point is that unless you are willing to believe that there is a *qualitative* difference between living and non-living matter, then all differences must necessarily be quantitative in nature and involving the interplay between energy and entropy. So unless you have a soul, your slippers are less conscious than you, but still conscious.??
?
>> I think the insane
>> force of my conscious perception is not really related to my intelligence 
> or
>> the complexity of my thoughts but of a simpler, universal standard of how
>> energy and information are transmuted and encoded between various systems.
> 
> And your evidence for this is...
> 
>> The human brain is more conscious only in that it contains many learned
>> universal facts in it.? We acquire these by observing cause-and-effect
>> scenarios--physical and chemical reactions.? We are more noticeably
>> conscious because we have memories of these reactions.? I think your
>> pancreas is as conscious as the information it needs to process.? In 
> essence
>> I am saying there is no seat of consciousness, only an emergent, 
> holographic
>> pattern, called the "self" that the brain develops to cope with 
> the insane
>> amount of data it receives, and that a pancreas has some confusing
>> pancreatic form of perception and no overarching data management system, so
>> it perceives selflessly as part of universal conscious force.
> 
> How do you "perceive" if you are a pancreas? I must admit that I find
> your understanding of consciousness to be very foreign from mine.

The pancreas percieves?your other organs and thus its "world" chemically.?The pancreas thus is able to know when you have just eaten so it can squirt digestive enzymes into your intestines.
?
>> I think the self develops out of "oceanic consciousness" as a 
> platform to
>> understand language and culture.
> 
> So if a pancreas doesn't understand language and culture, then is it
> conscious? I think that at a minimum consciousness would involve
> communicating with similar creatures. Thus dogs and cats are
> conscious. Ants might be conscious, but perhaps less so. It's probably
> a continuum. But the earth doesn't "communicate" with any other
> planets, does it?

If you define communication as "influencing from afar" then yes, the earth does communicate with everything else in space-time by curving space-time. Similarly in quantum mechanics, every particle-wave influences every other particle-wave at FTL speeds no less. If you are a many-worlder than?every particle in?every possible universe?is described by one gigantic unitary wave function.

Therefore there is no evidentiary contradiction to the mystic idea of the fundamental?unity of all things. Every atom might have an "atom's worth" of consciousness capable of making decisions that in essence determine when and where that atom manifests or decays into a different atom. The idea is called panpsychism and is very difficult to rule out scientifically.
?


Stuart LaForge
?
"Man is a strange animal, he doesn't like to read the handwriting on the wall until his back is up against it."? -Adlai Stevenson




From brent.allsop at canonizer.com  Sun May 27 02:03:56 2012
From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop)
Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 20:03:56 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter
In-Reply-To: <CAKrqSyH4DAxRueCCQhsFonVhXoXCMJY7-tGzyiuiztBURYTPCA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJX-7wXQ45FPy0cadUMk73W9GQwBoCsrLa608680EpxVQm439A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa9X2dYMjZp1G8RP54zPLxrC70Zr0=ogw2kJGhwHmwTAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyFaG3YzHvj9oYktL+FvkT6bFjLteR+y-Deww-5+1x6rLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYtzNeA80C4sLN7_h3DfoE6Nz62z2bU_iWSs=haQTWoJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyH_xVtGR2Aa6d2Jd5Y5PDyXohnL7GcsoznU+BNHKompbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a6VEgJ=M5KDNo1zmDo_GyQMrfYubqtRUD4_bWSDOs_oAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyH4DAxRueCCQhsFonVhXoXCMJY7-tGzyiuiztBURYTPCA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4FC18B8C.3070101@canonizer.com>


Extropians,

There seems to already be an emerging expert consensus theory that 
predicts exactly how to define this stuff and how science is about to 
prove such is true - which if such does occur, as being predicted, it 
will obviously prove to everyone that they are right, and what 
consciousness is.

At least there is a clear consensus, till you get down to the difference 
between "Functional Property Dualism" (Chalmers' "subjective" camp where 
a quale like redness is correlated with the right function, whether it 
is neurons or silicon see: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/8) vs 
"Material Property Dualism", more of an "essentialist" camp that 
predicts without the right stuff, in the right state, no redness quale 
is possible.  (see: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/7 )  Obviously 
both of these are very testable theories for which it is only a matter 
of time till they demonstrate which one is THE ONE.

My money is with the consensus and the Materialst view.  What about 
you?  Any other view?

Brent Allsop




On 5/26/2012 5:04 PM, Will Steinberg wrote:
> This guy gets it!
>
> On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com 
> <mailto:stefano.vaj at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 26 May 2012 00:09, Will Steinberg <steinberg.will at gmail.com
>     <mailto:steinberg.will at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         Yes, I think consciousness needs redefinition somehow.
>
>     It need not really be a "subjective" or "essentialist"
>     consciousness definition, OTOH.
>
>     Let us just say that a universe where an increasing presence
>     exists of entities exhibiting behaviours making it easy to
>     hallucinate our internal states on them is aesthetically more
>     pleasant in cosmic terms for most of us. :-)
>     -- 
>     Stefano Vaj
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     extropy-chat mailing list
>     extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org <mailto:extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>     http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120526/00c38183/attachment.html>

From thirdeyeoferis at gmail.com  Sun May 27 15:11:29 2012
From: thirdeyeoferis at gmail.com (Thirdeye Of Eris)
Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 11:11:29 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter
In-Reply-To: <4FC18B8C.3070101@canonizer.com>
References: <CAJX-7wXQ45FPy0cadUMk73W9GQwBoCsrLa608680EpxVQm439A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa9X2dYMjZp1G8RP54zPLxrC70Zr0=ogw2kJGhwHmwTAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyFaG3YzHvj9oYktL+FvkT6bFjLteR+y-Deww-5+1x6rLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYtzNeA80C4sLN7_h3DfoE6Nz62z2bU_iWSs=haQTWoJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyH_xVtGR2Aa6d2Jd5Y5PDyXohnL7GcsoznU+BNHKompbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a6VEgJ=M5KDNo1zmDo_GyQMrfYubqtRUD4_bWSDOs_oAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyH4DAxRueCCQhsFonVhXoXCMJY7-tGzyiuiztBURYTPCA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4FC18B8C.3070101@canonizer.com>
Message-ID: <CABiOS7pUHrvMPaTJe_DS9B+VJvCDt6MvmP6BXmC0WnbCn5wGoA@mail.gmail.com>

You folks may not give it any credence but years ago I had a Satori
experience where I was shown the universe as a whole. In this vision, the
universe was an organism and all matter and energy was connected in a
system that was evolving. This organism had the ability to think, to
reason, but was not capable of imagination. We were the process of
evolution, this organism "dreaming" about what having imagination will be
like. So, I suppose my point is, thinking of the planet as a conscious
being is thinking way too small. What if WE are the universe's thinking
organ?

As for the nuke issue... I have been saying H3 for years now...



>


-- 
"A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ?state? and?society?
and ?government? have no existence save as physically exemplified in the
acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to
shift blame, share blame, distribute blame... as blame, guilt,
responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and
nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold
his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world...
aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by
self-knowledge of self-failure."

                -- Professor De La Paz from The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress by
Robert Heinlein
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120527/a90d4ce4/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sun May 27 16:33:14 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 09:33:14 -0700
Subject: [ExI] deutschland reportedly building a nuke every three minutes...
Message-ID: <005b01cd3c26$6a0049c0$3e00dd40$@att.net>

Germany produces solar energy at a rate of ?22 gigawatts of electricity per
hour
?

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/05/26/us-climate-germany-solar-idUKBRE84P
0FI20120526

 

{8^D

 

We who know our engineering units get a smirky smile at the expense of
Reuters.  We know what they meant, but instead of saying the solar plants
produced a peak of 22 gigawatts, or 22 gWatt hours per hour, it came out a
little goofed.  A gigawatt is a billion newton meters per second, so if they
really were producing 22 gigawatts per hour, that would actually be
expressing an acceleration, 22 billion newton meters per second per hour,
the equivalent of building 20 nukes per hour, which would be a most
remarkable accomplishment.  

 

OK so it is a little engineer?s joke.  

 

No wonder we techno-geeks never were invited to many parties when we were in
college.  {8^D

 

Congratulations Germany, meine freunde!  

 

Wenn ich nicht in den US leben k?nnte, denke ich, dass Deutschland meine
zweite Wahl eines Landes sein w?rde. Australien und Kanada w?rden f?r
drittes binden.

 

der schpike 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120527/43172ba0/attachment.html>

From pizerdavid at yahoo.com  Sun May 27 17:29:10 2012
From: pizerdavid at yahoo.com (david pizer)
Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 10:29:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] trustee for reanimation trusts
Message-ID: <1338139750.64766.YahooMailNeo@web161704.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

There has been discussion on various chat rooms about whether the Reanimation Foundation is taking new members or not.
I do not know the answer to that? but I can tell you that the Society for Venturism is willing to act as trustee for any cryoncists reanimation trust.? 
?
The Venturists are the trustee for my personal trust.? A copy of that trust is on our website at venturist.info - feel free to use that trust or any ideas from it if you are making your own trust to "take it with you."? Be sure to run YOUR final version by your attorney.
?
Anyone who wants more info on this subject can ask questions at the coming Cryonics Conference in Mayer Arizona next weekend or ask them in this chat room.
?
David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120527/9f62ffb7/attachment.html>

From steinberg.will at gmail.com  Sun May 27 18:19:36 2012
From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg)
Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 13:19:36 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter
In-Reply-To: <CABiOS7pUHrvMPaTJe_DS9B+VJvCDt6MvmP6BXmC0WnbCn5wGoA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJX-7wXQ45FPy0cadUMk73W9GQwBoCsrLa608680EpxVQm439A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa9X2dYMjZp1G8RP54zPLxrC70Zr0=ogw2kJGhwHmwTAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyFaG3YzHvj9oYktL+FvkT6bFjLteR+y-Deww-5+1x6rLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYtzNeA80C4sLN7_h3DfoE6Nz62z2bU_iWSs=haQTWoJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyH_xVtGR2Aa6d2Jd5Y5PDyXohnL7GcsoznU+BNHKompbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a6VEgJ=M5KDNo1zmDo_GyQMrfYubqtRUD4_bWSDOs_oAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyH4DAxRueCCQhsFonVhXoXCMJY7-tGzyiuiztBURYTPCA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4FC18B8C.3070101@canonizer.com>
 <CABiOS7pUHrvMPaTJe_DS9B+VJvCDt6MvmP6BXmC0WnbCn5wGoA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKrqSyHrUvQwW5B+rT_M6-_amo1KuEHtSf8jgFLi-NVKuvt9ng@mail.gmail.com>

Yes, this is what I have come to believe.  God is omnipresent, but not so
omnipotent.  The universe is God trying to conceive of a brief moment of
enlightenment during the big bang. ;)

On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Thirdeye Of Eris <thirdeyeoferis at gmail.com
> wrote:

> You folks may not give it any credence but years ago I had a Satori
> experience where I was shown the universe as a whole. In this vision, the
> universe was an organism and all matter and energy was connected in a
> system that was evolving. This organism had the ability to think, to
> reason, but was not capable of imagination. We were the process of
> evolution, this organism "dreaming" about what having imagination will be
> like. So, I suppose my point is, thinking of the planet as a conscious
> being is thinking way too small. What if WE are the universe's thinking
> organ?
>
> As for the nuke issue... I have been saying H3 for years now...
>
>
>
>>
>
>
> --
> "A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ?state? and?society?
> and ?government? have no existence save as physically exemplified in the
> acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to
> shift blame, share blame, distribute blame... as blame, guilt,
> responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and
> nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold
> his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world...
> aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by
> self-knowledge of self-failure."
>
>                 -- Professor De La Paz from The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress
> by Robert Heinlein
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120527/54e514e0/attachment.html>

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sun May 27 19:15:00 2012
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 21:15:00 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter
In-Reply-To: <CAKrqSyHrUvQwW5B+rT_M6-_amo1KuEHtSf8jgFLi-NVKuvt9ng@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJX-7wXQ45FPy0cadUMk73W9GQwBoCsrLa608680EpxVQm439A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa9X2dYMjZp1G8RP54zPLxrC70Zr0=ogw2kJGhwHmwTAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyFaG3YzHvj9oYktL+FvkT6bFjLteR+y-Deww-5+1x6rLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYtzNeA80C4sLN7_h3DfoE6Nz62z2bU_iWSs=haQTWoJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyH_xVtGR2Aa6d2Jd5Y5PDyXohnL7GcsoznU+BNHKompbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a6VEgJ=M5KDNo1zmDo_GyQMrfYubqtRUD4_bWSDOs_oAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyH4DAxRueCCQhsFonVhXoXCMJY7-tGzyiuiztBURYTPCA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4FC18B8C.3070101@canonizer.com>
 <CABiOS7pUHrvMPaTJe_DS9B+VJvCDt6MvmP6BXmC0WnbCn5wGoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyHrUvQwW5B+rT_M6-_amo1KuEHtSf8jgFLi-NVKuvt9ng@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPoR7a7PvoDOo9TDYNG9pRxk-Cwu4K3Md0kAJuFty5X7vUQcig@mail.gmail.com>

On 27 May 2012 20:19, Will Steinberg <steinberg.will at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, this is what I have come to believe.  God is omnipresent, but not so
> omnipotent.  The universe is God trying to conceive of a brief moment of
> enlightenment during the big bang. ;)
>

May the gods forgive you for this, hopefully momentary, monotheistic lapse.
:-)

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120527/d62da7bb/attachment.html>

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sun May 27 19:15:25 2012
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 21:15:25 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter
In-Reply-To: <CAPoR7a7PvoDOo9TDYNG9pRxk-Cwu4K3Md0kAJuFty5X7vUQcig@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJX-7wXQ45FPy0cadUMk73W9GQwBoCsrLa608680EpxVQm439A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa9X2dYMjZp1G8RP54zPLxrC70Zr0=ogw2kJGhwHmwTAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyFaG3YzHvj9oYktL+FvkT6bFjLteR+y-Deww-5+1x6rLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYtzNeA80C4sLN7_h3DfoE6Nz62z2bU_iWSs=haQTWoJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyH_xVtGR2Aa6d2Jd5Y5PDyXohnL7GcsoznU+BNHKompbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a6VEgJ=M5KDNo1zmDo_GyQMrfYubqtRUD4_bWSDOs_oAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyH4DAxRueCCQhsFonVhXoXCMJY7-tGzyiuiztBURYTPCA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4FC18B8C.3070101@canonizer.com>
 <CABiOS7pUHrvMPaTJe_DS9B+VJvCDt6MvmP6BXmC0WnbCn5wGoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyHrUvQwW5B+rT_M6-_amo1KuEHtSf8jgFLi-NVKuvt9ng@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a7PvoDOo9TDYNG9pRxk-Cwu4K3Md0kAJuFty5X7vUQcig@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPoR7a7CT+Ti3FgEq0S7BdskmrxkxR9VqRY_nDPhmOM_ViF+5g@mail.gmail.com>

On 27 May 2012 21:15, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 27 May 2012 20:19, Will Steinberg <steinberg.will at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, this is what I have come to believe.  God is omnipresent, but not so
>> omnipotent.  The universe is God trying to conceive of a brief moment of
>> enlightenment during the big bang. ;)
>>
>
> May the gods forgive you for this, hopefully momentary, monotheistic
> lapse. :-)
>

Read "temporary".

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120527/6f0f2e53/attachment.html>

From rtomek at ceti.pl  Sun May 27 19:28:13 2012
From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola)
Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 21:28:13 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [ExI] battle tanks to a five yr old
In-Reply-To: <016e01cd2be3$93fe4ea0$bbfaebe0$@att.net>
References: <016e01cd2be3$93fe4ea0$bbfaebe0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205272118280.9899@tau.ceti.pl>

On Sun, 6 May 2012, spike wrote:

> 
> The times, they are a-changin.
> 
> My five year old son saw a video with a battle tank, but he didn't know 
> what it was called.  He vaguely understands what it is, but just didn't 
> know the name.  I had never explained it to him.  He was trying to 
> describe it, and finally called it a "war-car."
> 
> War cars are definitely fading out of importance in his generation.  
> When I was his age, we knew a lot about warfare I think.  I notice none 
> of the neighborhood kids play battle of any sort now, no cowboys and 
> Indians, no 'Muricans vs Commies, nothing of the kind.  It just occurred 
> to me today their world is a lot freer of conflict than I recall of my 
> own misspent childhood.  Dare we hope that armed conflict will gradually 
> fade away?  Or will restrict itself to that part of the world which 
> revels in that sort of thing?

"The postwar result for the Allies, at least, is suggested by one 
returning Canadian soldier, wounded three times in Normandy and Holland, 
who recalls (in Six War Years 1939-1945, edited by Barry Broadfoot) 
disembarking with his buddies to find on the quay nice, smiling Red Cross 
or Salvation Army girls.

 They give us a little bag and it has a couple of chocolate bars in it and 
a comic book. . . . We had gone overseas not much more than children but 
we were coming back, sure, let's face it, as killers. And they were still 
treating us as children. Candy and comic books."

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/bookauth/battle/fussell.htm

IMHO, the men who were into war have their barriers off, and can accept 
idea that killing some establishment may improve life of nation or their 
neighbours or families. Moreover, they are able to do rather than 
endlessly talk.

This, young man, is not going to be any more. Establishment is too 
important for this planet. Therefore future civilisation is going to be a 
civilisation of pussies, always happy and obedient, and politely smiling 
while being fucked from behind.

You may not like my diagnosis, but to be frank, you never mentioned you 
only wanted to read optimistic ones.

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sun May 27 19:38:41 2012
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 21:38:41 +0200
Subject: [ExI] battle tanks to a five yr old
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205272118280.9899@tau.ceti.pl>
References: <016e01cd2be3$93fe4ea0$bbfaebe0$@att.net>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205272118280.9899@tau.ceti.pl>
Message-ID: <CAPoR7a7Ltg_fR0tneKK_i8P_=mBR-zf6ZUCNU-aOuP7AAHZi2Q@mail.gmail.com>

On 27 May 2012 21:28, Tomasz Rola <rtomek at ceti.pl> wrote:

> IMHO, the men who were into war have their barriers off, and can accept
> idea that killing some establishment may improve life of nation or their
> neighbours or families. Moreover, they are able to do rather than
> endlessly talk.
>

One reason why in Europe a very large part of the revolutionary "right" and
an almost as substantial chunk of the revolutionary "left" had more than
mixed, meaning positive, feelings towards WWI, since they expected that the
war, while fought by the old regimes and for the old regimes, would provide
them with the troops they sorely needed to overthrow the old order of
things.

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120527/9ee102dd/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Sun May 27 20:30:29 2012
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 22:30:29 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter
In-Reply-To: <CABiOS7pUHrvMPaTJe_DS9B+VJvCDt6MvmP6BXmC0WnbCn5wGoA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJX-7wXQ45FPy0cadUMk73W9GQwBoCsrLa608680EpxVQm439A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa9X2dYMjZp1G8RP54zPLxrC70Zr0=ogw2kJGhwHmwTAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyFaG3YzHvj9oYktL+FvkT6bFjLteR+y-Deww-5+1x6rLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYtzNeA80C4sLN7_h3DfoE6Nz62z2bU_iWSs=haQTWoJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyH_xVtGR2Aa6d2Jd5Y5PDyXohnL7GcsoznU+BNHKompbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a6VEgJ=M5KDNo1zmDo_GyQMrfYubqtRUD4_bWSDOs_oAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyH4DAxRueCCQhsFonVhXoXCMJY7-tGzyiuiztBURYTPCA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4FC18B8C.3070101@canonizer.com>
 <CABiOS7pUHrvMPaTJe_DS9B+VJvCDt6MvmP6BXmC0WnbCn5wGoA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120527203029.GB17120@leitl.org>

On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 11:11:29AM -0400, Thirdeye Of Eris wrote:
> You folks may not give it any credence but years ago I had a Satori
> experience where I was shown the universe as a whole. In this vision, the

A nice dose of P. cubensis will do that to you every time.
It's fun, while it lasts. Actual insight, not so much.

> universe was an organism and all matter and energy was connected in a
> system that was evolving. This organism had the ability to think, to
> reason, but was not capable of imagination. We were the process of
> evolution, this organism "dreaming" about what having imagination will be
> like. So, I suppose my point is, thinking of the planet as a conscious
> being is thinking way too small. What if WE are the universe's thinking
> organ?
> 
> As for the nuke issue... I have been saying H3 for years now...

Fusion (even wireless: eat that, Tesla) covers >25% of Germany's 
peak demand. In another decade or so, that number will be over 100%.


From rtomek at ceti.pl  Mon May 28 02:09:20 2012
From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola)
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 04:09:20 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [ExI] battle tanks to a five yr old
In-Reply-To: <CAPoR7a7Ltg_fR0tneKK_i8P_=mBR-zf6ZUCNU-aOuP7AAHZi2Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <016e01cd2be3$93fe4ea0$bbfaebe0$@att.net>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205272118280.9899@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAPoR7a7Ltg_fR0tneKK_i8P_=mBR-zf6ZUCNU-aOuP7AAHZi2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205280340130.11897@tau.ceti.pl>

On Sun, 27 May 2012, Stefano Vaj wrote:

> On 27 May 2012 21:28, Tomasz Rola <rtomek at ceti.pl> wrote:
> 
> > IMHO, the men who were into war have their barriers off, and can accept
> > idea that killing some establishment may improve life of nation or their
> > neighbours or families. Moreover, they are able to do rather than
> > endlessly talk.
> >
> 
> One reason why in Europe a very large part of the revolutionary "right" 
> and an almost as substantial chunk of the revolutionary "left" had more 
> than mixed, meaning positive, feelings towards WWI, since they expected 
> that the war, while fought by the old regimes and for the old regimes, 
> would provide them with the troops they sorely needed to overthrow the 
> old order of things.

There were some other guys claiming that "working masses" would unite and 
prevent outbreak of WWI (or maybe they were saying this before WWII, 
either way this did not make much visible difference).

As a XXI century man, I say that statistically, expecting large mass of 
people to act uniformly toward any goal out of themselves is very very 
unwise. To make such things happen, socio-pundits orchestrate big medial 
efforts and direct huge sums into various places. And even this is not 
100% effective.

At the same time, after troops went home, they indeed might have incited 
changes, just not those that various experts predicted. 

And, statistically, when large group of people comes from war, there must 
(statistic "must") be some mad enough to engage in violence for whatever 
reason they see right. With current tech, even small group can wreak havoc 
on an unsuspecting city, say, a capital.

For a politician, good veteran is dead veteran. Living veteran is a 
problem that needs to be mended. It doesn't look good, when police beats 
vets on a street. But if they come home in black bags, this is very good 
thing. They can make it into a film, you know. And dead will never 
protest, whatever story you tell about them.

Hence the need to reduce number of vets in a future. At least alive ones.

Of course I don't expect changes are to be finalised during our lifetime. 
Memory of what people were today need to be erased. This will require a 
generation or two. And many many superproductions.

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **


From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Mon May 28 16:43:49 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 10:43:49 -0600
Subject: [ExI] the next Leap forward in User Interfaces
Message-ID: <CAPy8Rwa8u3wJyDkffPgvQUMJMQkrH65B0BYy2tGo1uVmbZAP6A@mail.gmail.com>

Get a load of this new user interface input device. Senses the
electricity in your body, we think.
https://live.leapmotion.com/index.html

Sorry video haters, but you really have to see this to "get it". Give
me thirty seconds.. :-)

-Kelly


From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Mon May 28 17:09:58 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 11:09:58 -0600
Subject: [ExI] battle tanks to a five yr old
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205272118280.9899@tau.ceti.pl>
References: <016e01cd2be3$93fe4ea0$bbfaebe0$@att.net>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205272118280.9899@tau.ceti.pl>
Message-ID: <CAPy8Rwb=CFGhyF-6=DYMP-_V_ZWxK-F+fai3Xm5moAG81qq0kg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Tomasz Rola <rtomek at ceti.pl> wrote:

> This, young man, is not going to be any more. Establishment is too
> important for this planet. Therefore future civilisation is going to be a
> civilisation of pussies, always happy and obedient, and politely smiling
> while being fucked from behind.
>
> You may not like my diagnosis, but to be frank, you never mentioned you
> only wanted to read optimistic ones.

Tomasz,

  Steven Pinker (have the book, but not that far into it yet) has
documented recently the march away from violence civilization has
taken. He sees it as a good thing. I think I do too, for the most
part. But being a pussy with regards to resorting to violence isn't
precisely the same thing as taking it in the ass. There are many ways
to punish and/or change behaviors that do not use violence.

  For example, I suspect if we were to somehow improve the poverty
experienced by young Arab men, we would see a corresponding decrease
in suicide bombings. Call it iPads for peace... :-)

  Most of the complaints I have heard over the last ten years is that
America is still too violent, in sending young men to war
"needlessly". And then you come along and say we aren't violent
enough. So which is it? :-)

 If iPads for peace doesn't work :-)  Then I'm sure there are enough
young American "video game pussies" willing to pilot drones from the
safety of a bunker in Nevada to take care of the baddest of the bad. I
think someone here posted about the VERY violent video game last week,
if not it was
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-04/sniper-elite-v2

 Do you think just maybe this kind of thing is preparing tomorrow's
warriors? I do.

 Of course, it could just all go autonomous in the longer term.
http://www.ted.com/talks/vijay_kumar_robots_that_fly_and_cooperate.html
http://allthingsd.com/20120302/when-autonomous-flying-robots-fail/

 Now, for a scary thought from the diseased brain of Kelly... Imagine,
if you will, a few hundred of these little autonomous quadcopters each
carrying a half ounce of C4 explosive shape charges and a couple of
pieces of shrapnel going after a high value target. Imagine his
security detail trying to protect said HVT from hundreds of these
speedy little fellows, each programmed to avoid being swatted 600
times a second. Each trying desperately and cooperatively to land on
said HVT's head (or heads of said security detail as a secondary goal)
and explode. It's a nightmare for a security detail to even think
about. How would you devise a defense against that other than stay
inside ALL the time? Eventually, even staying inside won't be enough
because you'll have autonomous robots that can knock down doors. I
doubt a security detail would carry enough bullets to shoot them all
even if they could hit one with each bullet. This is the kind of thing
like 9/11 or the Kennedy assassination that would work very well once,
and then maybe not quite so well after that.

-Kelly


From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Mon May 28 17:43:37 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 11:43:37 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter
In-Reply-To: <1338085839.56273.YahooMailNeo@web164502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <CAJX-7wXQ45FPy0cadUMk73W9GQwBoCsrLa608680EpxVQm439A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa9X2dYMjZp1G8RP54zPLxrC70Zr0=ogw2kJGhwHmwTAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyFaG3YzHvj9oYktL+FvkT6bFjLteR+y-Deww-5+1x6rLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYtzNeA80C4sLN7_h3DfoE6Nz62z2bU_iWSs=haQTWoJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyH_xVtGR2Aa6d2Jd5Y5PDyXohnL7GcsoznU+BNHKompbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwbYANC603grrYZ7KqF2bGQ=NoOeAoTW4-TTy0KzV+K4bQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1338085839.56273.YahooMailNeo@web164502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwZWfdKXR7GqTghpkznynF+NC088BPHf-PJaruEVRq=LLQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 8:30 PM, The Avantguardian
<avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com>
>> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2012 12:54 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter
>>
>> OK, if you want to redefine it, then I suppose my bedroom slippers are
>> conscious too. :-)
>
> At the very least, your slippers seem to remember they are slippers rather
> than amourphous fuzzy blobs. Will's point is that unless you are willing to
> believe that there is a *qualitative* difference between living and non-living
> matter, then all differences must necessarily be quantitative in nature and
> involving the interplay between energy and entropy. So unless you have a
> soul, your slippers are less conscious than you, but still conscious.

All right, no need to get nasty and accuse me of believing in a soul...

I think I draw the line at the beings that have some kind of central
nervous system and those that don't. I do not believe that amoebas
have anything approaching consciousness. Dogs, cats, yes. Maybe even
sea stars. And then you are at a quantitative difference, a huge one
to be sure... but without a brain, I don't know how you could claim
it.

>> How do you "perceive" if you are a pancreas? I must admit that I find
>> your understanding of consciousness to be very foreign from mine.
>
> The pancreas percieves?your other organs and thus its "world" chemically.
> The pancreas thus is able to know when you have just eaten so it can
> squirt digestive enzymes into your intestines.

So any kind of reflex is consciousness? Really?

>> So if a pancreas doesn't understand language and culture, then is it
>> conscious? I think that at a minimum consciousness would involve
>> communicating with similar creatures. Thus dogs and cats are
>> conscious. Ants might be conscious, but perhaps less so. It's probably
>> a continuum. But the earth doesn't "communicate" with any other
>> planets, does it?
>
> If you define communication as "influencing from afar" then yes, the
> earth does communicate with everything else in space-time by curving
> space-time. Similarly in quantum mechanics, every particle-wave influences
> every other particle-wave at FTL speeds no less. If you are a many-worlder
> than?every particle in?every possible universe?is described by one
> gigantic unitary wave function.

I don't count gravitational pull as consciousness. Sorry.
Consciousness requires emergence, emergence requires energy, and
patterns of behavior, not just wave functions, but responses to wave
functions other than just following the basic laws of physics. If you
accept Gaia, then you have to accept that the entire universe and
multiverse are conscious too.

