From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Thu Apr  1 02:49:14 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 12:49:14 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility - politics
References: <200403301444.i2UEiLc20783@tick.javien.com>
	<406A5293.60203@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <0a7001c41793$eb73e950$412b2dcb@homepc>

This post is about quantification (including time-management)
and about individual character.


All people (including the intelligent ones) alive in 2004 are
mortal and have to make decisions about where to spend
their limited resources. One's time is a limited resource.

It seems one only has to live in a society to see that often
"squeaky wheels" get more grease. It seems we are often
being 'put on' for our money and our time by others to
pursue their passions and their interests. Or perhaps to
read and to correct their homework.

True-believers and bullshit artists of many varieties are
constantly trying to steal our time and even to control the
political processes with their flunkies and disciples.
Sometimes the bullshit artists and true-believers may be
deluded by their own bullshit. Intelligence comes in
different forms and is not always enough to save people
from serious and time wasting error.

How long would Russell and Whitehead (not fools) have spent
pursuing apparently promising but ultimately barren lines of
inquiry if Kurt G?del hadn't come along with the incompleteness
theorem I wonder.


Chris Phoenix<cphoenix at CRNano.org> wrote:

> Hal Finney <hal at finney.org> wrote:
> >
> > Chris writes:
> >>Would you take hundred-to-one odds that there's a problem
> >> in the theory?
> >>  If so, I'll put up $1,000 to your $100,000.  What odds or
> > > stakes would you be comfortable with?
> >
> > I'm confused.  You say you see a low probability of an error
> > in the theory, but then you require 100 to 1 odds in your
> > favor?  That means that you're only willing to bet that there's
> > a 1% chance that the theory will work!  How is a 99%
> > chance of error a low probabililty?
>
> I didn't say I would require those odds.  (Please read more
> carefully.)
>   I suggested that Brett might accept them.  Then I asked what
> he would accept.  This is my starting offer.
>
> I am challenging his assertions that we shouldn't do anything
> on MNT till we see it done.  If he wouldn't accept these
> odds, his position on MNT is probably irrational.  Asking
> him to put his money where his mouth is is a way of
> quantifying things.  He has asked for quantification...
>
[Hal]
> > Or is this a typo, did you mean to let the other guy put up
> > $1,000 and you will pay $100,000 if the theory doesn't
> > work?

[Chris]
> As I said, I've already given up $100,000, and will give up
> a lot more before I'm done.  Once Brett and I are done
> bargaining, I'll tell you (if anyone is interested) just what
> odds and stakes I'd be willing to bet.

[Hal]
> > For reference, the FX idea futures game predicts around
> > 2023-2025 for the date of awarding the Feynman Grand
> > Prize, which requires the construction of a couple of small
> > nanotech-type devices,
> > http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=FyGP .
>
> Those "couple of small nanotech-type devices" were carefully
> chosen to be significant milestones toward a molecular
> manufacturing system.

Chris, let's subsume all the previous stuff and focus in on the nub.

I am willing to stake and escrow (so there is no doubt of payment)
US$1000, in a relevant bet (with you personally) if we can get the
terms precise enough.

Are you willing to do the same?

If you are not then I am no longer interested in discussing
this with you. I can't further justify the time.

If you are, then I would propose proceeding to clarifying
the terms of the bet here, on the list as an illustrative
'hypothetical' exercise in risk management and quantification.

These are things that I think are important for individuals
to know how to do well if they want to put their theories
and visions into practice and to forge particular futures
from amidst the alternatives. Our dreams take up no real
estate but making things happen in practice also takes
judgement and character.

Keeping it 'hypothetical' until the terms are agreed in sufficient
detail on list, may also protect the list from legal exposure.

I WOULD want to make the bet real, to pursue the escrow
details etc off list with you if we can get the other terms right
in our on list hypothetical.

Please do follow your own advice with respect to reading
carefully and don't rush or presume too much. I am willing to
be accountable for what I say, but not for what you think I
have said or have mistakenly asserted that I have said.

Regards,
Brett Paatsch

PS:  Hal, I like that futures market idea of Robin's a lot. It
seems like a good way of operationalising important things.
I must check it out further. Thanks for posting the link.




From joe at barrera.org  Thu Apr  1 03:26:20 2004
From: joe at barrera.org (Joseph S. Barrera III)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 19:26:20 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Send your future self an email
In-Reply-To: <1080756872.cfb6dea0namacdon@ole.augie.edu>
References: <1080756872.cfb6dea0namacdon@ole.augie.edu>
Message-ID: <406B8BDC.4030702@barrera.org>

Nicholas Anthony MacDonald wrote:

>  Well, probably not the one that will be hit by a car tomorrow
>  afternoon- but the one heading out on the voyage to Alpha Centauri in
>  2072 might be happy to hear from you. ;)

This is starting to sound like a horoscope from The Onion...

- Joe



From eliasen at mindspring.com  Thu Apr  1 03:39:25 2004
From: eliasen at mindspring.com (Alan Eliasen)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 20:39:25 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] More Nanotech
In-Reply-To: <406B8BDC.4030702@barrera.org>
References: <1080756872.cfb6dea0namacdon@ole.augie.edu>
	<406B8BDC.4030702@barrera.org>
Message-ID: <406B8EED.80708@mindspring.com>


Joseph S. Barrera III wrote:
> Nicholas Anthony MacDonald wrote:
> 
>>  Well, probably not the one that will be hit by a car tomorrow
>>  afternoon- but the one heading out on the voyage to Alpha Centauri in
>>  2072 might be happy to hear from you. ;)
> 
> 
> This is starting to sound like a horoscope from The Onion...

   Which reminds me (apologies if someone posted this already,) from this
week's Onion is an informative piece on nanotechnology:

http://www.theonion.com/infograph/index.php?i=2


-- 
  Alan Eliasen                 | "You cannot reason a person out of a
  eliasen at mindspring.com       |  position he did not reason himself
  http://futureboy.homeip.net/ |  into in the first place."
                               |     --Jonathan Swift


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Thu Apr  1 05:06:21 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 15:06:21 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Evidence for the self surviving brain disassembly?
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403271454250.23691-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<015701c41465$888163d0$412b2dcb@homepc>
	<20040329103003.GJ28136@leitl.org>
	<070001c4161d$31cf5330$412b2dcb@homepc>
	<20040330084242.GK28136@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <0b0f01c417a7$1303f420$412b2dcb@homepc>

On Tuesday, March 30, 2004 6:42 Eugen Leitl wrote:

On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 04:06:51PM +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> [Eugene]
> > I don't understand where "mere copy" comes from.

[Brett]
> I don't regard eqivalence and identity as the same thing in this case.

Eugene.
>  Identity is a lot stronger than equivalence. Two similiar but different
> systems might be equivalent, ....

As I said. I don't regard eqivalence and identity as the same thing in
this case.

> ..two system in the same quantum state are identical.
>  I.e. there is measurement possible allowing them to distinguish
> them. This isn't an opinion, this is a well-known physical fact.

Do you mean "two system[S]  in the same quantum state are identical" ?

I could be ignorant of a lot about quantum physics.

Brett.
> Others that have a limited view of me based on their perceptions
> (which I see as their limits not mine) might conceivably be able to
> think they can replace me (or any other to them) with a copy.

Eugene.
> Gedanken experiments which use a full quantum state respresentation
> encode the system exhaustively.

I don't know about that. (Not strong on quantum physics). I am
downright suspicious of the word encode though. I suspect its a sort
of programmers-paradigm concept that's running out of bounds.

I am also suspicious of 'thought experiments' generalised as actual
experiments.

> Similarly, my understanding of who Eugene is, is based on my
> disconnected relationship with Eugene. To me, you, Eugene
> are an other not a self.

Sure.

> Someone might be able to masquerade as you to me. They
> would have a lot more trouble masqueradeing as you to you
> or as me to me.

I'm not sure the term "masquerading" is appropriate for system
introspection. Introspection does not allow comparisons, either than
comparing trajectories of independant runs.

I'm not wedded to "masquerading". I didn't mean to imply I
was doing "system introspection" I am not even sure what you
mean by that. I think the only things that can do introspection
are people.

> I don't know if they would quite as much trouble masquerading
> as you to you as they would me to me.
>
> >  "Can't tell from the original" is good enough for external observers.
>
> Yes. Even very poor substitutes can fool some external observers.

Notice that this is sufficient as far as your friends and relatives are
conserned.

Yes. I agree.

> >  "Can't tell myself" + "can't tell from the original, external
observers"
> > + "can't tell from deep level rich operational fingerprint" should be
> >  good enough for anybody.
>
> As a somebody I am not convinced.

Eugene.
Two system in the same quantum state are identical (nondistinguishable).
Once again: this is not a manner of conjecture, or an opinion. It's a well
know physical fact.

Ok. Its outside what I know to be true so far so I don't accept it as
a fact. That does not mean it is not. It just means I don't know.

> > That info is encoded in the physical system.
>
> I'm not sure encoded is the right word.

Eugene.

That was a shorthand of saying that flat EEG lacunes do not destroy identiy
(I've met a few people who disputed this, but it is a sufficiently unusual
point of view), and that the transiently dormant physical system contains
sufficient information to resume the spatiotemporal activity pattern we call
a specific person -- once again, this is an empiric fact, and no conjecture.

"Sufficiently unusual" for what?

> > Isomorphic substitution results in the same system, given
> > pattern identity.
>
> I am not sold on "pattern identity".

Eugene.
Fortunately for us, the laws of physics do believe in pattern identity.

That is not an article of faith that I subscribe too. I don't think
the laws of physics believe anything.

> > Pattern identity follows from measurable observations
> > (quantum identity).
>
> I don't follow.

Eugene.
There's an outline of a proof in the Appendix of Tipler's "Physics of
Immortality". If you agree with that, your only loophole is that no two
nontrivial systems can be made to exist in the same state.

Ah Tipler. A name that does not inspire confidence for me.

I certainly do think that no two nontrivial systems can be made
to exist in the same physical space when "systems" are bunches
of neurons.

Maybe I'm wrong but that's what I think based on what I know
now.

[Eugene].
> I again point towards the fact that the noise floor for information
> processing through biological tissues is huge in comparison. The attractor
is
> extremely robust to bounce back after giant-amplitude events, considering
the
> scale.

> I won't say more than this, because the list seems to be deja vuing all
over
> the place (see the nanotechnology debate, which is a very dead horse
indeed). No
> need to ressurrect another zombie, aka the identity definition.

I didn't follow that. Perhaps because I am ignorant of something you are
not and/or you are carrying forward short-hand thinking from earlier to
later
in your post.

Yes this list hits the same topics over and over a few times. That's because
the topics are still important and they are not scoured to the same depth
everytime someone new takes an interest in them.

When someone who has taken an interest does again it could be that
they want to push deeper than before.

Regards,
Brett


-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net




From eugen at leitl.org  Thu Apr  1 09:39:10 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 11:39:10 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Evidence for the self surviving brain disassembly?
In-Reply-To: <0b0f01c417a7$1303f420$412b2dcb@homepc>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403271454250.23691-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<015701c41465$888163d0$412b2dcb@homepc>
	<20040329103003.GJ28136@leitl.org>
	<070001c4161d$31cf5330$412b2dcb@homepc>
	<20040330084242.GK28136@leitl.org>
	<0b0f01c417a7$1303f420$412b2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <20040401093909.GA28136@leitl.org>

On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 03:06:21PM +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> As I said. I don't regard eqivalence and identity as the same thing in
> this case.

These terms are meaningless, unless precisely defined. I define physical
identity as n systems being in the same quantum state. These cannot be told
apart because no physical measurement process exists to do so. We know that
because we have system observables (chemical equilibrium) having certain
values which would else be different (and we all would be dead, instantly, in
case it was different, in fact).
 
> Do you mean "two system[S]  in the same quantum state are identical" ?

Precisely.
 
> I don't know about that. (Not strong on quantum physics). I am

Me neither. I barely survived quantum chemistry in uni. None of what we're
talking about is part of the curriculum in an ordinary engineering school.

> downright suspicious of the word encode though. I suspect its a sort
> of programmers-paradigm concept that's running out of bounds.

No, information is the very bedrock of this universe. It's been with us for a
long time, before we realized we're soaking in it
(thermodynamics->statistical thermodynamics, QM). The trend is that
information becomes increasingly more important in physical theories.

This is not at all addressed in Computer Science curriculum either.
 
> I am also suspicious of 'thought experiments' generalised as actual
> experiments.

There's nothing very gedanken about two systems being in the same quantum
state being indistinguishable (I repeat that phrase a lot). It only starts
getting gedanken when we're attempting to force a nontrivial sized system
into same state, which is prohibitively difficult (it doesn't mean quantum
control isn't being done in praxis).
 
> I'm not wedded to "masquerading". I didn't mean to imply I
> was doing "system introspection" I am not even sure what you
> mean by that. I think the only things that can do introspection
> are people.

Introspection is examining a self model explicitly. Some animals other than
people might be capable of it, some existing AI and other artificial systems
are capable of it. Aliens (if any are out there) must be capable of it. 
 
> Ok. Its outside what I know to be true so far so I don't accept it as
> a fact. That does not mean it is not. It just means I don't know.

Please look it up (I gave you the ref), it's worth it. Skip the book, stick
to the Appendix.
 
> That was a shorthand of saying that flat EEG lacunes do not destroy identiy
> (I've met a few people who disputed this, but it is a sufficiently unusual
> point of view), and that the transiently dormant physical system contains
> sufficient information to resume the spatiotemporal activity pattern we call
> a specific person -- once again, this is an empiric fact, and no conjecture.
> 
> "Sufficiently unusual" for what?

Because then there are lots of zombies roaming the premises. I don't notice
those people (with sufficiently unusual beliefs) to look for them, and to
treat them differently.

Also, people excel in engaging into extraordinary beliefs for no reason at
all (e.g. magical thinking that a heart transplant makes them acquire
properties of the donor), so I'm not assigning any importance to that.
 
> There's an outline of a proof in the Appendix of Tipler's "Physics of
> Immortality". If you agree with that, your only loophole is that no two
> nontrivial systems can be made to exist in the same state.
> 
> Ah Tipler. A name that does not inspire confidence for me.

I do not think much of Tipler's beliefs. Some of his science is pretty
interesting, though. And it's published in peer-reviewed journals, so you
don't need to start worrying yet. Pick up the Physics of Immortality, skip
everything but the Appendix.
 
> I certainly do think that no two nontrivial systems can be made
> to exist in the same physical space when "systems" are bunches
> of neurons.

They could, in theory. They don't have to, in practice, because the noise
floor of a biological system is sufficiently high to put the identity domain
quite a few storeys up. You can model this very well as activity attractors
in a nonlinear system. This is also easy to do with multielectrode grid
recording and voltage-sensitive dyes in neuron culture. Once again, this
isn't a gedanken.
 
> Maybe I'm wrong but that's what I think based on what I know
> now.

I'm noticing that you're actively resisting me shoving information your way,
instead of going out and searching for it (half an hour on Google would have
been enough to hit several motherlodes of information, including past
discussions on this list, and elsewhere).

It is absolutely impossible to address the problem at philosophy level,
without diving into technical details, and using models (e.g., two
syncronized machine vision/robotics systems manipulating physical objects,
ditto two emulations thereof manipulating objects in virtual realtity, etc.).
 
> When someone who has taken an interest does again it could be that
> they want to push deeper than before.

Unfortunately the reality shows a different behaviour pattern. The debate is
old, and has been thoroughly probed during the heydays of the Net. The
probability of anyone probing deeper than all those who have gone before is
empirically very low (I've never seen it happen in the last half decade).

This doesn't mean it can't happen, I'm just not holding my breath.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040401/16d312bf/attachment.bin>

From gpmap at runbox.com  Thu Apr  1 12:12:08 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 04:12:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Google launches Gmail
Message-ID: <20040401121208.75521.qmail@web13123.mail.yahoo.com>

>From a Google press release: Amidst rampant media speculation, Google Inc. today announced it is testing a preview release of Gmail ? a free search-based webmail service with a storage capacity of up to eight billion bits of information, the equivalent of 500,000 pages of email. Per user.  Those interested in learning more about Gmail can visit gmail.google.com.From an earlier article of the New York Times: The new service, to be named Gmail, is scheduled to be released on Thursday, according to people involved with the plan. It will be "soft launched," they said, in a manner that Google has followed with other features that it has added to its Web site, with little fanfare and initially presented as a long-running test. E-mail has become a crucial weapon in the competition to win the allegiance of Internet users, who often turn to one or two Web sites as the foundation of their online activities. As Microsoft's MSN and Yahoo are preparing to attack Google's role as the first place
 most people turn to carry out an Internet search, Google is hoping to counter those assaults by moving onto the turf its competitors have already claimed in providing e-mail services as part of their portals.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040401/62eb131a/attachment.html>

From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Thu Apr  1 13:08:38 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 23:08:38 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Evidence for the self surviving brain disassembly?
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403271454250.23691-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<015701c41465$888163d0$412b2dcb@homepc>
	<20040329103003.GJ28136@leitl.org>
	<070001c4161d$31cf5330$412b2dcb@homepc>
	<20040330084242.GK28136@leitl.org>
	<0b0f01c417a7$1303f420$412b2dcb@homepc>
	<20040401093909.GA28136@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <005a01c417ea$72e51b60$a52f2dcb@homepc>

On Thursday, April 01, 2004 Eugen Leitl wrote:

On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 03:06:21PM +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote:
> As I said. I don't regard eqivalence and identity as the same thing in
> this case.

[Eugene]
> These terms are meaningless, unless precisely defined. I define physical
> identity as n systems being in the same quantum state.

When you think of your physical, biological self, of Eugene, do
you (also then) think of yourself as a system[s] in the quantum state?

(Aside: By 'system[s]' I am just indicating I don't care much whether
 you think of yourself as plural or as a singular self at the same instant.
I think there is a criticism of the Cartesian *I* in the Cogito, which is
that *I* could be singular or plural. I don't care about that for present
purposes.)

[Eugene   *'s  Brett's]
> These cannot be told apart because no physical measurement
> process exists to do so.  We know that because we have
> system observables (chemical equilibrium) having certain values
> which would else be different (and we all would be dead,
> instantly, in case it was different, in fact).

Understood. But "we (as in the community of educated thinkers)
know" stuff differently to how you Eugene know some stuff - don't
you agree?

[snip]

[Brett]
> > .... I am downright suspicious of the word encode though. I
> > suspect its a sort of programmers-paradigm concept that's
> > running out of bounds.

[Eugene]
> No, information is the very bedrock of this universe. It's been
> with us for a long time, before we realized we're soaking in it
> (thermodynamics->statistical thermodynamics, QM). The
> trend is that information becomes increasingly more important
> in physical theories.

Your apparently not a solipcist.

So you think information existed in the universe before you
did.  Do you think it existed before any pattern-recognizers
existed?

> I am also suspicious of 'thought experiments' generalised as actual
> experiments.

[Eugene]
> There's nothing very gedanken about two systems being in the same quantum
> state being indistinguishable (I repeat that phrase a lot).

Sorry not following and not interested in that at this time. Maybe later.
I'm interested in "evidence for the self surviving brain disassembly"
and there are already enough terms requiring pinning down.

"Evidence" for instance has variations in meaning. And "the self"
is slippery too.

[snip]

[Eugene re a Tipler reference]
> Please look it up (I gave you the ref), it's worth it. Skip the
> book, stick to the Appendix.

Ok you found it interesting and I might too, but I'm not sure
your honing in on the same thing as me yet so I'm not sure
it's about "evidence for the self surviving brain disassembly".
(Or am I mistaken? - if you've parsed the above to this point
and still think it is - I may stand corrected.)

[Eugene]
> > > That was a shorthand of saying that flat EEG lacunes do not destroy
identiy
> > > (I've met a few people who disputed this, but it is a sufficiently
unusual
> > > point of view), and that the transiently dormant physical system
contains
> > > sufficient information to resume the spatiotemporal activity pattern
we call
> > > a specific person -- once again, this is an empiric fact, and no
conjecture.
>
> > [Brett]
> >"Sufficiently unusual" for what?

[Eugene]
> Because then there are lots of zombies roaming the premises. I
> don't notice those people (with sufficiently unusual beliefs) to look
>  for them, and to treat them differently.

Understood.

[Eugene]
> Also, people excel in engaging into extraordinary beliefs for no reason at
> all (e.g. magical thinking that a heart transplant makes them acquire
> properties of the donor), so I'm not assigning any importance to that.

Very well understood :-)  And they turn up in the damndest places ;-)

[Eugene]
> There's an outline of a proof in the Appendix of Tipler's "Physics of
> Immortality". If you agree with that, your only loophole is that no two
> nontrivial systems can be made to exist in the same state.
>
[Brett]
> Ah Tipler. A name that does not inspire confidence for me.

[Eugene]
> I do not think much of Tipler's beliefs. Some of his science is pretty
> interesting, though. And it's published in peer-reviewed journals, so you
> don't need to start worrying yet. Pick up the Physics of Immortality, skip
> everything but the Appendix.

I'll admit a bias that is strong in me at present (probably 12 months or
more
and counting). I have almost no tolerance for assertions of belief in
serious
thought. Too often it is a marker of the (alledged) thinker not thinking
enough. If I met Einstein right now and he started talking to me with
"I believe" I might inquire in return "how lovely for you and what colour
is your shit?"

[Brett]
> > I certainly do think that no two nontrivial systems can be made
> > to exist in the same physical space when "systems" are bunches
> > of neurons.

[Eugene]
> They could, in theory. They don't have to, in practice, because the noise
> floor of a biological system is sufficiently high to put the identity
domain
> quite a few storeys up.

Ok back to my inquiry. "In practice" then do you, Eugene, think that the
neurons that make up your, Eugene's, physical, biological brain "encode"
(bleah!) for two nontrivial systems that are your self or just one at any
given instant?

(Aside: If your have MPD I'd rather just speak with one of you
at a time :-) (bad joke))

>You can model this very well as activity attractors in a nonlinear system.
> This is also easy to do with multielectrode grid recording and
> voltage-sensitive dyes in neuron culture. Once again, this
> isn't a gedanken.

I suppose one could but that's not what I'm trying to get at. I am
exploring your, Eugene's in particular's, handling of the concept of
self as an intelligent educated other.

[Brett]
> > Maybe I'm wrong but that's what I think based on what I know
> > now.

[Eugene]
> I'm noticing that you're actively resisting me shoving information your
way,
> instead of going out and searching for it (half an hour on Google would
have
> been enough to hit several motherlodes of information, including past
> discussions on this list, and elsewhere).

Yes. Quite deliberately but not out of intellectual laziness or rudeness
but because I am focussed on learning something specific and I think
you guessed wrongly at what that was. I think you have been trying to
help a person you perceived as more conventional asking a more
conventional line of questioning and you were in two minds as to whether
to help them or chase them off for not reading the FAQ.
I could be wrong on that.

You and I both have more than enough material between us already
to use each other as test subjects in this thread. Of course participation
is voluntary :-)

[Eugene]
> It is absolutely impossible to address the problem at philosophy level,
> without diving into technical details, and using models (e.g., two
> syncronized machine vision/robotics systems manipulating physical objects,
> ditto two emulations thereof manipulating objects in virtual realtity,
etc.).

Crap.

It's crucial to what I am trying to learn (and share-discover) in this
thread.

I invite you to think of philosophy as I do (at least briefly). As the love
of knowledge and by extension of truth, practiced by a self. Me.
All forms of learning including the various scientific knowledge
domains and the scientific method in a sense subsets of philosophy
thus conceived.

[Brett]
> > When someone who has taken an interest does again it could be that
> > they want to push deeper than before.

[Eugene]
> Unfortunately the reality shows a different behaviour pattern. The debate
is
> old, and has been thoroughly probed during the heydays of the Net. The
> probability of anyone probing deeper than all those who have gone before
is
> empirically very low (I've never seen it happen in the last half decade).

That's your perception of the reality, observer of behaviour patterns ;-).
The net is just a medium (a good one).

How did *you* arrive at *that* probability? :-)

[Eugene]
> > This doesn't mean it can't happen, I'm just not holding my breath.

Don't hold your breath for more than an hour at least until you are
done with this discussion.  (ref to Platt paper).

Slightly more seriously, perhaps you ought to 'get out' more often.

Regards,
Brett




From eugen at leitl.org  Thu Apr  1 14:27:17 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 16:27:17 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Evidence for the self surviving brain disassembly?
In-Reply-To: <005a01c417ea$72e51b60$a52f2dcb@homepc>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403271454250.23691-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<015701c41465$888163d0$412b2dcb@homepc>
	<20040329103003.GJ28136@leitl.org>
	<070001c4161d$31cf5330$412b2dcb@homepc>
	<20040330084242.GK28136@leitl.org>
	<0b0f01c417a7$1303f420$412b2dcb@homepc>
	<20040401093909.GA28136@leitl.org>
	<005a01c417ea$72e51b60$a52f2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <20040401142716.GK28136@leitl.org>

On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 11:08:38PM +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> When you think of your physical, biological self, of Eugene, do
> you (also then) think of yourself as a system[s] in the quantum state?

No, that's for arguing hard cases (such as yourself) strictly. There are other layers to model
individually accurate biological infoprocessing, though, when addressing
implementation. I never rise abover compartmental level, and frequently go
back to atomic-detail level for gedanken purposes. There's of course no limit
to lowest theory level when using machine learning for parameter extraction,
wet data being the single validation acceptable.

Which is about the hardest problem in uploading (the machine learning part, I
mean). I have very little idea how to address this area effectively, apart
from vigorous handwaving and muttering 'evolutionary algorithms' a lot.

When I'm not doing that I'm just enjoying the drive, or being asleep at 
the wheel (not enough of that, lately).
 
> (Aside: By 'system[s]' I am just indicating I don't care much whether
>  you think of yourself as plural or as a singular self at the same instant.
> I think there is a criticism of the Cartesian *I* in the Cogito, which is
> that *I* could be singular or plural. I don't care about that for present
> purposes.)

I do not understand what you're getting at when using philosophy when I'm
talking technology. These both do not play well with each other.
 
> Understood. But "we (as in the community of educated thinkers)
> know" stuff differently to how you Eugene know some stuff - don't
> you agree?

I'm baffled, again. How does degree of understanding of something has to do
with that something working okay or not working?
 
> Your apparently not a solipcist.

I should hope not. These are might tasty with A1 steak sauce.
 
> So you think information existed in the universe before you

According to some people, this universe *is* information. I have no idea
whether they are correct, since they don't yet offer much by way of TOE. Time
will tell, I guess.

> did.  Do you think it existed before any pattern-recognizers
> existed?

Yes, of course.
 
> Sorry not following and not interested in that at this time. Maybe later.

It's your loss, not mine.

> I'm interested in "evidence for the self surviving brain disassembly"
> and there are already enough terms requiring pinning down.

Unfortunately, we're quite a few decades away from availability of such
technology, so I can't offer empirical proof (you'll probably also object to
being given a first-person view of subjective invisibility of inactivity
lacunes, dissassembly/reassembly, and similiar superficially impressive but pointless
shenanigans).

As such I can only give you a walk-though through a sequence of gedanken,
an offer which you're so far also refusing. Damn. 
 
> "Evidence" for instance has variations in meaning. And "the self"
> is slippery too.

The self is implicitly addressed when we deal with the physical layer.
Denying that means denying materialism, which is cute pomo, but a waste of
everybody's time.
 
> Ok you found it interesting and I might too, but I'm not sure
> your honing in on the same thing as me yet so I'm not sure

I'm trying to get you to accept the first premise. So that I can start
introducing the others. You're making this impossible by refusing to accept
the first link in the chain of reasoning. As long as you don't swallow that
first step, I can't progress with presenting the evidence. 

> it's about "evidence for the self surviving brain disassembly".
> (Or am I mistaken? - if you've parsed the above to this point
> and still think it is - I may stand corrected.)

Physical system identity based on indistinguishability of systems in the same
quantum state is both a very strong and a very weak claim. It's strong
because it's difficult to deny, without having to falsify Tipler's proof
(you'd have to show that him deriving chemical equilibrium shifts from
premises is invalid -- if you manage to do that, you'd have absolutely no
problem getting this published anywhere). It's weak, because the other 
steps are only loosely based on this, and can be 
sucessfully denied in itself, without having to balk at the entry.
 
> Ok back to my inquiry. "In practice" then do you, Eugene, think that the
> neurons that make up your, Eugene's, physical, biological brain "encode"
> (bleah!) for two nontrivial systems that are your self or just one at any
> given instant?

You're putting the cart before the horse (see above chain of reasoning).
Before I've established the concept of spatiotemporal pattern for identity
(which needs an excursion into modelling, nature of randomness and
pseudorandomness, and the like) any claim that you can be in many "places"
simultaneously (or at specific times) doesn't make sense. (Above is an extremely artificial
scenario, including input and/or trajectory forcing in order to succeed. As
such you cannot make independant measurements on individual systems). Notice
that I've scare-crowed "places" because space is not labeled, and due to
above forcing boundary conditions all places look and feel exactly the same.
 
> I suppose one could but that's not what I'm trying to get at. I am
> exploring your, Eugene's in particular's, handling of the concept of
> self as an intelligent educated other.

My handling of it is problem-driven. I'm waiting for the physical tools to
make use of it. Unfortunately, the delivery schedule is slipping.
 
> Yes. Quite deliberately but not out of intellectual laziness or rudeness
> but because I am focussed on learning something specific and I think
> you guessed wrongly at what that was. I think you have been trying to
> help a person you perceived as more conventional asking a more
> conventional line of questioning and you were in two minds as to whether
> to help them or chase them off for not reading the FAQ.
> I could be wrong on that.

No, this is accurate. 
 
> You and I both have more than enough material between us already
> to use each other as test subjects in this thread. Of course participation
> is voluntary :-)

True, but email discussions rarely lead somewhere, and sap precious time from
other activities.

> [Eugene]
> > It is absolutely impossible to address the problem at philosophy level,
> > without diving into technical details, and using models (e.g., two
> > syncronized machine vision/robotics systems manipulating physical objects,
> > ditto two emulations thereof manipulating objects in virtual realtity,
> etc.).
> 
> Crap.
> 
> It's crucial to what I am trying to learn (and share-discover) in this
> thread.
> 
> I invite you to think of philosophy as I do (at least briefly). As the love
> of knowledge and by extension of truth, practiced by a self. Me.
> All forms of learning including the various scientific knowledge
> domains and the scientific method in a sense subsets of philosophy
> thus conceived.

While above is fun, it's not getting things done. You can't build a nuclear
reactor by philosophy. You can't visit Europa by philosophy. You can't cure
poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma by philosophy. You cannot even fix a
broken car by philosophy, nevermind keeping a body from aging and dying.

So excuse me if I blow a raspberry at philosophy. Phpthpthpthtpthtpth.
 
> Don't hold your breath for more than an hour at least until you are
> done with this discussion.  (ref to Platt paper).

I've participated in those animal shutdown experiments, thanks. They're
surprisingly difficult to do in practice, vs. theory.
 
> Slightly more seriously, perhaps you ought to 'get out' more often.

Email is a poor medium to build people models.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040401/9dd7b5e6/attachment.bin>

From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Thu Apr  1 16:38:38 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 08:38:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Evidence for the self surviving brain disassembly?
In-Reply-To: <20040401093909.GA28136@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404010812470.8247-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


As a suggestion to Brett and Eugen.  You might want to
place less emphasis on the quantum level.  I wake up
every day and am more or less "Robert".  Identity/self
is going on at the neurostructural and neurochemical level
not the quantum level.  My quantum state is very different
when I wake up from when I went to sleep.  I'm sure Anders
could comment on this to a degree if he is following the
conversation.

Having as a child watched the gradual decline of my
paternal grandmother into either dementia or Alzheimer's
and watching my father's gradual loss of memory (i.e.
in both cases a loss of "self" or "identity") combined
with what I know now about molecular biology and biochemistry --
it is *not* something going on at the quantum level.

Now precisely *what* you have to get right if you want to
transfer substrates is an interesting question.  For example
I would suggest that you could have entirely different processing
systems for video or audio inputs and you would probably still
consider your identity/self to be intact.  This is going to
create some interesting future questions.  Is a "Brett" enhanced
with the ecolocation system of a Dolphin still "Brett"?  Is
a "Harvey" with all of his knowledge of human security systems
replaced with the security systems knowledge of an abalone shell
still "Harvey"? (I'm making these up on the fly here so please allow
for some creativity -- nothing is meant by the examples.)

This goes back to the discussion I had a few weeks back
in which I was trying to get at a core issue of how much
of a person you had to recover to get them back both from
an external and internal perspective.  I think areas that
we need to look at here involve injuries like strokes and
mental illness to better understand this.

Robert




From eugen at leitl.org  Thu Apr  1 18:07:39 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 20:07:39 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Evidence for the self surviving brain disassembly?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404010812470.8247-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <20040401093909.GA28136@leitl.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0404010812470.8247-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040401180739.GQ28136@leitl.org>

On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 08:38:38AM -0800, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> 
> As a suggestion to Brett and Eugen.  You might want to
> place less emphasis on the quantum level.  I wake up

I'm using the quantum identity as a litmus test to weed out the hopeless
cases, or at least to soften up their line of defenses. For whatever reason
they insist to include the translational degree of freedom as component of
identity. Telling them that nature doesn't accept that as an argument, and
insists to use external systems/observers to encode that extra bit of info
goes a long way.

> every day and am more or less "Robert".  Identity/self
> is going on at the neurostructural and neurochemical level
> not the quantum level.  My quantum state is very different

I already mentioned that the system noise floor make quantum identity a red
herring. But, it's still a useful in an argument.

> when I wake up from when I went to sleep.  I'm sure Anders
> could comment on this to a degree if he is following the
> conversation.

...

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040401/3cccfeec/attachment.bin>

From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Thu Apr  1 19:23:32 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 12:23:32 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) 'Freethinkers': In America's Long Culture
 War, Under God or Under Citizens?
Message-ID: <406C6C34.FA2499D7@mindspring.com>

FWD (SK) 'Freethinkers': In America's Long Culture War, Under God
or Under Citizens?


Books of The Times | 'Freethinkers': In America's Long Culture War, Under 
God or Under Citizens?

March 31, 2004
  By MICHAEL KAZIN


"Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty, may have
found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries," James
Madison argued in 1784. "A just government, instituted to
secure and perpetuate" liberty, "needs them not." This
future drafter of the Constitution wrote with some urgency.
Patrick Henry was pushing a bill in the Virginia
legislature that would dip into tax revenues to employ
ministers from a variety of churches. The long struggle to
determine the place of religion in American politics had
begun.

Madison won this particular contest, but , Susan Jacoby
regrets in her new book that subsequent freethinkers have
fared poorly in the culture wars that have roiled society
since then. In the 19th century and the opening decades of
the 20th zealous Protestants secured laws to ban the sale
of alcohol, erotic literature and diaphragms, and the
teaching of Darwinian theory in public schools. Roman
Catholic censors took the offensive during the 1930's with
strictures against sex and four-letter words on screen that
Hollywood wove into its official Production Code.

For a few decades after, secularists fought back
successfully, aided by a strong American Civil Liberties
Union and a liberal Supreme Court. But a new Christian
right took the offensive in the 1970's and has never let up
in a campaign to install its morality in law and custom.
Ms. Jacoby concludes her book with a shudder as she
describes Justice Antonin Scalia's belief that the American
state derives its legitimacy not from the citizenry but
from God.

Still, one aspect of America's history fills her with hope.
Ardent and insightful, Ms. Jacoby seeks to rescue a proud
tradition from the indifference of posterity. Her title was
shrewdly chosen. "Freethinker" is what rebels against
spiritual authority once called themselves, and it ennobles
the breed with, if she'll excuse the term, the holiest
adjective in the lexicon of American politics. Her pantheon
of skeptics includes names like Jefferson, Paine, Darrow
and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, author of "The Woman's Bible"
that ridiculed the sexism of the apostles. And she
rediscovers such figures as Robert Ingersoll, the Gilded
Age orator who drew huge audiences with calls for "a
religion of humanity" that would venerate only "inquiry,
investigation and thought."

Ms. Jacoby is no polemicist. She appreciates the pull of
religion - as community and creed - while criticizing her
own side for taking refuge in rational disdain. Beliefs,
she knows, cannot promote themselves: "Values are handed
down more easily and thoroughly by permanent institutions
than by marginalized radicals," she writes. To change
minds, "secular humanists must reclaim passion and emotion
from the religiously correct."

But as that last phrase suggests, Ms. Jacoby's book is
often more persuasive as a manifesto than as history. Not
surprisingly, she echoes some of the rickety prejudices of
her secular heroes and heroines. She tends to regard the
devout as thoroughly conservative in their politics and
views the Bible Belt as a benighted region needing external
deliverance.

American believers have never formed a reactionary bloc.
Both John Brown and the Christian socialist Edward Bellamy
- author of the best-selling utopian novel, "Looking
Backward" - yoked the language of the prophets to radical
causes. The Populists, who formed the largest third party
in United States history, were led by pious egalitarians
like Ignatius Donnelly, who preached that "Jesus was only
possible in a barefoot world, and he was crucified by the
few who wore shoes."

Ms. Jacoby plays down the spiritual motivations of civil
rights activists in the 1960's, pointing out that atheists
and Unitarians also marched and died for the cause. But for
most black Southerners, their freedom movement was a great
revival, as David Chappell explains in his compelling new
book, "A Stone of Hope: Prophetic Religion and the Death of
Jim Crow." "Don't talk to me about atheism," Fannie Lou
Hamer, field-hand-turned-activist told Northern students in
1964. "If God wants to start a movement, then hurray for
God."

It is also disappointing that Ms. Jacoby defends a popular
and controversial 1948 book, "American Freedom and Catholic
Power," by Paul Blanshard, a former Protestant minister,
which portrayed the the Roman Catholic Church as an enemy
of American freedom because it opposed birth control and
demanded that parochial schools receive a share of public
funds.

Blanshard, she claims, was blaming just the institution,
not the laity. But parochial schools were originally
established to provide an alternative to public ones where
students routinely learned only the virtues of the
Reformation and recited from the King James Version of the
Bible, commissioned by a Protestant monarch. And Ms. Jacoby
neglects the anger that Blanshard provoked with his
description of nuns as relics of "an age when women
allegedly enjoyed subjection and reveled in
self-abasement." Freethinkers can be intolerant, too.

One lesson that secularists might draw from Ms. Jacoby's
challenging book is to pick battles they can win. The task
of walling off state from church, synagogue or mosque has
always been distinct from and far less marginal than the
attempt to persuade Americans that religion is just a stew
of unprovable myths. Michael Newdow wins praise for arguing
that the Supreme Court should delete "under God" from the
Pledge of Allegiance. But his atheism appeals to a far
smaller audience.

On the other hand, freethinkers in the United States are
unlikely to talk many people into abandoning their belief
in an afterlife and their reverence for Scripture. In 1892
Ingersoll gave a lovely eulogy for his friend Walt Whitman,
whom, he said, "accepted and absorbed all theories, all
creeds, all religions, and believed in none." But this is a
difficult stance to take, and few Americans have ever taken
it.

Religious diversity untrammeled by government is a hard-won
and signal achievement of our society, thanks to the
efforts of James Madison and other enlightened minds. It
would be unreasonable to suppose that a rigorous humanism
could replace this kind of freedom, which remains rare in a
world of warring faiths.

Michael Kazin is writing a biography of William Jennings
Bryan. He teaches history at Georgetown University.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/31/books/31KAZI.html?ex=1081762836&ei=1&en=2fff7a994e2b30c1

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company 


-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Vietnam veterans,
Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Apr  1 22:55:26 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 16:55:26 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] "Die molekulare Manufaktur"
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040401165514.01bb35e8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

I draw to the attention of German-speakers on the list:

http://www.rowohlt.de/buch/24663

released this month, the translation by transhumanist Hubert Mania of a 
slightly re-revised THE SPIKE.

Damien Broderick
[*detestable* cover art] 




From bthomas at avatar-intl.com  Thu Apr  1 23:00:08 2004
From: bthomas at avatar-intl.com (Brent Thomas)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 18:00:08 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] wow - new enzymatic catalyst action
Message-ID: <C02025521F687E43B93A11680A71FAD424689C@sherwood.Avatar.local>

new method for nanostructuring existing enzyme catalysts (which usually
degrade in
a matter of hours) into structures which retain functionality yet
are useable for 5+ MONTHS! - this has some major potential for
interesting applications.
Consider if there are free radical scavenging enzymes which are treated
this way...
 
see http://www.pnl.gov/news/2004/04-24.htm for full article
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040401/0af8375e/attachment.html>

From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Fri Apr  2 01:01:28 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 11:01:28 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Major breakthrough made in embryo system cell
	research
Message-ID: <00ba01c4184e$079d94e0$a52f2dcb@homepc>

For those with an interest in these things.

"Major breakthrough made in embryo system cell research"
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20040331wo71.htm

"A Japanese research team has become the first in the world to grow structurally complete capillary blood vessels from human embryonic stem cells, The Yomiuri Shimbun learned Monday."



Brett Paatsch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040402/812d2f99/attachment.html>

From sjvans at ameritech.net  Fri Apr  2 02:57:58 2004
From: sjvans at ameritech.net (Stephen J. Van Sickle)
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 20:57:58 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] HB 2637 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN
In-Reply-To: <00ba01c4184e$079d94e0$a52f2dcb@homepc>
References: <00ba01c4184e$079d94e0$a52f2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <1080874678.1055.167.camel@Renfield>

See:

http://alcor.org/Library/html/legislation20040401.html



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Apr  2 04:56:59 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 22:56:59 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Ken MacLeod on AI and uploads
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040401225640.01beaec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At a conference the other day in Barcelona, Ken said:

http://kenmacleod.blogspot.com/

Is it possible for human personalities to be recreated in computer systems? 
Personally, I doubt it. To create a software model of the brain and its 
body and environment is difficult enough even in principle, let alone in 
any foreseeable practice. To enable that programme to run, to iterate, to 
take even one step, is a difficulty of a far greater order. Perhaps I'm 
just being stubborn, but I remain unconvinced that it's possible at all. To 
claim that human personalites, with real continuity with those they've been 
copied from, can exist in a virtual environment raises philosophical 
questions far deeper than most stories on the subject even consider, and 
far too deep for me to go into here.

Nevertheless, I think it's worthwhile and legitimate to write science 
fiction stories that assume it is possible, as I've done in The Stone Canal 
and elsewhere. As the American SF writer Kim Stanley Robinson points out in 
this context, science fiction provides us with metaphors for the mundane, 
and for the changes in our daily lives. When aviation was changing the 
world, science fiction wrote about space travel. When space travel was not 
changing the world, and medicine and drugs were, science fiction wrote 
about Inner Space. When computers were changing the labour process in 
factories and offices, science fiction wrote about cyberspace. Now that 
much of our work and leisure and relationships are mediated by computer 
networks, and much our lives lived online, science fiction talks about 
'uploading' human personalities into virtual reality. It's a metaphor for 
what has already happened. In emails and newsgroups, websites and weblogs, 
many of us - deliberately or otherwise - project an 'online persona' which 
has a far from simple relationship with our actual selves. How many of us 
have had the experience of meeting someone we have come to know online and 
found them quite surprisingly different from the person we had imagined? As 
used to be said back in the early nineties, on the Internet nobody knows 
you're a dog.

But it's not simply a question of dissembling, of faking an identity, of 
anonymity or pseudonymity. To the extent that it has real effects, on other 
people and on the world, your online persona is your real self. You are 
responsible for it. There is no evading that. And these effects can be 
serious, can be very much 'part of the real world'. We're often reminded of 
the dark side of this, in fraud and entrapment and so forth, but we should 
also remember the bright side. Think of Salam Pax, the famous 'Baghdad 
Blogger'. As a young gay man in Iraq, he was able to use the Internet to 
both conceal his personal identity, and to reveal it, to come out before 
thousands and thousands of readers - and to affect quite profoundly the way 
in which many people saw the war. Here for the first time was somebody 
writing, almost intimately, in real time, to people in the attacking 
countries as the bombers took off from England and he - and we - could 
count the hours until they arrived, and worry when his messages stopped. 
Think of how emails and newsgroup messages directly affected how people 
outside the United States experienced the September 11 attacks and their 
consequences - many them anxiously seeking news of people they had never 
met in person, only online, but who were their friends or acquaintances 
nonetheless.

On the other side of the screen, so to speak, the Internet has changed many 
people's very personalities and identities - 'identity' this time meaning 
how they see themselves, and what they identify with. Again, we are often 
reminded of the dark side - of how people with warped and anti-social 
characters, ideas and impulses can find each other. But here, as in the 
real world, misanthropy is misguided. As the English historian Henry Thomas 
Buckle said, acts of virtue must far outnumber acts of vice, or humanity 
would long ago have perished. There are online communities of evil or 
disturbed people, for sure. But they are far outnumbered by the online 
communities of good people, whose interests are innocent. If you're 
innocent and isolated, discovering that you're not alone is an immense 
relief and can be the beginning of liberation. Minorities - sexual and 
political, religious and anti-religious, intellectual and artistic - can 
share their interests and legitimise themselves in their own eyes and those 
of the rest of the world. Not all of this is good, but most of it is.

Even the science-fiction idea of electronic immortality for digitized 
personalities is a metaphor for real life. We can't be sure, but we may 
suspect, that everything sent across the Internet is stored somewhere. Our 
newsgroup postings are now permanently archived in public, there to 
entertain or embarrass us for the rest of our lives. Perhaps the dark 
archives of the security services hold all our private messages, and 
represent the only immortality most of us will ever have. Who knows what 
intelligences, human or artificial, will in some distant future study these 
scraps of our souls as we study cave-paintings and bone-carvings, and 
wonder about the strange people who created them, back in the dawn?






From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Fri Apr  2 05:10:02 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 21:10:02 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] BIOETHICS: the other shoe drops
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404012047001.25786-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Ok, the New York Times is reporting [1] that the U.S. Bioethics
panel (chaired by that person we all know and love Dr. Leon
Kass) is now suggesting limits to assisted fertility.

"Oh gee we are sorry that your sperm are having a hard
time dealing with your eggs, but by chance they do
manage to get it together we want to regulate what
you can do with the results because lord forbid you
would donate any fertilized eggs you do not require so
they could be used for stem cell research (killing a
"child" in the process) because we wouldn't want any of
that those biological reseaerch results to contribute
to improving human health or God Forbid(!) extending
human longevity because that would erode the monoply
that religions have on life and death and the afterlife."

On the optimistic side it appears there are till a few sane
voices on the panel such as Dr. Gazzaniga from Dartmouth.

Robert

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/02/politics/02ETHI.html?pagewanted=print



From reason at longevitymeme.org  Fri Apr  2 06:52:16 2004
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 22:52:16 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] BIOETHICS: the other shoe drops
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404012047001.25786-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNAEHEEHAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>


--> Robert J. Bradbury

> Ok, the New York Times is reporting [1] that the U.S. Bioethics
> panel (chaired by that person we all know and love Dr. Leon
> Kass) is now suggesting limits to assisted fertility.
>
> "Oh gee we are sorry that your sperm are having a hard
> time dealing with your eggs, but by chance they do
> manage to get it together we want to regulate what
> you can do with the results because lord forbid you
> would donate any fertilized eggs you do not require so
> they could be used for stem cell research (killing a
> "child" in the process) because we wouldn't want any of
> that those biological reseaerch results to contribute
> to improving human health or God Forbid(!) extending
> human longevity because that would erode the monoply
> that religions have on life and death and the afterlife."
>
> On the optimistic side it appears there are till a few sane
> voices on the panel such as Dr. Gazzaniga from Dartmouth.

Kass is being interviewed on the 12th at SAGE Crossroads. Pity they couldn't
get him to do a debate...

http://www.longevitymeme.org/news/view_news_item.cfm?news_id=852

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme



From amara at amara.com  Fri Apr  2 09:39:43 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 10:39:43 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] BIOETHICS: the other shoe drops
Message-ID: <p05100303bc92e2fb7a19@[150.146.134.133]>


Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury at aeiveos.com) writes:
>Ok, the New York Times is reporting [1] that the U.S. Bioethics
>panel (chaired by that person we all know and love Dr. Leon Kass) is
>now suggesting limits to assisted fertility.

>"Oh gee we are sorry that your sperm are having a hard time dealing
>with your eggs, but by chance they do manage to get it together we
>want to regulate what you can do with the results because lord
>forbid you would donate any fertilized eggs you do not require so
>they could be used for stem cell research (killing a "child" in the
>process) because we wouldn't want any of that those biological
>reseaerch results to contribute to improving human health or God
>Forbid(!) extending human longevity because that would erode the
>monoply that religions have on life and death and the afterlife."
>ould be 'disastrous'. 'Clinical practice in Italy will become less
>efficient and will have an increased frequency of negative side
>effects, such as multiple pregnancies', he added.

On this side of the Atlantic, Italy already has its Leon Kasses,
and moreover, new ART laws passed last December. Hopefully, the
rest of Europe will NOT follow Italy's example.

(Ironically, once an Italian woman is pregnant, Italy's laws, in
fact, bend over the other way  helping her, not caring how she
got pregnant)


http://www.ivf.net/artman/publish/printer_465.php

 From IVF.net

News
Italy passes strictest ART laws
By Dr. Kirsty Horsey
Dec 13, 2003, 23:38

The Italian Senate has passed a bill governing assisted reproductive
technologies (ARTs), said to be the most restrictive in Europe.
Parliamentarians voted 169-90 in favour of the bill, the first that
the country has passed in this area. Italian lawmakers, while
debating the new law, were concerned that Italy was seen as the
'Wild West of assisted reproduction' because, in the past, people
have been able to travel to the country for many controversial
treatments not available in their own countries.

Because of this, the new laws proposed are very restrictive,
limiting the use of ARTs to 'stable heterosexual couples'. Research
using human embryos is prohibited, as well as embryo freezing,
gamete donation, surrogacy and the provision of any ARTs for single
women or same-sex couples. The bill also says that no more than
three eggs can be fertilised at any one time, and that any eggs
fertilised must all be transferred to the uterus simultaneously. PGD
and prenatal screening for genetic disorders would also been banned.
Under the bill, ARTs can only be provided if the couple is
clinically infertile. Doctors will be able to 'conscientiously
object' to providing ART services.

The bill also proposes that existing IVF embryos in frozen storage
in Italy will be put up 'for adoption' if unclaimed, and storage
facilities will then be closed. Violations of the new legislation
will be severely punished, carrying jail sentences of between 10 and
20 years for scientists involved in cloning or the manipulation of
human embryos. Cloning will also be subject to a one million Euro
fine. Doctors who use donated gametes in treatment will be fined up
to 600,000 Euros and those providing ARTs for single women or
same-sex couples could be fined up to 300,000 Euros. The bill will
now have to get final approval from the lower house of parliament
before it becomes law, although it is thought that the text will
essentially remain the same.

Critics of the bill, including many liberal and female members of
the Italian parliament, have said that it is too restrictive,
especially in comparison with other European countries, and it
places women's health at risk. 'It is truly an awful law', said
Senator Gavino Angius, from the Democratic left. Italian scientists
have called it 'unacceptable and immoral'. 'Under this insane new
law, we will be obliged to implant a defective embryo in the womb',
said Nino Guglielmino, a doctor specialising in PGD. Arne Sunde,
head of the European Society of Human Reproduction (ESHRE), said the
new law would be 'disastrous'. 'Clinical practice in Italy will
become less efficient and will have an increased frequency of
negative side effects, such as multiple pregnancies', he added.

-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" --Calvin



From amara at amara.com  Fri Apr  2 13:15:50 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 14:15:50 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] article: Bush Administration Accused of Misusing
	Science
Message-ID: <p05100300bc93174dbf17@[150.146.134.133]>

from:
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-4/p30.html

Bush Administration Accused of Misusing Science

{begin quote}
An independent science group claims to have documented scores of
cases of scientific manipulation and abuse throughout the federal
government.

Despite efforts by the Bush administration to dismiss as biased a
Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) report and a statement by 62
prominent scientists charging widespread manipulation and misuse of
science in the federal government, the controversy has refused to
fade away. In the weeks following the 18 February release of the
report Scientific Integrity in Policymaking and the scientists'
statement (see http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi), Office
of Science and Technology Policy Director John Marburger said the
report was wrong and told a Senate committee that he would "respond
in some detail" to the allegations. He later said he was "preparing
a very detailed analysis of the document to show the truth."

The UCS report, which cites scores of incidents, charges that "there
is a well-established pattern of suppression and distortion of
scientific findings by high-ranking Bush administration political
appointees across numerous federal agencies." It adds that there is
"strong documentation of a wide-ranging effort to manipulate the
government's scientific advisory system to prevent the appearance of
advice that might run counter to the administration's political
agenda." The report says the "scale of the manipulation, suppression
and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is
unprecedented."

{end quote}
-----
go to the URL to read the rest ...

-- 

***********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD             email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics        vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers            URL:   http://www.amara.com/
***********************************************************************
"If you wish to drown, do not torture yourself with shallow water."
         --A Bulgarian proverb


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Fri Apr  2 14:47:51 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 07:47:51 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (forteana) Postmodern essay generator---[was Re:
	David Ray]
Message-ID: <406D7D17.60A6B23A@mindspring.com>

--- In forteana at yahoogroups.com, "T. Peter Park" <tpeterpark at e...> wrote:
> Friends, Forteans, philosophers!
> New York University physicist Alan Sokal's 1996 _Social Text_ article
> spoofing trendy postmodern verbiage was "Transgressing the Boundaries:
> Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravitation."

Sokal's webpage at <http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/> has the
original text and links to tons of debates, articles and commentaries
on it.

And since we seem to be having an intellectual purge at the moment,
could T. Peter and others *please* try and remember to trim the posts
they're replying to? Not least because reading 3 sets of Yahoo adverts
gets very boring very quickly. Cheers.

Rachel

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

Although just as "Ern Malley" produced some lovely poetry, I'm not entirely
convinced that Sokal's paper is as incomprehensible as he appears to
believe...

Joe McNally


-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Vietnam veterans,
Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Fri Apr  2 14:49:09 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 07:49:09 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Jon Ronson on the Kubrick archive
Message-ID: <406D7D65.1E02A784@mindspring.com>

Interesting but long piece.

< http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,4120,1177734,00.html >

Citizen Kubrick

Stanley Kubrick's films were landmark events - majestic, memorable and
richly researched. But, as the years went by, the time between films
grew longer and longer, and less and less was seen of the director.
What on earth was he doing? Two years after his death, Jon Ronson was
invited to the Kubrick estate and let loose among the fabled archive.
He was looking for a solution to the mystery - this is what he found 

[rest at URL]

Rob


-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Vietnam veterans,
Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Apr  2 15:02:26 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 07:02:26 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] HB 2637 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN
In-Reply-To: <1080874678.1055.167.camel@Renfield>
Message-ID: <20040402150226.57686.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>


--- "Stephen J. Van Sickle" <sjvans at ameritech.net> wrote:
> See:
> 
> http://alcor.org/Library/html/legislation20040401.html
> 

This is the sort of proof of what I've been talking about for a while
WRT the greater transhumanist agenda: that active political engagement,
as Alcor has done, can reap benefits and that we are quite capable of
confronting and defeating the luddite activists. 

Transhumanists need to get over their quaint 1990's idea that
government is obsolete. It may be antiquated, faulty, corrupt,
diseased, and in need of hauling down, but so long as it is capable of
stymying our agenda, it is not obsolete.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Fri Apr  2 15:16:37 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 08:16:37 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Gun control [was Re: the road
	to hell]
Message-ID: <406D83D5.85046761@mindspring.com>

--- In fantasticreality at yahoogroups.com, -Rick- wrote:
> Police here can search homes without a search warrant to 
> look for unregistered guns. If you protest, you get 10 years in the 
> slammer. Also we are not alowed to deffend our home with a gun.
> 
> -Rick-
> Canada

Gun ownership was banned in Australia, and crime rates have 
risen by some 600 percent.  Britain has all but eradicated private 
gun ownership, and crime figures there have skyrocketed also.

People in both countries have taken to defending their homes 
and themselves with clubs, baseball bats, and swords.  Now 
Australia is seeking to curtail the use of swords in self-defense 
of self, home and property.  Meanwhile, in Britain, if you use any 
weapon to defend yourself from an attacker, and the attacker is 
killed or injured, then you will be punished, often severly.

This the ultimate, ludicrous goal and result of "political 
correctness."  Here is the double-speak, double-think of Orwell's 
1984; any term can be used to define, or redefine, it's opposite.  
Self-protection is "unnecessary force" or "agression."  If you do 
not leave EVERYTHING, in terms of well-being, 
self-determination, and justice, to the STATE, then you are "on 
the fringe," a "radical," a "vigilante" or a threat to society.  This is a  
CROCK, and I think we all know just what type of crock it is.

Defend yourselves, always.  This is one of the most ancient and 
fundamental, genuine RIGHTS given to man by God.  
Regardless of whether or not it's defense against an armed 
intruder, an attacker, or a mindless, gutless suicide bomber or 
terrorist, self-defense is always, utterly justified.

The story below demonstrates the sorry state toward which the 
world is headed, and which we must ALL fight against.  The guy 
in the story should get a medal for taking out the garbage, IMO.

--Mike
----------

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2687311

Tue 23 Mar 2004

Man Who Killed Armed Intruder Jailed Eight Years

By Will Batchelor, PA News

A man who stabbed to death an armed intruder at his home was 
jailed for eight years today.

Carl Lindsay, 25, answered a knock at his door in Salford, 
Greater Manchester, to find four men armed with a gun.

When the gang tried to rob him he grabbed a samurai sword 
and stabbed one of them, 37-year-old Stephen Swindells, four 
times.

Mr Swindells, of Salford, was later found collapsed in an alley 
and died in hospital.

Lindsay, of Walkden, was found guilty of manslaughter following 
a three-week trial at Manchester Crown Court.

He was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment.

After the case, Detective Chief Inspector Sam Haworth said: 
"Four men, including the victim, had set out purposefully to rob 
Carl Lindsay and this intent ultimately led to Stephen Swindells' 
death.

"I believe the sentences passed today reflect the severity of the
circumstances." 

Three other men were charged with robbery and firearms 
offences in connection with the incident, which took place in 
February last year.


-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Vietnam veterans,
Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From natashavita at earthlink.net  Fri Apr  2 15:20:56 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 10:20:56 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] ART:  Conference: New Forms Festival , Canada 2004
Message-ID: <63340-22004452152056969@M2W036.mail2web.com>

Here is a conference that artists and creative innovators might want to get
involved with:

Create!
Natasha

________________________________________________

CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS: ARTISTS AND RESEARCHERS 

Deadline: May 14th, 2004 

The New Forms Festival is an annual event highlighting emerging forms at
the junction of art, culture and technology. It includes performances,
panel discussions, workshops, and interactive exhibits on contemporary
Media Arts issues. The NFF environment encourages new forms of Media Art to
be created, experienced, and understood. NFF04 will be held in Vancouver,
BC, from October 14 to 28, 2004. The theme is TECHNOGRAPHY: the inscription
of culture in technology. 

NFF04: TECHNOGRAPHY is a forum to explore and embody these  inscriptions in
the form of artistic expression and discourse. 

NFF04: TECHNOGRAPHY looks at the ways in which cultures inhabit and 
transform media spaces and technologies. 

NFF04:TECHNOGRAPHY will bring together practitioners and theorists from
across grassroots, gallery academy and academic contexts and 
provide a platform for conversations among the diverse voices of 
contemporary digital regionalism. 

NFF04: TECHNOGRAPHY programming incorporates the principles found within an
ecological model of the cultural sphere: complexity, variety and balance.
Like nature, culture is also a changing phenomenon, affected by the ways in
which technology inhabits the environment and relates to it. 

Call for proposals for projects, presentations and performances: 
Proposals are invited for four areas of the festival: the Conference, the
Exhibition (digital art, performance, installation, immersive environments,
Net.Art), Performance Series (sound art, performance art, live film/AV) and
Late Night Events (music, visuals, post-digital, laptop, group performance,
screenings).

Gallery Exhibition/Events/Workshops: 
This year the Exhibition (Gallery and Net Art), Performance Series, and
Late Night Events will present a range of works that embody and interpret
the theme of TECHNOGRAPHY as defined above. 
For more details, see http://www.newformsfestival.com/

Conference

The NFF04 Conference, Old And New Forms , negotiates new global parameters
for contemporary media culture, as it charts a post-traditional
technography of world Media Arts. The post-traditional is what remains of
modernism and postmodernism when modernization is abandoned as an
unfinished and unachievable project. While the post-traditional view is
clearly meaningful in the post-colonial and developing spheres, Old And New
Forms posits that it is equally germane to the global post-industrial
scenario as a whole. For more details, see http://www.newformsfestival.com/


Artists, speakers and media artwork selected for The New Forms Festival
should manifest multiple themes, mediums, and modes of expression,
exploring a distinct genre.

NFF04 encourages works that fall into the following genres or 
sub-categories:

Acoustic ecology 
Alternative narrative 
Artificial Reality 
Collaborative design 
Cultural Ecology
Culturally reflective computing 
Cyberfeminism
Cyborg Fashion
Digital Animation 
Digital Regionalism 
Electronic Gaming 
Expanded Cinema 
Grassroots media culture 
Immersive Environments 
Indigenous media initiatives 
Interaction design 
Interface Design and Development 
Live club performance 
Mediated Movement 
Networked Art
Online communities 
Online Video
Poetics of technology and development 
Post-media or networked activism 
Post-traditional Theory 
Robotics 
Sacred art and digital technology 
Sound art
Sound Sculpture
Technology and embodiment 
Technology and the natural environment 
Telematic Performance 
Wireless and wearable computing 

Some genres explore collaborative and improvisational components or 
artworks, created for the festival. 

The festival encourages artworks that are process-oriented, continually
evolving and in transformation, which are facilitated through technological
and ideological means. 

PROPOSALS:
Artists, scholars, developers and practitioners working in New Media Art
are invited to submit proposals for projects, performances, presentations,
papers and panels by May 14, 2004. 

Contact us only if there are concerns or difficulties concerning this call
or the submission form, at: 

New Forms Festival 2004 
Programming Committee 
Suite 200, 252 East 1st Avenue 
Vancouver, British Columbia 
CANADA V5T 1A6=20 
T: +1 604-648-2752=20 
F: +1 604-648-2754=20 
E: curatorial at newformsfestival.com or 
curatorial at newformsfestival.com 

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




From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Fri Apr  2 15:32:37 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 08:32:37 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (forteana) Postmodern essay generator---
Message-ID: <406D8795.FF7C97E0@mindspring.com>

FWD (forteana) Postmodern essay generator---was Re: [forteana] FWD
[extropy-chat] Re: David Ray Griffin on "eliminative" vs.
"constructive" [...]

         This program generating a completely original postmodern essay
complete with all the proper buzz-words reminds me an awful lot of that
great mid-1990's hoax spoofing trendy postmodernism: NYU mathematics
professor Alan Sokal's 1996 _Social Text_ magazine article called, as I
recall, something like "An Emancipatory Hermeneutics of Quantum
Gravitation." Sokal pretended to argue that conventional scientific
theories of gravitation were just white male bourgeois logocentric
ideological constructs reinforcing sexism, racism, colonialism,
imperialism, and capitalism. Liberated progressive pro-feminist
pro-Afrocentric thinkers, Sokal implied, had no need to believe in
gravity. Sokal then confessed that the whole thing had been just a
tongue-in-cheek satiric spoof of trendy pseudo-intellectual pseudo-
radical "postmodernist" nonsense. Alan Sokal, I think, would have just
LOVED John K. Clark's postmodern essay generator!
                         Ducking and running,
                         T. Peter


Terry W. Colvin fwded:
> 
> Speaking of postmodern philosophy, I highly recommend the postmodern
> generator at
> 
> http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/ .
> 
> In just a few seconds this wonderful program wail generate a completely
> original post modern essay complete with all the proper buzz words, it even
> has footnotes. I have found it to be every bit as deep as post modern essays
> written by human beings.
> 
>     John K Clark

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

Friends, Forteans, philosophers!
        New York University physicist Alan Sokal's 1996 _Social Text_ article
spoofing trendy postmodern verbiage was "Transgressing the Boundaries:
Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravitation." It
appeared in _Social Text's_ special "Science Wars" issue devoted to
discussing science as a politicized cultural activity and scientific
theories as ideologically driven social constructs. Sokal's article was
a hilarious compilation of fashionable postmodernist gibberish and
double-talk, bristling with quotations from all the (mostly French)
trendy postmodernist thinkers--Derrida, Lacan, Lyotard, Irigaray,
_Social Text_ board member Stanley Aronowitz, "Science Wars" issue
editor Andrew Ross, etc. The thesis of Sokal's jargon-ridden word-salad
was that the physical concept of quantum gravitation has important
affinities with various "counterhegemonic" New Age and postmodern ideas,
especially with Rupert Sheldrake's "morphogenetic fields." Sokal
concluded with a call for "emancipatory mathematics," noting that the
"counterhegemonic" theory of quantum gravity had implications for
"political goals and strategies." He then confessed and exposed his own
prank in _Lingua Franca_ magazine. 
                                Regards,
                                T. Peter <tpeterpark at erols.com>
                                Garden City South, LI, NY


-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Vietnam veterans,
Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Fri Apr  2 15:58:13 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 08:58:13 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Think about mathematics versus excess
	baggage
Message-ID: <406D8D95.24EF78EE@mindspring.com>

        Bertrand Russell and his wife Dora ran an ultra-progressive
experimental school at Telegraph House, near Petersfield, England, from
1927 to 1935, continued by Dora after their divorce in 1935 until the
outbreak of World War II in 1939. In its day, the school was famous or
notorious for its ultra-permissive attitude toward sex among the pupils.
Russell justified it by declaring that he wanted the pupils to have
their sex so they would not obsess over it in its absence and would this
be, as he put it, "free to think about mathematics."
         I've occasionally heard people use Russell's phrase "free to
think about mathematics," or just "think about mathematics," to describe
any attitude of satisfying some basic need--for sex, food, money, or
whatever--in a matter-of-fact "OK, let's get it over with quickly" way
so as to be then free to think about something supposedly more important
or elevated. Thus, it's sometimes used of an artist or writer in the
creative frenzy of painting a picture or writing a poem or essay just
grabbing a sandwich and munching on it as he or she paints, writes, or
types so as not to waste any time going out or sitting down to eat. My
friend Alex Theroux once remarked that I very obviously had a "think
about mathematics" attitude toward soft drinks when I had commented to
him in bemused exasperation about a Burger King or McDonald's waiter on
Cape Cod who had given me a long song-and-dance about how they only
carry Pepsi when I'd casually asked him for a Coke.
         I've long felt there's a "think about mathematics" dynanmic in
this sense involved in the psychology of kids who go off to school and
abandon their parents' or home-town neighbors' political, religious, or
sexological views. Boys and girls who had to spend their teen years
listening to parental or relatives' dinner-table diatribes about
property taxes, minorities moving into the neighborhood, homosexuals,
anti-war protesters, or "secular humanists" opposed to school prayer
often feel, when they go off to college, that the attitudes and
prejudices underlying such diatribes are just so much useless excess
baggage for themselves. They feel, it's long seemed to me, that
continuing to hold and express such attitudes and prejuidices would only
interfere with their thinking about mathematics, linguistics, analytical
philosophy, Victorian poetry, or art history! Because mathematics or art
history has become so important to them, they feel free to just jettison
the "erxcess baggage" with no qualms or regrets.
                         Regards,
                         T. Peter


-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Vietnam veterans,
Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Apr  2 16:42:07 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:42:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Gun control [was Re: the
	road to hell]
In-Reply-To: <406D83D5.85046761@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <20040402164207.16832.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>


--- "Terry W. Colvin" <fortean1 at mindspring.com> wrote:
> --- In fantasticreality at yahoogroups.com, -Rick- wrote:
> > Police here can search homes without a search warrant to 
> > look for unregistered guns. If you protest, you get 10 years in the
> 
> > slammer. Also we are not alowed to deffend our home with a gun.
> > 
> > -Rick-
> > Canada
> 
> Gun ownership was banned in Australia, and crime rates have 
> risen by some 600 percent.  Britain has all but eradicated private 
> gun ownership, and crime figures there have skyrocketed also.
> 
> People in both countries have taken to defending their homes 
> and themselves with clubs, baseball bats, and swords.  Now 
> Australia is seeking to curtail the use of swords in self-defense 
> of self, home and property.  

Have I ever said I'm not surprised? While crime is skyrocketing, in
spite of police jiggering of crime stats (like calling multiple
muggings on one night a single crime) in those countries, here in NH,
we have the lowest crime rates in the entire US. Our murder rate is
comparable to Switzerland, while our property crime rates are many
times lower than the rest of the industrialized nations.

As this is happening, we are now debating removing any requirement for
any sort of licensing to carry concealed weapons. SB 454 has passed the
NH State Senate and is now being debated in the House, where a similar
bill passed a few months ago. If SB 454 passes, NH will join Vermont
and Alaska in having the most liberalized gun laws in the world, while
at the same time having the lowest crime rates.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/


From natashavita at earthlink.net  Fri Apr  2 17:24:19 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 12:24:19 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sperm & Egg Unite! (was BIOETHICS: the other shoe
	drops
Message-ID: <174210-22004452172419464@M2W047.mail2web.com>

From: Robert J. Bradbury a very interesting message which I could not read
because I am not registered with the New York Times. But it got me thinking
...

>Ok, the New York Times is reporting [1] that the U.S. Bioethics
>panel (chaired by that person we all know and love Dr. Leon
>Kass) is now suggesting limits to assisted fertility.

>1. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/02/politics/02ETHI.html?pagewanted=print

Each and every time Dr. Kass ejaculates, he kills the cells and tissues
that form human life.  

For sperm fundamentalists this is a moral injustice.  If Dr. Kass
masturbates and does not foster the sperm into his wife's private parts,
then he is, without a question or doubt, is guilty of wasting and killing
human life.

Furthermore, if Dr. Kass has sexual intercourse with his wife with the sole
purpose of sexual fantasy and pleasure, his equally guilty of wasting, with
premeditated intent, and killing of potential human beings.

Lastly, if Dr. Kass has sexual intercourse with his wife when she is
ovulating and his sole purpose is that of sexual fantasy and pleasure, he
is even more guilty of wasting, with premeditated intent, both an egg and
sperm, the results of which procure a human being.

In that an egg is a cluster of cells differentiated for the purpose of
reproduction of a human being, and a sperm is differentiated for the
purpose of reproduction of a human being, then each sperm and egg cells and
tissues wasted is an act of violence against the potential, if not the
actualization, of human life.

I speak not only for myself, but for others who value each and every sperm
and egg as life forms, both potential and actual cells, however tissue is
formed and at whatever stage it is manifested.

In deference of Sperm and Ova worldwide! :-)

***BTY, I found a site that counters the right to life of sperm an dova, on
a technicality.  (I suppose anyone who likes sex can say that life begins
when it is convenient for them.)

Quote from "Christian Answer":
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/q-life024.html

"Sperm and ova do not have a right to life because they are not individual
genetic human beings, but are merely parts of individual genetic human
beings. Having haploid chromosomes, they each have only half of the
chromosomes needed to make a human being, whereas all other cells of the
body (except erythrocytes - red blood cells) have diploid chromosomes. The
gametes (sperm and unfertilized egg) do not contain the whole DNA code for
a human. They cannot survive on their own; they have no more life than any
other cell."

"At conception, when the sperm and ova fuse, they each cease to exist. They
have formed something new, a zygote, which possesses self-sustaining life
such as all life-forms have. A zygote is an individual genetic human being;
the sperm and ova are not."

______________________________

Natasha



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




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Apr  2 17:35:49 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 11:35:49 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gun control yet again
In-Reply-To: <20040402164207.16832.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <406D83D5.85046761@mindspring.com>
	<20040402164207.16832.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040402112919.01b6b6f8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 08:42 AM 4/2/2004 -0800, Mike wrote:

> > Australia is seeking to curtail the use of swords in self-defense
> > of self, home and property.
>
>Have I ever said I'm not surprised? While crime is skyrocketing, in
>spite of police jiggering of crime stats (like calling multiple
>muggings on one night a single crime) in those countries, here in NH,
>we have the lowest crime rates in the entire US. Our murder rate is
>comparable to Switzerland, while our property crime rates are many
>times lower than the rest of the industrialized nations.

I drag myself numbly again thru some googling. NH in 2000 had a population 
of 1 235 786 and 22 people were murdered. My home state of Victoria had a 
population of 4 765 900, 3.85 times larger. The number murdered seems to 
have been about 60, rather than the pro rata NH rate of 85.

See 
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/26/1061663788524.html?from=storyrhs

(Lately there's been a lot of naughty internecine murderous action between 
crime families/gangs, which will have changed the stats, and has no bearing 
on the general topic.)

Damien Broderick 




From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Fri Apr  2 17:58:53 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 11:58:53 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] HB 2637 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN
References: <00ba01c4184e$079d94e0$a52f2dcb@homepc>
	<1080874678.1055.167.camel@Renfield>
Message-ID: <LAW10-OE53xy6Ky6UNV00014648@hotmail.com>

It will be back. And most likely as a hidden attachment to something that
has lots of support. Someone wanted this for some reason which is why they
backed out on their agreement. These guys don't like to lose, so yes, it
will be back........

Kevin Freels
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen J. Van Sickle" <sjvans at ameritech.net>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 8:57 PM
Subject: [extropy-chat] HB 2637 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN


> See:
>
> http://alcor.org/Library/html/legislation20040401.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From amara at amara.com  Fri Apr  2 19:51:00 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 20:51:00 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Touched by Astronomy
Message-ID: <p05100300bc9372961f40@[150.146.134.133]>

I wrote this story this evening.. before heading home for the
weekend. I hope you enjoy it!

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

I think that anyone who is touched by astronomy is already a little
bit 'touched'. Not off the deep-end touched, but crazy enough to
pass over obstacles that might stop other people.

I had scheduled an astronomy trip to a nearby amateur astronomy
club's observatory about one month ago. No problems with the
weather, no problems with the telescope, the university could rent a
van with a driver, most of the class raised their hands jumping
at the chance to go. 'All Systems Go' for my first field trip as the
new astronomy professor

On the scheduled day of the field trip the weather was a disaster,
and I had to make a decision. Can the school bus be cancelled and
rescheduled? Can I find the phone number of the Italian person who
is running the telescope that night, and see if the telescope will
be available the following week? And how can I have a conversation
in Italian with my poor language speaking skills? While phoning and
writing email, with my Italian dictionary in front of front of me
("let's see.. I want to cancel the bus this evening.. vorrei
annullare l'autobus stasera... but reschedule for next week... damn
how do I say 'reschedule'...) by 10:30am I have a massive headache.
Meanwhile the director of the amateur astronomy observatory is
trying _to reach me_, finally he succeeds, to say that "the
telescope is broken..", and, "by-the-way, the weather is bad", he
says.

So we wait a week. I lose a few students who thought we were going
to have a field trip, when, instead, I gave my lecture at the usual
time. Sorry about that! The remaining students (yes, indeed!) still
wanted to go the following week.

On the morning of the newly-scheduled field trip day, I wake up to a
beautiful day. No problem with the weather. However an email waiting
for me at work: "Ancora problemi per la visita all'Osservatorio F.
Fuligni !" more words, "La nuova strumentazione, infatti, ci sta
dando dei problemi e dobbiamo metterla a punto." I get out my
dictionary... "Desolato" he says. I make some phone calls. I learn
that the telescope is being refitted with a new mount that isn't
finished yet... "But can my students *see* the telescope, even
inside the dome? Is there astronomy posters to look at, a place
where I could talk and explain some astronomy topics..."  That is
something.... "Oh yes!" Now I have the president of the Italian
Amateur Astronomy Association, Emilio, who is jumping in to help. He
lives nearby and he has a portable telescope (Celestron 8
Cassegrain). He offers to set up his portable  on the lawn of the
observatory ground, so at least the students can see something.
"Bene!" We arrange a meeting in the central square in Frascati, so
he can guide the bus driver up the mountain to the observatory.

Approximately one hour later, I watched the sky filled with clouds.

OK, what to do? It is already noon, too late to cancel the school
bus. I arrive at the university and discover that the president was
trying to reach me, the bus is _already here_. (1/2 hour early...
*who* gave the bus that wrong time?). I begin to gather up my
students.

Where did they go? One has a friend visiting from out of town, so he
has to leave. Another one needs to use the library that night to
finish a term paper, so off she goes. Another student can't make it
because relatives are in town... And so on. By the end of this, my
field trip students number... SIX hardy souls, who frankly are just
tired of seeing the walls of the university, and really want to
*go*, it doesn't matter where. Oh, and also the president of the
university who is would *really like* to see something through a
telescope.

We arrive at the bus, with the driver awaiting impatiently. Ahem.
*Bus* is a rather poor description for our field-trip vehicle. It
was in reality an air-conditioned, with-televisions, long-distance,
tour company vehicle for 40 passengers. You know, the kind of
vehicle in which you travel across countries. This was the vehicle
with which we were to travel up some mountain roads.

"Rocca di Papa ?!", the bus driver almost yells. Why didn't he know
the trip destination? My letters were very clear. Now he is sure
that the bus cannot make it through the narrow streets of Rocca di
Papa. I dial Emilio, so that he can discuss the situation with the
bus driver.

"Don't worry don't worry". Emilio assures the driver that there is
just one sharp turn, the bus can make it. We can park it at the end
where the bus can easily turn around. "But, Amara, the sky is
completely filled with clouds! Are you sure you want to come here?"
Now he trying _to convince me_ that it's not very practical to bring a
group of students there, if the sky if cloudy. Now I have to take a
poll of the class if they *really* want to go, since I have a
nervous bus driver and a practical amateur astronomer placing
weights on the other side of the balance.

The students seem to be as tired as me, more hardy than me, probably.
"Let's JUST GO", they say. "Andiamo" to the bus driver and Emilio.
So off we go to a cloud-filled mountain.

The "Ring Road" surrounding Rome is a charming highway to drive at rush
hour time, especially when there is a vehicle on fire at the side of
the road. We manage to pass that, and we exit safely to the
Tuscolana Road which leads to our meeting point with Emilio. He's
ready and waiting, still in his elegant gray suit and tie, fresh
from his mutinational corporation day job. He hops into his little
green car, flips on the emergency blinkers, and proceeds to lead us
to our telescopic destination.

Now picture, if you can, a little green car with blinkers leading
a big tour bus with air conditioning and TVs up a little mountain
road. It's like the tug boat leading the barge, or perhaps a mouse
with a light leading the elephant. Well that's us, and quite a sight
on the Monday night mountain road.

Halfway up the mountain, we slow the bus, while Emilio makes a car
switch. His portable telescope is in the back seat of his other car,
which is parked by a family member at the side of the mountain road.
In less than 20 seconds, Emilio gives the green car to his son, now
he's got the gray car with the 'scope. He flips on the emergency
blinkers and onward up the mountain road. This is one classy Italian.

Twenty minutes later we arrive at the dirt parking lot, where a 200
meter long foot path leads to the observatory. We look up... patches of
clear sky! Now Emilio switches into astronomy instructor mode,
showing us the big telescope with the broken mount, leading us to
the public display area where the posters are located, and he
proceeds to set up his portable telescope on the lawn.

For the next hour, clouds raced across the sky, leaving big holes in
*just the right places*: around the Moon, around Saturn, around
Jupiter, around Orion, and Ursa Major. We saw craters on the Moon,
at the best place on the terminator where the contrast between night
and day is highest. We saw the bands on Jupiter and the four
Galilean satellites. We saw miniature Saturn with it's rings wide
open. We saw Mizar and the double stars in the handle of the Big
Dipper.

During that hour, the most frequent words I heard from the students
were: "This is SO COOL." Other words: "I want to spend ALL OF MY
TIME looking through a telescope." "This is SO MUCH BETTER
than pictures in a textbook." I would be lying if I didn't admit
that I was smiling from ear-to-ear. I didn't expect such a response
from them.

So you see, my students are touched by astronomy too. If you can do
anything to demonstrate with real life examples how cool the world
is around you to someone else, I say: 'Go for it'. Even on a cloudy
night in a foreign country when it looked like it would be a
disaster. You just never know....



-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"It seems like once people grow up, they have no idea what's cool."
--Calvin


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Apr  2 19:40:18 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 13:40:18 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gun control yet again
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040402112919.01b6b6f8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <406D83D5.85046761@mindspring.com>
	<20040402164207.16832.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
	<6.0.3.0.0.20040402112919.01b6b6f8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040402133308.01b35528@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 11:35 AM 4/2/2004 -0600, I wrote:

< NH in 2000 had a population of 1 235 786 and 22 people were murdered. My 
home state of Victoria had a population of 4 765 900, 3.85 times larger. 
The number murdered seems to have been about 60, rather than the pro rata 
NH rate of 85. >

According to 
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/ABS at .nsf/0/76c8926bd8a12e1fca2568a9001393f2?OpenDocument

in 2002, the number actually rose as high as... 70!!!

14 murders per million population, according to the above table.

cf 17.8 per million for NH (if adding up on my fingers has given me the 
right numbers).

Of course, these numbers are strictly incommensurable, since the state of 
Victoria contains the city of Melbourne, which seethes with ethnic 
tensions; perhaps NH is a little more homogenous and peaceful, I couldn't say.

Damien Broderick




From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Fri Apr  2 20:33:41 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 13:33:41 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Gun control [was Re: the road to hell]
Message-ID: <406DCE25.50926999@mindspring.com>

>>>Either whoever wrote this is a bare-faced liar, or this is some special
gun-nut usage of "skyrocketed" to mean "reached their lowest level in two
decades, having fallen steadily since 1995".<<<

A case of who to believe I guess.

< http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml >

Gun Control's Twisted Outcome

Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S.

By Joyce Lee Malcolm


On a June evening two years ago, Dan Rather made many stiff British upper
lips quiver by reporting that England had a crime problem and that, apart
from murder, "theirs is worse than ours." The response was swift and sharp.
"Have a Nice Daydream," The Mirror, a London daily, shot back, reporting:
"Britain reacted with fury and disbelief last night to claims by American
newsmen that crime and violence are worse here than in the US." But
sandwiched between the article's battery of official denials -- "totally
misleading," "a huge over-simplification," "astounding and outrageous" -- 
and a compilation of lurid crimes from "the wild west culture on the other
side of the Atlantic where every other car is carrying a gun," The Mirror
conceded that the CBS anchorman was correct. Except for murder and rape, it
admitted, "Britain has overtaken the US for all major crimes."
In the two years since Dan Rather was so roundly rebuked, violence in
England has gotten markedly worse. Over the course of a few days in the
summer of 2001, gun-toting men burst into an English court and freed two
defendants; a shooting outside a London nightclub left five women and three
men wounded; and two men were machine-gunned to death in a residential
neighborhood of north London. And on New Year's Day this year a 19-year-old
girl walking on a main street in east London was shot in the head by a thief
who wanted her mobile phone. London police are now looking to New York City
police for advice.
None of this was supposed to happen in the country whose stringent gun laws
and 1997 ban on handguns have been hailed as the "gold standard" of gun
control. For the better part of a century, British governments have pursued
a strategy for domestic safety that a 1992 Economist article characterized
as requiring "a restraint on personal liberty that seems, in most civilised
countries, essential to the happiness of others," a policy the magazine
found at odds with "America's Vigilante Values." The safety of English
people has been staked on the thesis that fewer private guns means less
crime. The government believes that any weapons in the hands of men and
women, however law-abiding, pose a danger, and that disarming them lessens
the chance that criminals will get or use weapons.
The results -- the toughest firearm restrictions of any democracy -- are
credited by the world's gun control advocates with producing a low rate of
violent crime. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell reflected this
conventional wisdom when, in a 1988 speech to the American Bar Association,
he attributed England's low rates of violent crime to the fact that "private
ownership of guns is strictly controlled."
In reality, the English approach has not re-duced violent crime. Instead it
has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident
that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist
them. Imitating this model would be a public safety disaster for the United
States.
The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by
disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an
astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted. A
government study for the years 1890-92, for example, found only three
handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million.
In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest
city in the world. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported
that England's firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the
criminal underworld." Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan
predicted, only outlaws have guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use
them.
Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has
been climbing ever since. Last December, London's Evening Standard reported
that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was
"rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of
handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued.
>From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in
London rose 53 percent.
Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to
1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91
percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime
more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times
greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary
are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur
while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where
burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United
Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England
and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per
100 people.
This sea change in English crime followed a sea change in government
policies. Gun regulations have been part of a more general disarmament based
on the proposition that people don't need to protect themselves because
society will protect them. It also will protect their neighbors: Police
advise those who witness a crime to "walk on by" and let the professionals
handle it.
This is a reversal of centuries of common law that not only permitted but
expected individuals to defend themselves, their families, and their
neighbors when other help was not available. It was a legal tradition passed
on to Americans. Personal security was ranked first among an individual's
rights by William Blackstone, the great 18th-century exponent of the common
law. It was a right, he argued, that no government could take away, since no
government could protect the individual in his moment of need. A century
later Blackstone's illustrious successor, A.V. Dicey, cautioned, "discourage
self-help and loyal subjects become the slaves of ruffians."
But modern English governments have put public order ahead of the individual
's right to personal safety. First the government clamped down on private
possession of guns; then it forbade people to carry any article that might
be used for self-defense; finally, the vigor of that self-defense was to be
judged by what, in hindsight, seemed "reasonable in the circumstances."
The 1920 Firearms Act was the first serious British restriction on guns.
Although crime was low in England in 1920, the government feared massive
labor disruption and a Bolshevik revolution. In the circumstances,
permitting the people to remain armed must have seemed an unnecessary risk.
And so the new policy of disarming the public began. The Firearms Act
required a would-be gun owner to obtain a certificate from the local chief
of police, who was charged with determining whether the applicant had a good
reason for possessing a weapon and was fit to do so. All very sensible.
Parliament was assured that the intention was to keep weapons out of the
hands of criminals and other dangerous persons. Yet from the start the law's
enforcement was far more restrictive, and Home Office instructions to
police -- classified until 1989 -- periodically narrowed the criteria.
At first police were instructed that it would be a good reason to have a
revolver if a person "lives in a solitary house, where protection against
thieves and burglars is essential, or has been exposed to definite threats
to life on account of his performance of some public duty." By 1937 police
were to discourage applications to possess firearms for house or personal
protection. In 1964 they were told "it should hardly ever be necessary to
anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person" and
that "this principle should hold good even in the case of banks and firms
who desire to protect valuables or large quantities of money."
In 1969 police were informed "it should never be necessary for anyone to
possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person." These changes
were made without public knowledge or debate. Their enforcement has consumed
hundreds of thousands of police hours. Finally, in 1997 handguns were
banned. Proposed exemptions for handicapped shooters and the British Olympic
team were rejected.
Even more sweeping was the 1953 Prevention of Crime Act, which made it
illegal to carry in a public place any article "made, adapted, or intended"
for an offensive purpose "without lawful authority or excuse." Carrying
something to protect yourself was branded antisocial. Any item carried for
possible defense automatically became an offensive weapon. Police were given
extensive power to stop and search everyone. Individuals found with
offensive items were guilty until proven innocent.
During the debate over the Prevention of Crime Act in the House of Commons,
a member from Northern Ireland told his colleagues of a woman employed by
Parliament who had to cross a lonely heath on her route home and had armed
herself with a knitting needle. A month earlier, she had driven off a youth
who tried to snatch her handbag by jabbing him "on a tender part of his
body." Was it to be an offense to carry a knitting needle? The attorney
general assured the M.P. that the woman might be found to have a reasonable
excuse but added that the public should be discouraged "from going about
with offensive weapons in their pockets; it is the duty of society to
protect them."
Another M.P. pointed out that while "society ought to undertake the defense
of its members, nevertheless one has to remember that there are many places
where society cannot get, or cannot get there in time. On those occasions a
man has to defend himself and those whom he is escorting. It is not very
much consolation that society will come forward a great deal later, pick up
the bits, and punish the violent offender."
In the House of Lords, Lord Saltoun argued: "The object of a weapon was to
assist weakness to cope with strength and it is this ability that the bill
was framed to destroy. I do not think any government has the right, though
they may very well have the power, to deprive people for whom they are
responsible of the right to defend themselves." But he added: "Unless there
is not only a right but also a fundamental willingness amongst the people to
defend themselves, no police force, however large, can do it."
That willingness was further undermined by a broad revision of criminal law
in 1967 that altered the legal standard for self-defense. Now everything
turns on what seems to be "reasonable" force against an assailant,
considered after the fact. As Glanville Williams notes in his Textbook of
Criminal Law, that requirement is "now stated in such mitigated terms as to
cast doubt on whether it [self-defense] still forms part of the law."
The original common law standard was similar to what still prevails in the
U.S. Americans are free to carry articles for their protection, and in 33
states law-abiding citizens may carry concealed guns. Americans may defend
themselves with deadly force if they believe that an attacker is about to
kill or seriously injure them, or to prevent a violent crime. Our courts are
mindful that, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes observed, "detached
reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an upraised knife."
But English courts have interpreted the 1953 act strictly and zealously.
Among articles found illegally carried with offensive intentions are a
sandbag, a pickaxe handle, a stone, and a drum of pepper. "Any article is
capable of being an offensive weapon," concede the authors of Smith and
Hogan Criminal Law, a popular legal text, although they add that if the
article is unlikely to cause an injury the onus of proving intent to do so
would be "very heavy."
The 1967 act has not been helpful to those obliged to defend themselves
either. Granville Williams points out: "For some reason that is not clear,
the courts occasionally seem to regard the scandal of the killing of a
robber as of greater moment than the safety of the robber's victim in
respect of his person and property."
A sampling of cases illustrates the impact of these measures:
. In 1973 a young man running on a road at night was stopped by the police
and found to be carrying a length of steel, a cycle chain, and a metal clock
weight. He explained that a gang of youths had been after him. At his
hearing it was found he had been threatened and had previously notified the
police. The justices agreed he had a valid reason to carry the weapons.
Indeed, 16 days later he was attacked and beaten so badly he was
hospitalized. But the prosecutor appealed the ruling, and the appellate
judges insisted that carrying a weapon must be related to an imminent and
immediate threat. They sent the case back to the lower court with directions
to convict.
. In 1987 two men assaulted Eric Butler, a 56-year-old British Petroleum
executive, in a London subway car, trying to strangle him and smashing his
head against the door. No one came to his aid. He later testified, "My air
supply was being cut off, my eyes became blurred, and I feared for my life."
In desperation he unsheathed an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick
and slashed at one of his attackers, stabbing the man in the stomach. The
assailants were charged with wounding. Butler was tried and convicted of
carrying an offensive weapon.
. In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two
burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the
officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to
threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an
elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were
threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the
police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.
. In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby
farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both
with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six
times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities,
had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the
intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years
for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The
wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now
free and has been granted ?5,000 of legal assistance to sue Martin.
The failure of English policy to produce a safer society is clear, but what
of British jibes about "America's vigilante values" and our much higher
murder rate?
Historically, America has had a high homicide rate and England a low one. In
a comparison of New York and London over a 200-year period, during most of
which both populations had unrestricted access to firearms, historian Eric
Monkkonen found New York's homicide rate consistently about five times
London's. Monkkonen pointed out that even without guns, "the United States
would still be out of step, just as it has been for two hundred years."
Legal historian Richard Maxwell Brown has argued that Americans have more
homicides because English law insists an individual should retreat when
attacked, whereas Americans believe they have the right to stand their
ground and kill in self-defense. Americans do have more latitude to protect
themselves, in keeping with traditional common law standards, but that would
have had less significance before England's more restrictive policy was
established in 1967.
The murder rates of the U.S. and U.K. are also affected by differences in
the way each counts homicides. The FBI asks police to list every homicide as
murder, even if the case isn't subsequently prosecuted or proceeds on a
lesser charge, making the U.S. numbers as high as possible. By contrast, the
English police "massage down" the homicide statistics, tracking each case
through the courts and removing it if it is reduced to a lesser charge or
determined to be an accident or self-defense, making the English numbers as
low as possible.
The London-based Office of Health Economics, after a careful international
study, found that while "one reason often given for the high numbers of
murders and manslaughters in the United States is the easy availability of
firearms...the strong correlation with racial and socio-economic variables
suggests that the underlying determinants of the homicide rate are related
to particular cultural factors."
Cultural differences and more-permissive legal standards notwithstanding,
the English rate of violent crime has been soaring since 1991. Over the same
period, America's has been falling dramatically. In 1999 The Boston Globe
reported that the American murder rate, which had fluctuated by about 20
percent between 1974 and 1991, was "in startling free-fall." We have had
nine consecutive years of sharply declining violent crime. As a result the
English and American murder rates are converging. In 1981 the American rate
was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate,
and the latest study puts it at 3.5 times.
Preliminary figures for the U.S. this year show an increase, although of
less than 1 percent, in the overall number of violent crimes, with homicide
increases in certain cities, which criminologists attribute to gang
violence, the poor economy, and the release from prison of many offenders.
Yet Americans still enjoy a substantially lower rate of violent crime than
England, without the "restraint on personal liberty" English governments
have seen as necessary. Rather than permit individuals more scope to defend
themselves, Prime Minister Tony Blair's government plans to combat crime by
extending those "restraints on personal liberty": removing the prohibition
against double jeopardy so people can be tried twice for the same crime,
making hearsay evidence admissible in court, and letting jurors know of a
suspect's previous crimes.
This is a cautionary tale. America's founders, like their English forebears,
regarded personal security as first of the three primary rights of mankind.
That was the main reason for including a right for individuals to be armed
in the U.S. Constitution. Not everyone needs to avail himself or herself of
that right. It is a dangerous right. But leaving personal protection to the
police is also dangerous.
The English government has effectively abolished the right of Englishmen,
confirmed in their 1689 Bill of Rights, to "have arms for their defence,"
insisting upon a monopoly of force it can succeed in imposing only on
law-abiding citizens. It has come perilously close to depriving its people
of the ability to protect themselves at all, and the result is a more, not
less, dangerous society. Despite the English tendency to decry America's
"vigilante values," English policy makers would do well to consider a return
to these crucial common law values, which stood them so well in the past.


Joyce Lee Malcolm, a professor of history at Bentley College and a senior
adviser to the MIT Security Studies Program, is the author of Guns and
Violence: The English Experience, published in May by Harvard University
Press.


-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Vietnam veterans,
Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From Steve365 at btinternet.com  Fri Apr  2 21:07:50 2004
From: Steve365 at btinternet.com (Steve Davies)
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 22:07:50 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Gun control [was Re: the road to
	hell]
References: <406DCE25.50926999@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <001901c418f6$8f9dee50$e2208751@oemcomputer>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry W. Colvin" <fortean1 at mindspring.com>
To: <Extropy-chat at extropy.org>; <skeptic at listproc.hcf.jhu.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 9:33 PM
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Gun control [was Re: the road to
hell]


> >>>Either whoever wrote this is a bare-faced liar, or this is some special
> gun-nut usage of "skyrocketed" to mean "reached their lowest level in two
> decades, having fallen steadily since 1995".<<<
>
> A case of who to believe I guess.
>
> < http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml >
>
Broadly Joyce Malcolm is right. Crime as a whole has fallen in Britain since
1995 (according to both Home Office statistics and the official Crime
Victimisation Survey, which gives a much better picture of the real level as
it corrects for the 'dark figure' or unrecorded crime) but violent crimes
such as robbery, assault, wounding and so on have been increasing over the
same period and there has been a very sharp rise in the use of guns by
criminals over the same period. (Guns are now very cheap and easy to get).
The likelihood of being the victim of a violent crime is indeed now higher
in the UK than the US on a per capita basis. I would say that it's always
been misleading to talk about the US as a single unit where crime is
concerned because the degree of local and regional variation is so great.
The case involving the chap with the sword in Salford happened just down the
road from where I live. Gangland shootings happen pretty regularly in
Manchester, and most other major cities, as do armed robberies. So much so
in fact that they hardly get news coverage. Mike Lorrey will be glad to know
that the bonkers way the British police aggregate separate crimes into one
'incident' for statistics has now been stopped (as of January this year in
fact).




From jcorb at irishbroadband.net  Fri Apr  2 23:27:24 2004
From: jcorb at irishbroadband.net (J Corbally)
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 23:27:24 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Gun control [was Re:the
	road to hell]
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20040402232507.01a694a0@pop3.irishbroadband.ie>

I think it's time to start keeping a covert gun and a good shovel.  It 
appears to be better these days to start digging instead of dialing.

Sad, really sad.


James....

>Message: 20
>Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 08:16:37 -0700
>From: "Terry W. Colvin" <fortean1 at mindspring.com>
>Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Gun control [was Re:
>         the road        to hell]
>To: "Extropy-chat at extropy.org" <Extropy-chat at extropy.org>,      Forteana
>         /Alternate Orphan/ <forteana at yahoogroups.com>
>Message-ID: <406D83D5.85046761 at mindspring.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
>--- In fantasticreality at yahoogroups.com, -Rick- wrote:
> > Police here can search homes without a search warrant to
> > look for unregistered guns. If you protest, you get 10 years in the
> > slammer. Also we are not alowed to deffend our home with a gun.
> >
> > -Rick-
> > Canada
>
>
>Gun ownership was banned in Australia, and crime rates have
>risen by some 600 percent.  Britain has all but eradicated private
>gun ownership, and crime figures there have skyrocketed also.





From extropy at unreasonable.com  Fri Apr  2 23:33:10 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 18:33:10 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Century City cancelled
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040402183040.0277f578@mail.comcast.net>

Debate over the extropian propagandistic value of Century City is moot now. 
I just got a tv industry newsletter that reports the show's been yanked.

Now the question is whether this is because it was poorly done or because 
the public is not interested in the future....


-- David Lubkin.




From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Sat Apr  3 02:23:26 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 21:23:26 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility - politics
In-Reply-To: <0a7001c41793$eb73e950$412b2dcb@homepc>
References: <200403301444.i2UEiLc20783@tick.javien.com>
	<406A5293.60203@CRNano.org> <0a7001c41793$eb73e950$412b2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <406E201E.9060803@CRNano.org>

Brett Paatsch wrote:
 > "squeaky wheels" .... True-believers .... bullshit ....
 > flunkies .... disciples .... bullshit .... bullshit.

Well, that's one way to end a conversation.  Sorry you couldn't think of 
anything better.

 > I am willing to stake and escrow ... US$1000, ... Are you willing
 > to do the same?

I had previously stated that I was willing to stake $1000.  But you 
appear to be saying you'll only take 50/50 odds against nanotech.  That 
would make your position that we shouldn't work on it look very weak.

I'm still interested in betting with other people.  I'd like to know 
what odds they'd like.  But there's obviously no grounds for respectful 
communication from you, so no, I will not bet with you.

Now I'm hoping you'll be mature enough to preserve your stated intention 
not to continue the conversation--it's annoying when abusive and 
foulmouthed people get the last word.

Chris

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Apr  3 03:41:21 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 19:41:21 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Think about mathematics versus
	excessbaggage
In-Reply-To: <406D8D95.24EF78EE@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <000001c4192d$881b4dd0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


> Terry W. Colvin
> mathematics versus excessbaggage 
> 
>         Bertrand Russell ... wanted the pupils to have
> their sex so they would not obsess over it in its absence and 
> would this be, as he put it, "free to think about mathematics."


Oh I looooove mathematics, I am totally consumed 
with calculust.  Nearly all students want to get 
the math over with quickly so they can be free to 
think about sex.  Humans brains are poor computers
indeed for doing math I fear.  spike



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Apr  3 04:23:48 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 20:23:48 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Gun control [was Re:
	theroad to hell]
In-Reply-To: <20040402164207.16832.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <001a01c41933$767126d0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

...
> > 
> > Gun ownership was banned in Australia...
> > 
> > People have taken to defending their homes 
> > and themselves with clubs, baseball bats, and swords...


A couple guys tried to break into my house yesterday.
Had I been home when that took place, I would not wish 
to samurai them or Babe Ruth them.  Im really much too
sophisticated for that sort of thing.  It would be so much 
more satisfying that they should receive a polite suggestion 
from Mister Twelve Gage and his nephew Buckshot.  

Turns out they caught the guys.  Not because anyone saw
them doing it, but because of their race: two young white 
meth-heads in my neighborhood looked out of place here in
Little Vietnam.  They admitted their folly at first,
then began to backpedal.  I suppose when they see the
fingerprints the cops took off my windows they will
become most contrite and cooperative.

Gunpowder and lead.  There is simply no substitute.

spike  




From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Apr  3 04:45:25 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 20:45:25 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Gun control [was Re:theroad
	to hell]
In-Reply-To: <001a01c41933$767126d0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <000901c41936$7e7e95d0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

 
> ...It would be so much 
> more satisfying that they should receive a polite suggestion 
> from Mister Twelve Gage and his nephew Buckshot...


Think about it: the sound of a shell jacking into 
the chamber of a pump shotgun is the closest thing 
to a universal language ever invented by man.  
That crisp metallic CLACK-CLACK is a sound perfectly 
understood by every reprehensible sleazeball 
perpetrator on this planet.  There is no other
sound like it, they know exactly what it means, 
they will not ask a single question, they will 
not stay by to investigate.  A sword or a bat just 
doesn't have the calm presence, cannot make that 
unmistakeable two syllable suggestion to relocate
forthwith.  Guns are our friends.

spike 



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Apr  3 05:43:47 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 23:43:47 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] ultra-compact dwarfs found lurking
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040402234123.01bafec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9167448%255E29098,00.html


ASTRONOMERS using the Anglo-Australian telescope in NSW have discovered 
more than 40 previously unknown "dwarf" galaxies.

The team of 12 scientists from five countries found the objects, so small 
they looked like stars, hidden in the nearby Fornax cluster of galaxies, 
they said in a statement issued in Sydney.

The Fornax cluster is 60 million light-years away, "in astronomical 
terms,on Earth's doorstep", they said.

Michael Drinkwater, the team leader from the University of Queensland, said 
the galaxies belonged to a class dubbed "ultra-compact dwarfs" (UCD).

UCDs were unknown until the same team using the Anglo-Australian telescope 
in NSW discovered six of them in the Fornax cluster in 2000.

The new discovery was formally announced on Thursday at a meeting of the 
Royal Astronomical Society in Britain.

Drinkwater said researchers now believe the dwarf galaxies outnumber 
conventional elliptical and spiral galaxies in the central region of the 
Fornax cluster.

  [...]


Follow-up observations with the Hubble Space Telescope and the European 
Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope revealed that while Ultra 
Compact Dwarfs have masses similar to those of previously known dwarf 
galaxies, they are much smaller -- about 120 light years across.

"Tens of millions of stars are squashed into what is a tiny volume by 
galaxy standards," the observatory said in a statement.

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

Get excited, Robert!  :)

Damien Broderick




From gpmap at runbox.com  Sat Apr  3 10:23:42 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 12:23:42 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanity 2.0
Message-ID: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBMEDHCBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

The Transhumanity e-zine: news and views from the transhumanist community,
published by the World Transhumanist Association, has been upgraded to
version 2.0. It has a new very "sober" look, but the most important thing is
that Transhumanity is now using a brand new Content Management System (CMS):
Expression Engine, selected after a trade-off analysis of advanced CMS.
Running on Expression Engine, Transhumanity is now a community "superblog"
with a very rich set of features for collaborative authoring and editing.
While all members can post comments freely, at this time articles submitted
by readers are posted to the site only after having been approved by an
editor. At the same time, WTA members are encouraged to request direct
posting rights.
Of course the most important feature of a community e-zine is content: all
registered members are encouraged to post comments and submit new articles,
and new members are welcome.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.581 / Virus Database: 368 - Release Date: 09/02/2004
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040403/3a26b2a8/attachment.html>

From gpmap at runbox.com  Sat Apr  3 10:46:51 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 12:46:51 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] MIT Reports New Insights In Visual Recognition for
	Improved Machine Vision Systems
Message-ID: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBEEDICBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From Science Daily: MIT scientists are reporting new insights into how the
human brain recognizes objects, especially faces, in work that could lead to
improved machine vision systems, diagnostics for certain neurological
conditions and more. What is novel about this work is that it provides
direct evidence of contextual cues eliciting object-specific neural
responses in the brain.
The team used functional magnetic resonance imaging to map neuronal
responses of the brain's fusiform face area (FFA) to a variety of images.
These included clear faces, blurred faces attached to bodies, blurred faces
alone, bodies alone, and a blurred face placed in the wrong context (below
the torso, for example). Only the clear faces and blurred faces with proper
contextual cues elicited strong FFA responses. "These data support the idea
that facial representations underlying FFA activity are based not only on
intrinsic facial cues, but rather incorporate contextual information as
well.
Computer recognition systems work reasonably well when images are clear, but
they break down catastrophically when images are degraded. A human's ability
is so far beyond what the computer can do. The new work could aid the
development of better systems by changing our concept of the kind of image
information useful for determining what an object is.
>From the original MIT news release: The findings not only add to scientists'
understanding of the brain and vision, but also open up some very
interesting issues from the perspective of developmental neuroscience. For
example, how does the brain acquire the ability to use contextual cues? Are
we born with this ability, or is it learned over time? Pawan Sinha, an
assistant professor in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences (BCS),
is exploring these questions through Project Prakash, a scientific and
humanitarian effort to look at how individuals who are born blind but later
gain some vision perceive objects and faces.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.581 / Virus Database: 368 - Release Date: 09/02/2004
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040403/fc76e980/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Apr  3 11:30:39 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 03:30:39 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Gun control [was Re: the road to
	hell]
In-Reply-To: <406DCE25.50926999@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <20040403113039.66297.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "Terry W. Colvin" <fortean1 at mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>>Either whoever wrote this is a bare-faced liar, or this is some
> special
> gun-nut usage of "skyrocketed" to mean "reached their lowest level in
> two decades, having fallen steadily since 1995".<<<
> 
> A case of who to believe I guess.
> 
> < http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml >

Yes, even within the British government (even to the point of different
stats on different sheets in the same exact Excel file). The British
Crime Survey, which surveys British subjects about their experiences
with crime, reports a decrease in crime. However, the actual crime
reported in the Crime Index (buried on sheet 3) shows a vast increase
in actual crimes. See:

Actual reported crime:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/703chap3.xls

"BCS Crime":
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/701chap3.xls

Total violent crime has risen from 331,000+ in 1998-99 to over 991,000+
in 2003. Homicides have risen from 750 to 1,048 in the same time
period. Total property crime has risen from over 4 million to over 4.6
million. Total crime has risen from 4.5 million to 5.9 million.

In response, the Home Office has instituted a 'crime reduction' program
which does nothing but tweak the stats by reporting multiple crimes by
one perp on one day as one crime. The BCS survey also cherry picks
certain crime categories, rather than the more complete Crime Index.
Homicides of any kind, for example, are not included in the BCS.

With a population of 57 million, the British murder rate has risen 40%
in 5 years. Current homicide rate is 2 per 100,000. Contrast this with
New Hampshire's 0.9 homicide rate. Britain's violent crime rate is
1738.6 per 100,000, while New Hampshire's is 161.2 per 100k. Britain's
property crime rate is 8070.2 per 100,000, while New Hampshire's is
2058.7 per 100,000.

If we used the flawed BCS statistics, the British rates per 100k would
be even higher (though how homicides magically dissapear in the BCS is
a mystery).

While Britain has draconian gun laws, increasingly ubiquitous
surveillance, counterbalanced with an abject lack of individual respect
for individual rights, including the common law right to property, New
Hampshire has some of the most liberalized gun laws (and getting more
liberalized) an almost complete lack of surveillance, a state
Constitutional recognition of one's Natural Right to person and
property, and the right to protect both.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Apr  3 11:37:21 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 03:37:21 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gun control yet again
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040402112919.01b6b6f8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20040403113721.93990.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 08:42 AM 4/2/2004 -0800, Mike wrote:
> 
> > > Australia is seeking to curtail the use of swords in self-defense
> > > of self, home and property.
> >
> >Have I ever said I'm not surprised? While crime is skyrocketing, in
> >spite of police jiggering of crime stats (like calling multiple
> >muggings on one night a single crime) in those countries, here in
> NH,
> >we have the lowest crime rates in the entire US. Our murder rate is
> >comparable to Switzerland, while our property crime rates are many
> >times lower than the rest of the industrialized nations.
> 
> I drag myself numbly again thru some googling. NH in 2000 had a
> population 
> of 1 235 786 and 22 people were murdered. My home state of Victoria
> had a 
> population of 4 765 900, 3.85 times larger. The number murdered seems
> to have been about 60, rather than the pro rata NH rate of 85.
> 
> See 
>
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/26/1061663788524.html?from=storyrhs
> 
> (Lately there's been a lot of naughty internecine murderous action
> between 
> crime families/gangs, which will have changed the stats, and has no
> bearing on the general topic.)

WHAT??? You can't cherry pick that. Gang crime is crime, pure and
simple. BTW: What are the violent crime rates and property crime rates
in Oz?

BTW: I am using 2003 statistics:
                 Vio-  Ppty   Mrdr/                              Mtr
      Pop. Crime lent  crime  n-neg. Frc.      Agg.        Larc  Vhcl.
           Index Crime        manslt rape Rbry asslt Burg. thft  thft 
NH
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tot. 1.28M 28306 2056  26250  12     446  413  1185  4838  19468 1944  

rate/
100k       2220  161.2 2058.7 0.9    35.0 32.4 92.9 379.4 1526.8 152.5 

There were 12 total homicides in 2003 (that is murder and all
non-negligent manslaughter), which puts the rate somewhat below
Victorian rates.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/


From jcorb at irishbroadband.net  Sat Apr  3 14:21:14 2004
From: jcorb at irishbroadband.net (J Corbally)
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 14:21:14 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Gun control [was Re:
	theroad to hell]
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20040403142000.01a7fbc0@pop3.irishbroadband.ie>


>Message: 15
>Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 20:23:48 -0800
>From: "Spike" <spike66 at comcast.net>
>Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Gun control [was
>         Re:     theroad to hell]
>To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Message-ID: <001a01c41933$767126d0$6401a8c0 at SHELLY>
>Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>...
> > >
> > > Gun ownership was banned in Australia...
> > >
> > > People have taken to defending their homes
> > > and themselves with clubs, baseball bats, and swords...
>
>
>
>A couple guys tried to break into my house yesterday.
>Had I been home when that took place, I would not wish

<snip>



>Gunpowder and lead.  There is simply no substitute.
>
>
>spike

'Cept maybe CCs? *biker joke*





>------------------------------





From twodeel at jornada.org  Sat Apr  3 15:22:03 2004
From: twodeel at jornada.org (Don Dartfield)
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 07:22:03 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Gun control [was Re: the
	road to hell]
In-Reply-To: <406D83D5.85046761@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404030719150.20284-100000@hplx.net>

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, Terry W. Colvin wrote:

> The story below demonstrates the sorry state toward which the world is
> headed, and which we must ALL fight against.  The guy in the story
> should get a medal for taking out the garbage, IMO.

The guy in the story, apparently, was a drug dealer who stabbed the 
robber four times _from behind_.  That's probably why he was convicted of 
manslaughter.

http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk/lancashire/archive/2004/03/09/NEWS7ZM.html




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sat Apr  3 17:49:26 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 09:49:26 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] AGING: New Theory
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404030839150.2380-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


I've been working on this theory for the past year or so and
thought I would present it to the list so it gets into general
circulation.

You could call this either:
  A Grand Unified Theory of Aging
or
  The Mutation-Energy Catastrophe Theory of Aging

I try to bring together a number of elements from a number of other
aging theories to see if we can begin to reach a greater understanding.

First, lets assume the Free Radical theory of Aging which involves
various aspects of Mitochondrial damage and aging are correct.
[This explains why caloric restriction works.]

Second, lets assume you can't do too much about them because
radicals and/or other pro-oxidants (e.g. nitric oxide) are being
used as signal molecules (this may be somewhat controversial).

Third, lets assume that the free radicals lead to DNA mutations
(which is one way cancer develops) or worse leads to DNA double
strand breaks.  (Radiation and perhaps toxic substances in
food or the environment might contribute to this as well).

DNA double strand breaks are bad.  There are 3 possible
results:
 (a) Repair the break via the homologus recombination pathway.
 This can lead to "gene conversion" where a masked
 defective gene gets copied such that it becomes dominant.
 (so for example you may have a cell that can function well
  with one good and one bad p53 gene, if the bad p53 gene
  gets copied to where the good p53 gene once was you are
  in big trouble).  Net result: increased risk of cancer.

 (b) Repair the break via the non-homologus end-joining pathway.
 This appears to involve perhaps the Artemis protein and/or the
 Werner's Syndrome protein both of which seem to be exonucleases.
 Bottom line your DNA gets chewed up and you get a microdeletion
 during the repair.  Alternatively if you happen to have two
 double strand breaks at the same time the two chromosomes
 can get mispaired with the wrong chromosome.  This leads
 to several types of cancer.

 (a) and (b) are aspects of various "mutation" theories of aging.

 (c) Avoid repair by the cell committing apoptosis.
 In this case you lose cells and if the cells are not replaced
 by stem cells [which may themselves have damage from (a) or (b)]
 then you suffer a gradual loss of function.

The above seems to explain much of aging and cancer.

Now the problem gets worse.

If (b) goes on for long enough you will gradually accumulate
mutations in various (most probably different) genes in *ALL*
cells.  I.e. the genomic "program" that the cells require
to operate properly is gradually corrupted in random ways.

So gene expression may become defective in many various ways
in many cells (this incorporates the dysdifferentiation theory
of aging and perhaps aspects of the neuroendocrine theory of aging).

However if the mutations occur within genes rather than say
regulatory regions now you will probably have a protein
that will not fold properly.  This will probably be detected
and the protein will be degraded.  But the lack of a sufficient
quantity of these proteins will probably result in cellular
signals to make more of them.  But they or at least half of
them will not fold properly either.  Now both protein manufacture
and many types of protein degradation require energy (ATP).
So when the cells detect a decline in ATP (due to futile
synthesis and degradation of proteins) they may attempt to
increase energy production.  This might be through making the
mitochondria work harder or making more mitochondria.  In
either case the result of this will most probably be more
free radicals which feeds back into the start of this whole
process.  So over time cells will "age" increasingly faster.

Net result -- you get an exponential decline in function (i.e. aging).

So far I've only managed to imagine two solutions for this.
1. Develop better DNA repair processes that do not allow the genome
   to become corrupted.
2. Shift things to allow more apoptosis when DNA double strand breaks
   are detected but also increase the replacement rate by stem cells.

(1) is a reason to support the sequencing of the genomes of other
long lived species -- to see if they have figured out better
solutions to the problems outlined.  (For example we know that
Deinococcus radiodurans has better double strand break repair
but we do not fully understand this yet or know if it can be
applied to humans.

(2) is a reason to be very supportive of stem cell research.

Robert




From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Sat Apr  3 18:02:55 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 11:02:55 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Gun control [Australia]
Message-ID: <406EFC4F.2E984BCB@mindspring.com>

[Excellent perspectives from a knowledgeable OZ resident... -twc]


At 08:53 PM 2/04/2004 -0500, you wrote:
> >  >>>Either whoever wrote this is a bare-faced liar, or this is some
>special
> >gun-nut usage of "skyrocketed" to mean "reached their lowest level in two
> >decades, having fallen steadily since 1995".<<<
> >
> >A case if who to believe I guess.
>
>Not really. The claim was that "Britain has all but eradicated
>private gun ownership, and crime figures there have skyrocketed
>also." To reiterate, this isn't true.<<<
>
>
>Joe you may be correct, I'm not saying that you're wrong mind you.  I
>attached an article to the message, which you didn't address.  You just say
>it isn't true.  Here is another article.  I'm not even saying that the
>article is true.  All I'm saying is that different people are saying
>different things.  It's great that you say that it isn't true.  Other people
>say it is true.  What's the deal?    -Elliot

Elliot, with all due respect mate . . .

I can't comment on the English side of things, but I am qualified to 
comment on what that moron said about the Australian situation. Even if we 
discount the statistics (and, forgive me if I tend to believe official 
Bureau of Statistics data and the word of criminologists rather than folks 
who bury their guns and bibles in the backyard so thet'll have them when 
the One World Government takes over).

The comment is made that since the new gun laws were introduced into Oz, 
crime rates have gone up 600%. Now even official figures agree that 
reportage of crime has risen over the last 8 or so years (although I doubt 
the 600% figure), but these are all sorts of crime, the great majority of 
which don't involve violence or which wouldn't have been prevented by 
waving a firearm around. These people make these claims but fail to quote 
where their figures are coming from. The 600% is not from official 
government sources, but these sources are the only place you can get the 
information from.

Some local gun nuts claim that you can't rely on government sources. Fair 
enough, if they're the paranoid type I don't expect them to swallow what 
the Servants of the Gnomes of Zurich feed them. Instead they prefer to use 
much more reliable sources : they sift through the daily papers and count 
the number of crimes reported. All newspapers in Oz are either run by 
Murdoch or Fairfax. I don't think I need to go into too much detail here 
about the way newspapers operate, but suffice to say, keeping the 
pensioners scared about going down the shops is what sells papers.

Even if we accept that the stats this guy spews are true, there's a second, 
rather large assumption in operation here : the idea that Oz has suddenly 
become a lawless place because we are suddenly without a means to defend 
ourselves. This is typical (I'm sorry) US assumption that the rest of the 
world operates the way it thinks it operates. I'll say this again, like 
I've said it countless times before (and I'll say it in capitals so that 
the rationality challenged out there can get it) BEFORE THE PORT ARTHUR 
MASSACRE, HARDLY ANYONE IN OZ OWNED A GUN, LET ALONE CARRIED ONE
AROUND FOR 
PERSONAL PROTECTION. Firearms were the province of the minority of people 
who lived in rural areas, most of whom used them for legitimate tasks - the 
sort of things farmers use firearms for. In the capital cities (where the 
majority of violent crimes occur), firearm ownership was restricted to a 
small number of weekend warriors and sporting shooters. So according to the 
logic of this latest in the endless stream of US experts on the Oz firearm 
scene, crime in the city was kept in check before the gun buyback scheme 
because criminals were afraid that a bunch of good ole boys would jump in 
the ute and drive the 5 or so hours from Thargomindah to give them a 
whuppin'. Police response times are slow, but . . .

As I said in my previous letter, handguns were always illegal in Oz, so the 
gun buyback would not have had any effect on the crime rate due to the 
presence of pistols - the only folks who had them were the legitimate 
license holders (sporting shooters and the like) and the criminals. After 
the gun buyback, the only folks who have pistols are, surprise, surprise, 
the sporting shooters and the criminals.

I'm writing this from the persepective of someone who has spent all his 
life in Australia (barring short visits to Malaysia, Thailand, New Zealand, 
the UK and France). I have a bit more perspective on this topic than 
someone who has gathered his data from the Oz conspiracy rags. During this 
time I have had contact with the shooting lobby, through my work with the 
wild game meat industry. One of the things that surprised me the most about 
the whole gun buyback thing was how it was universally supported by the 
great majority of responsible shooters. They were, as were we all, 
horrified by the events at Port Arthur. The saw yet another example of how 
their hobby or their livelihood was being dragged through the mud by one 
more isolated incident, an incident which would have more than likely been 
prevented by the restriction of certain types of firearms and more 
stringent checks on who can access firearms.

One thing that really struck me was a conversation I had with professional 
kangaroo shooters. This one bloke said he thanked God for the day the 
government brought in the new restrictions because it made his job so much 
easier. Kangaroos killed for meat are shot and butchered in the field. 
Because they are not killed by the normal abattoir method of the retained 
bolt gun, shooters get more money if they sell a carcase with no bullet 
wounds in the meat sections - the kangaroos are killed by a single shot to 
the head (makes for a nightmarish trip through the loading dock, I can tell 
you). A semi- or even fully automatic weapon is useless in these 
circumstances. However, this guy said that the place is so much safer now 
there are fewer weekend Rambos spraying the countryside with showers of 
lead, and fewer kangaroos coming in with festering bullet wounds which make 
them useless for sale.

I'm sure we can all come up with articles which support or debunk the 
terrible slide that Oz has faced since 1996. Myself, I'm halfway through my 
second bottle of homebrew stout and way beyond caring. Elliot's point 
(forgive my presumption) appeared to be that there seems to be two side to 
the story. Here's the way I see it : you can consider the testimony of 
someone who actually lives in the country mentioned, someone who has 
friends who are shooters and who once worked on an industry which relied on 
shooters, or alternatively you can believe someone from outside the country 
who has a particular barrow to push, who thinks that the only way to stop 
his country from making a terrible mistake is to spread horror stories from 
a remote, hard to verify source who only turns up on the local news when 
one of its khaki clad ambassadors dangles a baby in front of a large 
predatory reptile.

In the meantime, if I can raise a contrasting conspiracy, the real causes 
of crime - poverty induced by casualisation of the workforce, the erosion 
of workers rights and a drop in real wages - are continuing to increase 
under the tutelage of the same conservative leader who brought in the new 
gun regime. How he must love to have a bunch of fellow travellers put all 
the blame on a lack of guns - it'll let him get on with all the important 
things.

We're Forteans folks - we consider all the evidence presented, but we 
examine it all with a critical eye. Dodgy data needs to be ridiculed and 
put in its proper place. Otherwise, here's an alternative viewpoint which I 
fully expect to be given equal time : I declare myself rightful lord of 
this corner of the galaxy and demand tribute from all who dwell within. 
Please make out all cheques to . . .

peter

move over Sloanie - there's a new curmudgeon in town 


-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Vietnam veterans,
Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sat Apr  3 18:05:16 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 10:05:16 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ultra-compact dwarfs found lurking
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040402234123.01bafec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404030950510.2380-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, Damien Broderick wrote:

> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9167448%255E29098,00.html
[snip]

> Follow-up observations with the Hubble Space Telescope and the European
> Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope revealed that while Ultra
> Compact Dwarfs have masses similar to those of previously known dwarf
> galaxies, they are much smaller -- about 120 light years across.
>
> "Tens of millions of stars are squashed into what is a tiny volume by
> galaxy standards," the observatory said in a statement.
>
> ===============
>
> Get excited, Robert!  :)

I will admit its going to stimulate some interesting thoughts on
the parts of myself, Anders, Milan, etc.  But you are talking
a navigational nightmare in the long run.  If just a few of the
stars start running into each other and producing a black hole
that eats other stars the whole thing could go "poof" in a very
short period of time.  Joshua Barnes was an astronomy student
that I knew back in my Harvard days.  He liked to do nothing but
model galaxies.  Perhaps I'll ask him what he thinks the lifetime
of these should be expected to be.

Now on the other hand one could start to speculate as to whether
going "poof" is intentional if they have figured out how to do
it usefully...  I don't do discussions of alternate universes
but you are certainly welcome to...

R.




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Apr  3 18:37:31 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 12:37:31 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] ultra-compact dwarfs found lurking
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404030950510.2380-100000@server.aeiveos.com
 >
References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040402234123.01bafec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0404030950510.2380-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040403122915.01b20ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 10:05 AM 4/3/2004 -0800, Robert wrote:

> > "Tens of millions of stars are squashed into what is a tiny volume by
> > galaxy standards," the observatory said in a statement.


>If just a few of the
>stars start running into each other and producing a black hole
>that eats other stars the whole thing could go "poof" in a very
>short period of time.

I've never understood this idea. If you have a standard binary system, it's 
effectively as massive (in its impact on stars at a decent distance) as a 
stellar hole that's eaten a neighboring star, surely? It's not as if 
collapsed stars go around *prowling* for other stars to eat, or their 
terrible force field reaches out and drags in distant objects... well, no 
more than any other large stellar mass. Is it not so?

What interested me about the UCDs is that the stars seem to average about a 
tenth of the distance from each other as in our neck of the woods. 
(Counting on my fingers again.) That has to be an interesting place if life 
starts up there. But really I was hinting at... a possible history of... 
*cosmic shepherding*...)

Damien Broderick




From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Apr  3 19:02:45 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 11:02:45 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] ultra-compact dwarfs found lurking
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040403122915.01b20ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <000101c419ae$40077150$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


> Damien Broderick

> >If just a few of the
> >stars start running into each other and producing a black hole
> >that eats other stars the whole thing could go "poof" in a very
> >short period of time.
> 
> I've never understood this idea. If you have a standard 
> binary system, it's effectively as massive (in its impact on 
> stars at a decent distance) as a 
> stellar hole that's eaten a neighboring star, surely?


That's right: at a reasonable distance a black hole is
gravitationally the same as a tight binary or multiple 
system of ordinary stars.  The way writers describe black 
holes can sometimes be misleading.  Galaxies could contain
jillions of black holes and still be stable, all 
continuing in their collectively serene march about
the center of the galaxy.  This confused me many years
ago when I heard theories about the galactic centers
possibly containing large numbers of black holes, for
I wondered why they wouldn't just combine to form one biggie.
So I worked out the orbit mechanics and convinced myself
that such a system could be stable for eons.  spike 




From Steve365 at btinternet.com  Sat Apr  3 20:44:55 2004
From: Steve365 at btinternet.com (Steve Davies)
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 21:44:55 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Gun control [was Re: the road
	tohell]
References: <20040403113039.66297.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <001b01c419bc$87cf91d0$aac27ad5@oemcomputer>

Mike Lorrey said

> Yes, even within the British government (even to the point of different
> stats on different sheets in the same exact Excel file). The British
> Crime Survey, which surveys British subjects about their experiences
> with crime, reports a decrease in crime. However, the actual crime
> reported in the Crime Index (buried on sheet 3) shows a vast increase
> in actual crimes. See:
>
> Actual reported crime:
> http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/703chap3.xls
>
> "BCS Crime":
> http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/701chap3.xls
>
> Total violent crime has risen from 331,000+ in 1998-99 to over 991,000+
> in 2003. Homicides have risen from 750 to 1,048 in the same time
> period. Total property crime has risen from over 4 million to over 4.6
> million. Total crime has risen from 4.5 million to 5.9 million.
>
> In response, the Home Office has instituted a 'crime reduction' program
> which does nothing but tweak the stats by reporting multiple crimes by
> one perp on one day as one crime. The BCS survey also cherry picks
> certain crime categories, rather than the more complete Crime Index.
> Homicides of any kind, for example, are not included in the BCS.
>
The two sets of figures have very different sources. The official Home
Office statistics, compiled annually, are the result of combining figures
for all crimes 'known to' or 'reported to' the various police forces and a
few other agencies such as Customs. As such they provide a picture of the
working of the criminal justice system and of the state of crime as known to
the institutions of the CJS. However the big problem is that they don't
include the 'dark figure' of crime that has happened but not been reported
or otherwise become known to the police at al. In response to this the
British Crime Survey was started in 1981. It is the result of a survey
carried out every other year by the Office of Population Censuses and
Surveys, of a large and representative sample of the general public. The
basic question is "Have you personally been the victim of a crime in the
last 12 months ?" Might explain why homicide isn't there? :) The figures
from the BCS are actually more accurate than the Home Office stats because
they are less affected by the 'Dark Figure' problem. One of the things the
BCS made clear when it began was that the official statistics seriously
understated the rise in crime that was going on in the 1980s/early 1990s
because the reporting rates for many crimes were revealed to be extremely
low (particularly for assault, aggravated assault and criminal damage). The
reporting rates for several crimes have gone up in the last ten years,
mainly due to insurance rules (e.g burglary, robbery). The nonsense Mike
refers to of counting all crimes perpetrated by one offender on a given day
as a single crime (so long as they're in the same 'class' - there are five
'classes') stopped this year, in response to pressure from the EU (that's
why there appears to be a big increase in certain types of crime in the last
six months). It wasn't new, the Home Office has been recording crime in this
daft way since the 1920s. If you look at the more accurate BCS figures the
pattern is that there has been a decline in most kinds of property crime
since 1995. However there has been a big rise in violent crime over the same
period (proportionally it remains the case that the great majority of crime
is property offences of various kinds). As well as a big rise in homicide,
there's been an even bigger one in common assault, aggravated assault,
assault and battery, wounding and robbery. Britain's per capita rates for
these kinds of crime are now higher than the US rates and much higher than
the rates for historically low crime regions such as New England. Part of
this is cyclical - violent crime rises during periods of economic growth and
declines during slumps (property crime has the opposite pattern) but the
increase is well above the historic trend. Another reason is the disastrous
effects of the 'War on drugs' - the case in Salford may have been a
'business dispute' - we had a fatal shooting of that kind just around the
corner from where I live, a couple of streets away. The other reason is the
one alluded to, not so much control of guns (that has been strict ever since
it was introduced in 1922) as the way the historic right of self-defense has
been construed in ever more limited terms in the last ten years, regardless
of what you use. The pressure for this does NOT come from politicians btw,
it comes from the professionals of the CJS (lawyers, judges, prosecutors,
police). The final factor is the unbelievable ineptitude and incompetence of
the police and other law enforcement agencies. You would not believe how bad
it is until you've experienced it yourself.




From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Sat Apr  3 21:33:33 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 14:33:33 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] FWD Re: Gun control [Australia]
Message-ID: <406F2DAD.9B05CC69@mindspring.com>

. . . and might I add, a quick google on crime stats in Australia landed me 
with this gem from Snopes, who was probably a lot more sober than I when he 
wrote this :

< http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp >

peter


-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Vietnam veterans,
Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Apr  3 22:14:25 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 16:14:25 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: blah snip: Gun control [Australia]
In-Reply-To: <406F2DAD.9B05CC69@mindspring.com>
References: <406F2DAD.9B05CC69@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040403161129.01b6fec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 02:33 PM 4/3/2004 -0700, peter wrote to some other list entirely:

>. . . and might I add, a quick google on crime stats in Australia landed me
>with this gem from Snopes, who was probably a lot more sober than I when he
>wrote this :
>
>< http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp >

Indeed. Additionally, one might consult the underlying population stats:

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs at .nsf/0/b52c3903d894336dca2568a9001393c1?OpenDocument

which don't explain everything, but do need to be taken into account when 
anyone claims that X has risen (in raw numbers, not proportionally) by Y%.

Damien Broderick 




From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Sat Apr  3 22:27:51 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 23:27:51 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Gun control [was Re: the road
	tohell]
Message-ID: <406F3A67.2000708@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

On Sat Apr 3 13:44:55 MST 2004 Steve Davies wrote:
> snip - lots of good stuff about British crime statistics.

The complete report is at:
<http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0203.html>

The thing is 'Violent Crime' in this report has a very British meaning
where in half the cases no physical harm at all was done to victims.
'Violent crimes' can involve actual violence, the threat of violence or
simple harassment.
27% were common assaults and 14% harassment, both of which involve no
physical injury to the victim.
Many of the 35% 'less serious woundings' are Friday and Saturday night
punch-ups resulting from the current predeliction for binge drinking
among the younger age group.

30% of all 'violent' street crime is kids nicking mobile phones off each
other.

The risk of becoming a victim of crime remains at an historic low
according to the BCS, one-third lower than the risk in 1995.



So a few drunken punches that are called 'crimes' in Britain would not
even be noticed by the USA cops. (I've seen what goes on in country and
western bars in the US films).  :)


BillK





From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sun Apr  4 01:34:40 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 17:34:40 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ultra-compact dwarfs found lurking
In-Reply-To: <000101c419ae$40077150$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404031717170.12935-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Spike,

Re:
> So I worked out the orbit mechanics and convinced myself
> that such a system could be stable for eons.  spike

*But* when you are talking *millions* of stars you are
talking what I believe has been traditionally called a
"many body problem".  There is just enough chaos that
if you wait long enough "shit will happen".

This is the same idea behind Jupiter sticking its fingers
into the solar system just enough to be hurling comets
out of it or into the Sun.  And then you have gradual
influences on the asteroid belt.  We are just fortunate
that most of this happened long before we got here.
But I've never seen anything that indicates we've got
a good simulation capability for all of the Near Earth Objects
that have been discovered to know when the heck we are going
to get whacked next.  I do know there are lots of estimates
floating around.  But they are based mostly on statistics
and not actually knowing when something might get shifted
just enough to send humanity the way of the dinosaurs.
With "many body problems" the computational requirements
to predict precisely what will happen go up *very* fast
as you increase the number of bodies involved.

In a low density system one can hope that things will be
stable for a long time.  In a high density system that
may not be the case.

Go watch Armageddon -- and be very afraid.

Robert




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sun Apr  4 01:42:45 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 17:42:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ultra-compact dwarfs found lurking
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040403122915.01b20ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404031736280.12935-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Sat, 3 Apr 2004, Damien Broderick wrote:

> That has to be an interesting place if life starts up there.

Ah, but there is the rub -- in the pre-shepherding days if
there are a lot of gamma-ray bursts due to star collisions and
related astro phenomena things are going to be very tough on life.
One could probably get around it with nanotech (which can rebuild
things very fast) but I wouldn't be placing bets on biotech as we
know most of it.

> But really I was hinting at... a possible history of...
> *cosmic shepherding*...)

Understood.  But these guys are going to have to be the best
pool hustlers in the Universe to get this right.

But I do agree -- it would make a cool novel.

Robert




From starman2100 at cableone.net  Sun Apr  4 02:22:51 2004
From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net)
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 19:22:51 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Century City cancelled
Message-ID: <1081045371_73441@mail.cableone.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040403/0e7b8522/attachment.html>

From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Apr  4 02:37:24 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 12:37:24 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures idea game (was Nano-assembler feasibility
	- politics)
References: <200403292023.i2TKNbC03558@finney.org>
Message-ID: <010901c419ed$c35c0db0$a52f2dcb@homepc>

Hal Finney wrote:
> For reference, the FX idea futures game predicts around 
> 2023-2025 for the date of awarding the Feynman Grand Prize,
> which requires the construction of a couple of small nanotech-type
> devices, http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=FyGP .

I checked out the FX idea futures game. A nice idea but so far the
money doesn't seem to be real.  That's a shame. Wonder what the
current impediments to further development are?
 
Regards,
Brett Paatsch

  



 












From support at imminst.org  Sun Apr  4 05:34:31 2004
From: support at imminst.org (support at imminst.org)
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 23:34:31 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] ImmInst Update - Cryonics Legislation Withdrawn
Message-ID: <406f9e671bb20@imminst.org>

Immortality Institute ~ For Infinite Lifespans 
********************* 
Ending the Blight of Involuntary Death 
Basic Members: 1381 - Full Members: 73 


Chat: Quantum Mechanics & Immortality
********************* 
AI researcher and ImmInst Full Member, Allan F. Randall 
joins ImmInst to discuss how quantum mechanics may 
allow for the possibility of immortality. 
Chat - Sunday Apr 4 @ 8 PM Eastern 
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=63&t=3202&s=


AZ Cryonics Legislation Withdrawn
********************* 
President of Alcor, Joe Waynick, thanks supporters 
by saying, "The grassroots support from our membership 
and supporters that poured out in such forceful torrents 
certainly put us on the map, if not only in the hearts and 
minds of the legislature. Thank you!"
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=61&t=3383


Sociology of Transhumanism 
********************* 
Admirable discussion between FutureHi.net 
founder, Paul Hughes (planetp) and ImmInst 
Director, Michael Anissimov. 
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=1&t=3381


We are not living in a simulation 
********************* 
Masters degree in applied physics from the 
Technical University of Delft and owner of 
Sturman Enterprises, Henry R. Sturman gives 
eight reasons why he thinks we are not living 
in a simulation. 
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=67&t=3402


"Facing" Cryonics 
********************* 
Up to 26 faces: http://www.imminst.org/facing_cryonics


Support ImmInst 
********************* 
http://www.imminst.org/become_imminst_fullmember






To be removed from all of our mailing lists, click here:
http://www.imminst.org/archive/mailinglists/mailinglists.php?p=mlist&rem=extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org


From trans_humanism at msn.com  Sun Apr  4 15:06:33 2004
From: trans_humanism at msn.com (Tyler Emerson)
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 10:06:33 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] SIAI volunteer meeting today at 7 PM EST
Message-ID: <BAY4-F32rpZp3envHyn0001b0ef@hotmail.com>

The Singularity Institute's weekly volunteer meeting is this Sunday at 7 PM 
EST (GMT-5).

The IRC chat server is sl4.org, port 6667; chat room #siaiv. The online 
applet is irc://singinst.org/siaiv

We'll have short introductions for newcomers and seek commitment from 
volunteers for specific work.

This meeting's focus is brainstorming for our online advocacy campaign. An 
announcement of the campaign's details and needs will be sent in April.

To clear any confusion about timezones, see 
http://www.time.gov/timezone.cgi?Eastern/d/-5/

Please feel welcomed if you've an interest in supporting the organization 
and community.

Take care everyone.

--
Tyler Emerson                                http://www.singinst.org/
Executive Director, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence

_________________________________________________________________
Free up your inbox with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! Multiple plans available. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=hotmail/es2&ST=1/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Apr  4 15:22:23 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 08:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ultra-compact dwarfs found lurking
In-Reply-To: <000101c419ae$40077150$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20040404152223.57222.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>

"[extropy-chat] ultra-compact dwarfs found lurking..."

Well, now we have someplace to send all those amputated midget female
astronauts Spike likes to talk about, once they've finished colonizing Mars...

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/


From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sun Apr  4 15:35:08 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 11:35:08 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures idea game (was Nano-assembler feasibility
	- politics)
In-Reply-To: <010901c419ed$c35c0db0$a52f2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <A79ABD34-864D-11D8-A297-000A27960BC6@HarveyNewstrom.com>


> Hal Finney wrote:
>> For reference, the FX idea futures game predicts around
>> 2023-2025 for the date of awarding the Feynman Grand Prize,
>> which requires the construction of a couple of small nanotech-type
>> devices, http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=FyGP .

For reference, the FX ideas futures game predicted all of the following 
around 1996-2003:

Terrorists would attack the 1996 Olympic games and kill at least some 
athletes.
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=OLAT>
Governor Christine Todd Whitman would be the republican VP nominee 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=NJVP>
Colin Powell will run for President 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=CPfP>
US will restrict melatonin 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=MelX>
Dole will beat Clinton for President 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=dole>
Presidential assassination attempt 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=As97>
Original Star Wars rereleased in theatres 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=SW1b>
Mac clone sales outnumber Mac sales 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=MacC>
Communist Chinese government overthrown 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=DENG>
Big Bang theory disproven 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=Bust>
Sustained military conflict between US and China 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=ChUS>
MiniDisks will outsell CDs 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=MdCd>
US Flat Tax <http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=TAXX>
Netscape wins browser war 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=NSWN>
Same-sex marriages legal in most US states 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=SSma>
Terrorists have nuclear weapons 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=Terr>
OJ pays $1 million <http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=OJpay>
UFOs proven real <http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=UFOx>
Automated sports umpire instead of human 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=eUmp>
Newt Gingrich runs for president 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=NG2K>
Hillary Clinton runs for president 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=HClOff>
25% of phones are ISDN 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=ISDN>
Non-Intel PCs dominate market 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=NIPC>
Unix irrelevent <http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=UNIX>
More constitutional amendments 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=Am30>
Space shuttle using magnetic flux propulsion 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=NASA>
Steve Jobs leaves Apple 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=NoJobs>
Radio pulse replaces standard radio 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=PlsCom>
Single stage rocket to orbit 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=SSTO>
Linda Tripp goes to jail 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=TRIPP>
Another major 9/11-style attack within US 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=Terr02>
China breaks up <http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=ChBr>
10,000 people cryonically frozen 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=Cryo>
Mammal cryonically frozen and revived 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=cryoni>
US Balanced Budget <http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=BB2002>
US Balanced Budget with Republican President 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=BBRP>
Clintons divorce <http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=Bilary>
New Korean war <http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=KorWar>
Condit indicted in Levy case 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=Condit>
New dollar bill <http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=$bill>
Hemp legalized in 25% of states 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=He25>
100,000 SARS cases <http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=sarspd>
Donald Rumsfeld out 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=Rmsfld>
Ecstasy decriminalized 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=MDMAUK>

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec 
Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>



From alito at organicrobot.com  Sun Apr  4 16:11:21 2004
From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky)
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 02:11:21 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures idea game (was Nano-assembler
	feasibility - politics)
In-Reply-To: <A79ABD34-864D-11D8-A297-000A27960BC6@HarveyNewstrom.com>
References: <A79ABD34-864D-11D8-A297-000A27960BC6@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <1081095081.31263.7.camel@www.localhost.com>

On Sun, 2004-04-04 at 11:35 -0400, Harvey Newstrom wrote:

> > Hal Finney wrote:
> >> For reference, the FX idea futures game predicts around
> >> 2023-2025 for the date of awarding the Feynman Grand Prize,
> >> which requires the construction of a couple of small nanotech-type
> >> devices, http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=FyGP .
> 
> For reference, the FX ideas futures game predicted all of the following 
> around 1996-2003:
> 
Don't know what your definition of 'predicted' is Harvey, but most of
the ones in the list i've checked (i've only checked about 15-20), never
got above 50%, or started high and dropped much before the actual due
date of the bet.  Some never even made it past 20%.  I think it more
accurate to say 'the FX ideas futures games predicted that the following
things would NOT happen':

Notes:  only two out of the ones i checked (Unix irrelevant, and Powell
for president) did they get it obviously wrong.  Also, one (Netscape
wins) was correct by the definitions of the bet.

alejandro



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Apr  4 16:06:22 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 09:06:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Gun control [was Re: the road
	tohell]
In-Reply-To: <001b01c419bc$87cf91d0$aac27ad5@oemcomputer>
Message-ID: <20040404160622.67325.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Steve Davies <Steve365 at btinternet.com> wrote:
> In response to this the British Crime Survey was started in 1981.
> It is the result of a survey carried out every other year by the
> Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, of a large and
> representative sample of the general public. The basic question
> is "Have you personally been the victim of a crime in the
> last 12 months ?" Might explain why homicide isn't there? :)

Homicide victims include more than just the dead person, family members
are also victims, as they've been robbed of their family member.

> The figures from the BCS are actually more accurate than the Home
> Office stats because they are less affected by the 'Dark Figure'
> problem. 

No, not really. The state steals my money every week as 'taxes'. To me
that is theft, and therefore a crime. The state doesn't think so. I
would report it as a crime on such a survey if given a chance, one
theft for each paycheck. Similarly, anti-capital types would claim they
were ripped off by various commercial enterprises. In Britain, in
particular, if you prevent a robber from stealing your property, he
will report your act as 'stealing' from him. If you defended yourself
from a criminal, your act of defense is reported by the criminal in
crime surveys as a 'crime'.

The Survey asks if you THINK you were a victim of a crime. It does
nothing to test the perception of crime for validity.

Now, what I find so incredibly amusing here, is that you are asserting
the greater validity of a crime survey vs reported crime indexes, when
you, and those others claiming British crime has gone down, do not
attach similar credence to crime surveys conducted here in the US WRT
defensive gun use. Surveys show 2-2.5 million defensive gun uses per
year. If you are going to demand one survey is accurate, you must
accept that the other is also accurate.

Another amusing thing is the whole point you are missing:

If the British Crime Index crime rates are already 2-8 times higher
than those here in New Hampshire, and BCS crime rates are 2-3 times
higher than Index crimes, and even with a moderate drop in BCS crime
rates, they are still MANY times higher than rates here in NH, then it
only REINFORCES my original point.

> The nonsense Mike refers to of counting all crimes perpetrated by
> one offender on a given day as a single crime (so long as they're
> in the same 'class' - there are five 'classes') stopped this year,
> in response to pressure from the EU (that's why there appears to
> be a big increase in certain types of crime in the last six months).

I counted 2003 statistics. The Home Office only stopped this policy in
Jan, 2004.

> It wasn't new, the Home Office has been recording crime in this
> daft way since the 1920s. If you look at the more accurate BCS
> figures the pattern is that there has been a decline in most kinds
> of property crime since 1995.

The property crime rate there is still many times higher than it is
here.

> However there has been a big rise in violent crime over the same
> period (proportionally it remains the case that the great majority of
> crime is property offences of various kinds). As well as a big rise
in
> homicide, there's been an even bigger one in common assault,
> aggravated assault, assault and battery, wounding and robbery.
> Britain's per capita rates for these kinds of crime are now higher
> than the US rates and much higher than the rates for historically
> low crime regions such as New England.

Northern New England, sir. Crime rates in New York, Massachusetts and
Rhode Island are on par with other high gun control areas of the US.
NH, VT, and ME crime rates have been lower than our neighbors for a
very specific reason.

> Part of this is cyclical - violent crime rises during periods of
> economic growth and declines during slumps (property crime has the
> opposite pattern) but the increase is well above the historic trend.
> Another reason is the disastrous effects of the 'War on drugs' -
> the case in Salford may have been a 'business dispute' - we had a
> fatal shooting of that kind just around the corner from where I
> live, a couple of streets away. The other reason is the one alluded
> to, not so much control of guns (that has been strict ever since
> it was introduced in 1922)

While registration was instituted in 1922 (which coincides with the
beginning of the great rise in violent and property crime in Britain
all through the 20th century), it is the near-total gun ban instituted
in the mid 1990's, as well as the policy that makes it a crime to
defend one's self, even in one's home, with what limited firearms are
available, that have resulted in the truly significant rise in reported
crime. The rise in reported crime also includes law abiding people
defending themselves who are criminalized by the system.

I would say that the likely cause of the dovetailing of reported vs
survey crime rates in Britain is likely a result of the ubiquitous
surveillance being instituted: a crime recorded by police on video is
definitely going to be reported by the police, if only to help increase
next year's budget, while a property owner who is surrendered to the
total lack of respect for private property in Britain won't report an
unobserved theft because he or she knows the police will never do
anything to retreive his or her property, and may even cite the
property owner for not properly securing his or her property, thus
'abetting' crime.

Some individuals may be reporting more crime if only because they want
more police cameras viewing their property.

> as the way the historic right of self-defense has
> been construed in ever more limited terms in the last ten years,
> regardless of what you use. The pressure for this does NOT come
> from politicians btw, it comes from the professionals of the CJS
> (lawyers, judges, prosecutors, police). The final factor is the
> unbelievable ineptitude and incompetence of
> the police and other law enforcement agencies. You would not believe
> how bad it is until you've experienced it yourself.

I believe it. Our police are bad enough here. This is why we are,
hopefully, going to strip them of the authority to control and be aware
of who can carry concealed. They can't even administer the licensing
process legally as it is today.

"Police are not required to know the law." - Judge Cirone, Lebanon
District Court, NH, September, 2003

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/


From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Sun Apr  4 16:27:23 2004
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 18:27:23 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ultra-compact dwarfs found lurking
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404031717170.12935-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404031717170.12935-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0404041826140.3171@hercules>

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>Go watch Armageddon -- and be very afraid.

Yeah, afraid that someone could think about making another movie like that
one... just about every single bit of astronomy in Armageddon is wrong.