> Therefore there is no evidentiary contradiction to the mystic idea of the
> fundamental?unity of all things.

There's no evidence, either.

> Every atom might have an "atom's worth"
> of consciousness capable of making decisions that in essence determine
> when and where that atom manifests or decays into a different atom.

So mount Everest is more conscious than me because it has more atoms?
I am not buying what you are selling.

> The
> idea is called panpsychism and is very difficult to rule out scientifically.

Stuart, I can't rule out Nessie scientifically, but I don't really
think there is a plesiosaur in Loch Ness. I can't prove that remote
viewing doesn't work. I can't disprove God scientifically either. See
Dawkins tea cup analogy.

Do you have ONE SHRED of evidence to back up this claim?

-Kelly



From brent.allsop at canonizer.com  Mon May 28 17:47:11 2012
From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop)
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 11:47:11 -0600
Subject: [ExI] the next Leap forward in User Interfaces
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8Rwa8u3wJyDkffPgvQUMJMQkrH65B0BYy2tGo1uVmbZAP6A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8Rwa8u3wJyDkffPgvQUMJMQkrH65B0BYy2tGo1uVmbZAP6A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4FC3BA1F.4050409@canonizer.com>


Kelly,

Cool!  The best part is, no more finger smudges on the "touch screen".

So, now can I electrify my screens, with a very powerful jolt, to help 
retrain all the people that still seem compelled to smudge my screens?

Brent


On 5/28/2012 10:43 AM, Kelly Anderson wrote:
> Get a load of this new user interface input device. Senses the
> electricity in your body, we think.
> https://live.leapmotion.com/index.html
>
> Sorry video haters, but you really have to see this to "get it". Give
> me thirty seconds.. :-)
>
> -Kelly
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>



From patrickkmclaren at gmail.com  Mon May 28 17:03:23 2012
From: patrickkmclaren at gmail.com (Patrick McLaren)
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 13:03:23 -0400
Subject: [ExI] the next Leap forward in User Interfaces
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8Rwa8u3wJyDkffPgvQUMJMQkrH65B0BYy2tGo1uVmbZAP6A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8Rwa8u3wJyDkffPgvQUMJMQkrH65B0BYy2tGo1uVmbZAP6A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120528170323.GA2587@patrick-desktop>

On May 28 10:43 AM, Kelly Anderson wrote:
> Get a load of this new user interface input device. Senses the
> electricity in your body, we think.
> https://live.leapmotion.com/index.html

Not just developed for OS X either, Linux support may be on it's way:

- Do you support windows?
-- Yes! We also support native touch emulation for Windows 8.

- How about Linux?
-- Linux support is on the agenda.

https://live.leapmotion.com/about.html


From steinberg.will at gmail.com  Mon May 28 19:03:19 2012
From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg)
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 14:03:19 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwZWfdKXR7GqTghpkznynF+NC088BPHf-PJaruEVRq=LLQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJX-7wXQ45FPy0cadUMk73W9GQwBoCsrLa608680EpxVQm439A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa9X2dYMjZp1G8RP54zPLxrC70Zr0=ogw2kJGhwHmwTAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyFaG3YzHvj9oYktL+FvkT6bFjLteR+y-Deww-5+1x6rLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYtzNeA80C4sLN7_h3DfoE6Nz62z2bU_iWSs=haQTWoJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyH_xVtGR2Aa6d2Jd5Y5PDyXohnL7GcsoznU+BNHKompbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwbYANC603grrYZ7KqF2bGQ=NoOeAoTW4-TTy0KzV+K4bQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1338085839.56273.YahooMailNeo@web164502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
 <CAPy8RwZWfdKXR7GqTghpkznynF+NC088BPHf-PJaruEVRq=LLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKrqSyEh7y0mKdO_Z16PDkQvKaRWuU17J+OW8TtRQc3xyYCsjw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com>wrote:

> I think I draw the line at the beings that have some kind of central
> nervous system and those that don't. I do not believe that amoebas
> have anything approaching consciousness. Dogs, cats, yes. Maybe even
> sea stars. And then you are at a quantitative difference, a huge one
> to be sure... but without a brain, I don't know how you could claim
> it.
>



> .....
>



> So any kind of reflex is consciousness? Really?
>
>

> Consciousness requires emergence, emergence requires energy, and
> patterns of behavior, not just wave functions, but responses to wave
> functions other than just following the basic laws of physics. If you
> accept Gaia, then you have to accept that the entire universe and
> multiverse are conscious too.
>

...

>
>
> Do you have ONE SHRED of evidence to back up this claim?
>
>

You have just as little evidence.  I believe the universe, multiverse, and
anything involving energy exchanging/encoding information between physical
memory systems--chemical reactions, light travelling across the universe,
gravity uniting bodies--are conscious. There is nowhere you learned that
consciousness requires emergence except by the beliefs that are held today.
 A CNS is used for sapience, not sentience--they have different names for a
reason.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120528/13544fa7/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Mon May 28 18:36:28 2012
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 19:36:28 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwZWfdKXR7GqTghpkznynF+NC088BPHf-PJaruEVRq=LLQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJX-7wXQ45FPy0cadUMk73W9GQwBoCsrLa608680EpxVQm439A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa9X2dYMjZp1G8RP54zPLxrC70Zr0=ogw2kJGhwHmwTAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyFaG3YzHvj9oYktL+FvkT6bFjLteR+y-Deww-5+1x6rLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYtzNeA80C4sLN7_h3DfoE6Nz62z2bU_iWSs=haQTWoJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyH_xVtGR2Aa6d2Jd5Y5PDyXohnL7GcsoznU+BNHKompbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwbYANC603grrYZ7KqF2bGQ=NoOeAoTW4-TTy0KzV+K4bQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1338085839.56273.YahooMailNeo@web164502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
 <CAPy8RwZWfdKXR7GqTghpkznynF+NC088BPHf-PJaruEVRq=LLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAL_armj-OAjZrLL0KfTrxW0sBU+6+JW8dvRfOgVaMPga6XqEMw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Kelly Anderson wrote:
> I think I draw the line at the beings that have some kind of central
> nervous system and those that don't. I do not believe that amoebas
> have anything approaching consciousness. Dogs, cats, yes. Maybe even
> sea stars. And then you are at a quantitative difference, a huge one
> to be sure... but without a brain, I don't know how you could claim
> it.
>


Hey, no need to be unfair to amoebas! Some of my best friends are amoebas.

Amoebas are smarter than you expect.
They have memory, can get ready in anticipation of bad weather and
even solve mazes and produce efficient route networks.
See:  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physarum_polycephalum>
(and I checked other references as well).

So I go for the continuum theory. From little acorns, big oak trees grow.


BillK


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Mon May 28 18:55:51 2012
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 14:55:51 -0400
Subject: [ExI] May Cryonics issue
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFhB076ZJ8LuPfdYr9vcNmSwhcjvzZKrwwHxUUr+ATkHLA@mail.gmail.com>

I just finished reading Ralph Merkle's analysis of pricing for neuro
versus whole body Alcor patients - it's excellent! Kudos to Ralph for
providing a lot of minute yet important details that may be vitally
important for our future.

One thing that strikes me is that there seems to be no escape from
human irrationality, even in the frigid depths of a dewar. It appears
incontrovertible to me that the neuro suspension option is superior to
the whole body version - the quality of vitrification is better, less
likelihood of suffering from ice crystal formation in the brain (which
could spell the end of your life, if the synaptic strength information
becomes scrambled beyond recovery), it's no less than 10 times cheaper
to maintain, and the likelihood that the future reanimation procedure
would actually benefit from having a whole body is, in my opinion,
nil. Despite that at present 76% of all Alcor members want whole body
suspension, which for reasons of dewar geometry results in zero
marginal cost for a neuro maintenance (read the article for details) -
yet, we neuros still pay only 4.4 times less into the suspension trust
(Patient Care Trust) than whole body customers! So, while the cost of
our cryonic maintenance is at present equal to zero, we still have to
pay real money for it, in this way subsidizing the cost of whole body
suspensions. This is no way to disparage current Alcor management -
the subsidy evolved as a result of multiple decisions made by various
persons over decades.

So imagine - knowledgeable people who may have less money (some of us
select the neuro option for financial reasons) are paying for those
who probably didn't think the cryonics issue through, for some reasons
cling to a procedure that is of both lower quality and higher cost,
and have potentially much more money (as shown by willingness to spend
on the whole body option).

Ralph is hinting at the need to increase the relative prices for whole
body vs. neuro suspensions and I wholeheartedly agree. As you may
notice, I have a personal stake in this issue, so apply your internal
filters for dealing with self-serving statements - but it seems to me
that the relative whole body price should be incrementally increased
until the ratio of whole body/neuro members is lowered from its
present 74/24 value (=3.08) to no more than 4:5 (=0.8, dictated by the
geometry of dewars). This major shift in the relative numbers of the
two types of patients would maximize the total number of patients per
dewar, and provide the greatest positive externality to all of us -
the more people are signed up, the more likely we are to eventually
succeed. At that ratio we could maximize the number of neuro patients,
while not driving away more of the whole body ones than necessary.

I hope this adjustment will eventually occur, and, please, sign up for
Alcor suspension if you have not yet done it.


From steinberg.will at gmail.com  Mon May 28 19:11:41 2012
From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg)
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 14:11:41 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armj-OAjZrLL0KfTrxW0sBU+6+JW8dvRfOgVaMPga6XqEMw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJX-7wXQ45FPy0cadUMk73W9GQwBoCsrLa608680EpxVQm439A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa9X2dYMjZp1G8RP54zPLxrC70Zr0=ogw2kJGhwHmwTAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyFaG3YzHvj9oYktL+FvkT6bFjLteR+y-Deww-5+1x6rLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYtzNeA80C4sLN7_h3DfoE6Nz62z2bU_iWSs=haQTWoJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyH_xVtGR2Aa6d2Jd5Y5PDyXohnL7GcsoznU+BNHKompbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwbYANC603grrYZ7KqF2bGQ=NoOeAoTW4-TTy0KzV+K4bQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1338085839.56273.YahooMailNeo@web164502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
 <CAPy8RwZWfdKXR7GqTghpkznynF+NC088BPHf-PJaruEVRq=LLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armj-OAjZrLL0KfTrxW0sBU+6+JW8dvRfOgVaMPga6XqEMw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKrqSyEACDSep2OYXHtp5z0HyEJ7ytTQHYo41pLKDy-brjS7JA@mail.gmail.com>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Edelman#Theory_of_consciousness

He has some very insightful ideas.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120528/59e8fe16/attachment.html>

From pizerdavid at yahoo.com  Mon May 28 19:11:38 2012
From: pizerdavid at yahoo.com (david pizer)
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 12:11:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwZWfdKXR7GqTghpkznynF+NC088BPHf-PJaruEVRq=LLQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJX-7wXQ45FPy0cadUMk73W9GQwBoCsrLa608680EpxVQm439A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa9X2dYMjZp1G8RP54zPLxrC70Zr0=ogw2kJGhwHmwTAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyFaG3YzHvj9oYktL+FvkT6bFjLteR+y-Deww-5+1x6rLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYtzNeA80C4sLN7_h3DfoE6Nz62z2bU_iWSs=haQTWoJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyH_xVtGR2Aa6d2Jd5Y5PDyXohnL7GcsoznU+BNHKompbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwbYANC603grrYZ7KqF2bGQ=NoOeAoTW4-TTy0KzV+K4bQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1338085839.56273.YahooMailNeo@web164502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
 <CAPy8RwZWfdKXR7GqTghpkznynF+NC088BPHf-PJaruEVRq=LLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1338232298.44008.YahooMailNeo@web161705.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

Explaining consciousness in 3 minutes or less.
?
Regarding the ongoing discussions in this magnificent chat room of what things are "living" entities and what things are not, which bleeds into discussions of what is consciousness - I think some opinions of what is the physical basis of consciousness must first be agreed on in order to proceed to any useful new thinking.?? If two people agree on that then?they they have a chance of agreeing on what entities are consciousness.? (We don't really care what is living, we want to know what is at least as conscious as we superior humans are - right). ? Further, since we living and consciousness humans are merely formed from nonliving atoms etc. that opens the possibility that some other objects made of nonliving atoms etc are also living things like us?and conscious things like us? - for? instance?take the Universe as maybe being conscious - as one person mentioned earlier in this chat room, and as ?I feel confident that most contributors to this
 forum are open to speculation about.? (At this point we ALL agree that is is not the stuff that brains are made of that is special it is the arrangement of that stuff that makes the difference.? Everything in the Universes it made of similar stuff - no two things are arranged exactly alike so duh what makes the things different??)
?
Consciousness arises from the human brain's ability to make maps of things using neural pathways.
?
It all started, as you know, from neural pathways being formed ?that allowed memories to be formed and then hunks of various brain meat to be able to call up those maps and (in the early days of course) "read" the?maps and ?make decisions that aided survival, allowed good feelings, and avoided bad ones from?happening.
?
But these early decisions were not "felt" consciously as they are now.? (The brain does not know things directly it can only feel things.? This way of indirectly knowing things evolved from the original 5 senses of feeling the exterior world to an ability of feeling the maps of things the brain had created inside itself).
?
But in these early stages we still do not have the brain aware of the self or consciousness.? And many lessor animals that can think may not be consciousness of their acts of thinking.
?
What happened is that the brain kept making maps of everything it was involved with and in one mutation of a brain, somewhere sometime ago, that brain made a map of itself making maps, and making maps of?itself "feeling itself?feeling its maps".? It was at that point when the brain mapped itself?reading its ?maps that the brain became aware of its self and consciousness in humans was born.
?
Is there some reason why other things might not have gone through the same process?? Does the Universe think?? It has been around for a lot longer time than me and you.? It is made of the same stuff we are.? It has complicated arrangements of its stuff.? ? For happy speculation we can make comparisons of atoms to stars, neurons to galaxies, neuron pathways or clusters to galaxy clusters and so on and so forth with all the various chemical and electrical activity going on inside a brain and the Universes but at different sizes.
?
I speculate here?but hesitate to insist on a conclusion.? Like all the other philosophers on this site we want to become great ones don't we??
But why do we want that? because as my late?good friend Robert Ettinger once said:? "Most great philosophers in history were wrong."
?
?
 

________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120528/38c8bb17/attachment.html>

From steinberg.will at gmail.com  Mon May 28 19:37:14 2012
From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg)
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 14:37:14 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter
In-Reply-To: <1338232298.44008.YahooMailNeo@web161705.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <CAJX-7wXQ45FPy0cadUMk73W9GQwBoCsrLa608680EpxVQm439A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa9X2dYMjZp1G8RP54zPLxrC70Zr0=ogw2kJGhwHmwTAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyFaG3YzHvj9oYktL+FvkT6bFjLteR+y-Deww-5+1x6rLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYtzNeA80C4sLN7_h3DfoE6Nz62z2bU_iWSs=haQTWoJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyH_xVtGR2Aa6d2Jd5Y5PDyXohnL7GcsoznU+BNHKompbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwbYANC603grrYZ7KqF2bGQ=NoOeAoTW4-TTy0KzV+K4bQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1338085839.56273.YahooMailNeo@web164502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
 <CAPy8RwZWfdKXR7GqTghpkznynF+NC088BPHf-PJaruEVRq=LLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1338232298.44008.YahooMailNeo@web161705.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAKrqSyH8tBJCGuKcgaHZL3rbzVjiQ2MVg-Pxf5su-fR1LZ+grw@mail.gmail.com>

David,

I agree if your 'consciousness' is Edelman's secondary consciousness.
However, I think his primary consciousness is related to all methods of
information transfer (motion) between memory (matter whose physical makeup
allows you to determine its past states).
On May 28, 2012 2:25 PM, "david pizer" <pizerdavid at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Explaining consciousness in 3 minutes or less.
>
> Regarding the ongoing discussions in this magnificent chat room of what
> things are "living" entities and what things are not, which bleeds into
> discussions of what is consciousness - I think some opinions of what is the
> physical basis of consciousness must first be agreed on in order to proceed
> to any useful new thinking.   If two people agree on that then they they
> have a chance of agreeing on what entities are consciousness.  (We don't
> really care what is living, we want to know what is at least as conscious
> as we superior humans are - right).   Further, since we living and
> consciousness humans are merely formed from nonliving atoms etc. that opens
> the possibility that some other objects made of nonliving atoms etc are
> also living things like us and conscious things like us  - for
> instance take the Universe as maybe being conscious - as one person
> mentioned earlier in this chat room, and as  I feel confident that most
> contributors to this forum are open to speculation about.  (At this point
> we ALL agree that is is not the stuff that brains are made of that is
> special it is the arrangement of that stuff that makes the difference.
> Everything in the Universes it made of similar stuff - no two things are
> arranged exactly alike so duh what makes the things different??)
>
> Consciousness arises from the human brain's ability to make maps of
> things using neural pathways.
>
> It all started, as you know, from neural pathways being formed  that
> allowed memories to be formed and then hunks of various brain meat to be
> able to call up those maps and (in the early days of course) "read"
> the maps and  make decisions that aided survival, allowed good feelings,
> and avoided bad ones from happening.
>
> But these early decisions were not "felt" consciously as they are now.
> (The brain does not know things directly it can only feel things.  This way
> of indirectly knowing things evolved from the original 5 senses of feeling
> the exterior world to an ability of feeling the maps of things the brain
> had created inside itself).
>
> But in these early stages we still do not have the brain aware of the self
> or consciousness.  And many lessor animals that can think may not be
> consciousness of their acts of thinking.
>
> What happened is that the brain kept making maps of everything it was
> involved with and in one mutation of a brain, somewhere sometime ago, that
> brain made a map of itself making maps, and making maps of itself *"feeling
> itself feeling its maps".*  It was at that point when the brain mapped
> itself reading its  maps that the brain became aware of its self and
> consciousness in humans was born.
>
> Is there some reason why other things might not have gone through the same
> process?  Does the Universe think?  It has been around for a lot longer
> time than me and you.  It is made of the same stuff we are.  It has
> complicated arrangements of its stuff.    For happy speculation we can make
> comparisons of atoms to stars, neurons to galaxies, neuron pathways or
> clusters to galaxy clusters and so on and so forth with all the various
> chemical and electrical activity going on inside a brain and the Universesbut at different sizes.
>
> I speculate here but hesitate to insist on a conclusion.  Like all the
> other philosophers on this site we want to become great ones don't we??
> But why do we want that  because as my late good friend Robert Ettinger
> once said:  "Most great philosophers in history were wrong."
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120528/c0e48f88/attachment.html>

From pizerdavid at yahoo.com  Mon May 28 20:03:14 2012
From: pizerdavid at yahoo.com (david pizer)
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 13:03:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] May Cryonics issue
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFhB076ZJ8LuPfdYr9vcNmSwhcjvzZKrwwHxUUr+ATkHLA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFhB076ZJ8LuPfdYr9vcNmSwhcjvzZKrwwHxUUr+ATkHLA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1338235394.98743.YahooMailNeo@web161705.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

In my 11 years of work in Alcor management one thing that I often disagreed with other directors?and officers about was the future costs of doing suspensions and keeping the patients suspended.?? I still disagree with the way many present Alcor leaders compute future costs.? I do not have the time now to enter into a long debate and explanation on where all the errors in their assumptions are.? AND That is not the problem (or the answer) at hand.
?
Alcor's present conclusion?is that prices have to be raised NOW to protect against Alcor going out of business in the future due to their losing money on each suspension and storage of each patient.? 
?
I believe this will make the problem worse and lead to major financial losses in the future.
?
I submit that raising prices will cause more members to quit Alcor and less new members to join, therefore making Alcor lose even more money on doing each suspension and more cost of storing each patient BECAUSE the overhead costs of running Alcor will be more per each case if there is less total income?when there are less members.
?
One of the main reasons Alcor current projections show losses in the future is that Alcor refuses to count? the actual projected donations as part of the expected future income even though from day one? Alcor's?donations have been one of the highest parts of Alcor's total income.? Of course if they cause membership to go way down today then total donations will go way down.
On the other hand if they cause membership to go way up now, donations in the future will go way up.
?
Further Alcor present?directors do not seem to understand that Alcor's operation expenses are going to be divided by the number of suspensions they do and the number of patients they have.? Doing less suspensions will not lower Alcor's regular?overhead so the less suspensions they do = less total income and so the? more the cost of each suspension will be much higher per case as they divide their annual overhead by the number of suspensions they did.? Further with less total income the cost of keeping each patient in suspension will go up.
?
?
SOLUTION:? There is one way only that company works its way out of a problem like the one Alcor management is heading for and it is not raising prices.? Here is the way successful companies remain successful and make money:
?
1.? Reduce wasteful spending and expenses.
2.? Do more?business to?Increase total income.
?
Getting Income Up (through volume not raising prices) and Expenses?Down is the way to make Alcor successful.? It is the biggest mistake of people without experience of running successful business to think that raising prices will bring in more money. I ofter cause the company to bring in less total income as the higher prices causes the volume to fall and therefore the total income at higher prices is often much less.
?
Many Alcor members are struggling to pay their dues and other costs of belonging to Alcor.? At present I believe Alcor loses most of its members over time.? In other words, there are probable more people walking this earth now who were Alcor members and quit than there are Alcor members who stayed.? (The numbers are close).
?
I hope those reading this will not assume I am trying to harm Alcor by giving this advice.? 
I am trying to make Alcor stronger as I have for over 25 years.
?
Of course if the hard working scientists?affiliated with Alcor were to create reversible suspended animation everything would become different at that time.? But for now where we have to act based on what logic?can predict without yet having the?ability to do a demonstration of suspension - storage - and reanimation.?
? 
 

________________________________
 From: Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> 
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 12:55 PM
Subject: [ExI] May Cryonics issue
  
I just finished reading Ralph Merkle's analysis of pricing for neuro
versus whole body Alcor patients - it's excellent! Kudos to Ralph for
providing a lot of minute yet important details that may be vitally
important for our future.

One thing that strikes me is that there seems to be no escape from
human irrationality, even in the frigid depths of a dewar. It appears
incontrovertible to me that the neuro suspension option is superior to
the whole body version - the quality of vitrification is better, less
likelihood of suffering from ice crystal formation in the brain (which
could spell the end of your life, if the synaptic strength information
becomes scrambled beyond recovery), it's no less than 10 times cheaper
to maintain, and the likelihood that the future reanimation procedure
would actually benefit from having a whole body is, in my opinion,
nil. Despite that at present 76% of all Alcor members want whole body
suspension, which for reasons of dewar geometry results in zero
marginal cost for a neuro maintenance (read the article for details) -
yet, we neuros still pay only 4.4 times less into the suspension trust
(Patient Care Trust) than whole body customers! So, while the cost of
our cryonic maintenance is at present equal to zero, we still have to
pay real money for it, in this way subsidizing the cost of whole body
suspensions. This is no way to disparage current Alcor management -
the subsidy evolved as a result of multiple decisions made by various
persons over decades.

So imagine - knowledgeable people who may have less money (some of us
select the neuro option for financial reasons) are paying for those
who probably didn't think the cryonics issue through, for some reasons
cling to a procedure that is of both lower quality and higher cost,
and have potentially much more money (as shown by willingness to spend
on the whole body option).

Ralph is hinting at the need to increase the relative prices for whole
body vs. neuro suspensions and I wholeheartedly agree. As you may
notice, I have a personal stake in this issue, so apply your internal
filters for dealing with self-serving statements - but it seems to me
that the relative whole body price should be incrementally increased
until the ratio of whole body/neuro members is lowered from its
present 74/24 value (=3.08) to no more than 4:5 (=0.8, dictated by the
geometry of dewars). This major shift in the relative numbers of the
two types of patients would maximize the total number of patients per
dewar, and provide the greatest positive externality to all of us -
the more people are signed up, the more likely we are to eventually
succeed. At that ratio we could maximize the number of neuro patients,
while not driving away more of the whole body ones than necessary.

I hope this adjustment will eventually occur, and, please, sign up for
Alcor suspension if you have not yet done it.
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120528/0bb11850/attachment.html>

From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com  Mon May 28 20:11:42 2012
From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 22:11:42 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter
In-Reply-To: <CAKrqSyH8tBJCGuKcgaHZL3rbzVjiQ2MVg-Pxf5su-fR1LZ+grw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJX-7wXQ45FPy0cadUMk73W9GQwBoCsrLa608680EpxVQm439A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa9X2dYMjZp1G8RP54zPLxrC70Zr0=ogw2kJGhwHmwTAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyFaG3YzHvj9oYktL+FvkT6bFjLteR+y-Deww-5+1x6rLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYtzNeA80C4sLN7_h3DfoE6Nz62z2bU_iWSs=haQTWoJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyH_xVtGR2Aa6d2Jd5Y5PDyXohnL7GcsoznU+BNHKompbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwbYANC603grrYZ7KqF2bGQ=NoOeAoTW4-TTy0KzV+K4bQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1338085839.56273.YahooMailNeo@web164502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
 <CAPy8RwZWfdKXR7GqTghpkznynF+NC088BPHf-PJaruEVRq=LLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1338232298.44008.YahooMailNeo@web161705.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAKrqSyH8tBJCGuKcgaHZL3rbzVjiQ2MVg-Pxf5su-fR1LZ+grw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJUeD7gL8EftY+P+Gj_hq2dU01Q0jtx5UTkxOq_NPdG7VHbKVg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Will Steinberg <steinberg.will at gmail.com>wrote:

> David,
>
> I agree if your 'consciousness' is Edelman's secondary consciousness.
> However, I think his primary consciousness is related to all methods of
> information transfer (motion) between memory (matter whose physical makeup
> allows you to determine its past states).
> On May 28, 2012 2:25 PM, "david pizer" <pizerdavid at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Consciousness arises from the human brain's ability to make maps of
>> things using neural pathways.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>

> *"feeling itself feeling its maps".*  It was at that point when the brain
>> mapped itself reading its  maps that the brain became aware of its self and
>> consciousness in humans was born.
>>
>
>

Is anyone here familiar with these books by Antonio Damasio?

"Descartes' Error"
"The Feeling of What Happens"

It's a new field for me and I am starting to read these books, which from
first impression happen to relate quite closely to the concepts outlined
above of "feeling itself feeling its maps", and maps of maps and so on...
but I have no idea whether what I am reading is the bleeding edge, or
classic old stuff relegated into the background since lotsa time ago, or
some lone scientist's brilliant idea which was since discarded and
consigned to the dustbin.

Alfio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120528/9dbff498/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Mon May 28 21:04:14 2012
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 17:04:14 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Fwd:  May Cryonics issue
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFizteTysOj-QAZJ_PfJ61wmwAsAwYwb=Ja-FtXevruLZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFhB076ZJ8LuPfdYr9vcNmSwhcjvzZKrwwHxUUr+ATkHLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1338235394.98743.YahooMailNeo@web161705.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAAc1gFizteTysOj-QAZJ_PfJ61wmwAsAwYwb=Ja-FtXevruLZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFj=M2SW=HFPNdVh=mj3+4Tvidt=jA8=dQdhJ87bahKfNg@mail.gmail.com>

Forgot to press the reply-to-all button

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, May 28, 2012 at 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] May Cryonics issue
To: david pizer <pizerdavid at yahoo.com>


You are right, David, that the key to success in the cryonics business
is to drum up more business and reduce waste .... but the devil is in
the details. Massively (percentage-wise) cutting prices for neuro and
slightly (again, percentage-wise) increasing prices for whole body
should definitely achieve both, even if the total average
per-suspension intake is only slightly increased. Neuro patients are
more likely to be price-sensitive, so cutting their price will
increase their numbers. Since keeping them frozen costs nothing (until
the whole/neuro ratio drops below 0.8), there will be no net spending
increase for Alcor. Whole-body patients are less price sensitive
(since they already chose a more expensive but less effective
procedure), so they will not abandon Alcor in droves after a price
increase. Dewar utilization will improve.

Would you expect different results? Specifically, do you expect a
different effect of such a price change on the number of neuro
signups, number of whole body signups and average dewar utilization?

Rafal


-- 
Rafal Smigrodzki, MD-PhD
Senior Scientist,
Gencia Corporation
706 B Forest St.

Charlottesville, VA 22903

tel: (434) 295-4800

fax: (434) 295-4951



This electronic message transmission contains information from the
biotechnology firm of Gencia Corporation which may be confidential or
privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the
individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended
recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use
of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have
received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us by
telephone (434-295-4800) or by electronic mail
(fportell at genciabiotech.com) immediately.