For some examples see:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/movies/armpitageddon.html

Alfio


From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sun Apr  4 16:42:46 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 12:42:46 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures idea game (was Nano-assembler feasibility
	- politics)
In-Reply-To: <1081095081.31263.7.camel@www.localhost.com>
Message-ID: <1A4B70CD-8657-11D8-BCFA-000A27960BC6@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Sunday, April 4, 2004, at 12:11 pm, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote:

> On Sun, 2004-04-04 at 11:35 -0400, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
>>> Hal Finney wrote:
>>>> For reference, the FX idea futures game predicts around
>>>> 2023-2025 for the date of awarding the Feynman Grand Prize,
>>>> which requires the construction of a couple of small nanotech-type
>>>> devices, http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=FyGP .
>>
>> For reference, the FX ideas futures game predicted all of the 
>> following
>> around 1996-2003:
>>
> Don't know what your definition of 'predicted' is Harvey, but most of
> the ones in the list i've checked (i've only checked about 15-20), 
> never
> got above 50%,

The "prediction" given by Hal is around 20%.  I chose other claims that 
were "predicted" at the same or higher level.  You are absolutely right 
that these are not good thresholds.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec 
Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Apr  4 16:52:22 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 09:52:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: blah snip: Gun control [Australia]
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040403161129.01b6fec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20040404165222.85377.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 02:33 PM 4/3/2004 -0700, peter wrote to some other list entirely:
> 
> >. . . and might I add, a quick google on crime stats in Australia
> landed me
> >with this gem from Snopes, who was probably a lot more sober than I
> when he
> >wrote this :
> >
> >< http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp >
> 
> Indeed. Additionally, one might consult the underlying population
> stats:
> 
>
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs at .nsf/0/b52c3903d894336dca2568a9001393

c1?OpenDocument
> 
> which don't explain everything, but do need to be taken into account
> when 
> anyone claims that X has risen (in raw numbers, not proportionally)
> by Y%.

>From the snopes article:
"The ABS does report that the number of assaults on victims aged 65 and
over has increased over the last few years, but hardly in a proportion
one would describe as "dramatic": 

Number of victims of assault aged 65 and over: 
1996 - 1474 
1997 - 1662   (12.8% increase from previous year) 
1998 - 1663   (0.06% increase from previous year) 
1999 - 1793   (7.8% increase from previous year) "

I am rather shocked that a 21% increase in one type of crime is not
seen as 'dramatic'.

Also look at:
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs%40.nsf/e8ae5488b598839cca25682000131612/76c8926bd8a12e1fca2568a9001393f2!OpenDocument

Where the Murder/manslaughter rate for Australia is 1.8 per 100,000,
which is double the rate here in NH.

Lets look at them all, AU vs NH:

                 Vio-  Ppty   Mrdr/                              Mtr
      Pop. Crime lent  crime  n-neg. Frc.      Agg.        Larc  Vhcl.
           Index Crime        manslt rape Rbry asslt Burg. thft  thft 
NH
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tot. 1.28M 28306 2056  26250  12     446  413  1185  4838  19468 1944  

rate/
100k       2220  161.2 2058.7 0.9    35.0 32.4 92.9  379.4 1526.8 152.5



AU
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tot 19.9M 1.39M  179K  1.2M   363   17851 21k  160k  293k  679k   113k

rate/
100k      6979  900.6 6078.7  1.83  89.8 105.4 802.5 1983  3418  570.3

It appears that the ONLY categories where Australia's crime rates are
even as close as double New Hampshire's crime rates are larceny theft
and murder/manslaughter. The rest range from 3-7 times higher than NH's
crime rates.
 



=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Apr  4 16:57:14 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 09:57:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Gun control [was Re: the road
	tohell]
In-Reply-To: <406F3A67.2000708@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20040404165714.7251.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>


--- BillK <bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat Apr 3 13:44:55 MST 2004 Steve Davies wrote:
> > snip - lots of good stuff about British crime statistics.
> 
> The complete report is at:
> <http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0203.html>
> 
>  
> So a few drunken punches that are called 'crimes' in Britain would
> not even be noticed by the USA cops. (I've seen what goes on in
> country and western bars in the US films).  :)

Typical "US movies are US reality". You are making excuses and
downplaying real crimes. A kid getting bullied out of his cellphone is
as much a crime, and a violent one, as mobsters extorting protection
money.

Your perception of what goes on in US big cities is not what is being
discussed. Someone made the assertion that gun control has no impact on
crime. NH, being a state with one of the most liberalized gun laws in
the country (and getting more liberalized), has crime rates
demonstrably lower, not by a few tens of percents, but by several
hundred percents.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/


From alito at organicrobot.com  Sun Apr  4 17:45:12 2004
From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky)
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 03:45:12 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures idea game (was Nano-assembler
	feasibility - politics)
In-Reply-To: <1A4B70CD-8657-11D8-BCFA-000A27960BC6@HarveyNewstrom.com>
References: <1A4B70CD-8657-11D8-BCFA-000A27960BC6@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <1081100712.13969.11.camel@www.localhost.com>

On Sun, 2004-04-04 at 12:42 -0400, Harvey Newstrom wrote:

> On Sunday, April 4, 2004, at 12:11 pm, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 2004-04-04 at 11:35 -0400, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> >
> >>> Hal Finney wrote:
> >>>> For reference, the FX idea futures game predicts around
> >>>> 2023-2025 for the date of awarding the Feynman Grand Prize,
> >>>> which requires the construction of a couple of small nanotech-type
> >>>> devices, http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=FyGP .
> >>
> >> For reference, the FX ideas futures game predicted all of the 
> >> following
> >> around 1996-2003:
> >>
> > Don't know what your definition of 'predicted' is Harvey, but most of
> > the ones in the list i've checked (i've only checked about 15-20), 
> > never
> > got above 50%,
> 
> The "prediction" given by Hal is around 20%.  I chose other claims that 
> were "predicted" at the same or higher level.  You are absolutely right 
> that these are not good thresholds.

No, you are misreading the bet.  The bet pays x cents where the feynman
prize is claimed on the year 2000 + x, so the fact that the bet is at
21-25% means that market beleives the prize will be claimed between
2021-2025.

alejandro





From eugen at leitl.org  Sun Apr  4 18:01:43 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 20:01:43 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures idea game (was Nano-assembler feasibility
	- politics)
In-Reply-To: <1081100712.13969.11.camel@www.localhost.com>
References: <1A4B70CD-8657-11D8-BCFA-000A27960BC6@HarveyNewstrom.com>
	<1081100712.13969.11.camel@www.localhost.com>
Message-ID: <20040404180143.GC28136@leitl.org>

On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 03:45:12AM +1000, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote:

> No, you are misreading the bet.  The bet pays x cents where the feynman
> prize is claimed on the year 2000 + x, so the fact that the bet is at
> 21-25% means that market beleives the prize will be claimed between
> 2021-2025.

Color me clueless, I never understood what the point of idea futures was.
Clearly the market can't predict better than single individuals, I can also blow my
money on the roulette wheel, and with better odds at that probably.

Getting people interested in their future?
Creating a future mirage enticing enough to invest? 

Somebody please tell me.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040404/366668aa/attachment.bin>

From alito at organicrobot.com  Sun Apr  4 18:51:53 2004
From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky)
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 04:51:53 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures idea game (was Nano-assembler
	feasibility - politics)
In-Reply-To: <20040404180143.GC28136@leitl.org>
References: <1A4B70CD-8657-11D8-BCFA-000A27960BC6@HarveyNewstrom.com>
	<1081100712.13969.11.camel@www.localhost.com>
	<20040404180143.GC28136@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <1081104712.31260.24.camel@www.localhost.com>

On Sun, 2004-04-04 at 20:01 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 03:45:12AM +1000, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote:
> 
> > No, you are misreading the bet.  The bet pays x cents where the feynman
> > prize is claimed on the year 2000 + x, so the fact that the bet is at
> > 21-25% means that market beleives the prize will be claimed between
> > 2021-2025.
> 
> Color me clueless, I never understood what the point of idea futures was.
> Clearly the market can't predict better than single individuals, 

What it was, I think (but i've never read any of Hanson's (or anyone
else that is relevant's) papers so weigh accordingly), was (partially?)
to find out if what you think to be so clearly true is so.  (maybe (my
hypothesis about their hypothesis), good individual predictors exist and
positive feedback, given by points on correct past predictions, gives
them more points to affect future prices which would therefore be more
accurate, if above named good predictors exist)
What it is for most people, my guess, is a game just like chess, quake,
c&c generals, or football.  I play it when i'm reminded of it about it
about once every two years.  Quite entertaining, but slow for an action
game.

> I can also blow my
> money on the roulette wheel, and with better odds at that probably.
> 
No money in the ideasfutures.com version.  But it's a zero sum game, so
better odds than the roulette.

> Getting people interested in their future?

Also, but unlikely to appeal to anyone who wasn't part of the choir to
begin with

alejandro



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Apr  4 19:18:35 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 14:18:35 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: blah snip: Gun control [Australia]
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040404140424.01bffec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 09:52 AM 4/4/2004 -0700, Mike wrote:

>It appears that the ONLY categories where Australia's crime rates are
>even as close as double New Hampshire's crime rates are larceny theft
>and murder/manslaughter. The rest range from 3-7 times higher than NH's
>crime rates.... the Murder/manslaughter rate for Australia is 1.8 per 100,000,
>which is double the rate here in NH.


This is very silly, Mike. Why are you comparing one small rural state with 
an entire diverse country? Try comparing NH with... well, it's hard to find 
a part of Australia small, compact and homogeneous enough to make any cf. 
valid. Maybe the Australian Capital Territory:  (pop. 322,680) year 2001-2 
homicides: 2 women, no men, 0.62 per 100,000.

http://www.aic.gov.au/research/homicide/stats/genderv.html [this chart 
confuses ACT and NT, given comments below it]

Rates per 100,000 for states and the whole country; extremely stable for 
the nation, about 1.9:

http://www.aic.gov.au/research/homicide/stats/hvr.html

Damien Broderick





From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Apr  4 19:47:03 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 14:47:03 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] meds purchase advice?
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040404144150.01bb4ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

One of the most frightening aspects of being in the States, for an 
Australian with medical problems, is the atrocious cost of 
pharmaceuticalshere. Relax, I'm not launching a discussion of prices and 
markets; I'm requesting some info from extropes who buy legal 
pharmaceuticals in Canada via email or fax. There's so much repellant spam 
hitting my in box and popping up on google that it's hard to estimate the 
good providers from the scamsters. Can anyone advise me on a decent place 
to contact to buy meds like Lipitor? Maybe this is too off-topic to post 
back to the list; if so, please email me privately.

Thanks!

Damien Broderick




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sun Apr  4 20:01:21 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 13:01:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ultra-compact dwarfs found lurking
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0404041826140.3171@hercules>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404041256580.11113-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Sun, 4 Apr 2004, Alfio Puglisi wrote:

> >Go watch Armageddon -- and be very afraid.
>
> Yeah, afraid that someone could think about making another movie like that
> one... just about every single bit of astronomy in Armageddon is wrong.
>
> For some examples see:
>
> http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/movies/armpitageddon.html

Ok, yea, yea, yea.  But even though the astronomy is still low it
doesn't prevent me from thinking that living in Montana is safer
than living in Washington D.C.  I'm not sure which concerns
me more the risk of tidal waves from an oceanic impact or
the risk of a terrorist attack.

(And I *do* realize both probabilites are very low at least to the best
of our knowledge.)

Robert




From sjvans at ameritech.net  Sun Apr  4 18:59:43 2004
From: sjvans at ameritech.net (Stephen J. Van Sickle)
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 13:59:43 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] meds purchase advice?
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040404144150.01bb4ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040404144150.01bb4ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <1081105183.1037.49.camel@Renfield>


I live in Wisconsin, and there has been quite a stir with the State
recommending that Medicare recipients order drugs from Canada.  Since
these pharmacies have been approved by the state to accept Medicare
reimbursement, it is probably a good bet that they aren't complete
frauds.  The PDF order forms wouldn't do you any good, but they have the
web addresses or toll free numbers of the pharmacies, and prices.

 http://www.drugsavings.wi.gov/

Lipitor is specifically listed:

http://www.drugsavings.wi.gov/medicinesummary.asp?drugid=44&linkid=&locid=2

sjv









On Sun, 2004-04-04 at 14:47, Damien Broderick wrote:
> One of the most frightening aspects of being in the States, for an 
> Australian with medical problems, is the atrocious cost of 
> pharmaceuticalshere. Relax, I'm not launching a discussion of prices and 
> markets; I'm requesting some info from extropes who buy legal 
> pharmaceuticals in Canada via email or fax. There's so much repellant spam 
> hitting my in box and popping up on google that it's hard to estimate the 
> good providers from the scamsters. Can anyone advise me on a decent place 
> to contact to buy meds like Lipitor? Maybe this is too off-topic to post 
> back to the list; if so, please email me privately.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Damien Broderick
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From sjvans at ameritech.net  Sun Apr  4 19:11:46 2004
From: sjvans at ameritech.net (Stephen J. Van Sickle)
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 14:11:46 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] meds purchase advice?
In-Reply-To: <1081105183.1037.49.camel@Renfield>
References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040404144150.01bb4ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<1081105183.1037.49.camel@Renfield>
Message-ID: <1081105905.1037.52.camel@Renfield>


Duh, brain melt.  Before someone points it out to me, Medicare won't
reimburse meds.  But Wisconsin is recommending Canada for Medicare
recipients.

sjv 


On Sun, 2004-04-04 at 13:59, Stephen J. Van Sickle wrote:
> I live in Wisconsin, and there has been quite a stir with the State
> recommending that Medicare recipients order drugs from Canada.  Since
> these pharmacies have been approved by the state to accept Medicare
> reimbursement, it is probably a good bet that they aren't complete
> frauds.  The PDF order forms wouldn't do you any good, but they have the
> web addresses or toll free numbers of the pharmacies, and prices.
> 
>  http://www.drugsavings.wi.gov/
> 
> Lipitor is specifically listed:
> 
> http://www.drugsavings.wi.gov/medicinesummary.asp?drugid=44&linkid=&locid=2
> 
> sjv
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, 2004-04-04 at 14:47, Damien Broderick wrote:
> > One of the most frightening aspects of being in the States, for an 
> > Australian with medical problems, is the atrocious cost of 
> > pharmaceuticalshere. Relax, I'm not launching a discussion of prices and 
> > markets; I'm requesting some info from extropes who buy legal 
> > pharmaceuticals in Canada via email or fax. There's so much repellant spam 
> > hitting my in box and popping up on google that it's hard to estimate the 
> > good providers from the scamsters. Can anyone advise me on a decent place 
> > to contact to buy meds like Lipitor? Maybe this is too off-topic to post 
> > back to the list; if so, please email me privately.
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > Damien Broderick
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From megao at sasktel.net  Sun Apr  4 19:26:02 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 14:26:02 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] meds purchase advice?
References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040404144150.01bb4ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<1081105183.1037.49.camel@Renfield>
Message-ID: <40706149.54055AB6@sasktel.net>

I live in Saskatchewan and could easil go to a drug store and ask the formulary
prices for a list of drugs.  Make me a list and I'll post the result later this
next week.
Benchmark your net order prices to these ....

Morris

"Stephen J. Van Sickle" wrote:

> I live in Wisconsin, and there has been quite a stir with the State
> recommending that Medicare recipients order drugs from Canada.  Since
> these pharmacies have been approved by the state to accept Medicare
> reimbursement, it is probably a good bet that they aren't complete
> frauds.  The PDF order forms wouldn't do you any good, but they have the
> web addresses or toll free numbers of the pharmacies, and prices.
>
>  http://www.drugsavings.wi.gov/
>
> Lipitor is specifically listed:
>
> http://www.drugsavings.wi.gov/medicinesummary.asp?drugid=44&linkid=&locid=2
>
> sjv
>
> On Sun, 2004-04-04 at 14:47, Damien Broderick wrote:
> > One of the most frightening aspects of being in the States, for an
> > Australian with medical problems, is the atrocious cost of
> > pharmaceuticalshere. Relax, I'm not launching a discussion of prices and
> > markets; I'm requesting some info from extropes who buy legal
> > pharmaceuticals in Canada via email or fax. There's so much repellant spam
> > hitting my in box and popping up on google that it's hard to estimate the
> > good providers from the scamsters. Can anyone advise me on a decent place
> > to contact to buy meds like Lipitor? Maybe this is too off-topic to post
> > back to the list; if so, please email me privately.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Damien Broderick
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040404/b701cf7c/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Apr  4 21:53:58 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 14:53:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] meds purchase advice?
In-Reply-To: <1081105183.1037.49.camel@Renfield>
Message-ID: <20040404215358.4946.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>

NH Governor Craig Benson had six prescriptions filled by one Canadian
pharmacy, for a savings of $550 over US prices, and had the pills
tested by the state crime lab. They were found to be safe, and
contained the stated dosage of the stated drug. 

Small surprise, because, unlike US pharmacies which dole out pills by
hand, leaving the risk of local errors, the prescriptions filled all
constituted drugs packaged and labelled by the manufacturer, in many
cases, produced here in the US in US plants by US drug companies.

--- "Stephen J. Van Sickle" <sjvans at ameritech.net> wrote:
> 
> I live in Wisconsin, and there has been quite a stir with the State
> recommending that Medicare recipients order drugs from Canada.  Since
> these pharmacies have been approved by the state to accept Medicare
> reimbursement, it is probably a good bet that they aren't complete
> frauds.  The PDF order forms wouldn't do you any good, but they have
> the
> web addresses or toll free numbers of the pharmacies, and prices.
> 
>  http://www.drugsavings.wi.gov/
> 
> Lipitor is specifically listed:
> 
>
http://www.drugsavings.wi.gov/medicinesummary.asp?drugid=44&linkid=&locid=2
> 
> sjv
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, 2004-04-04 at 14:47, Damien Broderick wrote:
> > One of the most frightening aspects of being in the States, for an 
> > Australian with medical problems, is the atrocious cost of 
> > pharmaceuticalshere. Relax, I'm not launching a discussion of
> prices and 
> > markets; I'm requesting some info from extropes who buy legal 
> > pharmaceuticals in Canada via email or fax. There's so much
> repellant spam 
> > hitting my in box and popping up on google that it's hard to
> estimate the 
> > good providers from the scamsters. Can anyone advise me on a decent
> place 
> > to contact to buy meds like Lipitor? Maybe this is too off-topic to
> post 
> > back to the list; if so, please email me privately.
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > Damien Broderick
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat


=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/


From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Apr  4 21:54:39 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 14:54:39 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] ultra-compact dwarfs found lurking
In-Reply-To: <20040404152223.57222.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000001c41a8f$7485ae60$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


> "[extropy-chat] ultra-compact dwarfs found lurking..."
> 
> Well, now we have someplace to send all those amputated midget female
> astronauts Spike likes to talk about, once they've finished 
> colonizing Mars...
> 
> =====
> Mike Lorrey

Nah.  They would be waaaay too big for this application.
Interstellar space travel will likely need to wait until
after uploading.  Interplanetary travel is something we
can do now if we put our collective minds to it.  

spike



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Apr  4 22:11:19 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 15:11:19 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures idea game (was Nano-assembler feasibility-
	politics)
In-Reply-To: <20040404180143.GC28136@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <001d01c41a91$c1d35850$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


> Eugen Leitl

> Color me clueless, I never understood what the point of idea 
> futures was.
> Clearly the market can't predict better than single 
> individuals...
> -- 
> Eugen* Leitl

Gene it provides an *average* of the predictions of
the traders.  I use it as a tool to learn stuff
in a quick easy way.  For instance, watch the prices
of when the 4GHz processors will come out.  I know
nothing about that, but it gives me a quick average
of the opinions of the cluey processor jockeys.  

I learn about new computer technologies using IFX
too.  Since Im not in the loop, I don't hear about
the newest experimental technologies.  I go to IFX
and read the meme: The Hoochimer Gazazzifratz will 
outsell the Snarkely Whatsit by 2005.  Last sale 
85 cents.  I already know the hoochimer gazazzifratz
is the right thing to buy, without even knowing
what they are.  But I know where to start googling.

People don't play Ideas Futures lightly.  I notice
those who originate and trade in some meme tend to 
know wherewithal.  If you want to know about the 
schedule for the discovery of the next record prime,
for instance, watch the memes I occasionally post there.  

IFX is a hell of a tool.

spike



From dan at 3-e.net  Sun Apr  4 22:15:07 2004
From: dan at 3-e.net (Daniel Matthews)
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 08:15:07 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Gun control
In-Reply-To: <200404041918.i34JIrc23002@tick.javien.com>
References: <200404041918.i34JIrc23002@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <200404050815.07145.dan@3-e.net>

Last time I checked, the figures for the USA, indicated that more women are 
murdered in one month, by men with hand guns, than solders have died in Iraq 
in one year. Total deaths by shooting are much higher, I chose the subset to 
highlight the predatory nature of the killings, which are more war like, thus 
comparable.

It would appear that, in the USA, people have learnt to control their guns, 
with deadly accuracy.

Don't take my word for it, do the math yourself.



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Apr  4 22:16:01 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 15:16:01 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] cosmic dust
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404041256580.11113-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <001e01c41a92$6a5e0330$6401a8c0@SHELLY>



There is an interesting cosmic dust article in the
April 04 Scientific American by David Ardila.  Comments
by our own extropian cosmic dust expert would be welcome.

The more one learns of cosmic dust the more interesting
it becomes.

spike



  



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Apr  4 22:34:01 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 15:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: blah snip: Gun control [Australia]
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040404140424.01bffec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20040404223401.11516.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 09:52 AM 4/4/2004 -0700, Mike wrote:
> 
> >It appears that the ONLY categories where Australia's crime rates
> are
> >even as close as double New Hampshire's crime rates are larceny
> theft
> >and murder/manslaughter. The rest range from 3-7 times higher than
> NH's
> >crime rates.... the Murder/manslaughter rate for Australia is 1.8
> per 100,000,
> >which is double the rate here in NH.
> 
> 
> This is very silly, Mike. Why are you comparing one small rural state
> with an entire diverse country? 

Are you asserting that NH's perceived whiteness is the prime factor in
our low crime rates???

Australia is hardly a massive and diverse country, population wise. Its
population is only 19 million, which is less than an order of magnitude
larger than NH.

Lets look at relative rates of diversity, shall we?

According to:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/33000.html
NH is 95% non-hispanic white.

Trying to find out what minority populations there are in Australia
through the ABS is a truly labyrinthian task. The "Ancestry" report
sounds like it was written by a South African, in dividing white
populations into many different national origins and ethnicities, while
at the same time allowing anyone who was born in Austrialia to specify
their ancestry as "Australian". Shades of aparthied resound through
this report in a "Shucks, we's all minorities heah..." jive.


> Try comparing NH with... well, it's hard to find 
> a part of Australia small, compact and homogeneous enough to make any
> cf. 
> valid. Maybe the Australian Capital Territory:  (pop. 322,680) year
> 2001-2 homicides: 2 women, no men, 0.62 per 100,000.

NH is 1.23 million, not 300k. If you are complaining about the
population differential between Oz and NH, you are guilty of your own
sin here.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/


From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Sun Apr  4 22:55:43 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 23:55:43 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: blah snip: Gun control [Australia]
Message-ID: <4070926F.5010107@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

On Sun Apr 4 16:34:01 MDT 2004 Mike Lorrey wrote;
> NH is 1.23 million, not 300k. If you are complaining about the
> population differential between Oz and NH, you are guilty of your own
> sin here.

No - He's just pointing out that you are not comparing like with like
and therefore reaching meaningless conclusions.

Which is exactly what I was also trying to point out with regard to UK
crime figures.

In US violent crime, somebody dies.
In UK violent crime, somebody gets a smack in the mouth.

I am sure that there are far more guns in the gang areas of LA than in
New Hampshire. That doesn't make LA the safer place to be.

BillK





From dgc at cox.net  Sun Apr  4 22:59:49 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 18:59:49 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: blah snip: Gun control [Australia]
In-Reply-To: <20040404223401.11516.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040404223401.11516.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <40709365.4060500@cox.net>

I first joined this list in 1995 or so. I've left the list and rejoined 
three times.
I've mostly been lurking for the las year.

I leave when the noise gets too high. Interestingly, each time I left, 
it was because of
gun control. Neither side convinces the other, or even listens to the 
other, and the
points have remained roughly identical over the last nine years.

I'll give it another week. Then I'm outta here.




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Apr  4 23:01:51 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 18:01:51 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: blah snip: Gun control [Australia]
In-Reply-To: <20040404223401.11516.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040404140424.01bffec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<20040404223401.11516.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040404174941.01b38490@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 03:34 PM 4/4/2004 -0700, Mike wrote:

>Are you asserting that NH's perceived whiteness is the prime factor in
>our low crime rates???
>
>http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/33000.html
>NH is 95% non-hispanic white.

In a country with a bitterly racist and divisive history (like the USA and 
to a lesser extent Australia--lesser only by chance, in that whites failed 
to kidnap and enslave huge numbers of some other ethnic group, while the 
indigenes were reduced in number by disease and depredation), it is 
perfectly *obvious* that homogeneity is the prime factor in your low crime 
rate *compared with other American states where the situation is otherwise*.

>Trying to find out what minority populations there are in Australia
>through the ABS is a truly labyrinthian task.

In some parts of Australia there are lots of enclaves of humans recently 
from different backgrounds, usually disadvantaged as newcomers often are, 
and quite often their criminal youth prey on their own communities or erupt 
into spiteful and brainless but very primate murderous aggression against 
each other in turf wars. These days a weapon of choice seems to be the 
sword or machete, something `traditional' white European Aussies would not 
use. In the ACT, like NH, there are fewer ethnically diverse gangs, 
although probably many more white collar criminals scamming the nation, 
since that's the headquarters of the federal government and bureaucracy. 
But everyone having small arms at home doesn't seem to halt their 
depredations in the USA.

> > Try comparing NH with... well, it's hard to find
> > a part of Australia small, compact and homogeneous enough to make any
> > cf. valid. Maybe the Australian Capital Territory:  (pop. 322,680) year
> > 2001-2 homicides: 2 women, no men, 0.62 per 100,000.
>
>NH is 1.23 million, not 300k. If you are complaining about the
>population differential between Oz and NH, you are guilty of your own
>sin here.

Amphigory and persiflage. I am complaining about the comparative population 
mixes, as you make clear above.

Damien Broderick 




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Apr  4 23:10:10 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 18:10:10 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: blah snip: Gun control [Australia]
In-Reply-To: <40709365.4060500@cox.net>
References: <20040404223401.11516.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>
	<40709365.4060500@cox.net>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040404180741.01c78a90@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 06:59 PM 4/4/2004 -0400, Dan wrote:

>Neither side convinces the other, or even listens to the other, and the
>points have remained roughly identical over the last nine years.

True. `Don't feed the trolls' is always good advice. (Even if I've been one 
of them, apparently, just now.)

>I'll give it another week. Then I'm outta here.

Sorry 'bout that. Don't go, we'll be good.

Damien Broderick 




From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Mon Apr  5 00:12:52 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 10:12:52 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures idea game (was Nano-assembler
	feasibility-politics)
References: <001d01c41a91$c1d35850$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <002901c41aa2$bcd471c0$a52f2dcb@homepc>

Spike wrote:

> People don't play Ideas Futures lightly.  I notice
> those who originate and trade in some meme tend to 
> know wherewithal. 

I'd be more confident of that if they were betting real
money. 

When the costs to play are so low, the players have little
to lose. Where they need not even use their own names they
may not even be risking much by way of reputation or 
credibility. If the stakes aren't real who really cares? 

> IFX is a hell of a tool.

Not yet.  Perhaps potentially if its developed. And if its
not developed soon, after being around for so long, perhaps
its flawed in other respects, or perhaps it will be developed
by other than Robin and co. By developers that have more
time and/or money to commit to it. 

Regards,
Brett Paatsch




From extropy at unreasonable.com  Mon Apr  5 00:45:11 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 20:45:11 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gun control yet again
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040402133308.01b35528@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040402112919.01b6b6f8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<406D83D5.85046761@mindspring.com>
	<20040402164207.16832.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
	<6.0.3.0.0.20040402112919.01b6b6f8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040404204321.02e19760@mail.comcast.net>

Damien wrote:

>perhaps NH is a little more homogenous and peaceful, I couldn't say.

With Mike (*) there? You jest!


-- David Lubkin.


(*) and, er, me




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Mon Apr  5 00:49:51 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 20:49:51 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures idea game (was Nano-assembler feasibility
	- politics)
In-Reply-To: <1081100712.13969.11.camel@www.localhost.com>
Message-ID: <25C8E3C8-869B-11D8-BCFA-000A27960BC6@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Sunday, April 4, 2004, at 01:45 pm, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote:

> No, you are misreading the bet.  The bet pays x cents where the feynman
> prize is claimed on the year 2000 + x, so the fact that the bet is at
> 21-25% means that market beleives the prize will be claimed between
> 2021-2025.

OK, I may be misreading that.  I sorted bets by "due date" and looked 
at the "due date" to see when the claim was supposed to have happened.  
I didn't realize that bets could still be "won" after the due date had 
passed.

However, there are still many interesting examples of wrong predictions 
that had high percentages of support in their day:
100%: Original Star Wars rereleased in theatres 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=SW1b>
100%: MiniDisks will outsell CDs 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=MdCd>
100%:  Terrorists have nuclear weapons 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=Terr>
100%: Hillary Clinton runs for president 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=HClOff>
100%: Non-Intel PCs dominate market 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=NIPC>
90%: Colin Powell will run for President 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=CPfP>
90%: Unix irrelevent <http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=UNIX>
85%: Mac clone sales outnumber Mac sales 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=MacC>
80%: Netscape wins browser war 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=NSWN>
80%: Steve Jobs leaves Apple 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=NoJobs>
80%: Linda Tripp goes to jail 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=TRIPP>
80%: US Balanced Budget 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=BB2002>
80%: US Balanced Budget with Republican President 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=BBRP>
80%: Clintons divorce 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=Bilary>
80%: Hemp legalized in 25% of states 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=He25>
70%: Same-sex marriages legal in most US states 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=SSma>
60%: Communist Chinese government overthrown 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=DENG>
60%: Newt Gingrich runs for president 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=NG2K>
50%: Automated sports umpire instead of human 
<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=eUmp>

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec 
Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>



From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Mon Apr  5 00:59:17 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 17:59:17 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Gun control [United Kingdom]
Message-ID: <4070AF65.A540259B@mindspring.com>

Rob wRote;

> --- In forteana at yahoogroups.com, Joe McNally <joe at f...> wrote:
> > Mmm. If "Mike" had done just a teensy bit more research, he might have
> > realised that the man he says "should get a medal for taking out the
> > garbage" is in fact what others might term "a violent maniac and
> drug dealer
> > who hacked someone to death with a samurai sword".
>
> Mike also neglected to mention that it is OK in the UK to use
> "reasonable force" to defend oneself against intruders. This does not
> include shooting at them when they are running away or (as in this
> case) stabbing them *four* times.

Barbara babbles;
Indeed. It can be deemed reasonable to defend yourself against a gun toting
intruder with a knife or a sword in the UK, but going beyond the point of
disabling your attacker's ability to use their gun is excessive force.
Defending one's home isn't about killing intruders, it's about disabling
them until the cops arrive.

I'm a collector of swords and bladed weapons, I've got 7 in all, and which
are my weapons of choice for investigating wierd noises in the night? Why my
son's walking stick is my first choice and my Bokken (wooden practice sword)
is my second.

A gun isn't a defense against a gun, it's an invitation for the intruder to
shoot first in self defense.

Barbara


-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Vietnam veterans,
Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From alito at organicrobot.com  Mon Apr  5 01:53:22 2004
From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky)
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 11:53:22 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures idea game (was Nano-assembler
	feasibility - politics)
In-Reply-To: <25C8E3C8-869B-11D8-BCFA-000A27960BC6@HarveyNewstrom.com>
References: <25C8E3C8-869B-11D8-BCFA-000A27960BC6@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <1081130001.13729.39.camel@www.localhost.com>

On Sun, 2004-04-04 at 20:49 -0400, Harvey Newstrom wrote:

> On Sunday, April 4, 2004, at 01:45 pm, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote:
> 
> > No, you are misreading the bet.  The bet pays x cents where the feynman
> > prize is claimed on the year 2000 + x, so the fact that the bet is at
> > 21-25% means that market beleives the prize will be claimed between
> > 2021-2025.
> 
> OK, I may be misreading that.  I sorted bets by "due date" and looked 
> at the "due date" to see when the claim was supposed to have happened.  
> I didn't realize that bets could still be "won" after the due date had 
> passed.
> 

They can't, but they can be won before. (Due date for the Feynman prize
claim is 2100)
I think you are not reading the claims, or not looking the graphs.

> However, there are still many interesting examples of wrong predictions 
> that had high percentages of support in their day:
> 100%: Original Star Wars rereleased in theatres 
> <http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=SW1b>

This supposedly wasn't a wrong prediction.  It got judged at a 100 (it
paid one cent per million dollars in tickets in the US (up to 100 off
course))

> 100%: MiniDisks will outsell CDs 
> <http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=MdCd>

Check the graph, some weird anomaly where it jumped from  2% to about
100 and back instantly. some kind of interface screwup most likely.

> 100%:  Terrorists have nuclear weapons 
> <http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=Terr>

It was at 100% for less than a day at the start.  Have a look at the
graph.

> 100%: Hillary Clinton runs for president 
> <http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=HClOff>

Correct (don't read the title, read the claim).  The actual claim is
that she would run for some position int the 2000 election, which did
occur, and it got judged at 100.

> 100%: Non-Intel PCs dominate market 
> <http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=NIPC>

Another one where it looks like an interface screwup.  Look at the
graph.  It jumps from about 35 to 100 and back instantly (twice though).

> 90%: Colin Powell will run for President 
> <http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=CPfP>

Real top value about 80%, but yes, wrong prediction.

> 90%: Unix irrelevent <http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=UNIX>

So is this one

> 85%: Mac clone sales outnumber Mac sales 
> <http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=MacC>

Only right at the start, quickly drops

> 80%: Netscape wins browser war 
> <http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=NSWN>

Read the claim. It got judged at 54, so 80% at top is not bad.
You can go through the rest at your own time.   Main point:  don't read
the title, read the details, and look at the graph.

alejandro




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Mon Apr  5 03:56:51 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 23:56:51 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures idea game (was Nano-assembler feasibility
	- politics)
In-Reply-To: <1081130001.13729.39.camel@www.localhost.com>
Message-ID: <4542E702-86B5-11D8-99AB-000A27960BC6@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Sunday, April 4, 2004, at 09:53 pm, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote:

>> 100%: Original Star Wars rereleased in theatres
>> <http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=SW1b>
>
> This supposedly wasn't a wrong prediction.  It got judged at a 100 (it
> paid one cent per million dollars in tickets in the US (up to 100 off
> course))

OK.  I see how to read the judgments now.  That will help a lot in 
interpreting these!

But I am still confused how the original Star Wars was judged 100% to 
have been re-released *in theaters*.  It says "If the Star Wars movie 
is not re-released to theatres by 1/1/99, the claim pays $0."  Was 
there a theater re-release of the original Star Wars that I missed?  I 
thought they just released a DVD.

>> 100%: MiniDisks will outsell CDs
>> <http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=MdCd>
>
> Check the graph, some weird anomaly where it jumped from  2% to about
> 100 and back instantly. some kind of interface screwup most likely.

If the data graphs are not trustworthy, it throws my entire attempt at 
historical analysis out the window!

>> 100%:  Terrorists have nuclear weapons
>> <http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=Terr>
>
> It was at 100% for less than a day at the start.  Have a look at the
> graph.

I know.  This doesn't invalidate my claim.  "Predictions" that seem 
100% obvious at first can quickly cool off and be thought of as silly 
later.  This prediction still peaked over 60% several times.  It 
clearly was a common belief, and many people still expect terrorists to 
get nuclear weapons any time now.

>> 100%: Hillary Clinton runs for president
>> <http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=HClOff>
>
> Correct (don't read the title, read the claim).  The actual claim is
> that she would run for some position int the 2000 election, which did
> occur, and it got judged at 100.

Ouch.  So the title are sometimes inaccurate, too?  It is really hard 
to use this "data" with all these inaccuracies that we have to ignore.  
I admit that I quickly scanned the titles, dates and graphs.  I didn't 
realize that any of them could be wrong or superseded by other data 
elsewhere in the claim text.

>> 100%: Non-Intel PCs dominate market
>> <http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=NIPC>
>
> Another one where it looks like an interface screwup.  Look at the
> graph.  It jumps from about 35 to 100 and back instantly (twice 
> though).

How can people quote this stuff as authoritative for their claims, but 
then ignore it for opposing claims?  If the graphs aren't reliable, why 
trust any of them?

>> 90%: Colin Powell will run for President
>> <http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=CPfP>
>
> Real top value about 80%, but yes, wrong prediction.
>
>> 90%: Unix irrelevent 
>> <http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=UNIX>
>
> So is this one

Even with your other points about anomalies or inaccurate titles, there 
are still numerous claims like these that were widely supported and 
just outright wrong.  My point that these predictions don't prove 
anything still stands.  Widespread market consensus is not good 
evidence that the prediction must be right.

>> 85%: Mac clone sales outnumber Mac sales
>> <http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=MacC>
>
> Only right at the start, quickly drops

Again, this supports my point.  Predictions that are widely believed to 
be "obvious" at the time quickly disappear after a little analysis.  
(Unless your point is that these initial peaks are anomalies as well.)

>> 80%: Netscape wins browser war
>> <http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=NSWN>
>
> Read the claim. It got judged at 54, so 80% at top is not bad.
> You can go through the rest at your own time.   Main point:  don't read
> the title, read the details, and look at the graph

Yes, I admit that I did skim these very quickly and expected the title, 
date and graph to be accurate all the time.  It now appears to me that 
they are full of errors or anomalies, and only the text and final 
judgment can be trusted(?).  Even so, you refuted less than half of my 
examples.  There are still many obviously wrong ones.  All I am saying 
is that these predictions are often wrong.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec 
Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 4804 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040404/b66789e4/attachment.bin>

From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Apr  5 04:39:32 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 21:39:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Century City cancelled
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040402183040.0277f578@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <20040405043932.17182.qmail@web80406.mail.yahoo.com>

--- David Lubkin <extropy at unreasonable.com> wrote:
> Now the question is whether this is because it was
> poorly done or because 
> the public is not interested in the future....

Oh, they're interested in the future.  Flying cars,
genocidal robot armies, and crews who just happen to
collectively enjoy 20th century pop culture.  But not
the real future, where many (as opposed to just a
certain few) important things are different and many
modern modes of thinking are obsolete.  Kind of like a
British armchair general of ~1750 reading military
fiction, totally uninterested in soldiers who shoot
from cover instead of marching and firing in
gentlemanly exposed ranks.


From megao at sasktel.net  Mon Apr  5 01:48:05 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 20:48:05 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Americanactionmarket.org?
Message-ID: <4070BAD5.6D1FEAD6@sasktel.net>

http://www.americanactionmarket.org/orgs.htm

Seems not to have had  any activity for the last 8 months?





From katmak2 at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  5 06:13:15 2004
From: katmak2 at yahoo.com (kathleen mckenzie)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 23:13:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Google Watch
In-Reply-To: <20040405043932.17182.qmail@web80406.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040405061315.56516.qmail@web60110.mail.yahoo.com>

Have a look at this site:
 
http://www.google-watch.org
 
Especially note the article on Gmail toward the top. Maybe Gmail isn't such a good idea for any user due to the privacy risks involved. If Google merged with another company, say, Microsoft -- I know MS's first offer was turned down, but what if tomorrow... -- or was sold, that other entity would have access and distribution rights to any & all email ever sent/recorded on the Google system even if the user had deleted it from his account or closed his account altogether. But that's just the tip of the iceberg.
 
Kathleen




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040404/f6188230/attachment.html>

From Steve365 at btinternet.com  Sun Apr  4 17:20:52 2004
From: Steve365 at btinternet.com (Steve Davies)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 18:20:52 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Gun control [was Re: the roadtohell]
References: <20040404160622.67325.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <001d01c41a69$31f2a3d0$978b7ad5@oemcomputer>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 5:06 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Gun control [was Re: the
roadtohell]


>
> --- Steve Davies <Steve365 at btinternet.com> wrote:
> > In response to this the British Crime Survey was started in 1981.
> > It is the result of a survey carried out every other year by the
> > Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, of a large and
> > representative sample of the general public. The basic question
> > is "Have you personally been the victim of a crime in the
> > last 12 months ?" Might explain why homicide isn't there? :)
>
> Homicide victims include more than just the dead person, family members
> are also victims, as they've been robbed of their family member.

Sorry I was being facetious - the BCS does ask if you or someone in your
household has been the victim of a crime.
>
> > The figures from the BCS are actually more accurate than the Home
> > Office stats because they are less affected by the 'Dark Figure'
> > problem.
>
> No, not really. The state steals my money every week as 'taxes'. To me
> that is theft, and therefore a crime. The state doesn't think so. I
> would report it as a crime on such a survey if given a chance, one
> theft for each paycheck. Similarly, anti-capital types would claim they
> were ripped off by various commercial enterprises. In Britain, in
> particular, if you prevent a robber from stealing your property, he
> will report your act as 'stealing' from him. If you defended yourself
> from a criminal, your act of defense is reported by the criminal in
> crime surveys as a 'crime'.
>
> The Survey asks if you THINK you were a victim of a crime. It does
> nothing to test the perception of crime for validity.

That's true. For some crimes that is a serious problem (domestic violence is
a case in point) and can lead to substantial under reporting in the BCS. For
most crimes however the impact of this kind of thing is trivial. I wish more
people did report their PAYE deductions as theft but sadly not many people
take that view. In the overwhelming majority of cases reported to the BCS
there's no doubt about the status of the incident. Clearly crime
victimisation surveys are not perfect but they do give a better picture of
the real underlying rate of crime than the stats produced by the criminal
justice system because they are much less affected by the 'dark figure'
problem.
>
> Now, what I find so incredibly amusing here, is that you are asserting
> the greater validity of a crime survey vs reported crime indexes, when
> you, and those others claiming British crime has gone down, do not
> attach similar credence to crime surveys conducted here in the US WRT
> defensive gun use. Surveys show 2-2.5 million defensive gun uses per
> year. If you are going to demand one survey is accurate, you must
> accept that the other is also accurate.

I do accept that such surveys are accurate - I never said I didn't. I teach
a course on historical criminology and one of the classes is about surveys
of that kind and what they show about the deterrent effect of widespread gun
ownership. I hope I manage to shake up some of the preconceptions of my
students (including the American exchange students btw). I'm also not
arguing British crime rates are going down, my point is that while some
kinds of crime have declined there's been a sharp rise in other kinds, above
all violent crime and that this is in very large part due to the way the CJS
has made self-defence more difficult.

> Another amusing thing is the whole point you are missing:
>
> If the British Crime Index crime rates are already 2-8 times higher
> than those here in New Hampshire, and BCS crime rates are 2-3 times
> higher than Index crimes, and even with a moderate drop in BCS crime
> rates, they are still MANY times higher than rates here in NH, then it
> only REINFORCES my original point.

I was well aware of that - that was my point, that when you take the BCS
figures the rise in violent crime is even sharper than in the official
stats. You would expect crime survey figures to be higher than official CJS
figures because of the way the 'dark figure'problem affects the latter. The
degree to which they're higher will depend upon the reporting rate for the
crime in question. Reporting rates for some crimes (e.g. car theft) are
about 99% because of insurance requirements but the rate for assault is much
lower (it's below 50%) so you'd expect the BCS figures to be much higher -
and they are.
>
> > The nonsense Mike refers to of counting all crimes perpetrated by
> > one offender on a given day as a single crime (so long as they're
> > in the same 'class' - there are five 'classes') stopped this year,
> > in response to pressure from the EU (that's why there appears to
> > be a big increase in certain types of crime in the last six months).
>
> I counted 2003 statistics. The Home Office only stopped this policy in
> Jan, 2004.
>
> > It wasn't new, the Home Office has been recording crime in this
> > daft way since the 1920s. If you look at the more accurate BCS
> > figures the pattern is that there has been a decline in most kinds
> > of property crime since 1995.
>
> The property crime rate there is still many times higher than it is
> here.

 This is true - there's been a very steep decline in property crime
throughout the US since the early 1990s, plus the increase in per capita
property crime rates in Britain in roughly 1980-1993 was very steep.

> > However there has been a big rise in violent crime over the same
> > period (proportionally it remains the case that the great majority of
> > crime is property offences of various kinds). As well as a big rise
> in
> > homicide, there's been an even bigger one in common assault,
> > aggravated assault, assault and battery, wounding and robbery.
> > Britain's per capita rates for these kinds of crime are now higher
> > than the US rates and much higher than the rates for historically
> > low crime regions such as New England.
>
> Northern New England, sir. Crime rates in New York, Massachusetts and
> Rhode Island are on par with other high gun control areas of the US.
> NH, VT, and ME crime rates have been lower than our neighbors for a
> very specific reason.

I was thinking of the nineteenth and early twentieth century actually when I
said historically. Is New York a part of New England btw? I thought it was
usually put into the "mid atlantic" category.

> > Part of this is cyclical - violent crime rises during periods of
> > economic growth and declines during slumps (property crime has the
> > opposite pattern) but the increase is well above the historic trend.
> > Another reason is the disastrous effects of the 'War on drugs' -
> > the case in Salford may have been a 'business dispute' - we had a
> > fatal shooting of that kind just around the corner from where I
> > live, a couple of streets away. The other reason is the one alluded
> > to, not so much control of guns (that has been strict ever since
> > it was introduced in 1922)
>
> While registration was instituted in 1922 (which coincides with the
> beginning of the great rise in violent and property crime in Britain
> all through the 20th century), it is the near-total gun ban instituted
> in the mid 1990's, as well as the policy that makes it a crime to
> defend one's self, even in one's home, with what limited firearms are
> available, that have resulted in the truly significant rise in reported
> crime. The rise in reported crime also includes law abiding people
> defending themselves who are criminalized by the system.

It wasn't registration that was introduced in 1922 (via the Firearms Act)
but really tight controls on gun ownership. Joyce Malcolm gives a very good
account of the debate (and the history of firearms ownership in Britain more
generally) in her book "Guns and Violence". There were several other laws
that made the controls even tighter long before the 1990s.  Despite this gun
ownership (as tracked by licenses) actually rose up to the banning of
handgun ownership after the "Dunblane Massacre". It would probably have
risen even more had the controlls not been in place. IMO if firearms were
widely owned the level of many crimes would be substantially less than it
is. However, the problem is wider than just ownership of firearms, it's the
more basic problem of the desire of legal professionals to restrict self
defense of any kind to vanishing point. The rise in crime in twentieth
century Britain actually starts about 1957 - up to then the rates are fairly
stable (with up and down fluctuations associated with the two World Wars)
following a big decline 1850-1900 and particularly 1870-1900.
>
> I would say that the likely cause of the dovetailing of reported vs
> survey crime rates in Britain is likely a result of the ubiquitous
> surveillance being instituted: a crime recorded by police on video is
> definitely going to be reported by the police, if only to help increase
> next year's budget, while a property owner who is surrendered to the
> total lack of respect for private property in Britain won't report an
> unobserved theft because he or she knows the police will never do
> anything to retreive his or her property, and may even cite the
> property owner for not properly securing his or her property, thus
> 'abetting' crime.

This is very true. There is little point in reporting many crimes to the
police because it leads to nothing but hassle and paperwork. Many are
reported only because insurance companies won't pay out unless you can quote
a crime report number.


>
> > as the way the historic right of self-defense has
> > been construed in ever more limited terms in the last ten years,
> > regardless of what you use. The pressure for this does NOT come
> > from politicians btw, it comes from the professionals of the CJS
> > (lawyers, judges, prosecutors, police). The final factor is the
> > unbelievable ineptitude and incompetence of
> > the police and other law enforcement agencies. You would not believe
> > how bad it is until you've experienced it yourself.
>
> I believe it. Our police are bad enough here. This is why we are,
> hopefully, going to strip them of the authority to control and be aware
> of who can carry concealed. They can't even administer the licensing
> process legally as it is today.
>
> "Police are not required to know the law." - Judge Cirone, Lebanon
> District Court, NH, September, 2003
>
> =====
> Mike Lorrey
> Chairman, Free Town Land Development
> "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
>                                        - Gen. John Stark
> Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat




From alito at organicrobot.com  Mon Apr  5 13:57:13 2004
From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky)
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 23:57:13 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures idea game (was Nano-assembler
	feasibility - politics)
In-Reply-To: <4542E702-86B5-11D8-99AB-000A27960BC6@HarveyNewstrom.com>
References: <4542E702-86B5-11D8-99AB-000A27960BC6@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <1081173433.13969.66.camel@www.localhost.com>

On Sun, 2004-04-04 at 23:56 -0400, Harvey Newstrom wrote:

> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> On Sunday, April 4, 2004, at 09:53 pm, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote:
> 
> 
>                 100%: Original Star Wars rereleased in theatres 
>                 <http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=SW1b>
>         This supposedly wasn't a wrong prediction.  It got judged at a
>         100 (it
>         paid one cent per million dollars in tickets in the US (up to
>         100 off
>         course))
> OK.  I see how to read the judgments now.  That will help a lot
> ininterpreting these!
> 
> But I am still confused how the original Star Wars was judged 100%
> tohave been re-released *in theaters*.  It says"If the Star Warsmovie
> is not re-released to theatres by 1/1/99, the claim pays $0." Was
> there a theater re-release of the original Star Wars that Imissed?  I
> thought they just released a DVD.
> 
I got no idea about star wars, sorry.


> 
>                 100%: Non-Intel PCs dominate market 
>                 <http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=NIPC>
>         Another one where it looks like an interface screwup.  Look at
>         the
>         graph.  It jumps from about 35 to 100 and back instantly
>         (twicethough).
> How can people quote this stuff as authoritative for their claims,
> butthen ignore it for opposing claims?  If the graphs aren't
> reliable,why trust any of them?
> 

Quote this stuff as authorative?  who?

>                 90%: Unix
>                 irrelevent<http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=UNIX>
>         So is this one
> Even with your other points about anomalies or inaccurate titles,there
> are still numerous claims like these that were widely supportedand
> just outright wrong.  My point that these predictions don't
> proveanything still stands.  Widespread market consensus is not
> goodevidence that the prediction must be right.
> 

If that is all you are claiming, I agree wholeheartedly.


> 
>                 80%: Netscape wins browser war 
>                 <http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=NSWN>
>         Read the claim. It got judged at 54, so 80% at top is not bad.
>         You can go through the rest at your own time.   Main point:
>         don't read
>         the title, read the details, and look at the graph
> Yes, I admit that I did skim these very quickly and expected thetitle,
> date and graph to be accurate all the time.  It now appears tome that
> they are full of errors or anomalies, and only the text andfinal
> judgment can be trusted(?).  Even so, you refuted less than halfof my
> examples.  There are still many obviously wrong ones.  All I amsaying
> is that these predictions are often wrong.
> 
I didn't go over the rest because i don't have the time.  I don't know
if they are the Unix type or the Clinton type.  "These predictions are
often wrong" i will agree with.  I was just clarifying that most of what
you pointed out as being incorrect predictions were not really so.  

Regarding the graphs with sharp peaks that quickly drop back to the
average, I don't see why anyone would quote them as market values.  In a
small market like this one, one individual can drive the price to
whichever point he/she wants for a very small time (even if we assume
they are not just interface fuckups).  The fact that they were extremely
quickly corrected should point out that those peak values were not the
market's consensus.  Considering the low volume rate and the low number
of participants, i'd guess any fluctuation shorter than 4 or 5 days is
to be ignored.

Just to clarify, i'm not implying that these values are any more than
the weighted average of the opinion of a bunch of people who are
interested in the subject matter, and they should carry no more weight
than that implies (but no less either).  

alejandro




From natashavita at earthlink.net  Mon Apr  5 17:44:40 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 13:44:40 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] PAPERS:  Peace & Religion
Message-ID: <244640-22004415174440732@M2W038.mail2web.com>

Greetings!

Please let me know if you are interested in attending and writing
*Transhumanist Perspective* paper and send to natasha at extropy.org, on any
one of these issues, stated below:


Peacebuilding & Development Institute 
American University, School of Int'l Service 

Washington, D.C. USA 
202-885-2014 
http://www.american.edu/sis/peacebuilding 


2004 Summer Peacebuilding & Development Institute 
American University 
Washington, D.C. USA 

The Peacebuilding and Development Summer Institute provides knowledge, 
practical experience and skills for practitioners, teachers and students 
involved in conflict resolution, peacebuilding, humanitarian assistance and 
development. The Summer Institute will focus on various approaches to 
mediation, negotiation, facilitation, reconciliation and dialogue, 
particularly in conflict-torn and developing regions. Participants will 
explore innovative methods of promoting cultural diversity with respect to 
public policy, community and religion, war and post-conflict environments, 
while expanding their knowledge and skills in a participatory and 
interactive learning environment. Participants in the Summer Institute will 
be exposed to leading national and international professionals in the
fields of public policy, peacebuilding and development. 


The summer 2003 Institute welcomed 106 participants from 26 countries. The 
participants came from varying backgrounds ranging from international 
agencies such as UNDP, CARE, USAID, UNHCR, oil companies, teachers, an 
official from a State police agency, to a representative from the American 
Bar Association, and small non-governmental organizations. They were joined 
by Master's degree students from the International Peace & Conflict 
Resolution division and the International Development division within the 
School of International Service. 

Three courses will be offered each week for tree weeks and participants
will have to choose one class each week. The courses are: 


Week I; 

Religion & Culture in Conflict Resolution, with Mohammed Abu -Nimer, 
Bridging Human Rights Conflict Resolution & Development with Diana Chigas, 
Political Negotiation in Latin America with Graciela (Gachi) Tapia 


Week II; 

Development in Conflict: Practical Approaches to Recovery with Kimberly 
Maynard, 
Training for Trainers in Peacebuilding & Development with Mohammed 
Abu-Nimer, 
Applied Conflict Analysis and Resolution with Ronald Fisher and Brian 
Mandell, 


Week III; 

Gender & Peacebuilding in a Development Context with Julie Mertus, 
Positive Approaches to Peacebuilding & Development with Claudia Liebler, 
Arts Approaches to Peacebuilding with Babu Ayindo. 

Thank you,

Natasha
Natasha Vita-More
President, Extropy Institute


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




From sentdev at hotmail.com  Mon Apr  5 19:06:40 2004
From: sentdev at hotmail.com (George Dvorsky)
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 15:06:40 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Toronto >H Social this Saturday Apr. 10
Message-ID: <BAY2-F118F1V4965ckS00047e38@hotmail.com>

Eager to meet Toronto area Transhumanists? Would you like to debate the 
Singularity over a sambuca? How about a discussion of human enhancement and 
a plate of natchos? Shall we bemoan Bill C-6 over a Guinness?

The Toronto Transhumanist Association invites you to attend a Meet-and-Greet 
this Saturday April 10, 2004 at the Red Room. We'll get started around 8:30 
PM. Our table will have a copy of Ray Kurzweil's shiny book, "The Age of 
Spiritual Machines" on it. Everyone is welcome to attend.

Red Room
444 Spadina Avenue
ph: 416-929-9964
time: 8:30PM

Drop me a line to let me know you're coming: george at betterhumans.com.


George P. Dvorsky
Chair, TransVision 2004 Organizing Committee
http://www.transhumanism.org/tv/2004/

President, Toronto Transhumanist Association
http://toronto.transhumanism.com/

Deputy Editor, Betterhumans
http://www.betterhumans.com/
george at betterhumans.com

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Premium with Virus Guard and Firewall* from McAfee? Security : 2 months 
FREE*   
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines



From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Mon Apr  5 22:34:08 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 18:34:08 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility
In-Reply-To: <200404010509.i31597c13315@tick.javien.com>
References: <200404010509.i31597c13315@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <4071DEE0.5010305@CRNano.org>

Eugen Leitl wrote:
 > There is a continuum of approaches to self-rep molecular systems. We know
 > self-assembly works, and has very large processivity due to intrinsic
 > parallelism. This would work on all scales, beginning from folded linear
 > biopolymers, engineered biopolymers, biopolymer analoga and completely
 > synthetic analoga, as well as small cycles and cages, large complementary
 > surfaces, and even macroscale assembly. It's a sufficiently powerful 
paradigm
 > to reach full-closure self-replicating and autopoietic systems.

When you talk of macroscale assembly and full-closure self-replicating, 
are you just arguing from biology, or are you referring to some 
engineering work that would tell us how to do this?

Biology uses active transport at many scales.  The machine has to work 
while it's still being built.  I wouldn't want to try to engineer such a 
thing.  If someone told me to build a bunch of molecules that could 
simply be mixed together and diffuse to their proper assembly slots, I 
would not expect that to be useful for anything with heterogeneous 
features much larger than few microns.

 > Machine-phase
 > goes a long way to more control, but it clearly pays the price in 
energy and
 > processivity.

Have you done the math?  There's no problem with processivity.  Even 
with very crude designs--you might lose an order of magnitude or so over 
the fastest bacteria, but that still means it takes a few hours to make 
its mass, which is more than adequate for human engineering.

Energy, likewise; a very primitive design may take 250 kWh/kg.  By 
comparison, 1 kg of beef requires 7 kg of grain, or 35,000 kcal, or 41 kWh.

These are calculated for a tabletop machine-phase manufacturing system.
http://www.jetpress.org/volume13/Nanofactory.htm#s8

 > I personally think swapping discrete too tips is a red herring.
 > It's unnecessary, and it results in massive increase in complexity and
 > decrese in processivity. Continous processes are better than discrete 
cycles.

Swapping tool tips is a concession to primitive design, not a red 
herring.  Mill-type fabrication will be vastly more efficient of energy 
and time.  The nanofactory design referenced above does not include 
mill-type fabrication.  As far as I can see, mill-type machine-phase 
chemistry, supplemented by 6DOF manipulators capable of doing 
mechanochemistry and assembling mill-built components, will be far more 
efficient than biology.  And even if I'm missing an order of magnitude 
or two, it'll still be good enough that we can pick which technology to 
use according to the desired product rather than by the manufacturing 
efficiency.

 > Hollow ducts and small-molecule and linear-strand monomers are good 
enough to
 > do 3d nanolithoprinting of structural parts. Self-assembly is good 
enough for
 > 3d crystalline computation. A bucky mill processing batches of 
stochastically
 > synthesized substrate, sorting and covalently modifying, and assembling
 > structures looks far better to me than building stuff by hammering 
reactive
 > moieties down on HOPG or diamond in UHV.

How would this be programmable?  Would you have to invent new chemistry 
for each product?  At some point, you're probably going to need 
something programmable like pick-and-place or programmable masking if 
you want to do CAD-driven production.  I don't see where that would fit 
in this scheme.

 > So we have a large space of approach candidates. Instead of sterile
 > arguments about feasibility of XY, we should explore as many of these
 > pathways as possible,

I agree!

 > pumping as much R&D resources as we can syphon away
 > from other areas of human enterprise.

There's no chance of that.  And it's not necessary; funding at the 
levels required to develop MNT will not require zero-sum thinking.

Chris

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From sjvans at ameritech.net  Mon Apr  5 22:13:15 2004
From: sjvans at ameritech.net (Stephen J. Van Sickle)
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 17:13:15 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Century City cancelled
In-Reply-To: <20040405043932.17182.qmail@web80406.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040405043932.17182.qmail@web80406.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1081203194.1088.51.camel@Renfield>

On Sun, 2004-04-04 at 23:39, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> Kind of like a
> British armchair general of ~1750 reading military
> fiction, totally uninterested in soldiers who shoot
> from cover instead of marching and firing in
> gentlemanly exposed ranks.

Ah.  Pushed on of my buttons.

18th century generals did not fight in marching ranks because it was
"gentlemanly", but because it worked.  Given the hideous accuracy and
slow firing rate of muzzle loading muskets, the massed fire and rapid
rate of fire as ranks moved forward would eat alive anyone who tried to
fire from cover, as the massed formation breaks through to their rear,
encircles and slaughters them in detail.  The massed formations also had
another important advantage:  it was much, *much* more difficult for the
men to cut and run when the firing started.  The old saying was quite
true, a rational army *would* run, which is why a rational general
arranged things so as to make it more dangerous to run than to fight. 
Hence the invention of military police to patrol the rear area and shoot
deserters, and the origin of the expression "burning your bridges behind
you".

These tactics were developed by Maurice of Nassau:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_of_Nassau
and were extremely effective until the development of breach loading
rifles (i.e. roughly towards the end of the American Civil War).  It
certainly took from then until the end of the First World War to work
out the implications of rapid and accurate fire.

Much is made of rifles and firing from cover in the American Revolution,
but the muzzle loading rifles of the day had a much lower rate of fire
than the conventional muskets and their acvantages are much overrated. 
Low rate of fire is fine for hunting (where accuracy counts as well),
but death on the battle field.  When Washington took over the
Continental army, he made sure everyone got Brown Bess muskets instead
of rifles, and with good reason.  The Revolution was won (barely) by
conventional tactics taught by French "military advisers".

sjv







From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Tue Apr  6 00:12:57 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 17:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility
In-Reply-To: <4071DEE0.5010305@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404051646110.13761-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Mon, 5 Apr 2004, Chris Phoenix wrote:

> Biology uses active transport at many scales.

Hmmmm... I would not say that is strictly true Chris.
Much of biology is based on diffusion of one kind or another.
Yes there are molecular targeting tags in several cases
such as targeting to the mitochondria, targeting to the
nucleus, etc.  But much of the time biology is using the
latent heat in the environment to drive transport mechanisms.
I would say that biology may use active transport
(i.e. transport that consumes energy) in some specific
instances -- the heart pumping blood or the muscle
contractions of the intestines come to mind.

If you extend this you get into the entire question of
reversible computing.  You start to get into the things
that Landauer, Bennett and others worked on.  One
of their points was that if you wait long enough you
may be able to compute for "free".  I've never seen
an analysis of it but one might also be able to "assemble"
for "free".

So you have an interesting issue with regard to making
nanotech faster than biotech.  Why bother?  If the
future of the universe and the people in it is
indeterminate in the long run what is the point
of having nanotech that can go faster?  From the
perspective of surviving as long as possible one
might want to follow Dyson's suggestion [1] of going
slower and slower.

Robert

1. Dyson, F. J., "Time without End: Physics and Biology
in an open Universe", Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 51,
No. 3, p. 447, July 1979




From sjvans at ameritech.net  Mon Apr  5 23:57:20 2004
From: sjvans at ameritech.net (Stephen J. Van Sickle)
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 18:57:20 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures idea game (was Nano-assembler
	feasibility - politics)
In-Reply-To: <4542E702-86B5-11D8-99AB-000A27960BC6@HarveyNewstrom.com>
References: <4542E702-86B5-11D8-99AB-000A27960BC6@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <1081209439.1088.61.camel@Renfield>

On Sun, 2004-04-04 at 22:56, Harvey Newstrom wrote:

> But I am still confused how the original Star Wars was judged 100%
> tohave been re-released *in theaters*.  It says"If the Star Warsmovie
> is not re-released to theatres by 1/1/99, the claim pays $0." Was
> there a theater re-release of the original Star Wars that Imissed?  I
> thought they just released a DVD.

Yep, there was a theater re-release, IIRC just before Episode 1 was
released.  It is the "new" version with Jaba the Hutt scenes added, and
the scene with Boba Fett jiggered to so that Han Solo didn't shoot him
in cold blood.  I went to see it.

I'm not sure if it was before 1/1/99 though.

sjv



From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Tue Apr  6 02:20:43 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 21:20:43 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Looking for software
Message-ID: <LAW10-OE55ki4jsGvs0000005cc@hotmail.com>

I am looking for some software that may not even be available yet. 

What I would like is a "virtual planet". Something where I can browse over the surface of the Earth and zoom in on any point. I am most interested in geological structure and plant life. I want to be able to look at the African savannah and be able to tell that there is space between the trees.

It doesn;t have to be actual photographic footage or anything. Simulation is just fine. I would just like something with more tha 1 square mile of resolution. I doubt any such thing exists, and if it does, it probably belongs to the military, but I thought I would check and see if anyone knew if this, or something similar was even available. 

I don;t even know if it is possible (practical) to make such a thing, but wouldn't it be neat to be able to look at the planet from space, click on France, zoom in on the Eiffel Tower, click on it, adjust your POV and see the land from that point? Then you could zoom out to space,  and zoom back in on the Great Coral Reef or the African Rift or the Himalayas!








With kindest regards,



Kevin D. Freels

Carteret Mortgage Corporation

cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net

(812) 425-3001    Office

(866) 219-8256    Toll-Free

(812) 425-8468    Fax  

Your Referrals Are Greatly Appreciated!



Carteret Mortgage Corporation: We believe in open and honest communication and nothing is hidden from our customers. When a client commits to us for their mortgage, we do the shopping for them. We search our database of over 400 mortgage investors and thousands of loan programs to find the loan best suited for their needs. Whether our customers are searching for the best rate on a fixed rate loan, the lowest fee structures, or loans without mortgage insurance, we have the right solution.





Visit us at www.carteretevv.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040405/55ecbbf5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 2391 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040405/55ecbbf5/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: checkrates3.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 2803 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040405/55ecbbf5/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: applyonline3.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 2740 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040405/55ecbbf5/attachment-0002.gif>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Apr  6 02:51:23 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 19:51:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Looking for software
In-Reply-To: <LAW10-OE55ki4jsGvs0000005cc@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20040406025123.24979.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>

The flight simulator X-Plane comes with 4 CD's worth of topography and
scenery for the entire PLANET. The depth of detail at this point is, I
think, entirely dependent upon the memory and processing ability of
your own rig. I'm not exactly sure, as my own rig is still well within
normal operating range.

PLUS it comes with another TWO CD's of scenery/topo for the planet
Mars, where you can also fly aircraft designed in X-Plane's "Plane
Maker" application for that environment.

--- Kevin Freels <kevinfreels at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I am looking for some software that may not even be available yet. 
> 
> What I would like is a "virtual planet". Something where I can browse
> over the surface of the Earth and zoom in on any point. I am most
> interested in geological structure and plant life. I want to be able
> to look at the African savannah and be able to tell that there is
> space between the trees.
> 
> It doesn;t have to be actual photographic footage or anything.
> Simulation is just fine. I would just like something with more tha 1
> square mile of resolution. I doubt any such thing exists, and if it
> does, it probably belongs to the military, but I thought I would
> check and see if anyone knew if this, or something similar was even
> available. 
> 
> I don;t even know if it is possible (practical) to make such a thing,
> but wouldn't it be neat to be able to look at the planet from space,
> click on France, zoom in on the Eiffel Tower, click on it, adjust
> your POV and see the land from that point? Then you could zoom out to
> space,  and zoom back in on the Great Coral Reef or the African Rift
> or the Himalayas!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With kindest regards,
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin D. Freels
> 
> Carteret Mortgage Corporation
> 
> cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net
> 
> (812) 425-3001    Office
> 
> (866) 219-8256    Toll-Free
> 
> (812) 425-8468    Fax  
> 
> Your Referrals Are Greatly Appreciated!
> 
> 
> 
> Carteret Mortgage Corporation: We believe in open and honest
> communication and nothing is hidden from our customers. When a client
> commits to us for their mortgage, we do the shopping for them. We
> search our database of over 400 mortgage investors and thousands of
> loan programs to find the loan best suited for their needs. Whether
> our customers are searching for the best rate on a fixed rate loan,
> the lowest fee structures, or loans without mortgage insurance, we
> have the right solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Visit us at www.carteretevv.com
> 

> ATTACHMENT part 1.3 image/gif name=checkrates3.gif


> ATTACHMENT part 1.4 image/gif name=applyonline3.gif
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/


From gpmap at runbox.com  Tue Apr  6 04:41:41 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 06:41:41 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Quantum computing is driving the philosophical
	understanding of quantum theory
Message-ID: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGOEMLCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From The Economist: It is clear to many physicists that using "qubits" -
which, unlike ordinary bits, can exist in a "superposition" of the values 0
and 1 simultaneously - might yield an exponential improvement in computing
power. This is because a pair of qubits can be in four different states at
once, three qubits in eight, and so forth.
The technology necessary to manipulate qubits, in their various
incarnations, is challenging. So far, nobody has managed to get a quantum
computer to perform anything other than the most basic operations. But the
field is gathering pace. Recent advances have been discussed in Montreal for
the annual March meeting of the American Physical Society. The promise of
quantum computation, spurred on by the insights of Dr Shor and Dr Grover, is
inciting physicists to probe, experimentally and theoretically, the junction
between the quantum and the classical. They seem to be finding that the
process of decoherence is more gradual, quantifiable and open to
investigation than was previously suspected. Though a useful quantum
computer is probably still many years away, the field of quantum computing
is well on its way to solving its first problem.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.650 / Virus Database: 416 - Release Date: 04/04/2004
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040406/7c04cc3f/attachment.html>

From amara at amara.com  Tue Apr  6 09:54:22 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 10:54:22 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: cosmic dust
In-Reply-To: <001e01c41a92$6a5e0330$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <001e01c41a92$6a5e0330$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <p05100300bc98d6238559@[150.146.134.133]>

At 3:16 PM -0700 4/4/04, Spike wrote:
>There is an interesting cosmic dust article in the
>April 04 Scientific American by David Ardila.  Comments
>by our own extropian cosmic dust expert would be welcome.

I would if I could see it. I don't have a personal subscription
to SciAm. The newstands here have the March 04 issue still.
Our library seems to have a print subscription (also March04),
but not an electronic access subscription. I have to wait until
it appears here, Spike. (European subscribers often receive
the printed edition of the American journals/magazines ~one month
later than the American subscribers)

Amara


-- 

Amara Graps, PhD
Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI)
Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF),
Adjunct Assistant Professor Astronomy, AUR,
Roma, ITALIA     Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it


From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Tue Apr  6 10:48:22 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 11:48:22 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Looking for software
Message-ID: <40728AF6.1060707@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

On Mon Apr 5 20:20:43 MDT 2004 Kevin Freels wrote:
> I am looking for some software that may not even be available yet.
>
> What I would like is a "virtual planet". Something where I can browse
> over the surface of the Earth and zoom in on any point. I am most
> interested in geological structure and plant life. I want to be able
> to look at the African savannah and be able to tell that there is
> space between the trees.

When you find the software you are looking for, don't forget to tell the
US Army, because that is what they are building. The first version of
the virtual planet should be finished by September 2004.

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3507531.stm>
"The US Army is building a second version of Earth on computer to help
it prepare for conflicts around the world.
The detailed simulation will be drawn from a real-world terrain database
and will be drawn to the same scale as the original".

<http://www.homelanfed.com/index.php?id=20830>
"People play themselves, on the ground, interacting with their team,
other units, civilians, the enemy, etc. It's not all combat by any
means, there will be a lot of intelligence, patrolling, planning,
collaboration, negotiation with civilians, etc".


There is also every chance that versions will be made available to the
public, like America's Army was.

BillK




From eliasen at mindspring.com  Tue Apr  6 12:45:04 2004
From: eliasen at mindspring.com (eliasen at mindspring.com)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 08:45:04 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mail Delivery (failure
	extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org)
Message-ID: <200404061244.i36Cibc29830@tick.javien.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040406/efc427bd/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: message.scr
Type: audio/x-wav
Size: 29568 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040406/efc427bd/attachment.wav>

From rafal at smigrodzki.org  Tue Apr  6 16:50:31 2004
From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 09:50:31 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mail Delivery
	(failureextropy-chat@lists.extropy.org)
In-Reply-To: <200404061244.i36Cibc29830@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <OJEHKDIANIFPAJPDBDGLKEPJDBAA.rafal@smigrodzki.org>

Is this viral spam?

Rafal
  -----Original Message-----
  From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of
eliasen at mindspring.com
  Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 5:45 AM
  To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
  Subject: [extropy-chat] Mail Delivery
(failureextropy-chat at lists.extropy.org)


  If the message will not displayed automatically,
  follow the link to read the delivered message.

  Received message is available at:
  www.lists.extropy.org/inbox/extropy-chat/read.php?sessionid-27444
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040406/04bf3035/attachment.html>

From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Apr  6 14:58:49 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 07:58:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mail Delivery
	(failureextropy-chat@lists.extropy.org)
In-Reply-To: <OJEHKDIANIFPAJPDBDGLKEPJDBAA.rafal@smigrodzki.org>
Message-ID: <20040406145849.85935.qmail@web80403.mail.yahoo.com>

Yes.  I've seen it before.  No one click on the link:
it doesn't take you to where it says it takes you.

--- Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal at smigrodzki.org> wrote:
> Is this viral spam?
> 
> Rafal
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On
> Behalf Of
> eliasen at mindspring.com
>   Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 5:45 AM
>   To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>   Subject: [extropy-chat] Mail Delivery
> (failureextropy-chat at lists.extropy.org)
> 
> 
>   If the message will not displayed automatically,
>   follow the link to read the delivered message.
> 
>   Received message is available at:
>  
>
www.lists.extropy.org/inbox/extropy-chat/read.php?sessionid-27444
> > _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 



From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Tue Apr  6 15:49:06 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 16:49:06 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mail Delivery (failure
	extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org)
Message-ID: <4072D172.30800@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

On Tue Apr 6 08:58:49 MDT 2004 Adrian Tymes wrote:
> Yes.  I've seen it before.  No one click on the link:
> it doesn't take you to where it says it takes you.


Clicking on the link offers you the chance to download a file called
'attachment.wav' which is pretending to be a sound file.

This is the Win32.Netsky.P email worm. In this example the attachment is
an executable worm which is pretending to be a .wav file.

Netsky.P is a worm that spreads through e-mail and file sharing.
Netsky.P arrives in the form of a "dropper", which creates and loads a
DLL file containing the bulk of the worm code.

See link for full details:
<http://www3.ca.com/threatinfo/virusinfo/virus.aspx?id=38650>

***************
This attachment should be deleted from the list as soon as possible to
avoid careless readers infecting their PCs.
***************

BillK








From eliasen at mindspring.com  Tue Apr  6 16:28:03 2004
From: eliasen at mindspring.com (Alan Eliasen)
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 10:28:03 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mail
	Delivery	(failureextropy-chat@lists.extropy.org)
In-Reply-To: <OJEHKDIANIFPAJPDBDGLKEPJDBAA.rafal@smigrodzki.org>
References: <OJEHKDIANIFPAJPDBDGLKEPJDBAA.rafal@smigrodzki.org>
Message-ID: <4072DA93.6070101@mindspring.com>


Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> Is this viral spam?

   Looks like it.  I got one of them too, with someone else's name in the "on
behalf of" slot.  I was a bit annoyed that my e-mail address showed up in the
return address, but it wasn't from me.   That "on behalf of" is an indication
that it was sent through Microsoft Outlook, which I don't use.

   The virus takes advantage of a combination of two Microsoft bugs (which is
reason not to use Outlook nor Internet Explorer.)  The IFRAME embedding would
automatically load dangerous content without you asking, and the CID: URL is
just Microsoft insanity, designed, I think, to help virus writers.  Really,
don't use IE.

   Rafal, if you can send me the original message with *all* headers intact,
we can possibly trace the virus, maybe even finding the person that's compromised.

-- 
  Alan Eliasen                 | "You cannot reason a person out of a
  eliasen at mindspring.com       |  position he did not reason himself
  http://futureboy.homeip.net/ |  into in the first place."
                               |     --Jonathan Swift


From scerir at libero.it  Tue Apr  6 17:02:15 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 19:02:15 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mail
	Delivery(failureextropy-chat@lists.extropy.org)
References: <OJEHKDIANIFPAJPDBDGLKEPJDBAA.rafal@smigrodzki.org>
Message-ID: <002401c41bf8$ea4ef920$e1b01b97@administxl09yj>

Providers here use anti-virus
and anti-spam filters, so I've
got just this, a message from the
provider saying he deleted the
attachment (and everything else too).
 
<Ti informiamo che il file Unknown00000D97.data 
conteneva il virus IFrame.Exploit che Libero&Sicuro 
non ha potuto eliminare, ed e' percio' stato rimosso.>

s.
 


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Apr  6 17:54:54 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 12:54:54 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] NYT essay on the posthuman condition
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040406125412.01c46fa0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/06/health/06BODY.html?th=&pagewanted=print&position=


The Altered Human Is Already Here

By JAMES GORMAN

In the popular imagination, the technologically altered human being is a 
cross between RoboCop and the Borg.

The hardware that would make such a mating of humans, silicon chips and 
assorted weaponry a reality is, unfortunately, still on back order.

Many people, however, have already made a different kind of leap into the 
posthuman future.

Their jump is biochemical, mediated by proton-pump inhibitors, serotonin 
boosters and other drugs that have become permanent additives to many human 
bloodstreams. [etc]




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Tue Apr  6 18:48:52 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 11:48:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: viral spam
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404061125300.5473-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Note, all messages sent by someone not subscribed to the list
have to be approved by one of the moderators.  So this catches
most of the SPAM (and creates a lot of work for people such
as Dave McFadzean and myself).  [At the next Extro or
transhumanist conference *everyone* on the list should
offer to buy Dave a beer or pool your resources and buy
him dinner as he deals with much of this.]

It seems possible that someone could figure out how to
actually "join" the list.  As we are using a standard
list management package it is probably only a matter of
time before the hackers figure out a way to automate this
process (which is going to make things really difficult).
So the message could come from a newly subscribed member
that we haven't kicked off for sending SPAM.

The other possibility is that an already subscribed member
has a machine that has been corrupted by a virus and has
the ExI list address in their mailbox.  I suspect that is
probably what happened here.  The machine got corrupted
and then attempted to email the virus to the list.

Everyone should consider that there is some minimal size
required for any kind of sophisticated virus.  The ones
going around now are running from 30-45K bytes.  People on
the ExI list *rarely* write messages that are 30-45K in size
(2-5K is more typical).  If a message has any substantial
size it is probably not a good idea to even look at it
unless you *really* believe you can trust the sender.
Perhaps send a message to the sender asking them to confirm
that they sent a message that large to the list.

If I'm interpreting things correctly the source of the message
with the problem appears below.

Robert

> Received: from lists.extropy.org (adsl-67-38-1-7.dsl.sfldmi.ameritech.net
>         [67.38.1.7])
> 	by tick.javien.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id i36Cibc29830
> 	for <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>; Tue, 6 Apr 2004 06:44:38 -0600



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Tue Apr  6 20:02:18 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 13:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] TECH: lithography progress
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404061245090.7457-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


For those of you who like to follow progress in the
semiconductor industry Scientific American (online?)
has a good article on the state of the art in lithography.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=000CE8C4-DC31-1055-973683414B7F0000

Interestingly, the title is "The First Nanochips".
Kind of a crow eating exercise from the magazine
that promoted the idea that "nanotech can never happen".

Does anyone have any idea what it costs to manufacture
a printed T-shirt?  I bet if I had some made up saying
something like:

       "I really wanted to believe in nanotech."
  "But Scientific American claimed it couldn't be done."

would be a hot selling item at Foresight conferences
this year.  Or perhaps something with a more scientific
motif...
    Picture of Gary Stix X Picture of Richard Smalley =
                Picture of Turkey

Robert




From dgc at cox.net  Tue Apr  6 20:27:38 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 16:27:38 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] TECH: lithography progress
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404061245090.7457-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404061245090.7457-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <407312BA.8080901@cox.net>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>
>Does anyone have any idea what it costs to manufacture
>a printed T-shirt?  I bet if I had some made up saying
>something like:
>
>       "I really wanted to believe in nanotech."
>  "But Scientific American claimed it couldn't be done."
>
>would be a hot selling item at Foresight conferences
>this year.  Or perhaps something with a more scientific
>motif...
>    Picture of Gary Stix X Picture of Richard Smalley =
>                Picture of Turkey
>
>  
>
Not a lot. I just did a google for "T shirt print."
Lots of people will do this for small orders. Price depends on shirt.
Design the shirt on the web, provide credit card number, wait
for delivery.

I have not actually done this for T shirts. I did follow this process
for bumper stickers. For bumper stickers, the setup cost was about
seven dollars and the incremental cost per sticker was about a dollar.
   Does anyone need a spare
       "my child is an Honor Student at Hogwarts"
   Bumper sticker?

Incidentally, this model is spreading:
  An  order of 100 business cards costs $15.00.
  An order of four prototype printed circuit cards is $100.00
  An order of  three small custom machined brass parts is $75.00

All done with point and click on the web after doing a custom design,
either on the web or on your own computer using free downloaded software.



From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Tue Apr  6 20:28:11 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 16:28:11 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility
In-Reply-To: <200404061344.i36Divc02765@tick.javien.com>
References: <200404061344.i36Divc02765@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <407312DB.9080101@CRNano.org>

Robert Bradbury wrote:
 > On Mon, 5 Apr 2004, Chris Phoenix wrote:
 >
 >>> Biology uses active transport at many scales.
 >
 > Hmmmm... I would not say that is strictly true Chris.
 > Much of biology is based on diffusion of one kind or another.

I didn't say biology uses *only* active transport!  G's, you think I 
don't know about diffusion?

Even within cells, biology uses lots of active transport.  For example, 
dragging neurotransmitters along axons.  At intermediate scales, lymph 
is pumped with local muscle contractions.

 > Yes there are molecular targeting tags in several cases
 > such as targeting to the mitochondria, targeting to the
 > nucleus, etc.  But much of the time biology is using the
 > latent heat in the environment to drive transport mechanisms.

Have some respect for thermodynamics... The transport is lubricated or 
facilitated by latent heat.  It is *driven* by concentration gradients.

 > If you extend this you get into the entire question of
 > reversible computing.  You start to get into the things
 > that Landauer, Bennett and others worked on.  One
 > of their points was that if you wait long enough you
 > may be able to compute for "free".  I've never seen
 > an analysis of it but one might also be able to "assemble"
 > for "free".

I understand ATP synthase is reversible--effectively, it's 100% 
efficient.  (Which is an impressive feat, and may account for why it's 
so highly conserved.)  And Drexler sketches an analysis of reversible 
chemistry for mechanosynthesis and power conversion in Nanosystems.

In theory, one ought to be able to "assemble" for "free" simply by 
putting your reactions on a "frictionless" conveyor belt that takes them 
through the reaction space smoothly over a distance (e.g. by gradually 
bringing them closer to a reactant).  The force produced or required by 
the conveyor belt can be converted directly to/from electrical energy. 
If there's no abrupt state transitions (a function of the slope of the 
PES of the reaction vs. the stiffness of the system), then the whole 
thing is reversible, and lossless except for dynamic friction.

 > So you have an interesting issue with regard to making
 > nanotech faster than biotech.  Why bother?

Because otherwise Eugen will criticize it for being slow.  That's the 
origin of this thread of the conversation.

Of course, Eugen also criticized it for being inefficient.  And it's 
true that the slower you run, the more efficient you get.  But running 
at biological speeds (doubling mass in ~15 minutes), our best 
calculations indicate that a system should be within an order of 
magnitude as efficient as biology, and may be much better than biology. 
  And if it dissipates heat with irreversible state transitions (like 
forgetting bits, or doing chemistry with abrupt energy level changes), 
that heat can't be recovered by going more slowly.

Bottom line: as far as we can calculate, MNT is easily good enough for 
human purposes.  Anyone claiming problems with efficiency or scalability 
had better show an error in Nanosystems or in my Nanofactory paper.

Chris

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org



From eliasen at mindspring.com  Tue Apr  6 20:46:20 2004
From: eliasen at mindspring.com (Alan Eliasen)
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 14:46:20 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: viral spam
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404061125300.5473-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404061125300.5473-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <4073171C.4010303@mindspring.com>


Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> It seems possible that someone could figure out how to
> actually "join" the list.  As we are using a standard
> list management package it is probably only a matter of
> time before the hackers figure out a way to automate this
> process (which is going to make things really difficult).
> So the message could come from a newly subscribed member
> that we haven't kicked off for sending SPAM.

   Can't members simply be put on "probation" and have their posts moderated
until they've proven that they're real humans?  This is a common feature in
most mailing list software.

> The other possibility is that an already subscribed member
> has a machine that has been corrupted by a virus and has
> the ExI list address in their mailbox.  I suspect that is
> probably what happened here.  The machine got corrupted
> and then attempted to email the virus to the list.

   The way most e-mail viruses spread is to pick random addresses from an
address book (or more commonly these days, from HTML files, text files, and
other files you may have on your system) and send messages both to and from
these random addresses, thus attempting to obscure their origin.

   Many viruses fake a mail failure, especially to try to get you to open an
attachment to see "what was this mail that supposedly bounced?"  This is what
the Netsky.P virus, as noted by BillK, does.  From the text of the message,
that's what this was.  (And yes, I just checked all my systems to be very sure
they don't have it.)

> Everyone should consider that there is some minimal size
> required for any kind of sophisticated virus.  The ones
> going around now are running from 30-45K bytes.  People on
> the ExI list *rarely* write messages that are 30-45K in size
> (2-5K is more typical).  If a message has any substantial
> size it is probably not a good idea to even look at it
> unless you *really* believe you can trust the sender.

   It's not necessary to spread unfounded panic.  Unless you have a criminally
insecure mail client, you *can't* be infected with a virus by displaying an
e-mail on the screen.  Outlook is the only client I know that's ever allowed a
hole that bad.  No other e-mail client will allow infection just from
*viewing* the text of any e-mail (opening an attachment, yes, but that's
something you should always do with extreme care with any e-mail client, and
only after scrutinizing the attachment type.)

   I've written secure, spam-filtering e-mail clients myself, and I know you'd
actually have to go out of your way to intentionally make an e-mail client as
insecure as Outlook is.  It's actually surprising the lengths they went to to
make their client infectable.  If anyone's still using it, and you value your
data and time and reputation, and that of your friends and contacts, change now.

> If I'm interpreting things correctly the source of the message
> with the problem appears below.

   The only way that we'll know where Rafal's mail came from will be if he
forwards the original message with *all* headers, and even then it can be
difficult to trace.  He can send it to me directly, to avoid further waste of
everyone's time.

   I dislike having my name on the e-mail list of someone who doesn't protect
that information, and allows their system to forge my identity, send viruses
that purport to be from me, and make me look bad, so I want to get this fixed.

-- 
  Alan Eliasen                 | "You cannot reason a person out of a
  eliasen at mindspring.com       |  position he did not reason himself
  http://futureboy.homeip.net/ |  into in the first place."
                               |     --Jonathan Swift


From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Apr  6 21:23:10 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 23:23:10 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: viral spam
In-Reply-To: <4073171C.4010303@mindspring.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404061125300.5473-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<4073171C.4010303@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <20040406212310.GI28136@leitl.org>

On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 02:46:20PM -0600, Alan Eliasen wrote:

>    Can't members simply be put on "probation" and have their posts moderated
> until they've proven that they're real humans?  This is a common feature in
> most mailing list software.

Really? Mailman can do that? Wasn't aware of that feature. Cool.
Yahoogroups has recently switched to use OCR-proof image one-time tokens to prove
there's a human on the other end. Of course one can pay (cheap) humans to
bio-OCR the tokens, or at some point devise machine vision algorithms good
enough to cut through the distortion, and background noise. The race is on...
 
>    The way most e-mail viruses spread is to pick random addresses from an
> address book (or more commonly these days, from HTML files, text files, and
> other files you may have on your system) and send messages both to and from
> these random addresses, thus attempting to obscure their origin.

Roight. Which is why I sign all my outgoing mail, so that anybody verify it's
not a (malware) forgery. I know it's annoying to repeat that all the time,
but there are new users, and sometimes old users don't get it the first time
round.
 
>    It's not necessary to spread unfounded panic.  Unless you have a criminally
> insecure mail client, you *can't* be infected with a virus by displaying an
> e-mail on the screen.  Outlook is the only client I know that's ever allowed a

Outlook doesn't take a message to be *displayed* to become infected. There a
Windows bug (now patched) which activates system upon *mere mail reception*. Anything
which uses IE rendering engine for preview is vulnerable, whether patched or
not patched. Many other MUA (that's be mail clients, for yer dirty furriners)
have other triggerable bugs, known and unknown. This lousy mutt here can be
remotely exploited via an engineered MIME message.

The richer the content, the more lines of code to render. The more code, the
larger the number of bugs (and less code review, because rich content is
targeted for simians, which can't tell either way, and don't care). Hence,
rich content is evil. Am I preaching to the choir? At times I do wonder.

> hole that bad.  No other e-mail client will allow infection just from
> *viewing* the text of any e-mail (opening an attachment, yes, but that's
> something you should always do with extreme care with any e-mail client, and
> only after scrutinizing the attachment type.)

No, this is not correct. The smarter worms are rare, though, so in 99% of all
cases you're correct. Just don't assume you're safe, because "you never click
on attachements". 

I have no mouse, and I must click.
 
>    I've written secure, spam-filtering e-mail clients myself, and I know you'd

Wow. This is a pretty strong claim. I'm not being ironic here, but how do you
know these clients *are* secure? Much user base? Much hacker eyeballs?
Written in inherently safe (buffer overrun/stack overflow-proof languages)?

> actually have to go out of your way to intentionally make an e-mail client as
> insecure as Outlook is.  It's actually surprising the lengths they went to to
> make their client infectable.  If anyone's still using it, and you value your
> data and time and reputation, and that of your friends and contacts, change now.

Absolutely. Whoever is still using Outlook/Outlook Express is probably
playing russian roulette in the midday break, too. Another favor to do to yourself: download
Mozilla, and use it for most browsing. Only use Internet Explorer when you
come across this braindead "designed for" and "upgrade to most recent" web
sites (do you need their business that badly, though?).

Better, get an OS X Mac. And keep it auto-updated. (Windows ditto, but it's
not nearly as efficacious; though a *really good* IT guy can keep a Windows
box secure -- I'm not nearly *that good*, though, and I usually have
something else to do with my afternoons).
 
>    I dislike having my name on the e-mail list of someone who doesn't protect
> that information, and allows their system to forge my identity, send viruses
> that purport to be from me, and make me look bad, so I want to get this fixed.

Too late already. SMTP wasn't designed with facultative strong authentication
in mind, so it doesn't provide it. Use digital signatures, that's at least a
hook for further functionality, and at least provides plausible deniability.
There's much other patchery forthcoming, but it's all in terrible disarray,
and failing as we speak, in multiple and interesting way.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040406/26dd2d93/attachment.bin>

From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Tue Apr  6 21:41:14 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 22:41:14 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: viral spam
Message-ID: <407323FA.2040209@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

On Tue Apr 6 14:46:20 MDT 2004 Alan Eliasen wrote:
> The only way that we'll know where Rafal's mail came from will be if
> he forwards the original message with *all* headers, and even then it 
> can be difficult to trace.  He can send it to me directly, to avoid
> further waste of everyone's time.


* It wasn't Rafal's email! * He was just the first to ask why a virus
was allowed to be sent to everyone on the extropians list.

The virus email went to the list mailer. The HTML was deleted but a link
to the worm attachment in the archives was still included in the posted
message.

I doubt if a library is kept of original emails before processing by the
list software, but, if available, David might be able to access it.


> I dislike having my name on the e-mail list of someone who doesn't
> protect that information, and allows their system to forge my
> identity, send viruses that purport to be from me, and make me look
> bad, so I want to get this fixed.


It could be any list member (or former list member) who has copies of
extropians list emails stored on their PC.

The sender address is forged, of course, so tracing back requires the
original full header data and that may not tell you much anyway.

I get bounced emails regularly from web sites I've never heard off,
claiming that I tried to send them a virus.  EVERY email address has now
been compromised and made to look bad. As Eugen said 'Too late already'.
Pandora's box has been open for a while now.

BillK


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Apr  6 21:43:18 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 14:43:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] POL: Removing checks and balances
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404061245090.7457-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040406214318.2970.qmail@web80407.mail.yahoo.com>

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc108/h3920_ih.xml

I'd describe it, but...honestly, the impact is more
appropriate if you go there yourself and confirm
someone really did introduce this.

I give it a very low chance of passing, even given the
current climate.  Any odds greater than zero are high
enough to cause discomfort, of course, but I'm not
sure this one is (currently) worth much effort
fighting despite its content.  Even if it passes,
it'll probably get ruled unconstitutional - and a vote
to override that would likely find most of the cops
siding with the judiciary, rather than Congress, even
if the latter does pay their bills.

I wonder whether it would be a good idea, and if so
what it would take, to get a constitutional amendment
like the following passed?  (Given its content, it
only works as an amendment; a regular law would be
overruled and dismissed in short order.)

---

Whereas, the citizens of the United States of America
can no longer tolerate the real damage caused,
directly and indirectly, by the passage and temporary
enforcement of laws that are found unconstitutional at
the first opportunity for review, and

Whereas, the character of many such unconstitutional
laws throughout the history of the United States of
America has run counter to the spirit and beliefs upon
which its system of government was founded,

Let it be resolved that, if any law passed by Congress
shall within five years of enactment be found to be
unconstitutional by a unanimous vote of the Supreme
Court, all Senators and Representatives who voted for
said law shall be immediately barred from service to
the government of the United States, including
elected positions such as Senator or Representative
and appointed positions such as ambassadors, for a
period of twenty years starting from the date of
determination of unconstitutionality, and

In all votes to enact legislation in the House of
Representatives and in the Senate, Congress shall
maintain an accurate record of who voted for and of
who voted against each bill.

This amendment shall only apply to legislation enacted
after it has been ratified.

---

The time limit is there to target "immediately
obvious" unconstitutionality.  If it's only found
unconstitutional after many years of analysis, or if
there is any serious debate (among the USSC judges, at
least), those who passed it are off the hook.  This is
only intended for the worst abuses, and thus has a
correspondingly high bar to invoke.  (For example,
putting "Under God" in the pledge would not make the
cut.  Trying to trump the courts' power like this, or
to continue trampling on constitnutionally protected
civil liberties to the degree that they have been,
would.)

The second to last paragraph is there to get around
the problem of voice votes, where who voted yea or nay
is not recorded.  (It'd be simple enough to install
electronic voting - each member gets "yea", "nay", and
"abstain" buttons that apply to whatever is presently
being voted on - for those times when they don't want
to bother with roll call, the initial reason for voice
votes.)


From jcorb at irishbroadband.net  Tue Apr  6 23:23:58 2004
From: jcorb at irishbroadband.net (J Corbally)
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 23:23:58 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futures idea game (was Nano-assembler
	feasibility - politics)
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20040406232012.0389e5f0@pop3.irishbroadband.ie>

Not sure of the exact date, but the "enhanced" re-release of Star Wars was 
in '97, I went to see it with my Internet Lady Friend (wife now) in early 
March that year.

HTH


James..

>Message: 5
>Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 18:57:20 -0500
>From: "Stephen J. Van Sickle" <sjvans at ameritech.net>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Futures idea game (was Nano-assembler
>         feasibility - politics)
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Message-ID: <1081209439.1088.61.camel at Renfield>
>Content-Type: text/plain
>
>
>On Sun, 2004-04-04 at 22:56, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
>
> > But I am still confused how the original Star Wars was judged 100%
> > tohave been re-released *in theaters*.  It says"If the Star Warsmovie
> > is not re-released to theatres by 1/1/99, the claim pays $0." Was
> > there a theater re-release of the original Star Wars that Imissed?  I
> > thought they just released a DVD.
>
>
>Yep, there was a theater re-release, IIRC just before Episode 1 was
>released.  It is the "new" version with Jaba the Hutt scenes added, and
>the scene with Boba Fett jiggered to so that Han Solo didn't shoot him
>in cold blood.  I went to see it.
>
>
>I'm not sure if it was before 1/1/99 though.





From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Tue Apr  6 22:44:46 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 18:44:46 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mr. Newstrom goes to Washington
Message-ID: <00D9EEBA-881C-11D8-A198-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>

I have accepted a position of as Principal Security Architect with SAIC 
(Science Applications International Corporation) <www.saic.com>.  I 
will be deployed in the Washington, DC area working on government 
subcontracts.

This should be a long-term stable job that does not require full-time 
travel as a consultant or drumming up new business every few months as 
an independent contractor.  I hope that this will give me larger 
amounts of predictable free time on nights and weekends to devote to 
future projects.

If there is anybody in the DC area or within a day's driving distance, 
please drop me a line!  I am hoping to be able to meet more of you in 
person.  I might even be able to make weekend visits to New York and 
beyond.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec 
Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>



From outlawpoet at HELL.COM  Tue Apr  6 23:26:42 2004
From: outlawpoet at HELL.COM (outlawpoet -)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 16:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mr. Newstrom goes to Washington
Message-ID: <20040406232642.7916C7278@sitemail.everyone.net>

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040406/d318825f/attachment.ksh>

From hal at finney.org  Wed Apr  7 00:32:59 2004
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 17:32:59 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mail Delivery (failure
	extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org)
Message-ID: <200404070032.i370Wx502776@finney.org>

I can provide some information about this.  I read my extropians mail
in text mode on a Linux box by running "less" over the mailbox file.
So I see all the information that is available.

I received the virus message, and I assume that all other list subscribers
did so as well.  Some of you may not have seen it in case some anti-virus
software or filter deleted it.

The virus was actually included in the message.  The attachment was
not scrubbed by the list.

The attachment containing the virus looked like:

> ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C0CA80.6B015D10
> Content-Type: audio/x-wav;
>         name="message.scr"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
> Content-ID: <031401Mfdab4$3f3dL780$73387018 at 57W81fa70Re>
>
> TVqQAAMAAAAEAAAA//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
> AAAAAAAAYAAAAA4fug4AtAnNIbgBTM0hV2luZG93cyBQcm9ncmFtDQokUEUAAEwBAwAAAAAA
> AAAAAAAAAADgAA8BCwEAAAAEAAAAcgAAAAAAAAAgAQAAEAAAACAAAAAAQAAAEAAAAAIAAAQA
> [approximately 600 lines deleted]
> AzjqrwAAAeAgcEAOS0VSTmBMMzIuZHFs4EbobwZzZUhhbhjtwFpyPml0OkZuFb6/KWELHEEd
> Vp96R29mUudzUXVyY582Tzqpaw1iYWQWEElpbrZueko9dE2+ZClsXbMiRvFweUlSm+R0RkTA
> JFfBa293c0TfPuRj+ep5pTmgLRROYW1MhlBy8PJk45xMc2p2H0xpYjtTLz5UUJNDz+5uNA0Y
> TGG8RXLcXOvFjE11CHjMTgMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C0CA80.6B015D10--

I'm not sure how most mail clients would display this attachment; as
Eugen has noted, his PGP signature attachments are generally not handled
well after passing through the list server, because they get wrapped or
encapsulated in another MIME layer to allow the list to add its standard
3-line trailer that appears at the end of every message.

The part about the attachment being saved at the list is fake:

> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
> <META content="MSHTML 5.00.2920.0" name=GENERATOR>
> <STYLE></STYLE>
> </HEAD>
> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff>If the message will not displayed automatically,<br>
> follow the link to read the delivered message.<br><br>
> Received message is available at:<br>
> <a href=cid:031401Mfdab4$3f3dL780$73387018 at 57W81fa70Re height=0 width=0>ww
> w.lists.extropy.org/inbox/extropy-chat/read.php?sessionid-27444</a>
> <iframe
> src=cid:031401Mfdab4$3f3dL780$73387018 at 57W81fa70Re height=0 width=0></ifra
> me> 
> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

If you study this closely (sadly, this is how an increasing percentage
of list mail looks to me), you will see that the "href" field on the 10th
line is a cid: URL.  This points to the attachment itself (note that the
string after the cid: matches the Content-ID of the attachment I displayed
above).  So this is a way of getting you to open the attachment, while
making it appear that you are opening something at www.lists.extropy.org.

(Not that it would necessarily be safe to open something at the list;
the archive of the message at
http://www.lucifer.com/pipermail/extropy-chat/2004-April/005439.html
includes an actual link to a saved copy of the virus.)

The mail headers give a hint about where it came from:

> Received: from tick.javien.com (javien2-3.spots.ab.ca [209.115.169.3])
>         by finney.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i36DBu632454
>         for <hal at finney.org>; Tue, 6 Apr 2004 06:11:57 -0700
> Received: from tick.javien.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
>         by tick.javien.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id i36Cipc29866;
>         Tue, 6 Apr 2004 06:44:51 -0600
> Received: from lists.extropy.org (adsl-67-38-1-7.dsl.sfldmi.ameritech.net
>         [67.38.1.7])
>         by tick.javien.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id i36Cibc29830
>         for <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>; Tue, 6 Apr 2004 06:44:38 -0600

The problematic one is the last one, where it came into tick.javien.com,
which is the actual mail server.  When it says "Received: from" and gives
a system name, that is the name that the delivering system CLAIMS to be.
Then in parentheses it puts in the actual IP address the mail came from,
and the name you get from that IP address via reverse-DNS.  It's not too
unusual for the claimed and reverse-DNS names to be different; you can see
on the first line that tick.javien.com is "really" javien2-3.spots.ab.ca.
My own system finney.org has the same problem.  It's because ISPs tend
to give a generic name while individuals can pay for and register their
own chosen name.

In this case the system which connected to tick.javien.com claimed
to be lists.extropy.org.  But it was not; it was a random DSL address
belonging to ameritech.net, which is now SBC Yahoo DSL.  In other words,
this mail came from a Yahoo DSL subscriber's computer, 67.38.1.7,
and falsely claimed to be from lists.extropy.org.  Undoubtedly, that
is someone's personal computer, hooked up to the net via Yahoo DSL;
it is infected with a virus and is sending out bogus email.

Most viruses choose a random "From" address and a random "To" address from
an address book found on the infected computer.  In this case, the To: was
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org, and the From: was eliasen at mindspring.com,
which is list member Alan Eliasen's email address.  However it is
important to understand this does not mean that it came from Alan;
in fact, the headers show very convincingly that it came from the poor
owner of 67.38.1.7.

The sad thing is, in most cases these people are not even aware that their
system has been compromised.  It may be running a little more sluggishly
or showing other problems, but by and large the successful viruses leave
computers usable.  It's the same process of evolution that has largely
eliminated biological viruses which kill their hosts too quickly.

Chances are, this person is or has been a list subscriber, since he has
both the list address and Alan's email address in his address book.
He has probably communicated with Alan via private email, for the
same reason.  In fact, there is a good chance that he will receive this
message.  However he probably won't see this part because this message
is quite technical and the kind of people who get infected are usually
non-technical, so they wouldn't read this far.

These kinds of IP addresses are usually given out dynamically and somewhat
randomly, so the victim wouldn't have the same IP address all the time.
I did a search of my Extropians email for the past few years, and only
one poster came from a 67.38.X.X. address; that was Kevin Freels.  But
it is equally likely to be from a lurker (on most lists, lurkers far
outnumber posters) who happens to be a Yahoo DSL subscriber.

I get a lot of spam and virus emails, hundreds every day, and I look
at a few to see where they are coming from.  Most of them these days
come from systems like this, compromised personal computers.  I wish
there were some way to get in contact with the owners and warn them
that their systems are infected, but I don't know how to do it.  I just
spent about 10 minutes trying to find some place on the SBC DSL site to
notify the sysadmins about this problem with one of their subscribers,
without much luck.  I finally found a cramped little form where I pasted
in the Received header, but I doubt that it will do much good.

Given the increased prevalence of spam and viruses, it would be helpful
for ISPs to make it easier to report the problems.  Usually a moment's
inspection of the Received headers makes it pretty clear.  Some viruses
put in fake headers, but they're always at the end, and it's not that
hard to see where things first went bad.  It's frustrating that I
know the exact IP address of the infected system (or at least what
its address was at a specific time a few hours earlier), but I have
no way to communicate with them.

Of course, a certain percentage of these systems aren't infected but are
actually malicious, which makes it even more important for the ISP to be
notified.  There was a good story on slashdot yesterday about a sysadmin
at an Internet Cafe who got notified about a Nigerian spam (Hello, I am
the widow of former prime minister Dr. so-and-so, and I need your help
getting my money out of the country...) which came from one of his users,
and he was actually able to track the guy down and have him arrested.

Regardless of whether it's accidental or on purpose, ISPs should have
a big red REPORT SPAM/VIRUS button on their front page.  It's crazy in
our information age to make it so hard to close the loop on one of the
most crucial pieces of information out there, that a system has been
broken and is causing trouble for others.

Hal


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Apr  7 03:18:14 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 20:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mr. Newstrom goes to Washington
In-Reply-To: <00D9EEBA-881C-11D8-A198-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <20040407031814.47962.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>

Excellent, Harvey!!!

--- Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:
> I have accepted a position of as Principal Security Architect with
> SAIC 
> (Science Applications International Corporation) <www.saic.com>.  I 
> will be deployed in the Washington, DC area working on government 
> subcontracts.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/


From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Wed Apr  7 03:39:36 2004
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 23:39:36 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mail Delivery (failure
	extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org)
In-Reply-To: <200404070032.i370Wx502776@finney.org>
References: <200404070032.i370Wx502776@finney.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0404062328310.-40975679@pentium.mb.main.nc.us>


Thank you, Hal Finney, for this helpful and detailed explanation. I am
mostly a lurker, and not nearly as computer-savvy as most of the
extropes, so this kind of information is new and interesting to me.

I am particularly grateful to have it "in writing". I've heard
descriptions of header contents before, but yours I could save and
read several times until I thought I was getting it. Spoken words are
gone in a flash, and if I didn't catch them that time it's tough luck.

I have my virus checker up to date, have my firewall, run PC-Pine and
read my mails in plain text. I also have Postini to look for spam and
viruses, and Postini caught this one for me.

Trying hard *not* to be part of the problem and envying your
Linux-box.  ;)

Regards,
MB


On Tue, 6 Apr 2004, Hal Finney wrote:

> I can provide some information about this.  I read my extropians mail
> in text mode on a Linux box by running "less" over the mailbox file.
> So I see all the information that is available.


From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Apr  7 03:55:36 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 20:55:36 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] thanks jw
In-Reply-To: <407312BA.8080901@cox.net>
Message-ID: <00a601c41c54$2f9c9cc0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


It occurred to me that Jehovah's Witnesses have been
a major force in fighting crime.

Reasoning: When I was a boy (said in hoarse creaky
voice) we would always answer the doorbell.  But now
the delivery guy has done the math and realized that
it is cheaper to leave packages by the door and risk
theft than to come back later, so we needn't answer
for him.  Friends and neighbors have you on their
speed dial, so it probably isn't them.  So now when 
the doorbell rings it is likely to be the Witnesses, 
and one would really rather not talk to the Watchtower 
twits, so there is no good reason to answer the doorbell
at all.  So when a potential thief wishes to break into
a house, an unanswered doorbell does not necessarily
mean the house is vacant.  Perhaps grandma is in there,
with Mister Twelve Gage.

So Jehovah's Witnesses deter crime.

spike



From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Apr  7 05:00:45 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 22:00:45 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] innovation in search engines
In-Reply-To: <407312BA.8080901@cox.net>
Message-ID: <00b001c41c5d$498ead40$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

This should make things much easier in the future:

http://theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4014&n=1





From gpmap at runbox.com  Wed Apr  7 06:52:03 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 08:52:03 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hunting for a Gmail account
Message-ID: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGCEMOCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

Hunting for a Gmail account is the new game on the net. At the time of
writing Gmail is only open to a small number of beta testers, there is no
"New Account" or "Signup" screen visible, and none of the obvious hacks to
get in the system anyway work. Making things difficult for new users has
probably generated even more publicity for Gmail. There are indications
(look at the error message displayed when you try to login with your
standard Google account) that Google may soon open an access system based on
invitation like for Orkut. If you wish to know new developments on access to
Gmail, the best thing you can do is to join the Gmail community at Orkut
(you will need an invitation to join Orkut first).
In the meantime you can read a very interesting article on the topix.net
blog: Much is being written about Gmail, Google's new free webmail system.
There's something deeper to learn about Google from this product than the
initial reaction to the product features, however. Ignore for a moment the
observations about Google leapfrogging their competitors with more user
value and a new feature or two. Or Google diversifying away from search into
other applications; they've been doing that for a while. Or the privacy red
herring. No, the story is about seemingly incremental features that are
actually massively expensive for others to match, and the platform that
Google is building which makes it cheaper and easier for them to develop and
run web-scale applications than anyone else. Google has taken the last 10
years of systems software research out of university labs, and built their
own proprietary, production quality system. What is this platform that
Google is building? It's a distributed computing platform that can manage
web-scale datasets on 100,000 node server clusters. It includes a petabyte,
distributed, fault tolerant filesystem, distributed RPC code, probably
network shared memory and process migration. And a datacenter management
system which lets a handful of ops engineers effectively run 100,000
servers...

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.650 / Virus Database: 416 - Release Date: 04/04/2004
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040407/314ad5db/attachment.html>

From gpmap at runbox.com  Wed Apr  7 06:52:43 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 08:52:43 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Dawn of Personalized Medicine
Message-ID: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGGEMOCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From Always On: If we look at the IT world, there are a couple of
fundamental laws, which if we had understood back in the '60s and '70s,
would have probably prompted us to invest a lot more. I know that if I had
really understood what Gordon Moore was saying with Moore's Law in the
1960s, I might have bought some Intel stock. He recognized - in 1964 - that
computing power was going to double every 18 to 24 months and the cost would
drop in half. We began to recognize in the mid-1990's that there's almost a
direct correlation between the speed and pace of DNA sequencing and Moore's
Law. We could plot it out: every 18 to 24 months we were cutting the cost of
DNA sequencing in half and doubling the amount of throughput...
Well, what do you know about puzzles? Say you start out with a thousand
pieces. It's really hard for the first few hundred pieces. But then what
happens? As the pieces of the puzzle start coming together, the pace
accelerates. The speed picks up as you get closer to the solution. The
principle is the same with genetics. The more we understand about each gene
and each pathway and human biology, and the more we understand about how
every gene contributes to cancer or other diseases, then the more we
accelerate our understanding of the other genes in the pathway. The results
of this phenomenon are these transforming technologies that can dramatically
change the course of the future by accelerating the rate at which we
understand the molecular basis for disease and discover new drugs. The 1980s
were all about genomics and basic science; the 1990s were really about
industrialization. The 2000s and beyond, I believe, are going to be about
genomics and the consumer.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.650 / Virus Database: 416 - Release Date: 04/04/2004
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040407/91aac385/attachment.html>

From hal at finney.org  Wed Apr  7 07:33:29 2004
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 00:33:29 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Dawn of Personalized Medicine
Message-ID: <200404070733.i377XTZ04291@finney.org>

Giu1i0 forwards, from "Always On":

> If we look at the IT world, there are a couple of fundamental laws,
> which if we had understood back in the '60s and '70s, would have probably
> prompted us to invest a lot more. I know that if I had really understood
> what Gordon Moore was saying with Moore's Law in the 1960s, I might have
> bought some Intel stock.

Yes, or he might have invested in other 1960s era semiconductor
companies, like Amelco, or Shockley, or Intersil, or Rheem, which had
the distinction of being the first semiconductor company to be sued
over stolen intellectual property.  Hindsight is easy.  But even if Mr.
Always On had known that Moore's Law would be good for another 40+ years,
he could still have lost money.

Hal


From hal at finney.org  Wed Apr  7 07:44:21 2004
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 00:44:21 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] An Error in Nanosystems!
Message-ID: <200404070744.i377iLP04349@finney.org>

Stop the presses!  I've found a mistake in Drexler's magnum opus,
Nanosystems, the book in which it is said that no one has ever found
an error.  For years, Nanosystems and the Bible have been neck and neck
in the race for perfection.  Now the upstart from 1992 may be losing
ground to the inerrant word of God.

The mistake is right at the beginning, in the caption to figure 1.1,
which shows a molecular bearing.  But you don't have to see the picture
to spot the error:

"Figure 1.1.  End views and exploded views of a sample overlap-repulsion
bearing design (shown in both ball-and-stick and space-filling
representations).  Geometries represent energy minima determined by the
MM2/CSC molecular mechanics software.  Note the six-fold symmetry of the
shaft structure and the fourteen-fold symmetry of the surrounding ring;
this relatively prime combination results in low energy barriers to
rotation of the shaft within the ring.  Bearing structures are discussed
further in Chapter 10...."

Can you see the flaw?  I'll let readers here try to figure it out.

Now, if only I could find some kind of mistake in the Bible...

Hal


From sti at cam.org  Wed Apr  7 07:33:58 2004
From: sti at cam.org (Stirling Westrup)
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 03:33:58 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] An Error in Nanosystems!
In-Reply-To: <200404070744.i377iLP04349@finney.org>
Message-ID: <407376A6.23824.6E6E32E@localhost>

On 7 Apr 2004 at 0:44, Hal Finney wrote:

> "Figure 1.1.  End views and exploded views of a sample overlap-repulsion
> bearing design (shown in both ball-and-stick and space-filling
> representations).  Geometries represent energy minima determined by the
> MM2/CSC molecular mechanics software.  Note the six-fold symmetry of the
> shaft structure and the fourteen-fold symmetry of the surrounding ring;
> this relatively prime combination results in low energy barriers to
> rotation of the shaft within the ring.  Bearing structures are discussed
> further in Chapter 10...."
> 
> Can you see the flaw?  I'll let readers here try to figure it out.

Is it the fact that 6 and 14 aren't relatively prime? They have 2 for a 
common factor.
-- 
 Stirling Westrup  |  Use of the Internet by this poster
 sti at cam.org       |  is not to be construed as a tacit
                   |  endorsement of Western Technological
                   |  Civilization or its appurtenances.



From amergin3 at yahoo.com  Wed Apr  7 08:02:25 2004
From: amergin3 at yahoo.com (Thomas FitzGerald)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 01:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Gun control [was Re: the roadtohell]
In-Reply-To: <001d01c41a69$31f2a3d0$978b7ad5@oemcomputer>
Message-ID: <20040407080225.42989.qmail@web80806.mail.yahoo.com>

Hello, all. 
 
I've been lurking on this list for quite a while now, but am finally moved to post by a topic of great import:  New York State is absolutely no part of New England whatsoever. The third southern New England state isn't New York; it's Connecticut. Replacing Connecticut's crime rate with New York's makes me wonder about how accurate some of the other pro-gun stats are....  ;-)
 
Cheers,
Tom FitzGerald

Steve Davies <Steve365 at btinternet.com> wrote:

Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Northern New England, sir. Crime rates in New York, Massachusetts and
> Rhode Island are on par with other high gun control areas of the US.
> NH, VT, and ME crime rates have been lower than our neighbors for a
> very specific reason.

I was thinking of the nineteenth and early twentieth century actually when I
said historically. Is New York a part of New England btw? I thought it was
usually put into the "mid atlantic" category.


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040407/8aeab30e/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Apr  7 09:44:21 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 11:44:21 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Dawn of Personalized Medicine
In-Reply-To: <200404070733.i377XTZ04291@finney.org>
References: <200404070733.i377XTZ04291@finney.org>
Message-ID: <20040407094421.GD28136@leitl.org>

On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 12:33:29AM -0700, Hal Finney wrote:

> Yes, or he might have invested in other 1960s era semiconductor
> companies, like Amelco, or Shockley, or Intersil, or Rheem, which had
> the distinction of being the first semiconductor company to be sued
> over stolen intellectual property.  Hindsight is easy.  But even if Mr.
> Always On had known that Moore's Law would be good for another 40+ years,
> he could still have lost money.

Ditto nanotechnology (let's limit that to molecular circuitry, or molecular
memory, even).

It is not at all obvious who's going to pull it off first. There are way too
many candidates, and not enough of play money to spread around. 

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040407/9e9efcbf/attachment.bin>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Apr  7 12:10:58 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 05:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Gun control [was Re: the roadtohell]
In-Reply-To: <20040407080225.42989.qmail@web80806.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040407121058.7989.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>

Connecticut was left out of the comparison because it is a combination
of high crime/high gun control areas and low crime/low gun control
areas. WHile NY is not part of New England, it is part of the
NorthEastern US. I was not specifying New England as a whole, I was
comparing northern New England states with the rest of the NorthEast...

Your misperception makes me wonder about the comprehension capabilities
of other anti-gun types.... see how easily an insulting phrase cane be
turned around one you???? ;)

--- Thomas FitzGerald <amergin3 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello, all. 
>  
> I've been lurking on this list for quite a while now, but am finally
> moved to post by a topic of great import:  New York State is
> absolutely no part of New England whatsoever. The third southern New
> England state isn't New York; it's Connecticut. Replacing
> Connecticut's crime rate with New York's makes me wonder about how
> accurate some of the other pro-gun stats are....  ;-)
>  
> Cheers,
> Tom FitzGerald
> 
> Steve Davies <Steve365 at btinternet.com> wrote:
> 
> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > Northern New England, sir. Crime rates in New York, Massachusetts
> and
> > Rhode Island are on par with other high gun control areas of the
> US.
> > NH, VT, and ME crime rates have been lower than our neighbors for a
> > very specific reason.
> 
> I was thinking of the nineteenth and early twentieth century actually
> when I
> said historically. Is New York a part of New England btw? I thought
> it was
> usually put into the "mid atlantic" category.
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today>
_______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/


From natashavita at earthlink.net  Wed Apr  7 14:21:24 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 10:21:24 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mr. Newstrom goes to Washington
Message-ID: <57050-22004437142124671@M2W064.mail2web.com>


From: Harvey Newstrom 

>I have accepted a position of as Principal Security Architect with SAIC 
>(Science Applications International Corporation) <www.saic.com>.  I 
>will be deployed in the Washington, DC area working on government 
>subcontracts.

CONGRATULATIONS HARVEY!

Natasha



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




From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Wed Apr  7 14:50:37 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 10:50:37 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: An Error in Nanosystems!
In-Reply-To: <200404071211.i37CBKc20091@tick.javien.com>
References: <200404071211.i37CBKc20091@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <4074153D.3010704@CRNano.org>

Hal Finney wrote:
> 
> Stop the presses!  I've found a mistake in Drexler's magnum opus,
> Nanosystems, the book in which it is said that no one has ever found
> an error.
 >
> "...Note the six-fold symmetry of the
> shaft structure and the fourteen-fold symmetry of the surrounding ring;
> this relatively prime combination..."

For the past few months, I've been saying "no significant error" rather 
than no error whatsoever.  I lost all faith in Drexler when I found a 
typo in Nanosystems: one of the subscripts is wrong in the text applying 
one of his formulas, in the last paragraph of p. 353.  The second k(s,p) 
should be k(s,g).  I ripped up my copy at once, and renewed my 
subscription to Scientific American.

Which is easier to believe: that Drexler is an idiot who doesn't know 
what "relatively prime" means, or that he was thinking faster than he 
was writing and meant to say that *one-half* of the bearing (3 vs 7) 
represented a relatively prime combination?  If the whole bearing were 
relatively prime, it would wobble as the region of alignment traveled 
around the axis.  If there are two opposing regions of alignment, it 
won't wobble--but that requires that the numbers be mutually divisible by 2.

Drexler has told me that chemists frequently look at his 2D projections 
of 3D molecular designs, see two carbon atoms superimposed with a total 
of six bond-lines coming out, and accuse him of designing hexavalent 
carbon!  I guess for some idiots, it is easier to believe that he's an 
idiot.

BTW, do you have the hardcover Nanosystems?  My softcover version has a 
different caption: "Note the six-fold symmetry of the shaft and 
fourteen-fold symmetry of the surrounding ring; with a least common 
multiple of 42, this combination yields..."

Chris

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Apr  7 15:00:04 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 17:00:04 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] you always wanted to try Linux? Now's your chance!
Message-ID: <20040407150004.GN28136@leitl.org>


http://www.strangehorizons.com/index.pl?Contents=/2004/20040405/badger.shtml

Installing Linux on a Dead Badger: User's Notes
By Lucy A. Snyder

5 April 2004

Let's face it: any script kiddie with a pair of pliers can put Red Hat on a
Compaq, his mom's toaster, or even the family dog. But nothing earns you geek
points like installing Linux on a dead badger. So if you really want to earn
your wizard hat, just read the following instructions, and soon your friends
will think you're slick as caffeinated soap.
Minimum Installation Requirements:

   1.

      one (1) pocketknife
   2.

      one (1) screwdriver, flathead, to install Duppy card (see item 4.
below)
   3.

      computer with:
          *

            CD drive
          *

            USB, Ethernet, or a free slot for wireless networking card
          *

            Telnet or SSH client installed
          *

            cyberspiritual controller program such as FleshGolem (MacOSX and
Linux), Phranken (Windows 98, ME, 2000), or ItzaLive (MacOS 8.1-9.x and
Amiga)
   4.

      one (1) Duppy card (available in CardBus and PCI models) or
SpiritInTheSky external adapter (available in ethernet and USB models)
   5.

      V?D? Linux (available from Twisted Faces Software)
   6.

      minimum 3' x 3' (1m x 1m) fireproof surface, in secure, ventilated area
   7.

      privacy
   8.

      one (1) dead badger, good condition

Optional Installation Requirements:

    *

      one (1) gallon of holy water (Bless! brand exorcise water is ideal) in
a silver or silver-plated bucket
    *

      one (1) pair latex gloves
    *

      one (1) fluid ounce of flea-killing shampoo such as Ecto-Soothe or
Mycodex
    *

      running water and a large sink or washtub

The following test installation was conducted on the concrete floor of the
garage of a detached single-story house, on unconsecrated ground, using a
400MHz clamshell iBook, and began shortly after local sunset.

Step 1: Find a suitable badger. Specimens from zoos are ideal, but suitable
badgers can be found as roadkill along highways in many parts of North
America, the British Isles, continental Europe, Asia, and parts of Africa.

    *

      Other animals of family Mustelidae can be used in place of a badger,
but an adapter may be required. See Appendix II for details.

Step 2: Once you have obtained a dead badger, check it carefully for
structural damage, particularly in the spine, skull, and legs. Dead badgers
do not heal, and a badger with broken legs will display limited mobility.
Brain and spinal cord damage is likely to interfere with the Linux
installation and render any successfully-installed system unstable, as well
as voiding all explicit and implicit warranties according to the laws of any
and every state, country, or alternate dimension, present or future.

    *

      As a precaution against infection, wear latex gloves at all times when
handling your dead badger. It is highly recommended that you wash the carcass
with a suitable flea-killing shampoo.

Step 3: Obtain a copy of FleshGolem or other cyberspiritual controller
program. This test was conducted with a copy of FleshGolem downloaded from
the Apple site's utilities section. Follow all installation instructions
carefully, including addenda in the readme.txt file.

    *

      All cyberspiritual controllers should be compatible with either Duppy
cards or SpiritInTheSky adapters.

Step 4: Insert Duppy card or attach external SpiritInTheSky adapter. Duppy
cards work best if you're using a Mac with an Airport slot; response on the
external SpiritInTheSky adapter may be sluggish. Further notes below apply
only to Duppy card installation on the test iBook used.

    *

      The card has a hinged lid and a clear cover over what looks like a
small, shallow ivory box. Open and place a small amount of hair and blood
from the badger in the compartment, then close the cover, being careful not
to let stray hairs stick out of the compartment. Install card into Airport
slot by unlatching the small white tabs at the top of the keyboard, lifting
keyboard assembly off (being careful of the wires), and inserting card into
slot.

Step 5: Install Duppy card security antenna (included with card) in badger.
Badgers may be run without security anntenas, but this is not recommended.
Insecure badgers may be hacked by anyone with a compatible card and badger
bits. Each Duppy card/antenna system is uniquely coded so that a properly
installed system will allow only the original user to run the badger.

    *

      To install antenna, make a small incision with the pocketknife at the
nape of the badger's neck. Then shove the antenna down the badger's back
under the hide. Antenna must lie as flat as possible along the spine, or
security will be suboptimal. Antenna may also be installed by cutting the
badger's back skin open, but requires post-installation stitchery to restore
structural integrity; this method is recommended for licensed taxidermists
only.

Step 6: Install your badger's operating system. V?D? is the preferred Linux
distribution for badgers and related species (see Step 1). This distro was
designed by German software engineers who contributed to the SuSE project
before they started up Twisted Faces Software in Jamaica. An alternative
distribution is Pooka, which is available for download at SoulForge.net.
However, there is no alpha build for MacOS and Amiga, and some Windows NT
users have found that the Harvey utilities built into Pooka may cause sudden,
unpredictable invisibility issues.
      V?D? Tech Tips:

    *

      Default partitioning: /root goes in the spinal cord and brain stem,
/swap and /soul go on the left hemisphere of the brain, and /usr, /var, and
/home go on the right. If you're working with a badger with damage to one of
those areas, you can repartition one or the other brain hemisphere, but as
noted in Step 2, using a brain-damaged badger is not recommended and may
interfere with successful installation.
    *

      System configuration information and the spiritual components of the
package come on a small, rolled-up piece of parchment. Space is available to
write in a password, as well as any auxiliary programs like NecroNull. The
V?D? package comes with two scrolls, but a Santeria, Vodoun, Wiccan, or
Catholic priest or priestess who has undergone Twisted Faces' scrollmaking
training can also provide suitably blessed parchments. Check the V?D? home
page to find a qualified cleric in your area.
    *

      When modifying the scroll, be sure to use chicken blood-based ink, and
write neatly. Various languages may be used on the scroll -- V?D? is written
in SoulScript, but successful modifications have been made in Latin, Hebrew,
and Enochian. Further modifications can be made by Telnetting or SSHing into
your badger later; start only with essential information. After finishing
modifications, roll up the scroll and stick it down the badger's throat, all
the way into the stomach. Use a screwdriver or pencil to get it all the way
in.

Step 7: Install V?D? itself. In the package, there will be a large square of
herb-scented paper. This is the entire code for V?D?. Fold this paper into an
origami shape resembling the animal you're installing V?D? on (see also
Appendix II). There are folding directions for common animals in the box.
Make a hollow inside your paper badger and add a little more blood and hair
from your animal.

    *

      Don't lose the paper; replacements are expensive. There are recipes for
homemade paper on the Web, but getting all the information correctly
transcribed is a huge task, as this must be handwritten; furthermore, the
requirements of herb collecting, drying, and curing are formidable.

Step 8: Invocation/boot procedures. Place badger in center of fireproof
surface, making sure ventilation is adequate and all doors are locked. Turn
off all cell phones and pagers, and cease using all other unapproved
electronic devices. Using the badger's blood, smear a foot-wide pentagram
around its body. Place origami code-badger at the top point of pentagram, and
light paper while making the boot incantation:

        Suse vivo vixi victum reduco is ea id creatura absit decessus a
facultas Linux! Dev root, dev root!

    *

      The paper should burn with green flames. Black or gray means the herbs
were improperly prepared. Purple flames indicate kernel panic; douse the
flames with the bucket of holy water and abandon installation site
immediately. Seek shelter at the nearest church or other consecrated area.
You may need to enlist the assistance of an exorcist if you cannot reach
shelter in time.
    *

      When you produce green smoke, it should flow over the badger and into
its mouth and nose. The badger will awaken as a Linux-powered zombie. Enjoy
your new undead badger.

Common Problems

    *

      Reanimation puts most creatures in a foul mood, and the test badger
woke up murderously angry, requiring a hasty launch of FleshGolem to get the
beast under control. It is highly recommended to have the computer close at
hand during the incantation.
    *

      If the badger isn't responding correctly, you may need to make some
configuration adjustments via Telnet; instructions are in the V?D? manual.
    *

      If the badger does not respond at all to the boot incantation, call
Twisted Faces' tech support. Make sure to try all other troubleshooting
options first. After two free calls, tech support will cost you an arm and a
leg. . .and they'll only accept fresh, gangrene-free limbs.

DISCLAIMER: No badgers or Macintoshes were harmed in the course of this test
installation. Your results may vary. Please note that zombie badgers are
banned in many municipalities in California and Wisconsin; zombie badgers
must remain leashed at all times in Texas. Zombie badgers can move at great
speeds, and are prone to sudden acceleration; use proper caution when driving
your zombie badger. Do not allow your zombie badger to consume mushrooms or
African snakes, or your badger may emit catchy techno music. Do not taunt
zombie badgers. Prolonged use of a zombie badger may cause acne, insomnia,
leprosy, unusual weather, or the end of time. Please dispose of your zombie
badgers properly; consult your local recycling company for proper disposal
protocols.

 

Copyright ? 2004 Lucy A. Snyder


-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040407/b4902cc6/attachment.bin>

From natashavita at earthlink.net  Wed Apr  7 16:52:19 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 12:52:19 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] ART: Christo to Wrap Central Park
Message-ID: <269620-22004437165219967@M2W065.mail2web.com>


I am a big fan of Christo, have been for 20+ years.  He was a mentor for me
as an artist, especially with my Performance Art in the Amazon Jungle, and
Halealaka Volcano, and, especially the Transhumanist Art film and
performance which kicked off the Transhumanist Arts Movement.  "Breaking
Away" was a performance and film at Redrocks Amphitheater in the Rocky
Mountains of Colorado.

Throughout the years as an artist, my favorite venue has been the
environment.  It caused me to apply for Space Camp and attend at the United
States Space and Rocket Center in Tranquility Base, where I had hope to
join an astronaut training sessions back in the early 1980s.  I hope to be
the first artist in space :-)  Okay, "an" artist in space -- a dream that
has yet to be realized.

Working with the environment for some artists is the ultimate canvas, for
me it still is.  I enjoy the night sky like an enormous canvas waiting to
happen.

Much of this was a direct influence by artists such as Christo, for he set
the pace and the stage. Another such artist is James Turrell,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/arts/highlights/001102_turrell.shtml who
along with Christo, magnificently utilizes the environment.  However, for
Turrell, his light sculpture can be found in any environment and is so
breathtaking that one leave fully mesmerized.

CENTRAL PARK:

While Christo is a superb artist and his "Running Fence" or "Wrapped
Islands" and the "Curtain" on the Grand Canyon were breathtaking, Central
Park might not be such a fanciful image to toy with. Central Park is, in
itself, a work of art, as it was designed by the architects and
landscapers, the people and the city of New York.  It is a place for people
to call their own, to romp and play, and to meditate and relax.  

"After almost 25 years, the city of New York has finally approved Christo
and Jeanne-Claude's proposal for an enormous art work in Central Park,
albeit in a reduced form. For two weeks in February 2005, some 23 miles of
saffron-colored fabric will flutter over the pedestrian walkways in the
park. The fabric will be hung on 7,500 "gates," or frames, that are 16 feet
high and vary in width from 6 to 18 feet. The artists, who are funding the
work themselves, conceived the piece in 1979, but the proposal was
repeatedly rejected due to concerns that it would damage the park and
disrupt wildlife. The revised plan calls for half the number of gates and
eliminates the need to drill holes in the ground for the posts; instead,
they will be secured to small steel bases placed on the pavement. The New
York Times reported that the local Sierra Club chapter is opposing the
project pending further environmental reviews."

or http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040412/misc/12christo.htm

I think that the people of New York do have a say in all this and that it
is their environment - not an empty Island, or a field out in the middle of
nowhere that a fence can run, or a curtain across the Grand Canyon.

It certainly causes one to think ...  I?m not sure. What about you?

Natasha


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




From scerir at libero.it  Wed Apr  7 18:37:13 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 20:37:13 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] ART: Christo to Wrap Central Park
References: <269620-22004437165219967@M2W065.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <001c01c41ccf$5b068b20$f0c21b97@administxl09yj>

> It certainly causes one to think ...  I'm not sure. 
> What about you? 
> Natasha

Christo recently planned to wrap the famous Ponte S.Angelo, 
in Rome http://hamiltonselway.com/christo/ponte_angelo.htm 
He also planned to wrap the Mura Aureliane (Aurelian Wall),
in Via Veneto, http://www.livinginrome.com/rome.php?ae=905
http://www.geocities.com/mp_pollett/walls.htm 
and succeeeded (1974) in wrapping about 200 meters of these
Mura http://www.christojeanneclaude.net/wrw.html for a short
time, due to the very bad weather conditions and some shortage
of (public) money. Romans did not like it. By chance, or not
by chance, who knows?, the wrapping of Mura Aureliane also 
marked, signed the end of the "Dolce Vita", and - more
than that - the end of the "swinging" Rome.
s. 


From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Wed Apr  7 18:46:45 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 13:46:45 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] AI: credit reporting
Message-ID: <Law10-OE18Nv2akGAyW00019a24@hotmail.com>

As a mortgage broker by day, I read hundreds of credit reports every month. What has always impressed me was how accurate the scoring is when you are using it to calculate risk. There are people out there that you would never suspect as being a credit risk, but the algorithms used to calculate their scores say otherwise. Then, sure enough, two years later they are being foreclosed on!

So many things are considered in credit reports: Proprotions of balances to limits, length of history of tradelines, number of tradeline, tradeline types, length of credit history, and I think even employment and address changes are calculated into the mix. The end result is amazingly accurate.

Because of this accuracy, insurance companies and employers are starting to use these scores as a basis of determining a person's value to their companies. Insurance rates are getting adjusted based on credit scores because lower score people are more likely to file a claim. It seems to me that it is no longer a "credit" score, but a "decency score". 


What is even more amazing though is how occasionally "it" can be "fooled". "It" can also make "mistakes" on occasion by giving a person a low score (indicating higher risk) even though a review of the data shows no signs of why this score was reached.Each of the three main credit reporting agencies usually render different scores. Each one employs their own proprietary algorithm for calculating thses scores. Each company has a huge investment in these algorithms and as such, will probably never release them to the public for scrutiny. 

What I am wondering is whether or not these algorithms could represent the first baby steps towards AI. Are we not already using it as such? How involved do you think these algorithms are? 

Kevin Freels
PS What is the Atheist version of Easter?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040407/f4dced0f/attachment.html>

From emerson at singinst.org  Wed Apr  7 19:53:34 2004
From: emerson at singinst.org (Tyler Emerson)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 14:53:34 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Michael Anissimov - SIAI Advocacy Director
Message-ID: <017101c41cda$032f0d40$6501a8c0@LUCILLE>

The Singularity Institute announces Michael Anissimov as our Advocacy
Director. Michael has been an active volunteer for two years, and one of the
more prominent voices in the singularity community. He is committed and
thoughtful, and we feel very fortunate to have him help lead our advocacy.

In 2004 and beyond, Michael will represent SI at key conferences, engage in
outreach efforts to specific communities and individuals, and perform
writing tasks for communicating the Institute's mission to a wider audience.

Michael is avaiable for contact at anissimov at singinst.org.

-- 
Tyler Emerson
Executive Director, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
http://www.singinst.org/

--
Subscribe to our free monthly bulletin:
http://www.singinst.org/news/subscribe.html



From duggerj1 at charter.net  Wed Apr  7 20:00:35 2004
From: duggerj1 at charter.net (duggerj1 at charter.net)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 15:00:35 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mr. Newstrom goes to Washington
Message-ID: <200404071958.i37JwgoD055240@mxsf03.cluster1.charter.net>

From: Harvey Newstrom 


>>I have accepted a position of as Principal Security Architect with SAIC 
>>(Science Applications International Corporation) <www.saic.com>.  I 
>>will be deployed in the Washington, DC area working on government 
>>subcontracts.

Yes indeed, Harvey. Kudos. 

Jay Dugger     :     Til Eulenspiegel
http://www.owlmirror.net/~duggerj/
Sometimes the delete key serves best.



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Apr  7 19:59:49 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 12:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheist Easter
In-Reply-To: <Law10-OE18Nv2akGAyW00019a24@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20040407195949.72528.qmail@web80406.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Kevin Freels <kevinfreels at hotmail.com> wrote:
> PS What is the Atheist version of Easter?

Even if one denies all that which can not be shown and
proven, one can still worship chocolate.


From hal at finney.org  Wed Apr  7 20:36:02 2004
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 13:36:02 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: An Error in Nanosystems!
Message-ID: <200404072036.i37Ka2O07881@finney.org>

Chris Phoenix writes:

> Which is easier to believe: that Drexler is an idiot who doesn't know 
> what "relatively prime" means, or that he was thinking faster than he 
> was writing and meant to say that *one-half* of the bearing (3 vs 7) 
> represented a relatively prime combination?

I wouldn't say that someone was an idiot just for making this mistake.
Maybe this text originally referred to an earlier version of the design,
where the numbers actually were relatively prime, and when the design
got changed, nobody noticed that the phrasing was now inaccurate.
The point is that the guy can make mistakes, just like anybody else.

> If the whole bearing were 
> relatively prime, it would wobble as the region of alignment traveled 
> around the axis.  If there are two opposing regions of alignment, it 
> won't wobble--but that requires that the numbers be mutually divisible by 2.

I don't know about that: see figure 10.19, which has 6 inside and
11 outside, relatively prime.  Drexler discusses this bearing in some
detail in 10.4.7e, and he doesn't say anything about wobble (although he
is worried about possible reconstruction of the inside piece).  It was
while I was reading about this bearing that I was led to figure 1.1,
the improved version.

Or see
http://groups.google.com/groups?start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=sci.nanotech&selm=Jul.26.00.00.42.1993.27440%40planchet.rutgers.edu&rnum=20 ,
a Usenet posting by me in 1993, in which I refer to some Extropians list
debate which Drexler got involved with(!), in which he recommended
analyzing a bearing with 19 and 27 units in the inner and outer rings.

> BTW, do you have the hardcover Nanosystems?  My softcover version has a 
> different caption: "Note the six-fold symmetry of the shaft and 
> fourteen-fold symmetry of the surrounding ring; with a least common 
> multiple of 42, this combination yields..."

No, I didn't even know there was a hardcover version.  I bought the
book shortly after it came out and I have a first printing, I believe
(evidenced by the "10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1" on the bottom of the copyright
page).

But I am genuinely amazed to learn that Drexler is changing and revising
the book with subsequent printings!  I had never heard this before.  What
else has changed between my version and the most recent one?  Is there a
list anywhere?  Don't people like me who bought an early version deserve
to know about what other material Drexler may have revised?

It is common practice in the academic community to publish an error list
that provides this information.  Silently revising the book to erase
errors is not enough for those who are relying on earlier versions.
I would hate to think that Drexler is hiding the fact that his book had
errors in order to promote that absurd and counterproductive myth that
it is perfect!  For an important and foundational book like Nanosystems,
not providing errata is a lapse which should be corrected.

Hal


From jcorb at irishbroadband.net  Wed Apr  7 22:48:01 2004
From: jcorb at irishbroadband.net (J Corbally)
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 22:48:01 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mr. Newstrom goes to Washington 
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20040407224630.01bc03e0@pop3.irishbroadband.ie>


>Message: 15
>Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 18:44:46 -0400
>From: Harvey Newstrom <mail at HarveyNewstrom.com>
>Subject: [extropy-chat] Mr. Newstrom goes to Washington
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Message-ID: <00D9EEBA-881C-11D8-A198-0030654881D2 at HarveyNewstrom.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>I have accepted a position of as Principal Security Architect with SAIC
>(Science Applications International Corporation) <www.saic.com>. I
>will be deployed in the Washington, DC area working on government
>subcontracts.

Best of Luck Harvey.  I may very well find myself living in the VA area in 
the future, so perhaps we'll meet at one of those DC Transhumanist get 
togethers.

Cheers,



James...





From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Wed Apr  7 22:27:52 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 15:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Dawn of Personalized Medicine
In-Reply-To: <200404070733.i377XTZ04291@finney.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404071523590.8294-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Hal Finney wrote:

> Yes, or he might have invested in other 1960s era semiconductor
> companies, like Amelco, or Shockley, or Intersil, or Rheem, which had
> the distinction of being the first semiconductor company to be sued
> over stolen intellectual property.  Hindsight is easy.

Hal, you may have missed the best example -- Trilogy Systems (google on
trilogy + Amdahl.  I'm not sure it ever got to the point of going public
though so it might not have turned into an Enron.

Robert





From amergin3 at yahoo.com  Wed Apr  7 22:33:23 2004
From: amergin3 at yahoo.com (Thomas FitzGerald)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 15:33:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Gun control [was Re: the roadtohell]
In-Reply-To: <20040407121058.7989.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040407223323.33461.qmail@web80808.mail.yahoo.com>

Mike,
 
I'm not especially insulted, and I'm sorry if you were. I'm just relieved to hear that no one on the list thought New York was in New England. Have fun with your gun debate.
 
Cheers,
Tom FitzGerald

Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
Connecticut was left out of the comparison because it is a combination
of high crime/high gun control areas and low crime/low gun control
areas. WHile NY is not part of New England, it is part of the
NorthEastern US. I was not specifying New England as a whole, I was
comparing northern New England states with the rest of the NorthEast...

Your misperception makes me wonder about the comprehension capabilities
of other anti-gun types.... see how easily an insulting phrase cane be
turned around one you???? ;)

--- Thomas FitzGerald wrote:
> Hello, all. 
> 
> I've been lurking on this list for quite a while now, but am finally
> moved to post by a topic of great import: New York State is
> absolutely no part of New England whatsoever. The third southern New
> England state isn't New York; it's Connecticut. Replacing
> Connecticut's crime rate with New York's makes me wonder about how
> accurate some of the other pro-gun stats are.... ;-)
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom FitzGerald
> 
> Steve Davies wrote:
> 
> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > Northern New England, sir. Crime rates in New York, Massachusetts
> and
> > Rhode Island are on par with other high gun control areas of the
> US.
> > NH, VT, and ME crime rates have been lower than our neighbors for a
> > very specific reason.
> 
> I was thinking of the nineteenth and early twentieth century actually
> when I
> said historically. Is New York a part of New England btw? I thought
> it was
> usually put into the "mid atlantic" category.
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today>
_______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
- Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040407/b08e16d9/attachment.html>

From amergin3 at yahoo.com  Wed Apr  7 22:45:41 2004
From: amergin3 at yahoo.com (Thomas FitzGerald)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 15:45:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheist Easter
In-Reply-To: <20040407195949.72528.qmail@web80406.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040407224541.26315.qmail@web80804.mail.yahoo.com>

Although Adrian's chocolate suggestion is more up my alley, another possibility might be Earth Day.

Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:--- Kevin Freels wrote:
> PS What is the Atheist version of Easter?

Even if one denies all that which can not be shown and
proven, one can still worship chocolate.
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040407/a404f68e/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Apr  8 03:17:20 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 20:17:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheist Easter
In-Reply-To: <20040407224541.26315.qmail@web80804.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040408031720.9284.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Thomas FitzGerald <amergin3 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Although Adrian's chocolate suggestion is more up my alley, another
> possibility might be Earth Day.

I thought we extropes celebrated the return of the Solar Cause?



=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu Apr  8 03:18:32 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 20:18:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] NNI Workshop & Conference writeup
Message-ID: <20040408031832.53222.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>

Last week, I attended the National Nanotechnology
Initiative's Workshop and Conference in Washington,
DC.  I figured a writeup of (or rant about, or stream
of conciousness babbling related to) the attitudes and
goings-on might be of interest to some on this list,
as they appear to be the US government's main
coordinating arm for nanotech efforts throughout all
its branches.

First, their public timetable for when things are
likely to come up.  They define four generations:
* Generation 1 (start ~2001): passive nanostructures.
  Basically just bulk materials, engineered with a
  knowledge of their properties at the nanoscale.
* Generation 2 (start ~2005): active nanostructures.
  Nano-MEMS and similar powered systems.
* Generation 3 (start ~2010): 3-D nanosystems,
  including heterogeneous (multiple materials)
  components.
* Generation 4 (start ~2015): heterogeneous molecular
  nanosystems.  They take great pains to avoid using
  the "D-word" (Drexler), but the detailed
  description certainly seems to cover structures with
  similar capabilities.  (And isn't it a coincidence
  that this is about 10 years away, the length of time
  some people have been predicting a
  focused-on-molecular-nanosystems-only approach would
  take to reach this level?)  Of course, this is far
  from the only thing that would be researched.

Which leads to a new meme I stumbled across: the
debate over whether or not molecular self-replicating
systems could work may be irrelevant.  This offers
something for both sides: yes, they could be
manufactured, but if there are better ways to do the
things they offer then it's not worthwhile spending
resources concentrating on them.  For example: a
highly automated lithography machine, with robot arms
for assembly and materials handling, may be able to
recreate its own circuit boards, motors, housing, and
so forth from raw materials (silicon wafers, sheet
metal, et cetera) and put them together into a
duplicate of itself, all without dipping that far (if
at all) into the nano-realm (to say nothing of doing
things atom by atom).  If it could do so at, say, 1
copy a day vs. a molecular assembler's 1 copy a month
(or worse: the molecular assembler treats each atom as
a distinct operation, so many that even after
accounting for its smaller size, it might still have
to be really really fast to self-replicate at the same
rate), then of what use is that molecular assembler?
More importantly, lithography and robotics can be
done, and thus in theory a completely self-replicating
tool created, today.  (The question is, could it be
build on a budget that could be assembled today?  The
future exponential payoff is completely irrelevant
except as a motivator here, and yet this is probably
the main hurdle to overcome.)

There were three main groups among the audience:
academia, industry, and potential users (mainly
government, for obvious reasons).  Much thanks to
Mr. Bradbury for providing the inspiration for a story
that put me squarely in the second group, especially
since that's the one the other two are most interested
in assisting.  (For example: user facilities available
for corporate R&D, available for free, dropping the
materials and machining costs of R&D to zero and
cutting out much of the labor costs.  I'd call that
active assistance.)  Large industry is by and large
looking to small businesses to do said R&D; the small
businesses in this industry are, in turn, largely
operating in what another attendee called "survival
mode" funding, leaving out such niceties as being able
to train people on the job.  (Which, as the owner of
the now-official nanotech consulting business Winged
Cat Solutions and having had to fund myself through
retraining, I can definitely empathize with.)

Which leads to an amusing bit at the end of the last
panel of the last day.  The conference chair and two
others were decrying how difficult it was to get
people into nanotech.  They talked about boosting
university funding, and even proposed educating sixth
graders in the specifics.  (Appropriateness and
effectiveness of vocational training at such an age -
for everyone, at least, as opposed to the small
percent who might actually get some use out of it -
aside, there's the small matter of technology changing
in the six more years it'd take for them to get out of
high school and into the workforce even if they don't
go to college.  Imagine learning about slide rules in
sixth grade, then ten years later - six grades plus
four years in college - finding prospective employers
relying extensively on computers and calculators
instead.)  In the Q&A session afterwards, myself,
someone from the State Department, and a third person
(I think from the Forest Service) took turns bashing
them back and forth about virtually ignoring adult
education: there are a bunch of unemployed,
technically literate adults today (former IT workers),
who could be retrained and set to work in months,
which is about the timescale industry wants new
workers in.