From pizerdavid at yahoo.com  Mon May 28 21:47:18 2012
From: pizerdavid at yahoo.com (david pizer)
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 14:47:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] May Cryonics issue
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFizteTysOj-QAZJ_PfJ61wmwAsAwYwb=Ja-FtXevruLZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFhB076ZJ8LuPfdYr9vcNmSwhcjvzZKrwwHxUUr+ATkHLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1338235394.98743.YahooMailNeo@web161705.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAAc1gFizteTysOj-QAZJ_PfJ61wmwAsAwYwb=Ja-FtXevruLZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1338241638.11070.YahooMailNeo@web161704.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

The expected savings with neuro is not all that it appears to be.
Here are my opinions of why I feel that way:
?
1.? Neuro saves some money in long-term storage in the amount of liquid nitrogen it uses and dewer space.? But those are a?small part of the total costs of doing cryonics.
The biggest cost in doing cryonics is the overhead of running Alcor.? If you take the total annual overhead or running Alcor - ?things like: building repair and upgrade expenses, public relations, payroll, utilities, cost of mistakes that are regularly made, legal expenses and so on, and you divide them by the number of patients in storage there is a certain equal share of each of these costs regardless of whether the patient is a whole body or neuro.
?
For instance if the total overhead is, say,?$1,000,000 per year and there are 100 patients (some neuro and some whole body) the overhead cost per patient is $1,000,000 divided by 100 or $10,000 per patient.? (this is just for examples sake, in real life you also have to allow for doing the suspensions also.
?
2.? Neuro patients tend to be less wealthy than whole body.? Some members choose neuro because they don't have much money.? I don't have the numbers on this but I suspect that the bigger size?donations come from whole body patients.
?
3.?But the Biggest expense to Alcor because of neuros is in the field of public relations.? The non-cryonics public, (and some of?the cryonics community too), ?hates neuro.? The fact that Alcor does neuros is sometimes the single factor why government officials give us a hard time.? I was there 11 years and I saw that with my own eyes.?? This very factor of such negative public relations is the main reason why CI will not do neuros.
?
Neuros disgust the non-cryonics public and they are the ones who sometimes make things very hard for us.? When they make things hard for us our legal expenses and other expenses of trying to influence people go up.
?
4.? Also the fact that we do neuros causes some people who would become whole body members and have the money to spend to not want to be associated with us.? So doing neuros costs Alcor Whole Body suspension income.
?
So even though neuros cost the neuro person less money, they cost Alcor more money that has to be made up by everyone.
?
?
There is a solution to this.
?
I think that public reaction to brain preservations rather than "chopping off" the whole head (as they see it) would be much less offensive to the the rest of the non-cryonics world.
?
I don't think it would be any harded to just remove the brain and vitrify it and in fact it might be much easier.? When I was Alcor's VP I negotiated for Alcor with Sun West in Sun City.? They were doing research on brain diseases and they were removing the brains from their doners?and doing some platinations.? Their doctors could remove a human brain in a matter of a few minutes.
?
The relatives of their brain doners liked this because then their loved one could have a regular funeral and burial.
?
The public likes the idea of "brain?trusts."
?
I think that if the membership lobbied hard enough the?Alcor Board could be convinced to look into brain preservation instead of head preservations.?
?
?
?
?
 

________________________________
 From: Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
To: david pizer <pizerdavid at yahoo.com> 
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] May Cryonics issue
  
You are right, David, that the key to success in the cryonics business
is to drum up more business and reduce waste .... but the devil is in
the details. Massively (percentage-wise) cutting prices for neuro and
slightly (again, percentage-wise) increasing prices for whole body
should definitely achieve both, even if the total average
per-suspension intake is only slightly increased. Neuro patients are
more likely to be price-sensitive, so cutting their price will
increase their numbers. Since keeping them frozen costs nothing (until
the whole/neuro ratio drops below 0.8), there will be no net spending
increase for Alcor. Whole-body patients are less price sensitive
(since they already chose a more expensive but less effective
procedure), so they will not abandon Alcor in droves after a price
increase. Dewar utilization will improve.

Would you expect different results? Specifically, do you expect a
different effect of such a price change on the number of neuro
signups, number of whole body signups and average dewar utilization?

Rafal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120528/e47c9984/attachment.html>

From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Mon May 28 23:06:56 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 17:06:56 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter
In-Reply-To: <CAKrqSyEh7y0mKdO_Z16PDkQvKaRWuU17J+OW8TtRQc3xyYCsjw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJX-7wXQ45FPy0cadUMk73W9GQwBoCsrLa608680EpxVQm439A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa9X2dYMjZp1G8RP54zPLxrC70Zr0=ogw2kJGhwHmwTAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyFaG3YzHvj9oYktL+FvkT6bFjLteR+y-Deww-5+1x6rLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYtzNeA80C4sLN7_h3DfoE6Nz62z2bU_iWSs=haQTWoJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyH_xVtGR2Aa6d2Jd5Y5PDyXohnL7GcsoznU+BNHKompbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwbYANC603grrYZ7KqF2bGQ=NoOeAoTW4-TTy0KzV+K4bQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1338085839.56273.YahooMailNeo@web164502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
 <CAPy8RwZWfdKXR7GqTghpkznynF+NC088BPHf-PJaruEVRq=LLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyEh7y0mKdO_Z16PDkQvKaRWuU17J+OW8TtRQc3xyYCsjw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwZrRLH7KXzjphvN5ywRyDag=LRCrQR6e3RKaN_ih3tKvw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Will Steinberg
<steinberg.will at gmail.com> wrote:
> You have just as little evidence.

I have pretty good evidence that human beings are conscious.

I think there is also reasonably good evidence that higher mammals are
also conscious, though without the neocortex, the experience would be
different in that it would be a "present only" consciousness, without
the advanced planning for the future and mirror neurons and all that.

> I believe the universe, multiverse, and
> anything involving energy exchanging/encoding information between physical
> memory systems--chemical reactions, light travelling across the universe,
> gravity uniting bodies--are conscious. There is nowhere you learned that
> consciousness requires emergence except by the beliefs that are held today.
> ?A CNS is used for sapience, not sentience--they have different names for a
> reason.

Well, I'd like to say that someday we'll figure this all out, but I'm
afraid it will probably remain in the realm of philosophy and
religion.

I've told you my position, you've told me yours. I think we are done
on this topic... I think I am finished administering blunt trauma to
deceased equines.

-Kelly



From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Tue May 29 00:50:02 2012
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 20:50:02 -0400
Subject: [ExI] May Cryonics issue
In-Reply-To: <1338241638.11070.YahooMailNeo@web161704.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <CAAc1gFhB076ZJ8LuPfdYr9vcNmSwhcjvzZKrwwHxUUr+ATkHLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1338235394.98743.YahooMailNeo@web161705.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAAc1gFizteTysOj-QAZJ_PfJ61wmwAsAwYwb=Ja-FtXevruLZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1338241638.11070.YahooMailNeo@web161704.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFjGGuT3AhFC=mZJ5qSOSGG1gJG6TAv20t=vNSrPOfVxoQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 5:47 PM, david pizer <pizerdavid at yahoo.com> wrote:

> public relations.? The non-cryonics public, (and some of?the cryonics
> community too), ?hates neuro.? The fact that Alcor does neuros is sometimes
> the single factor why government officials give us a hard time.? I was there
> 11 years and I saw that with my own eyes.?? This very factor of such
> negative public relations is the main reason why CI will not do neuros.

### This is a very interesting and valuable insight. As an extremely
rational, or rationalistic person I have difficulty following the
thinking of regular people on such issues. It doesn't help that I
worked in an anatomy lab, and any residual squeamishness I had
disappeared there among fumes of formaldehyde. But, normal people are
the greatest potential market for cryonics services, so it is crucial
to understand their feelings and respond accordingly.

The question is, how can we quantify the possible losses that the
Alcor community incurs as a result of using neuro suspensions. Is it a
major impact, enough to discourage us from this procedure, even though
it is technically superior? Or is it more of a side issue?

You may also note that what Ralph elaborated on in his article, was
the question of how much should be the contributions of neuro and
whole body patients to the PCT - and this specifically excludes legal
and public relations expenses. The PCT covers (according to what Ralph
wrote) only the direct spending on keeping patients frozen, such as
building rent, cost of dewar manufacture, liquid nitrogen and
supervision - and this cost is in fact 10 times higher for whole body
patients. Is it worth to increase the long term cost of suspension by
10 times only to avoid causing "disgust" in some people? I would find
it hard to believe, in the absence of some hard data. If it were the
major issue separating successful cryonics companies from failures,
then the CI and ACS would have to be already vastly ahead of Alcor,
since they presumably do not come up against this emotional reaction.

This said, I agree that direct brain preservation, or the option of
preservation of the whole body and brain *separately*, could be
potentially interesting. There are many people donating brains to
research (perhaps in part because it does not cost them anything), and
if separate brain preservation could make cryonics more palatable to
potential customers, it is at least worth spending some effort on
marketing research to quantify the possibilities.

I would imagine that direct brain preservation for cryonics would
start out similar to a whole body case except that after the initial
cooldown, washout and stabilization the surgeon would open the skull,
and remove the brain to directly cannulate the internal carotids for
vitrification perfusion. While this would potentially expose the brain
to some mechanical stresses, it might also help achieve cryogenic
temperatures faster. Perhaps it would be possible to inject the
cryoprotectant into the ventricular system and the subarachnoid space
which might reduce the likelihood of fracturing during cooling. The
skull would be then replaced and the scalp would be sown up, just as
it is done during normal autopsies. This approach would pose some
technical challenges but also offer more options. For example, since
the brain is just a fraction of the size of the head, the procedure
would reduce the long term cost of neuro suspension even further,
without greatly increasing the initial expense.

Rafal



From pizerdavid at yahoo.com  Tue May 29 02:34:19 2012
From: pizerdavid at yahoo.com (david pizer)
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 19:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] May Cryonics issue
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFjGGuT3AhFC=mZJ5qSOSGG1gJG6TAv20t=vNSrPOfVxoQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFhB076ZJ8LuPfdYr9vcNmSwhcjvzZKrwwHxUUr+ATkHLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1338235394.98743.YahooMailNeo@web161705.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAAc1gFizteTysOj-QAZJ_PfJ61wmwAsAwYwb=Ja-FtXevruLZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1338241638.11070.YahooMailNeo@web161704.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAAc1gFjGGuT3AhFC=mZJ5qSOSGG1gJG6TAv20t=vNSrPOfVxoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1338258859.22251.YahooMailNeo@web161702.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

Rafal:? I would imagine that direct brain preservation for cryonics would
start out similar to a whole body case except that after the initial
cooldown, washout and stabilization the surgeon would open the skull,
and remove the brain to directly cannulate the internal carotids for
vitrification perfusion. 
?
David: If we could remove the brain within a few minutes of legal death and then work on it under ice water that would probably be the faster way to cool it down.
?
?
Rafal: Perhaps it would be possible to inject the
cryoprotectant into the ventricular system and the subarachnoid space
which might reduce the likelihood of fracturing during cooling. The
skull would be then replaced and the scalp would be sown up, just as
it is done during normal autopsies. This approach would pose some
technical challenges but also offer more options. For example, since
the brain is just a fraction of the size of the head, the procedure
would reduce the long term cost of neuro suspension even further,
without greatly increasing the initial expense.

David: It would go even faster if we could?cannulate?the carotids while the patients was still legally alive and at the instant of legal death start the perfusion and brain removal and into ice water?all at the same time.
?
?? 

________________________________
 From: Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
To: david pizer <pizerdavid at yahoo.com> 
Cc: Extropy Chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> 
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] May Cryonics issue
  
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 5:47 PM, david pizer <pizerdavid at yahoo.com> wrote:

> public relations.? The non-cryonics public, (and some of?the cryonics
> community too), ?hates neuro.? The fact that Alcor does neuros is sometimes
> the single factor why government officials give us a hard time.? I was there
> 11 years and I saw that with my own eyes.?? This very factor of such
> negative public relations is the main reason why CI will not do neuros.

### This is a very interesting and valuable insight. As an extremely
rational, or rationalistic person I have difficulty following the
thinking of regular people on such issues. It doesn't help that I
worked in an anatomy lab, and any residual squeamishness I had
disappeared there among fumes of formaldehyde. But, normal people are
the greatest potential market for cryonics services, so it is crucial
to understand their feelings and respond accordingly.

The question is, how can we quantify the possible losses that the
Alcor community incurs as a result of using neuro suspensions. Is it a
major impact, enough to discourage us from this procedure, even though
it is technically superior? Or is it more of a side issue?

You may also note that what Ralph elaborated on in his article, was
the question of how much should be the contributions of neuro and
whole body patients to the PCT - and this specifically excludes legal
and public relations expenses. The PCT covers (according to what Ralph
wrote) only the direct spending on keeping patients frozen, such as
building rent, cost of dewar manufacture, liquid nitrogen and
supervision - and this cost is in fact 10 times higher for whole body
patients. Is it worth to increase the long term cost of suspension by
10 times only to avoid causing "disgust" in some people? I would find
it hard to believe, in the absence of some hard data. If it were the
major issue separating successful cryonics companies from failures,
then the CI and ACS would have to be already vastly ahead of Alcor,
since they presumably do not come up against this emotional reaction.

This said, I agree that direct brain preservation, or the option of
preservation of the whole body and brain *separately*, could be
potentially interesting. There are many people donating brains to
research (perhaps in part because it does not cost them anything), and
if separate brain preservation could make cryonics more palatable to
potential customers, it is at least worth spending some effort on
marketing research to quantify the possibilities.

I would imagine that direct brain preservation for cryonics would
start out similar to a whole body case except that after the initial
cooldown, washout and stabilization the surgeon would open the skull,
and remove the brain to directly cannulate the internal carotids for
vitrification perfusion. While this would potentially expose the brain
to some mechanical stresses, it might also help achieve cryogenic
temperatures faster. Perhaps it would be possible to inject the
cryoprotectant into the ventricular system and the subarachnoid space
which might reduce the likelihood of fracturing during cooling. The
skull would be then replaced and the scalp would be sown up, just as
it is done during normal autopsies. This approach would pose some
technical challenges but also offer more options. For example, since
the brain is just a fraction of the size of the head, the procedure
would reduce the long term cost of neuro suspension even further,
without greatly increasing the initial expense.

Rafal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120528/9d8bd4a9/attachment.html>

From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Tue May 29 03:41:36 2012
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 20:41:36 -0700
Subject: [ExI] May Cryonics issue
Message-ID: <CAPiwVB7mcXhV+BmUCQNdJ9NV8+7EMxv4LRuFaEHh4BYnzJKsLQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 2:04 PM,  Rafal Smigrodzki
<rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You are right, David, that the key to success in the cryonics business
> is to drum up more business and reduce waste .... but the devil is in
> the details.

So true.

> Massively (percentage-wise) cutting prices for neuro and
> slightly (again, percentage-wise) increasing prices for whole body
> should definitely achieve both, even if the total average
> per-suspension intake is only slightly increased. Neuro patients are
> more likely to be price-sensitive, so cutting their price will
> increase their numbers.

I would take this with a grain of salt.  Nobody really knows the price
elasticity curve for cryonic suspension contracts, though we could
possibly derive a point or two from the depth of financial catastrophe
it takes for for members to cancel their membership.  I suspect that
the number of people who would sign up if it were free is a small
fraction of the population.

I have no good idea of what a survey would find because I get my
impressions from a rather small sample of people who are far out on
the distribution curve.  That said, I see widespread belief in the
generation of my youngest daughter (who is almost 30) that medical
advances over the next few decades will allow them to live a very long
time.

Just how widespread this belief is would take some survey work.
Figuring out how to convert these people into Alcor members is another
problem, if it can be done at all.

A really interesting project would be to get some of our rich members
to fund a monthly or bimonthly cryonics raffle.  Win the raffle and
you are covered, due and insurance for 2-5 years.  It might give us
some idea of how large or small the population of potential members
are.

Of course for young people stating out with hundreds of thousands of
school debts, the prospect of taking on the expense of cryonic
suspension is not a good one.

Keith


From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Tue May 29 16:44:52 2012
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 09:44:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Ageing eyes hinder biometric scans
Message-ID: <1338309892.49110.YahooMailNeo@web160601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

http://www.nature.com/news/ageing-eyes-hinder-biometric-scans-1.10722?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20120529
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120529/41fb9c30/attachment.html>

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue May 29 18:38:19 2012
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 20:38:19 +0200
Subject: [ExI] battle tanks to a five yr old
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8Rwb=CFGhyF-6=DYMP-_V_ZWxK-F+fai3Xm5moAG81qq0kg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <016e01cd2be3$93fe4ea0$bbfaebe0$@att.net>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205272118280.9899@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAPy8Rwb=CFGhyF-6=DYMP-_V_ZWxK-F+fai3Xm5moAG81qq0kg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPoR7a5WK8oppeBq57tunrm02_1dNZNBFio60wYwhfGdDsRUsQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 28 May 2012 19:09, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:

> But being a pussy with regards to resorting to violence isn't
> precisely the same thing as taking it in the ass.
>

Same us "courteous language does not equate to refraining from graphic
metaphors"? :-)

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120529/9ffab373/attachment.html>

From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Tue May 29 22:41:03 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 16:41:03 -0600
Subject: [ExI] May Cryonics issue
In-Reply-To: <CAPiwVB7mcXhV+BmUCQNdJ9NV8+7EMxv4LRuFaEHh4BYnzJKsLQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7mcXhV+BmUCQNdJ9NV8+7EMxv4LRuFaEHh4BYnzJKsLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwYfhzFNN4LnHNnSM5AxcjMo3AvkunpLeJAzqcTQ1ZfsHQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> wrote:
> I suspect that
> the number of people who would sign up if it were free is a small
> fraction of the population.

Perhaps, but it would include ME.

> A really interesting project would be to get some of our rich members
> to fund a monthly or bimonthly cryonics raffle. ?Win the raffle and
> you are covered, due and insurance for 2-5 years. ?It might give us
> some idea of how large or small the population of potential members
> are.

Sign me up!

-Kelly



From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Tue May 29 23:18:05 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 17:18:05 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Wired article on AI risk
In-Reply-To: <CAPoR7a5dpFjTEtdCMC1edaRXMaTa+MgJgB=26cPHRoGdUWRuZg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF=HMECg4XE2A2R29oiSsnrUsbw8uPtPiSmfrR-nmVwr1DR9eA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a45zUbMb0AiLTkShT=B4WyJB1ifE1MSXheA+mbwz5Y30w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZrbP1KDBj-26XBNjZEYkY140rfUZ8Xyj2yRg_7mg4=eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a73fAy8koK=iSSiMEZ3bvppP-KmyROPmoDnDPt+Ptqepw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZiR2EVYo50qmW_FPwwNeazKDN=Co7pLm4fx172WbcpTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a5qjmTJv2-VhXQA9oVJcS-cvXBhjdEkoGLeSxLxR=8O0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYb+ZQEqVNPH5-YUUfKeGqy3es9mxXX2RiyMVxZ2DEPjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a7BjduQrz9N=yn2996QBGfWmcequ8Ff+4yvJg7knZXUgw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYhyX-3Bkb6pb0GLEM9WjTc4kznAj-j6AR8Ywowv2rD1g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a5dpFjTEtdCMC1edaRXMaTa+MgJgB=26cPHRoGdUWRuZg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwaeBAq+LhZd2+AncU+ep-795An4ZhmoxV40DSCbw+xF_A@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24 May 2012 21:29, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Ok Stefano, now you're playing in my sandbox... :-)
>
> Hey, happy to hear that.
>
>> Computational equivalence means simply that one machine possesses the
>> same capacity as another to execute instructions. It says nothing of
>> speed. Even more importantly, it says nothing of memory. When you say
>> two machines are computationally equivalent, you aren't saying that
>> any program that runs on one will also run on the other because the
>> memory requirements could greatly outstrip the capacity of one or the
>> other of the machines.
>
> My understanding is exactly that. A Power Macintosh could emulate an Intel
> PC because given unlimited time and unlimited memory anything that is a
> "universal computer" can emulate any system at all - even though this may be
> true for quantum processors only in theory.

Let's not get into the quantum processors, that will just make my
brain hurt. Of course, it's the case because quantum computers exist
only in theory.

But it is not true that they can all run the same programs because
some programs require more memory. Also, if the requirement of the
program is that it run in real time (or the plane will crash, for
example) then this fact is only helpful in theory, not in practice.

And of course many things the brain does must be accomplished in real
time (or you will fall down, or walk into something).

>> To take Newton's approach of limits, imagine a machine with a total
>> memory (Disk and RAM) of only 10 bytes. Do you think you could
>> implement universal computation on that? I think not. The
>> computational equivalence math assumes infinite memory. Given infinite
>> memory and near infinite time, yes, an Atari 800 XL could simulate a
>> human brain, but it would be like watching a redwood tree grow, so
>> it's of little practical use.
>
> Absolutely. I am note sure whether a Chinese Room is a universal computer,
> but if it is, the solution of the Searle objection is that its intelligence
> given whatever software is counterintuitive not for any structural reason,
> but simply because a real-world implementation would require multiples of
> the age of the universe for each interaction.

Yes, exactly. So the gap between theory and practice is greater in
practice than it is in theory.

>> > He makes a distinction between "predictable" (a program enumerating the
>> > powers of 2), chaotic (a program calculating the effect of the butterfly
>> > wings on hurricanes the other end of the world), and "truly
>> > unpredictable",
>> > which remain fully deterministic, but where the only way to calculate
>> > the
>> > final status is to run the program step by step to the end.
>>
>> Ok. Not sure how it applies, but I get that.
>
>
> In this sense, an organic brain, human or otherwise, would be
> "unpredictable", and yet fully deterministic, not because of some misterious
> "free will", but similarly to innumerable other physical processes, and even
> to a few very simple computer programs. A classic, anthropomorphic,
> Turing-qualified AGI would certainly exhibit the same property, but
> Wolfram's point is that this property is nothing special and is actually
> shared by the vast majority of possible processes and phenomena, the
> contrary opinion arising from a selection bias where scientific thought has
> so far concentrated exclusively to the subset of problems amenable to an
> easy algorithimic solution, and generalised the idea that this must be true
> for all or almost all problem (human mind perhaps exceptionally excluded for
> metaphysical reasons).

Ok. I actually get that. Sure, absolutely right. It is difficult
emotionally to give up free will. Maybe this will come to make the
sting of losing free will less sharp.

>> > OK, as for their personal skin, they are under the much more actual
>> > threat
>> > of being dead *anyway* within less than a century in average, and in
>> > most
>> > cases much sooner, unless something drastic happens. As for their
>> > progeny,
>> > we have to define first what "progeny" is. Immediate children? Genetic
>> > successors? Co-specifics? "Children of the mind"? I am not sure there
>> > any
>> > final reason to opt for one definition or another, but I have an answer
>> > for
>> > each.
>>
>> Yes, I realize it is a complex subject. But most proles care more for
>> their DNA progeny than the children of humanity's mind.
>
> This would have indeed little to do with "x-risk" rhetoric, because every
> human who is not a direct descendant of the individual concerned does not
> qualify.

We share DNA as a species, and my Darwin-Dawkins-given right to
selfishness for my genes extends, in some measure, to all humans.

> And while children share 50% of the genetic endowment of each
> parent, already grand-children share only 25%, and so on. Accordingly, in
> terms "caring for one's DNA", AGIs increasing by 10% the life of one's
> children at the price of the immediate extinction of the rest of humankind,
> and the extinction of the offspring itself of the invidual concerned but
> only after a few generation, should be heartily welcome by the said proles.

I'm not sure of that.. maybe you need to hone your marketing message... LOL

> OTOH, humans easily extend their "survival" istinct to adoptive children, to
> disciples, and to collective identities (say, France, or the catholic
> church, or the family business, or the communist party), and this even when
> this may have a cost for their own personal interest of that of their
> immediate biological children; so, not only this is not the ethical POV of
> the AGI doom-mongers, but has little to do with real-world priority
> scales...

I think we will be able to extend our "survival" instincts to NBEs
too. Honestly. Hopefully, we will see.

>> > I have some views about that as well, but perhaps this will bring us too
>> > far... :-)
>>
>> LOL... If we are uncomfortable in any way having the elites run the
>> world today, then how much more uncomfortable will we be about it when
>> the elites are not even human?
>
> Let us say that I am a British lady, who is uncomfortable with the rule of
> Queen Elizabeth II. Should I really be concerned upon how much more
> uncomfortable I will be when the monarch will "not even be a woman"? :-)

Not sure of your point exactly... but it was a rhetorical question.

-Kelly


From spike66 at att.net  Tue May 29 23:46:06 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 16:46:06 -0700
Subject: [ExI] self driving cars
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwZ_TuRhaokuyNdrPZ-ebVLy-vBN+Fw7OaX4OEPaCxgTdw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.766.1337421541.17650.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <1337456547.27401.YahooMailClassic@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
 <CAPy8RwZ_TuRhaokuyNdrPZ-ebVLy-vBN+Fw7OaX4OEPaCxgTdw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <034901cd3df5$38066f00$a8134d00$@att.net>


Cool, Volvo has an entry in this game now:

http://www.reghardware.com/2012/05/28/volvo_tests_project_sartre_on_public_r
oads/

"Three cars have successfully driven themselves by automatically following a
lorry for 125 miles on a public motorway in the presence of other, normal
road users.

The real-world trial, conducted in Spain by Volvo and car automation
specialist Ricardo, put technology created for Project Sartre (Safe Road
Trains for the Environment) to the test to determine if it can indeed allow
the cars to be guided safely by a lead vehicle while their drivers get on
with something else."

In some ways this might be more practical in the short term than
self-drivers.

spike




From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Wed May 30 01:37:03 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 19:37:03 -0600
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <00bc01cd37a3$c90c0ee0$5b242ca0$@att.net>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <002501cd3655$32447640$96cd62c0$@att.net>
 <20120520152359.GH17120@leitl.org>
 <00aa01cd3777$ffc09720$ff41c560$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwZn5Mw8sJ10-45eFCUpw+BugaP65F9sNROW3HX1O0k+9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <00bc01cd37a3$c90c0ee0$5b242ca0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwZDnBLSXBVQeNRS9JP=w1BKVQ8K70kKKBWPYp7VJCkK8w@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 4:48 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>>...So you're saying that I couldn't predict where it would come down
> without rapid deceleration? That seems a little hard to believe...Spike, I
> have tremendous respect for your knowledge in this area...-Kelly
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> Thanks Kelly, I didn't explain that very well. ?If we go for aerobraking, we
> are talking about very shallow reentry angles. ?That means high uncertainty
> on the reentry path. ?Small uncertainties in atmospheric density mean large
> uncertainties in landing spot.

Ok, that makes more sense. It seems to me that there are two ways to
get down... One, which is what everything I am aware of is to fire the
rocket straight ahead which slows your speed and you drop to earth.
Another, which probably isn't used, is to fire the rocket straight up
into space pushing you down but not slowing you. I figure that with
monkeys in the can, you want to be going as slow as possible, is that
right? So would firing the rocket straight up give you more
predictability, but a hotter entry?

> Recall the event burning into my brain from
> my childhood, the reentry of the ill-fated Apollo 13. ?That was a case where
> one of the biggest dangers was avoided when mission control realized the
> reentry vehicle was about 300 pounds light, since it was not carrying the
> moon rocks it had planned to return. ?Had that not been found
> (understandable under the circumstances) that alone would have caused the
> landing site to be off far enough the astronauts would likely have perished
> out at sea before they were found.

Yes, that would be very bad.

> The reason is that the density of the upper atmosphere is difficult to
> predict with the precision that we know the density of the air down here: it
> varies by time of day, by F10.7 radiation from the sun up to a factor of 3
> at very high altitude, by position of the moon (the atmosphere has tides way
> bigger than the seas), by geomagnetic index and a handful of smaller
> effects. ?Add to all this the fact that the upper atmosphere has waves and
> surges, like the ocean only thousands of times bigger.

But would it not also be true that the bigger the variability, the
less it would actually impact the orbiting object? If it's thinner, it
seems that it would affect it less, and also be more exposed to solar
wind effects, etc.

> If the reentry angle is too shallow, the reentry body (RB) might actually
> start to go back out, a skip-off event a little like a flat stone skipping
> off the surface of a lake.

I've heard of that. I always figured you had to be going faster than
orbital speed to get this effect...

> Even a small event like that has enormous
> consequences when you realize an RB has a velocity of 11 km per second. ?You
> can have a piece break off, which changes the ballistic coefficient, which
> again adds to unpredictability of the landing spot.

And again, if you have a transponder in the object, does it matter, so
long as it lands SOMEWHERE in the Pacific ocean?

> So in a very shallow reentry event is difficult to predict exactly where a
> payload will reenter. ?So back in the Mercury days when we were trying to
> work out atmospheric reentry, the trick was to have the RB come in as
> steeply as practical (steeper means higher G decelerations, which means
> greater heat load and structural load on the shield as well as more
> discomfort for the apes aboard) for if they went for shallower angles (less
> delta V needed) there was increased risk of losing the capsule to some
> unknown location never to be found.

Ok, so there is a balance that has to be reached. What I'm asking is
would that balance be significantly different if apes and fragile
equipment were not on the list of concerns?

> All that being said, there probably is some way to reenter high value
> payloads without the shuttle, but all I have seen so far is a number of
> approaches which will not work for known reasons or are very high risk.

High risk? Really, what's the risk? I mean risking a big ball of gold
is clearly a risk, but you would practice with copper or something to
get it right, no?

> spike
>
> ps Since I am running over the five a day posting limit, do let me make a
> short comment with respect to Brent's commentary on the immorality of
> hoarding gold. ?On the contrary sir, gold hoarders do a service: they keep
> governments honest. ?We are a planet awash in fiat currencies that various
> governments claim have value. ?The test of these claims is in how much gold
> (or other predicable-supply substance) the market will give for that
> currency. ?This is how we know that Monopoly money and anything minted by
> the government of Zimbabwe is worthless: no one will give you gold for it.
> But they will cheerfully trade you these currencies for gold, plenty of it.
> Any fiat currency can be converted to gold if it has actual value. ?So gold
> hoarding is not immoral, gold traders keep governments honest.

And my idea about an orbiting currency would keep governments even
more honest because the gold would not be physically present in any
country, and thus not as susceptible to government confiscation. The
thing that would REALLY keep such a thing safe is if every despotic
leader had a significant amount of the currency in their private
account... It has worked for Switzerland for a long time.