Another split was between "wet" nanotechnology and
"dry" nanotechnology.  (Reading a sci-fi work that
has terms to deal with issues you're about to
encounter: good thing.  Having the director of the
White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy
then use "your" new words in his keynote address: oh,
yeah! ^_^  Granted, they were somewhat obvious terms,
but they seemed new to the people I bounced them off
of before said address.)  In the opinion of many of
the other industry types I talked to, "wet" nanotech
(like protein growth) has most of the hype while "dry"
nanotech (like lithography) has most of the working
products.  I had trouble paying attention to some of
the first day's panels because I was battling a severe
case of jet lag; those I mentioned it to thought it
was because said panels were dealing with wet
nanotech, and claimed the same problem.

For the Smalley-bashers out there: from what I'm told,
he can't be bothered to update his speeches.  His talk
was a good one, about limited energy resources and how
alternate energy sources (like solar) are going to
have to be massively deployed if we are to avoid
spiking energy prices in a few decades, but it's the
same one he gave last year.  (As some of you know, I'm
working on a potential new energy source; some of my
funding comes from people interested in that which I
have to develop in order to make it work.  But I'm not
betting much on the source itself until and unless I
can make a working prototype; I may have simply
misunderstood the theory it's based on.)

For the NASA-bashers out there: the second to last
overhead in NASA's presentation was a graph, with the
horizontal axis labelled thusly:

1 A   1 nm  10 nm  micron   mm   yards

I'm not sure how many people caught this, but the
folks from NIST sure did - even if they held their
chuckles on it for private.

There was, of course, some talk about "responsible"
development of nanotech - but when you get down to it,
it's currently mainly a call for further study and no
prevention of research in the mean time.  The only
solid evidence was decried: toxicology of buckyballs
that even the report's own author said was probably no
threat to people.  (I'm paraphrasing here, of course.)
Basically, she found that when buckyballs get injected
into fish throats enough to start blocking said
passage, the fish suffer, but it got reported as,
"BUCKYBALLS are TOXIC OMGOMGOMG!!!11!!".  (Insert
sarcastic comment here; a good portion of the audience
was probably thinking of one or more at this point.)

One thing that struck me was just how low the "expert"
level of knowledge is.  Yes, there are people who have
been doing this for years, but not many.  I've been
following this field for years, but only seriously
studying it for a few months, and already I knew about
as much as most of those present.  Some of the things
I would think obvious - like the process flow I
described on this list last week - had not yet
occurred even to the most seasoned folk I talked with.
(Potential business opportunity?  Maybe.)


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu Apr  8 03:19:56 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 20:19:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheist Easter
In-Reply-To: <20040408031720.9284.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040408031956.53645.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Thomas FitzGerald <amergin3 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Although Adrian's chocolate suggestion is more up
> my alley, another
> > possibility might be Earth Day.
> 
> I thought we extropes celebrated the return of the
> Solar Cause?

That's in December.  This is April.  The question was
for something to celebrate near or on Easter.


From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Apr  8 03:37:55 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 20:37:55 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] solution to identity theft
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404061245090.7457-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <015301c41d1a$e14fe000$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


extropians,

Identity theft is said to be growing wildly
as sleazeballs displaced by cheap and competent
electronic surveillance systems look elsewhere 
to make a dishonest living.

To stop the yahoos from stealing and using credit
card applications, could not the fed simply publish
*everyone's* social security number?  That would
at least stop banks from giving out credit based
on that.  Would it not force them to come up with
some legitimate means of determining identity?

spike








From wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu Apr  8 04:05:46 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 21:05:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] solution to identity theft
In-Reply-To: <015301c41d1a$e14fe000$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20040408040546.9460.qmail@web80404.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> To stop the yahoos from stealing and using credit
> card applications, could not the fed simply publish
> *everyone's* social security number?  That would
> at least stop banks from giving out credit based
> on that.  Would it not force them to come up with
> some legitimate means of determining identity?

What about the chaos it'd cause during the transition,
when SSN-based security systems still haven't updated
despite the SSNs having been published?  You could
give a lead time of several years, and it still
wouldn't be long enough for all of 'em to switch.


From megao at sasktel.net  Thu Apr  8 03:16:44 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 22:16:44 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Dawn of Personalized Medicine
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404071523590.8294-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <4074C41C.83944A80@sasktel.net>

Picking stocks based on trend alone is not much more than the monkey does if
you give him the right stock  page to poop on.
I keep getting "Hot Stock" calls from brokers flogging  shares .
These "Hot Stocks" unfortunately seem to resurface over and over sometimes
never doing the deal.  Just the other day as well as 8 months ago I have had
nearly the very exact same broker call about a company called Myelin Labs
and their being on the verge of FDA approval for production of a generic
pharma......
The same guy and the same script almost to a word.
The pitch is not so unreasonable but once you hear it the second time, the
little changes can be telling "the rest of the story".

However one I have had pitched 3 times in 18 months is "Kaleco Scientific".
They may have a hard time getting the capital, but I think the product has
merit.
A Russian/USA alliance with a helmet used in a clinical setting to stimulate

using an offshoot of TENS.

Similarly biopharma is popping up everywhere... the question is  ... is
there another Intel, Microsoft or such this time around or will the field
remain fragmented in the same way the product lines might?

Frankly, I can see the forest/tree conundrum very well from where I am at
because
as I have said a few times before, we are a small company with specialized,
compounded, made to order nutraceuticals now venturing formally into
products
derived from medical cannabis.  Stats say Canada has a 7Billion$  market,
but
nobody knows , us included , if the customers will ever "come out of the
closet".

Yes the trends all say we should be filthy rich but trends,are sometimes
like polls are to dogs, sometimes worth only to piss on.

I have no doubt personalized meds are a major big thing, I just don't think
anybody should kick themselves if they miss out on the "hot picks" because
they just are not that easy to pick.


"Pharmer Mo"


"Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:

> On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Hal Finney wrote:
>
> > Yes, or he might have invested in other 1960s era semiconductor
> > companies, like Amelco, or Shockley, or Intersil, or Rheem, which had
> > the distinction of being the first semiconductor company to be sued
> > over stolen intellectual property.  Hindsight is easy.
>
> Hal, you may have missed the best example -- Trilogy Systems (google on
> trilogy + Amdahl.  I'm not sure it ever got to the point of going public
> though so it might not have turned into an Enron.
>
> Robert
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From megao at sasktel.net  Thu Apr  8 03:51:58 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 22:51:58 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] solution to identity theft
References: <015301c41d1a$e14fe000$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <4074CC5E.F408422B@sasktel.net>

I agree that making the world a glass house with naked occupants is one
way of getting at the low level scum.

The need to Id identity to property may never become foolproof until
every individual
carrys some kind of unique bio-id chip and the system always knows how
to do a DNA or bio based query to establish identity in real time.

Spike wrote:

> extropians,
>
> Identity theft is said to be growing wildly
> as sleazeballs displaced by cheap and competent
> electronic surveillance systems look elsewhere
> to make a dishonest living.
>
> To stop the yahoos from stealing and using credit
> card applications, could not the fed simply publish
> *everyone's* social security number?  That would
> at least stop banks from giving out credit based
> on that.  Would it not force them to come up with
> some legitimate means of determining identity?
>
> spike
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Apr  8 05:21:41 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 22:21:41 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] solution to identity theft
In-Reply-To: <20040408040546.9460.qmail@web80404.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <015f01c41d29$60344740$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

> --- Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > To stop the yahoos from stealing and using credit
> > card applications, could not the fed simply publish
> > *everyone's* social security number?  That would
> > at least stop banks from giving out credit based
> > on that.  Would it not force them to come up with
> > some legitimate means of determining identity?
> 
> What about the chaos it'd cause during the transition,
> when SSN-based security systems still haven't updated
> despite the SSNs having been published?  You could
> give a lead time of several years, and it still
> wouldn't be long enough for all of 'em to switch.

Years schmears.  The SSN was never intended to
be used as a password, yet more and more people are
treating them as such.  Having them published would
put an end to that bad habit before it becomes worse.
There should be no SSN-based security systems, since
a lot of SSNs are already in the public domain: those 
of the unfortunates who have already been a victim of 
identity theft.

This is why I got on this line of reasoning: I
reviewed my home security after an attempted
breakin, and realized it is possible to create
a cheap and effective home security system based
on low-cost consumer electronics.  The old sensors- 
on-every-window-with-a-horn-on-the-outside is too
expensive, too prone to false alarm and unnecessary.

One can set up a simple transmitting camera, rigged
to an inexpensive motion detector, set to transmit
images to your VCR which you set up in your neighbor's
house.  She does the same and sets her VCR in your
house.  VCRs are less than 100 bucks now, and those
motion detector cams are about 60.  Great poor-man's
security system: if one capures burglars on video,
one can post the photos on the internet with a small
reward, and you know *someone* will eventually recognize
the perps.

Well, the perps realize all this, and they are looking
at other lines of work, which pushes them over to
identity theft.  Social security numbers are easy enough
to find out, and so are mother's maiden name.  These are
terrible ways to verify identity.  So lets out everyone.
Lets put the burden for ID verification back on those 
who are eager to commit legal usury, these credit card
companies who offer, are *still* offering, cards at 17 percent
when my bank account earns less than 2.

Bills have been proposed to make credit companies responsible
for the messes they create of people's lives when they give
out cards to false identities.  But they never seem to pass.
So lets forcibly eliminate all SSN-based security systems.
It wouldn't even require any new laws, as far as I can tell.
SSNs are not supposed to be secret, so why could not the
fed simply publish all of them, the way the phone company
publishes your name, phone number and address?

spike  



From eugen at leitl.org  Thu Apr  8 08:31:36 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 10:31:36 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] solution to identity theft
In-Reply-To: <015301c41d1a$e14fe000$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404061245090.7457-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<015301c41d1a$e14fe000$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20040408083136.GC28136@leitl.org>

On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 08:37:55PM -0700, Spike wrote:
> 
> extropians,
> 
> Identity theft is said to be growing wildly
> as sleazeballs displaced by cheap and competent
> electronic surveillance systems look elsewhere 
> to make a dishonest living.

You have no basis for this claim. Electronic fraud is up in general, simply
because it's so easy, and because the networks are global.

Besides, if you need to do identity theft on a small scale, there's the goood
old trashdiving. Or keyboard logging. Only well organized professionals raid 
databases and break into ecommerce sites to obtain users credit card records.
 
> To stop the yahoos from stealing and using credit
> card applications, could not the fed simply publish
> *everyone's* social security number?  That would

What's the point in using a secret for authentication, if you give it away in
the process?

> at least stop banks from giving out credit based
> on that.  Would it not force them to come up with
> some legitimate means of determining identity?

Your fed-issed RFID tagged smart card with PKI and biometrics inside is in
the mail. Soon. And you can assume it's going to be iteroperable across much
of the world, and will be vigorously used for traveller surveillance, car
checks. Assume that RFID + PKI function will be declared mandatory, disabling put
under penalty.

In case you think I'm joking, you've not been reading the news.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040408/fef79604/attachment.bin>

From eugen at leitl.org  Thu Apr  8 11:18:58 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 13:18:58 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Dawn of Personalized Medicine
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404071523590.8294-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <200404070733.i377XTZ04291@finney.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0404071523590.8294-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040408111858.GQ28136@leitl.org>

On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 03:27:52PM -0700, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

> Hal, you may have missed the best example -- Trilogy Systems (google on
> trilogy + Amdahl.  I'm not sure it ever got to the point of going public
> though so it might not have turned into an Enron.

http://www.ivorcatt.com/3ewk.htm

Too bad we're farther than ever from WSI. It will never happen in silicon in
today's risk-averse R&D climate.

I'm betting on polymer/organic electronic/spintronic nanolithoprinting blast
open the lock on designer's minds. Plenty of creative designers out there,
but prototyping costs must come down into low kilobuck range, preferrably
much lower.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040408/ad8fbc09/attachment.bin>

From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Thu Apr  8 11:19:34 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 04:19:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SURVIVAL: When asteroids or comets strike
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404080408450.24606-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


It looks like the University of Arizona has developed a web-based
method for knowing what will happen in your area when an asteroid
or comet strikes (otherwise known as "when the shit hits the fan").

URLs:
  http://www.spacedaily.com/news/deepimpact-04e.html

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an easy-to-discover
URL to directly access the program.

Robert




From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Thu Apr  8 13:33:53 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 14:33:53 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Site for access passwords
Message-ID: <407554C1.8020109@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

<http://bugmenot.com/>

Here you can get log-on information, submitted by real users, for lots
of popular sites.  Unfortunately they don't have sciamdigital yet (maybe
because they are avoiding pay-for sites for legal reasons).

But they do have the free favorites like nytimes, washingtonpost and
latimes, plus over 400 others. You can't browse their list of sites for
security reasons. You have to submit the site you want to sign on to and
see if it is available yet.


BillK

PS.  I hope nobody gets infected from this email. I have a streaming
cold at present and I would hate to pass on a virus.  ;)


From cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net  Thu Apr  8 14:26:41 2004
From: cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net (Kevin Freels)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 09:26:41 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] SURVIVAL: When asteroids or comets strike
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404080408450.24606-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <009101c41d75$8384e3c0$791e4842@kevin>

Is this it?
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/

It was at the bottom of the article. :-)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com>
To: "Extropy Chat" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 6:19 AM
Subject: [extropy-chat] SURVIVAL: When asteroids or comets strike


> 
> It looks like the University of Arizona has developed a web-based
> method for knowing what will happen in your area when an asteroid
> or comet strikes (otherwise known as "when the shit hits the fan").
> 
> URLs:
>   http://www.spacedaily.com/news/deepimpact-04e.html
> 
> Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an easy-to-discover
> URL to directly access the program.
> 
> Robert
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Thu Apr  8 14:22:26 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 09:22:26 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] solution to identity theft
References: <015301c41d1a$e14fe000$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <LAW10-OE63xiMeJWgsH00019e4a@hotmail.com>

One thing that has changed recently is the implementation of the Patriot
Act. It requires us to get a copy of a photo ID and some other alternate
from a list. (ie. passport, social security card, birth certificate).
Unfortunately, the determination of creditworthiness is made by a review of
the potential borrower's credit report. In order to have a credit scoring
system in place, there has to be a way to "file" everyone into a database in
such a way that John Smith and John Smith can be different people. You could
use addresses, unique identification numbers, or any other type of
number/letter combination that renders each person as a unique individual,
but in the end, that is no different than the current use of the social
security number. Each one of those unique identifier's would be just as
easily stolen.

One option then is to get rid of the credit scoring system altogether, but
that would leave people with fewer options when it comes to borrower (is
this a bad thing?). People would pay more in interest because there is less
competition for the same paper. Each person would have to keep a list of
credit references and keep it current so that it could be provided each time
they apply for credit. Relocating would be tough because creditors in
another town would most likely only accept credit references from verified
banking institutions.

Also, a person could leave out any derogatory credit information and no one
would ever know. A person with three decent credit card accounts, but with
two reposessions, could just leave out the reposessions when they go to
another dealership to buy another car. Because of this, creditors would be
forced to tighten credit guidelines. It would become more difficult for
everyone to get credit, and those who were granted credit would pay more in
interest to offset the defaults.

In short, it would cause a huge slowdown in the amount of borrowing, and in
the US, that means a huge decline in spending. Our system itself needs some
improvement, but I don;t think that the use of a social security number is
the problem. Currently there is a system in place where you can contact the
bureaus and set up a unique PIN which, in theory, prevents anyone from
granting credit unless that PIN is provided. The PIN itself is still subject
to the scruples of  the human beings that take and file the loan
applications, but it does provide a second layer of protection to the
consumer.

I think that the most important aspect of this is that consumers simply need
to be aware of the risks. They need to shred documents at home with their
personal informatoin. They need to know who they are giving their
information to, and most of all, they need to make regular checks of their
own credit bureaus to make sure that everything is correct.

Kevin Freels



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Spike" <spike66 at comcast.net>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 10:37 PM
Subject: [extropy-chat] solution to identity theft


>
> extropians,
>
> Identity theft is said to be growing wildly
> as sleazeballs displaced by cheap and competent
> electronic surveillance systems look elsewhere
> to make a dishonest living.
>
> To stop the yahoos from stealing and using credit
> card applications, could not the fed simply publish
> *everyone's* social security number?  That would
> at least stop banks from giving out credit based
> on that.  Would it not force them to come up with
> some legitimate means of determining identity?
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Thu Apr  8 14:41:06 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 09:41:06 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mail Delivery
	(failureextropy-chat@lists.extropy.org)
References: <200404070032.i370Wx502776@finney.org>
Message-ID: <LAW10-OE50M3TbhyF2f000198be@hotmail.com>

HAL,
You scared the heck out of me. But I don;t think it is me. But it still
worries me.

I update my virus signatures for my VCOM system suite twice per day. Once in
the morning, and once in the evening.

After reading your amazingly clear message, I thought that it may be missing
something. I went to the trend micro website and did their online virus
scan.

When it didn;t find anything, I went to the Panda website for their online
virus scan.
Still nothing.

I am running Win2k prof with all of the service packs and zone alarm Pro. I
do complete virus scans (all files) each night when I go to bed.

Is there anythign I can be missing? Any suggestions? Nothing is showing up
here, but your message has me all freaked out.  I am on SBC Yahoo and my IP
at this moment is 66.72.x.x but that 67.38.x.x looks familiar.

Thanks!
Kevin Freels




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hal Finney" <hal at finney.org>
To: <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 7:32 PM
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Mail Delivery
(failureextropy-chat at lists.extropy.org)


> I can provide some information about this.  I read my extropians mail
> in text mode on a Linux box by running "less" over the mailbox file.
> So I see all the information that is available.
>
> I received the virus message, and I assume that all other list subscribers
> did so as well.  Some of you may not have seen it in case some anti-virus
> software or filter deleted it.
>
> The virus was actually included in the message.  The attachment was
> not scrubbed by the list.
>
> The attachment containing the virus looked like:
>
> > ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C0CA80.6B015D10
> > Content-Type: audio/x-wav;
> >         name="message.scr"
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
> > Content-ID: <031401Mfdab4$3f3dL780$73387018 at 57W81fa70Re>
> >
> > TVqQAAMAAAAEAAAA//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
> > AAAAAAAAYAAAAA4fug4AtAnNIbgBTM0hV2luZG93cyBQcm9ncmFtDQokUEUAAEwBAwAAAAAA
> > AAAAAAAAAADgAA8BCwEAAAAEAAAAcgAAAAAAAAAgAQAAEAAAACAAAAAAQAAAEAAAAAIAAAQA
> > [approximately 600 lines deleted]
> > AzjqrwAAAeAgcEAOS0VSTmBMMzIuZHFs4EbobwZzZUhhbhjtwFpyPml0OkZuFb6/KWELHEEd
> > Vp96R29mUudzUXVyY582Tzqpaw1iYWQWEElpbrZueko9dE2+ZClsXbMiRvFweUlSm+R0RkTA
> > JFfBa293c0TfPuRj+ep5pTmgLRROYW1MhlBy8PJk45xMc2p2H0xpYjtTLz5UUJNDz+5uNA0Y
> > TGG8RXLcXOvFjE11CHjMTgMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
> >
> > ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C0CA80.6B015D10--
>
> I'm not sure how most mail clients would display this attachment; as
> Eugen has noted, his PGP signature attachments are generally not handled
> well after passing through the list server, because they get wrapped or
> encapsulated in another MIME layer to allow the list to add its standard
> 3-line trailer that appears at the end of every message.
>
> The part about the attachment being saved at the list is fake:
>
> > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> > <HTML><HEAD>
> > <META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
> > <META content="MSHTML 5.00.2920.0" name=GENERATOR>
> > <STYLE></STYLE>
> > </HEAD>
> > <BODY bgColor=#ffffff>If the message will not displayed
automatically,<br>
> > follow the link to read the delivered message.<br><br>
> > Received message is available at:<br>
> > <a href=cid:031401Mfdab4$3f3dL780$73387018 at 57W81fa70Re height=0
width=0>ww
> > w.lists.extropy.org/inbox/extropy-chat/read.php?sessionid-27444</a>
> > <iframe
> > src=cid:031401Mfdab4$3f3dL780$73387018 at 57W81fa70Re height=0
width=0></ifra
> > me>
> > <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>
>
> If you study this closely (sadly, this is how an increasing percentage
> of list mail looks to me), you will see that the "href" field on the 10th
> line is a cid: URL.  This points to the attachment itself (note that the
> string after the cid: matches the Content-ID of the attachment I displayed
> above).  So this is a way of getting you to open the attachment, while
> making it appear that you are opening something at www.lists.extropy.org.
>
> (Not that it would necessarily be safe to open something at the list;
> the archive of the message at
> http://www.lucifer.com/pipermail/extropy-chat/2004-April/005439.html
> includes an actual link to a saved copy of the virus.)
>
> The mail headers give a hint about where it came from:
>
> > Received: from tick.javien.com (javien2-3.spots.ab.ca [209.115.169.3])
> >         by finney.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i36DBu632454
> >         for <hal at finney.org>; Tue, 6 Apr 2004 06:11:57 -0700
> > Received: from tick.javien.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
> >         by tick.javien.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id i36Cipc29866;
> >         Tue, 6 Apr 2004 06:44:51 -0600
> > Received: from lists.extropy.org
(adsl-67-38-1-7.dsl.sfldmi.ameritech.net
> >         [67.38.1.7])
> >         by tick.javien.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id i36Cibc29830
> >         for <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>; Tue, 6 Apr 2004
06:44:38 -0600
>
> The problematic one is the last one, where it came into tick.javien.com,
> which is the actual mail server.  When it says "Received: from" and gives
> a system name, that is the name that the delivering system CLAIMS to be.
> Then in parentheses it puts in the actual IP address the mail came from,
> and the name you get from that IP address via reverse-DNS.  It's not too
> unusual for the claimed and reverse-DNS names to be different; you can see
> on the first line that tick.javien.com is "really" javien2-3.spots.ab.ca.
> My own system finney.org has the same problem.  It's because ISPs tend
> to give a generic name while individuals can pay for and register their
> own chosen name.
>
> In this case the system which connected to tick.javien.com claimed
> to be lists.extropy.org.  But it was not; it was a random DSL address
> belonging to ameritech.net, which is now SBC Yahoo DSL.  In other words,
> this mail came from a Yahoo DSL subscriber's computer, 67.38.1.7,
> and falsely claimed to be from lists.extropy.org.  Undoubtedly, that
> is someone's personal computer, hooked up to the net via Yahoo DSL;
> it is infected with a virus and is sending out bogus email.
>
> Most viruses choose a random "From" address and a random "To" address from
> an address book found on the infected computer.  In this case, the To: was
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org, and the From: was eliasen at mindspring.com,
> which is list member Alan Eliasen's email address.  However it is
> important to understand this does not mean that it came from Alan;
> in fact, the headers show very convincingly that it came from the poor
> owner of 67.38.1.7.
>
> The sad thing is, in most cases these people are not even aware that their
> system has been compromised.  It may be running a little more sluggishly
> or showing other problems, but by and large the successful viruses leave
> computers usable.  It's the same process of evolution that has largely
> eliminated biological viruses which kill their hosts too quickly.
>
> Chances are, this person is or has been a list subscriber, since he has
> both the list address and Alan's email address in his address book.
> He has probably communicated with Alan via private email, for the
> same reason.  In fact, there is a good chance that he will receive this
> message.  However he probably won't see this part because this message
> is quite technical and the kind of people who get infected are usually
> non-technical, so they wouldn't read this far.
>
> These kinds of IP addresses are usually given out dynamically and somewhat
> randomly, so the victim wouldn't have the same IP address all the time.
> I did a search of my Extropians email for the past few years, and only
> one poster came from a 67.38.X.X. address; that was Kevin Freels.  But
> it is equally likely to be from a lurker (on most lists, lurkers far
> outnumber posters) who happens to be a Yahoo DSL subscriber.
>
> I get a lot of spam and virus emails, hundreds every day, and I look
> at a few to see where they are coming from.  Most of them these days
> come from systems like this, compromised personal computers.  I wish
> there were some way to get in contact with the owners and warn them
> that their systems are infected, but I don't know how to do it.  I just
> spent about 10 minutes trying to find some place on the SBC DSL site to
> notify the sysadmins about this problem with one of their subscribers,
> without much luck.  I finally found a cramped little form where I pasted
> in the Received header, but I doubt that it will do much good.
>
> Given the increased prevalence of spam and viruses, it would be helpful
> for ISPs to make it easier to report the problems.  Usually a moment's
> inspection of the Received headers makes it pretty clear.  Some viruses
> put in fake headers, but they're always at the end, and it's not that
> hard to see where things first went bad.  It's frustrating that I
> know the exact IP address of the infected system (or at least what
> its address was at a specific time a few hours earlier), but I have
> no way to communicate with them.
>
> Of course, a certain percentage of these systems aren't infected but are
> actually malicious, which makes it even more important for the ISP to be
> notified.  There was a good story on slashdot yesterday about a sysadmin
> at an Internet Cafe who got notified about a Nigerian spam (Hello, I am
> the widow of former prime minister Dr. so-and-so, and I need your help
> getting my money out of the country...) which came from one of his users,
> and he was actually able to track the guy down and have him arrested.
>
> Regardless of whether it's accidental or on purpose, ISPs should have
> a big red REPORT SPAM/VIRUS button on their front page.  It's crazy in
> our information age to make it so hard to close the loop on one of the
> most crucial pieces of information out there, that a system has been
> broken and is causing trouble for others.
>
> Hal
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Apr  8 15:01:32 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 08:01:32 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] solution to identity theft
In-Reply-To: <20040408083136.GC28136@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <019301c41d7a$61571890$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


> > Identity theft is said to be growing wildly
> > as sleazeballs displaced by cheap and competent
> > electronic surveillance systems look elsewhere 
> > to make a dishonest living.
> 
> You have no basis for this claim. Electronic fraud is up in 
> general, simply because it's so easy, and because the networks are
global.



How is it done in Europe?  Do you guys have something
analogous to our SSNs?  (I did some genealogy a few
years ago and got back to an area in Eurpole where 
about a third of the men were either Hans Larson or 
Lars Hanson.  I would name my kid Holy Schlamoly or 
Oy Vey, just to mess them up.)

Gene, how do Europeans do unambiguous identification?  
Do you have credit card companies sending you a dozen 
applications a week for easy credit?

spike 



From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Thu Apr  8 15:22:14 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 16:22:14 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mail Delivery
	(failureextropy-chat@lists.extropy.org)
Message-ID: <40756E26.3070402@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

On Thu Apr 8 08:41:06 MDT 2004 Kevin Freels wrote:
> Is there anything I can be missing? Any suggestions? Nothing is
> showing up here, but your message has me all freaked out.  I am on 
> SBC Yahoo and my IP at this moment is 66.72.x.x but that 67.38.x.x
> looks familiar.

If a FULL Panda anti-virus scan says you are clean, then you probably
are, at present.

Netsky.P is difficult to recognize, as it does not show any messages or
warnings that indicate it has reached the computer.

To be completely sure you can look for the following files:

Netsky.P creates the following files in the Windows directory:
       FVPROTECT.EXE. This file is a copy of the worm.
       USERCONFIG9X.DLL. This file is a DLL (Dynamic Link Library),
which provides the functionalities of the worm.
       ZIP1.TMP, ZIP2.TMP and ZIP3.TMP. These files in MIME format
contain a copy of the worm compressed in ZIP format.
       ZIPPED.TMP. This file compressed in ZIP format contains a copy of
the worm.
       BASE64.TMP. This file in MIME format contains a copy of the worm.

Netsky.P creates the following entry in the Windows Registry:
* HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\ Software\ Microsoft\ Windows\ CurrentVersion\ Run
Norton Antivirus AV = %windir%\ FVProtect.exe
       where %windir% is the Windows directory.
       By creating this entry, Netsky.P ensures that it is run whenever
Windows is started.

---------

Do you have your antivirus scan setting to automatically delete any
virus found and carry scanning?  If so, it is theoretically possible
that you were infected one day, sent out the virus worldwide, then Panda
deleted the virus that night automatically and you would never know
anything about it.


Best wishes, BillK










From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Thu Apr  8 15:51:16 2004
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 17:51:16 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] solution to identity theft
In-Reply-To: <019301c41d7a$61571890$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <019301c41d7a$61571890$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0404081744050.28241@hercules>

>How is it done in Europe?  Do you guys have something
>analogous to our SSNs?

Here in Italy we have a "fiscal number" which is unique for each
individual, made up from your name, birth date, etc. ID cards, which have
a serial number, are mandatory. I think most of Europe has mandatory ID
cards. Driving licenses were acceptable ID documents until not so many
years ago, but now it's not clear.

>Do you have credit card companies sending you a dozen
>applications a week for easy credit?

Almost none. Privacy laws are very strict. If I tell some company to
delete my name and address from their db, they must do it or face heavy
fines. Contracts with utilities like telephone have separate agreements
for giving the service and annoying the customers with advertising. Most
people opt out of the second, of course. On the other hand, you get lots
of non-targeted junk mail.

Alfio


From megao at sasktel.net  Thu Apr  8 14:58:39 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 09:58:39 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Everest, a natural cryonic storage facility?
Message-ID: <4075689F.750A60FA@sasktel.net>

Just learned that about 120 climbers of everest have died and remain on
the mountain.  Many of the bodies may have cooled slowly enough to avoid
post freeze degradation but would have the ravages of unprotected
freezing as well as some
continuing dehydration or other natural degradations as would occur at
sub freezing temps.

However, these persons are there and if retrieved at some future point
may be among those who may be potential "Cryonaut" candidates for
application of  restorative technology.

This would be a good episodic topic for a Century City type of show.

Who owns the bodies?
Who has the right to retrieve and restore the bodies?
What are the consequences if the descendants take issue with the
proceedings which result in some sucesses, some partial successes and
some  failures?
Could tissue from the corpses be used to grow replacement bodies or
parts thereof?

Morris







From michael at acceleratingfuture.com  Thu Apr  8 04:43:39 2004
From: michael at acceleratingfuture.com (Michael Anissimov)
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 21:43:39 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] SIAI Advocacy Director plans
Message-ID: <4074D87B.7090307@acceleratingfuture.com>

A summary of my plans as Advocacy Director so far:

    * Act as a formal SIAI representative in meetings, conferences,
    and interviews.
    * Communicate SIAI's mission to a wider audience by simplifying key
    points in CFAI and other SIAI documents.
    * Cooperate with SIAI Volunteers in leveraged projects, such as
    AsimovLaws.com (Tyler will announce this project in April).
    * Increase communication with SIAI volunteers and supporters to
    cultivate effective Singularity advocacy.
    * Present a talk including a description of SIAI's mission at the
    WTA's 2004 Transvision Conference in Toronto.
    * Personally contact and explain SIAI's mission to key communities
    and individuals.
    * Foster respectful and productive dialogue between SIAI and other
    transhumanist organizations.

For SIAI to implement a Singularity swiftly and safely, it will require
sustained advocacy and support into the indefinite future. Since SIAI is
primarily an online organization, the Internet will continue to be our ideal
ground for opening dialogue, seeking supporters, acquiring important
knowledge, and generally making ourselves known. The vast majority of all
future donors, volunteers, and researchers will be located through the
Internet. That most of SIAI's advocacy will take place on the Internet also
means that all dedicated supporters can pontentially contribute in some way.

Please don't hesitate to contribute to this highly leveraged project.

Feel free to contact me anytime at anissimov(at)singinst.org.

-- 
Michael Anissimov                               http://singinst.org/
Advocacy Director, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence




From natashavita at earthlink.net  Thu Apr  8 16:45:12 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 12:45:12 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] SIAI Advocacy Director plans
Message-ID: <293580-22004448164512586@M2W073.mail2web.com>

From: Michael Anissimov 

>Subject: [extropy-chat] SIAI Advocacy Director plans

>A summary of my plans as Advocacy Director so far:

    * Act as a formal SIAI representative in meetings, conferences,
    and interviews.
    * Communicate SIAI's mission to a wider audience by simplifying key
    points in CFAI and other SIAI documents.
    * Cooperate with SIAI Volunteers in leveraged projects, such as
    AsimovLaws.com (Tyler will announce this project in April).
    * Increase communication with SIAI volunteers and supporters to
    cultivate effective Singularity advocacy.
    * Present a talk including a description of SIAI's mission at the
    WTA's 2004 Transvision Conference in Toronto.
    * Personally contact and explain SIAI's mission to key communities
    and individuals.
    * Foster respectful and productive dialogue between SIAI and other
    transhumanist organizations.

Thank you for sending this information Michael.  Excellent set of plans.

Please let us know how Extropy Instittue can work with you in achieving
SIAI's new goals.  

Cheers!

Natasha

Natasha Vita-More
President, Extropy Institute

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




From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Thu Apr  8 16:51:33 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 12:51:33 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: An Error in Nanosystems!
In-Reply-To: <200404081425.i38EPTc23471@tick.javien.com>
References: <200404081425.i38EPTc23471@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <40758315.1000003@CRNano.org>

Hal Finney writes:
 > The point is that the guy can make mistakes, just like anybody else.

This is news?  No one claims he's infallible.  This conversation is 
starting to get surreal.

The real news is that, after more than a decade, no one has found an 
error in Nanosystems that appears to signficiantly reduce the 
possibility of diamondoid nanomachines working as Drexler described.

Jeff Soreff told me about an actual math error: Drexler allegedly 
double-counts degrees of freedom in computing the number of possible 
structures with a certain surface.  But Jeff said that this didn't make 
a significant difference.

Richard Jones pointed out to me that Drexler hadn't explicitly 
considered the possibility of surface atoms wiggling sideways and then 
snapping back, causing friction.  I think Drexler considered it 
implicitly, but this might count as an error.  Fortunately, 
superlubricity has now been observed in at least two rather different 
systems.

But these are the only two I know of.

 >> If the whole bearing were
 >> relatively prime, it would wobble as the region of alignment traveled
 >> around the axis.
 >
 > I don't know about that: see figure 10.19, which has 6 inside and
 > 11 outside, relatively prime.

Huh.  I guess I was wrong about Drexler being worried about wobble at 
the time he wrote Nanosystems.  But I still think I remember it from 
somewhere.  Doesn't really matter.

 >http://groups.google.com/groups?start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=sci.nanotech&selm=Jul.26.00.00.42.1993.27440%40planchet.rutgers.edu&rnum=20 


I think your analysis is wrong.  You're assuming that the H will be able 
to "pop" to a low-energy state when it is in a high-energy position. 
But to fit between two other H's, its bond would have to be 
significantly twisted.  So the energy of that configuration would be 
significantly higher than the low-energy value.  In fact, I bet it's not 
even a minimum.

As I understand it, the way to figure it is to relax the structure with 
two opposing H's, and compute the energy for the "pop" by subtracting 
the the relaxed structure's energy from the opposed structure's energy. 
  Then compare that energy to thermal energy to see the expected 
transition time.  Then compare that to the velocity (it's actually not 
quite that simple) to see how often it will be dragged over the "pop" 
vs. going over on its own.

And after all that, if you get a number we don't like, we're allowed to 
redesign the bearing to remove H's from the interface.

 > No, I didn't even know there was a hardcover version.  I bought the
 > book shortly after it came out and I have a first printing, I believe
 > (evidenced by the "10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1" on the bottom of the copyright
 > page).

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/047157547X/qid=1081442658/sr=12-1/103-3689691-9446225?v=glance&s=books
refers to a hardcover edition.

My edition says "10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3".

 > I would hate to think that Drexler is hiding the fact that his book had
 > errors in order to promote that absurd and counterproductive myth that
 > it is perfect!

Fortunately, you don't have to think that.  The myth is a strawman, 
obviously ridiculous.  I would hate to think that you're so eager to 
believe Drexler is both stupid and dishonest...

 >  For an important and foundational book like Nanosystems,
 > not providing errata is a lapse which should be corrected.

IMHO, it depends on whether there are any errata worth noting.  Despite 
my earlier joking, I actually think the typo I found is more significant 
than the "relatively prime" thing.  But I found that less than a year 
ago.  Anyway, I'll ask him about errata lists.

Chris

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From gpmap at runbox.com  Thu Apr  8 17:36:13 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 19:36:13 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Google Platform Meme Grows
Message-ID: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBAEDPCBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From John Battelle's Searchblog: Excerpts from Kottke: They have this huge
map of the Web and are aware of how people move around in the virtual space
it represents. They have the perfect place to store this map (one of the
world's largest computers that's all but incapable of crashing). And they
are clever at reading this map.
Google knows what people write about, what they search for, what they shop
for, they know who wants to advertise and how effective those advertisements
are, and they're about to know how we communicate with friends and loved
ones. What can they do with all that? Just about anything that collection of
Ph.Ds can dream up. Tim O'Reilly has talked about various bits from the Web
morphing into "the emergent Internet operating system"; the small pieces
loosely joining, if you will. Google seems to be heading there already, all
by themselves. By building and then joining a bunch of the small pieces by
themselves, Google can take full advantage of the economies of scale and
avoid the difficulties of interop.
>From another Battelle's article: in this eMarketer report, as it's an
excerpt, but the suggestion is made, after lengthy throat clearing, that
Google create its own online currency so as to compete in the SFO (Search
Find Obtain) space. The article correctly points out that Google lacks
muscle in the Obtain part of the equation, compared to Amazon and EBay. But
then it says Google should get its own currency...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.581 / Virus Database: 368 - Release Date: 09/02/2004
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040408/d5a3ac00/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Apr  8 18:07:22 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 11:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheist Easter
In-Reply-To: <20040408031956.53645.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040408180722.26285.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>

April 5th is Thomas Hobbes' birthday. 1588
6th Butch Cassidy (1866); 
8th Gautama Buddha (563 BCE); Hugh Hefner (1926) 
13th Thomas Jefferson (1743); 
14th Christiaan Huygens (1629); Arnold Joseph Toynbee (1889); 
15th Leonardo daVinci (1452); 
22nd Isabella I of Spain (1451); Henry Fielding (1707); Immanuel Kant
(1724); 

Want any more???

On April 9th 1865 the US Civil War officially ended.
The Titanic sank on the 14th
April 15th is National Gripers Day (which would be fitting for this
list), and as the day on which US income taxes are due, is hated by all
right thinking Americans. This year April 15th will see a number of
Free State Project members protesting the Income Tax outside US Post
Offices across the country.
On April 18th, Paul Revere made his famous ride. The next day is the
day the US Revolutionary War began.
April 22nd is Earth Day
The zipper was patented on April 29th, and the inventor was from
Lowell, Massachusetts.
April 30th was the day the Louisiana Purchase was made.
April 1, 1913: Henry Ford installed the first moving assembly line. 
April 3, 1860: The first pony express service began.
--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > --- Thomas FitzGerald <amergin3 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Although Adrian's chocolate suggestion is more up
> > my alley, another
> > > possibility might be Earth Day.
> > 
> > I thought we extropes celebrated the return of the
> > Solar Cause?
> 
> That's in December.  This is April.  The question was
> for something to celebrate near or on Easter.
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat


=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/


From scerir at libero.it  Thu Apr  8 19:02:22 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 21:02:22 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheist Easter
References: <20040408180722.26285.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000301c41d9c$0667b4e0$7dbc1b97@administxl09yj>

> > I thought we extropes celebrated the return of the
> > Solar Cause?

> That's in December.  This is April.  The question was
> for something to celebrate near or on Easter.

[1] 'Easter' is always on Sunday, *solis* dies, *sun* day

[2] 'Easter' (perhaps) derives from a German root, 'ostern', 
for 'dawn' or 'east', which is the time and place of the rising sun. 
This makes sense as a reason why a day commemorating resurrection 
would have called 'Easter'. Jesus is thought to have risen around 
dawn, or sunrise, on resurrection Sunday (Matthew 28-1 and Mark 16-2). 

sun-day, sun-rise, bah ...
 


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Apr  8 19:23:38 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 12:23:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] solution to identity theft
In-Reply-To: <019301c41d7a$61571890$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20040408192338.52493.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> How is it done in Europe?  Do you guys have something
> analogous to our SSNs?  (I did some genealogy a few
> years ago and got back to an area in Eurpole where 
> about a third of the men were either Hans Larson or 
> Lars Hanson.  I would name my kid Holy Schlamoly or 
> Oy Vey, just to mess them up.)

What about Franz??? He was always the unappreciated "pump you up" guy...

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/


From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Thu Apr  8 20:25:35 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 15:25:35 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheist Easter
References: <20040408180722.26285.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <LAW10-OE35GVWyhp6wB0001a273@hotmail.com>

Not to mention my own birthday on April 26...:-)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Atheist Easter


> April 5th is Thomas Hobbes' birthday. 1588
> 6th Butch Cassidy (1866); 
> 8th Gautama Buddha (563 BCE); Hugh Hefner (1926) 
> 13th Thomas Jefferson (1743); 
> 14th Christiaan Huygens (1629); Arnold Joseph Toynbee (1889); 
> 15th Leonardo daVinci (1452); 
> 22nd Isabella I of Spain (1451); Henry Fielding (1707); Immanuel Kant
> (1724); 
> 
> Want any more???
> 
> On April 9th 1865 the US Civil War officially ended.
> The Titanic sank on the 14th
> April 15th is National Gripers Day (which would be fitting for this
> list), and as the day on which US income taxes are due, is hated by all
> right thinking Americans. This year April 15th will see a number of
> Free State Project members protesting the Income Tax outside US Post
> Offices across the country.
> On April 18th, Paul Revere made his famous ride. The next day is the
> day the US Revolutionary War began.
> April 22nd is Earth Day
> The zipper was patented on April 29th, and the inventor was from
> Lowell, Massachusetts.
> April 30th was the day the Louisiana Purchase was made.
> April 1, 1913: Henry Ford installed the first moving assembly line. 
> April 3, 1860: The first pony express service began.
> --- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> > --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > --- Thomas FitzGerald <amergin3 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Although Adrian's chocolate suggestion is more up
> > > my alley, another
> > > > possibility might be Earth Day.
> > > 
> > > I thought we extropes celebrated the return of the
> > > Solar Cause?
> > 
> > That's in December.  This is April.  The question was
> > for something to celebrate near or on Easter.
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 
> 
> =====
> Mike Lorrey
> Chairman, Free Town Land Development
> "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
>                                        - Gen. John Stark
> Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Thu Apr  8 21:02:10 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 14:02:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Semi-megascale engineering
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404081350430.4877-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


For those of you interested in the engineering of megascale
structures Popular Science has a good article providing
some examples of things that are being built or could be
built.

See: http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,12543,599827-1,00.html

The first thing I noticed was that several of the projects
could be funded by Larry Ellison or Bill Gates without taking
much of a hit.  The second thing I noticed was how complex
(and expensive) the Yucca Mtn. project is when a combination
of nanotech and nuclear transmutation makes it completely
unnecessary.

Robert




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Apr  8 21:37:42 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 16:37:42 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] left behind again
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040408163543.01b81ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>


The global disappearance of Christians earlier this week attributed to the 
"rapture" predicted by premillennial theologians, and the corresponding 
disappearance of Left Behind books from bestseller lists have left authors 
Tim LaHaye, Jerry B. Jenkins, and their publishers discouraged and 
soul-searching. They're also disappointed that they were not among the 
airplane pilots, school bus drivers, or toll booth operators taken up to 
heaven in the wink of an eye, leaving behind piles of empty clothing as 
well as chaos, terror, and inconvenience, respectively.

When asked why the rapture hurt sales of a series that would seem more 
timely than ever, Jenkins commented, "Apparently the folks who've actually 
been left behind aren't interested in reading about it. And I can see why - 
it's a real kick in the teeth for me personally. This goes way beyond 
bitter irony."

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=040401#7 




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Apr  9 01:13:21 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 18:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SURVIVAL: When asteroids or comets strike
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404080408450.24606-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040409011321.84466.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>

THere is some discussion and rumor in the libertarian world that some
scientists are predicting a major asteroid impact for October of this
year and are keeping it hushed up because we can't do anything about it
this late... Anyone have any info?

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Apr  9 01:25:46 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 18:25:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] 
	XPRIZE: Rutan's ship reaches Mach 2 and 105, 000 feet
Message-ID: <20040409012546.23128.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>

 
 

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Apr  9 01:25:55 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 18:25:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] 
	XPRIZE: Rutan's ship reaches Mach 2 and 105, 000 feet
Message-ID: <20040409012555.86219.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/spaceshipone_test_040408.html

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/


From hal at finney.org  Fri Apr  9 02:31:12 2004
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 19:31:12 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] SURVIVAL: When asteroids or comets strike
Message-ID: <200404090231.i392VCf25689@finney.org>

Mike Lorrey writes:

> THere is some discussion and rumor in the libertarian world that some
> scientists are predicting a major asteroid impact for October of this
> year and are keeping it hushed up because we can't do anything about it
> this late... Anyone have any info?

Sounds like some of the rumors debunked at the Bad Astronomy site,
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/c2c_feb262004.html .

There was an asteroid discovered in January whose orbit was uncertain and
for a little while it looked like it could hit earth.  The story got quite
a bit of publicity and I'd imagine that this rumor is a distorted echo.
The web page also describes a nut case on the Coast to Coast radio show
(formerly hosted by Art Bell) who claims that an object bigger than the
moon is going to crash into Antarctica.

Hal


From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Apr  9 03:03:40 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 20:03:40 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] SURVIVAL: When asteroids or comets strike
In-Reply-To: <20040409011321.84466.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <01cd01c41ddf$45ba3440$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

 
> THere is some discussion and rumor in the libertarian world that some
> scientists are predicting a major asteroid impact for October of this
> year and are keeping it hushed up because we can't do 
> anything about it this late... Anyone have any info?
> 
> =====
> Mike Lorrey

Its a gag Mike.  Of course we could do something
about it:  take up smoking, cancel your dental
appointments, maaajor orgies every day, etc.

spike



From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Apr  9 03:07:10 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 20:07:10 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] left behind again
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040408163543.01b81ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <01da01c41ddf$c05f9aa0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


> Damien Broderick
> Subject: [extropy-chat] left behind again
> 
> The global disappearance of Christians earlier this week 
> attributed to the "rapture" predicted by premillennial theologians...
> leaving behind piles of empty clothing...

Hey cool, so they're all nekkid up there?  Bet I
know what they're doing.

Well duh, I guess that's why it's called heaven.
Now Im pissed about being left behind.  The saints
get to bang each other's brains out for all eternity.

spike





From joe at barrera.org  Fri Apr  9 03:26:47 2004
From: joe at barrera.org (Joseph S. Barrera III)
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 20:26:47 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] SURVIVAL: When asteroids or comets strike
In-Reply-To: <01cd01c41ddf$45ba3440$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <01cd01c41ddf$45ba3440$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <407617F7.7050909@barrera.org>

Spike wrote:

>  Its a gag Mike. Of course we could do something about it: take up
>  smoking, cancel your dental appointments, maaajor orgies every day,

Maybe we should... just in case.
I mean, we can't be *sure* it's a gag...

- Joe

P.S. Seriously, I think I would have heard something about it on
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Fri Apr  9 02:55:06 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 22:55:06 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mr. Newstrom goes to Washington 
In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.1.20040407224630.01bc03e0@pop3.irishbroadband.ie>
Message-ID: <4E7A0148-89D1-11D8-B465-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Wednesday, April 7, 2004, at 06:48 pm, J Corbally wrote:

> Best of Luck Harvey.  I may very well find myself living in the VA 
> area in the future, so perhaps we'll meet at one of those DC 
> Transhumanist get togethers.

That would be great.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec 
Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Fri Apr  9 03:22:59 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 23:22:59 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mr. Newstrom goes to Washington
In-Reply-To: <20040406232642.7916C7278@sitemail.everyone.net>
Message-ID: <33B0181C-89D5-11D8-B465-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Tuesday, April 6, 2004, at 07:26 pm, outlawpoet - wrote:

> I don't make it out to DC very often, but I'll remember to look you up 
> when/if I do. Give me a call if you come out to LA, although there are 
> quite a few extropians out here who would be competing for your 
> attention, I think.

Definitely.  That would be cool.

> Moving from consultancy and short term work to fulltime stuff is a 
> little disorienting, but ultimately the lack of task switching gives a 
> lot more productivity.

I worked ten years on government contracts through Harris Corp. before 
I started consulting.  I am looking forward to the long-term tasks and 
long-term results again.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec 
Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>



From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Apr  9 04:00:45 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 21:00:45 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] [humor] helpful hints
In-Reply-To: <20040409012555.86219.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <01ed01c41de7$3ca03640$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


 
Thought you could use such helpful hints these days 
 
  
     1. If you are choking on an ice cube, don't panic. Simply pour a
cup 
     of boiling water down your throat and presto! The blockage will be 
     almost instantly removed. 
  
     2. Clumsy? Avoid cutting yourself while slicing vegetables by
getting 
     someone else to hold them while you chop. 
     
	3. High blood pressure sufferers: simply cut yourself and bleed
for 
     a while, thus reducing the pressure in your veins. 
  
     4. A mouse trap, placed on top of your alarm clock, will prevent
you 	from rolling over and going back to sleep when you hit the
snooze 	button. 
    
    5. Have a bad tooth ache?  Hit your thumb with a hammer, then you
will 	forget about that tooth. 

     6. If you have a bad cough, take a large dose of laxatives. Then
you 	will be afraid to cough. 
      
      
     Sometimes we Just Need to Remember What The Rules of Life Really
Are... 
  
     You need only two tools: WD-40 and Duct Tape. If it doesn't move
and it 
     should, use WD-40. If it moves and shouldn't, use the duct tape. 
  
     Everyone seems normal until you get to know them. 
  
     Never pass up an opportunity to go potty. 
     If You Woke up Breathing, Congratulations! You have another chance!

  
     And Finally... Be Really Good To Your Family and Friends. You never

     know when you are going to need them to carry out your
cryonics-related instructions. 
  



From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Apr  9 04:03:11 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 21:03:11 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] XPRIZE: Rutan's ship reaches Mach 2 and 105,
	000 feet
In-Reply-To: <20040409012555.86219.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <01ee01c41de7$9384a090$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


> Subject: [extropy-chat] XPRIZE: Rutan's ship reaches Mach 2 
> and 105, 000 feet
> 
> 
> http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/spaceshipone_test_040408.html
> 
> =====
> Mike Lorrey


I think Rutan's going to do it.

Check this:

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0404/07faa/



From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Apr  9 06:59:07 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 23:59:07 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] animal cruelty and wasting food in church
In-Reply-To: <20040409012555.86219.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <01fe01c41e00$2a4a4440$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

I don't know what to think about this story.  It
seems just far too silly, even for the assemblies of god.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,116560,00.html

spike



From hartmut.prochaska at gmx.net  Fri Apr  9 11:08:23 2004
From: hartmut.prochaska at gmx.net (Hartmut)
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 13:08:23 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] exhibition black ships and samurai
Message-ID: <200404091308.23472.hartmut.prochaska@gmx.net>

Hi,

I just found a great network exhibition regarding the first direct contact 
between the Japan and American cultures in 1853. It tries to show the clash 
of civilisations from both perspectives presenting great paintings and 
descriptions of the incident. http://blackshipsandsamurai.com/

All in all a great exhibition perhaps helping us to understand the 
psychological component of "first contact" with other cultures a little bit 
better.

cheers
Hartmut
-- 
"We don't see things as they are,  we see them as we are." -- Anais Nin



From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Apr  9 12:27:07 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 14:27:07 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] [FoRK] drove my Chevy to the levy but the levy was
	dry (fwd from kranenbu@xs4all.nl)
Message-ID: <20040409122707.GA28136@leitl.org>

----- Forwarded message from Rob van Kranenburg <kranenbu at xs4all.nl> -----

From: Rob van Kranenburg <kranenbu at xs4all.nl>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 00:20:40 +0100
To: fork at xent.com
Subject: [FoRK] drove my Chevy to the levy but the levy was dry


I don't know how to say this really, as I never do, but I got this
song in my head 'Bye, bye, Miss American Pie, drove my Chevy to the
levy but the levy was dry' and it is a few days now, and tonight
finally I figure out why. Let me tell you.

We're in a dead end.

This the we.

That's us: the people who make and consume both. The people who have
been busy doing technology in the proper sense of the word, as in
techn? - messing with the specs of mediation,
visualizing/experientalizing until then unknown connectivity.

This is the dead end.

If you take a look at the mobile industries wonderful 3G 4G
powerpoint presentations you see pictures of a person in the middle
surrounded by powerstations that connect all kinds of nodes that
would somehow give this person more agency, then you notice that the
pictures of the security industries are exactly the same but in their
case the agency lies in the nodes, not in the person.

Now for both the systems logic is the same: to distribute yourself,
your data- into the environment.

This is the key element in the digital revolution.

Which will therefore inevitably never happen.

Ambient Intelligence should have happened in the sixties! Where love,
peace and trust were the key themes that could move emotions on a
deep level for a while.

Now the key themes, the cultural and political views that shape the
environment - are insecurity, unsafety, and fear.

Who is going to distribute themselves into an environment that they
are being constantly told of  that they cannot trust it?

Take RFID:

For five years now I have been following it and I realized that it
was inevitable pretty soon but could hardly convince anyone as the
very idea of tagging every f.....thing is pretty unbelievable. We
postmodern, so called fragmented 'I's cannot believe that you can
actually organize this on such a scale, that you could not find the
driving need to convince all parties.

Well, they need no convincing!

As RFID works on all levels of implementation scenarios:

code: distributed computing
node: individuated logistics
link: amI
network: safety issues

So it inevitable as technology, and you can do nothing about it.

Or can we? Hmm.

Where is the challenge?

The challenge is at policy level, it lies in recognizing the dangers
of this cultural/political axiom to highlight safety/insecurity as if
there could ever be A SAFE DEFAULT position. This only leads to more
fear, more distrust, more anger as things and explosions will
inevitably happen and you will take the blame for not having been
able to prevent it.

The challenge lies in marketing from a high level downwards the idea
of distributing insecurity, realizing there is no safe default, but
that uncertainty is the default position.

This is also necessary because the fear policy goes directly against
the call for more and more innovation, innovation needs a risk
friendly environment. If you scare your population, very few risks
will be taken.

Allow me to bother you for a second with the current Dutch situation.
I love it. I love it because never in my entire life had I thought to
be able to witness such delibarate transformation.

With my students at St Joost, CMD and Willem de Kooning, all
designers of all kinds we witness the process of disciplining and
wonder if we can actually claim this most  nono of lines: They are
doing it. As if we can identify a 'they' anywhere as opposed to a
'we'. So we sit and discuss and realize that coming up with imaginary
'they's that do this or that, is a bit too simple. Still, we do
witness a tremendous sameness in the visual and textual rhetoric that
deals with unease, uncertainty, unsafety, and watch the hell out for
rucksacks on trains and pickpockets as well mind you. Mind the gap,
too.

Now we know that this process is not committee run, nor committee
driven, but how come us noticing that all institutions are
reinventing themselves, redesigning themselves in two basic keywords:
transparency and control? What does a planning department of a city
do if it wants to put these keywords into action? It cleans out the
station of Amsterdam of all the bikes that have been standing there
for over twenty years, re-disciplining the public square into the
private merchants dream. What does a library do if it wants to put
these keywords into action? The new library in Rotterdam simple cuts
her bookshelves in halves, transferring the old serene experience of
wandering among books hoping for this serendipitous moment into a
full contact zone of wandering bodies, their backs aching. What does
a department of health do if it wants to put these keywords into
action? It scripts the notion of longing for a cigarette into the
humiliating experience of having to walk to a 'smoking pole', not
indoors, no, at the train station, in open air. What does the
department of education do if it wants to put these keywords into
action? It bans 'apekooien', this most wonderful of experiences when
you are six or seven or eight and get to use all the stuff, yeah all
the stuff that lay hidden in the vaults of the gym. You might trip
over something and fall. Yeah! What do you do when you are another
part of the department of health if you want to put these keywords
into action? You launch a huge campaign against the dangers of fire
and your clothes, are they synthetic? Do they burn easily? How long
before you are on fire with your outfit on Tuesday? And with that
lovely white top? Are you sure? Walking up to the smoking pole -all
them bodies cuddly together - in that white tope drastically fires up
your getburnedifyouare in the wrong place statistics. Better watch
out.

Better spent some time thinking about these things. Thinking about you.

Thinking about you. You.

Which is much more interesting from a disciplinary point of view,
because if you spent all your time thinking of you, how would you
organize? How would you even be able to experience any other kind of
agency, but narcism? Would you be able to even begin to believe that
things need not be like this? That things are designed at converging
levels and can be designed otherwise? That revolutions do happen, can
happen and must happen. And that you are the cause of one? Do you
want to?

So, one fine afternoon, me and students from St Joost, Breda set off
for Oisterwijck, a lovely quiet provincial town. As we had only ten
suits, I could not wear one. The suits made the students look like
some weird medics, the kind of people who come to clean out your
chicken farm after some horrible disease has killed them all. Exactly
not the kind of people you would trust. Hmm. At least that is what we
thought. They were ten. Six had sticks you could point at things
with; dangerous things. Dangerous things such as the sky. Don't you
trust it with all that satellite debris. Better watch out. Two had
stickers that told of, and made icons of, dangerous things. In a red
triangle the dangerous object was represented in words: watch out
umbrella, watch out window, watch out tree. You can bump into these
things, you know. You better watch out. Be careful. Hey! The idea of
this performance like intervention was to draw feedback of the kind
that would get the joke, that would be aimed at the experienced top
down disciplining process going on. What happened instead was far
more interesting but also far more disturbing. Whenever they were
approached with a question like what kind of organization are you
from, they'd reply: the government. We are the Watch Out Team, a new
government sponsored initiative. At the market where they dished out
watch out umbrella stickers to grateful umbrella holders I overheard
a daughter telling her mother:  "They should have done this much
sooner!"

We never had realized until then how utterly deep the ravine between
this huge longing, this ocean of belief and the utter lack of
credibility. As De Certeau argued a while ago; there is so much
belief and so little credibility. We now saw it played out in front
of us. We did not look like clinical scary government spooks, no we
were potential saviours, safeguarding the people, the public - from
harm in every which way.

This is not so much a Dutch, as it is a current European, or global
why not- situation.

It calls for a new vanguard, a swarmy small group of networked people
who are able to design grand sweeping kitschy scenarios that will
draw the frightened majority into embracing the Creole reality that
will be ours in the 21th century.

Yes, this means building the Matrix.
If we don't.
They will.
--


web: http://simsim.rug.ac.be/staff/rob
mail: kranenbu at xs4all.nl
mobile:
++32 (0) 472 40 63 72
Call home first 0032 9 2333 853

_______________________________________________
FoRK mailing list
http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork


----- End forwarded message -----
-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040409/6b08cfb3/attachment.bin>

From duggerj1 at charter.net  Fri Apr  9 15:54:23 2004
From: duggerj1 at charter.net (duggerj1 at charter.net)
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 10:54:23 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wearable Camera Etiquette
Message-ID: <200404091554.i39FsNYc008938@mxsf29.cluster1.charter.net>

Friday, 09 April 2004

Hello all:

      The Viridian mailing-list pointed me at this interesting little gadget. 


http://www.mydejaview.com/pages/2/index.htm

Basically you have a small wearable video camera that runs a 30 second tape loop. You can save the current buffer to removable storage by pressing a button. 

I pre-ordered one today. It will make a useful tool at work, although I won't get to take it to some work sites. It will also let me attach video clips to my blog. Finally, I wish had one of these for both of the two car accidents I suffered. 

What kind of etiquette will develop around these? For instance, I wouldn't have worn this to the funeral I attended last week. I would certainly wear it to a library or out in public, but I don't know if I would wear it into someone else's home. Should a wearer tell people about the camera? Should a wearer conceal it? Should a wearer offer to provide copies of the video to those in it? What sort of precedents exist? 


Jay Dugger     :     Til Eulenspiegel
http://www.owlmirror.net/~duggerj/
Sometimes the delete key serves best.



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri Apr  9 16:31:12 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 09:31:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wearable Camera Etiquette
In-Reply-To: <200404091554.i39FsNYc008938@mxsf29.cluster1.charter.net>
Message-ID: <20040409163112.69702.qmail@web80407.mail.yahoo.com>

--- duggerj1 at charter.net wrote:
> What kind of etiquette will develop around these?
> For instance, I wouldn't have worn this to the
> funeral I attended last week. I would certainly wear
> it to a library or out in public, but I don't know
> if I would wear it into someone else's home. Should
> a wearer tell people about the camera? Should a
> wearer conceal it? Should a wearer offer to provide
> copies of the video to those in it? What sort of
> precedents exist? 

I've been noticing a number of people (non-Extropians
so far as I know, but not necessarily opposed to our
philosophy) say that cameras are forbidden,
restricted, or just frowned upon in so many places
that they won't carry a camera around in public, and
won't buy gear with embedded cameras that they would
otherwise want with them at most times (like cell
phones or PDAs).  I, myself, have similar reasons for
not carrying a camera.


From starman2100 at cableone.net  Sat Apr 10 01:50:00 2004
From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net)
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 18:50:00 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] NIH Director on NBR
Message-ID: <1081561800_173272@mail.cableone.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040409/0db741af/attachment.html>

From reason at longevitymeme.org  Sat Apr 10 02:41:22 2004
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 19:41:22 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] NIH Director on NBR
In-Reply-To: <1081561800_173272@mail.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNGENMEHAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>


-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of
starman2100 at cableone.net
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 6:50 PM
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: [extropy-chat] NIH Director on NBR

>It has been awhile since I had a "tingly" moment of excitement
>about how the present and future are converging, but I had one
>today!  Dr. Elias Zerhouni, the head of the National Institute
>of Health, explained how how they had a pretty dang progressive
>(considering the Bush administration I would add) plan for
>investing in research across the nation.  This included a special
>emphasis for genome related work.  With enthusiasm he spoke about
>how over the coming decade he expects medical imaging, RNA
>silencing, and even medical nanotech to be the "big next things."
>
>When he actually said the words, "medical nanotech" I was surprised,
>and when he brought up "maintaining and rebuilding the body with
>it" I was shocked.  I felt like I had suddenly shifted into a new
>reality and would be getting a letter telling me the future was
>soon to arrive.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20031205/05/

Anything Zerhouni says has to be filtered through whether those currently in
power are considering allowing it or not. Not a word in your post about
regenerative medicine, I note, a collection of technologies that could
already be doing great good if they weren't being actively suppressed in the
US and many European counties.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme





From starman2100 at cableone.net  Sat Apr 10 02:48:13 2004
From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net)
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 19:48:13 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Humor: left behind again
Message-ID: <1081565293_36482@mail.cableone.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040409/2679b0f4/attachment.html>

From starman2100 at cableone.net  Sat Apr 10 03:12:37 2004
From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net)
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 20:12:37 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: SURVIVAL: When asteroids or comets strike
Message-ID: <1081566757_36616@mail.cableone.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040409/df3a9763/attachment.html>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Apr 10 03:27:35 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 20:27:35 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] RE: Humor: left behind again
In-Reply-To: <1081565293_36482@mail.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <028801c41eab$c48d6c20$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

Hi Johnny!  We've missed you!
 

>>Spike wrote:
>>Hey cool, so they're all nekkid up there? Bet I    know what they're
doing. 

>Spike! Please don't be jumping to conclusions.  I bet the situation is
that Heaven is merely filled 
>with many celibate sunbathers! 
 
No no, John, you have it confused with the other place.

What actually happens is this:  You know how the voice of god sounds,
deep voice booming across the sky like thunder.  Reference The Ten 
Commandments, with Charleton Heston.  Now perhaps you have heard
some time when someone is stuttering and stammering into a highly 
amplified and powerful sound system, such as at a stadium.  Sounds 
funny, right?  
 
Ok, now think of all the holiest churchiest people you know, the saintly

little old blue-haired grandmas, the jolly bald sunday school teacher
down 
at the local Assemblies of god, etc, all the people most likely to be
raptured.
Now bring your mind's eye back to the original scenario, all the
stalwart 
old saints suddenly gone, piles of clothes lying about here and there
where
they stood only minutes before.  

Now, booming across the sky like thunder:  Whoops, oh Jesus, did we ever
goof
this time.  Umm...Hey could we get some clothes up here please?  Like,
right away, HEY some of you angels standing around gawking like
prairy chickens, could you guys go down there and fetch some clothes...
NO I DONT CARE where you get them, STEAL THEM...  


 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040409/978a3682/attachment.html>

From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sat Apr 10 04:16:53 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 21:16:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] NIH Director on NBR
In-Reply-To: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNGENMEHAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404092058480.12138-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Fri, 9 Apr 2004, Reason wrote:

> Anything Zerhouni says has to be filtered through whether those currently in
> power are considering allowing it or not. Not a word in your post about
> regenerative medicine, I note, a collection of technologies that could
> already be doing great good if they weren't being actively suppressed in the
> US and many European counties.

In this case I'm going to have to lean more towards John than Reason.

I would not say that any technologies being being suppressed (such as
stem cells) would be doing anyone any "great good" now.  We simply do
not know enough about how they might be used at this point.  Once we
know the function of a significantly greater fraction of the ~30,000
genes in the human body -- then suppression might become an issue.

Its probably going to take a decade or more to figure out all of the
molecules involved in turning stem cells into the several hundred
other cell types in the body.  The fact that the U.S. is holding back
isn't that significant since China, Korea (and other countries) are pushing
ahead.  Biomedical progress simply takes time.

This is complemented by efforts in the U.S. to figure out the structure
and function of many of the genes -- an area where we are racing
around the track.  If you look in the growth of structures in the
protein database (most of which are put there by U.S. scientists)
you can see that we aren't stopping for anyone.

Regenerative medicine doesn't have to be called that to be that.
We have to know what proteins do and how they do it.  Only then
can we begin to attack specific problems.  Aubrey has proposed
a number of specific problems that need to be attacked.  These
are not so much being suppressed as they haven't been recognized
as being things one should pay attention to.  The technologies
I've been pushing the last 3 years or so (whole genome engineering)
have not been suppressed.  They have been the victim of the general
problem with the conservative perspective of venture capital funds
due to the dotcom hangover.

Robert




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Apr 10 05:15:48 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 00:15:48 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Our Hugo Award novel Nominee
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040410001144.01be7ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

Charlie Stross has copped a nomination for best novel of the year for 
SINGULARITY SKY. Woo-hoo!

And also for best novelette `Nightfall' (yes, I know that was Asimov, but 
in this case it wasn't).

Oh, and Vernor Vinge  gets one from the novella `The Cookie Monster'.

Damien Broderick 




From starman2100 at cableone.net  Sat Apr 10 05:45:44 2004
From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net)
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 22:45:44 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] On being missed & the future
Message-ID: <1081575944_37419@mail.cableone.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040409/78903f7e/attachment.html>

From starman2100 at cableone.net  Sat Apr 10 06:00:43 2004
From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net)
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 23:00:43 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Our Hugo Award novel Nominee
Message-ID: <1081576843_37481@mail.cableone.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040409/8272719f/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Apr 10 06:37:51 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 01:37:51 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] On being missed & the future
In-Reply-To: <1081575944_37419@mail.cableone.net>
References: <1081575944_37419@mail.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040410013140.01b83d78@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 10:45 PM 4/9/2004 -0700, Jonathan Grigg, a starman from the last year of 
the 21st century, wrote:

>TO INFINITY AND BEYOND!! (A little friend made me see the movie this line 
>came from about 500 times)

Buzz Lightyear is not alone. Gregory Benford has just released a 
book-length version of his sequel to Arthur Clarke's *Against the Fall of 
Night* with the title BEYOND INFINITY. Without, I suspect, the exclamation 
points. (And without, alas, any trace of Clarke's elegant, simple voice and 
vision.)

Damien Broderick 




From naddy at mips.inka.de  Sat Apr 10 11:54:53 2004
From: naddy at mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 11:54:53 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Site for access passwords
References: <407554C1.8020109@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <c58nad$a66$1@kemoauc.mips.inka.de>

BillK <bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

> <http://bugmenot.com/>

Another very useful resource:
http://mailinator.com/

  Welcome to Mailinator(tm) - Its no signup, instant email. Here is how
  it works: You are on the web, at a party, or talking to your favorite
  insurance salesman. Whereever you are, someone (or some webpage) asks
  for your email. You know if you give it, you'll be on their spam list.
  On the other hand, you do want at least one message from that person.
  The answer is to give them a mailinator address. You don't need to
  sign-up. You just make it up on the spot. Pick jonesy at mailinator.com or
  bipster at mailinator.com - pick anything you want (up to 15 characters
  before the @ sign).

  Later, come to this site and check that account. Its that easy.
  Mailinator accounts are created when mail arrives for them. No signup,
  no personal information, and when you're done - you can walk away - an
  instant solution to one way spammers get your address. The emails will
  automatically be deleted for you after a few hours.

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          naddy at mips.inka.de


From starman2100 at cableone.net  Sat Apr 10 15:14:47 2004
From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 08:14:47 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] My HTML-only posts
Message-ID: <1081610087_571855@mail.cableone.net>

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040410/74fe7f0d/attachment.ksh>

From starman2100 at cableone.net  Sat Apr 10 15:20:21 2004
From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 08:20:21 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] NIH Director on NBR
Message-ID: <1081610421_572180@mail.cableone.net>

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040410/fa0f2cc6/attachment.ksh>

From starman2100 at cableone.net  Sat Apr 10 15:23:51 2004
From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 08:23:51 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Humor: Left Behind again
Message-ID: <1081610631_572393@mail.cableone.net>

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040410/2ec8a82d/attachment.ksh>

From starman2100 at cableone.net  Sat Apr 10 15:27:38 2004
From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 08:27:38 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Social impact of an impending major asteroid
	strike
Message-ID: <1081610858_572470@mail.cableone.net>

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040410/dba8eccc/attachment.ksh>

From starman2100 at cableone.net  Sat Apr 10 15:30:00 2004
From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 08:30:00 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] On being missed & the future
Message-ID: <1081611000_572516@mail.cableone.net>

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040410/70d4efda/attachment.ksh>

From starman2100 at cableone.net  Sat Apr 10 15:32:21 2004
From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 08:32:21 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Our Hugo Award novel Nominee
Message-ID: <1081611141_572570@mail.cableone.net>

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040410/b98f82f1/attachment.ksh>

From megao at sasktel.net  Sat Apr 10 14:48:45 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 09:48:45 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Century City plot line?
Message-ID: <4078094C.C283ED1D@sasktel.net>

Suppose the plaintiffs are a class action by  600,000 persons infected
with a highly
virulent AIDS strain.  They are  shown to be imprisoned in a quarantined
300,000 acre area  of Wyoming.
They are suing the group, GreenAnarchy , a world-wide  anti-technology,
anti-civilization  group  and their  funder and co-conspirator , an
unfriendly,  foreign power of the day,  Saudi Arabia for
3 trillion  USD.  They want immediate access to this money to buy/create
the technology required  to save themselves before the disease runs its
course, as well as cleanse themselves so that they can return to live in
society.

Those guarding the area are on orders to shoot to kill any persons
entering a buffer zone to this
containment area.

In the testamony it is learned that Green Anarchy recruited 1000
suicide bomber health professionals
to move into mid level medical practice and research  positions all over
the world.
This group monitored health data to detect the natural occurance of a
weakly  virulent aids virus.     One of their group had detected such a
virus, succeeded in becoming infected with it and utilizing  a series of
conferences transmitted it to the other 1000.
Their Saudi  funders had provided them each with a  quantity  of an
organism readily able to hybridize with the AIDS virus and amplify its
virulence and activity.
After consuming this preparation and becoming fully charged vectors,
they proceeded to infect as many people as possible in as many of the
world's cities as possible .....before unexpected  infections were
detected.
As expected, the national security and health bureaucrats not wishing to
create a public  panic failed to inform the public immediately, so the
number of infected rose from 20,000 in a month to 600,000 in 2 months.
Immediately thereafter an intensive  round-up of suspected cases was
able to
stop the spread in much the same way as had been done years before for
SARS.

At the trial there may be scenes of protesters from many viewpoints
including one group advocating the slaughter and disposal of all the
infected persons as it is felt by certain people that they represent
too high a risk to escape and re-infect than society should  justify.

Scenes may include Saudi middle class people stating that 3 Trillion
would be financial genocide to Saudi society and that the 600,000 should
go peacefully to their death ( like those nuked at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki died to prevent future nuclear holocaust)   knowing they were
honorable martyrs whose death might teach all the world to live in
peace, and that heaven would reward these 600,000 generously for their
sacrifice.

**************************************************************************

There are many such highly controversial story lines  with multiple sub
themes that could be dramatized in such a series as Century City.

MJ




From scerir at libero.it  Sat Apr 10 16:44:03 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 18:44:03 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] SURVIVAL: When asteroids or comets strike
References: <20040409011321.84466.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <001801c41f1b$08c4a6a0$1fb21b97@administxl09yj>

> ... Anyone have any info?

Asteroid Toutatis?
http://news.softpedia.com/news/2/2004/March/7716.shtml
http://echo.jpl.nasa.gov/asteroids/4179_Toutatis/toutatis.html
http://www.eecs.wsu.edu/~hudson/Research/Asteroids/4179/
http://unicorn.eis.uva.es/cgi-bin/neodys/neoibo?quicksearch:0;search

Mapping the risk ...
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/
http://unicorn.eis.uva.es/cgi-bin/neodys/neoibo?riskpage:0;main

I could be worse employed 
Than as a watcher of the void, 
Whose part should be to tell 
What star if any fell. 
-Robert Frost


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Apr 10 16:51:20 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 09:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SURVIVAL: When asteroids or comets strike
In-Reply-To: <001801c41f1b$08c4a6a0$1fb21b97@administxl09yj>
Message-ID: <20040410165120.94221.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>

Question: If an asteroid is spinning, would its angular momentum be
translated into explosive energy upon impact? If so, how much would a 3
km body tumbling at 1 rotation/10 minutes add to the impact from its
rotation?