-Kelly



From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Wed May 30 02:38:33 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 20:38:33 -0600
Subject: [ExI] SpaceX launch succcessful
In-Reply-To: <1337708237.14797.YahooMailNeo@web160601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <CAFqFpXvyCpUqcOuGwThzpQjt_rW_Fq02ma6P5x5ipxn7rC=1Jw@mail.gmail.com>
 <F426D7D3-4BF7-4FEB-BAAA-D2EF0C2667DD@yahoo.com>
 <01ba01cd381e$1f0862b0$5d192810$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwYUZXhy3Q3-ppK7o8HboyqwSDrkYHaRZxPwKRTdJMr03w@mail.gmail.com>
 <1337708237.14797.YahooMailNeo@web160601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwY=ug-19JhB3vqdpechq0atPB7z68=Eo-ebhfr0dTdB3A@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 12:48 PM Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is very exciting! I suppose we shall see if taking
>> the libertarian approach to space will work out better
>> than the previous endeavors...
>
> This is not a "libertarian approach to space" transport. It is, at
> best, a partly private approach to supporting a basically non-libertarian
> approach to space exploration. NASA isn't ponying up money it got
> justly to pay for a ride on SpaceX rockets. Instead, it relies on
> involuntary contributions from viewers like you. :/

Ok, so the money for the first ticket on the libertarian express was
not purchased with libertarian money. I get your point, but I also
reject it to some extent. If SpaceX doesn't deliver, they don't get
the contract. It's a free market system, with a government client.
That is way more free than what existed previously, and I'm not so
much of an idealist that I insist that every piece of food on my
breakfast plate is libertarian back to its source... at least not
today.

> A truly libertarian approach here would be one where no one's
> rights were violated [routinely and inherently] to get to space.

Well, yes, but I count movement towards liberty as libertarian, even
if not purely so.

> This is not to say all is not well with this plan. It's better than the
> old cost-plus contracting used to finance space launchers in the
> past. The big problem, though, remains: an involuntarily funded
> space agency is the big player in this market. (This is setting aside
> the nest of regulations and the context of wider coercive interferences
> in society.)

Yes, I am with you brother! But baby steps my friend, baby steps.

>> (Ok, not ENTIRELY fair, since they are standing on the
>> shoulders of giants...)? But time should tell... If SpaceX
>> actually can create rockets that will go to mars and the
>> asteroids relatively quickly, THEN we'll know this is the
>> right approach.
>
> I have no doubts that space transportation can be privatized.

Me either... it might be a matter of time though. Remember Roanoke
preceded Jamestown. Is SpaceX Roanoke, or Jamestown.... only time will
tell. But I'm OK with companies dying in pursuit of this, or any other
worthwhile dream. Even people may die on this trip, and honestly, as
sad as that is, it is OK. Just look at the survival rate of any of the
first great voyages... this isn't always going to be as pretty as this
first SpaceX flight seems to be turning out to be.

> It might take a while to do, since the big players -- and this includes
> SpaceX -- rely on government support and this tends to distort
> costs upward.

What distorts costs upward is that it is still very close to the
research stage...

> But I'm not really sure what you say makes sense. If one is merely
> looking at results, governments have already built rockets -- or paid
> for big aerospace firms to build them -- to get to Mars and the asteroids.

But look at the difference in cost. Nasa is paying the russians around
$60 million to deliver one ape to the space station. SpaceX estimates
that they can do the job in 3 (really 5-6) years for $20 million
(really $30 million). Still, even taking out the marketing puff,
that's a nice savings.

> Would this result -- many successful missions to those
> destinations -- prove to you that government is the "right
> approach"?

If they could do it economically, but that never happens with the
government, any government.

> (To me, it sounds like you're setting yourself up for the TVA
> response a proponent of government might answer you with:
> if you merely look at results, the TVA seemed to work really well.
> If you look at the whole picture, though, the TVA was (and is)
> great at making electricity at low rates for people in its district as
> long as it got a huge subsidy from the federal government to begin
> with. This is like me giving you
> ?a billion pounds, which to you put into a business that sells products
> below costs, but, hey, you've got a billion pounds to sink into
> satisfying your customers.:)

I am not a huge fan of the TVA.. however, it was helpful in winning
WWII against Japan, so you have to give it some credit, even if it is
a huge boondoggle.

>> The most interesting factoid for me was that SpaceX was
>> founded in 2002, and that Boeing hasn't been able to get
>> something going to this point. I will take this as validation
>> that smaller groups of people can be more efficient and
>> focused than large groups of people. I wonder how many
>> employee years SpaceX has expended thus far...
>
> I wouldn't make too many generalizations from such a small
> sample. Plus, I don't know, and from your comments I'm guessing
> you don't know, what the culture at Boeing is like, especially
> in their spacecraft division.

Isn't it true that Scott Adams (Dilbert) worked at Boeing? No, that's
not true. However, what is true is that so many of the employees at
Boeing think he works there, that the rumor that he did work there can
not be put down. That should tell you just a little about the culture
at Boeing. :-)

> It might be a lot like Amazon's approach to not having large
> groups of people working on one project. (According to a
> recent issue of Forbes, Jeff Bezos has a "two pizza" rule.
> Teams working on projects should no bigger than can be
> fed with two pizzas. Presumably, they've no heard of the
> paleo diet.:) Also, it could be that you're right and still that
> Boeing, given some stiff competition from start ups like SpaceX,
> might modify the way it approaches these projects. Remember,
> for a long time, the US space launch industry has been facing
> little competition* and basically does business under a monopsony,
> with NASA being the biggest market buyer for launchers, especially
> big launchers.

You are making my argument for me here. What you may not be aware of
is that Boeing was asked to bid on the same project as SpaceX, and
they have not yet delivered a proposal good enough to warrant serious
attention from NASA. But, they WERE asked, and they did field a team.
I would be willing to bet you $10 that Boeing has already spent more
than SpaceX trying to enter this space and have NOTHING significant to
show for it.

> Dan
>
> * Of course, this did change with communication satellite launches.
> And, also, the US military is the other big player here with launches
> of its satellites. Notably, that military, like all militaries, is also
> coercively funded -- as well as being the major coercer.

No argument there... but why does having non-libertarian customers (at
first) mean that it is not a step towards a more free (as in freedom)
approach?

Dan, I'm a glass half full libertarian, you sound here like a glass
half empty libertarian. :-)

-Kelly



From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Wed May 30 02:41:50 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 20:41:50 -0600
Subject: [ExI] self driving cars
In-Reply-To: <034901cd3df5$38066f00$a8134d00$@att.net>
References: <mailman.766.1337421541.17650.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <1337456547.27401.YahooMailClassic@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
 <CAPy8RwZ_TuRhaokuyNdrPZ-ebVLy-vBN+Fw7OaX4OEPaCxgTdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <034901cd3df5$38066f00$a8134d00$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwbKSOoCqkUUMmjQ3XZFx2KcSF-p=Eq-zT21qhNjdzUAaA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 5:46 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
> Cool, Volvo has an entry in this game now:
>
> http://www.reghardware.com/2012/05/28/volvo_tests_project_sartre_on_public_r
> oads/
>
> "Three cars have successfully driven themselves by automatically following a
> lorry for 125 miles on a public motorway in the presence of other, normal
> road users.
>
> The real-world trial, conducted in Spain by Volvo and car automation
> specialist Ricardo, put technology created for Project Sartre (Safe Road
> Trains for the Environment) to the test to determine if it can indeed allow
> the cars to be guided safely by a lead vehicle while their drivers get on
> with something else."
>
> In some ways this might be more practical in the short term than
> self-drivers.

And what happens when the lead car drives over a cliff?

Volvemmings!

-Kelly


From spike66 at att.net  Wed May 30 03:49:43 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 20:49:43 -0700
Subject: [ExI] self driving cars
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwbKSOoCqkUUMmjQ3XZFx2KcSF-p=Eq-zT21qhNjdzUAaA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.766.1337421541.17650.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <1337456547.27401.YahooMailClassic@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
 <CAPy8RwZ_TuRhaokuyNdrPZ-ebVLy-vBN+Fw7OaX4OEPaCxgTdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <034901cd3df5$38066f00$a8134d00$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwbKSOoCqkUUMmjQ3XZFx2KcSF-p=Eq-zT21qhNjdzUAaA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <001601cd3e17$40172140$c04563c0$@att.net>


... On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson
Subject: Re: [ExI] self driving cars

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 5:46 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
> Cool, Volvo has an entry in this game now:
>
>>...
http://www.reghardware.com/2012/05/28/volvo_tests_project_sartre_on_public_r
oads/
>
> "Three cars have successfully driven themselves by automatically 
> following a lorry for 125 miles on a public motorway ...

>...And what happens when the lead car drives over a cliff?

>...Volvemmings!  -Kelly
_______________________________________________

The drivers become Swedish meat balls?

Answer to the problem: make the caravanning feature work only on interstate
highways, where there are no cliffs.  Make it such that if the lead car
drifts over the line, the trailing cars assume the yahoo has dozed, and
immediately brakes all trailing cars to a stop.

This brings up an interesting new problem.  We are not accustomed to having
cars brake to a full stop on the freeway, but they would need to do exactly
that if there is no response from a meat-based control system, which might
not be immediately available, because that particular control system is in
back sleeping, stoned, copulating, or otherwise unresponsive.

So, we now must demand something new of drivers: the ability to deal with
cars coming to a halt on the freeway.  Proposal: make it so that the
caravanning can only be done in the far left lane, and only on freeways that
have barriers.  Then make it such that cars can only use that lane if
equipped with automatic braking systems, which can deal with cars
unexpectedly stopping in the left lane.

On more and more freeways in California, we have carpool lanes and toll
lanes, which are usually over on the far left.  So if we are going to use
that freeway real estate for social engineering, we can use it for
robo-driven cars.  If they are in close formation, all cars would use less
fuel.  We could have it such that if the lead car in a caravan hits the
brakes, it simultaneously applies the same deceleration to all cars in that
train.  That in itself would be cool to watch: a string of 20 cars going at
freeway speed spaced 2 meters apart, then braking all the way to a stop as
the spacing stays right at 2 meters all the way down.

spike



From spike66 at att.net  Wed May 30 04:27:53 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 21:27:53 -0700
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwZDnBLSXBVQeNRS9JP=w1BKVQ8K70kKKBWPYp7VJCkK8w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <002501cd3655$32447640$96cd62c0$@att.net> <20120520152359.GH17120@leitl.org>
 <00aa01cd3777$ffc09720$ff41c560$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwZn5Mw8sJ10-45eFCUpw+BugaP65F9sNROW3HX1O0k+9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <00bc01cd37a3$c90c0ee0$5b242ca0$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwZDnBLSXBVQeNRS9JP=w1BKVQ8K70kKKBWPYp7VJCkK8w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <001f01cd3e1c$95183350$bf4899f0$@att.net>


... On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 4:48 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>>...> Thanks Kelly, I didn't explain that very well. ?If we go for 
> aerobraking, we are talking about very shallow reentry angles. ?That 
> means high uncertainty on the reentry path. ?Small uncertainties in 
> atmospheric density mean large uncertainties in landing spot.

>...Ok, that makes more sense. It seems to me that there are two ways to get
down... One, which is what everything I am aware of is to fire the rocket
straight ahead which slows your speed and you drop to earth...

Ja.

>...Another, which probably isn't used, is to fire the rocket straight up
into space pushing you down but not slowing you...

It isn't used because it doesn't work.  There are orbit sims available
online.  If you find a good one, post the URL.  Playing with those
demonstrates that if you fire your rocket straight up, you don't de-orbit,
you just waste your fuel and get stuck in orbit.

>... I figure that with monkeys in the can, you want to be going as slow as
possible, is that right?

Ja, but it is a tradeoff, as you can find if you fiddle with those online
orbit sims I mentioned above.  The shallow reentry angles require less delta
V and produce lower peak decelerations, but introduce greater risk of
skipping off the atmosphere and landing far from the recovery area.  This
was the biggest danger during the Mercury days.  Gemini and Apollo could be
steered to some extent by an offset CG, but the Mercury astronauts were spam
in a can.  They didn't like that.

 >...So would firing the rocket straight up give you more predictability,
but a hotter entry?...

No, it would probably result in no reentry at all.  It doesn't do what your
intuition tells you it does.



> >...upper atmosphere has waves and surges, like the ocean only thousands
of times bigger.

>...But would it not also be true that the bigger the variability, the less
it would actually impact the orbiting object? If it's thinner, it seems that
it would affect it less, and also be more exposed to solar wind effects,
etc...

What I mean is if you look at the atmospheric density in the critical areas
where the most aerobraking is taking place, the variability is a lot higher
than it is down here, where atmospheric density doesn't change all that
much.  If you find a good reentry sim, it might have atmospheric density
uncertainty programmed into it.

>> If the reentry angle is too shallow, the reentry body (RB) might 
> actually start to go back out, a skip-off event a little like a flat 
> stone skipping off the surface of a lake.

>...I've heard of that. I always figured you had to be going faster than
orbital speed to get this effect...

Orbital speed is quite sufficient to cause that effect if you come in at a
shallow angle.  You need a competent control system to prevent it, for if
you skip off just once, it introduces a great deal of uncertainty in the
landing spot.

>...And again, if you have a transponder in the object, does it matter, so
long as it lands SOMEWHERE in the Pacific ocean?

Sure but the Pacific Ocean is really big.  If your RB lands in international
waters, then whoever gets there first owns that payload.

...

>...Ok, so there is a balance that has to be reached. What I'm asking is
would that balance be significantly different if apes and fragile equipment
were not on the list of concerns?

I wouldn't think so.  The reentry path you would choose would likely be one
that is survivable by apes.  Reasoning: to get the steeper reentry paths
that result in higher peak Gs would require more delta V to start with,
heavier structure to tolerate the higher heating and higher loads, you would
need a sturdier heavier everything.

Now to your point of using the gold itself as an ablative sacrificial heat
shield, I don't see it.  You need to slow the thing down enough to not have
it vaporize on impact I would think.

That whole task is easy to underestimate.  Consider that once you get your
hunk of gold on board, you need to secure it such that the CG stays in one
spot, you need a thruster system, tanks to hold the fuel, you need actuators
to steer the nozzle, you need a control system to tell the actuators what to
do, you need a gyro of some sort to stabilize the thing, or failing that
some kind of really good thrusters to try to keep it all balanced, you need
an inertial reference system so you know where to point the reentry thrust
nozzle.  It would be possible, but it wouldn't be easy, and all that stuff
would be heavy and costly.

I will leave it at this: if it is feasible to reenter a hunk of gold from
LEO, it has only been recently that it is worth doing, as the price of gold
went crazy.

>> ... all I have seen so far is a number 
> of approaches which will not work for known reasons or are very high risk.

>...High risk? Really, what's the risk? I mean risking a big ball of gold is
clearly a risk, but you would practice with copper or something to get it
right, no?  Kelly

The risk is you would spend all that money to get your reentry system into
orbit, then any number of things might go wrong and you don't get your hunk
of gold back.  Space flight is still hard, even fifty years into it.  It is
still an unforgiving game, still expensive as all get out and still no
economies of scale.  You wouldn?t practice on a hunk of copper, you would
practice on a hunk of gold.  Reasoning: even if your copper reentry scheme
worked, you wouldn't get back a hunk of gold to pay for building and
launching your reentry system.

At this point I am still inclined to think if you had a hunk of gold in
orbit, you would make stuff out of it there, wire, reflectors and such.
Gold has some advantages over other metals for that sort of thing.

spike






From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Wed May 30 05:04:49 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 23:04:49 -0600
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <001f01cd3e1c$95183350$bf4899f0$@att.net>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <002501cd3655$32447640$96cd62c0$@att.net>
 <20120520152359.GH17120@leitl.org>
 <00aa01cd3777$ffc09720$ff41c560$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwZn5Mw8sJ10-45eFCUpw+BugaP65F9sNROW3HX1O0k+9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <00bc01cd37a3$c90c0ee0$5b242ca0$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwZDnBLSXBVQeNRS9JP=w1BKVQ8K70kKKBWPYp7VJCkK8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <001f01cd3e1c$95183350$bf4899f0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwYmyGvXVg1guk99MKQWXeTCRJzeh76SJLAvUseWB7bkjg@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:27 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
> ... On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
>
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 4:48 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>>>...> Thanks Kelly, I didn't explain that very well. ?If we go for
>> aerobraking, we are talking about very shallow reentry angles. ?That
>> means high uncertainty on the reentry path. ?Small uncertainties in
>> atmospheric density mean large uncertainties in landing spot.
>
>>...Ok, that makes more sense. It seems to me that there are two ways to get
> down... One, which is what everything I am aware of is to fire the rocket
> straight ahead which slows your speed and you drop to earth...
>
> Ja.
>
>>...Another, which probably isn't used, is to fire the rocket straight up
> into space pushing you down but not slowing you...
>
> It isn't used because it doesn't work. ?There are orbit sims available
> online. ?If you find a good one, post the URL. ?Playing with those
> demonstrates that if you fire your rocket straight up, you don't de-orbit,
> you just waste your fuel and get stuck in orbit.

Really, that's counter intuitive. I found plenty of planet simulators
but no satellite simulators that include atmosphere...

>>... I figure that with monkeys in the can, you want to be going as slow as
> possible, is that right?
>
> Ja, but it is a tradeoff, as you can find if you fiddle with those online
> orbit sims I mentioned above. ?The shallow reentry angles require less delta
> V and produce lower peak decelerations, but introduce greater risk of
> skipping off the atmosphere and landing far from the recovery area. ?This
> was the biggest danger during the Mercury days. ?Gemini and Apollo could be
> steered to some extent by an offset CG, but the Mercury astronauts were spam
> in a can. ?They didn't like that.

I would not like that either.

> ?>...So would firing the rocket straight up give you more predictability,
> but a hotter entry?...
>
> No, it would probably result in no reentry at all. ?It doesn't do what your
> intuition tells you it does.

Not at all, apparently.

>> >...upper atmosphere has waves and surges, like the ocean only thousands
> of times bigger.
>
>>...But would it not also be true that the bigger the variability, the less
> it would actually impact the orbiting object? If it's thinner, it seems that
> it would affect it less, and also be more exposed to solar wind effects,
> etc...
>
> What I mean is if you look at the atmospheric density in the critical areas
> where the most aerobraking is taking place, the variability is a lot higher
> than it is down here, where atmospheric density doesn't change all that
> much. ?If you find a good reentry sim, it might have atmospheric density
> uncertainty programmed into it.

Ok, I think I am beginning to get it. It's "rocket science" after all... LOL

>>> If the reentry angle is too shallow, the reentry body (RB) might
>> actually start to go back out, a skip-off event a little like a flat
>> stone skipping off the surface of a lake.
>
>>...I've heard of that. I always figured you had to be going faster than
> orbital speed to get this effect...
>
> Orbital speed is quite sufficient to cause that effect if you come in at a
> shallow angle. ?You need a competent control system to prevent it, for if
> you skip off just once, it introduces a great deal of uncertainty in the
> landing spot.

I can certainly see how that might be the case.

>>...And again, if you have a transponder in the object, does it matter, so
> long as it lands SOMEWHERE in the Pacific ocean?
>
> Sure but the Pacific Ocean is really big. ?If your RB lands in international
> waters, then whoever gets there first owns that payload.

That's why you would need a very tricky transponder. And currently the
number of submarines that could get there is pretty low. I suppose you
could devise a mechanism to keep it 100 feet below the water... some
kind of buoyancy control.

> ...
>
>>...Ok, so there is a balance that has to be reached. What I'm asking is
> would that balance be significantly different if apes and fragile equipment
> were not on the list of concerns?
>
> I wouldn't think so. ?The reentry path you would choose would likely be one
> that is survivable by apes. ?Reasoning: to get the steeper reentry paths
> that result in higher peak Gs would require more delta V to start with,
> heavier structure to tolerate the higher heating and higher loads, you would
> need a sturdier heavier everything.
>
> Now to your point of using the gold itself as an ablative sacrificial heat
> shield, I don't see it. ?You need to slow the thing down enough to not have
> it vaporize on impact I would think.

Ideally, you would use something other than gold... LOL What speed
would you have to be going to not vaporize on impact?

>
> That whole task is easy to underestimate.

Apparently.

> Consider that once you get your
> hunk of gold on board, you need to secure it such that the CG stays in one
> spot, you need a thruster system, tanks to hold the fuel, you need actuators
> to steer the nozzle, you need a control system to tell the actuators what to
> do, you need a gyro of some sort to stabilize the thing, or failing that
> some kind of really good thrusters to try to keep it all balanced, you need
> an inertial reference system so you know where to point the reentry thrust
> nozzle. ?It would be possible, but it wouldn't be easy, and all that stuff
> would be heavy and costly.

So how does Burt Rutan's reentry system with the feathers work?

> I will leave it at this: if it is feasible to reenter a hunk of gold from
> LEO, it has only been recently that it is worth doing, as the price of gold
> went crazy.

If enough gold started coming in from outer space, the price would
seem like it would drop. On the other hand, if there were more
available, industry might start using it for more things. It is a very
useful metal.

>>> ... all I have seen so far is a number
>> of approaches which will not work for known reasons or are very high risk.
>
>>...High risk? Really, what's the risk? I mean risking a big ball of gold is
> clearly a risk, but you would practice with copper or something to get it
> right, no? ?Kelly
>
> The risk is you would spend all that money to get your reentry system into
> orbit, then any number of things might go wrong and you don't get your hunk
> of gold back. ?Space flight is still hard, even fifty years into it. ?It is
> still an unforgiving game, still expensive as all get out and still no
> economies of scale. ?You wouldn?t practice on a hunk of copper, you would
> practice on a hunk of gold. ?Reasoning: even if your copper reentry scheme
> worked, you wouldn't get back a hunk of gold to pay for building and
> launching your reentry system.

Point taken.

> At this point I am still inclined to think if you had a hunk of gold in
> orbit, you would make stuff out of it there, wire, reflectors and such.
> Gold has some advantages over other metals for that sort of thing.

Surely that would be the thing you would want to do with it, but so
far the space manufacturing sector seems to be the same as that in
Ohio under the Obama administration's tender care.

-Kelly



From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Wed May 30 05:11:39 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 23:11:39 -0600
Subject: [ExI] self driving cars
In-Reply-To: <001601cd3e17$40172140$c04563c0$@att.net>
References: <mailman.766.1337421541.17650.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <1337456547.27401.YahooMailClassic@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
 <CAPy8RwZ_TuRhaokuyNdrPZ-ebVLy-vBN+Fw7OaX4OEPaCxgTdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <034901cd3df5$38066f00$a8134d00$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwbKSOoCqkUUMmjQ3XZFx2KcSF-p=Eq-zT21qhNjdzUAaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <001601cd3e17$40172140$c04563c0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAPy8Rwbuds4R5UhZW7WUmcwnmiosWzm5Ci0UYuUv4xjQfKD2ng@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:49 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> Answer to the problem: make the caravanning feature work only on interstate
> highways, where there are no cliffs. ?Make it such that if the lead car
> drifts over the line, the trailing cars assume the yahoo has dozed, and
> immediately brakes all trailing cars to a stop.

If the second car could reliably determine that the lane was exited,
then why would you need a pilot car at all? Just go to full
autonomous.

> This brings up an interesting new problem. ?We are not accustomed to having
> cars brake to a full stop on the freeway, but they would need to do exactly
> that if there is no response from a meat-based control system, which might
> not be immediately available, because that particular control system is in
> back sleeping, stoned, copulating, or otherwise unresponsive.

If the meat-based system is in control of the car, I would hope they
would not be simultaneously copulating. One or the other please!

> So, we now must demand something new of drivers: the ability to deal with
> cars coming to a halt on the freeway. ?Proposal: make it so that the
> caravanning can only be done in the far left lane, and only on freeways that
> have barriers. ?Then make it such that cars can only use that lane if
> equipped with automatic braking systems, which can deal with cars
> unexpectedly stopping in the left lane.

These systems are already in place. You would just need to install
them in more cars.

> On more and more freeways in California, we have carpool lanes and toll
> lanes, which are usually over on the far left. ?So if we are going to use
> that freeway real estate for social engineering, we can use it for
> robo-driven cars. ?If they are in close formation, all cars would use less
> fuel. ?We could have it such that if the lead car in a caravan hits the
> brakes, it simultaneously applies the same deceleration to all cars in that
> train. ?That in itself would be cool to watch: a string of 20 cars going at
> freeway speed spaced 2 meters apart, then braking all the way to a stop as
> the spacing stays right at 2 meters all the way down.

It would be an interesting sight to see, once. Then it would settle
into "normal" very fast.

-Kelly



From eugen at leitl.org  Wed May 30 08:11:38 2012
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 10:11:38 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Wired article on AI risk
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwaeBAq+LhZd2+AncU+ep-795An4ZhmoxV40DSCbw+xF_A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPoR7a45zUbMb0AiLTkShT=B4WyJB1ifE1MSXheA+mbwz5Y30w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZrbP1KDBj-26XBNjZEYkY140rfUZ8Xyj2yRg_7mg4=eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a73fAy8koK=iSSiMEZ3bvppP-KmyROPmoDnDPt+Ptqepw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZiR2EVYo50qmW_FPwwNeazKDN=Co7pLm4fx172WbcpTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a5qjmTJv2-VhXQA9oVJcS-cvXBhjdEkoGLeSxLxR=8O0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYb+ZQEqVNPH5-YUUfKeGqy3es9mxXX2RiyMVxZ2DEPjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a7BjduQrz9N=yn2996QBGfWmcequ8Ff+4yvJg7knZXUgw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYhyX-3Bkb6pb0GLEM9WjTc4kznAj-j6AR8Ywowv2rD1g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a5dpFjTEtdCMC1edaRXMaTa+MgJgB=26cPHRoGdUWRuZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwaeBAq+LhZd2+AncU+ep-795An4ZhmoxV40DSCbw+xF_A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120530081138.GJ17120@leitl.org>

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 05:18:05PM -0600, Kelly Anderson wrote:

> > My understanding is exactly that. A Power Macintosh could emulate an Intel
> > PC because given unlimited time and unlimited memory anything that is a
> > "universal computer" can emulate any system at all - even though this may be
> > true for quantum processors only in theory.

QC is not a generic architecture. It only achieves a speedup
for a small class of massively parallel algorithms.
 
> Let's not get into the quantum processors, that will just make my
> brain hurt. Of course, it's the case because quantum computers exist
> only in theory.

No, they exist in practice. It's just that they're useless, unless
they can be made to scale. Unlike at the beginning we do have solid
state RT qubits now. Whether this scaling ever happens is not obvious.
My hunch is that something bad will happen when you attempt to scale.
Something involving exponential amounts of energy (maintaining
coherence in an expanding warm plasma where once upon a time used
to be your solid state quibits is probably quite difficult) or
quantum correction having limits. 
 


From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Wed May 30 15:44:58 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 09:44:58 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Peak Oil -- Amory Lovins
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwZmtTqg4yh92yh4P6Jb-2ttx5mJjTK-geRFEtLM0JgUzw@mail.gmail.com>

Amory Lovins is the president of Rocky Mountain Institute
(http://www.rmi.org). RMI is an organization that is hired by fortune
500 companies, including Walmart, to increase energy efficiencies and
provide energy forecasts. He said (in his recently published TED talk)
that we will indeed reach peak oil in 2016. However, the peak he is
talking about is peak demand, not peak supply. His contention is that
oil is becoming uncompetitive prior to becoming unavailable.

I have never heard this assertion before, and I thought it would be
interesting to the list as we have discussed peak oil only from the
supply side. Amory is a VERY smart guy, and extremely well informed.
He has a history of predicting the future of energy that is similar to
Kurzweil's for tech. I don't think he can be dismissed as a crack pot.
He might be wrong, but he's been right in the past, so it's hard to
dismiss him out of hand.

His whole talk was very interesting. He clearly is optimistic, but
aside from that, he has a real plan to change things, and he does
change things. The future is what we make of it.

I'd be interested in what the gloom and doom crowd would have to say
in response to his plan.

-Kelly


From spike66 at att.net  Wed May 30 16:32:23 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 09:32:23 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Peak Oil -- Amory Lovins
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwZmtTqg4yh92yh4P6Jb-2ttx5mJjTK-geRFEtLM0JgUzw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwZmtTqg4yh92yh4P6Jb-2ttx5mJjTK-geRFEtLM0JgUzw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <009a01cd3e81$cb4fcb80$61ef6280$@att.net>

On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson
Subject: [ExI] Peak Oil -- Amory Lovins

>...Amory Lovins ...[predicted] we will indeed reach peak oil in 2016.
However, the peak he is talking about is peak demand, not peak supply. His
contention is that oil is becoming uncompetitive prior to becoming
unavailable.  ...I have never heard this assertion before...-Kelly
_______________________________________________

Kelly I have been toying with this idea for a long time.  My own outlook
might be colored by a daily commute to work I have been doing for the past
17 years.  Check on Google maps to get a picture of the following
description.  State Road 237 is an eight lane road going along the bottom
end of the SF Bay which connects a huge amount of residential areas in the
east bay to a huge amount of office space, business headquarters, internet
fly-by-nights etc in the west side of the valley.  Google is over there,
Intel, Lockheed, Moffett Field, Yahoo, Cisco, AMD, IBM, a bunch of other
alphabet soup companies and software biggies.

I have noticed over those 17 years that the daily traffic rises and falls,
but it hasn't really increased over time.  I think it peaked right around
1999, when the Bay area seemed collectively convinced we were on the verge
of the singularity, and therefore all geeks should all be found working in
an office when the technocalypse happened, all the better to achieve
techno-salvation.  

Today there is still plenty of traffic on that corridor, but I think it is
about 80-ish percent what it was then.  So here's where I would go with that
argument: peak demand may be reached in the western world, but not in China
and India.  Those guys each have over a billion people, who are getting
internet and seeing how the west lives, and they want that too.  So I would
disagree with Lovins if we take that critical factor into account.  

If the Chinese and Indians figure out a way to leapfrog our technology from
the latter 20th century, then I would agree we may have seen peak demand for
oil.  But it isn't clear that they will do that, in which case they will
want their personal ape-haulers and will drive the wheels off of them, just
as we did.  The demand on oil will be astonishing.

spike



From pharos at gmail.com  Wed May 30 16:35:14 2012
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 17:35:14 +0100
Subject: [ExI] New Maths software
Message-ID: <CAL_armjWDXesp-_kCWV0+dS1nM7_t504aE028k_KrMhzavJzVA@mail.gmail.com>

(New toys for Spike, really).

This is a new release of the Sage Mathematics Software, version 5.0.
The best way of thinking about Sage is to imagine a huge, but still
well organized toolbox. Just as Firefox is an alternative to Internet
Explorer or LibreOffice is an alternative to Microsoft Office, Sage is
a comprehensive open source alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and Matlab.

Interview with the developers here:
<http://www.floss4science.com/interview-with-the-sage-mathematics-software-project/>

Website:
<http://www.sagemath.org/index.html>

You can use it online here:
<http://www.sagemath.org/eval.html>
Just find the example nearest to what you want and change the code as you like.

Or open a free notebook account if you want to do some serious maths coding.
<http://www.sagenb.org/>

You can also install the software on your own pc.
This is a Linux software package, but you can run it under Windows if
you follow the instructions.
(Basically run it inside a Virtual machine in Windows).

Enjoy!


BillK


From kanzure at gmail.com  Wed May 30 16:59:44 2012
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 11:59:44 -0500
Subject: [ExI] New Maths software
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armjWDXesp-_kCWV0+dS1nM7_t504aE028k_KrMhzavJzVA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armjWDXesp-_kCWV0+dS1nM7_t504aE028k_KrMhzavJzVA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABaSBazuyR_dz119H2UCe8DzpxExCrA1usd2ZSPHRznFSGwCFw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:35 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> Explorer or LibreOffice is an alternative to Microsoft Office, Sage is
> a comprehensive open source alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
> and Matlab.

I think scipy, sympy and R are more reasonable alternatives to those.
Sage/Octave have always seemed a bit sprawling to me.

-- 
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507


From pharos at gmail.com  Wed May 30 18:04:42 2012
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 19:04:42 +0100
Subject: [ExI] New Maths software
In-Reply-To: <CABaSBazuyR_dz119H2UCe8DzpxExCrA1usd2ZSPHRznFSGwCFw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armjWDXesp-_kCWV0+dS1nM7_t504aE028k_KrMhzavJzVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABaSBazuyR_dz119H2UCe8DzpxExCrA1usd2ZSPHRznFSGwCFw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAL_armi6x99XjMcBHXK-Jg-hV79SvsVUgrj0+yhAsq7GYtmDCA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote:
> I think scipy, sympy and R are more reasonable alternatives to those.
> Sage/Octave have always seemed a bit sprawling to me.
>
>

Horses for courses.
These are more specialized, I think. scipy and sympy are for Python
programmers and R seems to be for writing statistical analysis
software.

Sage and Mathematica are for general purpose use by mathematicians.


BillK


From spike66 at att.net  Wed May 30 19:43:52 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 12:43:52 -0700
Subject: [ExI] New Maths software
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armjWDXesp-_kCWV0+dS1nM7_t504aE028k_KrMhzavJzVA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armjWDXesp-_kCWV0+dS1nM7_t504aE028k_KrMhzavJzVA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00f801cd3e9c$8b321d30$a1965790$@att.net>

>... On Behalf Of BillK
Subject: [ExI] New Maths software

>...(New toys for Spike, really)...

Woohoo!  Thanks BillK.

>...This is a new release of the Sage Mathematics Software, version
5.0...BillK
_______________________________________________

When I see things like this, I struggle mightily and unsuccessfully to
comprehend how even the most depressed and pessimistic among modern humans
could ever manage to maintain anything other than a sunny outlook.  We have
ALL THIS STUFF available FREE, so much of it to play with, not just wacky
quantity but cool as all hell, with so much free time enabled by enabling
technology, which harnesses energy, so we need not focus our every waking
moment on finding food and keeping warm.  

Modern western life is like being a kid in a toy store after closing time,
told he can unwrap  play with aaaaaanything he wants.  How could we possibly
not have a total blast?  

Life... Is... Goooood...

spike



From spike66 at att.net  Wed May 30 19:59:53 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 12:59:53 -0700
Subject: [ExI] spacex signs contract for falcon heavy
Message-ID: <010201cd3e9e$c839d2c0$58ad7840$@att.net>

 

Cool!

 

Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), which designs and launches rockets
as well as spacecraft, said on Tuesday it signed the first commercial
contract to launch the world's most powerful rocket.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/30/spacex-signs-contract-to-launch-wo
rlds-most-powerful-rocket/?intcmp=trending

 

 

 

Excellent, good luck SpaceX.  

 

This is what we have needed for a long time.  When the government builds
rockets, they intentionally spread the work across as many states as
possible, to get the congress members to buy in.  This is inefficient and
expensive.  Having a single company do the rocket gets around that problem.
I have renewed hope of lower cost launches.  The question now is whether it
is low enough to do more and better stuff in space.  That remains an open
question.

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120530/afc69f2e/attachment.html>

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Wed May 30 20:17:26 2012
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 22:17:26 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwZWfdKXR7GqTghpkznynF+NC088BPHf-PJaruEVRq=LLQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJX-7wXQ45FPy0cadUMk73W9GQwBoCsrLa608680EpxVQm439A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa9X2dYMjZp1G8RP54zPLxrC70Zr0=ogw2kJGhwHmwTAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyFaG3YzHvj9oYktL+FvkT6bFjLteR+y-Deww-5+1x6rLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYtzNeA80C4sLN7_h3DfoE6Nz62z2bU_iWSs=haQTWoJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyH_xVtGR2Aa6d2Jd5Y5PDyXohnL7GcsoznU+BNHKompbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwbYANC603grrYZ7KqF2bGQ=NoOeAoTW4-TTy0KzV+K4bQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1338085839.56273.YahooMailNeo@web164502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
 <CAPy8RwZWfdKXR7GqTghpkznynF+NC088BPHf-PJaruEVRq=LLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPoR7a5h0KJuU8nN_SCqJdH+ztbf-pMxXXvaRhMsY3eU5A8acA@mail.gmail.com>

On 28 May 2012 19:43, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think I draw the line at the beings that have some kind of central
> nervous system and those that don't. I do not believe that amoebas
> have anything approaching consciousness. Dogs, cats, yes. Maybe even
> sea stars. And then you are at a quantitative difference, a huge one
> to be sure... but without a brain, I don't know how you could claim
> it.
>

This sounds quite... kingdomist. Because it automatically discriminates all
kinds of plants.

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120530/01d05e1c/attachment.html>

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Wed May 30 20:40:56 2012
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 22:40:56 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Wired article on AI risk
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwaeBAq+LhZd2+AncU+ep-795An4ZhmoxV40DSCbw+xF_A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF=HMECg4XE2A2R29oiSsnrUsbw8uPtPiSmfrR-nmVwr1DR9eA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a45zUbMb0AiLTkShT=B4WyJB1ifE1MSXheA+mbwz5Y30w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZrbP1KDBj-26XBNjZEYkY140rfUZ8Xyj2yRg_7mg4=eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a73fAy8koK=iSSiMEZ3bvppP-KmyROPmoDnDPt+Ptqepw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZiR2EVYo50qmW_FPwwNeazKDN=Co7pLm4fx172WbcpTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a5qjmTJv2-VhXQA9oVJcS-cvXBhjdEkoGLeSxLxR=8O0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYb+ZQEqVNPH5-YUUfKeGqy3es9mxXX2RiyMVxZ2DEPjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a7BjduQrz9N=yn2996QBGfWmcequ8Ff+4yvJg7knZXUgw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYhyX-3Bkb6pb0GLEM9WjTc4kznAj-j6AR8Ywowv2rD1g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a5dpFjTEtdCMC1edaRXMaTa+MgJgB=26cPHRoGdUWRuZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwaeBAq+LhZd2+AncU+ep-795An4ZhmoxV40DSCbw+xF_A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPoR7a69xZ-V+w=mKGaRmyHSLnx3V8pzRnhgb7vgENBhvN4ffw@mail.gmail.com>

On 30 May 2012 01:18, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:

> Let's not get into the quantum processors, that will just make my
> brain hurt. Of course, it's the case because quantum computers exist
> only in theory.
>

Seth Lloyd would argue that the universe would be a quantum computer...


> But it is not true that they can all run the same programs because
> some programs require more memory.


Indeed. One important qualification of computational equivalence is that
memory is unlimited (but floppy disks have been cheap for a long time...)
and that time is irrelevant.


> Also, if the requirement of the
> program is that it run in real time (or the plane will crash, for
> example) then this fact is only helpful in theory, not in practice.
>

Sure. Speaking of "intelligence", however, human beings on a
relativistic-speed starship would still be considered intelligent even by
those living at a relately much faster pace, wouldn't they?

Ok. I actually get that. Sure, absolutely right. It is difficult
> emotionally to give up free will. Maybe this will come to make the
> sting of losing free will less sharp.
>

We maintain however a "kind of" free will, because our reactions cannot be
calculated unless one runs the humain being concerned through all the
necessary steps. :-)


>  We share DNA as a species, and my Darwin-Dawkins-given right to
> selfishness for my genes extends, in some measure, to all humans.
>

Mmhhh. In fact, a species is a competitive pool, since I have no direct
sexual competitors beyond its boundaries. But my genes do not care much if
my species survives if they do not.

 > And while children share 50% of the genetic endowment of each
> > parent, already grand-children share only 25%, and so on. Accordingly, in
> > terms "caring for one's DNA", AGIs increasing by 10% the life of one's
> > children at the price of the immediate extinction of the rest of
> humankind,
> > and the extinction of the offspring itself of the invidual concerned but
> > only after a few generation, should be heartily welcome by the said
> proles.
>
> I'm not sure of that.. maybe you need to hone your marketing message... LOL
>

I am not saying that this would be a popular ideology. On the contrary, I
am saying that most people do not think along those lines.


-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120530/14fddc5a/attachment.html>

From brent.allsop at canonizer.com  Wed May 30 20:35:17 2012
From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop)
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 14:35:17 -0600
Subject: [ExI] spacex signs contract for falcon heavy
In-Reply-To: <010201cd3e9e$c839d2c0$58ad7840$@att.net>
References: <010201cd3e9e$c839d2c0$58ad7840$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAK7-ontig1dp=Zgq4Qh+=NsqjW0H0fkMTyJi4oJXHQCJ25WuMg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Spike,

Definitely cool.

But the Saturn V rocket was more powerful right?  You mean the worlds
most powerful rocket, currently available for hire?

Brent

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:59 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
>
> Cool!
>
>
>
> Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), which designs and launches rockets
> as well as spacecraft, said on Tuesday it signed the first commercial
> contract to launch the world's most powerful rocket.
>
>
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/30/spacex-signs-contract-to-launch-worlds-most-powerful-rocket/?intcmp=trending
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Excellent, good luck SpaceX.
>
>
>
> This is what we have needed for a long time.? When the government builds
> rockets, they intentionally spread the work across as many states as
> possible, to get the congress members to buy in.? This is inefficient and
> expensive.? Having a single company do the rocket gets around that problem.
> I have renewed hope of lower cost launches.? The question now is whether it
> is low enough to do more and better stuff in space.? That remains an open
> question.
>
>
>
> spike
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



From spike66 at att.net  Wed May 30 21:51:58 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 14:51:58 -0700
Subject: [ExI] spacex signs contract for falcon heavy
In-Reply-To: <CAK7-ontig1dp=Zgq4Qh+=NsqjW0H0fkMTyJi4oJXHQCJ25WuMg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <010201cd3e9e$c839d2c0$58ad7840$@att.net>
 <CAK7-ontig1dp=Zgq4Qh+=NsqjW0H0fkMTyJi4oJXHQCJ25WuMg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <013c01cd3eae$709afed0$51d0fc70$@att.net>

>... On Behalf Of Brent Allsop
Subject: Re: [ExI] spacex signs contract for falcon heavy

Hi Spike,

Definitely cool.

>...But the Saturn V rocket was more powerful right?  You mean the worlds
most powerful rocket, currently available for hire?  Brent


Ja to both.  The asterisk on some of the articles with the phrase
"...world's most powerful rocket*" says *currently in existence.

spike



From spike66 at att.net  Thu May 31 03:48:05 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 20:48:05 -0700
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <001f01cd3e1c$95183350$bf4899f0$@att.net>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <002501cd3655$32447640$96cd62c0$@att.net> <20120520152359.GH17120@leitl.org>
 <00aa01cd3777$ffc09720$ff41c560$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwZn5Mw8sJ10-45eFCUpw+BugaP65F9sNROW3HX1O0k+9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <00bc01cd37a3$c90c0ee0$5b242ca0$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwZDnBLSXBVQeNRS9JP=w1BKVQ8K70kKKBWPYp7VJCkK8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <001f01cd3e1c$95183350$bf4899f0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <001501cd3ee0$2fe18e40$8fa4aac0$@att.net>


>...On Behalf Of spike
>...  There are orbit sims available online.  If you find a good one, post
the URL.  Playing with those demonstrates that if you fire your rocket
straight up, you don't de-orbit, you just waste your fuel and get stuck in
orbit.

Kelly, here's one that I played with a long time ago, and looks like it has
been improved since then.  It uses Satellite Tool Kit, which is excellent,
so the realism is good.  After you goof with these sims a while, it is
clearer why things have turned out the way they have in space science:

http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/

They claim that SpaceX Falcon Heavy will carry payloads to LEO for a
thousand bucks a pound.  If so, it will be impressive.  Good luck and
evolutionspeed SpaceX.

spike 





From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Thu May 31 04:34:01 2012
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 21:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] spacex signs contract for falcon heavy
In-Reply-To: <013c01cd3eae$709afed0$51d0fc70$@att.net>
References: <010201cd3e9e$c839d2c0$58ad7840$@att.net>
 <CAK7-ontig1dp=Zgq4Qh+=NsqjW0H0fkMTyJi4oJXHQCJ25WuMg@mail.gmail.com>
 <013c01cd3eae$709afed0$51d0fc70$@att.net>
Message-ID: <1338438841.47879.YahooMailNeo@web160601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 5:51 PM spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>>...But the Saturn V rocket was more powerful right?? You mean the worlds
>> most powerful rocket, currently available for hire?? Brent
>
> Ja to both.? The asterisk on some of the articles with the phrase
> "...world's most powerful rocket*" says *currently in existence.


Currently publicly known in existence.

Regards,

Dan




From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Thu May 31 04:36:20 2012
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 21:36:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] De-Orbiting Gold
In-Reply-To: <001501cd3ee0$2fe18e40$8fa4aac0$@att.net>
References: <CAPy8RwaWfqAHbqKKwQHmiY5OfGBr4GoZWhiEVBd+8M6ZgLHHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS5HG81EzkOCZQyW2beF6+F50dh8oS8qNnqzV9e+LvOBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa-w3ygJUqxvG4D4ZmJy-MaHXJZ2P8G6v1_+CNHgC2R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <002501cd3655$32447640$96cd62c0$@att.net> <20120520152359.GH17120@leitl.org>
 <00aa01cd3777$ffc09720$ff41c560$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwZn5Mw8sJ10-45eFCUpw+BugaP65F9sNROW3HX1O0k+9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <00bc01cd37a3$c90c0ee0$5b242ca0$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwZDnBLSXBVQeNRS9JP=w1BKVQ8K70kKKBWPYp7VJCkK8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <001f01cd3e1c$95183350$bf4899f0$@att.net>
 <001501cd3ee0$2fe18e40$8fa4aac0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <1338438980.14305.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

> evolutionspeed SpaceX.

>
> spike 

And what rate is that? :) Geez, some might interpret that as you wishing them to moving at a slower than glacial pace. :/

Regards,

Dan



From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Thu May 31 07:28:37 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 01:28:37 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Wired article on AI risk
In-Reply-To: <CAPoR7a69xZ-V+w=mKGaRmyHSLnx3V8pzRnhgb7vgENBhvN4ffw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF=HMECg4XE2A2R29oiSsnrUsbw8uPtPiSmfrR-nmVwr1DR9eA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a45zUbMb0AiLTkShT=B4WyJB1ifE1MSXheA+mbwz5Y30w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZrbP1KDBj-26XBNjZEYkY140rfUZ8Xyj2yRg_7mg4=eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a73fAy8koK=iSSiMEZ3bvppP-KmyROPmoDnDPt+Ptqepw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwZiR2EVYo50qmW_FPwwNeazKDN=Co7pLm4fx172WbcpTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a5qjmTJv2-VhXQA9oVJcS-cvXBhjdEkoGLeSxLxR=8O0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYb+ZQEqVNPH5-YUUfKeGqy3es9mxXX2RiyMVxZ2DEPjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a7BjduQrz9N=yn2996QBGfWmcequ8Ff+4yvJg7knZXUgw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYhyX-3Bkb6pb0GLEM9WjTc4kznAj-j6AR8Ywowv2rD1g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a5dpFjTEtdCMC1edaRXMaTa+MgJgB=26cPHRoGdUWRuZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwaeBAq+LhZd2+AncU+ep-795An4ZhmoxV40DSCbw+xF_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a69xZ-V+w=mKGaRmyHSLnx3V8pzRnhgb7vgENBhvN4ffw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwYpJokY6kJBUHiD5ODtPxJGhNAhUrHiDfiAju+g2djDkQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 May 2012 01:18, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Let's not get into the quantum processors, that will just make my
>> brain hurt. Of course, it's the case because quantum computers exist
>> only in theory.
>
> Seth Lloyd would argue that the universe would be a quantum computer...

Last I checked, we weren't building universes...

>> But it is not true that they can all run the same programs because
>> some programs require more memory.
>
> Indeed. One important qualification of computational equivalence is that
> memory is unlimited (but floppy disks have been cheap for a long time...)
> and that time is irrelevant.

It's a pretty big deal in practice of course. If you ran a perfect
brain simulation on a very slow computer (compared to native brain
running speeds), I wonder if it really would experience consciousness
due to the time lags... It's an interesting thing to ponder. You
certainly couldn't feed sensory information into it at real time
speeds.

>> Also, if the requirement of the
>> program is that it run in real time (or the plane will crash, for
>> example) then this fact is only helpful in theory, not in practice.
>
> Sure. Speaking of "intelligence", however, human beings on a
> relativistic-speed starship would still be considered intelligent even by
> those living at a relately much faster pace, wouldn't they?

Not functionally... Are you intelligent if I can't observe you
thinking, or communicate with you in any way? I mean yes, they are
intelligent, but it's not a functional kind of intelligence in our
time line.

>> Ok. I actually get that. Sure, absolutely right. It is difficult
>> emotionally to give up free will. Maybe this will come to make the
>> sting of losing free will less sharp.
>
> We maintain however a "kind of" free will, because our reactions cannot be
> calculated unless one runs the humain being concerned through all the
> necessary steps. :-)

I've been wondering about the term "nondeterministic" today... In
computer science, a nondeterministic algorithm is an algorithm that
can exhibit different behaviors on different runs. I think that for
all practical purposes, the human brain is nondeterministic. The mere
fact that the program has "run" once, changes the brain. Like, would I
marry my first wife again? Absolutely not. That feels like "free
will", and certainly we work under the illusion of having free will,
and no, we don't have the ability to determine what the brain will do
without running the program, but, all that being said, it's just
processing. Free will is this kind of magical thing... that in some
sense probably doesn't really exist. It's chaos for sure.

>> We share DNA as a species, and my Darwin-Dawkins-given right to
>> selfishness for my genes extends, in some measure, to all humans.
>
> Mmhhh. In fact, a species is a competitive pool, since I have no direct
> sexual competitors beyond its boundaries. But my genes do not care much if
> my species survives if they do not.

So, you are telling me that if a group of Gigantopithecus comes into
the hunting area of two competing groups of Homo Erectus, that the
Homo Erectus groups would not temporarily put aside their differences
to eliminate the Gigantopithecus group? Come on, you can't really
believe that. It's the competition for the niche that is the key here.
I'm assuming that Gigantopithecus and Erectus would use more or less
the same resources (food, water, etc.) and thus would be a competitor
for the niche.

If you don't buy that, then try to imagine one group of the Erectus
making some kind of pact with the Gigantopithecus troop to go get the
other Erectus group. That is very hard for me to imagine.

So yes, I understand what you are saying about gene selection within
species, but there is stuff that happens across species that compete
for the same niche that make me more loyal to my species than to a
random other species. Humans wiped out every other dominant primate
species world wide (exception Florensiensus lived isolated til about
10,000 years ago) wherever they met.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

>> > And while children share 50% of the genetic endowment of each
>> > parent, already grand-children share only 25%, and so on. Accordingly,
>> > in
>> > terms "caring for one's DNA", AGIs increasing by 10% the life of one's
>> > children at the price of the immediate extinction of the rest of
>> > humankind,
>> > and the extinction of the offspring itself of the invidual concerned but
>> > only after a few generation, should be heartily welcome by the said
>> > proles.
>>
>> I'm not sure of that.. maybe you need to hone your marketing message...
>> LOL
>
>
> I am not saying that this would be a popular ideology. On the contrary, I am
> saying that most people do not think along those lines.

Ah, I thought you were saying the opposite.

-Kelly


From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Thu May 31 07:35:47 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 01:35:47 -0600
Subject: [ExI] New Maths software
In-Reply-To: <00f801cd3e9c$8b321d30$a1965790$@att.net>
References: <CAL_armjWDXesp-_kCWV0+dS1nM7_t504aE028k_KrMhzavJzVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00f801cd3e9c$8b321d30$a1965790$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwZTrKjH4BrB1o_uNWGyav3CxQf=E8otKNhSM4ZT+Bdgmw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:43 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> Modern western life is like being a kid in a toy store after closing time,
> told he can unwrap ?play with aaaaaanything he wants. ?How could we possibly
> not have a total blast?
>
> Life... Is... Goooood...

And yet there are people who wonder if it is moral to bring a child
into our world... sigh. I never have figured that out, but if your
parents are that pessimistic, maybe you don't want them to be your
parents... LOL

-Kelly



From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Thu May 31 07:43:02 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 01:43:02 -0600
Subject: [ExI] SpaceX launch succcessful
In-Reply-To: <1337708237.14797.YahooMailNeo@web160601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <CAFqFpXvyCpUqcOuGwThzpQjt_rW_Fq02ma6P5x5ipxn7rC=1Jw@mail.gmail.com>
 <F426D7D3-4BF7-4FEB-BAAA-D2EF0C2667DD@yahoo.com>
 <01ba01cd381e$1f0862b0$5d192810$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwYUZXhy3Q3-ppK7o8HboyqwSDrkYHaRZxPwKRTdJMr03w@mail.gmail.com>
 <1337708237.14797.YahooMailNeo@web160601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwZvX_dRDd1TKATO07-pGo6S4R7g9sdOkde7ab8YhiEsJg@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 12:48 PM Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is very exciting! I suppose we shall see if taking
>> the libertarian approach to space will work out better
>> than the previous endeavors...
>
> This is not a "libertarian approach to space" transport. It is, at best, a partly private approach to supporting a basically non-libertarian approach to space exploration. NASA isn't ponying up money it got justly to pay for a ride on SpaceX rockets. Instead, it relies on involuntary contributions from viewers like you. :/
>

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/30/spacex-signs-contract-to-launch-worlds-most-powerful-rocket/?intcmp=trending

Well, Dan, that didn't take long, did it? LOL  Is this a little more
libertarian/free enterprise for ya?

-Kelly



From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Thu May 31 07:45:27 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 01:45:27 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter
In-Reply-To: <CAPoR7a5h0KJuU8nN_SCqJdH+ztbf-pMxXXvaRhMsY3eU5A8acA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJX-7wXQ45FPy0cadUMk73W9GQwBoCsrLa608680EpxVQm439A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa9X2dYMjZp1G8RP54zPLxrC70Zr0=ogw2kJGhwHmwTAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyFaG3YzHvj9oYktL+FvkT6bFjLteR+y-Deww-5+1x6rLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYtzNeA80C4sLN7_h3DfoE6Nz62z2bU_iWSs=haQTWoJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyH_xVtGR2Aa6d2Jd5Y5PDyXohnL7GcsoznU+BNHKompbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwbYANC603grrYZ7KqF2bGQ=NoOeAoTW4-TTy0KzV+K4bQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1338085839.56273.YahooMailNeo@web164502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
 <CAPy8RwZWfdKXR7GqTghpkznynF+NC088BPHf-PJaruEVRq=LLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a5h0KJuU8nN_SCqJdH+ztbf-pMxXXvaRhMsY3eU5A8acA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwYCY=NRG2QVcaot++WwTPpU1Cn4wU_GuhucnWT-DdfdVw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28 May 2012 19:43, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think I draw the line at the beings that have some kind of central
>> nervous system and those that don't. I do not believe that amoebas
>> have anything approaching consciousness. Dogs, cats, yes. Maybe even
>> sea stars. And then you are at a quantitative difference, a huge one
>> to be sure... but without a brain, I don't know how you could claim
>> it.
>
> This sounds quite... kingdomist. Because it automatically discriminates all
> kinds of plants.

Maybe so. But I don't know of any plants that I would describe as
conscious either. Sorry.

There's probably something out there (if not today then in the future)
that has so much consciousness that they would consider us to not be
conscious... I suppose... but this argument isn't winnable, because
it's all conjecture and opinion anyway, isn't it?

-Kelly


From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Thu May 31 07:56:07 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 01:56:07 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Peak Oil -- Amory Lovins
In-Reply-To: <009a01cd3e81$cb4fcb80$61ef6280$@att.net>
References: <CAPy8RwZmtTqg4yh92yh4P6Jb-2ttx5mJjTK-geRFEtLM0JgUzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <009a01cd3e81$cb4fcb80$61ef6280$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwZCEaDDdu27tY=qGcjy92+qtNo+h7R_1v71jfLucDcXTg@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:32 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson
> Subject: [ExI] Peak Oil -- Amory Lovins
>
>>...Amory Lovins ...[predicted] we will indeed reach peak oil in 2016.
> However, the peak he is talking about is peak demand, not peak supply. His
> contention is that oil is becoming uncompetitive prior to becoming
> unavailable. ?...I have never heard this assertion before...-Kelly
> _______________________________________________
>
> Kelly I have been toying with this idea for a long time. ?My own outlook
> might be colored by a daily commute to work I have been doing for the past
> 17 years. ?Check on Google maps to get a picture of the following
> description. ?State Road 237 is an eight lane road going along the bottom
> end of the SF Bay which connects a huge amount of residential areas in the
> east bay to a huge amount of office space, business headquarters, internet
> fly-by-nights etc in the west side of the valley. ?Google is over there,
> Intel, Lockheed, Moffett Field, Yahoo, Cisco, AMD, IBM, a bunch of other
> alphabet soup companies and software biggies.

More telecommuting would really take a bite out of traffic. More
autonomous vehicles will make the roads seem emptier as well. Right
now, they are improving the main highway through Utah County, which I
drive all the time. It's a massive multi-million dollar improvement
that is designed to make traffic flow better for the next 40 years. It
would be kind of humorous if it ended up being practically empty in 15
years.

> I have noticed over those 17 years that the daily traffic rises and falls,
> but it hasn't really increased over time. ?I think it peaked right around
> 1999, when the Bay area seemed collectively convinced we were on the verge
> of the singularity, and therefore all geeks should all be found working in
> an office when the technocalypse happened, all the better to achieve
> techno-salvation.

Yeah, heady times 1999...

> Today there is still plenty of traffic on that corridor, but I think it is
> about 80-ish percent what it was then. ?So here's where I would go with that
> argument: peak demand may be reached in the western world, but not in China
> and India. ?Those guys each have over a billion people, who are getting
> internet and seeing how the west lives, and they want that too. ?So I would
> disagree with Lovins if we take that critical factor into account.

Honestly, from what he said, he did take them into account. He was
talking about global peaks. We can disagree with him in our gut all we
want, but he's got the real numbers... and I would hate to bet against
him on this stuff.

> If the Chinese and Indians figure out a way to leapfrog our technology from
> the latter 20th century, then I would agree we may have seen peak demand for
> oil. ?But it isn't clear that they will do that, in which case they will
> want their personal ape-haulers and will drive the wheels off of them, just
> as we did. ?The demand on oil will be astonishing.

I don't know the basis for Lovin's claims precisely. I am pretty sure
he was talking globally though. If we do reach peak demand prior to
peak supply, that's good for all of us! Add one to the optimism
column... hopefully.