>From long ago talk about the kinetic energy of an disintegrating
flywheel, would it be possible to create flywheel warheads? If one used
a mass driver on the moon as a cannon (a la TMIAHM), how much kinetic
energy would be added to its impact by, say, a 300 rpm spin?

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From scerir at libero.it  Sat Apr 10 17:57:04 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 19:57:04 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] SURVIVAL: When asteroids or comets strike
References: <20040410165120.94221.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <001201c41f25$3c56f7c0$1fb21b97@administxl09yj>

Mike:
> Question: If an asteroid is spinning, would its angular momentum be
> translated into explosive energy upon impact? If so, how much would a 3
> km body tumbling at 1 rotation/10 minutes add to the impact from its
> rotation?

It seems too slow that rotation to cause extra damages, imo.
Interesting the impact of an asteroid on the ocean.
s.

WASHINGTON, D.C., Jan. 7, 1998 -- Los Alamos National Laboratory
researchers are demonstrating the enormous damage of an asteroid
strike -- not from an impact on land but from tsunamis caused by an
asteroid hitting Earth's oceans. Computer models show how impacts of
various sizes will generate waves that could devastate entire coastlines
on several continents. A surveillance and defense system could prevent
such a disaster.

Astrophysicist Jack Hills of the U.S. Department of Energy's Los Alamos
National Laboratory presented his findings today at a news conference
and a scientific session at the Washington, D.C., meeting of the American
Astronomical Society.

A tsunami is a fast-moving ocean wave, usually caused by underwater
earthquakes or volcanic eruptions, that runs up on a coastline, causing
widespread damage. A tsunami retains its destructive energy while it
travels enormous distances. When the wave strikes a continental shelf,
its speed decreases and its height increases. An asteroid impact would
induce a series of waves that could scour thousands of miles of coastline
with walls of water and roiling debris.

Hills and his colleague Charles Mader use a detailed numerical
simulation with a one kilometer spatial resolution and comparative data
from historical tsunami events.

The Los Alamos model estimates that an asteroid three miles across
hitting the mid-Atlantic would produce a tsunami that would swamp the
entire upper East Coast of the United States to the Appalachian
Mountains. Delaware, Maryland and Virginia would be inundated,
including Long Island and all the coastal cities in this region. It would
also
drown the coasts of France and Portugal.

Alternately, Hills' model shows how much of Los Angeles and Waikiki
would be lost if the same rock cratered the ocean between Hawaii and
the West Coast.

Fortunately, Earth is likely to take a hit from an object that large only
once every 10 million years. However, the chance of a strike by a
relatively small asteroid is two or three thousand times more likely, or
once every few thousand years.

Objects larger than about 600 feet across are virtually unaffected by the
atmosphere and will reach Earth's surface at nearly full velocity to cause
a crater on land or sea. Most of the damage from such an impact would
come from a tsunami.

For example, the Los Alamos model shows that an asteroid about 1,300
feet in diameter would devastate the coasts on both sides of the ocean
with a tsunami more than 300 feet high.

Asteroids smaller than the threshold 600 feet across lose most of their
energy in the atmosphere but can still cause unprecedented damage. A
"small" impactor hit near the Tunguska River in central Siberia in 1908.
Though it never hit the ground, the shock wave flattened 800 square
miles of forest.

An impact like Tunguska, which hit with a force a thousand times greater
than the Hiroshima bomb, occurs over land every 300 years on average.
Hills and Mader have received Laboratory funding for an additional three
years of model development. They expect increasingly sophisticated
models to predict more extensive coastal damage than previously
calculated. And Hills would like to see the research yield a practical plan
of defense. "An impact from the smaller asteroids is one disaster that is
preventable," Hills said.

But to deflect an asteroid on a collision course, first it must be seen
ahead of time. Then a nuclear-armed rocket must be ready to intercept it.
A nuclear blast in space could either shatter or re-direct the incoming
asteroid, Hills said. Currently, there is no such surveillance or defense
capability in place.

"It's a problem that could be solved for much less than the cost of one
hurricane. We could just set it up and be done with it," said Hills.

Los Alamos National Laboratory is operated by the University of California
for the U.S. Department of Energy.

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

TWO- AND THREE-DIMENSIONAL SIMULATIONS OF ASTEROID OCEAN IMPACTS
http://www.sthjournal.org/212/gisler.pdf  (about 16 pages)
Galen Gisler, Robert Weaver, Charles Mader
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos,
Michael Gittings
Science Applications International Los Alamos

We have performed a series of two-dimensional and three-dimensional
simulations ofasteroid impacts into an ocean using the SAGE code from
Los Alamos NationalLaboratory and Science Applications International
Corporation. The SAGE code is a compressible Eulerian hydrodynamics
code using continuous adaptive meshrefinement for following discontinuities
with a fine grid while treating the bulk of the simulation more coarsely.
We have used realistic equations of state for the atmosphere,sea water,
the oceanic crust, and the mantle. In two dimensions, we simulated asteroid
impactors moving at 20 km/s vertically
through an exponential atmosphere into a 5 km deep ocean. The impactors were
composed of mantle material (3.32 g/cc) or iron (7.8g/cc) with diameters
from 250m to 10 km. In our three-dimensional runs we simulatedasteroids of 1
km diameter composed of iron moving at 20 km/s at angles of 45 and 60
degrees
from the vertical. All impacts, including the oblique ones, produce a
large underwater cavities with nearly vertical walls followed by a collapse
starting from the bottom and subsequent vertical jetting. Substantial
amounts
of water are vaporized and lofted high into the atmosphere. In the larger
impacts, significant amounts of crustaland even mantle material are lofted
as well. Tsunamis up to a kilometer in initial heightare generated by the
collapse of the vertical jet. These waves are initially complex inform, and
interact strongly with shocks propagating through the water and the
crust.The tsunami waves are followed out to 100 km from the point of impact.
Their periods and wavelengths show them to be intermediate type waves, and
not (in general) shallow-water waves. At great distances, the waves decay as
the inverse of the distance from the impact point, ignoring sea-floor
topography. For all impactors smaller thanabout 2 km diameter, the impacting
body is highly fragmented and its remains lofted into the stratosphere with
the water vapor and crustal material, hence very little trace of the
impacting body should be found for most oceanic impacts. In the oblique
impacts,the initial asymmetry of the transient crater and crown does not
persist beyond a tsunami propagation length of 50 km.
-Science of Tsunami Hazards, Volume 21,(2003)



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Apr 10 18:33:04 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 11:33:04 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] SURVIVAL: When asteroids or comets strike
In-Reply-To: <20040410165120.94221.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <02d301c41f2a$464549d0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

> Mike Lorrey
> SURVIVAL: When asteroids or comets strike
> 
> Question: If an asteroid is spinning, would its angular momentum be
> translated into explosive energy upon impact? If so, how much 
> would a 3 km body tumbling at 1 rotation/10 minutes add to the impact 
> from its rotation? Mike Lorrey

Back of the envelope calc, one significant digit:

3 km diameter, roughly spherical, assume a density
of about 3g/cm^3, 3000 kg/m^3, mass ~ 3000*4*1500^3 ~ 4e13 kg,
impact velocity from outside the gravity well ~ 1e4 m/sec,
rotation omega ~ 6 radians / 600 sec = .01 rad/sec,
rotational energy ~ .5*.01^2*.4*1500^2*4E13 ~ 2E15,
kinetic energy ~ .5*4e13*1e4^2 ~ 2e21

so the rotational energy in the scenario you describe
carries about one millionth the kinetic energy at impact.

But notice that the kinetic energy scales as the cube
of the radius whereas the rotational energy scales as
the fifth power, so if you were to bump up the radius
by 1000 times, keeping the rotation rate and density 
constant, the rotational energy is nearly the same as 
the kinetic energy.

Mike you saw how I did that.  Spin up your own spreadsheet.

moment of inertia of a sphere is 2/5mr^2 and rotational
energy is 1/2*I*omega^2 and you know the rest.

spike

  



From eugen at leitl.org  Sat Apr 10 19:48:10 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 21:48:10 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wearable Camera Etiquette
In-Reply-To: <20040409163112.69702.qmail@web80407.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <200404091554.i39FsNYc008938@mxsf29.cluster1.charter.net>
	<20040409163112.69702.qmail@web80407.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040410194810.GH28136@leitl.org>

On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 09:31:12AM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> phones or PDAs).  I, myself, have similar reasons for
> not carrying a camera.

I wouldn't mind running an embedded camera in a headset, and dumping the daily
video (relevancy-triggered) into permanent store. Regardless whether it's
frowned upon, or not.

Personal cams are okay. 

Cams operated by a central agency, included subpoenable/official records,
undeletable, mined for biometrics, etc. are Evil. 

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040410/819aaf02/attachment.bin>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Apr 10 19:57:38 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 12:57:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wearable Camera Etiquette
In-Reply-To: <20040410194810.GH28136@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20040410195738.4008.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>

You can carry a wearable camera wherever you want, even into my home.
If I ask you to turn it off, in my home, I expect the request to be
honored, else its going to be surgically removed with a .44 magnum
cleaving operation.

--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 09:31:12AM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> 
> > phones or PDAs).  I, myself, have similar reasons for
> > not carrying a camera.
> 
> I wouldn't mind running an embedded camera in a headset, and dumping
> the daily
> video (relevancy-triggered) into permanent store. Regardless whether
> it's
> frowned upon, or not.
> 
> Personal cams are okay. 
> 
> Cams operated by a central agency, included subpoenable/official
> records,
> undeletable, mined for biometrics, etc. are Evil. 
> 
> -- 
> Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
> ______________________________________________________________
> ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
> 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
> http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
> 

> ATTACHMENT part 1.2 application/pgp-signature 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Apr 10 20:28:55 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 13:28:55 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] rfid again again
In-Reply-To: <c58nad$a66$1@kemoauc.mips.inka.de>
Message-ID: <02e801c41f3a$72475c20$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


Recall I am one of those silly wackos with zeeerooo 
concern about loss of privacy.  No wait, that is an under-
statement, I *want* to lose privacy.  I want to register
with the local merchant, place RFID in my clothing,
have their computer detect my entrance, make an
educated guess as to what I want based on my purchasing
pattern, have their computer screen greet me and tell me about
any sales on those and related items and which isle to find 
the stuff thats on sale.  I want them to share that info
with other stores of the same chain too, in fact that is
where it would be most useful: I already know where the
stuff is in my own Orchard Supply Hardware and Fry's 
Electronics.  I want them to send my purchase history 
info over to the OSH and Fry's in Palo Alto, Sunnyvale 
and Santa Clara.  If I accidentally pick up some DVD+
disks, I want a note to come up at the cash register:
"SPIKE! You have DVD MINUS!  These wont work..."  

If anyone ever steals my credit card and tries to use 
it, I want a flag to go up at the register: 
"Cashier, the owner of this credit card always has three or
four RFIDs on his person.  We detect none on this customer.  
Is he naked?  If not, is he six feet tall, blonde,
125 pounds?  If not, it's bogus or stolen card. 
Call security immediately..."    

spike 



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Apr 10 20:29:03 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 13:29:03 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] rfid again
In-Reply-To: <c58nad$a66$1@kemoauc.mips.inka.de>
Message-ID: <02e901c41f3a$76e5ea80$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


I googled around but was unable to discover if any
companies are offering RFID for home use.  I am
looking for a transponder in the 500 USD range
or less, with ID tags under half a buck.  I would 
accept low end performance.

We have an elderly relative who has taken to hiding
items in her home for fear of burglary.  Then she
forgets where she hid the item, or that she hid the
item, leading to the conclusion that someone has
entered and stolen it.  OY!  It might be worth even
more than 500 if we could always zoom right in on
the lost item.  

Are these nifty RFID units ready for consumer 
prime time?  I would use them on my books, my keys, 
my tools, hell I could think of a lot of ways I could 
use that technology.  My own memory isn't so great
these days, and it will only get worse.  

spike



From duggerj1 at charter.net  Sat Apr 10 20:47:51 2004
From: duggerj1 at charter.net (duggerj1 at charter.net)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 15:47:51 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wearable Camera Etiquette
Message-ID: <200404102047.i3AKlp0L096608@mxsf23.cluster1.charter.net>

Saturday, 10 April 2004


Adrian Tymes wrote:

"I've been noticing a number of people (non-Extropiansso far as I know, but not necessarily opposed to our
philosophy) say that cameras are forbidden,
restricted, or just frowned upon in so many places
that they won't carry a camera around in public, and
won't buy gear with embedded cameras that they would
otherwise want with them at most times (like cell
phones or PDAs).  I, myself, have similar reasons for
not carrying a camera."

This seems to boil down to "I won't carry a camera because doing so invites hassle." Do I have this correct?

Eugene Leitl wrote:

"I wouldn't mind running an embedded camera in a headset, and dumping the daily video (relevancy-triggered) into permanent store. Regardless whether it's frowned upon, or not.
Personal cams are okay. 
Cams operated by a central agency, included subpoenable/ official records, undeletable, mined for biometrics, etc. are Evil."

I feel happy to fall on the side of the okay <grin>. What if use this at work to capture criticism or compliments to take back to the office? For example, I work on flight simulators and sometime pilots claim something looks false or realistic. This might trun into part of the official records of the job, and I don't know if this quite matches what you meant.

Mike Lorrey wrote:

"You can carry a wearable camera wherever you want, even into my home. If I ask you to turn it off, in my home, I expect the request to be honored, else its going to be surgically removed with a .44 magnum cleaving operation."

That seems a little dispropotionate. How about just kicking me out? This implies part of the etiquette for wearable cameras includes: don't conceal them, and turn them off if anyone objects. What sort of verification could you reasonably expect? 

What if you had one of these that you couldn't turn off? Imagine one of these mounted on a firearm such that it showed both the wielder and the aimpoint, and that pulling th trigger recorded both views. How might such a thing affect the gun control debate? Should armed civil servants have such things? Should casino workers? Should everyone?

Jay Dugger     :     Til Eulenspiegel
http://www.owlmirror.net/~duggerj/
Sometimes the delete key serves best.



From megao at sasktel.net  Sat Apr 10 19:50:37 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 14:50:37 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wearable Camera Etiquette
References: <20040410195738.4008.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4078500D.A24FC3BB@sasktel.net>

Why should anyone be asked to shut it down?
No one would ask you to shut your brain down to experience voluntary
amnesia?

Wearable Camera = totally wired persons /Privacy issues Vs Security
benefits
Totally seamless connectivity...

A wireless connection to a wearable hard drive and cell phone an
earpiece and an integrated GPS signal tagged to the datastream and every
waking moment can be connected to the net and/or  cached and sent as as
periodic compressed  data streams to anybody on earth.

Maybe the ultimate childprotection device ... as whatever johnie sees ,
the whole world sees, and if johnie ever goes offline the exact time,
location and last "black box" moments are instantly posted and
rebroadcast to parents, and security officials at the closest GPS
documented location.

This is also the ultimate security device as personal bimetrics can
monitored and correlated to a control baseline biometric profile unique
to each individual.
This can not  only secure identity but may also monitor health data to
predict or at least sense major catastrophic health events in real time.

The more biometric sensor functions, the more functional the device is.

For criminals, it would allow 24/7 all inclusive monitoring and virtually
eliminate jails.

As an aside, I heard the "Onstar car commercial"
The person is at -25C and locked outside his truck.
He has his phone and calls onstar.  They verify his identity and unlock
his truck so he can get in.  They follow up by calling to see that he is
OK.

Those with orwellian nightmares could reflect on the opposite.
Big Brother does not like you very much.
It is -25 plus windchill and you are 50 miles form civilization.
You get out of your truck to take a pee and the onstar remote locks you
out of your truck and you are left to freeze to death.

All rewards carry an equal and opposite risk for abuse.

It may be a good time to seriously consider how to keep Big Brother
honest.

For the non-extropians I used the term Big Brother , for the rest of you
AI will do.





Mike Lorrey wrote:

> You can carry a wearable camera wherever you want, even into my home.
> If I ask you to turn it off, in my home, I expect the request to be
> honored, else its going to be surgically removed with a .44 magnum
> cleaving operation.
>
> --- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 09:31:12AM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> >
> > > phones or PDAs).  I, myself, have similar reasons for
> > > not carrying a camera.
> >
> > I wouldn't mind running an embedded camera in a headset, and dumping
> > the daily
> > video (relevancy-triggered) into permanent store. Regardless whether
> > it's
> > frowned upon, or not.
> >
> > Personal cams are okay.
> >
> > Cams operated by a central agency, included subpoenable/official
> > records,
> > undeletable, mined for biometrics, etc. are Evil.
> >
> > --
> > Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
> > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
> > http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
> >
>
> > ATTACHMENT part 1.2 application/pgp-signature
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> >
>
> =====
> Mike Lorrey
> Chairman, Free Town Land Development
> "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
>                                        - Gen. John Stark
> Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From dgc at cox.net  Sat Apr 10 21:00:45 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 17:00:45 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] rfid again again
In-Reply-To: <02e801c41f3a$72475c20$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <02e801c41f3a$72475c20$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <4078607D.5040101@cox.net>

Spike wrote:

>Recall I am one of those silly wackos with zeeerooo 
>concern about loss of privacy.  No wait, that is an under-
>statement, I *want* to lose privacy.  I want to register
>with the local merchant, place RFID in my clothing,
>have their computer detect my entrance, make an
>educated guess as to what I want based on my purchasing
>pattern, have their computer screen greet me and tell me about
>any sales on those and related items and which isle to find 
>the stuff thats on sale.  I want them to share that info
>with other stores of the same chain too, in fact that is
>where it would be most useful: I already know where the
>stuff is in my own Orchard Supply Hardware and Fry's 
>Electronics.  I want them to send my purchase history 
>info over to the OSH and Fry's in Palo Alto, Sunnyvale 
>and Santa Clara.  If I accidentally pick up some DVD+
>disks, I want a note to come up at the cash register:
>"SPIKE! You have DVD MINUS!  These wont work..."  
>
>If anyone ever steals my credit card and tries to use 
>it, I want a flag to go up at the register: 
>"Cashier, the owner of this credit card always has three or
>four RFIDs on his person.  We detect none on this customer.  
>Is he naked?  If not, is he six feet tall, blonde,
>125 pounds?  If not, it's bogus or stolen card. 
>Call security immediately..."    
>
>  
>
This scenario would make more sense to me if I had control of the
data. I could say to Fry's "you are free to collect this data: send it
to my repository." I would also say to Fry's" You are free to access my
repository." Fry's could agree, or not. Fry's (and any other party with 
whom I
have an agreement) could add signed (but not encrypted) entries into my
repository. Note my repository is resident where I say it is, not where 
Fry's,
or the government, or anybody else says it is.


From dgc at cox.net  Sat Apr 10 20:50:36 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 16:50:36 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] SURVIVAL: When asteroids or comets strike
In-Reply-To: <02d301c41f2a$464549d0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <02d301c41f2a$464549d0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <40785E1C.5050802@cox.net>

Spike wrote:

>Back of the envelope calc, one significant digit:
>
>3 km diameter, roughly spherical, assume a density
>of about 3g/cm^3, 3000 kg/m^3, mass ~ 3000*4*1500^3 ~ 4e13 kg,
>impact velocity from outside the gravity well ~ 1e4 m/sec,
>rotation omega ~ 6 radians / 600 sec = .01 rad/sec,
>rotational energy ~ .5*.01^2*.4*1500^2*4E13 ~ 2E15,
>kinetic energy ~ .5*4e13*1e4^2 ~ 2e21
>
>so the rotational energy in the scenario you describe
>carries about one millionth the kinetic energy at impact.
>
>But notice that the kinetic energy scales as the cube
>of the radius whereas the rotational energy scales as
>the fifth power, so if you were to bump up the radius
>by 1000 times, keeping the rotation rate and density 
>constant, the rotational energy is nearly the same as 
>the kinetic energy.
>
>Mike you saw how I did that.  Spin up your own spreadsheet.
>
>moment of inertia of a sphere is 2/5mr^2 and rotational
>energy is 1/2*I*omega^2 and you know the rest.
>  
>
However, you may want to consider how you are going to keep your 
spinning body from tearing
itself apart. For example, you can make it from Kevlar threads. 
Basically, you are attempting
to increase the total energy of the systems, so you need to maximize the 
energy storage per
mass. rotational energy is basically stored in the stress on the 
material. I suspect that
your best bet to increase the additional energy per mass is E=MC^2. 
total energy would then
be 1/2MV^2+MC^2. OF course, If you can find some antimatter, you can do 
better than
this, since the normal-matter target would contribute half the mass to 
the non-kinetic term.

For standard materials, I think you are better off adding energy by 
accelerating your
asteroid to a higher velocity rather than spinning it. Your "gun" must 
add the same amount
of energy either way.


From megao at sasktel.net  Sat Apr 10 20:04:40 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 15:04:40 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] rfid  can be OK
References: <02e801c41f3a$72475c20$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <40785358.255FAF7F@sasktel.net>

Ditto
As long as you keep a strong sense of personal identity I agree that the
benefits outweigh the nuisance factors.

In fact since the "connectivity revolution" ,  I think people have
actually been able to
disconnect themselves from the world more effectively when that is
desireable.

MFJ

Spike wrote:

> Recall I am one of those silly wackos with zeeerooo
> concern about loss of privacy.  No wait, that is an under-
> statement, I *want* to lose privacy.  I want to register
> with the local merchant, place RFID in my clothing,
> have their computer detect my entrance, make an
> educated guess as to what I want based on my purchasing
> pattern, have their computer screen greet me and tell me about
> any sales on those and related items and which isle to find
> the stuff thats on sale.  I want them to share that info
> with other stores of the same chain too, in fact that is
> where it would be most useful: I already know where the
> stuff is in my own Orchard Supply Hardware and Fry's
> Electronics.  I want them to send my purchase history
> info over to the OSH and Fry's in Palo Alto, Sunnyvale
> and Santa Clara.  If I accidentally pick up some DVD+
> disks, I want a note to come up at the cash register:
> "SPIKE! You have DVD MINUS!  These wont work..."
>
> If anyone ever steals my credit card and tries to use
> it, I want a flag to go up at the register:
> "Cashier, the owner of this credit card always has three or
> four RFIDs on his person.  We detect none on this customer.
> Is he naked?  If not, is he six feet tall, blonde,
> 125 pounds?  If not, it's bogus or stolen card.
> Call security immediately..."
>
> spike
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From eugen at leitl.org  Sat Apr 10 21:26:09 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 23:26:09 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wearable Camera Etiquette
In-Reply-To: <200404102047.i3AKlp0L096608@mxsf23.cluster1.charter.net>
References: <200404102047.i3AKlp0L096608@mxsf23.cluster1.charter.net>
Message-ID: <20040410212609.GN28136@leitl.org>

On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 03:47:51PM -0500, duggerj1 at charter.net wrote:

> I feel happy to fall on the side of the okay <grin>. What if use this at work to capture criticism or compliments to take back to the office? For example, I work on flight simulators and sometime pilots claim something looks false or realistic. This might trun into part of the official records of the job, and I don't know if this quite matches what you meant.

It depends on what you do is recognizable as such (how can people tell you're
capturing? Optical apertures are tiny these days). Is there a policy on
gargoyling? Are you in violation, and will they pounce on you while in the
process (streaming crypted stuff offsite) or will they sue your pants off for it
afterwards, once they've figured out you captured secrets, and made them
public? Inadvertedly, or with malice aforethought, and will it make a
difference? Cameras are already offlimits in many places, whether government,
corporate, or private (lavatories and locker rooms e.g.).

> That seems a little dispropotionate. How about just kicking me out? This implies part of the etiquette for wearable cameras includes: don't conceal them, and turn them off if anyone objects. What sort of verification could you reasonably expect? 

It's easy to ask people to stop capturing in private, or just disrobe the
gear, or just suggest to leave the premises (hopefully, not at gunpoint).

> What if you had one of these that you couldn't turn off? Imagine one of these mounted on a firearm such that it showed both the wielder and the aimpoint, and that pulling th trigger recorded both views. How might such a thing affect the gun control debate? Should armed civil servants have such things? Should casino workers? Should everyone?

Should be interesting evidence, if tamper-proofed. If it's personally
encrypted, failure to yield the key would be interpreted as intent to hide
evidence.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040410/62e5ee5c/attachment.bin>

From megao at sasktel.net  Sat Apr 10 20:45:02 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 15:45:02 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wearable Camera Etiquette
References: <200404102047.i3AKlp0L096608@mxsf23.cluster1.charter.net>
	<20040410212609.GN28136@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <40785CCD.39ADC9D@sasktel.net>

And since the wetware is less than 100% efficient,  the archive would make an excellent backup to see or remember that last little extra  detail you seem to not be sure of.

Think of your day to day memory as the index registry and the data cache as your
full function "total recall" memory.  Perhaps even your  auto agent could do a little behind the scenes linking  and outside data  provisioning to prepare for your future
browsing enjoyment.

In effect your brain would be more efficent because the higher functions would be able to  selectively avoid the information overload of 24/7/365/ad-infinitum  total recall.

Eugen Leitl wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 03:47:51PM -0500, duggerj1 at charter.net wrote:
>
> > I feel happy to fall on the side of the okay <grin>. What if use this at work to capture criticism or compliments to take back to the office? For example, I work on flight simulators and sometime pilots claim something looks false or realistic. This might trun into part of the official records of the job, and I don't know if this quite matches what you meant.
>
> It depends on what you do is recognizable as such (how can people tell you're
> capturing? Optical apertures are tiny these days). Is there a policy on
> gargoyling? Are you in violation, and will they pounce on you while in the
> process (streaming crypted stuff offsite) or will they sue your pants off for it
> afterwards, once they've figured out you captured secrets, and made them
> public? Inadvertedly, or with malice aforethought, and will it make a
> difference? Cameras are already offlimits in many places, whether government,
> corporate, or private (lavatories and locker rooms e.g.).
>
> > That seems a little dispropotionate. How about just kicking me out? This implies part of the etiquette for wearable cameras includes: don't conceal them, and turn them off if anyone objects. What sort of verification could you reasonably expect?
>
> It's easy to ask people to stop capturing in private, or just disrobe the
> gear, or just suggest to leave the premises (hopefully, not at gunpoint).
>
> > What if you had one of these that you couldn't turn off? Imagine one of these mounted on a firearm such that it showed both the wielder and the aimpoint, and that pulling th trigger recorded both views. How might such a thing affect the gun control debate? Should armed civil servants have such things? Should casino workers? Should everyone?
>
> Should be interesting evidence, if tamper-proofed. If it's personally
> encrypted, failure to yield the key would be interpreted as intent to hide
> evidence.
>
> --
> Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
> ______________________________________________________________
> ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
> 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
> http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Part 1.1.2Type: application/pgp-signature
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Apr 10 22:00:59 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 15:00:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SURVIVAL: When asteroids or comets strike
In-Reply-To: <40785E1C.5050802@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20040410220059.92656.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:
> 
> For standard materials, I think you are better off adding energy by 
> accelerating your
> asteroid to a higher velocity rather than spinning it. Your "gun"
> must add the same amount of energy either way.

AH, EXCEPT that adding the energy to velocity does you no good,
according to the news article, if your body is less than 600 feet in
diameter. That is the threshold below which the atmosphere
significantly degrades terminal velocity before impact. If you put a
high spin on your space rock, it will keep that spin even when it's
velocity has been drained down to subsonic.

Now, since you are also crossing a significant electromagnetic field,
how much forward velocity could be translated into spinning velocity
before atmospheric reentry via some sort of EM coil feeding plasma engines???

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From megao at sasktel.net  Sat Apr 10 21:07:51 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 16:07:51 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] rfid again- Wal Mart
References: <02e901c41f3a$76e5ea80$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <40786227.C5AC709C@sasktel.net>

Whoever is planning to supply Wal Mart with tags... see
www.baselinemag.com
Walmart is shooting for the 50 cent/tag range but has a ways to go yet.
They expect their suppliers to pay out of their own pocket to arm all
goods with them in 2-5 years.
The scanners will then become a commodity as well.

Spike wrote:

> I googled around but was unable to discover if any
> companies are offering RFID for home use.  I am
> looking for a transponder in the 500 USD range
> or less, with ID tags under half a buck.  I would
> accept low end performance.
>
> We have an elderly relative who has taken to hiding
> items in her home for fear of burglary.  Then she
> forgets where she hid the item, or that she hid the
> item, leading to the conclusion that someone has
> entered and stolen it.  OY!  It might be worth even
> more than 500 if we could always zoom right in on
> the lost item.
>
> Are these nifty RFID units ready for consumer
> prime time?  I would use them on my books, my keys,
> my tools, hell I could think of a lot of ways I could
> use that technology.  My own memory isn't so great
> these days, and it will only get worse.
>
> spike
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From starman2100 at cableone.net  Sat Apr 10 22:03:53 2004
From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 15:03:53 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] I should create my own website...
Message-ID: <1081634633_81984@mail.cableone.net>

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040410/94c67f2d/attachment.ksh>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Apr 10 22:10:52 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 15:10:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wearable Camera Etiquette
In-Reply-To: <4078500D.A24FC3BB@sasktel.net>
Message-ID: <20040410221052.85792.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>

It isn't choosing to shut your brain down, it is being asked to not
record something. THis is common courtesy, no different than if you are
someplace in the middle of nowhere and your companion asks you to turn
around while she puts on a swim suit. Someone asking you to not record
something that they consider private is their right. Its like the
Japanese custom of seeing public nudity but not noticing it. 

What if the person is on the run from Big Brother and doesn't want his
or her image being broadcast across the net, to be recognised and
triangulated?

--- "Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc." <megao at sasktel.net> wrote:
> Why should anyone be asked to shut it down?
> No one would ask you to shut your brain down to experience voluntary
> amnesia?
> 
> Wearable Camera = totally wired persons /Privacy issues Vs Security
> benefits
> Totally seamless connectivity...
> 
> A wireless connection to a wearable hard drive and cell phone an
> earpiece and an integrated GPS signal tagged to the datastream and
> every
> waking moment can be connected to the net and/or  cached and sent as
> as
> periodic compressed  data streams to anybody on earth.
> 
> Maybe the ultimate childprotection device ... as whatever johnie sees
> ,
> the whole world sees, and if johnie ever goes offline the exact time,
> location and last "black box" moments are instantly posted and
> rebroadcast to parents, and security officials at the closest GPS
> documented location.
> 
> This is also the ultimate security device as personal bimetrics can
> monitored and correlated to a control baseline biometric profile
> unique
> to each individual.
> This can not  only secure identity but may also monitor health data
> to
> predict or at least sense major catastrophic health events in real
> time.
> 
> The more biometric sensor functions, the more functional the device
> is.
> 
> For criminals, it would allow 24/7 all inclusive monitoring and
> virtually
> eliminate jails.
> 
> As an aside, I heard the "Onstar car commercial"
> The person is at -25C and locked outside his truck.
> He has his phone and calls onstar.  They verify his identity and
> unlock
> his truck so he can get in.  They follow up by calling to see that he
> is
> OK.
> 
> Those with orwellian nightmares could reflect on the opposite.
> Big Brother does not like you very much.
> It is -25 plus windchill and you are 50 miles form civilization.
> You get out of your truck to take a pee and the onstar remote locks
> you
> out of your truck and you are left to freeze to death.
> 
> All rewards carry an equal and opposite risk for abuse.
> 
> It may be a good time to seriously consider how to keep Big Brother
> honest.
> 
> For the non-extropians I used the term Big Brother , for the rest of
> you
> AI will do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> > You can carry a wearable camera wherever you want, even into my
> home.
> > If I ask you to turn it off, in my home, I expect the request to be
> > honored, else its going to be surgically removed with a .44 magnum
> > cleaving operation.
> >
> > --- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 09:31:12AM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> > >
> > > > phones or PDAs).  I, myself, have similar reasons for
> > > > not carrying a camera.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't mind running an embedded camera in a headset, and
> dumping
> > > the daily
> > > video (relevancy-triggered) into permanent store. Regardless
> whether
> > > it's
> > > frowned upon, or not.
> > >
> > > Personal cams are okay.
> > >
> > > Cams operated by a central agency, included subpoenable/official
> > > records,
> > > undeletable, mined for biometrics, etc. are Evil.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
> > > ______________________________________________________________
> > > ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
> > > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
> > > http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
> > >
> >
> > > ATTACHMENT part 1.2 application/pgp-signature
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > extropy-chat mailing list
> > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> > >
> >
> > =====
> > Mike Lorrey
> > Chairman, Free Town Land Development
> > "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
> >                                        - Gen. John Stark
> > Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
> > http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat


=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From starman2100 at cableone.net  Sat Apr 10 22:21:14 2004
From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 15:21:14 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] THE SPIKE, German edition cover art
Message-ID: <1081635674_82114@mail.cableone.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040410/81f98017/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Apr 10 22:53:21 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 17:53:21 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] THE SPIKE, German edition cover art
In-Reply-To: <1081635674_82114@mail.cableone.net>
References: <1081635674_82114@mail.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040410175106.01b234e8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 03:21 PM 4/10/2004 -0700, John Grigg or his raging boss wrote:

>P.S. Has the book been translated into Japanese or Russian yet?

If only. Anyone with suitable contacts, please let me know.

>And do the people in those lands have a love of pop science books like 
>Americans do?  I would assume they have similar tastes in that regard.

One would imagine so. The Japanese certainly like Greg Egan's sf (but 
haven't seen any of mine).

Damien Broderick




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sat Apr 10 23:29:55 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 16:29:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wearable Camera Etiquette
In-Reply-To: <200404102047.i3AKlp0L096608@mxsf23.cluster1.charter.net>
Message-ID: <20040410232955.63179.qmail@web80405.mail.yahoo.com>

--- duggerj1 at charter.net wrote:
> Adrian Tymes wrote:
> 
> "I've been noticing a number of people
> (non-Extropiansso far as I know, but not necessarily
> opposed to our
> philosophy) say that cameras are forbidden,
> restricted, or just frowned upon in so many places
> that they won't carry a camera around in public, and
> won't buy gear with embedded cameras that they would
> otherwise want with them at most times (like cell
> phones or PDAs).  I, myself, have similar reasons
> for
> not carrying a camera."
> 
> This seems to boil down to "I won't carry a camera
> because doing so invites hassle." Do I have this
> correct?

Yep.  Note that it's potentially a *lot* of hassle -
the degree definitely matters here.  It's a
cost/benefit calculation, and the cost exceeds the
benefit at this time.


From duggerj1 at charter.net  Sun Apr 11 01:15:11 2004
From: duggerj1 at charter.net (duggerj1 at charter.net)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 20:15:11 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wearable Camera Etiquette
Message-ID: <200404110115.i3B1FCpP060917@mxsf14.cluster1.charter.net>

Saturday, 10 April 2004

Hello all:

Adrian Tymes wrote 
"Yep.  Note that it's potentially a *lot* of hassle -
the degree definitely matters here.  It's a
cost/benefit calculation, and the cost exceeds the
benefit at this time."

Good. I understood you correctly then. Just how high would the benefits have to reach to make it worth your _personal_ while? If you'd rather not indulge my curiosity, I understand. 
     Extropian Agroforestry points out some of the far-term benefits. By contrast, I'll use this for the banal more often than not. I wish I had it earlier today when my mother's cat played with a foam ball, for example. At work, I wish I had it two months ago when a video projector had a fault that made the image appear as if stirred by a stick. I had a clear image of the skeptical impression on my boss's face after describing it to him verbally. He lacked a clear mental picture of the problem. This tool will fix that, just as the screen capture feature of modern oscilloscopes fix the problem of describing waveforms over the phone.


Mike Lorrey wrote:

"Someone asking you to not record
something that they consider private is their right."

How so? Does the right to communicate freely imply the right not to communicate at all? Does privacy correspond directly to non-communication? I certainly want to live in a society valuing privacy and anonymity, but I might like a society where these can be freely traded for various benefits better. I don't yet know.

"What if the person is on the run from Big Brother and doesn't want his
or her image being broadcast across the net, to be recognised and
triangulated?"

IMO: I have a civic obligation to help catch criminals. If he or she committed an act I don't think should count as a crime, then aiding them, or just not helping police, counts as civil disobedience on my part. 

This lies pretty far from the abilities of the camera I pre-ordered. To irretreviably lose video, just point the camera somewhere else for 30 seconds and don't save it.

Eugen Leitl wrote

"It depends on what you do is recognizable as such (how can people tell you're
capturing? Optical apertures are tiny these days)."

Based on the maker's ad copy, it seems about two inches long or so. You might hack it to fit behind a shirt button, but I don't plan on that. In the video and stills it seems pretty obvious. Video quality seems okay, but depth of field, low-light ability, shutter speed, and so on all remain unknown.

"Is there ja policy on gargoyling?"

Lovely neologism. Did you invent it?

"Are you in violation, and will they pounce on you while in the
process (streaming crypted stuff offsite)"

That lies outside the ability of this gadget. Adding it looks like a straightforward exercise, aside from some hardware hacking, but I have neither time nor money for it.

I have no real interest in legal liabilites yet. If I stay inside the bounds of etiquette, I bet I stay within legal limits too. Any thoughts?

Jay Dugger     :     Til Eulenspiegel
http://www.owlmirror.net/~duggerj/
Sometimes the delete key serves best.



From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Sun Apr 11 01:22:07 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 20:22:07 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] SURVIVAL: When asteroids or comets strike
References: <20040409011321.84466.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
	<001801c41f1b$08c4a6a0$1fb21b97@administxl09yj>
Message-ID: <Law10-OE657VN2QymWR0001bae7@hotmail.com>

This isn't really that bad. We had one pass at 75,000 miles inJune 2002. :-)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "scerir" <scerir at libero.it>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] SURVIVAL: When asteroids or comets strike


> > ... Anyone have any info?
> 
> Asteroid Toutatis?
> http://news.softpedia.com/news/2/2004/March/7716.shtml
> http://echo.jpl.nasa.gov/asteroids/4179_Toutatis/toutatis.html
> http://www.eecs.wsu.edu/~hudson/Research/Asteroids/4179/
> http://unicorn.eis.uva.es/cgi-bin/neodys/neoibo?quicksearch:0;search
> 
> Mapping the risk ...
> http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/
> http://unicorn.eis.uva.es/cgi-bin/neodys/neoibo?riskpage:0;main
> 
> I could be worse employed 
> Than as a watcher of the void, 
> Whose part should be to tell 
> What star if any fell. 
> -Robert Frost
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


From megao at sasktel.net  Sun Apr 11 00:48:33 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 19:48:33 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] I should create my own website...
References: <1081634633_81984@mail.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <407895E1.E7F2211D@sasktel.net>

I think that as people live longer they will also become more risk averse and so a new profession will be created just to
create and share  the dangerous experiences others can wire into and enjoy without the inherent risks of actually
participating.

starman2100 at cableone.net wrote:

> Eugene wrote:
> I wouldn't mind running an embedded camera in a headset, and dumping the daily
> video (relevancy-triggered) into permanent store. Regardless whether it's
> frowned upon, or not.
> >
>
> What you mention could be several steps up in evolution from the present and very popular blog.
>
> My life is interesting enough that I could probably sell subscriptions to a "What is John up to now!" website.  Crazy
> guests, funny employees, out of control animals, various girlfriends of mine, a raging boss on an ego trip, and other
> shenannigans could go a long way to entertain people.  I've really been letting a great resource (my own life!) go to
> waste.
>
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From support at imminst.org  Sun Apr 11 02:42:10 2004
From: support at imminst.org (support at imminst.org)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 20:42:10 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] ImmInst Update - Humanism Chat
Message-ID: <4078b08281ac4@imminst.org>

Immortality Institute ~ For Infinite Lifespans 
********************* 
Ending the Blight of Involuntary Death 
Basic Members: 1394 - Full Members: 73


ImmInst Chat: Humanism & Immortalism
********************* 
ImmInst Director, Michael Anissimov, has been 
invited to speak at the annual American Humanist 
Association Conference to be held in Las Vegas 
Nevada from May 6 to 9, 2004. He'll chat with ImmInst 
members on how Humanism relates to Immortalism. 
Chat Time: Sunday Apr 11 @ 8 PM Eastern
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=63&t=3203&s=


Sociology of Transhumanism 
********************* 
Admirable discussion between FutureHi.net 
founder, Paul Hughes (planetp) and ImmInst 
Director, Michael Anissimov. 
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=1&t=3381


Why AI & IA Need Each Other 
********************* 
ImmInst Advisor, Peter Passaro (ocsrazor), explains 
why neuroscientists need programmers and vice versa. 
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=11&t=3400


ImmInst Projects 
********************* 
Book Project - http://www.imminst.org/book 
Infinite Females - http://www.imminst.org/if 
Conference - http://www.imminst.org/conference 
Threats To Life - http://www.imminst.org/ttlc 
Legal Team - http://www.imminst.org/ilt 
Brain-Computer - http://www.imminst.org/ibci 
Action & Outreach - http://www.imminst.org/action 


Facing Cryonics Total: 27
********************* 
http://www.imminst.org/facing_cryonics


Support ImmInst 
********************* 
http://www.imminst.org/become_imminst_fullmember 






To be removed from all of our mailing lists, click here:
http://www.imminst.org/archive/mailinglists/mailinglists.php?p=mlist&rem=extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sun Apr 11 06:28:43 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 23:28:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wearable Camera Etiquette
In-Reply-To: <200404110115.i3B1FCpP060917@mxsf14.cluster1.charter.net>
Message-ID: <20040411062843.39310.qmail@web80405.mail.yahoo.com>

--- duggerj1 at charter.net wrote:
> Adrian Tymes wrote 
> "Yep.  Note that it's potentially a *lot* of hassle
> -
> the degree definitely matters here.  It's a
> cost/benefit calculation, and the cost exceeds the
> benefit at this time."
> 
> Good. I understood you correctly then. Just how high
> would the benefits have to reach to make it worth
> your _personal_ while? If you'd rather not indulge
> my curiosity, I understand. 

It'd probably be more realistic to have the costs drop
significantly - i.e., make them more acceptable to
society at large.  Plus, in many cases, if I have a
camera stored where I can get it quickly - such as
around the house, in my desk at work, et cetera - that
makes the relative benefits of a wearable camera less,
since most of the time if I want to take a picture I
can do so.

If you're looking for specific, numerical answers -
sorry, but these types of costs and benefits don't
readily lend themselves to numerical analysis.
(People can make up stats about X number of unpleasant
situation averted generating Y happiness, but most of
the time in this type of case, those statistics have a
large enough error margin to make drawing conclusions
from them futile.)


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sun Apr 11 17:12:03 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 10:12:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404110946370.723-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Astrobiology Magazine has a nice article on going
to Mars -- and how hard it is:

http://www.astrobio.net/news/article701.html

I don't care how many times I see it or read it --
I will still get choked up on the phrase "because it
is hard" (or variations thereof).

For the younger list members -- you may have had to
be there watching the Moon landings (I was 12 at the time)
to feel this.  But you can understand the fact that
you have had 2 robots wandering around on the surface of
Mars for 3 months with an extra 5 months of operation
as a possibility.

And I don't give a hoot whether the landings are based on
humans or robots -- the point is that humanity *did* these
things.

Robert

Note: I am not suggesting that Mars should be colonized.
It is simply too easy to dismantle once we have robust
nanotechnology.  But for now exploration is a reasonable
thing to be doing.



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sun Apr 11 15:39:42 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 11:39:42 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wearable Camera Etiquette
In-Reply-To: <20040411062843.39310.qmail@web80405.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <73C59FB1-8BCE-11D8-A796-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>

Wearable Camera Etiquette is more complicated than people think.  There 
are many times where people won't want to be recorded.  Ettiquette 
should include:

- don't record in bookstores where you can record published content 
without paying for it
- don't record near cash registers where you can record people's credit 
cards
- don't record near public phones or ATMs where you can record people's 
PIN numbers
- don't record while using the phone where you can break wiretapping 
laws
- don't record near computers in use where you can record people's 
keystrokes or passwords
- don't record when copyrighted music is playing or near TVs or in 
theatres or during performances where you can record copyrighted 
materials without permission
- don't record anybody if you plan to publish your recording and you 
don't have contracts for these people to appear in your video
- don't record anybody talking if you aren't part of the conversation, 
because microphones can pick up speech beyond your hearing range, where 
you can "bug" people who think they are having a private conversation
- don't record near bridges, airports, train stations, bus stations, 
tall buildings, banks or other possible terrorist or criminal targets, 
or the feds might think you are casing the location for future attacks

These are just a few examples off the top of my head where people might 
demand that your recording stop.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec 
Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>



From megao at sasktel.net  Sun Apr 11 17:53:33 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:53:33 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wearable Camera Etiquette
References: <73C59FB1-8BCE-11D8-A796-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <4079861D.B1885E30@sasktel.net>

This raises the issue of the difference between a person with near 100%
visual memory conversion to long term memory and  a person who is aiding in
doing same by way of biological and or cybernetic enhancements which may
include worn equipment.  Is there to be a limit put on  accuracy of
natural or enhanced recordings similar to the limit put on computing speed
in decades gone by.

I see restriction of use of unauthorized information as more effective than
restriction of acquisition be it  accidental or otherwise.

"Pharmer Mo"

Harvey Newstrom wrote:

> Wearable Camera Etiquette is more complicated than people think.  There
> are many times where people won't want to be recorded.  Ettiquette
> should include:
>
> - don't record in bookstores where you can record published content
> without paying for it
> - don't record near cash registers where you can record people's credit
> cards
> - don't record near public phones or ATMs where you can record people's
> PIN numbers
> - don't record while using the phone where you can break wiretapping
> laws
> - don't record near computers in use where you can record people's
> keystrokes or passwords
> - don't record when copyrighted music is playing or near TVs or in
> theatres or during performances where you can record copyrighted
> materials without permission
> - don't record anybody if you plan to publish your recording and you
> don't have contracts for these people to appear in your video
> - don't record anybody talking if you aren't part of the conversation,
> because microphones can pick up speech beyond your hearing range, where
> you can "bug" people who think they are having a private conversation
> - don't record near bridges, airports, train stations, bus stations,
> tall buildings, banks or other possible terrorist or criminal targets,
> or the feds might think you are casing the location for future attacks
>
> These are just a few examples off the top of my head where people might
> demand that your recording stop.
>
> --
> Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
> Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec
> Manager,
> NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
> <HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sun Apr 11 21:22:06 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 17:22:06 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wearable Camera Etiquette
In-Reply-To: <4079861D.B1885E30@sasktel.net>
Message-ID: <48865391-8BFE-11D8-9565-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Sunday, April 11, 2004, at 01:53 pm, Extropian Agroforestry Ventures 
Inc. wrote:

> This raises the issue of the difference between a person with near 100%
> visual memory conversion to long term memory and  a person who is 
> aiding in
> doing same by way of biological and or cybernetic enhancements which 
> may
> include worn equipment.

One difference is that near 100% visual memory conversion to long term 
memory doesn't really exist.  I know you see these guys on TV that 
glance at a newspaper and can recite it verbatum, but these stunts 
never stand up to skeptical scrutiny.  People really don't have 
photographic images for text and data.  They might have good spacial 
imaging for colors and positions, but not to read a lot of text in an 
instant.

>   Is there to be a limit put on  accuracy of
> natural or enhanced recordings similar to the limit put on computing 
> speed
> in decades gone by.

I doubt it.  But there will be a limit on whose data you can access and 
record if they don't give you permission.

> I see restriction of use of unauthorized information as more effective 
> than
> restriction of acquisition be it  accidental or otherwise.

Or otherwise?  Meaning deliberate acquisition of data that does not 
belong to the acquirer is to be allowed?

I think any deliberate attempt to collect data illegally will stay 
illegal.  It usually is the intent of a crime that defines it.  An 
accidental capture of data would probably be OK.  The deliberate 
attempt to capture other people's credit card numbers and passwords, or 
the deliberate recording of material in a bookstore so you can walk out 
with it without paying for it will be kept illegal.  These laws already 
exist today and will continue to exist in the face of new technology.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec 
Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sun Apr 11 23:03:42 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 19:03:42 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404110946370.723-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <7A1CC9B6-8C0C-11D8-9565-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Sunday, April 11, 2004, at 01:12 pm, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

> For the younger list members -- you may have had to
> be there watching the Moon landings (I was 12 at the time)
> to feel this.

I was six years old.  My father worked on the Apollo program.  I grew 
up knowing the astronauts as family friends, seeing the launches 
on-site at NASA, and watching the moon landings live.  Now I live in a 
world 35 years later where manned vehicles can't reach the moon 
anymore.  I really miss the future.

> Note: I am not suggesting that Mars should be colonized.
> It is simply too easy to dismantle once we have robust
> nanotechnology.  But for now exploration is a reasonable
> thing to be doing.

Shouldn't we explore first, before dismantling?  You could be 
destroying the fossil record of an early branch of life in the solar 
system.  I really would hate to see any planet destroyed before it was 
completely explored.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec 
Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 12 01:18:56 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 18:18:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <7A1CC9B6-8C0C-11D8-9565-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <20040412011856.55853.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:
> 
> On Sunday, April 11, 2004, at 01:12 pm, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> 
> > For the younger list members -- you may have had to
> > be there watching the Moon landings (I was 12 at the time)
> > to feel this.
> 
> I was six years old.  My father worked on the Apollo program.  I grew
> up knowing the astronauts as family friends, seeing the launches 
> on-site at NASA, and watching the moon landings live.  Now I live in
> a world 35 years later where manned vehicles can't reach the moon 
> anymore.  I really miss the future.

So do I. I want my futurama, but, alas, it got wasted on Great Society
programs from the get-go, with Senators Mondale and Proxmire
complaining about "wasting all that money in space", as if there are
malls in orbit to blow vast wads in, rather than "here on Earth".

> 
> > Note: I am not suggesting that Mars should be colonized.
> > It is simply too easy to dismantle once we have robust
> > nanotechnology.  But for now exploration is a reasonable
> > thing to be doing.
> 
> Shouldn't we explore first, before dismantling?  You could be 
> destroying the fossil record of an early branch of life in the solar 
> system.  I really would hate to see any planet destroyed before it
> was completely explored.

A very good point. Why can't a mass of nanogoo record every molecule's
placement as they are disassembled? A virtual planet accurate down to
the molecule is just as explorable....

That being said, I'd prefer to go an even more destructive route and
terraform Mars. Make lots of erosion and destructive organic processes.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 12 01:58:21 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 18:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: XCOR's Jeff Greason testifies before Congress
Message-ID: <20040412015821.63950.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>

http://www.xcor.com/jeff-aldridge-full.html

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From gpmap at runbox.com  Mon Apr 12 08:38:25 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 10:38:25 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Self-assembling 'nanotubes' offer promise for future
	artificial joints
Message-ID: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBIEEACBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From Purdue News: Tiny "nanotubes" that assemble themselves using the same
chemistry as DNA could be ideal for creating better artificial joints and
other body implants. Researchers at Purdue University, the University of
Alberta and Canada's National Institute for Nanotechnology have discovered
that bone cells called osteoblasts attach better to nanotube-coated titanium
than they do to conventional titanium used to make artificial joints.
"We have demonstrated the same improved bone-cell adhesion with other
materials, but these nanotubes are especially promising for biomedical
applications because we'll probably be able to tailor them for specific
parts of the body," said Thomas Webster, an assistant professor of
biomedical engineering at Purdue.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.656 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 09/04/2004
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040412/12d25cbd/attachment.html>

From gpmap at runbox.com  Mon Apr 12 08:39:13 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 10:39:13 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Q&A with Biologist Aubrey de Grey
Message-ID: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBMEEACBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From MIT Technology Review: A self-professed "troublemaker," Aubrey de Grey
works to scrutinize and encourage work in human longevity. De Grey, 40, is a
theoretical biologist and biogerentologist at the University of Cambridge in
England. He is a cofounder of the Methuselah Mouse Prize, "a contest
designed to accelerate progress toward real longevity - enhancing medicine,
promote public interest and involvement in research on healthy life
extension, and encourage more such research." Technology Review spoke to de
Grey as he attended a conference on gene therapy in Santa Barbara, CA.
Q: 5,000 years? That seems pretty outlandish. A: I get that reaction a lot -
my estimate gives people the conceptual bends. But if you go through the
logic step by step, you'll see that it's virtually inevitable that we will
attain that sort of life expectancy in that sort of timeframe, just so long
as two things work out. First, we will have to develop first-generation
rejuvenation therapies by 2050 or sooner... what remains for me to explain
is why the development of first-generation rejuvenation therapies - which
I'll define as ones that can be applied to people in their 60s and increase
their lifespan by at least 30 years - is enough to give people who are 25 or
younger at the time those therapies arrive a lifespan not limited by aging
in any way.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.656 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 09/04/2004
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040412/060a1a79/attachment.html>

From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Mon Apr 12 10:37:37 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 03:37:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <20040412011856.55853.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404120314410.22081-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Sun, 11 Apr 2004, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> > Shouldn't we explore first, before dismantling?  You could be
> > destroying the fossil record of an early branch of life in the solar
> > system.  I really would hate to see any planet destroyed before it
> > was completely explored.
>
> A very good point. Why can't a mass of nanogoo record every molecule's
> placement as they are disassembled? A virtual planet accurate down to
> the molecule is just as explorable....

Well, you have to dismantle something to have the material in which
to store the bits...  Atomic level records of the top few (hundred?)
meters of a planet are going to require a fair amount of storage space.
I suspect that for a while it will require several orders of magnitude
more atoms to store the space location records of a number of atoms
unless you have a very good compression algorithm.  (Though that might
be possible.)  We can do "subatomic" storage now where the bits would
be encoded in the energy levels of the electrons of individual atoms.
But doing it on the scale of the amount of data required would be
a project I can't begin to imagine at this time (and as we know I've got
a good imagination).

But I generally agree with both of you -- having the potential fossil
record is perhaps useful and compiling it as you disassemble seems
feasible.  So some decisions are going to have to be made up front
about exactly how much information is "useful".  [Thats something I
don't think has been incorporated into extropian philosophy yet --
how do you value the information to decide what to throw away.
For example -- do we want to know all craters down to 1m, 1mm, 1nm,
etc.]

> That being said, I'd prefer to go an even more destructive route and
> terraform Mars. Make lots of erosion and destructive organic processes.

Mike, Terraforming isn't the answer.  If we still have a lot of people
around at that time who want to remain in embodied form the best way
to go is O'Neill colonies.  You could make them more robust (more
like asteroids) so they could survive everything from impacts of
micrometeorites to atomic bombs as well as provide shielding from
supernovas or gamma ray bursts.   Needless to say being at the
bottom of a smaller gravity well makes launching probes and large
telescopes much easier.  You sacrifice a bit unless you go to the
trouble of generating an artificial magnetic field but I don't think
that is too difficult a problem to solve.

Here is an interesting idea -- instead of using the Earth's moon
as the staging base for the exploration of Mars -- what about using
one of the Mars moons?  Spike -- what is the energy cost differential
of going to a Mars moon instead of our moon?

Robert




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Mon Apr 12 12:34:45 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 05:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] US Politics: Draft?
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404120527230.24177-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


I've received some information about:

>  Two companion bills, HR 163 and S 89, are currently pending,
>  very quietly, in the Armed Services Committees of the US House
>  and Senate.  These bills form the "Universal National Service Act"
>  which would draft all American men and women aged 18-26 for military
>  or civilian service, starting spring 2005.

These are HR 163 and S 89 which can be looked up on http://thomas.loc.gov/
It looks like they are trying to draft people possibly into 2 years of
service (so much for the volunteer military).

The part that I'm scratching my head over was that they were introduced
in early 2003 (before Iraq started) and didn't seem to go anywhere.
Do they have to be reintroduced in 2004 or do they remain in the queue?

The strange part is that one of the sponsors for the HR bill is McDermott
who is my congressman (who has to be one of the most liberal persons
in the House of Representatives).

Robert




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Mon Apr 12 13:32:22 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 06:32:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404120314410.22081-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404120624170.25152-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

> I suspect that for a while it will require several orders of magnitude
> more atoms to store the space location records of a number of atoms
> unless you have a very good compression algorithm.

Clarification... In case this isn't clear -- You have to encode the
element type, perhaps its isotope number, its location within a 3D
grid which is going to require accuracy down to the nm scale.  The
point I'm trying to make is that it is going to require N-bits
(where N is probably in the range of 128-1024 at least) and that
it is going to take 10's to 100's of atoms to store that much
information given relatively advanced storage systems even by
today's standards.

So you cannot have the atomic structure of the surface of Mars without
coming up with someplace to put it.  And the storage system is likely
to require more matter than that which one is disassembling unless
you (a) have good compression strategies; or (b) move to subatomic
storage strategies.

Robert




From hal at finney.org  Mon Apr 12 17:19:43 2004
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 10:19:43 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wearable Camera Etiquette
Message-ID: <200404121719.i3CHJhG15557@finney.org>

As technology makes it easier and more common for people to carry
recording devices, society will need to adapt.  We need to decide whether
it is more convenient to limit the use of the devices, or to alter our
handling of secret and private information to be less sensitive.

On one hand we can try to limit the capture of data to mimic the
way things have worked in the past.  Basically, people can remember
everything they see, but only to a limited degree.  We could attempt
to place limitations on assisted recording in situations where privacy
is expected.  To enforce this we would require that there be some way of
knowing when someone is using a recording device.  Maybe the operator
would have to display a flashing red light whenever it was in use.
And any such device would have to be designed to support this requirement.

The problem is that cheating will be hard to detect, if someone has
disabled his light, for example.  If he's just recording the data for
his own personal benefit then no one may ever know.  I think this general
approach is going to be problematic for this reason.

Another approach is to allow capture of data but to try to crack down on
sharing it.  You can take pictures for your own personal use, but you
can't give copies of sensitive data to other people.  This has some of
the same problems but it is perhaps a little easier to enforce, since
the data sharing is by its nature somewhat public.  OTOH with cypherpunk
technologies people will be able to share data anonymously.  So this idea
has problems as well.

A third idea is to try to adapt society to accept that people can record
and share what they see.  This takes us into the grounds of David Brin's
"transparent society".  He sees this as somewhat inevitable and tries
to present it as a positive change.  In fact, much of what is done in
secrecy is harmful and would be better if exposed to the light of public
observation.  But at the same time, society does rely on privacy for
good purposes as well, and it will be expensive and probably socially
unacceptable to change over to systems that can survive omnipresent
public recording.

I don't think that simplistic analogies can guide us here.  Omnipresent
recording devices are not just like having a good memory, and they are
not just like a tourist with a camera.  They are something new, and
they will require new responses.  I think we will need a combination
of ideas from all the categories above: some restrictions on recording
(progressively more difficult to enforce as the cameras become smaller
and more integrated); some restrictions on sharing (depending on what
direction society goes for allowing anonymous data exchange); and some
adaptation to the presence of cameras (where it is not too expensive
and inconvenient).

Over time we will probably have to adapt more and more, because of the
difficulties of enforcing restrictions, but this can be done gradually
as the cameras slowly proliferate and people get accustomed to their
presence.

Hal


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Apr 13 00:43:49 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 19:43:49 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] an Easter miracle!
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404120527230.24177-100000@server.aeiveos.co
 m>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404120527230.24177-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040412194142.01b5ce38@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

Obviously, earlier reports were in error. It wasn't born again Xians who 
were raptured away, it was the bulk of the *extropes*! Waaaah! Why were 
Robert and Giu1i0  and I Left Behind?

Damien Broderick




From extropy at unreasonable.com  Tue Apr 13 02:27:13 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 22:27:13 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] US Politics: Draft?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404120527230.24177-100000@server.aeiveos.co
 m>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040412220232.03786698@mail.comcast.net>

Robert wrote:

>These are HR 163 and S 89 which can be looked up on http://thomas.loc.gov/
>It looks like they are trying to draft people possibly into 2 years of
>service (so much for the volunteer military).
>
>The part that I'm scratching my head over was that they were introduced
>in early 2003 (before Iraq started) and didn't seem to go anywhere.
>Do they have to be reintroduced in 2004 or do they remain in the queue?

This was discussed among the punditry at the time; you just don't waste 
enough time watching cable news.

>The strange part is that one of the sponsors for the HR bill is McDermott
>who is my congressman (who has to be one of the most liberal persons
>in the House of Representatives).

Nothing strange at all. This was a ploy by the anti-Iraq-invasion left (*). 
I wasn't aware of McDermott; the front man in the press was Charlie Rangel. 
He had a populist argument that we shouldn't have a war unless everyone was 
represented, and brought out the race card again.

Google on

         "Charles Rangel" draft iraq

for more.


-- David Lubkin.

(*)  left, as distinct from other groups in opposition




From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Apr 13 02:47:54 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 19:47:54 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404120314410.22081-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <004301c42101$bc0059c0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>


> Robert J. Bradbury
> 
> Here is an interesting idea -- instead of using the Earth's moon
> as the staging base for the exploration of Mars -- what about using
> one of the Mars moons?  Spike -- what is the energy cost differential
> of going to a Mars moon instead of our moon?
> 
> Robert

The Mars satellites have a big advantage: they are so
small, their gravity wells are practically negligible.  Recall
that to land on an airless body requires fuel both to land
and to take off again.  

If we use Phobos and Deimos as staging areas, we
could still park stuff on the surface and use materials
from there.  The use of our moon as a staging area for Mars
exploration is the wrong answer methinks.  

spike



From Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au  Tue Apr 13 04:23:31 2004
From: Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au (Emlyn ORegan)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 13:53:31 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
Message-ID: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE707C4B6@mmdsvr01.mm.local>

It sounds as though it could be intelligent to use both our moon and a
Mars moon. Set up our moon as a general staging area for anything off
earth, put a mission together to go from their to Mars via a base on a
Mars satellite. Is their some radically different form of propulsion
that could be used to go moon-to-moon, where the transport craft isn't
designed to go near a serious gravity well?

Emlyn

-----Original Message-----
From: Spike [mailto:spike66 at comcast.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, 13 April 2004 12:18 PM
To: 'ExI chat list'
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard


> Robert J. Bradbury
> 
> Here is an interesting idea -- instead of using the Earth's moon
> as the staging base for the exploration of Mars -- what about using
> one of the Mars moons?  Spike -- what is the energy cost differential
> of going to a Mars moon instead of our moon?
> 
> Robert

The Mars satellites have a big advantage: they are so
small, their gravity wells are practically negligible.  Recall
that to land on an airless body requires fuel both to land
and to take off again.  

If we use Phobos and Deimos as staging areas, we
could still park stuff on the surface and use materials
from there.  The use of our moon as a staging area for Mars
exploration is the wrong answer methinks.  

spike

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


***************************************************************************
Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are
intended only for the named recipient. If you have received this e-mail
in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document.
No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus or
other defect.



From Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au  Tue Apr 13 04:27:56 2004
From: Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au (Emlyn ORegan)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 13:57:56 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
Message-ID: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE707C4B8@mmdsvr01.mm.local>

Good compression strategies seem achievable. You should be able to find,
for instance, recurring large atomic arrangements which can be described
once, then referred to in place wherever they occur. Defining a relative
positioning scheme (each atom's x,y,z coordinate fixed in relation to
the previous atom, as defined by some algorithm) should do away with all
those x,y,z's . However, anything like this is going to be lossy. If you
want absolute fidelity, you'll need to turn Jupiter into computronium in
order to encode Mars, and then where do you put the info for Jupiter?

Emlyn

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert J. Bradbury [mailto:bradbury at aeiveos.com] 
Sent: Monday, 12 April 2004 11:02 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard


On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

> I suspect that for a while it will require several orders of magnitude
> more atoms to store the space location records of a number of atoms
> unless you have a very good compression algorithm.

Clarification... In case this isn't clear -- You have to encode the
element type, perhaps its isotope number, its location within a 3D
grid which is going to require accuracy down to the nm scale.  The
point I'm trying to make is that it is going to require N-bits
(where N is probably in the range of 128-1024 at least) and that
it is going to take 10's to 100's of atoms to store that much
information given relatively advanced storage systems even by
today's standards.

So you cannot have the atomic structure of the surface of Mars without
coming up with someplace to put it.  And the storage system is likely
to require more matter than that which one is disassembling unless
you (a) have good compression strategies; or (b) move to subatomic
storage strategies.

Robert


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


***************************************************************************
Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are
intended only for the named recipient. If you have received this e-mail
in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document.
No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus or
other defect.



From matus at matus1976.com  Tue Apr 13 05:50:12 2004
From: matus at matus1976.com (Matus)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 01:50:12 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <004301c42101$bc0059c0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <000001c4211b$334f38c0$6501a8c0@GREYBOOK>



>>Spike -- what is the energy cost differential
> > of going to a Mars moon instead of our moon?
> >
> > Robert
> 

"the deltaV required to go from LEO to lunar surface is 6 km/s (3.2 km/s
for trans lunar injection, 0.9 km/s to capture into low lunar orbit, and
1.9 km/s to land on the airless moon) On the other hand, the deltaV
required to go from LEO to the Martian surface is only about 4.5 km/s (4
km/s for trans Mars injection, 0.1 km/s for post-aerocapture orbit
adjustment, and 0.4 km/s to land after using the aeroshield - but no
parachute - for aerodynamic acceleration.)  Put briefly, from a
propulsion point of view, it is much easier to go from LEO directly to
Mars than it is to go from LEO to the surface of the Moon"  - Robert
Zubrin "The Case for Mars" pg 136

According to Zubrin, it doesn't make much sense to go to the Moon as a
staging point for a trip to Mars.  I happened to read this page just
today and came across Robert's question.  

Zubrin Mars Direct plan has pretty much won me over, does anyone here
have any objections or counter arguments?  I would be interested in
hearing some criticisms of his plan.

Thanks

Michael




From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Apr 13 05:58:16 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 22:58:16 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE707C4B6@mmdsvr01.mm.local>
Message-ID: <000001c4211c$51177830$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

> Emlyn ORegan
> Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
> 
> Is their some radically different form of propulsion
> that could be used to go moon-to-moon, where the transport craft isn't
> designed to go near a serious gravity well? Emlyn

Well, not really.  Propulsion has been well understood
for many years.  The natural constraints that go along 
with taking humans anywhere keep dragging us back to 
the old fashioned tried-and-true chemical propulsion.

The matter is not altogether desperate however.  At
the risk of sounding like a scratched CD, there is
room for improvement at the bottom.  Friends,
we really do need to work out means of transporting
humans in smaller volumes.  A smaller human is one
possibility, but that isn't the only way.

When I was a child 30 yrs ago, the Mars mission people
listed as perhaps the most difficult problem the maddening
boredom faced by the astronauts on the 8 month journey.  
In those three decades, we have made almost *no* real advances 
in propulsion, yet we have made *enormous* strides in 
figuring out how to prevent boredom-induced insanity.

Consider the teenage vidiot.  She sits in front of the
computer for hours on end, shooting at virtual aliens,
emailing, web surfing, to such an extent that the
resultant pasty white complexion has actually become a
fashion statement.

That sedentary indoor "activity" would be easier in space 
than on the deck, for the weightlessness there would prevent 
the chair-induced equivalent of bedsores from forming on ones
ass.  They didn't have such riveting video games 30 yrs
ago: one could not play pong for 7 months.  So a partial
solution to a daunting problem has fallen into our
laps, without any significant advances in the actual
bus that will carry the astronauts.

Currently space station astronauts spend much of their
time maintaining their muscle tone so that they might
be able to walk when they return to earth.  Well, what
if we go ahead and plan to stay on Mars?  That 1/3G
surface gravity would obviate special exercise
programs.  Furthermore, if one has not the equipment
to go outdoors upon arrival upon that harsh planet, it 
wouldn't matter if one could not walk.  The purpose of 
humans on Mars would be to repair and maintain the mostly 
autonomous construction equipment, not to explore.  We
already know what is out there.  No need to send humans
to look at what our robots can already see better than
we can.  Humans are needed only to help the machines
build stuff.  No, I am not kidding.  

Once we stop designing way beyond that which we really
need, humanity will collectively realize that the technology
to do Mars has quietly come into being while no one
was watching.

spike



From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Apr 13 06:22:19 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:22:19 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <000001c4211b$334f38c0$6501a8c0@GREYBOOK>
Message-ID: <000001c4211f$acc45fb0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>


> Matus:

> Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard

> - Robert Zubrin "The Case for Mars" pg 136
> 
> According to Zubrin, it doesn't make much sense to go to the Moon as a
> staging point for a trip to Mars...

I came to his same conclusion before Zubrin's book
was published.  Not much payoff in going to Luna.
Possibly worthwhile to park some stuff on Phobos or
Deimos, equipment for communications 


> 
> Zubrin Mars Direct plan has pretty much won me over, does anyone here
> have any objections or counter arguments?  I would be interested in
> hearing some criticisms of his plan.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Michael

He sold me on that too.  Speaking with him one
on one, I was unable to sell him on the value of
sending only two women.  

He went off on how that
would be unnecessary to go with a crew of less than
four, since we could use his nifty Shuttle-A plan:
use existing production infrastructure for the
external tank and the solids, remove the tail, wings
and wheels from the current shuttle.  (I don't see
why that wouldn't work, since we will be phasing
out the shuttle soon.  We might as well make the
last flight a one-way.)

I argued that even with the Shuttle-A, we would
still use our limited payload for carrying
construction and manufacturing equipment, not 
additional astronauts.

He wasn't buying it.  

But don't take my word for it: do the math.  Find
out how much it costs per kg to soft-land on Mars,
then you tell me how many are going and what kind
of people they will be.  spike





From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Tue Apr 13 07:23:08 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:23:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] an Easter miracle!
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040412194142.01b5ce38@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404130020090.15526-100000@server.aeiveos.com>



On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Damien Broderick wrote:

> Obviously, earlier reports were in error. It wasn't born again Xians who
> were raptured away, it was the bulk of the *extropes*! Waaaah! Why were
> Robert and Giu1i0  and I Left Behind?

Well, I can't answer for others but when they came for me I asked
them why paradise (all of that singing, bowing down, etc.)  was
better than being uploaded into an MBrain.  Needless to say they
didn't have a good answer.  So I opted out.

Robert




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Tue Apr 13 10:47:15 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 03:47:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] BIO: Crazy genes
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404130341070.18694-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Science Daily is reporting that 2% of Caucasians may have
a gene that biases one towards schizophrenia (ouch!).

Surprises Found in Gene Variation Associated With Schizophrenia
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/04/040412012037.htm

That probably means a significant fraction of us know one or
more people whose minds may be just a little bit over the edge.

In all probability there are other genes (or perhaps experiences)
required to tip the balance.  But it makes for interesting
speculation as to whether human evolution (since this mutation
is only 100,000 years old) has pushed us up to the edge of what
is feasible using the current human architecture.

Robert




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Tue Apr 13 11:21:03 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 04:21:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hardB
In-Reply-To: <000001c4211b$334f38c0$6501a8c0@GREYBOOK>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404130350100.18694-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Matus wrote:

> "the deltaV required [snip]
>
> According to Zubrin, it doesn't make much sense to go to the Moon as a
> staging point for a trip to Mars.  I happened to read this page just
> today and came across Robert's question.

This reminds me of the *very* old cartoon with Bullwinkle (the moose)
and Rocky (the flying squirrel?).

Bullwinkle (pretending to be a magician) reaches into a hat and says
"Watch me pull a rabbit out of the hat."  To which Rocky responds
"That trick never works." (Usually he gets a lion or an elephant or
anything that is dangerous but never the rabbit.)

Well today I am Bullwinkle and the ExI-list is the hat and delivered
up exactly the information (aka rabbit) required (thank you Michael).
Pretty damn amazing.

> Zubrin Mars Direct plan has pretty much won me over, does anyone here
> have any objections or counter arguments?  I would be interested in
> hearing some criticisms of his plan.

Zubrin *almost* gets it right towards the end of the book I think
where he suggests hoisting martian material into orbit to build
space power satellites.  The basic criticism is that it makes no
sense to hoist people out of one gravity well to put them at the
bottom of another gravity well.  It is a waste of energy.  Throw
an automated nanofactory down on Mars that can build a space
elevator system (or something equivalent) and dismantle the darn
thing.  If need be dismantle a few asteroids to give you sufficient
matter to store the information content of the first few (hundred?)
meters of the planet [Harvey has to have something to play with when
he retires... :-)].  Then turn the rest of it into material to build
O'Neill space habitats.

If you want the biggest mountain or the deepest canyon simply go
build it in an oversized habitat.  Its little different from the
recent Popular Science article I think I posted on megascale
engineering structures being built on Earth.

For the record people who haven't read [1] the limit on the time to
disassemble Mars (using the energy available) is of the order of 12
hours using the energy we have avaiable.  Though towards the end,
the dissassembly could become rather chaotic and wasteful.  It
might be done faster if a significant number of fusion reactors
were constructed and hydrogen imported from Jupiter/Saturn/comets.
But I haven't calculated the element requirements for that yet
(in part because we don't yet have a working fusion reactor that
I can cite) so I'm not absolutely sure it would be possible in
this solar system.

Robert

1. Planet Disassembly
http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/MatrioshkaBrains/PlntDssmbly.html



From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Apr 13 15:02:29 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 08:02:29 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] an Easter miracle!
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404130020090.15526-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <000a01c42168$57426160$6501a8c0@SHELLY>


> Robert J. Bradbury
 
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Damien Broderick wrote:
> 
> > Waaaah! Why were Robert and Giu1i0  and I Left Behind?
> 
> Well, I can't answer for others but when they came for me I asked
> them why paradise (all of that singing, bowing down, etc.)  was
> better than being uploaded into an MBrain.  Needless to say they
> didn't have a good answer.  So I opted out.
> 
> Robert

Surely Robert overlooked the piles of clothing lying
about.  Had he noticed this, he would not have asked
any questions.  spike



From astapp at fizzfactorgames.com  Tue Apr 13 16:15:32 2004
From: astapp at fizzfactorgames.com (Acy James Stapp)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 09:15:32 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
Message-ID: <56BC65EB2F3963489057F7D978B5E7B701616A27@amazemail2.amazeent.com>

You are going to be able to achieve an incredibly high 
compression ratio, since for bulk solids or liquids you
only need space proportional to the interfacial area where
bulk properties change; even then if the surface is planar
it could be described much more simply. A crystal of 
quartz, hematite, or whatever could be simply described
by it's bulk composition,  position of impurities, and
surface.

By the time we have the technology for planetary disassembly
we'll be able to recognize micro and macro-fossils
explicitly and either save them physically or record them
uniquely, ignoring all of the rock.

Acy

[ -----Original Message-----
[ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org 
[ [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of 
[ Emlyn ORegan
[ Sent: Monday, 12 April, 2004 23:28
[ To: ExI chat list
[ Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
[ 
[ 
[ Good compression strategies seem achievable. You should be 
[ able to find,
[ for instance, recurring large atomic arrangements which can 
[ be described
[ once, then referred to in place wherever they occur. Defining 
[ a relative
[ positioning scheme (each atom's x,y,z coordinate fixed in relation to
[ the previous atom, as defined by some algorithm) should do 
[ away with all
[ those x,y,z's . However, anything like this is going to be 
[ lossy. If you
[ want absolute fidelity, you'll need to turn Jupiter into 
[ computronium in
[ order to encode Mars, and then where do you put the info for Jupiter?
[ 
[ Emlyn
[ 
[ -----Original Message-----
[ From: Robert J. Bradbury [mailto:bradbury at aeiveos.com] 
[ Sent: Monday, 12 April 2004 11:02 PM
[ To: ExI chat list
[ Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
[ 
[ 
[ On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
[ 
[ > I suspect that for a while it will require several orders 
[ of magnitude
[ > more atoms to store the space location records of a number of atoms
[ > unless you have a very good compression algorithm.
[ 
[ Clarification... In case this isn't clear -- You have to encode the
[ element type, perhaps its isotope number, its location within a 3D
[ grid which is going to require accuracy down to the nm scale.  The
[ point I'm trying to make is that it is going to require N-bits
[ (where N is probably in the range of 128-1024 at least) and that
[ it is going to take 10's to 100's of atoms to store that much
[ information given relatively advanced storage systems even by
[ today's standards.
[ 
[ So you cannot have the atomic structure of the surface of Mars without
[ coming up with someplace to put it.  And the storage system is likely
[ to require more matter than that which one is disassembling unless
[ you (a) have good compression strategies; or (b) move to subatomic
[ storage strategies.
[ 
[ Robert
[ 
[ 
[ _______________________________________________
[ extropy-chat mailing list
[ extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
[ http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
[ 
[ 
[ **************************************************************
[ *************
[ Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are
[ intended only for the named recipient. If you have received 
[ this e-mail
[ in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document.
[ No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus or
[ other defect.
[ 
[ _______________________________________________
[ extropy-chat mailing list
[ extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
[ http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
[ 


From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Tue Apr 13 16:37:12 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 11:37:12 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
References: <000001c4211c$51177830$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <LAW10-OE32PKaUAW45S0001c601@hotmail.com>

Spike said "We already know what is out there.  No need to send humans
to look at what our robots can already see better than
we can.  Humans are needed only to help the machines
build stuff. "

I disagree. Every day we are still discovering new and amazing things about
our own planet, despite roughly 10,000 years of civilization. There are now
more people studying the natural sciences than there have been in the entire
history of civilization combined. Rather than running out of things to
learn, it seems that we are simply increasing the number of things we need
to know! I think that the only reason we don;t think there is much to learn
on Mars is simply because we haven;t been there to study it.

This reminds me of when the head of the US Patent Office stated to President
McKinley, "Discoveries which seem to be approaching their ultimate
conditions are telephony; photography; illumination and apparently
labour-saving machinery in some fields, since the performance of machines
has practically reached perfection. We cannot, indeed, well conceive of a
greater activity of invention and a more rapid enfoldment of new processes
than we have had before us in the 19th century".

As for the robots, they are entirely incapable of doing the job. Taking a
week or so to drive a couple hundred feet and drill a 2 cm hole in a rock is
not adequate. For all we know, Mars could have cooled before the Earth
bringing with it a plethora of life. We would have no idea without digging
because all of the evidence would have been covered up while the Earth was
just starting to organize it's first single-celled organisms.

There is much we can learn there. Even the knowledge that no significant
life ever took off on the planet is knowledge that we don;t have.

Although we agree that some time in the future, MNT will exist in such a way
that disassembling Mars and recording all of the information will be
possible, no one can say exactly when that will occur. Many discoveries need
to be made. One important step discussed here was the use of existing
structures in nature as parts in the fabrication of the early assemblers and
other MNT tools.

What if we need just one little part to complete the first assembler design,
but we find it to be near impossible to build. What if this particular
sturcture just so happened to exist in nature, but not on Earth, instead it
was inside a mineral located inside a volcanic vent on Olympus Mons. This
knowledge would get MNT going much faster than it would have otherwise.

I admit that the above scenario is implausible, but my point is that humans
are the best explorers we have come up with so far and we should not stop
exploring to wait for improved technology. If we were going to do that, why
not stop all research until MNT comes around? Surely we can learn more about
the ocean's depths, the Earth's fiery interior, and the upper atmosphere
once we can map it with little nano probes.

Ultimately we need to ask ourselves two questions: Is the knowledge on Mars
worth pursuing, and if so, should we seek it now or wait until MNT comes
about? If it is not worth it, then we should let it rest. If learning about
Mars is important, then we need to go. For the time being, the robots are
simply not up to the task.

Kevin Freels


From scerir at libero.it  Tue Apr 13 16:46:57 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 18:46:57 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Atheist Easter
References: <20040408180722.26285.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
	<000301c41d9c$0667b4e0$7dbc1b97@administxl09yj>
Message-ID: <001001c42176$f0228c30$22bb1b97@administxl09yj>

<<Every now and then in the past, proposals have been advanced to simplify
the calculation of Easter. Already in 1539 the German church reformer
Martin Luther argued in his 'Von den Concilijs vnd Kirchen' that Easter
should be celebrated on a fixed day in the calendar like Christmas.
In 1926 the League of Nations issued a proposal to observe Easter Sunday on
the Sunday after the second Saturday of April. Two years later the
parliament of the United Kingdom passed the "Easter Act, 1928" [18 & 19 Geo.
5, ch. 35] that would enable the observance of Easter in the United Kingdom
according to the proposal of the League of Nations at a future date as soon
as a general agreement had been reached on this topic by all Christian
churches.
So far, no such agreement has been achieved and the act has therefore not
been brought into force. In 1999 the Earl of Dartmouth introduced a bill
("Easter Act 1928 (Commencement) Act 1999") in the House of Lords to bring
the act into force, but it was withdrawn on 11 March of the same year.>>

More at http://www.phys.uu.nl/~vgent/easter/eastercalculator.htm
a page by R.H. van Gent http://www.phys.uu.nl/~vgent/homepage.htm



From scerir at libero.it  Tue Apr 13 17:49:52 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 19:49:52 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] an Easter miracle!
References: <000a01c42168$57426160$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <002b01c4217f$b9b226c0$22bb1b97@administxl09yj>

> ... why paradise (all of that singing, bowing down, etc.) 
> was better than being uploaded into an MBrain.  
> Robert

More or less, it seems the story of Zabriskie Point (1970),
by M. Antonioni, music and sounds by Pink Floyd. 
http://www.moviegoods.com/movie_product.asp?master_movie_id=3449
http://www.sci.fi/~phinnweb/links/cinema/directors/antonioni/zabriskie/
(But, in the movie, the MBrain is replaced by a refrigerator.)


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 13 17:58:54 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 10:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] US Politics: Draft?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404120527230.24177-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040413175854.70169.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>


--- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:
> 
> These are HR 163 and S 89 which can be looked up on
> http://thomas.loc.gov/
> It looks like they are trying to draft people possibly into 2 years
> of service (so much for the volunteer military).
> 
> The part that I'm scratching my head over was that they were
> introduced
> in early 2003 (before Iraq started) and didn't seem to go anywhere.
> Do they have to be reintroduced in 2004 or do they remain in the
> queue?
> 
> The strange part is that one of the sponsors for the HR bill is
> McDermott
> who is my congressman (who has to be one of the most liberal persons
> in the House of Representatives).

This is what is really going on:

The Democrats are pissed that there isn't more anti-war demonstration,
and they see building a real anti-war movement as key to them winning
the white house this year. They realize that with no draft, there are
no draft dodgers, no draft card burners, and nobody fleeing to Canada
or attacking National Guard troops: i.e. no good photo-ops or poster
children to foster more hate of Bush. So long as the military is a
volunteer force, then nobody who gets sent to war can complain about
fighting a war they had no choice in, their parents can't complain, and
all those kids who DON'T volunteer have no personal incentive to
protest against the war.

The sponsors of the draft bill are all Democrats, like McDermott of WA,
Charlie Rangell of NY, etc who want to institute a draft in order to
create opposition to Bush among those likely to be drafted and their
families and friends.

The media, like NPR and others, are trying to push for support for this
bill in the pro-Bush heartland with statistics that show that more
rural kids are being killed in Iraq than city kids, that somehow this
isn't "fair", and that the only way to fix this 'problem' is by
instituting a draft to force those unpatriotic city kids to bear their
'fair share' of the fighting and dying.

The generals, the admirals, and the leadership of the DoD, do not want
or need a draft. The only service having recruitment problems is the
Army, the others are actually having to RIF their existing forces. The
proper solution is for the other services to second those members
wanting to re-enlist to the Army for the duration.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Apr 13 18:04:20 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 13:04:20 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Drat, I've been writing the wrong sort of book,
	In  English!!!
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040413130254.01b73ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>


5 out of 5 stars
  The most phenomenal book ever written on Auras and energy, March 23, 2004
Reviewer: Arlina Alexander-Zaplutus from Stockton, CA United States
Absolutely amazing!! The book I had been waiting for! Over and over again I 
had been telling myself, after reading books on energy or auras or even 
meditation: YES WONDERFUL, BUT HOW DO I DO IT!!!? Aura Advantage not only 
explains in great detail what auras, chakras and energy are all about and 
how to harness their power, BUT it explains in an easy understandable way 
how to do it yourself. For people who are just learning about harnessing 
this magnificent natural power, as well as for people with experience in 
seeing, feeling and using this magnificent ability consciously, this is a 
magnificent MUST READ book.

I found it invigorating and extremely powerful! The results that I have 
obtained from having read the book are nothing other than magical. My 
business has improved, my energy has increased and my spiritual connection 
has been heightened to astronomical proportions. If you are looking to 
understand, really understand, how auras, chakras and energy work than this 
book is an absolute must!

Blessings to all and may your dreams be magnetized to you.

Arlina Alexander-Zaplutus
California



5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

5 out of 5 stars
  Awesome!!! outstanding!! Live Changing book to read!!, March 29, 2004
Reviewer: Camelia Wong from Stockton, CA United States
I found so many things that I have never thought of before that I found 
very fascinating in this book. Some chapters in the book that I'll never 
forget, for example how do you attract what you most desire; aura will help 
you to be at the right place at the right time in order to achieve what you 
most desire. This is a really really amazing book!! I love this book and I 
am highly recommend this book to all of you who haven't have a chance to 
read this book.
This book also provides a lot of exercise, which is trully amazing. Wait 
until you read this book, try the exercise, and see the result then you 
know how brilliant and powerful this book is.



8 of 8 people found the following review helpful:

5 out of 5 stars
  This is How it Works, absolutely amazing!!!, March 25, 2004
Reviewer: fnsattar from San Francisco, CA United States
Amazing!! Now I know how it all works. Why I am able to feel the things 
that I do. Reading this books on energy and auras and meditations, has made 
it all CLEAR!!! It explains everything with such detail what it all is, In 
English!!!





From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Apr 13 18:46:35 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 20:46:35 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <000001c4211f$acc45fb0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <000001c4211b$334f38c0$6501a8c0@GREYBOOK>
	<000001c4211f$acc45fb0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20040413184635.GA28136@leitl.org>

On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 11:22:19PM -0700, Spike wrote:

> I came to his same conclusion before Zubrin's book
> was published.  Not much payoff in going to Luna.

If you're not going to stay, no. If you're going to stay, you'll get Mars for
free. As well as the rest of the solar system, and most of the visible
universe. But no need to repeat myself.

> Possibly worthwhile to park some stuff on Phobos or
> Deimos, equipment for communications 

You never *land* InterplaNet nodes. You hold them in high enough orbit that
occlusion is minimal.
 
> But don't take my word for it: do the math.  Find
> out how much it costs per kg to soft-land on Mars,
> then you tell me how many are going and what kind
> of people they will be.  spike

Machines? That was too easy.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040413/2547d1af/attachment.bin>

From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Apr 13 18:50:37 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 20:50:37 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <000001c4211c$51177830$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE707C4B6@mmdsvr01.mm.local>
	<000001c4211c$51177830$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20040413185037.GB28136@leitl.org>

On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 10:58:16PM -0700, Spike wrote:

> Well, not really.  Propulsion has been well understood
> for many years.  The natural constraints that go along 

Chemical propulsion, yes. Nuclear propulsion, no. Ion/Plasma, no. Microwave
and photonic sails, no.

> with taking humans anywhere keep dragging us back to 
> the old fashioned tried-and-true chemical propulsion.

The system is telling you something, but you choose to ignore what it is.
It tells you that people don't fly well, far, and long. As such there are no
options left but automation.

> Once we stop designing way beyond that which we really
> need, humanity will collectively realize that the technology
> to do Mars has quietly come into being while no one
> was watching.

The technology is there already, or will be shortly. In absense of decent
automation and at sufficiently high distances to prevent teleoperation people
are good to have as local coordinators and operators (but operators don't
scale, coordinators are more loosely coupled and higher-level).

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040413/318cb158/attachment.bin>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 13 19:17:58 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 12:17:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] US Politics: Draft?
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040412220232.03786698@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <20040413191758.14653.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>


--- David Lubkin <extropy at unreasonable.com> wrote:
> Robert wrote:
> 
> >These are HR 163 and S 89 which can be looked up on thomas.loc.gov/
> >It looks like they are trying to draft people possibly into 2 years
> >of service (so much for the volunteer military).
> >
> >The part that I'm scratching my head over was that they were
> >introduced in early 2003 (before Iraq started) and didn't seem 
> >to go anywhere.
> >Do they have to be reintroduced in 2004 or do they remain in the
> >queue?
> 
> This was discussed among the punditry at the time; you just don't
> waste enough time watching cable news.

What is even more interesting is how the fact that ALL of the 13
co-sponsors of the bill are Democrats, who, in the words of Newsweek
columnist Ryan Gorche, commenting on the antics of Dems on the 9/11
Commission: "There's something unsettling about seeing prominent
Democrats who spent the winter blasting Bush as a trigger-happy cowboy
now faulting the president for not pulling the trigger in time."

> 
> >The strange part is that one of the sponsors for the HR bill is
> >McDermott who is my congressman (who has to be one of the most
> > liberal persons in the House of Representatives).
> 
> Nothing strange at all. This was a ploy by the anti-Iraq-invasion
> left (*). I wasn't aware of McDermott; the front man in the press
> was Charlie Rangel. 
> He had a populist argument that we shouldn't have a war unless
> everyone was represented, and brought out the race card again.

Fritz Hollings is the primary sponsor, but of course Charlie plays the
race card much better than the lily-white Hollings. Now, I'll lay a
good bet that every one of the 13 democrat co-sponsors were drafted
when they were kids, and resented it highly.

Of course, what is most interesting is that almost all of the hew and
cry over this bill is ALSO coming from the left, which belies the fact
that it is all a polical ploy, and not a real agenda item. 

Right-wing paranoiacs like the John Birch Society are chiming in, as a
natural reaction to anything the left does:

Read on:

Sayeth fellow FSPer Lars Hedbor:

Tinfoil hats optional or required for attendance?
 
Sorry, couldn't restrain myself...
 
- Lars D. H. Hedbor
  Oregon City, Oregon

  _____  

From: rk321 at juno.com [mailto:rk321 at juno.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 3:49 PM
To: NHLiveFreeOrDie at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [NH Live Free Or Die] 9-11 THE ROAD TO TYRANNY by Alex Jones
TUESDAY April 20, 2004 at 6:15pm


9-11 THE ROAD TO TYRANNY; PART TWO, Alex Jones' second documentary on
what really happened September 11 and who stands to gain, will be 
reshown
TUESDAY April 20 at 6:15pm (note earlier time due to 2 hour 22 minute
length) on the second floor of the Chandler Memorial Library, corner of
257 Main and Kinsley Streets, in Nashua.

"The government needed a CRISIS to convince the people to willingly 
give up their liberty in exchange for safety.  Now the painful facts
are in. The dark forces of GLOBAL GOVERNMENT are funding, training and 
protecting
terrorist networks worldwide.  "9-11 The Road to Tyranny : Part Two"
documents the ruthless history of governments orchestrating terrorist
attacks against their own people to scare them into TOTAL SUBMISSION.  
In
this brutal expose you will witness the birth of a global POLICE STATE
that surpasses Orwell's nightmarish vision.  It's all here: the history
of government-sponsored terrorism, the modern implementation of
fear-based control and, most frightening of all, the New world Order's
FUTURE PLANS.  This is one film you cannot afford to ignore.  The 
future of FREE PEOPLE everywhere is at stake." 

For Alex Jones' 9-11 archive documentation see:
http://www.infowars.com/sept11_archive.htm

For more on this video see:
http://www.infowars.com/tyranny.htm

For Alex Jones' daily news articles see
http://www.infowars.com  and  http://www.prisonplanet.com

Please forward this notice to all who want to be informed citizens, and
invite them to see this free video.

ANOTHER LOCAL EVENT  The John Birch Society will show a video on the 
FTAA
- the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas, similar to NAFTA - on
Wednesday, May 5 at 7pm at the Chandler Library.  For more information
call 
603-434-9695.


=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From matus at matus1976.com  Tue Apr 13 19:22:05 2004
From: matus at matus1976.com (Matus)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:22:05 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] US Politics: Draft?
In-Reply-To: <20040413175854.70169.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000901c4218c$9e551290$6401a8c0@GREYBOOK>


> >
> > The strange part is that one of the sponsors for the HR bill is
> > McDermott
> > who is my congressman (who has to be one of the most liberal persons
> > in the House of Representatives).
> 
> This is what is really going on:
> 
> The Democrats are pissed that there isn't more anti-war demonstration,
<snip>
> The sponsors of the draft bill are all Democrats, like McDermott of
WA,
<snip> 
> The media, like NPR and others, are trying to push for support for
this
> bill in the pro-Bush heartland with statistics that show that more
> rural kids are being killed in Iraq than city kids, that somehow this
> isn't "fair", and that the only way to fix this 'problem' is by
> instituting a draft to force those unpatriotic city kids to bear their
> 'fair share' of the fighting and dying.
> 

I personally have received a few emails from democrats citing this bill
as a reason *not* to vote for Bush, assuring me that he plans on
instituting a draft.  They never bothered to check to see who was
sponsoring that bill apparently.

To support Mike Lorrey's Statement, I want to point to the recent NPR
story

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1810753 (use real player to
listen)

Notable excerpts

"the moral issue is, if the whole nation goes to war, shouldnt the whole
nation go to fight?" - Reporter Bill Bishop

"The service and the sacrifice should be more equitable, the only sure
way to accomplish that is with the return of the military draft." - Ike
Skelton, ranking democrat on the House Armed Services Committee

Ike goes on to suggest that he hopes recruiters target big cities as
much as rural communities, therefore ensuring more big city people get
killed as opposed to rural people.

There are two points in the article, 1) the statistics that suggest
people from Rural communities are *more likely* to be killed, and 2) are
more likely to be in the army as well.  One should hope that the former
takes into account the latter, presuming it does, what is it about city
folk that make them less likely to be killed?  More used to dealing with
large social situations, large groupings of people, complex busy
streets, etc?  

Michael




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Tue Apr 13 20:21:49 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 13:21:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] PHYSICS: Gravity Probe B
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404131316260.31542-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


For those of you who want to understand what humanity
can achieve, you may want to read the history of
Gravity Probe B -- an effort to confirm some of the
predictions of Einstein's theory of General Relativity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/13/science/space/13GRAV.html?8br=&pagewanted=print

As they say -- "The medieval cathedral builders took longer."
But in our time things move at a much faster pace.

Robert




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 13 23:03:16 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:03:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <000001c4211b$334f38c0$6501a8c0@GREYBOOK>
Message-ID: <20040413230316.48263.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Matus <matus at matus1976.com> wrote:
> 
> Zubrin Mars Direct plan has pretty much won me over, does anyone here
> have any objections or counter arguments?  I would be interested in
> hearing some criticisms of his plan.

While the Zubrin plan works on a propulsion POV, it ignores the human
logistics and psych POV. People operating on the moon will already be
working in a 'spaceship' type bottled environment while still under
gravity. What are the effects of simply adapting to weightlessness vs
weightlessness and the isolation of ship life together?

Moreover, Zubrin is just counting from LEO, not from Earth's surface.
If we have a base on the moon (or in LEO) capable of responding quickly
to the needs of a ship in transit in trouble, this is much different
from having to ramp up something on Earth, and deal with the delta v of
 getting those assets into space. 

If, instead, you have reusable assets already used once in building a
moon base, they can be turned around much more easily and cheaply to
support work on Mars or on the way to Mars.

I agree that LEO to Mars is optimal. But that isn't reality. Earth-Mars
vs Moon-Mars is the proper comparison. You could compare LEO-Mars as
well, but we wouldn't have any resources in LEO beyond the ISS. The
moon would have all the equipment, people, and ships used to build the
base there, plus all the propulsion resources native to the Moon. There
are thus a lot of other factors to deal with besides just delta V.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 13 23:50:02 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:50:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404120314410.22081-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040413235002.47540.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>

Well, assuming we want to disassemble the planets, but a number of
people want to remain corporeal in an acceleration gradient, having a
couple Mars sized bodies orbiting each other would maximize living
surface, minimize delta v, while giving each other enough tidal stress
to accurately replicate Earth-style tectonics and resource
sequestration.

Such habitats would last a lot longer than some O'Neil style colonies
in a dark-ages state (could happen) without caretakers looking after
things (a la Ringworld Engineers).

Yeah, it 'wastes' tons of resources. Why can't you use a planets
resource in situ for computation without having to disassemble it? Why
do you have to disassemble a planet in the first place? With all the
hyperthermophilic bacteria found many miles deep in recent years, I
think we need to seriously reconsider our whole rationale for planet
disassembly in the first place. If worlds have hot cores, those are
heat sources useful to power computation just as much as a star inside
a matrioshka brain. 

Why go out, when we can go in?

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Apr 14 01:55:23 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 18:55:23 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Drat, I've been writing the wrong sort of book,
	In  English!!!
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040413130254.01b73ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <002a01c421c3$8d6ce5c0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>


> Damien Broderick

> Subject: [extropy-chat] Drat, I've been writing the wrong 
> sort of book,In English!!!
> 
> 5 out of 5 stars
>   The most phenomenal book ever written on Auras and energy, 
> March 23, 2004
> Reviewer: Arlina Alexander-Zaplutus from Stockton, CA United States
> Absolutely amazing!! The book I had been waiting for!...In English!

Damien, this old world contains a lot more dumb people
than smart people.  You write to a small, specialized
audience, in English.  Don't worry pal, you have your
own aura, a halo of evolutionliness.

spike



From fauxever at sprynet.com  Wed Apr 14 02:38:57 2004
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 19:38:57 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
Message-ID: <062901c421c9$a34b7130$6600a8c0@brainiac>


Francis Crick is ailing (and heading towards age 90), but still bristling:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/13/science/13CRIC.html

Interesting conclusions:
"The view of ourselves as `persons' is just as erroneous as the view that
the Sun goes around the Earth," he said. He predicted that "this sort of
language will disappear in a few hundred years."

and

"In the fullness of time," he continued, "educated people will believe there
is no soul independent of the body, and hence no life after death."

Hmmm, the ... "educated"?  Don't the "educated" already know this?

Olga [the Ingenuous]




From paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz  Wed Apr 14 03:44:43 2004
From: paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz (Paul Bridger)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 15:44:43 +1200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
In-Reply-To: <062901c421c9$a34b7130$6600a8c0@brainiac>
References: <062901c421c9$a34b7130$6600a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <407CB3AB.2030603@paradise.net.nz>


Olga Bourlin wrote:

>"In the fullness of time," he continued, "educated people will believe there
>is no soul independent of the body, and hence no life after death."
>
>Hmmm, the ... "educated"?  Don't the "educated" already know this?
>  
>
Unfortunately not. Even among scientists, where you would expect the 
lowest incidence of non-rationality, there still exist a surprising 
proportion of people who claim to believe such unsubstantiated claims.
However, it's always difficult to know just how many people who call 
themselves Christians are actually believers. I am always tempted to say 
something like "you're joking, right?" when I find out that a respected 
friend believes in ghosts (even holy ones).

I'm in favour of redefining "educated" to make your statement true.

Paul.



From sjvans at ameritech.net  Wed Apr 14 03:57:05 2004
From: sjvans at ameritech.net (Stephen J. Van Sickle)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 22:57:05 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] AlcorNews 25
In-Reply-To: <20040413235002.47540.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040413235002.47540.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1081915025.3148.12.camel@Renfield>

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

                      Alcor News Bulletin
                 -----------------------------
                   Number 25: April 13 2004

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

This bulletin is sent via email to anyone who has requested
it. Please do not reply to this message; the news server at
alcornews.org does not receive email. Send any comments,
suggestions, or complaints to the new address that has been
established to deal with human communications:
mail at alcornews.info. Note, this is a .info address, not a
.com or .org address! If you type the URL manually, please
type carefully. Subscribe/unsubscribe information is at the
end of this message. The layout of Alcor News is best viewed
using a monospaced font such as Courier. Contents are
copyright 2004 by Alcor Foundation but permission is granted
to reprint any whole news item, so long as Alcor is credited
as the source and the reprint includes our URL at
http://www.alcornews.org.
============================================================

                          Credits

Tanya Jones is the principal author of unattributed
articles; the issue was edited and sent to subscribers by
Mike Perry.

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

                         In This Issue:

           Legislative Update
           Whole-Body Vitrification Development
           Balanced Budget
           Declaration of Intent Form Added to Website
           Staff Position Available
           Fundraising Appeal
           Foresight Gathering Discount for Alcor Members
           May Board Meeting Details

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

                   Legislative Update

As you've probably already heard, the legislative matters
have mostly been laid to rest for this session.
Representative Stump withdrew his bill after an intense
series of stakeholder meetings left some critical issues
without consensus. Though we intend to remain vigilant for
the rest of the session, watching for another striker bill,
we expect this matter is concluded for now.

Regulation now seems inevitable--despite the complexity of
associated issues being so strong a factor in the withdrawal
of this bill. We need to be prepared for the next time
regulation efforts begin, especially since we are likely to
be invited to the table early. We need to ensure that we are
both legislatively and administratively prepared for the
next bill process.

We have already made significant headway in establishing the
kind of protection we both want and need. Adapting this
language into ideal statutes for introduction next year
shouldn't be too difficult. Forging the necessary
relationships to see such legislation adopted is already
underway. Working on the wording of future legislation,
rules requirements for certification as a cryonics
establishment, and fee schedules will continue through
November, which is when the bill may be introduced for the
next legislative session. We intend to continue improving
our relationship with the Funeral Board and will attempt to
resolve our differences with the Funeral Association.

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

              Whole-Body Vitrification Development

Internal meetings have begun on the development of a whole-
body vitrification capability. A preliminary plan is being
drafted for changes to the operating table and perfusion
parameters to meet the need of lower-temperature perfusion.
Over the course of the next month, we'll be developing the
drawings and materials schedule, not to mention the project
proposal, needed to construct the prototype operating
theater.

Technical staff members will continue to meet on this topic
at regular intervals, moving this development forward; but
since reconciliation of the design requirements took
relatively little time, there is little impeding our
progress.

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

                      Balanced Budget

With all the distractions of late, we're a little behind on
the completion of the 2004 budget. During the budget
development process, we determined that a major overhaul was
needed of our accounting system to be able to extract the
data needed to forecast revenue and expenses. These changes
have been made, and the budget is now complete.

For the first time in at least a very long time, we will be
working from a balanced budget. Though the budget allows
little room for research and development other than the
projects already in the works, we're hoping that our
pessimistic revenue estimates will be exceeded, allowing for
the addition of more research later in the year.

Included in the budget are: finalization of the new Alcor
transport vehicle, Todd Huffman's insect memory project,
intermediate temperature storage (ITS) development, an
expansion of remote capability by a complete stabilization
kit, and a training class later in the year. Various
marketing projects will also be developed this year, since
the funds for those items are from specific, directed
donations. Cryopreservation estimates were based on the
assumption of six patients being added this year, including
four neuro and two whole-body patients.

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

         Declaration of Intent Form Added to Website

A minor note, given the recent dramatic state of operations
here, but Mike Perry's Declaration of Intent to be
Cryopreserved has been added to the Alcor website
(http://alcor.org/Library/pdfs/DeclarationOfIntent.pdf).
Though not intended to substitute for any other paperwork,
this document provides a quick and easy way for anyone to
declare a desire to be cryopreserved without requiring any
other decisions be made, including the critical choice of
cryonics provider, whole body or neuro, etc.

We're hoping that this document will reduce the number of
last minute cases we have to reject for lack of informed
consent.

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

                  Staff Position Available

Our beloved bookkeeper, Lucy Rosas-Cornejo, has decided to
leave, taking a position nearer to her new home in Surprise,
Arizona. Though she has only been here a short time, we've
all come to appreciate Lucy's intelligence, attention to
detail, and positive outlook. She will be sorely missed.

Alcor will be hiring someone to fill this critical role
immediately, since we have no desire to impede the
retirement of Joe Hovey at the end of this month. If you
know anyone in the Phoenix area (preferably within a 20-
minute drive) who might be qualified and interested in
filling this vacancy, please have them forward a resume to
Jennifer Chapman at jennifer at alcor.org.

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

                     Fundraising Appeal

Alcor continues to expand and improve; this is an ongoing,
never-ending process.

Last October a fundraising appeal was sent to all members,
detailing the items that were and are part of our facility
expansion. Some of those projects have been completed; some
are still far from complete. The most immediate need is for
donations to help offset the costs of completing our new
Operating Room, which will enable Alcor for the first time
to perform two suspensions simultaneously. Some of the items
required are: two new operating tables; a patient hoist; one
set of operating room lights; a new heater/cooler for
cryoprotective perfusion; and new surgical trays. The new
heater/cooler and surgical tray alone will cost us over
$40,000!

We are appealing to our membership once again to step up to
the plate and help us out. Don't forget, depending on your
individual tax status, a large part or your entire donation
to this project may be tax-deductible.

Watch this space for continuing updates. [Joe Hovey]

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

        Foresight Gathering Discount for Alcor Members

Foresight Institute is offering a $200 discount on their
upcoming Senior Associates Gathering, to all Alcor members
and subscribers. In real financial terms, this makes the
annual Senior Associate membership nearly free, for all
Alcor folks who take advantage of this offer.

If you're interested in attending and are already a
Foresight Senior Associate, register for the gathering using
the "Super Early" rate. Don't worry about the long-dated
expiration of the offer, and put "Alcor" in the comments
field. Alcor folks will pay $295 instead of the post-April-3
rate of $495.

For more information on the Gathering, visit
http://www.foresight.org/SrAssoc/spring2004

For more information on the Senior Associate program, visit
http://www.foresight.org/SrAssoc/index.html


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

                  Board Meeting Schedule

The next Board meeting is scheduled for Saturday, May 1,
2004 at 11:00 AM (PST), also 11:00 AM local Arizona time.

Board meetings are held on the first Saturday of the month
at the Alcor facility (7895 East Acoma Drive in Scottsdale,
AZ). Members are encouraged to attend.

============================================================
End of Alcor News bulletin #25 dated April 13, 2004.
Distribution: 497 subscribers.
============================================================



From Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au  Wed Apr 14 04:12:04 2004
From: Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au (Emlyn ORegan)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:42:04 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
Message-ID: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE707C4C3@mmdsvr01.mm.local>

It seems as though it'll be really hard to put physically capable people
on the surface of Mars, and they'll only be necessary as very flexible
labour (putting fallen over wheeled devices back on their feet, that
kind of thing).

If we can do without the need for those people, the next need is for
operators/coordinators, as Eugen says below. They need to go much closer
to Mars (the lags for Earth->Mars->Earth are far too long) but they only
need to get close enough that lags become much less (a couple of seconds
round trip, something like that?) 

This ties in with something about the trip; ie: that you not only need
to speed up, but you need to slow down. Machines can possibly land
pretty hard and otherwise require far less babying across the void. But
people are problematic. If you could minimize this, by leaving the
people in space, and perhaps in a very far orbit (?), then maybe you
could even keep a lot of your velocity for the trip back... so you get
something like "fire off from the moon base (from a big
slingshot/cannon?), adjust and orbit Mars (wide!) then adjust again and
fling straight back to the moon/earth. It seems like that might shorten
the trip in both directions (no slowing down) and minimize the fuel
(whatever form) required (minimal stopping and restarting, no climbing
down and up gravity wells). 

Emlyn

-----Original Message-----
From: Eugen Leitl [mailto:eugen at leitl.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, 14 April 2004 4:21 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard

On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 10:58:16PM -0700, Spike wrote:

> Well, not really.  Propulsion has been well understood
> for many years.  The natural constraints that go along 

Chemical propulsion, yes. Nuclear propulsion, no. Ion/Plasma, no.
Microwave
and photonic sails, no.

> with taking humans anywhere keep dragging us back to 
> the old fashioned tried-and-true chemical propulsion.

The system is telling you something, but you choose to ignore what it
is.
It tells you that people don't fly well, far, and long. As such there
are no
options left but automation.

> Once we stop designing way beyond that which we really
> need, humanity will collectively realize that the technology
> to do Mars has quietly come into being while no one
> was watching.

The technology is there already, or will be shortly. In absense of
decent
automation and at sufficiently high distances to prevent teleoperation
people
are good to have as local coordinators and operators (but operators
don't
scale, coordinators are more loosely coupled and higher-level).

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>



***************************************************************************
Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are
intended only for the named recipient. If you have received this e-mail
in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document.
No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus or
other defect.



From samantha at objectent.com  Wed Apr 14 05:09:03 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 22:09:03 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wearable Camera Etiquette
In-Reply-To: <73C59FB1-8BCE-11D8-A796-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
References: <73C59FB1-8BCE-11D8-A796-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <D8E7D0BF-8DD1-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>

Well, there are some problems here as we augment our intelligence and 
capabilities.  What happens when everyone has the equivalent of a 
photographic memory across all senses in full fidelity?   Are we to 
limit human potential to less than this or effectively brain damage 
future humans selectively and in some circumstances?   Or will we so 
arrange our societies and practices as to expect people to have such 
capabilities and to be capable of sharing fully what they have 
experienced with one another?    If we are truly extropic  I think the 
answer is clear.  Extropian values can not be fully achieved while 
clinging to norms predicated on and even requiring more limited human 
abilities.


On Apr 11, 2004, at 8:39 AM, Harvey Newstrom wrote:

> Wearable Camera Etiquette is more complicated than people think.  
> There are many times where people won't want to be recorded.  
> Ettiquette should include:
>
> - don't record in bookstores where you can record published content 
> without paying for it

We very much need to move to a world where creators are paid without 
limiting the full availability and spread of knowledge, information and 
entertainment.   One way to get there is to have a pool of funds 
through subscription or some other means that creators are paid a 
percentage out of based on how often their creations are 
viewed/accessed.   Subscribers get the right to access and share any of 
the content covered by the fund as often as they wish.  Since the 
creator is paid based on access it is in the creators interest for the 
information to be copied and distributed in full fidelity as widely as 
possible.   This both takes care of the creators and does not hamstring 
new technologies and their application.

> - don't record near cash registers where you can record people's 
> credit cards

Credit cards will disappear in favor of biometric databases or embedded 
chips rather quickly.

> - don't record near public phones or ATMs where you can record 
> people's PIN numbers
>

What pin numbers?  What ATMs?  Old technology that needs replacing as 
human abilities and technology accelerates.

> - don't record while using the phone where you can break wiretapping 
> laws
>

We need to get to a society quickly where it is assumed that everything 
witnessed by any person was "remembered" in full fidelity and is fully 
shareable with others.   Anything less than this limits all of us.

> - don't record near computers in use where you can record people's 
> keystrokes or passwords

What passwords?  "Talk to the hand!"


> - don't record when copyrighted music is playing or near TVs or in 
> theatres or during performances where you can record copyrighted 
> materials without permission

This copyright system is broken as it limits technology and its 
application, criminalizes large swaths of the public and is far and 
away out of control.

> - don't record anybody if you plan to publish your recording and you 
> don't have contracts for these people to appear in your video

See above answer.

> - don't record anybody talking if you aren't part of the conversation, 
> because microphones can pick up speech beyond your hearing range, 
> where you can "bug" people who think they are having a private 
> conversation

Are we then to limit human enhanced senses?   A private conversation 
should be encrypted not dependent on limiting the abilities of others.

> - don't record near bridges, airports, train stations, bus stations, 
> tall buildings, banks or other possible terrorist or criminal targets, 
> or the feds might think you are casing the location for future attacks
>

Screw the Feds and their outrageous limitations on the people under the 
pretense of "fighting terrorism".

- samantha



From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Apr 14 06:03:42 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:03:42 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE707C4C3@mmdsvr01.mm.local>
Message-ID: <000001c421e6$3de4b550$6501a8c0@SHELLY>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org 
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of 
> Emlyn ORegan
> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 9:12 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
> 
> 
> It seems as though it'll be really hard to put physically 
> capable people
> on the surface of Mars, and they'll only be necessary as very flexible
> labour (putting fallen over wheeled devices back on their feet, that
> kind of thing).

Hmmm, thats not really what I had in mind for the
humans to do there.  Vehicles on the surface must
be built to be able to right themselves and not
depend on a human to come out and help.  The human
is there to make some on-the-spot judgements from
nearby, perhaps in Martian orbit.

There is a good argument for not trying to soft-land
the human cargo, for the risk and cost would be high.
The machines I have in mind to take to the Martian
surface would need to withstand the hard landing 
similar to the airbag approach used on the last two
Mars rovers.  After having looked over the weight
calculations, that approach to landing seems to be
about the most convincing.  Soft-landing humans and
all their necessary gear would be too heavy for the
Shuttle-A approach I was thinking about.

In a previous post I mentioned Shuttle-A without
any explanation.  Zubrin mentions a couple of
STS-derived technologies he calls the Shuttle-C
and the Shuttle-Z.  My Shuttle-A notion is the very 
least expensive shuttle-derived technology imaginable:
take an actual shuttle, destined to become a
museum piece after its last official trip for
NASA, then take off everything that is not needed
for re-entry and reuse: wings, wheels, tail, all
aero-control surfaces, some of the orbit maneuvering
system, the sensors, a lotta heavy stuff could
come off.  Then use the remaining orbiter with the
already-designed solids and lightweight external tank,
as a lightened truck to carry perhaps 100Mg of stuff 
directly to Mars.  

The pressurized forward section of the shuttle would be 
the indefinite home for the two ladies.  Their job,
their entire reason for going, would be to guide
and direct the surface equipment, perhaps from a
synchronous orbit.  Remote control from a fraction
of second away is far more practical than attempting
control from 2-15 minutes one-way.  If that scheme is 
used, the plan is to eventually return the astronauts
to earth.

Of course as Gene points out, there are some good reasons
to not send humans at all.  Spending two to five years 
controlling robots would not be a fun job.  Radiation
would likely be quite harmful, and all that weightlessness
would be bad, but both would probably be survivable.

Zubrin is one who has done a lot with the actual weight
calculations.  Until one takes into account weights for
mission design, going to Mars is all just so much talk.
Without the weight calcs, it is too easy to draw the
wrong conclusions about nearly every aspect of the mission.

>... then adjust again and
> fling straight back to the moon/earth. It seems like that 
> might shorten
> the trip in both directions (no slowing down) and minimize the fuel
> (whatever form) required (minimal stopping and restarting, no climbing
> down and up gravity wells)... Emlyn

I can imagine nuclear and ion propulsion being used to
haul nearly all the equipment, with chemical propulsion
being used to carry only the human cargo and related
life-support equipment.

Emlyn, Gene, Adrian, Robert, the rest of you space guys,
what we need to do is put together or look for an existing 
spreadsheet to aid Mars mission design, one that includes 
necessary delta-vees and required fuel load and tank 
size requirements.  Zubrin has already made some pretty
competent looking weight estimates in The Case For Mars.
Perhaps I need to take that on for my next project, or
look around at what has already been done.

spike



From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Apr 14 06:07:15 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:07:15 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wearable Camera Etiquette
In-Reply-To: <D8E7D0BF-8DD1-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <000301c421e6$bfe33630$6501a8c0@SHELLY>


> Samantha Atkins
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Wearable Camera Etiquette
> 
...
> 
> Screw the Feds and their outrageous limitations on the people 
> under the pretense of "fighting terrorism".
> 
> - samantha


Samantha!  Where ya been?  We've missed ya.  {8-]  spike






From gpmap at runbox.com  Wed Apr 14 06:17:33 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:17:33 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Crick on consciousness
Message-ID: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBAEECCBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From the New York Times, Francis Crick on the mind-body problem and the
thorny subject of the human self: Where is the line between mind and matter?
he asked. Aside from the neurons in our brains, the human body contains tens
of millions of neurons in the enteric nervous system, which extends into the
stomach and intestines. "When you digest your lunch is that you?" Dr. Crick
asked. Body and mind are the twin problems around which Dr. Crick's life has
spiraled, much like the double helix structure of DNA that he and Dr. James
D. Watson are famous for discovering half a century ago.
Dr. Crick has been a tireless champion of the brain. In a 1979 editorial in
Scientific American, he argued that the time had come for science to take on
the previously forbidden subject of consciousness. In his 1994 book "The
Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul," he went
further. "You," he wrote, "your joys and your sorrows, your memories and
your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact
no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their
associated molecules".
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.656 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 09/04/2004
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040414/410cf673/attachment.html>

From gpmap at runbox.com  Wed Apr 14 06:18:13 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:18:13 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Yoda The Mouse Turns 4
Message-ID: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBEEECCBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From Slashdot: Through some genetic engineering to reduce insulin output,
Yoda the mouse has lived to over four years old, equivalent to 136 human
years. Yoda is a third smaller than normal, and gets cold all the time so he
must snuggle up with Princess Leia, his cage-mate, but he is alive and full
of vigor at the ripe old age of 4. Who's next for insulin reduction?
>From Longevity Meme: As the founders of the Methuselah Mouse prize realized,
healthy life extension in mice is a yardstick by which the public measures
possibilities for the future of human health and longevity. Long-lived mice
will mean that long-lived people are not too far off. Aubrey de Grey thinks
that we could largely defeat aging in mice in a decade, given the right
level of funding - certainly food for thought.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.656 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 09/04/2004
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040414/056fc6aa/attachment.html>

From Johnius at Genius.UCSD.edu  Wed Apr 14 06:23:50 2004
From: Johnius at Genius.UCSD.edu (Johnius)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:23:50 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
Message-ID: <407CD8F6.AEA71A47@Genius.UCSD.edu>


Olga Bourlin wrote:
>"In the fullness of time," he continued, "educated people will believe there
>is no soul independent of the body, and hence no life after death."
>Hmmm, the ... "educated"?  Don't the "educated" already know this?

Paul Bridger wrote:
>Unfortunately not. Even among scientists, where you would expect the 
>lowest incidence of non-rationality, there still exist a surprising 
>proportion of people who claim to believe such unsubstantiated claims.


	On UCSD TV, there was a recent series of lectures by
	'educated' people, including 'scientists', who took 
	great pains to poke holes in evolutionary theory and
	to try to prove that it is extremely unlikely that
	the universe wasn't designed.  These lectures were
	spearheaded by Michael Denton (_Evolution: A Theory in Crisis_,
	and _Nature's Destiny : How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose 
	in the Universe_), with appearances by Michael Behe (_Darwin's 
	Black Box: the biochemical challenge to evolution_), and William
	Dembski (_The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest 
	Questions About Intelligent Design_), to name a few.

	One episode seemed to have 12-15 different 'scientists',
	all of whom were doing everything in their power to refute
	non-theistic science.  I remember feeling a bit angry and
	frustrated with these guys, and with UCSD for giving them
	air time ... but after thinking about it, perhaps these
	religionists raise some valid questions about weaknesses
	in current theories of universe spontaneous order and 
	life evolution.  If we can rise to their challenge and
	answer their objections, then so much the better.  So,
	I suppose they have their function...

	Best, Johnius


From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Apr 14 06:29:24 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:29:24 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
In-Reply-To: <407CD8F6.AEA71A47@Genius.UCSD.edu>
Message-ID: <001901c421e9$d47747a0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

> Johnius:

> 	On UCSD TV, there was a recent series of lectures by
> 	'educated' people, including 'scientists', who took 
> 	great pains to poke holes in evolutionary theory and
> 	to try to prove that it is extremely unlikely that
> 	the universe wasn't designed....

Why is it not obvious to the casual observer that to
claim the universe was designed by a creator merely
pushes off the problem of origins to another place
and another time?  It doesn't solve a single thing
to say our world is too complicated to have evolved.
Life had to *start* somewhere and somewhen.  

spike






From gpmap at runbox.com  Wed Apr 14 06:34:08 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:34:08 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] The rapidly emerging field of brain computer
	interfaces
Message-ID: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBIEECCBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From the New York Times: Can a machine read a person's mind? A medical
device company is about to find out. The company, Cyberkinetics Inc., plans
to implant a tiny chip in the brains of five paralyzed people in an effort
to enable them to operate a computer by thought alone. The Food and Drug
Administration has given approval for a clinical trial of the implants,
according to the company.
The melding of man and machine has long been a staple of science fiction.
Indeed, the participants in Cyberkinetics's clinical trial, who have not yet
been chosen, will have a cable sticking out of their heads to connect them
to computers, making them look something like characters in "The Matrix."
Though Cyberkinetics is not the first to try neural control in people, it
seems the most intent on bringing a product to market, perhaps by 2007 or
2008. Started in 2001 and based in Foxborough, Mass., the company has raised
$9 million for the project.
Cyberkinetics is a leader in the rapidly emerging field of brain computer
interfaces. Cyberkinetics' technology allows for the creation of direct,
reliable and bi-directional interfaces between the brain, nervous system and
a computer. The development of safe, robust implants for recording from, and
or stimulating, the brain surface will open the potential to study other
complex signals from the brain. Cyberkinetics technology platform, called
BrainGate may allow breakthrough applications which leverage the translation
of thought into direct computer control.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.656 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 09/04/2004
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040414/ee5379b7/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Apr 14 10:23:29 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:23:29 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE707C4C3@mmdsvr01.mm.local>
References: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE707C4C3@mmdsvr01.mm.local>
Message-ID: <20040414102329.GD1026@leitl.org>

On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 01:42:04PM +0930, Emlyn ORegan wrote:

> It seems as though it'll be really hard to put physically capable people
> on the surface of Mars, and they'll only be necessary as very flexible
> labour (putting fallen over wheeled devices back on their feet, that
> kind of thing).

It's important to point out that until usable onion-skin suits have been
developed, we're talking full zero-volume-delta suits, with life support.
Such things are barely usable on the Moon. It would require making them much
lighter for Mars.

It is far easier to drive a humanoid/wheeled centaur type telepresence
vehicle from within a base.
 
> This ties in with something about the trip; ie: that you not only need
> to speed up, but you need to slow down. Machines can possibly land
> pretty hard and otherwise require far less babying across the void. But

This is an important point to make. We can make hardware hardy enough to
survive a launch from an artillery shell. This implies that both launch and
landing deccelerations can be very high. Transit times can be long enough to
warrant electric propulsion for transfer LEO-LMO (you only deccelerate
shortly before you've deorbited sufficiently to implant in the next
prominent piece of terrain. 

> people are problematic. If you could minimize this, by leaving the
> people in space, and perhaps in a very far orbit (?), then maybe you
> could even keep a lot of your velocity for the trip back... so you get
> something like "fire off from the moon base (from a big
> slingshot/cannon?), adjust and orbit Mars (wide!) then adjust again and
> fling straight back to the moon/earth. It seems like that might shorten
> the trip in both directions (no slowing down) and minimize the fuel
> (whatever form) required (minimal stopping and restarting, no climbing
> down and up gravity wells). 

I once again point out that people can stay at home in case of the Moon. Once
the teleoperation hardware has bootstrapped enough resources on Luna we have
massive launch capacities. Also, due to increased automation bootstrapped
lunar hardware (with microgravity mods) can be easily used for making
habitats on Phobos/Deimos.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040414/0b82cf7f/attachment.bin>

From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Apr 14 10:31:39 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:31:39 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Refining the Work Ethic (fwd from
	durable@earthlink.net)
Message-ID: <20040414103139.GG1026@leitl.org>

----- Forwarded message from Barry Brooks <durable at earthlink.net> -----

From: "Barry Brooks" <durable at earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 19:57:22 -0500
To: eugen at leitl.org
Subject: Refining the Work Ethic
X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.30.00.00 (4)

Refining the Work Ethic

Should we go home and open cans to keep our can openers busy? The waste of spoiled food would be much worse than the imagined waste of can openers waiting to be used again. Human labor is no different. Producing too much will reduce our wealth. We can continue to waste scarce natural resources to avoid the "waste" of idle labor, but that is not sustainable.

Some people believe that labor is scarce and natural resources are abundant, but really resources are increasingly limited and labor is increasingly surplus due to automation. Now that we have machines we don't need everyone's full labor, but the existence of surplus labor has been obscured because we have been able to waste enough to keep most workers busy, so far. Should we continue to waste scarce natural resources to keep all workers busy?


Culture Bound Attitudes Prevent Reform

For most workers "employment" is not just a matter of economics. It's a matter of being a member of society, of individual satisfaction and identity, of being human. We have made work so important that many people doubt that life has any purpose without work. We may give thanks to God for the gift of food, but we really believe that we earn our livings.

We respect productive people and scorn laziness, yet our capitalist system has two kinds of income: earned income and unearned income. While most people are dependent on wages, our system also allows various kinds of unearned income such as interest, dividends and rents. For those who own significant capital "employment" has nothing to do with being human or being a member of society, and getting a job is never a matter of urgency. Unearned income, in the form of a Basic Income, will allow capitalism to change enough to become sustainable.

Now, we face great pressure to address the limits to growth. The greatest obstacle to building an efficient and durable world has been our failure to separate the economic and the social functions of work. Before machines and resource scarcity became basic economic realities, more work would bring more wealth. When a scarcity of labor prevailed, economic output was limited by labor, and full employment was the best way to increase our standard of living.

Today we need full employment only because of wage dependence. Automation has ended the need for full paid employment, and the pressing need to conserve will require the replacement of our job-creating consumer economy with a new economy designed to just deliver goods and services, rather than also keeping us busy.

The production of goods and services could be much more efficient if we didn't make the use of all human labor one of our goals. For example, most automation can be designed to operate with low energy consumption, and without the need to transport many workers to and from work the economy could operate very well on a fraction of the present energy consumption. The use of increased durability is a powerful method of conservation will allow vast wealth to be supported by low rates of resource consumption, but increased durability conflicts with our goal of using all human labor.

Without the use of demand stimulation, war, and other methods of increasing waste, there will be a shortage of paid work in any automated economy. But there will always be plenty of unpaid work, like motherhood, that could be done properly if people weren't too busy being wage slaves. If human dignity hinges on work why not give unpaid work its due respect? Must money be involved for work to be good? Those who need to or want to can work as much as they want. People can work at anything helps others, or anything that conserves or that produces what we need without wasting our scarce resources or polluting this little planet.

We have lost sight of the goal of economic activity. It is to provide goods and services. Any work that may be involved is just a means to an end. We have let the means become the end.

To answer our economic problems we must first decide what we want and how to get it. I believe that after due consideration we will end up wanting a sustainable economy that delivers goods and services and which requires only a minimum amount of forced work. Why should we automate jobs? Not because we need to produce more and more, but because we want to work less and less.

Some kinds of independence are really possible and desirable, but that does not make dependence bad. To the mind of an economic-macho dependence is always bad. However, the idea of being self-made has limited application in realistic thought, because we are all dependent on so many things. It's sad to meet wealthy people who kick their children out to earn their own income as workers instead of teaching them how to be grateful beneficiaries and responsible stewards of the family wealth.

For those fortunate few who refuse to accept the responsibility of helping poor people it is very easy to excuse greed and cruelty by claiming that helping people is bad for them. They believe that any help for the bungled and botched would only create more bad dependence. This sort of insane individualism doesn't just seek personal egotistical independence; it seeks to destroy the evils of cooperation and altruism everywhere, and turns selfishness into a virtue.

Must we base our self-respect on being useful? We love children, but we don't love them because they are useful. We even love the idle rich, who don't seem to be useful. We have plenty of other values to guide society without having an attitude based on the belief that he who doesn't work belongs on the street in a box.

Some kinds of dependence are unavoidable. We may be wage dependent or dependent on unearned income, but we all need some income. Do we earn our livings, or do we just take the wealth of nature with an automated system?

We may even say thanks for the gift of food occasionally, yet we may still think that unearned income is good for the rich and bad for the poor. Doesn't unearned income really make people more independent than wages? At least without wage dependence we have more time to do whatever we choose and the freedom to live far away from centers of well-paid employment.

If dividends are worth fighting for why is welfare so bad? Should wages be the only source of income for poor people in an efficient and automated economy? We could try a form of capitalism in which ordinary people have some income from capital. It would allow an end to hyperactive waste.

We need some quick ethical evolution. It may be hard, but we can take a different attitude toward our work. While oil is still abundant we can easily build systems that don't need high consumption to operate, and we can stop wasteful busy-work any time. Are we just going to fight for the dwindling space, water, air, and oil, while ignoring the possibility of painless conservation? It would be much better to address these issues now. Physical laws will not change, but we must. We can change and we will, and sooner would be better than later.

Barry Brooks
http://home.earthlink.net/~durable




----- End forwarded message -----
-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040414/3ce5bcac/attachment.bin>

From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Wed Apr 14 10:45:38 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 03:45:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
In-Reply-To: <407CD8F6.AEA71A47@Genius.UCSD.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404140339540.18596-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Johnius wrote:

> 	One episode seemed to have 12-15 different 'scientists',
> 	all of whom were doing everything in their power to refute
> 	non-theistic science. [snip]

One way to deal with this is to pose the question "What if we
are in a simulation?"  The Matrix series makes it much easier
to pose this and papers & comments by Nick Bostrom and Robert
Freitas provide reasonable academic background that may support
that concept.  If we *are* in a simulation you can force the
theists back into the position that "yes" we are in a
manufactured universe -- but it is one created as either
a scientific experiment or a playtoy.  Probably will not
make most people operating on pure "faith" very happy.

Robert




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Wed Apr 14 11:47:32 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 04:47:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <20040413235002.47540.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404140357420.18596-100000@server.aeiveos.com>



On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> Well, assuming we want to disassemble the planets, but a number of
> people want to remain corporeal in an acceleration gradient, having a
> couple Mars sized bodies orbiting each other would maximize living
> surface, minimize delta v, while giving each other enough tidal stress
> to accurately replicate Earth-style tectonics and resource
> sequestration.

Hmmm... I'm not sure that I compltely understand this statement.
Are you talking about hollow Mars sized bodies?

Here are my assumptions.
- We have the human genome as well as very sophisticated gene
  expression measurement technology.  The entire bone/muscle loss
  problem should be figured out within the next decade.
- An O'Neill structure encases the atmosphere so you don't have
  to worry about losing it due to lack of gravity (which you
  do have to worry about with Mars).
- An O'Neill structure can filter UV exposure.
- An O'Neill structure can be constructed so it actually has more
  radiation shielding than the Earth's atmosphere or certainly the
  Mars atmosphere can provide.
- An O'Neill structure can be moved out of harms way (asteroids, comets,
  GRB) more easily.

There are other possible benefits but those are the ones that come to
mind quickly.

> Such habitats would last a lot longer than some O'Neil style colonies
> in a dark-ages state (could happen) without caretakers looking after
> things (a la Ringworld Engineers).

Ok, if you are going to assume we return to some dark-ages state
I might agree.  *But* it is a lot harder to destroy the information
content on the planet (due to redundancy, variety of storage locations
and forms, etc.) than it was 1000+ years ago.

One could take for example 911.  A huge loss.  But it looks like the
area is going to be back in business within a decade.  As I've mentioned
before (I think) even an all out nuclear war probably would not set
humanity back too far -- too much technology on nuclear submarines
that can probably not be impacted by nuclear weapons.

As MC Hammer once observed -- "Can't touch this".

> Yeah, it 'wastes' tons of resources. Why can't you use a planets
> resource in situ for computation without having to disassemble it? Why
> do you have to disassemble a planet in the first place? With all the
> hyperthermophilic bacteria found many miles deep in recent years, I
> think we need to seriously reconsider our whole rationale for planet
> disassembly in the first place. If worlds have hot cores, those are
> heat sources useful to power computation just as much as a star inside
> a matrioshka brain.

Ok, these are complex questions.  The simple answer is that most of the
matter in the solar system is *not* in a location where it can be best
used.  For example lets say Mars contains a lot of Hematite.  Hematite
has a melting point of ~1800K.  Which means that if you wanted to build
mechanical rod-logic computers out of hematite (which is almost as good
as sapphire -- M.P. 2300 K) you could position them a lot closer to the
sun and still have functional machines.  Now, if you take Anders' Jupiter
Brain design which requires a core of optical fibers then you need to import
a lot of silicon to create glass (M.P. slightly higher than hematite).
Now the carbon (for diamondoid based materials) is mostly locked up
in the outer solar system (as CO/CO2 ice).  So it is going to take a
while to drag it back into the inner solar system.  At the same time
the highest temperature materials (for computers inside the orbit of
Mercury) are probably going to have to be made of titanium carbide
(M.P. ~3400 K).  There is not a great amount of titanium in the
solar system so one is going to have to disassemble everything to
harvest it -- unless one wants to start using energy resources
and transmutation to breed titanium (I'm not opposed to this -- but
I just don't know the tradeoffs involved).

> Why go out, when we can go in?

Well, if one replaced a Mars iron core with a silicon dioxide core
(say to construct a JBrain fiber optic network) it would become
somewhat lighter.  This would only make the retention of an
atmosphere more difficult than it already is.

I have to conclude that the only way to go is completely engineered
environments.

Robert



From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Apr 14 11:49:37 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:49:37 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE707C4B6@mmdsvr01.mm.local>
References: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE707C4B6@mmdsvr01.mm.local>
Message-ID: <20040414114937.GJ1026@leitl.org>

On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 01:53:31PM +0930, Emlyn ORegan wrote:

> It sounds as though it could be intelligent to use both our moon and a
> Mars moon. Set up our moon as a general staging area for anything off
> earth, put a mission together to go from their to Mars via a base on a
> Mars satellite. Is their some radically different form of propulsion
> that could be used to go moon-to-moon, where the transport craft isn't
> designed to go near a serious gravity well?

Yes. A linear motor on Luna surface can throw cargo into lunar orbit, you can
go with electric propulsion to Mars, (aero)brake there, and land on the moons
also with electric propulsion alone.


-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040414/738e4aa4/attachment.bin>

From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Apr 14 12:04:06 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 14:04:06 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <004301c42101$bc0059c0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404120314410.22081-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<004301c42101$bc0059c0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20040414120406.GL1026@leitl.org>

On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 07:47:54PM -0700, Spike wrote:

> If we use Phobos and Deimos as staging areas, we
> could still park stuff on the surface and use materials

Notice that this is carbonaceous chondrite. Very different composition from
regolith, very useful elements (lots of carbon, organic materials and
volatiles, some metals, lots of silicate).

> from there.  The use of our moon as a staging area for Mars
> exploration is the wrong answer methinks.  

You're completely ignoring the "bootstrapping a lunar industry" bit.
No one is proposing to just land somewhere, and starts shovelling little
rocks and dust into the fuel tanks, and talk off again half an hour later.

How else do you expect to achieve a launch capacity of kT/s and above?

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040414/798a91e1/attachment.bin>

From dgc at cox.net  Wed Apr 14 12:35:14 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:35:14 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <20040414114937.GJ1026@leitl.org>
References: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE707C4B6@mmdsvr01.mm.local>
	<20040414114937.GJ1026@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <407D3002.7050505@cox.net>

Eugen Leitl wrote:

>On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 01:53:31PM +0930, Emlyn ORegan wrote:
>
>  
>
>>It sounds as though it could be intelligent to use both our moon and a
>>Mars moon. Set up our moon as a general staging area for anything off
>>earth, put a mission together to go from their to Mars via a base on a
>>Mars satellite. Is their some radically different form of propulsion
>>that could be used to go moon-to-moon, where the transport craft isn't
>>designed to go near a serious gravity well?
>>    
>>
>
>Yes. A linear motor on Luna surface can throw cargo into lunar orbit, you can
>go with electric propulsion to Mars, (aero)brake there, and land on the moons
>also with electric propulsion alone.
>
>  
>
Now all you need is a way to land on the moon without using fuel you 
must carry.
Since it's a vacuum, It is theoretically possible to reverse the linear 
motor. Of course,
I don't want to be too close to the thing when they test it...  
Basically, you use an
ion drive to lower the orbit to nearly ground level, and then make sure 
you don't miss
the mouth of the linear motor. The motor decelerates you from ELLO 
(Extremely low
Lunar Orbit) to zero over a 100Km track. Using regenerative braking, you 
could launch
an outbound capsule on a separate track as you landed an inbound capsule.

Spike: how fast is ELLO? Surely 100KM is long enough to stay below 1G?


From natashavita at earthlink.net  Wed Apr 14 16:50:06 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:50:06 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] The rapidly emerging field of brain
	computerinterfaces
Message-ID: <269620-22004431416506186@M2W099.mail2web.com>


From: Giu1i0 

>From the New York Times: Can a machine read a person's mind? A medical
>device company is about to find out. The company, Cyberkinetics Inc., plans
>to implant a tiny chip in the brains of five paralyzed people in an effort
>to enable them to operate a computer by thought alone. The Food and Drug
>Administration has given approval for a clinical trial of the implants,
>according to the company.

Very nice website: http://www.cyberkineticsinc.com/

Just this morning, I was at an ENT doctor's office looking at the results
of an MRI of my brain.  (Psst ... there is some matter in there, I saw it!)

I hope this is not something they connect to the brain? :-) Or sit on. 
http://www.cyberkineticsinc.com/technology.htm

Natasha

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




From natashavita at earthlink.net  Wed Apr 14 16:53:37 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:53:37 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Drat, I've been writing the wrong sort of book,
	In  English!!!
Message-ID: <281450-22004431416533753@M2W049.mail2web.com>

WOohhha.  whoooa. 


!!! ! !!!! !!!      !


Natasha

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




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Wed Apr 14 18:16:16 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:16:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPAM: now the s*** really hits the fan
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404141108080.27782-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


It looks like we now have someone willing to pay
individuals/corporations to deliver SPAM at the
rate of $1/CPU Hour.

http://www.virtualmda.com/
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/14/1415217&mode=thread&tid=111&tid=126&tid=95&tid=98&tid=99

Now this is really going to make the problem worse.
At that rate I can probably pay for both my DSL line
and my ISP connection by functioning as a SPAM pimp
for a few days a month.  I have to believe that there
will be a lot of people that will take advantage of this.
(The only thing that might fail in my mind is that they
have priced the benefits too high.)

Robert




From eliasen at mindspring.com  Wed Apr 14 22:06:03 2004
From: eliasen at mindspring.com (Alan Eliasen)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 16:06:03 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <407D3002.7050505@cox.net>
References: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE707C4B6@mmdsvr01.mm.local>	<20040414114937.GJ1026@leitl.org>
	<407D3002.7050505@cox.net>
Message-ID: <407DB5CB.2020809@mindspring.com>


Dan Clemmensen wrote:
> Now all you need is a way to land on the moon without using fuel you
> must carry.
> Since it's a vacuum, It is theoretically possible to reverse the linear
> motor. Of course,
> I don't want to be too close to the thing when they test it... 
> Basically, you use an
> ion drive to lower the orbit to nearly ground level, and then make sure
> you don't miss
> the mouth of the linear motor. The motor decelerates you from ELLO
> (Extremely low
> Lunar Orbit) to zero over a 100Km track. Using regenerative braking, you
> could launch
> an outbound capsule on a separate track as you landed an inbound capsule.
> 
> Spike: how fast is ELLO? Surely 100KM is long enough to stay below 1G?

   I'm not Spike, but here's how to figure it.

   Angular acceleration when you're going in a circle is given by:

   a = v^2 / r

   Where v is your velocity and r is the radius.

   Obviously, if you're in a circular orbit, the acceleration should be equal
to the acceleration of gravity, so g = a.  This means that velocity is:

    v = sqrt[g r]

   The moon's (or any spherical body's) gravitational acceleration is given by
g = G m / r^2

   G is the gravitational constant

   Thus, the equation becomes:

   v = sqrt[G m / r]

   Plugging these numbers into Frink, a calculating tool I've written, (
http://futureboy.homeip.net/frinkdocs/ , you can plug these numbers in online
at http://futureboy.homeip.net/frink/ ), this all becomes simply (in Frink
notation):

   v = sqrt[moonmass G / moonradius]

   (Frink knows a lot about different planetary bodies.  "G", "moongravity"
and "moonradius" are defined units in its data file.

   This gives a velocity of about 1680 m/s.

   To find out how long it would take to decelerate to a stop from this
velocity, (again, in Frink)

   t = v / gravity

   Where "gravity" or "gee" is one earth gravity.  This is about 171 seconds.

   If you accelerate smoothly over this time, your average velocity will be
1/2 v.  To find the distance you travel in a time t, in Frink, this is:

   1/2 t v -> km

   Gives a result of about 144 km that you'll need to stop.  So, your
accelerator will either have to be more than 144 km, or you'll need to brake
harder.

   You can use Frink to plug in your own numbers.

-- 
  Alan Eliasen                 | "You cannot reason a person out of a
  eliasen at mindspring.com       |  position he did not reason himself
  http://futureboy.homeip.net/ |  into in the first place."
                               |     --Jonathan Swift


From dgc at cox.net  Wed Apr 14 23:40:40 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 19:40:40 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <407DB5CB.2020809@mindspring.com>
References: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE707C4B6@mmdsvr01.mm.local>	<20040414114937.GJ1026@leitl.org>	<407D3002.7050505@cox.net>
	<407DB5CB.2020809@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <407DCBF8.6050200@cox.net>

Thanks, Alan. OK, we'll make it 150 Km. in a vacuum and
ignoring the cost of land, the extra length is no big deal. We
can use the same linear induction technology for launch and
landing orbits and for local transportation.

Alan Eliasen wrote:

>Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>  
>
>>Now all you need is a way to land on the moon without using fuel you
>>must carry.
>>Since it's a vacuum, It is theoretically possible to reverse the linear
>>motor. Of course,
>>I don't want to be too close to the thing when they test it... 
>>Basically, you use an
>>ion drive to lower the orbit to nearly ground level, and then make sure
>>you don't miss
>>the mouth of the linear motor. The motor decelerates you from ELLO
>>(Extremely low
>>Lunar Orbit) to zero over a 100Km track. Using regenerative braking, you
>>could launch
>>an outbound capsule on a separate track as you landed an inbound capsule.
>>
>>Spike: how fast is ELLO? Surely 100KM is long enough to stay below 1G?
>>    
>>
>
>   I'm not Spike, but here's how to figure it.
>
>   Angular acceleration when you're going in a circle is given by:
>
>   a = v^2 / r
>
>   Where v is your velocity and r is the radius.
>
>   Obviously, if you're in a circular orbit, the acceleration should be equal
>to the acceleration of gravity, so g = a.  This means that velocity is:
>
>    v = sqrt[g r]
>
>   The moon's (or any spherical body's) gravitational acceleration is given by
>g = G m / r^2
>
>   G is the gravitational constant
>
>   Thus, the equation becomes:
>
>   v = sqrt[G m / r]
>
>   Plugging these numbers into Frink, a calculating tool I've written, (
>http://futureboy.homeip.net/frinkdocs/ , you can plug these numbers in online
>at http://futureboy.homeip.net/frink/ ), this all becomes simply (in Frink
>notation):
>
>   v = sqrt[moonmass G / moonradius]
>
>   (Frink knows a lot about different planetary bodies.  "G", "moongravity"
>and "moonradius" are defined units in its data file.
>
>   This gives a velocity of about 1680 m/s.
>
>   To find out how long it would take to decelerate to a stop from this
>velocity, (again, in Frink)
>
>   t = v / gravity
>
>   Where "gravity" or "gee" is one earth gravity.  This is about 171 seconds.
>
>   If you accelerate smoothly over this time, your average velocity will be
>1/2 v.  To find the distance you travel in a time t, in Frink, this is:
>
>   1/2 t v -> km
>
>   Gives a result of about 144 km that you'll need to stop.  So, your
>accelerator will either have to be more than 144 km, or you'll need to brake
>harder.
>
>   You can use Frink to plug in your own numbers.
>
>  
>



From extropy at unreasonable.com  Wed Apr 14 23:50:41 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 19:50:41 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <407DB5CB.2020809@mindspring.com>
References: <407D3002.7050505@cox.net>
	<34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE707C4B6@mmdsvr01.mm.local>
	<20040414114937.GJ1026@leitl.org> <407D3002.7050505@cox.net>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040414192612.037829f0@mail.comcast.net>

At least in The Case for Mars, Zubrin doesn't address the need for a 
sustainable ecology in Mars-based agriculture. Has anyone considered this 
in any detail?

How long before we can create organisms (plants, bacteria, insects) 
suitable for seeding on Mars, whose metabolism produces a useful benefit in 
extracting a resource or in terraforming?

Assuming we had such organisms today, what would be the best way to deploy 
them? How expensive would it be for the craft to deploy a large number of 
small entry vehicles, spread across the planet? How rapidly can an organism 
cover Mars, given an effectively unlimited food supply? (I'm asking more 
about how fast each moves, rather than how fast it reproduces.)

Of course either effort would dramatically alter whatever modest biosphere 
may exist there now.


-- David Lubkin.




From bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com  Thu Apr 15 02:28:18 2004
From: bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com (Bryan Moss)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 03:28:18 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
References: <062901c421c9$a34b7130$6600a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <002b01c42291$60f1d400$0600000a@Bryan>

Olga Bourlin wrote:

> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/13/science/13CRIC.html
>
> "In the fullness of time," he continued, "educated people will believe
> there is no soul independent of the body, and hence no life after death."
>
> Hmmm, the ... "educated"?  Don't the "educated" already know this?

Christof Koch's book (mentioned in the article) has a website with the
preface and a couple of chapters available, one of which is a "fictitious
interview" where he concludes with the same issue:

---

J: What about religion? Most people on the planet believe in some sort of
immortal soul that lives on after the body has died. What do you have to say
to them?

C: Science can't really speak to that. What is clear is that every conscious
act or intention has some physical correlate. With the end of life,
consciousness ceases, for without brain, there is no mind. These irrevocable
facts do not exclude some beliefs about the soul, resurrection, and God.

http://www.questforconsciousness.com/

---

Presumably the "some beliefs" in question are those special kind, popular
among the devout these days, that have no causal reality, but can
nonetheless be invoked in political and ethical debate.

BM



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Thu Apr 15 02:50:08 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:50:08 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wearable Camera Etiquette
In-Reply-To: <D8E7D0BF-8DD1-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <9B186B86-8E87-11D8-8508-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Wednesday, April 14, 2004, at 01:09 am, Samantha Atkins wrote:

> On Apr 11, 2004, at 8:39 AM, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
>> Wearable Camera Etiquette is more complicated than people think.  
>> There are many times where people won't want to be recorded.  
>> Ettiquette should include:
>>
>> - don't record in bookstores where you can record published content 
>> without paying for it
>
> We very much need to move to a world where creators are paid without 
> limiting the full availability and spread of knowledge, information 
> and entertainment.

Agreed.  The patenting of information by corporations so that nobody 
else can use it is a big problem for scientific research right now.  
Most science is being done in a way that it cannot be shared or 
externally replicated.

>> - don't record near cash registers where you can record people's 
>> credit cards
>
> Credit cards will disappear in favor of biometric databases or 
> embedded chips rather quickly.

True, but there may be a period of overlap between new technology 
arriving and old technology not going away.  We still have DOS users 
out there, remember!

>> - don't record near public phones or ATMs where you can record 
>> people's PIN numbers
>
> What pin numbers?  What ATMs?  Old technology that needs replacing as 
> human abilities and technology accelerates.

True, same as above.

>> - don't record while using the phone where you can break wiretapping 
>> laws
>
> We need to get to a society quickly where it is assumed that 
> everything witnessed by any person was "remembered" in full fidelity 
> and is fully shareable with others.   Anything less than this limits 
> all of us.