-Kelly



From eugen at leitl.org  Thu May 31 08:45:04 2012
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 10:45:04 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Peak Oil -- Amory Lovins
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwZCEaDDdu27tY=qGcjy92+qtNo+h7R_1v71jfLucDcXTg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwZmtTqg4yh92yh4P6Jb-2ttx5mJjTK-geRFEtLM0JgUzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <009a01cd3e81$cb4fcb80$61ef6280$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwZCEaDDdu27tY=qGcjy92+qtNo+h7R_1v71jfLucDcXTg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120531084504.GZ17120@leitl.org>

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 01:56:07AM -0600, Kelly Anderson wrote:

> Honestly, from what he said, he did take them into account. He was
> talking about global peaks. We can disagree with him in our gut all we
> want, but he's got the real numbers... and I would hate to bet against
> him on this stuff.

You're taking one guy, on his word, without knowing the details
which were not subjected to peer review? Really?
 
> > If the Chinese and Indians figure out a way to leapfrog our technology from
> > the latter 20th century, then I would agree we may have seen peak demand for
> > oil. ?But it isn't clear that they will do that, in which case they will
> > want their personal ape-haulers and will drive the wheels off of them, just
> > as we did. ?The demand on oil will be astonishing.
> 
> I don't know the basis for Lovin's claims precisely. I am pretty sure

If you don't know what his claims are precisely, why are you wasting
your time, and ours?

Amory Lovins has 331 hits on The Oil Drum. A possibly more focused
search still gives 59 hits http://www.theoildrum.com/search/apachesolr_search/%22amory%20lovins%22
I'm not going to read them, but perhaps you should.

> he was talking globally though. If we do reach peak demand prior to
> peak supply, that's good for all of us! Add one to the optimism
> column... hopefully.


From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Thu May 31 09:08:42 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 03:08:42 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Peak Oil -- Amory Lovins
In-Reply-To: <20120531084504.GZ17120@leitl.org>
References: <CAPy8RwZmtTqg4yh92yh4P6Jb-2ttx5mJjTK-geRFEtLM0JgUzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <009a01cd3e81$cb4fcb80$61ef6280$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwZCEaDDdu27tY=qGcjy92+qtNo+h7R_1v71jfLucDcXTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120531084504.GZ17120@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <CAPy8Rwb=PsoY5TzDi-mQjEKukgV0PjNhh+nbkwmPyGdXhE_6yQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:45 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 01:56:07AM -0600, Kelly Anderson wrote:
>
>> Honestly, from what he said, he did take them into account. He was
>> talking about global peaks. We can disagree with him in our gut all we
>> want, but he's got the real numbers... and I would hate to bet against
>> him on this stuff.
>
> You're taking one guy, on his word, without knowing the details
> which were not subjected to peer review? Really?

Eugen, don't have a knee jerk reaction just because you don't like
what he says. Nobody gets invited to TED once, let alone twice if they
are not serious.

Read his bio:
http://www.ted.com/speakers/amory_lovins.html

Listen to the talks. Then decide for yourself. You seem to be having a
religious reaction, rather than a rational one and I think you're
better than that. Lovin's answers to the problems we face aren't the
same answers everyone else is giving. Hear him out.

>> > If the Chinese and Indians figure out a way to leapfrog our technology from
>> > the latter 20th century, then I would agree we may have seen peak demand for
>> > oil. ?But it isn't clear that they will do that, in which case they will
>> > want their personal ape-haulers and will drive the wheels off of them, just
>> > as we did. ?The demand on oil will be astonishing.
>>
>> I don't know the basis for Lovin's claims precisely. I am pretty sure
>
> If you don't know what his claims are precisely, why are you wasting
> your time, and ours?

I know what his claims are. I just don't know the details of how he
arrives at the conclusions he arrives at. He did quote a Duechebank
report regarding peak oil demand... If you really want to know, I
would advise getting his book, "Reinventing Fire"... while I have not
read it, I have read excerpts and what he says sounds pretty rational
to me.

> Amory Lovins has 331 hits on The Oil Drum. A possibly more focused
> search still gives 59 hits http://www.theoildrum.com/search/apachesolr_search/%22amory%20lovins%22
> I'm not going to read them, but perhaps you should.

This is pretty typical of the stuff on the oil drum comments...
"I'm surprised by your lack of familiarity with Lovins. He is widely
published, a recognized international expert on renewable energy, and
someone that everyone interested in peak oil solutions should pay
attention to.
Read Winning the Oil Endgame cover to cover and let us know what you think."

>> he was talking globally though. If we do reach peak demand prior to
>> peak supply, that's good for all of us! Add one to the optimism
>> column... hopefully.

Eugen... If you want to be well versed on energy policy, and I think
you do, then don't you owe it to yourself to read things from more
than one source? Lovin's approach is BIG, and bold. He wants to fix a
lot of large problems all together, and by solving all these big
problems together, rather than tackling little bits independently, he
arrives at a solution that really sounds plausible.

I would recommend you listen to the two TED talks if nothing else. I
have been a subscriber to his snail mail mailing list for a couple of
years, and get letters in the mail from his organization pretty
frequently. He runs a real organization, with real money and real
clients.

-Kelly



From eugen at leitl.org  Thu May 31 09:46:09 2012
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 11:46:09 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Peak Oil -- Amory Lovins
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8Rwb=PsoY5TzDi-mQjEKukgV0PjNhh+nbkwmPyGdXhE_6yQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwZmtTqg4yh92yh4P6Jb-2ttx5mJjTK-geRFEtLM0JgUzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <009a01cd3e81$cb4fcb80$61ef6280$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwZCEaDDdu27tY=qGcjy92+qtNo+h7R_1v71jfLucDcXTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120531084504.GZ17120@leitl.org>
 <CAPy8Rwb=PsoY5TzDi-mQjEKukgV0PjNhh+nbkwmPyGdXhE_6yQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120531094609.GC17120@leitl.org>

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 03:08:42AM -0600, Kelly Anderson wrote:

> > You're taking one guy, on his word, without knowing the details
> > which were not subjected to peer review? Really?
> 
> Eugen, don't have a knee jerk reaction just because you don't like
> what he says. Nobody gets invited to TED once, let alone twice if they

I don't know what he says. Neither do you. That's the point.
Before we can evaluate the claims, we need to know what 
exactly the claims are (=numbers and models) and what his
peers say.

> are not serious.
> 
> Read his bio:
> http://www.ted.com/speakers/amory_lovins.html

I've heard of the guy before, of course. Actually I skimmed the executive
summary of his new book http://www.rmi.org/rfexecutivesummary
and what you say doesn't seem what he says. In order to substitute
some 30 TW in 40 years you need a substitution rate which is more
linear than exponential, and we're some 1-2 orders of magnitute 
remote from the global substitution rate required.

It can be done but it won't be done if we don't do it. 
And alsmost nobody is doing it at the moment. That is my
beef with grand plans in general.

> Listen to the talks. Then decide for yourself. You seem to be having a

Sorry, I don't do video. No time for this. TED is better than most,
but still information density too low, not enough novelty to bother.
I've never watched a single TED video from start to finish.

> religious reaction, rather than a rational one and I think you're

Yes, I'm religious. My cult abhors one thing: lack of rigor.
The best kind of arguments for my persuasion are these published
in peer-reviewed journals. Violators will be burned... naw, just
ignored.

> better than that. Lovin's answers to the problems we face aren't the
> same answers everyone else is giving. Hear him out.

I agree with what I've read so far. I'm just not seeing it done
on time.
 
> >> > If the Chinese and Indians figure out a way to leapfrog our technology from
> >> > the latter 20th century, then I would agree we may have seen peak demand for
> >> > oil. ?But it isn't clear that they will do that, in which case they will
> >> > want their personal ape-haulers and will drive the wheels off of them, just
> >> > as we did. ?The demand on oil will be astonishing.
> >>
> >> I don't know the basis for Lovin's claims precisely. I am pretty sure
> >
> > If you don't know what his claims are precisely, why are you wasting
> > your time, and ours?
> 
> I know what his claims are. I just don't know the details of how he
> arrives at the conclusions he arrives at. He did quote a Duechebank
> report regarding peak oil demand... If you really want to know, I
> would advise getting his book, "Reinventing Fire"... while I have not
> read it, I have read excerpts and what he says sounds pretty rational
> to me.

Does anyone have an electronic version of the ebook? There are
13 publications by Lovins on LibGen, but his latest book isn't
there yet.
 
> > Amory Lovins has 331 hits on The Oil Drum. A possibly more focused
> > search still gives 59 hits http://www.theoildrum.com/search/apachesolr_search/%22amory%20lovins%22
> > I'm not going to read them, but perhaps you should.
> 
> This is pretty typical of the stuff on the oil drum comments...
> "I'm surprised by your lack of familiarity with Lovins. He is widely
> published, a recognized international expert on renewable energy, and
> someone that everyone interested in peak oil solutions should pay
> attention to.
> Read Winning the Oil Endgame cover to cover and let us know what you think."
> 
> >> he was talking globally though. If we do reach peak demand prior to
> >> peak supply, that's good for all of us! Add one to the optimism
> >> column... hopefully.
> 
> Eugen... If you want to be well versed on energy policy, and I think
> you do, then don't you owe it to yourself to read things from more
> than one source? Lovin's approach is BIG, and bold. He wants to fix a

I *am* reading as much as I can digest, actually. The Oil Drum is
actually including plenty of reviews, and varied opinions. They
might pick you apart in the comments if they don't like what you
say, but you can publish dissenting opinions.

> lot of large problems all together, and by solving all these big
> problems together, rather than tackling little bits independently, he
> arrives at a solution that really sounds plausible.

We have plenty of solutions that are plausible. We've had such
solutions in 1970, in fact. The trouble is that we don't execute
these.
 
> I would recommend you listen to the two TED talks if nothing else. I
> have been a subscriber to his snail mail mailing list for a couple of
> years, and get letters in the mail from his organization pretty
> frequently. He runs a real organization, with real money and real
> clients.

I do not doubt that. Can he make ~10 gigamonkeys (or much less, if
we fail) play ball? And monkeys don't want to play ball.


From eugen at leitl.org  Thu May 31 09:54:28 2012
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 11:54:28 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Peak Oil -- Amory Lovins
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8Rwb=PsoY5TzDi-mQjEKukgV0PjNhh+nbkwmPyGdXhE_6yQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwZmtTqg4yh92yh4P6Jb-2ttx5mJjTK-geRFEtLM0JgUzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <009a01cd3e81$cb4fcb80$61ef6280$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwZCEaDDdu27tY=qGcjy92+qtNo+h7R_1v71jfLucDcXTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120531084504.GZ17120@leitl.org>
 <CAPy8Rwb=PsoY5TzDi-mQjEKukgV0PjNhh+nbkwmPyGdXhE_6yQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120531095428.GD17120@leitl.org>

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 03:08:42AM -0600, Kelly Anderson wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:45 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 01:56:07AM -0600, Kelly Anderson wrote:
> >
> >> Honestly, from what he said, he did take them into account. He was
> >> talking about global peaks. We can disagree with him in our gut all we
> >> want, but he's got the real numbers... and I would hate to bet against
> >> him on this stuff.
> >
> > You're taking one guy, on his word, without knowing the details
> > which were not subjected to peer review? Really?
> 
> Eugen, don't have a knee jerk reaction just because you don't like
> what he says. Nobody gets invited to TED once, let alone twice if they
> are not serious.

Found it, but only as audiobook http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/7053884/

Notice that several of his assumptions are questionable: in that GDP
can be decoupled from underlying energy. GDP is a very poor, highly
gameable metric. It would be good to limit yourself to physical processes,
and do full accounting of embedded energy in material flows across
national compartments. Then you'll see that real production is really
limited by availability of cheap, plentiful energy.


From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Thu May 31 11:37:57 2012
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 04:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] SpaceX launch succcessful
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwZvX_dRDd1TKATO07-pGo6S4R7g9sdOkde7ab8YhiEsJg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFqFpXvyCpUqcOuGwThzpQjt_rW_Fq02ma6P5x5ipxn7rC=1Jw@mail.gmail.com>
 <F426D7D3-4BF7-4FEB-BAAA-D2EF0C2667DD@yahoo.com>
 <01ba01cd381e$1f0862b0$5d192810$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwYUZXhy3Q3-ppK7o8HboyqwSDrkYHaRZxPwKRTdJMr03w@mail.gmail.com>
 <1337708237.14797.YahooMailNeo@web160601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAPy8RwZvX_dRDd1TKATO07-pGo6S4R7g9sdOkde7ab8YhiEsJg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1338464277.51696.YahooMailNeo@web160601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

On Thursday, May 31, 2012 3:43 AM Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:

>>> This is very exciting! I suppose we shall see if taking
>>> the libertarian approach to space will work out better
>>> than the previous endeavors...
>
>> This is not a "libertarian approach to space" transport. It is,
>> at best, a partly private approach to supporting a basically
>> non-libertarian approach to space exploration. NASA isn't
>> ponying up money it got justly to pay for a ride on SpaceX
>> rockets. Instead, it relies on involuntary contributions from
>> viewers like you. :/
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/30/spacex-signs-contract-to-launch-worlds-most-powerful-rocket/?intcmp=trending
> 
> Well, Dan, that didn't take long, did it? LOL? Is this a little
> more libertarian/free enterprise for ya?

I'm sure that was in the works for a while. It might have been contingent on the ISS docking going well.

But this doesn't alter my earlier position: the NASA contract is not an example of a "libertarian approach to space" transport. It's just an example of the government contracting out. A libertarian approach to anything would mean precisely one where no individual negative property rights were violated. Anything involving a government, which receives funding involuntary and otherwise uses force to get stuff, is not libertarian.

Regards,

Dan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120531/4629182d/attachment.html>

From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Thu May 31 11:40:33 2012
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 04:40:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] SpaceX Dragon ship aims for Earth
Message-ID: <1338464433.63396.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18273811
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120531/0ad4221a/attachment.html>

From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Thu May 31 12:26:49 2012
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 05:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Peak Oil -- Amory Lovins
In-Reply-To: <009a01cd3e81$cb4fcb80$61ef6280$@att.net>
References: <CAPy8RwZmtTqg4yh92yh4P6Jb-2ttx5mJjTK-geRFEtLM0JgUzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <009a01cd3e81$cb4fcb80$61ef6280$@att.net>
Message-ID: <1338467209.21398.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 12:32 PM spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> Kelly I have been toying with this idea for a long time.? My own outlook
> might be colored by a daily commute to work I have been doing for the past
> 17 years.? Check on Google maps to get a picture of the following
> description.? State Road 237 is an eight lane road going along the bottom
> end of the SF Bay which connects a huge amount of residential areas in the
> east bay to a huge amount of office space, business headquarters, internet
> fly-by-nights etc in the west side of the valley.? Google is over there,
> Intel, Lockheed, Moffett Field, Yahoo, Cisco, AMD, IBM, a bunch of other
> alphabet soup companies and software biggies.
> 
> I have noticed over those 17 years that the daily traffic rises and falls,
> but it hasn't really increased over time.? I think it peaked right around
> 1999, when the Bay area seemed collectively convinced we were on the verge
> of the singularity, and therefore all geeks should all be found working in
> an office when the technocalypse happened, all the better to achieve
> techno-salvation. 
> 
> Today there is still plenty of traffic on that corridor, but I think it is
> about 80-ish percent what it was then.? So here's where I would go with that
> argument: peak demand may be reached in the western world, but not in China
> and India.? Those guys each have over a billion people, who are getting
> internet and seeing how the west lives, and they want that too.? So I would
> disagree with Lovins if we take that critical factor into account. 

This has all the markings of problems with anecdotal evidence. Imagine a similar argument about peak coal. A few decades ago, in the US and many Western nations, many people used coal to heat their homes. In my entire lifetime, I've only seen one home that used coal at all and this was an old burner and hopper that were no longer in use. (I've heard coal is still used in some homes, but I've yet to actually see one up close and personal.:) Now, imagine my grandparents or perhaps great grandparents. They probably lived through an age where many if not most people used coal and coal was used regularly to heat homes, schools, and other buildings. And they lived into an age when coal was supplanted by oil, natural gas, and electricity for these same uses. They might opine, as Jevons did, that peak coal had come and gone -- all the while missing the coal use has gone up (well, as estimated by increases in coal production since 1900).

That said, back to driving rates. These actually seemed to have plateaued not in 2000, but in 2004 -- for the US. However, my personal experience, being on the road in both 2000 and 2004 was to experience an increase in construction-related traffic. This, too, is anecdotal, but I recall from about 2003 to 2008 having to replace my windshield every year because of a crack caused by flying pebbles. Granted, this not just anecdotal, but me drawing the conclusion that the excess of pebbles was caused by more dump tucks and such riding the major roads. (It might have actually been something much more sinister.:)

This isn't to completely deny your point, but just to throw a little skepticism into the mix of using anecdotal reports.

Regards,

Dan




From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Thu May 31 13:15:48 2012
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 06:15:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] SpaceX launch succcessful
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwY=ug-19JhB3vqdpechq0atPB7z68=Eo-ebhfr0dTdB3A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFqFpXvyCpUqcOuGwThzpQjt_rW_Fq02ma6P5x5ipxn7rC=1Jw@mail.gmail.com>
 <F426D7D3-4BF7-4FEB-BAAA-D2EF0C2667DD@yahoo.com>
 <01ba01cd381e$1f0862b0$5d192810$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwYUZXhy3Q3-ppK7o8HboyqwSDrkYHaRZxPwKRTdJMr03w@mail.gmail.com>
 <1337708237.14797.YahooMailNeo@web160601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAPy8RwY=ug-19JhB3vqdpechq0atPB7z68=Eo-ebhfr0dTdB3A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1338470148.43817.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:38 PM Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 12:48 PM Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This is very exciting! I suppose we shall see if taking
>>> the libertarian approach to space will work out better
>>> than the previous endeavors...
>>
>> This is not a "libertarian approach to space" transport. It is, at
>> best, a partly private approach to supporting a basically non-libertarian
>> approach to space exploration. NASA isn't ponying up money it got
>> justly to pay for a ride on SpaceX rockets. Instead, it relies on
>> involuntary contributions from viewers like you. :/
> 
> Ok, so the money for the first ticket on the libertarian express was
> not purchased with libertarian money. I get your point, but I also
> reject it to some extent. If SpaceX doesn't deliver, they don't get
> the contract. It's a free market system, with a government client.

My point was it is not a "libertarian approach to space" transport. Yes, it uses a private supplier for a government buyer -- and the supply part seems open to competition. But the government buyer relies on coercion to make its purchases -- hence, it's not libertarian. (It also relies on coercion routinely -- not merely as, say, someone who might otherwise work, but steal some money from petty cash once.)

Also, this is not merely the "first ticket," but a twelve launch 1.6 billion USD contract. You make it sound as if I were claiming the diner on the corner was not libertarian because the first guy to buy a cup of coffee there was a DEA agent on a stakeout, but the diner was subsequently packed with free market anarchists who paid for their meals with gold mined in the Yukon. :)

> That is way more free than what existed previously, and I'm not so
> much of an idealist that I insist that every piece of food on my
> breakfast plate is libertarian back to its source... at least not
> today.

That's not my point either. We all live in statist societies where the state reaches into just about every transaction and certainly has a huge impact on everything from space transport to what's on your breakfast plate. My point was merely not to praise a tax transfer as libertarian. Yes, it might be better than, say, the alternative of having NASA (via the Shuttle) or another government space agency (e.g., the RSA) doing supply launches to the ISS, but this is not really libertarianism in space transport or even a purely free market in such.

This is calling something what it is. Let me try an analogy. Imagine the government were censor broadcast TV in the US. (Oh, wait, it currently does this.:) Now, imagine that it loosened up the censorship a bit, -- say by allowing more nudity to be shown and reducing FCC fines for use of "obscene" words. Would this be libertarian? Definitely not! The government has no business [existing in the first place much less] being involved in censoring broadcast TV. But would it be better than sticking with the old regime? In my mind, yes, it would be better.
?
>> A truly libertarian approach here would be one where no one's
>> rights were violated [routinely and inherently] to get to space.
> 
> Well, yes, but I count movement towards liberty as libertarian, even
> if not purely so.

That's a problem because one can minor moves to choice that still are completely statist. Imagine North Korea allows there to be two competing yet still government owned labor camp systems. The two labor camp systems have to compete for the government to send prisoners there to do forced labor. Is this libertarian? Now, granted, that's not the same as what happened here, but my point is to make a clear conceptual distinction, especially between merely providing something for the government privately and competitively and being actually libertarian. In my view, "libertarian" as applied to an activity means it does not involve coercion -- not that it merely involves some choice or less coercion than some alternative.
?
>>> (Ok, not ENTIRELY fair, since they are standing on the
>>> shoulders of giants...)? But time should tell... If SpaceX
>>> actually can create rockets that will go to mars and the
>>> asteroids relatively quickly, THEN we'll know this is the
>>> right approach.
>>
>> I have no doubts that space transportation can be privatized.
> 
> Me either... it might be a matter of time though. Remember Roanoke
> preceded Jamestown. Is SpaceX Roanoke, or Jamestown.... only time will
> tell. But I'm OK with companies dying in pursuit of this, or any other
> worthwhile dream. Even people may die on this trip, and honestly, as
> sad as that is, it is OK. Just look at the survival rate of any of the
> first great voyages... this isn't always going to be as pretty as this
> first SpaceX flight seems to be turning out to be.

I wouldn't use the analogy of Europeans colonizing the New World. They weren't actually settling uninhabited wilderness. It kind of gives the impression that you think that colonization was libertarian. But leaving that analogy aside, space transportation can be privatized very quickly by merely abolishing NASA and all government involvement in the space market. That might not seem politically feasible at this time, but that would be the exact libertarian approach. (This is no different than the libertarian approach to, say, pornography: legalize it. Don't merely lower penalties or define scope or farm out enforcement to private detectives.)

>> It might take a while to do, since the big players -- and this includes
>> SpaceX -- rely on government support and this tends to distort
>> costs upward.
> 
> What distorts costs upward is that it is still very close to the
> research stage...

I disagree. Space transport seems a fairly mature technology in many ways. Private companies routinely put comsats on orbit. The thing is, though, there are big players in the space market -- the space agencies and the militaries. They tend to pay for really big projects and this draws firms to them and raises overall costs. This is no different than government funding in healthcare or higher education. It tends in those areas to drive prices up. And this has nothing to do with it being in the research stage.
?
>> But I'm not really sure what you say makes sense. If one is merely
>> looking at results, governments have already built rockets -- or paid
>> for big aerospace firms to build them -- to get to Mars and the asteroids.
> 
> But look at the difference in cost. Nasa is paying the russians around
> $60 million to deliver one ape to the space station. SpaceX estimates
> that they can do the job in 3 (really 5-6) years for $20 million
> (really $30 million). Still, even taking out the marketing puff,
> that's a nice savings.

I'm not arguing otherwise, but you were talking results earlier -- not efficiency. And in terms of results, government space agencies have delivered -- even if they do so at a very high price.

>> Would this result -- many successful missions to those
>> destinations -- prove to you that government is the "right
>> approach"?
> 
> If they could do it economically, but that never happens with the
> government, any government.

But you're switching the terms of the debate. My point is that the criterion here shouldn't be whether can they do X, but something else. And you seem to agree because you switched from Can they do X to Can they do X more efficiently.

>> (To me, it sounds like you're setting yourself up for the TVA
>> response a proponent of government might answer you with:
>> if you merely look at results, the TVA seemed to work really well.
>> If you look at the whole picture, though, the TVA was (and is)
>> great at making electricity at low rates for people in its district as
>> long as it got a huge subsidy from the federal government to begin
>> with. This is like me giving you
>>? a billion pounds, which to you put into a business that sells products
>> below costs, but, hey, you've got a billion pounds to sink into
>> satisfying your customers.:)
> 
> I am not a huge fan of the TVA.. however, it was helpful in winning
> WWII against Japan, so you have to give it some credit, even if it is
> a huge boondoggle.

That war was not libertarian in any sense, but, regardless, the TVA is not libertarian and whatever its impact my point is the TVA involved a massive input of capital. My point was that talk about its customers having low rates for electricity misses this huge input. It's kind like if the government bought up all the restaurants in town and then allowed people to eat in them at one tenth the price. People might marvel at how the government brought low cost dining to the town -- all the while forgetting that huge tax outlay for the restaurants. People who don't understand this might even opine that the government can do things better than people acting without a government.
?
>> It might be a lot like Amazon's approach to not having large
>> groups of people working on one project. (According to a
>> recent issue of Forbes, Jeff Bezos has a "two pizza" rule.
>> Teams working on projects should no bigger than can be
>> fed with two pizzas. Presumably, they've no heard of the
>> paleo diet.:) Also, it could be that you're right and still that
>> Boeing, given some stiff competition from start ups like SpaceX,
>> might modify the way it approaches these projects. Remember,
>> for a long time, the US space launch industry has been facing
>> little competition* and basically does business under a monopsony,
>> with NASA being the biggest market buyer for launchers, especially
>> big launchers.
> 
> You are making my argument for me here.

Not really. You made what appeared to be a blind assertion.

> What you may not be aware of
> is that Boeing was asked to bid on the same project as SpaceX, and
> they have not yet delivered a proposal good enough to warrant serious
> attention from NASA. But, they WERE asked, and they did field a team.
> I would be willing to bet you $10 that Boeing has already spent more
> than SpaceX trying to enter this space and have NOTHING significant to
> show for it.

I'm not willing to make a bet here, but my point was that you don't really know -- or you'd be willing to bet a lot more. (I'm admitting here, too, that I don't know about Boeing's corporate or R&D culture. That's why I wouldn't make a bet. But if I wanted to make a comment about what precisely it is, I wouldn't reach for my wallet, but do a little research to find out.:)

>> * Of course, this did change with communication satellite launches.
>> And, also, the US military is the other big player here with launches
>> of its satellites. Notably, that military, like all militaries, is also
>> coercively funded -- as well as being the major coercer.
> 
> No argument there... but why does having non-libertarian customers (at
> first) mean that it is not a step towards a more free (as in freedom)
> approach?

See above. It's all about coercion. Why call something libertarian when it's not -- even if it might better than the alternatives?

(And there might be some cause for alarm here. Governments have farmed out work before for projects. In fact, this happens quite often in the US. This does not always lead to less government or less coercion. One need only think of government farming out security and prison provision to private firms. This might result in cost efficient ways to increase coercion. For instance, if private prisons are really cheaper, then government might be far less sensitive to the costs of imprisoning ever more people, including making ever more crimes (especially victimless ones) punishable by prison sentences. I'm not saying this is exactly the case with NASA buying launch services from SpaceX, but it shows that one should have a more nuanced approach to analyzing these things, don't you think?)
?
> Dan, I'm a glass half full libertarian, you sound here like a glass
> half empty libertarian. :-)

Not at all. Recall, I'm the one that started this thread and am overall quite optimistic about space transport. But that doesn't mean I redefine terms to suit whatever progress might be made. To wit, what is libertarian should be very clear -- it has to involve no coercion, not merely choice or private provision or less coercion. And this is important because many people are confused about what should be a fairly clear concept that's not difficult to apply in this case.

Regards,

Dan




From pharos at gmail.com  Thu May 31 13:57:18 2012
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 14:57:18 +0100
Subject: [ExI] SpaceX launch succcessful
In-Reply-To: <1338470148.43817.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <CAFqFpXvyCpUqcOuGwThzpQjt_rW_Fq02ma6P5x5ipxn7rC=1Jw@mail.gmail.com>
 <F426D7D3-4BF7-4FEB-BAAA-D2EF0C2667DD@yahoo.com>
 <01ba01cd381e$1f0862b0$5d192810$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwYUZXhy3Q3-ppK7o8HboyqwSDrkYHaRZxPwKRTdJMr03w@mail.gmail.com>
 <1337708237.14797.YahooMailNeo@web160601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAPy8RwY=ug-19JhB3vqdpechq0atPB7z68=Eo-ebhfr0dTdB3A@mail.gmail.com>
 <1338470148.43817.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAL_armgnjR80BEj3MkWt=g87rFzm=HTRGFHbDMFY1tzxG_aD9A@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Dan wrote:
<big snip>
> Not at all. Recall, I'm the one that started this thread and am overall quite optimistic
> about space transport. But that doesn't mean I redefine terms to suit whatever
> progress might be made. To wit, what is libertarian should be very clear --
> it has to involve no coercion, not merely choice or private provision or less coercion.
> And this is important because many people are confused about what should be a
> fairly clear concept that's not difficult to apply in this case.
>
>

But you are redefining 'coercion' to suit your theory!

The human race and evolution 'red in tooth and claw' is coercion all the way.
Everything is coercion of some kind.

See: <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/coercion/>
for a philosophical discussion about what coercion means.

But they open their discussion by listing all the types of coercion
that they are not going to discuss, because it gets too complicated.
:)


BillK


From eugen at leitl.org  Thu May 31 15:25:21 2012
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 17:25:21 +0200
Subject: [ExI] The metacell uses a period 184 tractor beam,
	which acts as a clock.
Message-ID: <20120531152521.GK17120@leitl.org>


(why, young man, it's cells all the way down)

http://www.jwz.org/blog/2012/05/turtles-all-the-way-down-or-gliders-or-glider-turtles/

The metacell uses a period 184 tractor beam, which acts as a clock. It pulls
a block downwards by eight cells per impact, releasing a glider in the
process. Some of the gliders are utilised; the rest are eaten. When the block
reaches the base, it is restored at the top to begin the cycle again. Period
46 and 184 technologies (which are compatible) are used extensively
throughout the configuration.

The rule is encoded in two columns, each of nine eaters, where one column
corresponds to the 'Birth' rule and the other corresponds to 'Survival'. The
nine eaters correspond to the nine different quantities of on cells (0
through 8). The presence or absence of the eater indicates whether the cell
should be on in the next meta-generation. The state of the eater is read by
the collision of two antiparallel LWSSes, which radiates two antiparallel
gliders (not unlike an electron-positron reaction in a PET scanner). These
gliders then collide into beehives, which are restored by a passing LWSS in
Brice's elegant honeybit reaction. If the eater is present, the beehive would
remain in its original state, thereby allowing the LWSS to pass unaffected;
if the eater is absent, the beehive would be restored, consuming the LWSS in
the process. Equivalently, the state of the eater is mapped onto the state of
the LWSS. 


From spike66 at att.net  Thu May 31 15:17:37 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 08:17:37 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Peak Oil -- Amory Lovins
In-Reply-To: <1338467209.21398.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <CAPy8RwZmtTqg4yh92yh4P6Jb-2ttx5mJjTK-geRFEtLM0JgUzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <009a01cd3e81$cb4fcb80$61ef6280$@att.net>
 <1338467209.21398.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <007801cd3f40$84199ba0$8c4cd2e0$@att.net>


>... On Behalf Of Dan
Subject: Re: [ExI] Peak Oil -- Amory Lovins

On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 12:32 PM spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>> ...Kelly I have been toying with this idea for a long time.? My own 
> outlook might be colored by a daily commute to work I have been doing 
> for the past 17 years...? I think it peaked right around 1999...

>...This has all the markings of problems with anecdotal evidence...

Ja.  There is a way anecdotal notions can be useful: when there is some kind
of observational multiplier.  A perfect example comes from the medical
world.  Doctors have every observation multiplied many times over because
they see a lot of patients.  They understand trends because of a privileged
viewing platform that multiplies their observations.

Consider the ultra-weird headline from a few days ago: Miami police shot a
naked guy who was in the process of chewing on another naked guy's face.
Most bizarre headline I ever saw, had no idea what to make of it.  Yesterday
a doctor was on the radio when it was mentioned, and explained, in the big
cities there is a new drug fad, especially popular among homeless people
because it is really cheap.  It causes the patient to feel hot and makes the
skin hypersensitive, so they commonly tear off all their clothing.  Then if
the dosage is sufficient, they go wild and do completely unpredictable
actions, such as tearing his doper buddy's goddam nose off.

Now that formerly incomprehensible headline makes a lot more sense, ja?
Doctors have a million of those.

Traffic patterns are an example of an observational multiplier.  We can't
learn anything by observing a particular car, but we learn a lot from a
million of them.

>... Imagine a similar argument about peak coal... In my entire lifetime,
I've only seen one home that used coal at all and this was an old burner and
hopper that were no longer in use. (I've heard coal is still used in some
homes, but I've yet to actually see one up close and personal.:)... Dan

I get to tell one cool story here.  My wife and I do genealogy.  Long story
short, we ended up going up into the hills of Tennessee, looking for a
family cemetery near a waaaay back place called Thorn Hill.  This was in
1990.  Found the graves, met some people who turned out to be direct
descendants of the ancestors in those graves, so they were distant cousins,
then in their 70s.  Clearly they were puzzled to see people like us way the
heck off the beaten path.  They invited us to their cabin.  They had only
gotten electricity back there in 1985.  The only thing I saw in their house
which used it was a radio, which didn't pick up much of anything.  We
explained we were aerospace engineers.  They didn't know what that is.
Satellites.  Not a flicker of understanding.  Their small home, built in
1890, was coal heated.  The thing I noticed about it was a distinctive odor.


Years went by.  We received a package which was a book.  The cousins had
passed away, and had left instructions to send us this book.  As soon as I
opened that package, I was immediately reminded of the experience because of
the smell of that book.  It smelled like coal.  We still have that book, and
after all this time it still smells faintly of coal.  I don't know why it
is, but there seems to be a direct line between the nose and the memory, for
whenever I smell that, I remember details of their cabin and that
distinctive smell.   

spike








From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Thu May 31 15:34:37 2012
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 09:34:37 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Peak Oil -- Amory Lovins
In-Reply-To: <20120531094609.GC17120@leitl.org>
References: <CAPy8RwZmtTqg4yh92yh4P6Jb-2ttx5mJjTK-geRFEtLM0JgUzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <009a01cd3e81$cb4fcb80$61ef6280$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwZCEaDDdu27tY=qGcjy92+qtNo+h7R_1v71jfLucDcXTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120531084504.GZ17120@leitl.org>
 <CAPy8Rwb=PsoY5TzDi-mQjEKukgV0PjNhh+nbkwmPyGdXhE_6yQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120531094609.GC17120@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwbZ5xHTq-6DrFXeT0KZTrhy0Xp+gAMVw8-SnuxxV0Sgtw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 03:08:42AM -0600, Kelly Anderson wrote:
>
>> > You're taking one guy, on his word, without knowing the details
>> > which were not subjected to peer review? Really?
>>
>> Eugen, don't have a knee jerk reaction just because you don't like
>> what he says. Nobody gets invited to TED once, let alone twice if they
>
> I don't know what he says. Neither do you.

Yes, I do know what he says. I know what he is saying can and should
happen, and how to get there and what steps need to be taken to get
there.

> That's the point.
> Before we can evaluate the claims, we need to know what
> exactly the claims are (=numbers and models) and what his
> peers say.

Strictly speaking, this isn't exactly peer reviewed science. He's more
of an economist. Economics is one of the softer sciences. He's saying
what should happen, what can happen, and what happens when we do
certain things. You would like his conclusions... he wants to get rid
of all oil use by 2050 replacing most of it with solar, and very
little nuclear.

The interesting part is how he gets there. A lot of really economical
steps to save power. He wants to build lighter cars out of carbon, for
example. He shows how building lighter cars is a virtuous cycle that
saves energy and lives. It's all good stuff Eugen. Don't assume that
you know what he's talking about until you have heard him out.

>> are not serious.
>>
>> Read his bio:
>> http://www.ted.com/speakers/amory_lovins.html
>
> I've heard of the guy before, of course. Actually I skimmed the executive
> summary of his new book http://www.rmi.org/rfexecutivesummary
> and what you say doesn't seem what he says. In order to substitute
> some 30 TW in 40 years you need a substitution rate which is more
> linear than exponential, and we're some 1-2 orders of magnitute
> remote from the global substitution rate required.

I believe (again, I'm not intimately familiar with some of the
details) that he wants to make up a lot of the difference with
conservation. He also wants some biofuel, made from waste, not food.

> It can be done but it won't be done if we don't do it.
> And alsmost nobody is doing it at the moment. That is my
> beef with grand plans in general.

He has Walmart and Texas Instruments as customers. What Walmart does
really matters. When Walmart changes the lighting in all of its
stores, it makes a big difference. He got them to do that.

>> Listen to the talks. Then decide for yourself. You seem to be having a
>
> Sorry, I don't do video. No time for this. TED is better than most,
> but still information density too low, not enough novelty to bother.
> I've never watched a single TED video from start to finish.

So read the transcripts. I'll make it easy for you, here is the
transcript from his first talk:

The old story about climate protection is that it's costly, or it
would have been done already. So government needs to make us do
something painful to fix it. The new story about climate protection is
that it's not costly, but profitable. This was a simple sign error,
because it's cheaper to save fuel than to buy fuel, as is well known
to companies that do it all the time -- for example, Dupont, SD micro
electronics. Many other firms -- IBM -- are reducing their energy
intensity routinely six percent a year by fixing up their plants, and
they get their money back in two or three years. That's called a
profit.

Now, similarly, the old story about oil is that if we wanted to save
very much of it, it would be expensive, or we would have done it
already, because markets are essentially perfect. If, of course, that
were true, there would be no innovation, and nobody could make any
money. But the new story about oil is the government doesn't have to
force us to do painful things to get off oil -- not just
incrementally, but completely -- quite the contrary. The United
States, for example, can completely eliminate its use of oil and
rejuvenate the economy at the same time, led by business for profit,
because it's so much cheaper to save and substitute for the oil than
to keep on buying it. This process will also be catalyzed by the
military for its own reasons of combat effectiveness and preventing
conflict, particularly over oil.

This thesis is set out in a book called "Winning the Oil Endgame" that
four colleagues and I wrote and have posted for free at Oilendgame.com
-- about 170,000 downloads so far. And it was co-sponsored by the
Pentagon -- it's independent, it's peer-reviewed and all of the backup
calculations are transparently posted for your perusal. Now, a bit of
economic history, I think, may be helpful here. Around 1850, one of
the biggest U.S. industries was whaling. And whale oil lit practically
every building. But in the nine years before Drake struck oil, in
1859, at least five-sixths of that whale oil-illuminating market
disappeared, thanks to fatal competitors, chiefly oil and gas made
from coal, to which the whalers had not been paying attention. So,
very unexpectedly, they ran out of customers before they ran out of
whales. The remnant whale populations were saved by technological
innovators and profit-maximizing capitalists.

(Laughter)

And it's funny -- it feels a bit like this now for oil. We've been
spending the last few decades accumulating a very powerful backlog of
technologies for saving and substituting for oil, and no one had
bothered to add them up before. So when we did, we found some very
surprising things. Now, there are two big reasons to be concerned
about oil. Both national competitiveness and national security are at
risk. On the competitiveness front, we all know that Toyota has more
market cap than the big three put together. And serious competition
from Europe, from Korea, and next is China, which will soon be a major
net exporter of cars. How long do you think it will take before you
can drive home your new wally-badged Shanghai automotive
super-efficient car? Maybe a decade, according to my friends in
Detroit. China has an energy policy based on radical energy efficiency
and leap-frog technology. They're not going to export your uncle's
Buick.

And after that comes India. The point here is, these cars are going to
be made super efficient. The question is, who will make them? Will we
in the United States continue to import efficient cars to replace
foreign oil, or will we make efficient cars and import neither the oil
nor the cars? That seems to make more sense. The more we keep on using
the oil, particularly the imported oil, the more we face a very
obvious array of problems. Our analysis assumes that they all cost
nothing, but nothing is not the right number. It could well be enough
to double the oil price, for example. And one of the worst of these is
what it does to our standing in the world if other countries think
that everything we do is about oil, if we have to treat countries that
have oil differently than countries that don't have oil.

And our military get quite unhappy with having to stand guard on
pipelines in Far-off-istan when what they actually signed up for was
to protect American citizens. They don't like fighting over oil, they
don't like being in the sands and they don't like where the oil money
goes and what sort of instability it creates. Now, in order to avoid
these problems, whatever you think they're worth, it's actually not
that complicated. We can save half the oil by using it more
efficiently, at a cost of 12 dollars per saved barrel. And then we can
replace the other half with a combination of advanced bio-fuels and
safe natural gas. And that costs on average under 18 dollars a barrel.
And compared with the official forecast, that oil will cost 26 dollars
a barrel in 2025, which is half of what we've been paying lately,

that will save 70 billion dollars a year, starting quite soon. Now, in
order to do this we need to invest about 180 billion dollars: half of
it to retool the car, truck and plane industries; half of it to build
the advanced bio-fuel industry. In the process, we will gain about a
million good jobs, mainly rural. And protect another million jobs now
at risk, mainly in auto-making. And we'll also get returns over 150
billion dollars a year. So that's a very handsome return. It's
financeable in the private capital market. But if you want it for the
reasons I just mentioned, to happen sooner and with higher confidence,
then -- and also to expand choice and manage risk -- then you might
like some light-handed public policies that support rather than
distorting or opposing the business logic. And these policies work
fine without taxes, subsidies or mandates. They make a little net
money for the treasury.

They have a broad trans-ideological appeal, and because we want them
actually to happen, we figured out ways to do them that do not require
much, if any, federal legislation, and can, indeed, be done
administratively or at a state level. Just to illustrate what to do
about the nub of the problem, namely, light vehicles, here are four
ultra-light carbon-composite concept cars with low drag, and all but
the one at the upper left have hybrid drive. You can sort of have it
all with these things. For example, this Opel two-seater does 155
miles an hour at 94 miles a gallon. This muscle car from Toyota: 408
horsepower in an ultra-light that does zero to 60 in well under four
seconds, and still gets 32 miles a gallon. I'll say more later about
this.

And in the upper left, a pioneering effort 14 years ago by GM -- 84
miles a gallon without even using a hybrid, in a four-seater. Well,
saving that fuel, 69 percent of the fuel in light vehicles costs about
57 cents per saved gallon. But it's even a better deal for heavy
trucks, where you save a similar amount at 25 cents a gallon, with
better aerodynamics and tires and engines, and so on, and taking out
weight so you can put it into payload. So you can double efficiency
with a 60 percent internal rate of return. Then you can go even
further, almost tripling efficiency with some operational
improvements, double the big haulers' margins. And we intend to use
those numbers to create demand pull, and flip the market.

In the airplane business, it's again a similar story where the first
20 percent fuel saving is free, as Boeing is now demonstrating in its
new Dreamliner. But then the next generation of planes saves about
half. Again, much cheaper than buying the fuel. And if you go over the
next 15 years or so to a blended-wing body, kind of a flying wing with
internal engines, then you get about a factor three efficiency
improvement at comparable or lower cost. Let me focus a minute on the
light vehicles, the cars and light trucks, because we all know the
most about those; probably everybody here drives one. And yet we may
not realize that in a standard sedan, of all the fuel energy you feed
into the car, seven-eighths never gets to the wheels; it's lost first
in the engine, idling at zero miles a gallon, the power train and
accessories.

So then of the energy that does get to the wheels, only an eighth of
it, half of that, goes to heat the tires on the road, or to heat the
air the car pushes aside. And only this little bit, only six percent
actually ends up accelerating the car and then heating the brakes when
you stop. In fact, since 95 percent of the weight you're moving is the
car not the driver, less than one percent of the fuel energy ends up
moving the driver. This is not very gratifying after more than a
century of devoted engineering effort.

(Laughter)

(Applause)

Moreover, three-fourths of the fuel use is caused by the weight of the
car. And it's obvious from the diagram that every unit of energy you
save at the wheels is going to avoid wasting another seven units of
energy getting that energy to the wheels. So there's huge leverage for
making the car a lot lighter. And the reason this has not been very
seriously examined before is there was a common assumption in the
industry that -- well, then it might not be safe if you got whacked by
a heavy car, and it would cost a lot more to make, because the only
way we know how to make cars much lighter was to use expensive light
metals like aluminum and magnesium. But these objections are now
vanishing through advances in materials.

For example, we use a lot of carbon-fiber composites in sporting
goods. And it turns out that these are quite remarkable for safety.
Here's a handmade McLaren SLR carbon car that got t-boned by a Golf.
The Golf was totaled. The McLaren just popped off and scratched the
side panel. They'll pop it back on and fix the scratch later. But if
this McLaren were to run into a wall at 65 miles an hour, the entire
crash energy would be absorbed by a couple of woven carbon-fiber
composite cones, weighing a total of 15 pounds, hidden in the front
end. Because these materials could actually absorb six to 12 times as
much energy per pound as steel, and do so a lot more smoothly.

And this means we've just cracked the conundrum of safety and weight.
We could make cars bigger, which is protective, but make them light.
Whereas if we made them heavy, they'd be both hostile and inefficient.
And when you make them light in the right way, that can be simpler and
cheaper to make. You can end up saving money, and lives, and oil, all
at the same time. I showed here two years ago a little bit about a
design of your basic, uncompromised, quintupled-efficiency
suburban-assault vehicle -- (Laughter) -- and this is a complete
virtual design that is production-costed manufacturable.

And the process needed to make it is actually coming toward the market
quite nicely. We figured out a kind of a digital inkjet printer for
this very stiff, strong, carbon-composite material, and then ways to
thermoform it, because it's a combination of carbon and nylon, into
whatever complex shapes you want, like the one just shown at the auto
show by one of the tier-one suppliers. And the manufacturing you can
do this way gets radically simplified. Because the auto body has only,
say, 14 parts, instead of 100, 150. Each one is formed by one fairly
cheap die set, instead of four expensive ones for stamping steel. Each
of the parts can be easily lifted with no hoist. They snap together
like a kid's toy. So you got rid of the body shop.

And if you want, you can lay color in the mold, and get rid of the
paint shop. Those are the two hardest and costliest parts of making a
car. So you end up with at least two-fifths lower capital intensity
than the leanest plant in the industry, which GM has in Lansing. The
plant also gets smaller. Now, when you go through a similar analysis
for every way we use oil, including buildings, industry, feedstocks
and so on, you find that of the 28 million barrels a day the
government says we will need in 2025, well, about eight of that can be
removed by efficiency by then, with another seven still being saved as
the vehicle stocks turn over, at an average cost of only 12 bucks a
barrel, instead of 26 for buying the oil. And then another six can be
made robustly, competitively, from cellulosic ethanol and a little
bio-diesel, without interfering at all with the water or land needs of
crop production.

There is a huge amount of gas to be saved, about half the projected
gas at about an eighth of its price. And here are some no-brainer
substitutions of it, with lots left over. So much, in fact, that after
you've handled the domestic oil forecast from areas already approved,
you have only this little bit left, and let's see how we can meet
that, because there's a pretty flexible menu of ways. We could, of
course, buy more efficiency. Maybe you ought to buy efficiency at 26
bucks instead of 12. Or wait to capture the second half of it. Or we
could, of course, just get this little bit by continuing to import
some Canadian and Mexican oil, or the ethanol the Brazilians would
love to sell us. But they'll sell it to Japan and China instead,
because we have tariff barriers to protect our corn farmers, and they
don't.

Or we could use the saved gas directly to cover all of this balance,
or if we used it as hydrogen, which is more profitable and efficient,
we'd get rid of the domestic oil too. And that doesn't even count, for
example, that available land in the Dakotas can cost effectively make
enough wind power to run every highway vehicle in the country. So we
have lots of options. And the choice of menu and timing is quite
flexible. Now, to make this happen quicker and with higher confidence,
there is a few ways government could help. For example, fee-bates, a
combination of a fee and a rebate in any size class of vehicle you
want, can increase the price of inefficient vehicles and
correspondingly pay you a rebate for efficient vehicles. You're not
paid to change size class. You are paid to pick efficiency within a
size class, in a way equivalent to looking at all fourteen years of
life-cycle fuel savings rather than just the first two or three.

This expands choice rapidly in the market, and actually makes more
money for automakers as well. I'd like to deal with the lack of
affordable personal mobility in this country by making it very cheaply
possible for low-income families to get efficient, reliable, warranted
new cars that they could otherwise never get. And for each car so
financed, scrap almost one clunker, preferably the dirtiest ones. This
creates a new million-car-a-year market for Detroit from customers
they weren't going to get otherwise, because they weren't creditworthy
and could never afford a new car. And Detroit will make money on every
unit. It turns out that if, say, African-American and white households
had the same car ownership, it would cut employment disparity about in
half by providing better access to job opportunities. So this is a
huge social win, too.

Governments buy hundreds of thousands of cars a year. There are smart
ways to buy them and to aggregate that purchasing power to bring very
efficient vehicles into the market faster. And we could even do an X
Prize-style golden carrot that's worth stretching further for. For
example, a billion-dollar prize for the first U.S. automaker to sell
200,000 really advanced vehicles, like some you saw earlier. Then the
legacy airlines can't afford to buy the efficient new planes they
desperately need to cut their fuel bills, but if you felt
philosophically you wanted to do anything about that, there are ways
to finance it.

And at the same time to scrap inefficient old planes, so that if they
were otherwise to come back in the air, they would waste more oil, and
block the uptake of efficient, new planes. Those part inefficient
planes are worth more to society dead than alive. We ought to take
them out back and shoot them, and put bounty hunters after them. Then
there's an important military role. That in creating the move to
high-volume, low-cost commercial production of these kinds of
materials, or for that matter, ultra-light steels that are a good
backup technology, the military can do the trick it did in turning
DARPAnet into the Internet. Just turn it over to the private sector,
and we have an Internet.

The same for GPS. The same for the modern semi-conductor industry.
That is, military science and technology that they need can create the
advanced materials-industrial cluster that transforms its civilian
economy and gets the country off oil, which would be a huge
contribution to eliminating conflict over oil and advancing national
and global security. Then we need to retool the car industry and do
retraining, and shift the convergence of the energy and ag-value
chains to shift faster from hydrocarbons to carbohydrates, and get out
of our own way in other ways. And make the transition to more
efficient vehicles go faster.

But here's how the whole thing fits together. Instead of official
forecasts of oil use and oil imports going forever up, they can turn
down with the 12 dollars a barrel efficiency, down steeply by adding
the supply-side substitutions at 18 bucks, all implemented at slower
rates than we've done before when we paid attention. And if we start
adding tranches of hydrogen in there, we are rapidly off imports and
completely off oil in the 2040s.

And the one thing I'd like to point out here is that we've done this
before. In this eight-year period, 1977 to 85, when we last paid
attention, the economy grew 27 percent, oil use fell 17 percent, oil
imports fell 50 percent, oil imports from the Persian Gulf fell 87
percent. They would have been gone if we'd kept that up one more year.
Well, that was with very old technologies and delivery methods.

We could rerun that play a lot better now. And yet what we proved then
is the U.S. has more market power than OPEC. Ours is on the demand
side. We are the Saudi Arabia of "nega-barrels." (Laughter) We can use
less oil faster than they can conveniently sell less oil.

(Applause)

Whatever your reason for wanting to do this, whether you're concerned
about national security or price volatility -- (Laughter) -- or jobs,
or the planet, or your grand-kids, it seems to me that this is an oil
endgame that we should all be playing to win. Please download your
copy, and thank you very much.

(Applause)


>> religious reaction, rather than a rational one and I think you're
>
> Yes, I'm religious. My cult abhors one thing: lack of rigor.
> The best kind of arguments for my persuasion are these published
> in peer-reviewed journals. Violators will be burned... naw, just
> ignored.

OK, he has a web site, and his paper was peer reviewed, and it was
paid for by the Pentagon. Is that enough for you to pay attention to
what he has to say?

>> better than that. Lovin's answers to the problems we face aren't the
>> same answers everyone else is giving. Hear him out.
>
> I agree with what I've read so far. I'm just not seeing it done
> on time.

I think we're right on track. Big question is whether the efficiencies
can come from a US auto industry that gets bailed out instead of being
allowed to fail. As usual, the problem is the government stepping in
and f'ing things up. If the car companies had been allowed to go out
of business, we would have hi tech startups in California now building
carbon fiber cars! But NOOOOooo the union cronies have to be upheld to
continue to build steel cars that are ruining the earth and wasting
our precious resources.

>> >> > If the Chinese and Indians figure out a way to leapfrog our technology from
>> >> > the latter 20th century, then I would agree we may have seen peak demand for
>> >> > oil. ?But it isn't clear that they will do that, in which case they will
>> >> > want their personal ape-haulers and will drive the wheels off of them, just
>> >> > as we did. ?The demand on oil will be astonishing.
>> >>
>> >> I don't know the basis for Lovin's claims precisely. I am pretty sure
>> >
>> > If you don't know what his claims are precisely, why are you wasting
>> > your time, and ours?
>>
>> I know what his claims are. I just don't know the details of how he
>> arrives at the conclusions he arrives at. He did quote a Duechebank
>> report regarding peak oil demand... If you really want to know, I
>> would advise getting his book, "Reinventing Fire"... while I have not
>> read it, I have read excerpts and what he says sounds pretty rational
>> to me.
>
> Does anyone have an electronic version of the ebook? There are
> 13 publications by Lovins on LibGen, but his latest book isn't
> there yet.

I haven't been able to find anything yet.

>> > Amory Lovins has 331 hits on The Oil Drum. A possibly more focused
>> > search still gives 59 hits http://www.theoildrum.com/search/apachesolr_search/%22amory%20lovins%22
>> > I'm not going to read them, but perhaps you should.
>>
>> This is pretty typical of the stuff on the oil drum comments...
>> "I'm surprised by your lack of familiarity with Lovins. He is widely
>> published, a recognized international expert on renewable energy, and
>> someone that everyone interested in peak oil solutions should pay
>> attention to.
>> Read Winning the Oil Endgame cover to cover and let us know what you think."
>>
>> >> he was talking globally though. If we do reach peak demand prior to
>> >> peak supply, that's good for all of us! Add one to the optimism
>> >> column... hopefully.
>>
>> Eugen... If you want to be well versed on energy policy, and I think
>> you do, then don't you owe it to yourself to read things from more
>> than one source? Lovin's approach is BIG, and bold. He wants to fix a
>
> I *am* reading as much as I can digest, actually. The Oil Drum is
> actually including plenty of reviews, and varied opinions. They
> might pick you apart in the comments if they don't like what you
> say, but you can publish dissenting opinions.

Good.

>> lot of large problems all together, and by solving all these big
>> problems together, rather than tackling little bits independently, he
>> arrives at a solution that really sounds plausible.
>
> We have plenty of solutions that are plausible. We've had such
> solutions in 1970, in fact. The trouble is that we don't execute
> these.

And with the savings in war costs alone, people are taking a second look now.

>> I would recommend you listen to the two TED talks if nothing else. I
>> have been a subscriber to his snail mail mailing list for a couple of
>> years, and get letters in the mail from his organization pretty
>> frequently. He runs a real organization, with real money and real
>> clients.
>
> I do not doubt that. Can he make ~10 gigamonkeys (or much less, if
> we fail) play ball? And monkeys don't want to play ball.

Monkeys like saving money, especially the ones that run big
businesses. I think the hardest part of his plan is doing anything
about individual homes. That's a tough one. But factories, long haul
trucking, cars, advanced biofuels for more efficient airplanes, those
all sound reasonable to me.

-Kelly



From eugen at leitl.org  Thu May 31 15:38:46 2012
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 17:38:46 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Peak Oil -- Amory Lovins
In-Reply-To: <007801cd3f40$84199ba0$8c4cd2e0$@att.net>
References: <CAPy8RwZmtTqg4yh92yh4P6Jb-2ttx5mJjTK-geRFEtLM0JgUzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <009a01cd3e81$cb4fcb80$61ef6280$@att.net>
 <1338467209.21398.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <007801cd3f40$84199ba0$8c4cd2e0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <20120531153846.GM17120@leitl.org>

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 08:17:37AM -0700, spike wrote:

> Consider the ultra-weird headline from a few days ago: Miami police shot a
> naked guy who was in the process of chewing on another naked guy's face.
> Most bizarre headline I ever saw, had no idea what to make of it.  Yesterday
> a doctor was on the radio when it was mentioned, and explained, in the big
> cities there is a new drug fad, especially popular among homeless people
> because it is really cheap.  It causes the patient to feel hot and makes the
> skin hypersensitive, so they commonly tear off all their clothing.  Then if
> the dosage is sufficient, they go wild and do completely unpredictable
> actions, such as tearing his doper buddy's goddam nose off.

Bath salt psychoses aren't new, and they've made it into observational
patterns and even into published peer-reviewed publications.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mephedrone and Erowid in general.


From spike66 at att.net  Thu May 31 16:06:26 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 09:06:26 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Peak Oil -- Amory Lovins
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwbZ5xHTq-6DrFXeT0KZTrhy0Xp+gAMVw8-SnuxxV0Sgtw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwZmtTqg4yh92yh4P6Jb-2ttx5mJjTK-geRFEtLM0JgUzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <009a01cd3e81$cb4fcb80$61ef6280$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwZCEaDDdu27tY=qGcjy92+qtNo+h7R_1v71jfLucDcXTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120531084504.GZ17120@leitl.org>
 <CAPy8Rwb=PsoY5TzDi-mQjEKukgV0PjNhh+nbkwmPyGdXhE_6yQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120531094609.GC17120@leitl.org>
 <CAPy8RwbZ5xHTq-6DrFXeT0KZTrhy0Xp+gAMVw8-SnuxxV0Sgtw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <008201cd3f47$557ee5a0$007cb0e0$@att.net>


>... On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson

>...He wants to build lighter cars out of carbon, for example. He shows how
building lighter cars is a virtuous cycle that saves energy and lives...

We like to talk about the concept of EROEI.  I do invite those who are
engineering-oriented to do some calcs, or just estimates based on numbers,
BOTECs.  I did a few of these on home insulation, changing out lighting and
so forth.  Of all those I did, the lighter cars notion was a huuuuge winner,
by a big margin.  We are holding ourselves back from that.

It isn't just low weight ape haulers, it is super low profile (to minimize
air resistance.)  Imagine a very small featureless ellipsoid shaped device,
single seat, with a plastic bubble for the driver's head.  It would look a
little like the 1930s vision of a flying saucer, with the top of it only a
meter off the ground.  Super light,  super low air friction, too dangerous
for current road use, but not too dangerous if everyone is driving those.   

I am not necessarily a Lovins follower, but he hit that one right on.  We
can do transportation for a quarter of the current fuel use, at about three
quarters of the current speed.  


>...He has Walmart and Texas Instruments as customers. What Walmart does
really matters. When Walmart changes the lighting in all of its stores, it
makes a big difference. He got them to do that...

Good example of a small effect multiplied a jillion times over. 


>...Monkeys like saving money, especially the ones that run big businesses.
I think the hardest part of his plan is doing anything about individual
homes. That's a tough one. But factories, long haul trucking, cars, advanced
biofuels for more efficient airplanes, those all sound reasonable to me.
-Kelly

_______________________________________________

Agreed, inefficiencies in homes will be more difficult to fix.  It requires
individual action to make that happen, which means there will be some who
are slow to transition, and some who never do, such as my Tennessee cousins
still heating with coal.

Passing comment about airplanes.  As much as I am reluctant to post this
comment, I think most of you will agree: it is only a matter of time before
some yahoo puts a hunk of C4 up his ass and gets on a plane with it, for
that would be undetectable with current tech.  As soon as that plane comes
down in pieces, and they find his apartment filled with radical Presbyterian
literature, it could spell the end for the airline industry, for it has
never been a really healthy industry.  We already have at least two examples
of radical Mormons ready to die to bring down an airliner, or they might
have been Methodists, I often get them confused, one of those religion
biggies.

As soon as business fliers all over the world really start to focus on how
to do business from the office, I don't see how the airline industry can be
sustained.

spike



From pharos at gmail.com  Thu May 31 16:36:38 2012
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 17:36:38 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Peak Oil -- Amory Lovins
In-Reply-To: <008201cd3f47$557ee5a0$007cb0e0$@att.net>
References: <CAPy8RwZmtTqg4yh92yh4P6Jb-2ttx5mJjTK-geRFEtLM0JgUzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <009a01cd3e81$cb4fcb80$61ef6280$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwZCEaDDdu27tY=qGcjy92+qtNo+h7R_1v71jfLucDcXTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120531084504.GZ17120@leitl.org>
 <CAPy8Rwb=PsoY5TzDi-mQjEKukgV0PjNhh+nbkwmPyGdXhE_6yQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120531094609.GC17120@leitl.org>
 <CAPy8RwbZ5xHTq-6DrFXeT0KZTrhy0Xp+gAMVw8-SnuxxV0Sgtw@mail.gmail.com>
 <008201cd3f47$557ee5a0$007cb0e0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAL_armia2b=_qssj-=5+OpkYpy_E_vf_ME9FZEqRrUVge_YO0Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:06 PM, spike wrote:
> It isn't just low weight ape haulers, it is super low profile (to minimize
> air resistance.) ?Imagine a very small featureless ellipsoid shaped device,
> single seat, with a plastic bubble for the driver's head. ?It would look a
> little like the 1930s vision of a flying saucer, with the top of it only a
> meter off the ground. ?Super light, ?super low air friction, too dangerous
> for current road use, but not too dangerous if everyone is driving those.
>
> I am not necessarily a Lovins follower, but he hit that one right on. ?We
> can do transportation for a quarter of the current fuel use, at about three
> quarters of the current speed.
>
>


You mean a bit like this---------
<http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/05/lit-motors-c1/>

Exclusive: This Is the Gyro-Stabilized, Two-Wheeled Future of Transportation
    By Damon Lavrinc    May 29, 2012 |


BillK



From max at maxmore.com  Thu May 31 16:49:40 2012
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 09:49:40 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Competition in Currency: The Potential for Private Money
Message-ID: <CAJX-7wU1fFEnWYhkePN1=H6yDE_s6-Q18qYTiPHAG3MgnbY1iQ@mail.gmail.com>

Some of you here will be interested in this:

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/competition-currency-potential-private-money?utm_source=Cato+Institute+Emails&utm_campaign=f8d14a2d86-R_A_May_2012&utm_medium=email&mc_cid=f8d14a2d86&mc_eid=d0ac47180c



-- 
Max More, PhD
Strategic Philosopher
Co-editor, *The Transhumanist Reader*
CEO, Alcor Life Extension Foundation
7895 E. Acoma Dr # 110
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
480/905-1906 ext 113
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120531/b284afbe/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Thu May 31 17:40:43 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 10:40:43 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Peak Oil -- Amory Lovins
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armia2b=_qssj-=5+OpkYpy_E_vf_ME9FZEqRrUVge_YO0Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8RwZmtTqg4yh92yh4P6Jb-2ttx5mJjTK-geRFEtLM0JgUzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <009a01cd3e81$cb4fcb80$61ef6280$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwZCEaDDdu27tY=qGcjy92+qtNo+h7R_1v71jfLucDcXTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120531084504.GZ17120@leitl.org>
 <CAPy8Rwb=PsoY5TzDi-mQjEKukgV0PjNhh+nbkwmPyGdXhE_6yQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120531094609.GC17120@leitl.org>
 <CAPy8RwbZ5xHTq-6DrFXeT0KZTrhy0Xp+gAMVw8-SnuxxV0Sgtw@mail.gmail.com>
 <008201cd3f47$557ee5a0$007cb0e0$@att.net>
 <CAL_armia2b=_qssj-=5+OpkYpy_E_vf_ME9FZEqRrUVge_YO0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00aa01cd3f54$811d5b80$83581280$@att.net>


>... On Behalf Of BillK
Subject: Re: [ExI] Peak Oil -- Amory Lovins

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:06 PM, spike wrote:
>> We can do transportation for a quarter of the current fuel use, at about
three quarters of the current speed.

>...You mean a bit like this---------

<http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/05/lit-motors-c1/>

>...Exclusive: This Is the Gyro-Stabilized, Two-Wheeled Future of
Transportation
    By Damon Lavrinc    May 29, 2012 |   BillK

_______________________________________________

Thanks BillK.  I can tell it was a bunch of controls engineers that did
this.  We like to work on complicated problems that allow us to pull out
everything in our bag of mathematical tricks.  So we end up with stuff like
this, wonderfully complicated and cool, so our colleagues are impressed.  We
have fun too.  {8-]

Something like this might work, but it is probably overkill, and I have a
hard time believing they can spin them out for $24k a copy.  I would believe
$30k.  I hope they succeed of course.  Alameda, ja, I heard some local lads
were working on this, but hadn't seen it. A guy who used to work in my
office was going to join that company.

Alternately, you would start with a production motorcycle like this one:

http://www.google.com/search?q=suzuki+burgman&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=
u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=jqjHT-OaD-rs0gHE1_DZDw&sqi=2&ved=0CKMBELAE&biw=1095&bi
h=857

then build on a transparent polycarbonate shell, with pneumatic-actuated aft
mounted side wheels that drop to hold you upright when you get less than
walking speed, then raise themselves when you take off.  I met the guy who
invented that system, and it works.  That would add about $2k to the system
and about 60 pounds.  The shell would add about another $2k and I would
estimate about 60 pounds, and another $3k and 20 pounds of airbags, so the
whole thing could still be in the 600-ish pound range (around 300kg for
those who use a sensible unit system) and still come in at under $15k if we
didn't get too carried away with it.

The pneumatic training wheels could probably be reduced in cost once they
were put into production, perhaps eventually getting down to under $1k.
Same with the plastic shell. 

The shell eliminates the legally mandated helmet and keeps you dry, even if
not warm.  I estimate it would get about twice the mileage as a Prius, if
you started with the 400cc version, once you modified the gearing for the
lower coefficient of drag.

With that notion, you wouldn't even need to give up speed; that rig would go
as fast as a Prius.

spike 






From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Thu May 31 18:05:14 2012
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 11:05:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] SpaceX launch succcessful
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armgnjR80BEj3MkWt=g87rFzm=HTRGFHbDMFY1tzxG_aD9A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFqFpXvyCpUqcOuGwThzpQjt_rW_Fq02ma6P5x5ipxn7rC=1Jw@mail.gmail.com>
 <F426D7D3-4BF7-4FEB-BAAA-D2EF0C2667DD@yahoo.com>
 <01ba01cd381e$1f0862b0$5d192810$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwYUZXhy3Q3-ppK7o8HboyqwSDrkYHaRZxPwKRTdJMr03w@mail.gmail.com>
 <1337708237.14797.YahooMailNeo@web160601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAPy8RwY=ug-19JhB3vqdpechq0atPB7z68=Eo-ebhfr0dTdB3A@mail.gmail.com>
 <1338470148.43817.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAL_armgnjR80BEj3MkWt=g87rFzm=HTRGFHbDMFY1tzxG_aD9A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1338487514.7999.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

On Thursday, May 31, 2012 9:57 AM BillK <pharos at gmail.com>? wrote:
> <big snip> 
>>? Not at all. Recall, I'm the one that started this thread and am overall quite optimistic
>>? about space transport. But that doesn't mean I redefine terms to suit whatever
>>? progress might be made. To wit, what is libertarian should be very clear --
>>? it has to involve no coercion, not merely choice or private provision or less coercion.
>>? And this is important because many people are confused about what should be a
>>? fairly clear concept that's not difficult to apply in this case.
> 
> But you are redefining 'coercion' to suit your theory!

No. I was discussing coercion in the context of libertarianism. In that context -- after all, Kelly was stating that selling launch services to a government space agency was a "libertarian approach to space" -- the particular case seems quite clear. This is not to say libertarian views of coercion are without any gray areas or ambiguities, but the ambiguities are not in this particular case, where clearly NASA does not get funded non-coercively. (The libertarian view also gives a context for coercion, which allows for paradigmatic cases of coercion. This context is property rights or natural rights. Without this, you end up with cases like someone fending off a rapist or thief or murderer being called a coercer because she or he used force.)
?
> The human race and evolution 'red in tooth and claw' is coercion all the way.
> Everything is coercion of some kind.

That's an entirely different matter and debatable. That coercion exists in many activities does not mean one can't make a clear conceptual distinction. And also were it true that nothing human is non-coercive, then the concept would be meaningless and there'd be no point in saying that selling launch services to NASA is or is not non-coercive. It would be like meaningless.

Now, I do believe coercion and noncoercion are applicable concepts -- that they actually do point to real things or real relationships. (I could go into more detail. I'm sure given your previous criticisms of libertarianism, you should be aware of how libertarians generally use coercion and what they mean by it and how these is not too far from, though not exactly the same as, conventional usage.)

> See: <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/coercion/> 
> for a philosophical discussion about what coercion means.
> 
> But they open their discussion by listing all the types of coercion
> that they are not going to discuss, because it gets too complicated.
> :)

Yes, but so what? There are different views on matter and energy, yet in terms of the debate between Kelley and me, we were not touching on these and the specific case in point is not one that really has nuances that would open it up to being outside coercion. Even one looser view that big player can coerce simply by being big should apply here: NASA is the big player in the space arena. So, even non-libertarians who think a big player is coercive simply because it has more financial clout should at least agree.

I'm happy you have posted here rather than contacted me directly.

Regards,

Dan




From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Thu May 31 18:26:41 2012
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 11:26:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Peak Oil -- Amory Lovins
In-Reply-To: <007801cd3f40$84199ba0$8c4cd2e0$@att.net>
References: <CAPy8RwZmtTqg4yh92yh4P6Jb-2ttx5mJjTK-geRFEtLM0JgUzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <009a01cd3e81$cb4fcb80$61ef6280$@att.net>
 <1338467209.21398.YahooMailNeo@web160603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <007801cd3f40$84199ba0$8c4cd2e0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <1338488801.13087.YahooMailNeo@web160602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

On Thursday, May 31, 2012 11:17 AM spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>>> ...Kelly I have been toying with this idea for a long time.? My own
>> outlook might be colored by a daily commute to work I have been doing
>> for the past 17 years...? I think it peaked right around 1999...
> 
>>...This has all the markings of problems with anecdotal evidence...
> 
> Ja.? There is a way anecdotal notions can be useful: when there is some kind
> of observational multiplier.? A perfect example comes from the medical
> world.? Doctors have every observation multiplied many times over because
> they see a lot of patients.? They understand trends because of a privileged
> viewing platform that multiplies their observations.

I'd be careful, though, with doctors generalizing beyond their patients to, say, the general health of the population. Imagine, e.g., a doctor telling you the number of people having cat bites has gone up only to find the overall number has gone down, but the percentage of people of people going to that particular doctor with a cat bite has gone up -- maybe because locally there was some rumor of cats having rabies or of cats spreading FIV to humans.

> Consider the ultra-weird headline from a few days ago: Miami police shot a
> naked guy who was in the process of chewing on another naked guy's face.
> Most bizarre headline I ever saw, had no idea what to make of it.? Yesterday
> a doctor was on the radio when it was mentioned, and explained, in the big
> cities there is a new drug fad, especially popular among homeless people
> because it is really cheap.? It causes the patient to feel hot and makes the
> skin hypersensitive, so they commonly tear off all their clothing.? Then if
> the dosage is sufficient, they go wild and do completely unpredictable
> actions, such as tearing his doper buddy's goddam nose off.

That was actually a real zombie attack, but we at Umbrella have been trying to cover it up by spreading the silly story about bath salts. Anyhow, the zombie outbreak was contained... Then again, we've made mistakes before... :)

> Now that formerly incomprehensible headline makes a lot more sense, ja?
> Doctors have a million of those.

But I think it's probably safer to say doctors don't just see patients here, but also read journals, talk to other doctors, and follow quickly on medical issues -- unlike say you or I trading years old impressions on our commutes. (By the way, I switched to public transit years ago, so I have no impression on what commuting by car has been like for the last three years or so.:)

This kind of reminds me of talking to people who work on A&E or as EMTs. They tend, IMO, to see the world as much more violent, deadly, or accident prone than it really is. The same applies, from what I've read, to people who watch a lot of TV: they tend to see lots more violent crime and disasters, so they presume these things are on the rise and widespread.
?
> Traffic patterns are an example of an observational multiplier.? We can't
> learn anything by observing a particular car, but we learn a lot from a
> million of them.

I'd still be careful here. The best way to handle this would be, IMO, not to talk to drivers -- unless you really do poll thousands of them -- but to look at various objective measures of traffic flow patterns and other things directly related to car use. (Yeah, it's not an either/or; one can do both. My fear with the impressions, though, might be colored by the nature of the trip. For instance, before I got into audiobooks (actually, got an audible.com account), driving to and from work was fairly grueling. But with an audiobook and even with a slightly longer commute it didn't bother me as much. Granted, that's not me counting cars or giving an impression of how crowded the roads were, but it might bias my reporting. You know, no longer having to be alone with my evil thoughts made things better.:)

>>... Imagine a similar argument about peak coal... In my entire lifetime,
>> I've only seen one home that used coal at all and this was an old burner and
>> hopper that were no longer in use. (I've heard coal is still used in some
>> homes, but I've yet to actually see one up close and personal.:)... Dan
> 
> I get to tell one cool story here.? My wife and I do genealogy.? Long story
> short, we ended up going up into the hills of Tennessee, looking for a
> family cemetery near a waaaay back place called Thorn Hill.? This was in
> 1990.? Found the graves, met some people who turned out to be direct
> descendants of the ancestors in those graves, so they were distant cousins,
> then in their 70s.? Clearly they were puzzled to see people like us way the
> heck off the beaten path.? They invited us to their cabin.? They had only
> gotten electricity back there in 1985.? The only thing I saw in their house
> which used it was a radio, which didn't pick up much of anything.? We
> explained we were aerospace engineers.? They didn't know what that is.
> Satellites.? Not a flicker of understanding.? Their small home, built in
> 1890, was coal heated.? The thing I noticed about it was a distinctive odor.
> 
> Years went by.? We received a package which was a book.? The cousins had
> passed away, and had left instructions to send us this book.? As soon as I
> opened that package, I was immediately reminded of the experience because of
> the smell of that book.? It smelled like coal.? We still have that book, and
> after all this time it still smells faintly of coal.? I don't know why it
> is, but there seems to be a direct line between the nose and the memory, for
> whenever I smell that, I remember details of their cabin and that
> distinctive smell. 

A few years ago, I rode the Cog Rail to the top of Mount Washington (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Washington_Cog_Railway ) and got a lung full of coal exhaust. Most def distinctive. (My excuse for not hiking it? Got there a little too late in the morning. Didn't want to have to back down in the dark... There is no guarantee of a return seat on the Cog Rail for those not doing a round trip and they do turn people away. At least, that was the case back then. I also saw a group turned away because the cars were full and one of them was walking in flip flops! There but for the grace of fashion and common sense go I!:)

Regards,

Dan




From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Thu May 31 18:32:20 2012
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 11:32:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Relatively new physics and math crank
Message-ID: <1338489140.53324.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

http://milesmathis.com/index.html

I wonder if any of you have run into this guy's work before. I'm only bringing him up because a guy on another list brought him up. Thankfully, others have already put in the effort to critique his work:

http://mathisdermaler.wordpress.com/

Regards,

Dan



From steinberg.will at gmail.com  Thu May 31 18:29:07 2012
From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 13:29:07 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Bringing new life to dead matter
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwYCY=NRG2QVcaot++WwTPpU1Cn4wU_GuhucnWT-DdfdVw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJX-7wXQ45FPy0cadUMk73W9GQwBoCsrLa608680EpxVQm439A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa9X2dYMjZp1G8RP54zPLxrC70Zr0=ogw2kJGhwHmwTAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyFaG3YzHvj9oYktL+FvkT6bFjLteR+y-Deww-5+1x6rLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYtzNeA80C4sLN7_h3DfoE6Nz62z2bU_iWSs=haQTWoJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyH_xVtGR2Aa6d2Jd5Y5PDyXohnL7GcsoznU+BNHKompbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwbYANC603grrYZ7KqF2bGQ=NoOeAoTW4-TTy0KzV+K4bQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1338085839.56273.YahooMailNeo@web164502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
 <CAPy8RwZWfdKXR7GqTghpkznynF+NC088BPHf-PJaruEVRq=LLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPoR7a5h0KJuU8nN_SCqJdH+ztbf-pMxXXvaRhMsY3eU5A8acA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYCY=NRG2QVcaot++WwTPpU1Cn4wU_GuhucnWT-DdfdVw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKrqSyG7GBWRwEJHm0gnvkoVcEB0J7GuVcr6GLVFYfCpkyN+9Q@mail.gmail.com>

Kelly, I just think if you're willing to go as far as sea stars having
*some* consciousness then I don't think it's so hard to give plants, say, a
millionth of that.  If a brain is just the epitome of the entity-like
organizational center, could not plants' simpler informational organization
give them consciousness?

Yes indeed the argument seems unwinnable for now.  And I will admit I have
been blowing off nervous systems so far--they are definitely the centers of
the most consciousness I have observed around be.  I only ask that,
perhaps, in the life of a tree, a forest, of the genetic evolution of all
plant life, or in the cyclical transcription needed to send to right
signals to open and close the flower, the stoma...that perhaps somewhere in
this great chorus, on some time scale, there is a brief blinking iotum of
"perception."

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:45 AM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On 28 May 2012 19:43, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I think I draw the line at the beings that have some kind of central
> >> nervous system and those that don't. I do not believe that amoebas
> >> have anything approaching consciousness. Dogs, cats, yes. Maybe even
> >> sea stars. And then you are at a quantitative difference, a huge one
> >> to be sure... but without a brain, I don't know how you could claim
> >> it.
> >
> > This sounds quite... kingdomist. Because it automatically discriminates
> all
> > kinds of plants.
>
> Maybe so. But I don't know of any plants that I would describe as
> conscious either. Sorry.
>
> There's probably something out there (if not today then in the future)
> that has so much consciousness that they would consider us to not be
> conscious... I suppose... but this argument isn't winnable, because
> it's all conjecture and opinion anyway, isn't it?
>
> -Kelly
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120531/36af0cca/attachment.html>

From rtomek at ceti.pl  Thu May 31 20:17:28 2012
From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 22:17:28 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [ExI] battle tanks to a five yr old
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8Rwb=CFGhyF-6=DYMP-_V_ZWxK-F+fai3Xm5moAG81qq0kg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <016e01cd2be3$93fe4ea0$bbfaebe0$@att.net>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205272118280.9899@tau.ceti.pl>
 <CAPy8Rwb=CFGhyF-6=DYMP-_V_ZWxK-F+fai3Xm5moAG81qq0kg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205302334400.16586@tau.ceti.pl>

On Mon, 28 May 2012, Kelly Anderson wrote:

> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Tomasz Rola <rtomek at ceti.pl> wrote:
> 
> > This, young man, is not going to be any more. Establishment is too
> > important for this planet. Therefore future civilisation is going to be a
> > civilisation of pussies, always happy and obedient, and politely smiling
> > while being fucked from behind.
> >
> > You may not like my diagnosis, but to be frank, you never mentioned you
> > only wanted to read optimistic ones.
> 
> Tomasz,

Hi there.

First things first - congrats for using on this noble list such words as 
"ass" and "pussy". Welcome to the club, let's this tradition continue in 
the name of calling things by their real name, while we fearlessly drink 
vodka and eat sausages.

>   Steven Pinker (have the book, but not that far into it yet) has
> documented recently the march away from violence civilization has
> taken. He sees it as a good thing. I think I do too, for the most
> part.

I don't hear much about Mr Pinker. I have just completed reading an 
article "War really is going out of style", here (probably a copy of the 
one from nytimes, which is behind a register-wall):

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/12/war_really_is_going_out_of_sty.html

and a page from wiki (which I guess talks about the book):

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

and a critique of the book, quite interesting one:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/john-gray-steven-pinker-violence-review/

To sum it all in short, I don't buy the idea that we, as a species, are to 
be less and less violent. Especially if thanks to democracy and wealth, 
because I somehow fail to see how they can make me more benign.

In a meantime, wars are going on like they did, in parts of the world less 
covered by the news - because it sometimes happens, I hear, that a 
journalist is given an easy to decide proposition, either stay and be 
killed or STFU and go away.

I must add, there is a group of people - and I think it is easier to find 
them in the so called middle class - that very easily gets entrapped into 
all kind of hiperoptimistic bullshit. Last time I noticed this, it was the 
idea of human/life/intelligence friendly Universe. Holy frak. If 
supernovas, neutron stars sending gravitation waves and magnetic pulses, 
black holes and their death-ray jets, gamma ray bursts and, oh, huge 
asteroids - we exist only thanks to being not close enough to all those 
attractions, so far, because each of them could cook us good bye - if this 
is friendly, I wonder what unfriendly is. Maybe some Universe-wide 
snuff-movie-like orgy orchestrated by Satan and Minions, Ltd. BTW, never 
forget about "friendly" entropy, making our efforts to not decay too fast 
all the more interesting. I could agree Universe is very dangerous place 
to live, and this made me eager to tread lightly and learn dilligently. 
But friendly? There are days when I seriously consider starting smoking 
pot, like a kilogram at a time.

So, this idea that one day we will become those angelic creatures, good 
and nice... No, I don't think so. Rather, I think we humans are beasts and 
in best case, we can become self-controlling beasts.

Now, a problem. Self-control seems to be unfashionable. The idea of having 
a gun and not killing everybody who we see out of the window seems to 
gradually fall out of favour. Quite the opposite, we can easily remember 
news when some wanker shoots passerbys but I don't remember any news or 
documentary about someone who leads normal life while having magnum or 
remington stuffed under a bed. Isn't it interesting?

I have, however, heard other stories, counterweighting those grim options 
mentioned. Like of Mr Gichin Funakoshi, who started learning Karate at the 
age of 13 to improve his poor health, later became master himself but 
fought his first real life fight age 72 (AFAIR - I have read it megayears 
ago and cannot find anything on the net) when he helped a woman attacked 
by a thug. Now that's the man. He did not go on killing journey, just 
practiced the art for his whole life.

This story I have found, in a strange turn of fate. Well worth a time:

http://blog.aikidojournal.com/2011/12/16/katsujinken-applied-in-real-life/

I can also see a problem with idea that some external body would do better 
in controlling our impulses than we ourselves could. It sounds very close 
to what religions like us to believe. And there is plenty of evidence, 
they can easily fail. The fallacy of many people is that when this 
external entity changes, they expect the outcome changes too. However, the 
controlling of impulses was never the goal of external entities, 
especially when we consider they would become obsolete once impulses 
finally came under control.

If you still don't get it, do you watch Animal Planet? I sometimes do. It 
was surprising to see how predators, despite all their claws and teeth, 
fail to have a dinner so often. Now, imagine there was some animal 
parliament, manned (or rather, animated) by lions, gnus etc. And now this 
parliament starts sending messages, like "dear gnus, you can now saw off 
your horns, we are entering period of unprecedented peace". Yes, like hell 
we are, with no way a gnu can oppose their opponents, a peace would be 
round the corner. Something along a deadly calm.

So, maybe one day I will go after this book but I doubt I will run after 
it.

> But being a pussy with regards to resorting to violence isn't
> precisely the same thing as taking it in the ass. There are many ways
> to punish and/or change behaviors that do not use violence.

I think there is huge misunderstanding about violence. As I tried to show 
above. The only alternatives presented to the public are, either be mad 
killer or submissive pussnik (which is preferred, because we don't want 
be mad and bad, do we).

There is no mention of other possibilities. Not good, because there are 
quite some to choose from.

Perhaps it has something to do with a hypothesis, that pussniks, 
instinctively feeling they have no value as people, compulsively try to 
acquire it. Thus they make great programmable shopping bots.

>   Most of the complaints I have heard over the last ten years is that
> America is still too violent, in sending young men to war
> "needlessly". And then you come along and say we aren't violent
> enough. So which is it? :-)

Oh, no. I would never say that. I don't like the violence. I just want to 
have it in my pocket, like a trump card to be played if needed.

When I wrote about future civilisation of pussies, by pussy I meant he who 
does not want to see a problem. The reason for this, I believe, is 
convenience. I don't insist on solving the problem, or using violence, I 
only think that seeing problems would make things better over time. This, 
however, is still too much to ask for. Even though the mental activity 
required is far below from what Einstein needed in his best years. Short 
term, this may seem to be evolutionary advantage, because our sole task on 
this planet is having babies and we better not get distracted by abstract 
stuff. Longterm, this is a roadblock, and whatever babies are made today, 
their genes may as well become dead because of this, only later.

A good example of not seeing was described in a Paul Fussell's article 
"The real war" (link in my original message). I don't really care that 
much if wars would have ended after the untold truth had been told. 
However it makes me quite uneasy when I think that the truth wasn't told 
(as described in an article).

Now, it is either a problem of upbringing, in which case we may have a 
chance. Or it is a problem of genetics, in which case we can only kill 
time and wait for new species to arrive and do us some coup de grace, 
maybe - if they don't care about us this much, we will simply crawl and 
eat dirt for ages, until we are finally no more.

>  If iPads for peace doesn't work :-)  Then I'm sure there are enough
> young American "video game pussies" willing to pilot drones from the
> safety of a bunker in Nevada to take care of the baddest of the bad. I
> think someone here posted about the VERY violent video game last week,
> if not it was
> http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-04/sniper-elite-v2
> 
>  Do you think just maybe this kind of thing is preparing tomorrow's
> warriors? I do.

I don't. We have no clue what future war would look like. Stuxnet and 
drones give some hints, but I would expect lots of kills from future war, 
and I am yet not quite sure how stuxnets or drones could deliver. Those 
films and games are just for a public. You can as well argue that Star 
Wars films/comic books/figurine and stuff prepare future warriors. For me 
those are just color pictures. Sometimes I can extract a thought from 
them.

>  Of course, it could just all go autonomous in the longer term.
> http://www.ted.com/talks/vijay_kumar_robots_that_fly_and_cooperate.html
> http://allthingsd.com/20120302/when-autonomous-flying-robots-fail/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_on_Earth_(novel)

Stanislaw Lem, again...

>  Now, for a scary thought from the diseased brain of Kelly... Imagine,
> if you will, a few hundred of these little autonomous quadcopters each
> carrying a half ounce of C4 explosive shape charges and a couple of
> pieces of shrapnel going after a high value target. Imagine his
> security detail trying to protect said HVT from hundreds of these
> speedy little fellows, each programmed to avoid being swatted 600
> times a second. Each trying desperately and cooperatively to land on
> said HVT's head (or heads of said security detail as a secondary goal)
> and explode. It's a nightmare for a security detail to even think
> about. How would you devise a defense against that other than stay
> inside ALL the time? Eventually, even staying inside won't be enough
> because you'll have autonomous robots that can knock down doors. I
> doubt a security detail would carry enough bullets to shoot them all
> even if they could hit one with each bullet. This is the kind of thing
> like 9/11 or the Kennedy assassination that would work very well once,
> and then maybe not quite so well after that.

Well, there is no reason (other than being shy) that could prevent future 
Kennedy from making his own robots. Like, anti aircraft artillery robots. 
With his 9mm taped to a sensor and few electric motors. Ammo is cheap. 
Stones are even cheaper. Even lasers are (or will be) cheap.

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **


From spike66 at att.net  Thu May 31 20:18:21 2012
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 13:18:21 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Relatively new physics and math crank
In-Reply-To: <1338489140.53324.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <1338489140.53324.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00dd01cd3f6a$86cc9490$9465bdb0$@att.net>



? On Behalf Of Dan
Subject: [ExI] Relatively new physics and math crank



 <http://milesmathis.com/index.html> http://milesmathis.com/index.html



I wonder if any of you have run into this guy's work before. I'm only
bringing him up because a guy on another list brought him up. Thankfully,
others have already put in the effort to critique his work:



 <http://mathisdermaler.wordpress.com/> http://mathisdermaler.wordpress.com/



Regards,



Dan

_______________________________________________



It?s bullshit Dan, disregard it, sir.  Giveaway comments such as this one,
where he claims to have discovered an error in tangential velocity
equations:



?And we find the tangential velocity is only different from the angular
velocity by about 3 parts in a million, at the distance of the Earth (using
this equation, v = ?[(?4/4r2) + ?2]). That is why this problem only comes
up with quanta. At large scales like planetary orbits, the divergence in
tangential and angular velocity is minimal?



Nonsense, in orbit mechanics, an error of 3 parts per million is huge, at
least for some applications.  We know the orbital parameters down to the
parts per billion, and even with that, error can accumulate.



Into the bit bucket with it.



spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120531/95eded9c/attachment.html>