This sounds good to some people, but I am sure there are other people 
who do not desire this.  We need a society that allows both choices to 
coexist with each other.  I don't think people fear other people's 
technology as much as they fear it will impose itself on people who 
don't want it.

>> - don't record near computers in use where you can record people's 
>> keystrokes or passwords
>
> What passwords?  "Talk to the hand!"

Even if passwords go away, there will be some privacy desires by some 
people.

>> - don't record when copyrighted music is playing or near TVs or in 
>> theatres or during performances where you can record copyrighted 
>> materials without permission
>
> This copyright system is broken as it limits technology and its 
> application, criminalizes large swaths of the public and is far and 
> away out of control.

No argument here.

>> - don't record anybody if you plan to publish your recording and you 
>> don't have contracts for these people to appear in your video
>
> See above answer.

This is more difficult.  Do we really want to tell people not to 
venture out of their homes if they don't want to be recorded and 
published?  Or if people have a wardrobe malfunction just walking down 
the street, do other people have a natural "right" to record it and 
publish it on the Internet?  Even where privacy is not guaranteed or 
required, there still might be standard politeness that requires that 
one not stare/record/publish at people.

>> - don't record anybody talking if you aren't part of the 
>> conversation, because microphones can pick up speech beyond your 
>> hearing range, where you can "bug" people who think they are having a 
>> private conversation
>
> Are we then to limit human enhanced senses?   A private conversation 
> should be encrypted not dependent on limiting the abilities of others.

But the other extreme is just as bad.  We can't tell people that they 
can't have any private communications out of a sealed security vault.  
This would end going out to dinner on a date if people start recording 
other people's conversations remotely and publishing them on reality 
TV.  I am sure restaurants will ban this technology like many ban 
cellphones when they started disturbing other people.

If we stress that we have a "right" to record people at a distance just 
because our technology has improved, what is to keep them from claiming 
the "right" to see under you clothes, or into your brain, or to block 
your senses when you look in their direction?  Do we really want 
personal technology wars between strangers on the street?  I think 
people will retain basic rules of etiquette and politeness, and will 
rebel when they are pushed too far.

>> - don't record near bridges, airports, train stations, bus stations, 
>> tall buildings, banks or other possible terrorist or criminal 
>> targets, or the feds might think you are casing the location for 
>> future attacks
>
> Screw the Feds and their outrageous limitations on the people under 
> the pretense of "fighting terrorism".

Agreed that they are going to far.  I am just pointing out the obvious 
reactions to people who assert their right to record everything they 
want.  Private people, corporations, and governments are going to 
object to this attitude.  This was the same claim made by hackers who 
said they had this ability to see the data, and if they weren't 
prevented, it was fair game.  The social and political evolutions has 
turned out that hackers are considered criminals and terrorists.  I 
suspect a similar reaction to enhanced humans recording information 
that other humans don't want them to record.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec 
Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>



From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Apr 15 03:20:46 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 20:20:46 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <407D3002.7050505@cox.net>
Message-ID: <002501c42298$a54a7470$6501a8c0@SHELLY>



> 
> Spike: how fast is ELLO? Surely 100KM is long enough to stay below 1G?
> _______________________________________________
>

Lets estimate it.  The diameter of the moon is about 3500 km,
the mass is about one eightieth the earth, so about 7.4e22.

omega^2*R = 7.4E22*6.7E-11/3.5E6^2

so omega = 3.4E-4 and omega*R is the tangential velocity
of about 3.4E-4*3500 is about 1200 meters per second.  
One G is about 10 m/s so 1200 = A*t so t = 120 seconds,
length of the track is .5*10*t^2 = 5*120^2 = 70 km of
track needed to accelerate at one G.

spike



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Thu Apr 15 03:33:08 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:33:08 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404140339540.18596-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <9D2D7FC6-8E8D-11D8-97E2-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Wednesday, April 14, 2004, at 06:45 am, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Johnius wrote:
>
>> 	One episode seemed to have 12-15 different 'scientists',
>> 	all of whom were doing everything in their power to refute
>> 	non-theistic science. [snip]
>
> One way to deal with this is to pose the question "What if we
> are in a simulation?"

I don't see how this position is any more supportable or useful than 
the unproven religious views.  I have never understood why some people 
here bash religion, but think the simulation argument sounds 
reasonable.  It sounds like the same theory, to me, with IT technology 
terminology replacing religious terminology.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec 
Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>



From dgc at cox.net  Thu Apr 15 04:29:24 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 00:29:24 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <002501c42298$a54a7470$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <002501c42298$a54a7470$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <407E0FA4.2090107@cox.net>

Spike wrote:

>  
>
>>Spike: how fast is ELLO? Surely 100KM is long enough to stay below 1G?
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Lets estimate it.  The diameter of the moon is about 3500 km,
>the mass is about one eightieth the earth, so about 7.4e22.
>
>omega^2*R = 7.4E22*6.7E-11/3.5E6^2
>
>so omega = 3.4E-4 and omega*R is the tangential velocity
>of about 3.4E-4*3500 is about 1200 meters per second.  
>One G is about 10 m/s so 1200 = A*t so t = 120 seconds,
>length of the track is .5*10*t^2 = 5*120^2 = 70 km of
>track needed to accelerate at one G.
>
>  
>
This differs form Alan's by a factor of two. Radius versus diameter?

If Alan's is correct (I haven't checked) I rounded up to 150Km.
OK, how much energy can we dissipate or recapture using a linear
induction motor system, practically speaking. Assume a 10,000Kg
capsule and 150Km decel from 1200m/s. We must dissipate the
energy of 10,000g every 150m, or 1g every 15mm, about like stopping
a .22cal bullet. This seems to be more like engineering than it is like
magic. I'm assuming that a 10,000Kg capsule would be a convenient
size.


From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Apr 15 04:47:10 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:47:10 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <407DB5CB.2020809@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <004301c422a4$b6cbb180$6501a8c0@SHELLY>


> Alan Eliasen
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
> 
> > 
> > Spike: how fast is ELLO? Surely 100KM is long enough to 
> stay below 1G?
...
> 
>    a = v^2 / r
> 
...
> 
>     v = sqrt[g r]
> 
...
> g = G m / r^2
...
>    v = sqrt[G m / r]
> 
>    Plugging these numbers into Frink...
> 
>    v = sqrt[moonmass G / moonradius]
> 
>    (Frink knows a lot about different planetary bodies.  "G", 
>   "moongravity" and "moonradius" are defined units in its data file.

Alan I agree with your equations to here...

>    This gives a velocity of about 1680 m/s.

...but I still get about 1200 m/s here.  The 1680 m/s is
square root of 2 times the answer I got.  This is
perhaps coincidentally the escape velocity from the
lunar surface.  

When in doubt I guess we could just google the answer.

> accelerator will either have to be more than 144 km, or 
> you'll need to brake harder.
> 
>    You can use Frink to plug in your own numbers.
> -- 
>   Alan Eliasen

The factor of square root of 2 explains why your
answer for track length is twice mine.  Anyone
want to break the tie?

spike 



From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Apr 15 05:06:24 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:06:24 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <407E0FA4.2090107@cox.net>
Message-ID: <005501c422a7$6693c6a0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

DOH!  I had a lunar diameter in there for radius.
Alan's calc is right.  spike

ps dammit I did that same thing last time this
discussion came up about 3 yrs ago as I recall.

}8-[

Perhaps there is a website somewhere that has
lunar radius listed as 3500 km that keeps goofing
me up.

{8^D

...
> >
> >omega^2*R = 7.4E22*6.7E-11/3.5E6^2
> >
> >so omega = 3.4E-4 and omega*R is the tangential velocity
> >of about 3.4E-4*3500 is about 1200 meters per second.  
> >One G is about 10 m/s so 1200 = A*t so t = 120 seconds,
> >length of the track is .5*10*t^2 = 5*120^2 = 70 km of
> >track needed to accelerate at one G.
> >
> This differs form Alan's by a factor of two. Radius versus
diameter?...



From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Thu Apr 15 05:06:17 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 01:06:17 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <200404150430.i3F4UN926439@tick.javien.com>
References: <200404150430.i3F4UN926439@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <407E1849.1030507@CRNano.org>

From: Dan Clemmensen
 > The motor decelerates you from ELLO (Extremely low Lunar Orbit)
 > to zero over a 100Km track. Using regenerative braking, you
 > could launch an outbound capsule on a separate track as you
 > landed an inbound capsule.

You would still need energy storage.  Assuming the track injects a 
constant energy per km, the rate of energy transfer is proportional to 
the speed of the projectile.  The incoming projectile will be going 
fastest while the outgoing projectile is going slowest.

And in a later email:
 > OK, how much energy can we dissipate or recapture using a
 > linear induction motor system, practically speaking. ....
 > about like stopping a .22cal bullet. This seems to be more
 > like engineering than it is like magic.

Josh Hall has suggested and calculated a *terrestrial* linear motor for 
space launch, only 300 km long, accelerating a 10 ton capsule at 10 G's. 
  So you are certainly in the realm of engineering.
http://discuss.foresight.org/~josh/tower/tower.html

Chris

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Thu Apr 15 06:10:15 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:10:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
In-Reply-To: <9D2D7FC6-8E8D-11D8-97E2-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404142237280.9490-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Harvey Newstrom wrote:

> On Wednesday, April 14, 2004, at 06:45 am, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>
> > One way to deal with this is to pose the question "What if we
> > are in a simulation?"
>
> I don't see how this position is any more supportable or useful than
> the unproven religious views.  I have never understood why some people
> here bash religion, but think the simulation argument sounds
> reasonable. [snip]

Well one of the extropian principles is "rational thought".  The
problem with religious views is that they generally lack that
(being based on faith rather than rational thought).

On the other hand a simulation argument or a discussion
that the "miracles" or resurrection were due to sophisticated
use of nanotechnology by aliens can all be defended on
the basis of rational thought.

The simulation argument is supportable because we can do the
calculations that indicate that we might one day be able
to do simulations.  If our reality is any reflection of
what might be the real reality (assuming we are in a simulation)
then it is much more reasonable to believe we are in a simulation
than it is to believe some "being" waved his hands and brought
the universe into existance (or worse that he sent his son
to save the world).  If our reality is just some random reality
running in a simulation then it makes more sense that we are
simply lab rats.

Robert




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Apr 15 06:25:28 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 01:25:28 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404142237280.9490-100000@server.aeiveos.com
 >
References: <9D2D7FC6-8E8D-11D8-97E2-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0404142237280.9490-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040415012243.01bafec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 11:10 PM 4/14/2004 -0700, Robert wrote:

>If our reality is just some random reality
>running in a simulation then it makes more sense that we are
>simply lab rats.

I don't think so. Lab rats are only likely to be informative for fairly 
primitive or early states of godliness. For most universe makers, created 
or evolved conscious entities are perhaps more likely to be art works (of, 
in our case, a rather macabre kind).

Damien Broderick 




From eliasen at mindspring.com  Thu Apr 15 06:44:28 2004
From: eliasen at mindspring.com (Alan Eliasen)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 00:44:28 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <407E0FA4.2090107@cox.net>
References: <002501c42298$a54a7470$6501a8c0@SHELLY> <407E0FA4.2090107@cox.net>
Message-ID: <407E2F4C.60502@mindspring.com>


Dan Clemmensen wrote:
> If Alan's is correct (I haven't checked) I rounded up to 150Km.

   I'm glad to see that Spike now agrees with me.  Whew!  I guess that's why
I'd hate to compete against anyone who uses Frink.  It makes it hard for even
me to be wrong.  ;)

> OK, how much energy can we dissipate or recapture using a linear
> induction motor system, practically speaking. Assume a 10,000Kg
> capsule and 150Km decel from 1200m/s. We must dissipate the
> energy of 10,000g every 150m, or 1g every 15mm, about like stopping
> a .22cal bullet. This seems to be more like engineering than it is like
> magic. I'm assuming that a 10,000Kg capsule would be a convenient
> size.

   Well, the amount of energy isn't *all* that huge.  Using the (now
agreed-upon) 1680 m/s of low moon orbital velocity, the total kinetic energy
of the ship is given by ke = 1/2 m v^2.

   In Frink notation, (http://futureboy.homeip.net/frinkdocs/  or try it
online at http://futureboy.homeip.net/frink/ ) :

  ke = 1/2 10000 kg (1680 m/s)^2

  Which is a kinetic energy of about 14 gigajoules.

  (Note: kilo is always represented with a lowercase k; Frink will
(pedantically, but correctly) complain if you use uppercase, see
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html )

  That's a lot of energy, but not a LOT of energy.  For comparison, let's
compare that to the energy in a quantity of gasoline, again using Frink:

  ke -> gallons gasoline

  Gives a result of 100.8 gallons of gasoline, used very efficiently.  (Or 381
liters.)  (Or just under 100 gallons of kerosene.)  Converting to kilowatt
hours, this is:

  ke -> kWh
or
  ke -> kilowatt hours

  Which gives a value of 3920 kilowatt hours.  This is the energy dissipated
by 1633 100-watt lightbulbs burning for a day.  In Frink,

  ke / (100 W) -> days

  But this has to be dissipated in the previously-calculated 171 seconds:

  ke / (171 s)

   Which gives about 82 megawatts.  That's a lot of power to dissipate, (it
could light 825,000 of those 100-watt bulbs during that time) but potentially
feasible.

   A shorter accelerator (with higher acceleration) increases the necessary
power dissipation.  A longer accelerator may be more expensive to build,
(anything kilometers long probably gets expensive) but the power requirements
are reduced.  As always, it's a tradeoff.  Fun stuff.

-- 
  Alan Eliasen                 | "You cannot reason a person out of a
  eliasen at mindspring.com       |  position he did not reason himself
  http://futureboy.homeip.net/ |  into in the first place."
                               |     --Jonathan Swift


From deimtee at optusnet.com.au  Thu Apr 15 07:21:38 2004
From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (deimtee)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:21:38 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040415012243.01bafec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <9D2D7FC6-8E8D-11D8-97E2-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0404142237280.9490-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<6.0.3.0.0.20040415012243.01bafec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <407E3802.3040705@optusnet.com.au>

Damien Broderick wrote:

> At 11:10 PM 4/14/2004 -0700, Robert wrote:
>
>> If our reality is just some random reality
>> running in a simulation then it makes more sense that we are
>> simply lab rats.
>
>
> I don't think so. Lab rats are only likely to be informative for 
> fairly primitive or early states of godliness. For most universe 
> makers, created or evolved conscious entities are perhaps more likely 
> to be art works (of, in our case, a rather macabre kind).
>
> Damien Broderick
>

Paging :  Johnathan Hoag 



From samantha at objectent.com  Thu Apr 15 07:41:26 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 00:41:26 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] US Politics: Draft?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404120527230.24177-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404120527230.24177-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <4CC8B757-8EB0-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>

Just in case we missed the fact that our government thinks it owns each 
of us, they will bring back involuntary servitude to the State to make 
it crystal clear.    Just in case working through May or so each year 
to pay involuntary money to the State didn't bring it home to us, they 
thought they would make the point more clearly.    Sigh.  History 
repeats itself and we mostly learn nothing.

- samantha

On Apr 12, 2004, at 5:34 AM, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>
> I've received some information about:
>
>>  Two companion bills, HR 163 and S 89, are currently pending,
>>  very quietly, in the Armed Services Committees of the US House
>>  and Senate.  These bills form the "Universal National Service Act"
>>  which would draft all American men and women aged 18-26 for military
>>  or civilian service, starting spring 2005.
>
> These are HR 163 and S 89 which can be looked up on 
> http://thomas.loc.gov/
> It looks like they are trying to draft people possibly into 2 years of
> service (so much for the volunteer military).
>
> The part that I'm scratching my head over was that they were introduced
> in early 2003 (before Iraq started) and didn't seem to go anywhere.
> Do they have to be reintroduced in 2004 or do they remain in the queue?
>
> The strange part is that one of the sponsors for the HR bill is 
> McDermott
> who is my congressman (who has to be one of the most liberal persons
> in the House of Representatives).
>
> Robert
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From eugen at leitl.org  Thu Apr 15 07:48:42 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 09:48:42 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <407E1849.1030507@CRNano.org>
References: <200404150430.i3F4UN926439@tick.javien.com>
	<407E1849.1030507@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <20040415074842.GU1026@leitl.org>

On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 01:06:17AM -0400, Chris Phoenix wrote:

> You would still need energy storage.  Assuming the track injects a 

Lunar launches are basically all processed material and probes, and hence all
outgoing. There's no need for energy storage: at 1.4 kW/m^2 insolation during
lunar day energy is abundant.

> Josh Hall has suggested and calculated a *terrestrial* linear motor for 
> space launch, only 300 km long, accelerating a 10 ton capsule at 10 G's. 

10 t is a lot. The forces on the solenoids will be high. It makes more sense
to scale down the packet size (10-100 kg) and go into a rapid-fire
semicontinuous launch mode.

>  So you are certainly in the realm of engineering.
> http://discuss.foresight.org/~josh/tower/tower.html

Things are easier on Luna. Curvature is higher, though, so longer rails will
take higher ramps.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040415/63df25d4/attachment.bin>

From samantha at objectent.com  Thu Apr 15 07:52:28 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 00:52:28 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wearable Camera Etiquette
In-Reply-To: <200404121719.i3CHJhG15557@finney.org>
References: <200404121719.i3CHJhG15557@finney.org>
Message-ID: <D760340F-8EB1-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>


On Apr 12, 2004, at 10:19 AM, Hal Finney wrote:

> As technology makes it easier and more common for people to carry
> recording devices, society will need to adapt.  We need to decide 
> whether
> it is more convenient to limit the use of the devices, or to alter our
> handling of secret and private information to be less sensitive.

We are talking about, not far down the road, various forms of IA 
including sensory and memory augmentation.  It is a bit more than a 
matter of inconvenience if IA is limited by pre-IA laws and norms.

>
> On one hand we can try to limit the capture of data to mimic the
> way things have worked in the past.  Basically, people can remember
> everything they see, but only to a limited degree.  We could attempt
> to place limitations on assisted recording in situations where privacy
> is expected.  To enforce this we would require that there be some way 
> of
> knowing when someone is using a recording device.  Maybe the operator
> would have to display a flashing red light whenever it was in use.
> And any such device would have to be designed to support this 
> requirement.
>

What for?  What is gained by this that makes up for the lost human 
potentials that will be illegal to explore and use?

> The problem is that cheating will be hard to detect, if someone has
> disabled his light, for example.  If he's just recording the data for
> his own personal benefit then no one may ever know.  I think this 
> general
> approach is going to be problematic for this reason.
>

This is the least of the problems.

> Another approach is to allow capture of data but to try to crack down 
> on
> sharing it.  You can take pictures for your own personal use, but you
> can't give copies of sensitive data to other people.  This has some of
> the same problems but it is perhaps a little easier to enforce, since
> the data sharing is by its nature somewhat public.  OTOH with 
> cypherpunk
> technologies people will be able to share data anonymously.  So this 
> idea
> has problems as well.

What for?  How can we form group minds if we can't fully share?

>
> A third idea is to try to adapt society to accept that people can 
> record
> and share what they see.  This takes us into the grounds of David 
> Brin's
> "transparent society".  He sees this as somewhat inevitable and tries
> to present it as a positive change.  In fact, much of what is done in
> secrecy is harmful and would be better if exposed to the light of 
> public
> observation.  But at the same time, society does rely on privacy for
> good purposes as well, and it will be expensive and probably socially
> unacceptable to change over to systems that can survive omnipresent
> public recording.
>

I don't think full transparency is necessitated by being able to record 
and share everything we experience.  Full transparency goes beyond that 
to guarantee their are always sensors around to view your every act 
regardless of whether any persons, however equipped, are present.  It 
also requires foregoing encryption which is also beyond full ability to 
record and share.

> I don't think that simplistic analogies can guide us here.  Omnipresent
> recording devices are not just like having a good memory, and they are
> not just like a tourist with a camera.  They are something new, and
> they will require new responses.  I think we will need a combination
> of ideas from all the categories above: some restrictions on recording
> (progressively more difficult to enforce as the cameras become smaller
> and more integrated); some restrictions on sharing (depending on what
> direction society goes for allowing anonymous data exchange); and some
> adaptation to the presence of cameras (where it is not too expensive
> and inconvenient).
>

Most of the categories above have nothing to do with an extropic stand 
on the matter as far as I can see.  They are various wafflings to 
restrict future technology and its deployment to pander to current 
limited thinking and possibilities.  I don't think that is what extropy 
is about.

> Over time we will probably have to adapt more and more, because of the
> difficulties of enforcing restrictions, but this can be done gradually
> as the cameras slowly proliferate and people get accustomed to their
> presence.
>
>

The difficulty of enforcing restrictions is not why we adapt.  We adapt 
because it is extropic and opens up our possibilities.  To say we adapt 
because of an enforcement problem is to almost welcome more draconian 
technological enforcement practices.  This takes us further away from 
where we want to be.   If we don't understand how to take a stand for 
extropy in such matters how can we expect to see it come to pass?

- s



From reason at longevitymeme.org  Thu Apr 15 08:12:18 2004
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 01:12:18 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Leon Kass, Mystic
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNCEBDEIAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>

My comments on the Leon Kass interview at SAGE Crossroads, held on Monday:

http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000084.php

The transcript is now up (
http://www.sagecrossroads.net/public/webcasts/13/index.cfm ). This is the
man who appears to be for government-enforced upper age limits and banning
healthy life extension technology. He's also good at dodging questions
regarding the human cost of the policies he advocates.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme



From samantha at objectent.com  Thu Apr 15 08:23:08 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 01:23:08 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404140339540.18596-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404140339540.18596-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <209B1A50-8EB6-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>

My personal favorite is that we caught in a loop of the first SAI 
continuously simulating various variations of its own becoming and 
incorporating the results.   The great SAI snake has its tail in its 
mouth, chewing away.

-s

On Apr 14, 2004, at 3:45 AM, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Johnius wrote:
>
>> 	One episode seemed to have 12-15 different 'scientists',
>> 	all of whom were doing everything in their power to refute
>> 	non-theistic science. [snip]
>
> One way to deal with this is to pose the question "What if we
> are in a simulation?"  The Matrix series makes it much easier
> to pose this and papers & comments by Nick Bostrom and Robert
> Freitas provide reasonable academic background that may support
> that concept.  If we *are* in a simulation you can force the
> theists back into the position that "yes" we are in a
> manufactured universe -- but it is one created as either
> a scientific experiment or a playtoy.  Probably will not
> make most people operating on pure "faith" very happy.
>
> Robert
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From eugen at leitl.org  Thu Apr 15 08:32:52 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:32:52 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <407DCBF8.6050200@cox.net>
References: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE707C4B6@mmdsvr01.mm.local>
	<20040414114937.GJ1026@leitl.org> <407D3002.7050505@cox.net>
	<407DB5CB.2020809@mindspring.com> <407DCBF8.6050200@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20040415083252.GZ1026@leitl.org>

On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 07:40:40PM -0400, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
> Thanks, Alan. OK, we'll make it 150 Km. in a vacuum and
> ignoring the cost of land, the extra length is no big deal. We

How much is a km^2 of lunar surface worth now? Ignoring ineffectual treaties,
and scamsters, effectively zero. One of the first worthwhile projects of the
accelerator is to seed LLO with a cloud of active photovoltaics modules,
capable of beaming microwave power in any direction, whether down to Luna (to
power these linear motor launchers), to Earth, and into space (to propel
probes).

> can use the same linear induction technology for launch and
> landing orbits and for local transportation.

Assuming, we want to transport stuff across lunar surface, maglev is one way
to do it -- the lowest ELLO is Luna surface.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040415/b7b5ffa5/attachment.bin>

From samantha at objectent.com  Thu Apr 15 08:41:56 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 01:41:56 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
In-Reply-To: <002b01c42291$60f1d400$0600000a@Bryan>
References: <062901c421c9$a34b7130$6600a8c0@brainiac>
	<002b01c42291$60f1d400$0600000a@Bryan>
Message-ID: <C072A0E2-8EB8-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>


On Apr 14, 2004, at 7:28 PM, Bryan Moss wrote:

> ---
>
> J: What about religion? Most people on the planet believe in some sort 
> of
> immortal soul that lives on after the body has died. What do you have 
> to say
> to them?
>
> C: Science can't really speak to that. What is clear is that every 
> conscious
> act or intention has some physical correlate. With the end of life,
> consciousness ceases, for without brain, there is no mind. These 
> irrevocable
> facts do not exclude some beliefs about the soul, resurrection, and 
> God.
>

Every conscious act has some physical correlate.  This leads to an 
answer to the religious.  There is part of you that lives on after the 
body dies if you earn it!   All you have to do is master uploading of 
consciousness into something more durable and capable than the flesh.  
A "soul" isn't the given, you have to work for it.  :-)

- s



From eugen at leitl.org  Thu Apr 15 09:11:58 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 11:11:58 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040414192612.037829f0@mail.comcast.net>
References: <407D3002.7050505@cox.net>
	<34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE707C4B6@mmdsvr01.mm.local>
	<20040414114937.GJ1026@leitl.org> <407D3002.7050505@cox.net>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20040414192612.037829f0@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <20040415091158.GA1026@leitl.org>

On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 07:50:41PM -0400, David Lubkin wrote:

> How long before we can create organisms (plants, bacteria, insects) 
> suitable for seeding on Mars, whose metabolism produces a useful benefit in 
> extracting a resource or in terraforming?

Right now, at 6 mbar CO2 and waay subantarctic temperatures you'd be hard
pressed to have any detectable (that's a far cry from terraforming) microbial
activity. Notice that any detectable (assuming, the methane is biogenic)
activity comes from the few first km of submartian rock. 
 
> Assuming we had such organisms today, what would be the best way to deploy 
> them? How expensive would it be for the craft to deploy a large number of 
> small entry vehicles, spread across the planet? How rapidly can an organism 
> cover Mars, given an effectively unlimited food supply? (I'm asking more 
> about how fast each moves, rather than how fast it reproduces.)
> 
> Of course either effort would dramatically alter whatever modest biosphere 
> may exist there now.

Most of it is underground. Any life capable of living on the surface (i.e.
not under ice) would be wonderful to behold, but I'm not counting on it.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040415/e25c0e45/attachment.bin>

From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Thu Apr 15 10:45:31 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 03:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <407E2F4C.60502@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404150337350.15382-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Alan Eliasen wrote:

>    A shorter accelerator (with higher acceleration) increases the necessary
> power dissipation.  A longer accelerator may be more expensive to build,
> (anything kilometers long probably gets expensive) but the power requirements
> are reduced.  [snip]

But *not* if you have either a nanofactory or self-replicating nanobots
to produce the accelerator parts.   Then its just a question of the energy
and materials that are available and the moon probably has lots of both
of those (though perhaps not carbon for a cable for a space elevator...).

Begs a very good question as to when they start yanking projects because
it looks like nanotech is really going to be feasible and the lifetime
of the project using standard tech is past the transition point so it
will just make no sense to try and do it before when it will be so
much easier after.

Robert




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 15 12:25:47 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 05:25:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <20040415074842.GU1026@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20040415122547.62115.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 01:06:17AM -0400, Chris Phoenix wrote:
> 
> > You would still need energy storage.  Assuming the track injects a 
> 
> Lunar launches are basically all processed material and probes, and
> hence all outgoing. There's no need for energy storage: at 1.4 kW/m^2
> insolation during lunar day energy is abundant.

Yes, but your dealing with a high power system that requires power
storage for coil discharges all along the length of the rail, but the
goal of the discussion is to also use the rail to receive incoming
payloads from Earth.

> 
> >  So you are certainly in the realm of engineering.
> > http://discuss.foresight.org/~josh/tower/tower.html
> 
> Things are easier on Luna. Curvature is higher, though, so longer
> rails will take higher ramps.

No ramp needed. The package will be in a trajectory the whole time it
is going through the track, and so long as there are no mountains in
the way when it exits the rail, does not need to be more than a few
dozen meters above the regolith average elevation.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From david at lucifer.com  Thu Apr 15 12:27:26 2004
From: david at lucifer.com (David McFadzean)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 08:27:26 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] test
Message-ID: <03bd01c422e5$034e3a10$6301a8c0@lucifer.com>

Mailman upgraded to version 2.1.4.



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 15 12:27:52 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 05:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Leon Kass, Mystic
In-Reply-To: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNCEBDEIAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
Message-ID: <20040415122752.6844.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>

I think this is a good time to start a PR campaign impugning Kass as
some form of primitivist Nazi. Tie him to wanting a nationwide chain of
government forced euthanasia/holocaust centers.

--- Reason <reason at longevitymeme.org> wrote:
> My comments on the Leon Kass interview at SAGE Crossroads, held on
> Monday:
> 
> http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000084.php
> 
> The transcript is now up (
> http://www.sagecrossroads.net/public/webcasts/13/index.cfm ). This is
> the
> man who appears to be for government-enforced upper age limits and
> banning
> healthy life extension technology. He's also good at dodging
> questions
> regarding the human cost of the policies he advocates.
> 
> Reason
> Founder, Longevity Meme
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat


=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 15 12:40:34 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 05:40:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <20040415091158.GA1026@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20040415124034.2891.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>

The necessary first step to terraforming is to drop a comet or two on
Mars. The heat of impact and the added gasses to the atmosphere will
warm things enough to trigger a 100 millibar outgassing of CO2, both in
melting polar CO2 and that which is in rock all over the planet. This
would raise avg annual temps to that of Tibetan winter with a slightly
lower atmospheric pressure, but enough that should be able to support
life. 

Thing is we don't want a lot of photosynthetic plants there at first,
because we WANT lots of CO2 in the atmosphere, for at least the first
30 years, til it reachs about 600 millibars and people can work in
Earth type environmental suits without any pressure protection needs.
This is also when frozen aquifers will release and reflood the northern
sea basin.

At that point we can have built factories that spew out greenhouse
gasses like methane all day long to make up for CO2 being converted to
O2 by plants.

Read Martyn Fogg's "Terraforming" textbook. Good read.

--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 07:50:41PM -0400, David Lubkin wrote:
> 
> > How long before we can create organisms (plants, bacteria, insects)
> 
> > suitable for seeding on Mars, whose metabolism produces a useful
> benefit in 
> > extracting a resource or in terraforming?
> 
> Right now, at 6 mbar CO2 and waay subantarctic temperatures you'd be
> hard
> pressed to have any detectable (that's a far cry from terraforming)
> microbial
> activity. Notice that any detectable (assuming, the methane is
> biogenic)
> activity comes from the few first km of submartian rock. 
>  
> > Assuming we had such organisms today, what would be the best way to
> deploy 
> > them? How expensive would it be for the craft to deploy a large
> number of 
> > small entry vehicles, spread across the planet? How rapidly can an
> organism 
> > cover Mars, given an effectively unlimited food supply? (I'm asking
> more 
> > about how fast each moves, rather than how fast it reproduces.)
> > 
> > Of course either effort would dramatically alter whatever modest
> biosphere 
> > may exist there now.
> 
> Most of it is underground. Any life capable of living on the surface
> (i.e.
> not under ice) would be wonderful to behold, but I'm not counting on
> it.
> 
> -- 
> Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
> ______________________________________________________________
> ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
> 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
> http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
> 

> ATTACHMENT part 1.2 application/pgp-signature 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From dgc at cox.net  Thu Apr 15 13:01:55 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 09:01:55 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <20040415083252.GZ1026@leitl.org>
References: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE707C4B6@mmdsvr01.mm.local>	<20040414114937.GJ1026@leitl.org>
	<407D3002.7050505@cox.net>	<407DB5CB.2020809@mindspring.com>
	<407DCBF8.6050200@cox.net> <20040415083252.GZ1026@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <407E87C3.50303@cox.net>

Eugen Leitl wrote:

>On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 07:40:40PM -0400, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>  
>
>>Thanks, Alan. OK, we'll make it 150 Km. in a vacuum and
>>ignoring the cost of land, the extra length is no big deal. We
>>    
>>
>
>How much is a km^2 of lunar surface worth now? Ignoring ineffectual treaties,
>and scamsters, effectively zero. One of the first worthwhile projects of the
>accelerator is to seed LLO with a cloud of active photovoltaics modules,
>capable of beaming microwave power in any direction, whether down to Luna (to
>power these linear motor launchers), to Earth, and into space (to propel
>probes).
>  
>
Sorry, I assumed everybody would get the joke. I was too subtle. Next time I
will add a smiley :-)

>  
>
>>can use the same linear induction technology for launch and
>>landing orbits and for local transportation.
>>    
>>
>
>Assuming, we want to transport stuff across lunar surface, maglev is one way
>to do it -- the lowest ELLO is Luna surface.
>
>  
>
Same problem:-) Yes, "ELLO"is surface-skimming, ignoring the odd mountain.
As I said, at these accelerations and distances, surface maglev and 
launch/land
systems are effectively identical. By adding minor inductive steering 
systems
at the fast end, you can safely hit any spot on a fairly wide belt from 
any other spot
in the belt. On the other hand, since each "station" is 150km long, we 
don't really
save much over a continuous track.

In another post you mentioned tall ramps for long launchers. I don't 
think this
is correct. The launcher simply follows the surface curvature of a 
sphere to put
a payload into ELLO. Of course. we want to pick a spot where that 
perfect theoretical
sphere terminates at the edge of a tall plateau overlooking a vast 
lowland to give the
payload a chance to raise its ELLO before it intersects the 
non-theoretical lunar
surface. and of course you would add a small vertical component near the 
end of the
launch.

Reminder: for any launch speed below lunar escape velocity, the payload 
must be accelerated
again after it leaves the surface. Otherwise, it will intersect the 
surface before it completes
one lunar orbit. I'm assuming an ion drive can provide sufficient 
acceleration. If not,we will
need to arrange for a space-based "catcher," or expend payload mass. 
(Yes ions are technically
mass, but you know what I mean.)





From dgc at cox.net  Thu Apr 15 13:25:28 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 09:25:28 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404150337350.15382-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404150337350.15382-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <407E8D48.7060008@cox.net>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>Begs a very good question as to when they start yanking projects because
>it looks like nanotech is really going to be feasible and the lifetime
>of the project using standard tech is past the transition point so it
>will just make no sense to try and do it before when it will be so
>much easier after.
>  
>
If you really believe that nanotech will be available at time X, then 
you should
not start a project that has a payoff time later than X.

Note that many people seem to think that X is 2020 or before. Most research
has a longer payoff time than 15.5 years.

The problem with this is that you immediately get accused of abandoning
progress when you apply this line of reasoning.

Logically, we should redirect all R&D into nanotech and computing. One of
these two will get to the SI, and the SI will achieve any other research 
goal
sooner than we can achieve it without the SI. We do need to define nanotech
and computing fairly broadly. On the other hand, we cannot really use 
all that money
effectively, so it may be just as well to let most of society pretend 
that other
research is relevant :-)


From spike66 at comcast.net  Thu Apr 15 14:43:14 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 07:43:14 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <20040415074842.GU1026@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <002301c422f7$fc0af6e0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

 
> Eugen Leitl

> 
> Things are easier on Luna. Curvature is higher, though, so 
> longer rails will take higher ramps.

Ramps?  Why wouldn't we just curve the rails?  spike









From extropy at unreasonable.com  Thu Apr 15 15:06:44 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 11:06:44 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <20040415091158.GA1026@leitl.org>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040414192612.037829f0@mail.comcast.net>
	<407D3002.7050505@cox.net>
	<34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE707C4B6@mmdsvr01.mm.local>
	<20040414114937.GJ1026@leitl.org> <407D3002.7050505@cox.net>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20040414192612.037829f0@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040415095012.03451eb8@mail.comcast.net>

Eugen wrote:

> > How long before we can create organisms (plants, bacteria, insects)
> > suitable for seeding on Mars, whose metabolism produces a useful 
> benefit in
> > extracting a resource or in terraforming?
>
>Right now, at 6 mbar CO2 and waay subantarctic temperatures you'd be hard
>pressed to have any detectable (that's a far cry from terraforming) microbial
>activity. Notice that any detectable (assuming, the methane is biogenic)
>activity comes from the few first km of submartian rock.

Life here has not had to adapt to Martian extremes, so there won't be 
anything we can use off the shelf. That doesn't imply that we can't modify 
an existing organism to be capable of thriving there.

We can certainly simulate the atmosphere and temperature now. Next step 
would be bringing back a hefty soil sample.

> > Of course either effort would dramatically alter whatever modest biosphere
> > may exist there now.
>
>Most of it is underground. Any life capable of living on the surface (i.e.
>not under ice) would be wonderful to behold, but I'm not counting on it.

Sure, but if we kudzu the surface before we look, the beholding will be 
that much harder. And seeded life will spread to every niche it can, which 
may lead it into the subsurface biome. (This is certainly an argument for 
nano over bio, which could be programmed to stay away from the subsurface.)

Because of the scientific and ethical considerations to be resolved, I'm 
not yet advocating a biological assault. But I'm curious as to how much we 
could accomplish that way.

Mike wrote:

>The necessary first step to terraforming is to drop a comet or two on Mars.

This is certainly a useful way to go. But is there any value in seeding the 
planet sooner, before we're ready to drop comets? We have a proven ability 
to do sample return and cargo drops; we only have theories about how to 
redirect comets.

I'm not just talking about terraforming. Organisms can be designed that 
will extract materials from the soil or atmosphere and convert them to a 
useful substance, as we have long done for terrestrial conditions.

Obviously there are trade-offs. A Zubrin propellant factory produces a 
concentrated material in one location; a biological product may be more 
dilute but will be planet-wide.

>Read Martyn Fogg's "Terraforming" textbook. Good read.

It's on my list.


-- David Lubkin.




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 15 15:16:08 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 08:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <407E8D48.7060008@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20040415151608.91475.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:
> Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> 
> >Begs a very good question as to when they start yanking projects
> because
> >it looks like nanotech is really going to be feasible and the
> lifetime
> >of the project using standard tech is past the transition point so
> it
> >will just make no sense to try and do it before when it will be so
> >much easier after.
> >  
> >
> If you really believe that nanotech will be available at time X, then
> you should not start a project that has a payoff time later than X.
> 
> Note that many people seem to think that X is 2020 or before. Most
> research has a longer payoff time than 15.5 years.

Some people think x is 2020, typically those who are satisfied to sit
around and wait for the nano-Santa. Such typically ignore the very real
threat of the Ku Kass Klan putting the nano-Santa up against a wall to
be shot for excessive vision, imagination, and aggravated
transhumanation.

> 
> The problem with this is that you immediately get accused of
> abandoning progress when you apply this line of reasoning.

Depends. If its an excuse to lotus-eat and navel-watch, it is
abandoning progress. If you are actually doing research and/or getting
active on defensive politics, watching our backsides, its okay.

> 
> Logically, we should redirect all R&D into nanotech and computing.
> One of these two will get to the SI, and the SI will achieve any
other
> research goal sooner than we can achieve it without the SI. We do
> need to define nanotech and computing fairly broadly. On the other
> hand, we cannot really use all that money effectively, so it may be
> just as well to let most of society pretend that other
> research is relevant :-)

Well, yes, keeping everybody busy with make-work will keep them too
occupied to get pissed off at Nano-Santa when all he delivers is coal.
Murphy says its not likely to be as awesome as claimed. Nano is such a
high risk payoff that one must approach it realistically with a "don't
quit your day job" mentality.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From eugen at leitl.org  Thu Apr 15 15:48:45 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:48:45 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <20040415122547.62115.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040415074842.GU1026@leitl.org>
	<20040415122547.62115.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040415154844.GV1026@leitl.org>

On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 05:25:47AM -0700, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> Yes, but your dealing with a high power system that requires power
> storage for coil discharges all along the length of the rail, but the

I'm trying to remove the need for power storage (though high-voltage
capacitors can also be fabbed; high-voltage in vacuum is a problem due to
discharge, arcing, etc). The solenoids should live long, since being used 
semicontinuously. The design should have no movable parts, be made from
segments and utilize purely radiative cooling. This asks for small payloads,
launched at a rapid rate. Lunar rotation is too slow to give much assist, so
alignment doesn't need to be equatorial.

> goal of the discussion is to also use the rail to receive incoming
> payloads from Earth.

What for? The whole point of self-rep lunar industry is to establish a
massive presence in deep space, which translates into kT/s or MT/s
sustainable launch capacity. There's nothing there which can't be done via
Interplanet for control signals. Occasional visits can be done with chemical
rockets. There's nothing at all wrong with using chemical rockets to deorbit
and land softly. Using magnetic catchers to catch deorbiting manned modules
is silly -- people don't deccelerate very well, and there will be occasional
goofups, causing the crew to be deeply implanted into lunar surface, possibly
wrecking a very expensive (since very useful) launcher in the process.
 
> No ramp needed. The package will be in a trajectory the whole time it
> is going through the track, and so long as there are no mountains in
> the way when it exits the rail, does not need to be more than a few
> dozen meters above the regolith average elevation.

Average elevation on Luna means very little: there are lots of peaks there.
Initial orbit must be at least several km high, before you unfold, and start
to climb (photonically, or electrically).

If packets are dumb, it might make sense to catch and process them in an
orbital factory a bit higher up. With nanotechnology even very small smart
packets are not a problem.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040415/4c080d11/attachment.bin>

From eugen at leitl.org  Thu Apr 15 16:14:54 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 18:14:54 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <407E87C3.50303@cox.net>
References: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE707C4B6@mmdsvr01.mm.local>
	<20040414114937.GJ1026@leitl.org> <407D3002.7050505@cox.net>
	<407DB5CB.2020809@mindspring.com> <407DCBF8.6050200@cox.net>
	<20040415083252.GZ1026@leitl.org> <407E87C3.50303@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20040415161453.GY1026@leitl.org>

On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 09:01:55AM -0400, Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> Sorry, I assumed everybody would get the joke. I was too subtle. Next time I
> will add a smiley :-)

I'm kinda swamped, so I'm processing my backlong in a nonlinear sequence.
Bound to miss subtleties that way.
 
> Same problem:-) Yes, "ELLO"is surface-skimming, ignoring the odd mountain.

The Moon is anything but a featureless ball, unfolding and starting climbing
up with some ~N push takes forever, some packages will be duds and will fail,
so some insert randomization will be required, there are safety margins which
are several km with current LEO sats, etc.

> As I said, at these accelerations and distances, surface maglev and 
> launch/land
> systems are effectively identical. By adding minor inductive steering 
> systems
> at the fast end, you can safely hit any spot on a fairly wide belt from 
> any other spot
> in the belt. On the other hand, since each "station" is 150km long, we 
> don't really
> save much over a continuous track.

This strikes me as too long. It shouldn't take 150 km of rail accelerate some
few 10 kg to LLO.
 
> In another post you mentioned tall ramps for long launchers. I don't 
> think this
> is correct. The launcher simply follows the surface curvature of a 
> sphere to put
> a payload into ELLO. Of course. we want to pick a spot where that 

A little ramp will be required on the tail end; because it's not ELLO but LLO
(ELLO+X).

> perfect theoretical
> sphere terminates at the edge of a tall plateau overlooking a vast 
> lowland to give the
> payload a chance to raise its ELLO before it intersects the 

No time for that: you'll pass overhead again before you've unfolded fully,
and fired up the thruster. It might make sense to track the packet with
phased-array microwave initially to provide it with enough power on the
beginning so that it can start climbing rapidly.

I don't know of a good way to get rid of duds. Let the orbit decay? Vaporize
them? Intercept them with taxis?

> non-theoretical lunar
> surface. and of course you would add a small vertical component near the 
> end of the
> launch.

I didn't mean a tanget to Luna surface when talking ramp.
 
> Reminder: for any launch speed below lunar escape velocity, the payload 
> must be accelerated
> again after it leaves the surface. Otherwise, it will intersect the 

Hmm, sounds like it might make sense to use a pretty high ramp at the end
after all.

> surface before it completes
> one lunar orbit. I'm assuming an ion drive can provide sufficient 
> acceleration. If not,we will

Processing lunar materials will generate plenty of oxygen as waste product.
You could use pressurized oxygen to provide initial push. I'm not sure how
fast you can unfold solar/rectenna panels, or a sail (microwave pushed from
below).

> need to arrange for a space-based "catcher," or expend payload mass. 
> (Yes ions are technically
> mass, but you know what I mean.)

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040415/62cd4b3d/attachment.bin>

From brentn at freeshell.org  Thu Apr 15 16:24:28 2004
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 12:24:28 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Leon Kass, Mystic
In-Reply-To: <20040415122752.6844.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <r02010100-1033-5EA18A568EF911D8A92E000393A47D36@[192.168.123.121]>

 (4/15/04 5:27) Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:

>I think this is a good time to start a PR campaign impugning Kass as
>some form of primitivist Nazi. Tie him to wanting a nationwide chain of
>government forced euthanasia/holocaust centers.


Honestly, I'm surprised this hasn't been done already.  The comment Reason made about Kass dodging the questions of the human/social costs of his ideas is dead on. I'd go a step further and suggest that he is so far into the depths of his own mind on these things that he -can't- estimate their effects anymore. In other words, he's become an ideologue rather than a philosopher. You can track this in his books from Toward a More Natural Science (which I -think- was his first book) to his most blatant anti-science book about the book of Genesis.


B

-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Apr 15 17:42:39 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 12:42:39 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Method and apparatus for generating propulsive
 forces without the ejection of propellant 
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040415124029.01ba2a00@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,098,924.WKU.&OS=PN/6,098,924&RS=PN/6,098,924

This 2000 patent might be old news on this list; it reminds me of the 
fabled Lorrey Drive. (John Cramer took it somewhat seriously some year ago.)

Damien Broderick




From amara at amara.com  Thu Apr 15 18:55:54 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:55:54 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Manifolds for your Coffee Table
Message-ID: <p05100300bca488d0343b@[150.146.134.133]>

A few days ago,  a surprise from my sister arrived in my mail:

http://www.kleinbottle.com


The bottle is great.

The promo literature that comes with the bottle is also great.

[example: Dear Valued Customer and Manifold Connoisseur:

We at Acme Klein Bottles appreciate your interest in our topological
products. Indeed, we were so stunned by a real order that our entire
office, factory, and research staff celebrated with a can of root bear.
Thanks to your kind purchase, Acme has become Oakland's Foremost Vendor
of onesided, self-intersecting, nonorientable glass & wollen manifolds.

We note that your purchase order did not specify the number of spatial
dimensions in the receiving universe. Rather than send a separate
inquiry, we have taken the liberty of shipping a 3-dimensional product.]

four pages like that...

And who is behind the Klein bottle marketing and manufacturing manifesto?

None other than our old friend from Cuckoo's Egg (Cliff Stoll)

http://www.kleinbottle.com/acme_faq.htm


Happy manifolding,
Amara


-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"Naked singularities do not qualify as deities."
  -- John D. Barrow and Joseph Silk


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Thu Apr 15 17:53:54 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] FRAUD: scams
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404151048410.26393-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Here is a rather interesting (but long) article on the
scams that are being enabled by advances in technology
and/or worthy efforts:

Out of Africa (April 14, 2004)
http://www.citypaper.com/current/feature.html

Its about African money scams -- interestingly believed to
be the 2nd largest industry in Nigeria after Oil.

Robert




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Apr 15 18:01:38 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:01:38 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] more Woodward, an unfinished story?
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040415125925.01bd3820@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

This strikes me as rather odd:

Tests of Mach's Principle with a Mechanical Oscillator*
John G. Cramer?, Damon P. Cassissi, and Curran W. Fey
Department of Physics, Box 351560, University of Washington,, Seattle, WA 
98195-1560, USA
Abstract
James F. Woodward has made a prediction, based on Sciama's formulation of 
Mach's Principle in
the framework of general relativity, that in the presence of energy flow 
the inertial mass of an
object may undergo sizable variations, changing as the 2nd time derivative 
of the energy. We
describe an attempt to observe the predicted effect for a charging 
capacitor, using a technique that
does not require a reactionless force or any local violation of Newton's 
3rd law of motion. We
attempt to observe the effect of the mass variation on a driven harmonic 
oscillator with the
charging capacitor as the oscillating mass. Positive and negative phase 
shifts in the oscillator
motion with respect to the driving force are predicted to result from 
appropriately programmed
inertial mass variations. The phase shift is constant, so that data may be 
accumulated over a very
large number of oscillation cycles to insure high precision in the phase 
shift determination. We
report on the predicted effect and the design and implementation of the 
measurement apparatus.
At this time, however, we will not report on observations of the presence 
or absence of the
Woodward effect.

...
Copyright ?2001 by John G. Cramer. All rights reserved. Published by the 
American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics with permission.
* Supported in part by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

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

Oh. Too bad.

Anyone know of more recent reports from Cramer, et al?

Damien Broderick 




From samantha at objectent.com  Thu Apr 15 18:10:55 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 11:10:55 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <407E8D48.7060008@cox.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404150337350.15382-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<407E8D48.7060008@cox.net>
Message-ID: <3D450023-8F08-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>


On Apr 15, 2004, at 6:25 AM, Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>
>> Begs a very good question as to when they start yanking projects 
>> because
>> it looks like nanotech is really going to be feasible and the lifetime
>> of the project using standard tech is past the transition point so it
>> will just make no sense to try and do it before when it will be so
>> much easier after.
>>
> If you really believe that nanotech will be available at time X, then 
> you should
> not start a project that has a payoff time later than X.
>
> Note that many people seem to think that X is 2020 or before. Most 
> research
> has a longer payoff time than 15.5 years.
>
> The problem with this is that you immediately get accused of abandoning
> progress when you apply this line of reasoning.

In projects that expect to accomplish something waiting for a 
theoretically possible but thus far nonexistent and untested technology 
leads to stagnation.   At the least it is prudent to do everything to 
prepare for use of X in parallel with everything to accomplish the goal 
even if X does not arrive in time.    Projects are done in terms of 
what exists and can be used within time/budget constraints.

>
> Logically, we should redirect all R&D into nanotech and computing. One 
> of
> these two will get to the SI, and the SI will achieve any other 
> research goal
> sooner than we can achieve it without the SI. We do need to define 
> nanotech
> and computing fairly broadly. On the other hand, we cannot really use 
> all that money
> effectively, so it may be just as well to let most of society pretend 
> that other
> research is relevant :-)

Why should we do any such mass redirection?  There are countless 
pressing needs that we can address more than "good enough" without 
nanotech.  A very large percentage are not even clearly helped much by 
MNT.  Why wait for this magic bullet?    Ah, the smiley.  So what do 
you really think?  :-)

-s



From samantha at objectent.com  Thu Apr 15 18:36:33 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 11:36:33 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wearable Camera Etiquette
In-Reply-To: <9B186B86-8E87-11D8-8508-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
References: <9B186B86-8E87-11D8-8508-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <D200F81F-8F0B-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>


On Apr 14, 2004, at 7:50 PM, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>>> - don't record while using the phone where you can break wiretapping 
>>> laws
>>
>> We need to get to a society quickly where it is assumed that 
>> everything witnessed by any person was "remembered" in full fidelity 
>> and is fully shareable with others.   Anything less than this limits 
>> all of us.
>
> This sounds good to some people, but I am sure there are other people 
> who do not desire this.  We need a society that allows both choices to 
> coexist with each other.  I don't think people fear other people's 
> technology as much as they fear it will impose itself on people who 
> don't want it.
>

Should some people's desire to limit the capabilities of other people 
to what they are comfortable with be honored?   I don't see why or how 
doing so could be compatible with freedom to enhance one's own life and 
capabilities.


>>> - don't record near computers in use where you can record people's 
>>> keystrokes or passwords
>>
>> What passwords?  "Talk to the hand!"
>
> Even if passwords go away, there will be some privacy desires by some 
> people.
>

Sure.  There are all kinds of desires by all kinds of people.  But only 
some small subset of those is rational and enforceable in a rational 
free society.   Now, I do see that there are ample rational reasons to 
be able to act anonymously.   There needs to be some room for that.   I 
am not sure how to balance this equation.

>
>>> - don't record anybody if you plan to publish your recording and you 
>>> don't have contracts for these people to appear in your video
>>
>> See above answer.
>
> This is more difficult.  Do we really want to tell people not to 
> venture out of their homes if they don't want to be recorded and 
> published?  Or if people have a wardrobe malfunction just walking down 
> the street, do other people have a natural "right" to record it and 
> publish it on the Internet?  Even where privacy is not guaranteed or 
> required, there still might be standard politeness that requires that 
> one not stare/record/publish at people.

Yes, there will be some new rules of etiquette that evolve.

>
>>> - don't record anybody talking if you aren't part of the 
>>> conversation, because microphones can pick up speech beyond your 
>>> hearing range, where you can "bug" people who think they are having 
>>> a private conversation
>>
>> Are we then to limit human enhanced senses?   A private conversation 
>> should be encrypted not dependent on limiting the abilities of 
>> others.
>
> But the other extreme is just as bad.  We can't tell people that they 
> can't have any private communications out of a sealed security vault.  
> This would end going out to dinner on a date if people start recording 
> other people's conversations remotely and publishing them on reality 
> TV.  I am sure restaurants will ban this technology like many ban 
> cellphones when they started disturbing other people.
>

Good point.  Although in fact people already have far less privacy than 
they believe they have.  In the US the government is pushing hard to 
roll back privacy further although only government employees get full 
access.   Part of the etiquette and balance probably needs to be 
personal controls over how much of one's identity/location/information 
is revealed in what situations.   There must be some room for 
speaking/acting off the record or totalitarianism is a likely result.

> If we stress that we have a "right" to record people at a distance 
> just because our technology has improved, what is to keep them from 
> claiming the "right" to see under you clothes, or into your brain, or 
> to block your senses when you look in their direction?  Do we really 
> want personal technology wars between strangers on the street?  I 
> think people will retain basic rules of etiquette and politeness, and 
> will rebel when they are pushed too far.
>
>>> - don't record near bridges, airports, train stations, bus stations, 
>>> tall buildings, banks or other possible terrorist or criminal 
>>> targets, or the feds might think you are casing the location for 
>>> future attacks
>>
>> Screw the Feds and their outrageous limitations on the people under 
>> the pretense of "fighting terrorism".
>
> Agreed that they are going to far.  I am just pointing out the obvious 
> reactions to people who assert their right to record everything they 
> want.  Private people, corporations, and governments are going to 
> object to this attitude.  This was the same claim made by hackers who 
> said they had this ability to see the data, and if they weren't 
> prevented, it was fair game.  The social and political evolutions has 
> turned out that hackers are considered criminals and terrorists.  I 
> suspect a similar reaction to enhanced humans recording information 
> that other humans don't want them to record.

Obligatory objection to using "hackers" in this sense inserted here.  
But I take your point.   We need to enable people to augment their 
abilities AND enable people to have some level of privacy and control 
over what is done with their information trail.

- samantha



From amara at amara.com  Thu Apr 15 19:41:42 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 20:41:42 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wearable Camera Etiquette
Message-ID: <p05100301bca4943ae79e@[150.146.134.133]>


Samantha Atkins <samantha at objectent.com>:
>Well, there are some problems here as we augment our intelligence and
>capabilities.  What happens when everyone has the equivalent of a
>photographic memory across all senses in full fidelity?   Are we to
>limit human potential to less than this or effectively brain damage
>future humans selectively and in some circumstances?   Or will we so
>arrange our societies and practices as to expect people to have such
>capabilities and to be capable of sharing fully what they have
>experienced with one another?    If we are truly extropic  I think the
>answer is clear.  Extropian values can not be fully achieved while
>clinging to norms predicated on and even requiring more limited human
>abilities.

Thanks for saying that. I want to share what I experience and learn
with the people close to me. The rushes, the laughs, the insanities,
the sadness, the hard work, the stories of the lives in which I'm
embedded.  This is one of the things that drives me to write and to
photograph. More and more often I wish I had a recorder attached to my
head that fed real time sensory data about something that I was
experiencing alone to the people I care about, because, later, words
and photographs just didn't capture well what it was that I wanted to
share.

Two and a half weeks ago I 'flew' for some hours through the streets
of Rome on my bicycle and visited all-but-five of the obelisks (there
are 74). To and from my meeting point with an art-historian-on-bicycle
who was my guide, I got lost, of course, because I often do that, and
then discovered a few new things along the way. Can you imagine a
cruise through a city of a few million people past 2300 year old
relics on a Sunday morning when few cars gave no cares? Or flying down
the via Cavour hitting all of the green lights (and still few cars)?
My tour was with a person whose preferred method of Rome
transportation is his bicycle; who wears the streets of the city like
a comfortable piece of clothing. I don't remember all of those
beautiful alleys, but now I want to discover them again.

It makes more sense to me to bring about and adapt technologies to
a society in a way that encourages people to 'fly', instead of
encouraging them to crawl into a cave.

Amara


-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"The best presents don't come in boxes." --Hobbes


From samantha at objectent.com  Thu Apr 15 18:45:12 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 11:45:12 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wearable Camera Etiquette
In-Reply-To: <9B186B86-8E87-11D8-8508-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
References: <9B186B86-8E87-11D8-8508-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <06E60659-8F0D-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>


On Apr 14, 2004, at 7:50 PM, Harvey Newstrom wrote:

> Agreed.  The patenting of information by corporations so that nobody 
> else can use it is a big problem for scientific research right now.  
> Most science is being done in a way that it cannot be shared or 
> externally replicated.
>
>

This jumped out at me.  Has patent law descended to the point that 
information is patentable?  Under what conditions if so?

-s



From dgc at cox.net  Thu Apr 15 19:02:50 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:02:50 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <3D450023-8F08-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404150337350.15382-100000@server.aeiveos.com>	<407E8D48.7060008@cox.net>
	<3D450023-8F08-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <407EDC5A.6060906@cox.net>

Samantha Atkins wrote:

>
> On Apr 15, 2004, at 6:25 AM, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>
>>
>> Logically, we should redirect all R&D into nanotech and computing. 
>> One of
>> these two will get to the SI, and the SI will achieve any other 
>> research goal
>> sooner than we can achieve it without the SI. We do need to define 
>> nanotech
>> and computing fairly broadly. On the other hand, we cannot really use 
>> all that money
>> effectively, so it may be just as well to let most of society pretend 
>> that other
>> research is relevant :-)
>
>
> Why should we do any such mass redirection?  There are countless 
> pressing needs that we can address more than "good enough" without 
> nanotech.  A very large percentage are not even clearly helped much by 
> MNT.  Why wait for this magic bullet?    Ah, the smiley.  So what do 
> you really think?  :-)
>
What I really think is that there are a set of low-probability, 
long-payback projects that should be abandoned. I do not, however, 
believe that we should simply sit her, or that we should take the money 
we save and use it to reduce taxes. Instead, we should redirect that 
money to support of increasing our computer capacity and effectiveness.

Projects to kill:
    Advanced weapons procurement (some R&D is okay: procurement is a 
total waste.)
    Plasma and inertial fusion
    manned spaceflight
    large-scale alternative energy.

Projects to fund:
     Software tools
     Singularity research
     Small-scale, quick-turn chop manufacturing methods
     Real nanotech (not just any project that is buzz-phrase compliant.)
     Data communications (last mile.)

Please note: I put the projects on the "kill" list because of my 
estimate of their payback times. This has absolutely nothing to do with 
politics or the intrinsic merit of the project. In my opinion we will 
achieve results in those areas sooner of we direct research to the 
project in the second list.

For the "fund" list, I think that massive and ubiquitous computing 
capacity will drive an efficiency improvement in nanotech and computer 
research, and as a side effect will improve efficiencies in just about 
everything else. In my opinion most of the rest of computing is already 
funded as well as we can expect. I picked these particular areas because 
there are structural disincentives int he current economy that "pure" 
research might help overcome.


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu Apr 15 19:11:41 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 12:11:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Patents
In-Reply-To: <06E60659-8F0D-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <20040415191141.14298.qmail@web80403.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Samantha Atkins <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 2004, at 7:50 PM, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> > Agreed.  The patenting of information by
> corporations so that nobody 
> > else can use it is a big problem for scientific
> research right now.  
> > Most science is being done in a way that it cannot
> be shared or 
> > externally replicated.
> 
> This jumped out at me.  Has patent law descended to
> the point that 
> information is patentable?  Under what conditions if
> so?

Trade "secrets" (oftentimes reverse engineerable,
except in countries with laws prohibiting that) add
to the problem...but, yeah, certain information is and
has always been patentable.  For instance, "how do I
manufacture X" (if you can't make it yourself, and no
one will give or sell it to you, you can't run
experiments on it) or "how does X do Y" (especially
processes that nature didn't invent first).  The
problem is, a lot of the useful science (borderline
engineering) these days concerns just those topics:
exactly how do you make a telomere-extending drug, and
how does it work?


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu Apr 15 19:16:16 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 12:16:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <407EDC5A.6060906@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20040415191616.67831.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:
> Projects to kill:
>     manned spaceflight
> 
> Projects to fund:
>      Singularity research

You know, of course, some of us are looking to manned
spaceflight in case the Singularity turns out
undesirably (to us as we are at the time).  Similar
arguments can be made about the other projects on your
kill list (with the possible exception of fusion, at
least anything involving fusion reactors larger than a
standard workbench).


From dgc at cox.net  Thu Apr 15 20:08:47 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:08:47 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <20040415191616.67831.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040415191616.67831.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <407EEBCF.5070007@cox.net>

Adrian Tymes wrote:

>--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:
>  
>
>>Projects to kill:
>>    manned spaceflight
>>
>>Projects to fund:
>>     Singularity research
>>    
>>
>
>You know, of course, some of us are looking to manned
>spaceflight in case the Singularity turns out
>undesirably (to us as we are at the time).  Similar
>arguments can be made about the other projects on your
>kill list (with the possible exception of fusion, at
>least anything involving fusion reactors larger than a
>standard workbench).
>_______________________________________________
>  
>
Unless someone can develop and implement a way to actively stop it, the 
Singularity will occur some time between now and 2020 with very high 
probability. Do you think you will get manned spaceflight at a level 
that can usefully avoid a "bad" Singularity in that timeframe? 
Alternatively, do you believe my estimate of the timeframe is wrong? The 
Singularity research is listed as a desperate and probably futile effort 
to increase the probability of a "good" outcome. Low cost, low 
probability, extremely high payback.


From eugen at leitl.org  Thu Apr 15 20:24:54 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 22:24:54 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <407EEBCF.5070007@cox.net>
References: <20040415191616.67831.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>
	<407EEBCF.5070007@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20040415202453.GK1026@leitl.org>

On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 04:08:47PM -0400, Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> Unless someone can develop and implement a way to actively stop it, the 
> Singularity will occur some time between now and 2020 with very high 
> probability. Do you think you will get manned spaceflight at a level 

While I sympathize with the general sentiment, putting 100% probability
within 16 years is based on no solid data. Singularity takes both molecular
circuitry and AI to occur to allow such magic postulates (within XY years,
while XY<<100). While people work on both, I don't see how one can make
definite predictions about future inventions.

> that can usefully avoid a "bad" Singularity in that timeframe? 
> Alternatively, do you believe my estimate of the timeframe is wrong? The 
> Singularity research is listed as a desperate and probably futile effort 
> to increase the probability of a "good" outcome. Low cost, low 
> probability, extremely high payback.

Of course, if any success is high probability of "bad", and Singularity
research increases probability, the payback might be not that good after all.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040415/16de9be4/attachment.bin>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Apr 15 20:44:24 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:44:24 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] yet more Woodward (and Cramer)
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040415125925.01bd3820@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040415125925.01bd3820@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040415154221.01bb06c8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

So I went to the horse's mouth. Dr Cramer kindly told me the work is 
proceeding, but:

>  The tests have so far shown no
>indication of Woodward's predicted effect involving the modification of
>inertia by energy flow.

Bad luck, space cadets. :)

Damien Broderick




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Thu Apr 15 22:42:20 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <407EDC5A.6060906@cox.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404151519380.529-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> Projects to kill:
>     Advanced weapons procurement (some R&D is okay: procurement is a
>     total waste.)

Agreed. Normal weapons (and time) have shown that we can even get someone
like Saddam.  Osama is harder but one can presume his days are numbered.

>     Plasma and inertial fusion

Here I have questions.  There is a significant "research" part to these
efforts.  I'm not sure that the "R" aspect will not lead to something
that is not useful.

>     manned spaceflight

Agreed.  Unless this is directed to a long term distribution of
humanity around the solar system so it forms a distributed intelligence
(something I discussed at Extro III) it may be relatively useless.

>     large-scale alternative energy.

This part I am not clear about.  Alternative energy such
as wind power seems to be working.  Biomass conversion
would also seem to be functional.  I would be interested
in what specific aspects of alternative energy sources
you find unworkable.

Robert




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Thu Apr 15 23:10:50 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:10:50 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wearable Camera Etiquette
In-Reply-To: <06E60659-8F0D-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <230CBC88-8F32-11D8-B2E0-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Thursday, April 15, 2004, at 02:45 pm, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> This jumped out at me.  Has patent law descended to the point that 
> information is patentable?  Under what conditions if so?

I was thinking of biotech specifically, where specific DNA sequences, 
specific medicine formulas, specific cell-lines, and even techniques 
can be patented.  This limits much of bio or medical discoveries to the 
single company who owns it, and other doctors and researchers can't use 
it.

Also, much research is being done on university projects funded by 
companies, where they keep the whole project and all information secret 
under nondisclosure agreements, just in case they do find something 
that it patentable.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec 
Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Thu Apr 15 23:21:48 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:21:48 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wearable Camera Etiquette
In-Reply-To: <D200F81F-8F0B-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <AB2F0E96-8F33-11D8-B2E0-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Thursday, April 15, 2004, at 02:36 pm, Samantha Atkins wrote:

>
> On Apr 14, 2004, at 7:50 PM, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>>>> - don't record while using the phone where you can break 
>>>> wiretapping laws
>>>
>>> We need to get to a society quickly where it is assumed that 
>>> everything witnessed by any person was "remembered" in full fidelity 
>>> and is fully shareable with others.   Anything less than this limits 
>>> all of us.
>>
>> This sounds good to some people, but I am sure there are other people 
>> who do not desire this.  We need a society that allows both choices 
>> to coexist with each other.  I don't think people fear other people's 
>> technology as much as they fear it will impose itself on people who 
>> don't want it.
>>
>
> Should some people's desire to limit the capabilities of other people 
> to what they are comfortable with be honored?   I don't see why or how 
> doing so could be compatible with freedom to enhance one's own life 
> and capabilities.

I understand that you don't want people imposing their limitations on 
you.  But can you see how your vision of the future imposes new 
limitations on others?  They currently can hold private conversations 
while at dinner or in their car.  Your future has people using 
technology to listen in on these conversations not intended to them, 
and limits people's capabilities to talk normally.  You will stop them 
from doing what they are already capable of now.  They also will resent 
this new limitation and fight against it.  Their will claim that you 
are limiting them, just as you claim the reverse would be limiting you. 
  I suspect that society will (at least initially) side with the 
majority/older capabilities over minority/new capabilities.

What I am saying is that we need a way to introduce the new 
capabilities without destroying people's already existing capabilities.

> We need to enable people to augment their abilities AND enable people 
> to have some level of privacy and control over what is done with their 
> information trail.

I think we are pretty much agreed in our goals.  There will be a lot of 
friction as technology becomes more imposing on others.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec 
Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>



From dgc at cox.net  Thu Apr 15 23:26:12 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:26:12 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404151519380.529-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404151519380.529-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <407F1A14.9030106@cox.net>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Projects to kill:
>>    Advanced weapons procurement (some R&D is okay: procurement is a
>>    total waste.)
>>    
>>
>
>Agreed. Normal weapons (and time) have shown that we can even get someone
>like Saddam.  Osama is harder but one can presume his days are numbered.
>  
>
I don't think a new class of aircraft carrier, nuclear submarine, tank, 
or fighter plane
is going to help against Ossama Bin Laden.  These systems require 10 or 
more years
to develop.

>  
>
>>    Plasma and inertial fusion
>>    
>>
>
>Here I have questions.  There is a significant "research" part to these
>efforts.  I'm not sure that the "R" aspect will not lead to something
>that is not useful.
>  
>
Payback in 15 year or less? No. Put the money into computer and 
nanotech. Then use nanotech to do fusion correctly. (And yes, nanotech 
is very, very relevant to fusion.)

>  
>
>>    manned spaceflight
>>    
>>
>
>Agreed.  Unless this is directed to a long term distribution of
>humanity around the solar system so it forms a distributed intelligence
>(something I discussed at Extro III) it may be relatively useless.
>  
>
SI and nanotech will yield this as a result before a "traditional 
program could bear fruit.

>>    large-scale alternative energy.
>>    
>>
>
>This part I am not clear about.  Alternative energy such
>as wind power seems to be working.  Biomass conversion
>would also seem to be functional.  I would be interested
>in what specific aspects of alternative energy sources
>you find unworkable.
>
>  
>
Oil shale, oil sands, tidal, large-scale solar, beamed power, new 
nuclear designs. None of these has a 15-year payback. replicating or 
refining an existing design may or may not.


From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Thu Apr 15 23:27:57 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:27:57 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404142237280.9490-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <873F402C-8F34-11D8-B2E0-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Thursday, April 15, 2004, at 02:10 am, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, April 14, 2004, at 06:45 am, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>>
>>> One way to deal with this is to pose the question "What if we
>>> are in a simulation?"
>>
>> I don't see how this position is any more supportable or useful than
>> the unproven religious views.  I have never understood why some people
>> here bash religion, but think the simulation argument sounds
>> reasonable. [snip]
>
> Well one of the extropian principles is "rational thought".  The
> problem with religious views is that they generally lack that
> (being based on faith rather than rational thought).
>
> On the other hand a simulation argument or a discussion
> that the "miracles" or resurrection were due to sophisticated
> use of nanotechnology by aliens can all be defended on
> the basis of rational thought.

I disagree.  I think this argument just replaces religious words with 
technical-sounding words.  Real rational thought seeks to explain 
observed phenomena with the most consistent, testable, and simplest 
hypothesis that correctly predicts the phenomena.  Adding a simulation 
and sysop does not explain any observation, does not predict any 
events, and needlessly complicates the hypothesis instead of 
simplifying it.  This is not rational, logical or scientific.

> The simulation argument is supportable because we can do the
> calculations that indicate that we might one day be able
> to do simulations.  If our reality is any reflection of
> what might be the real reality (assuming we are in a simulation)
> then it is much more reasonable to believe we are in a simulation
> than it is to believe some "being" waved his hands and brought
> the universe into existance (or worse that he sent his son
> to save the world).  If our reality is just some random reality
> running in a simulation then it makes more sense that we are
> simply lab rats.

I do not recognize any logic, scientific method, rational approach, or 
other systematic process in your argument.  You just seem to assert 
that it could be true, and it makes more sense to you.  Theists claim 
the same thing.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec 
Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>



From megao at sasktel.net  Thu Apr 15 23:41:12 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 18:41:12 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wearable Camera Etiquette
References: <AB2F0E96-8F33-11D8-B2E0-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <407F1D97.45230520@sasktel.net>

Some sort of ID  has to incorporated into or broadcast from each individual
/thing and
the recording devices must seek out a "tag"  for these pieces of information
or they will record
the data faithfully, but simply modify the regurgitation with privacy
protocals.  Authorities may have an override on these protocals for law
enforcement uses.

Consider the ways already used to selectively filter unauthorized use of
information by simply reducing the quality or resolution of the reused
output.

-The blurring of television  images of faces within otherwise normal video.
-The garbeling of voices from whom privacy is requested
-The introduction of low resolution/scrambling  into GPS signals for
civilian use.

Yes you will be able to record everything, but you may not be able to show
it in any usable fashion
without permission tags from those whose information you recorded.

Printed matter with RFID tags in the book binding  would refuse to convert
to text or be re-broadcast in a readable fashion unless the recording system
sensed a permission for free use
signal............etc

Morris



Harvey Newstrom wrote:

> On Thursday, April 15, 2004, at 02:36 pm, Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
> >
> > On Apr 14, 2004, at 7:50 PM, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> >>>> - don't record while using the phone where you can break
> >>>> wiretapping laws
> >>>
> >>> We need to get to a society quickly where it is assumed that
> >>> everything witnessed by any person was "remembered" in full fidelity
> >>> and is fully shareable with others.   Anything less than this limits
> >>> all of us.
> >>
> >> This sounds good to some people, but I am sure there are other people
> >> who do not desire this.  We need a society that allows both choices
> >> to coexist with each other.  I don't think people fear other people's
> >> technology as much as they fear it will impose itself on people who
> >> don't want it.
> >>
> >
> > Should some people's desire to limit the capabilities of other people
> > to what they are comfortable with be honored?   I don't see why or how
> > doing so could be compatible with freedom to enhance one's own life
> > and capabilities.
>
> I understand that you don't want people imposing their limitations on
> you.  But can you see how your vision of the future imposes new
> limitations on others?  They currently can hold private conversations
> while at dinner or in their car.  Your future has people using
> technology to listen in on these conversations not intended to them,
> and limits people's capabilities to talk normally.  You will stop them
> from doing what they are already capable of now.  They also will resent
> this new limitation and fight against it.  Their will claim that you
> are limiting them, just as you claim the reverse would be limiting you.
>   I suspect that society will (at least initially) side with the
> majority/older capabilities over minority/new capabilities.
>
> What I am saying is that we need a way to introduce the new
> capabilities without destroying people's already existing capabilities.
>
> > We need to enable people to augment their abilities AND enable people
> > to have some level of privacy and control over what is done with their
> > information trail.
>
> I think we are pretty much agreed in our goals.  There will be a lot of
> friction as technology becomes more imposing on others.
>
> --
> Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
> Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec
> Manager,
> NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
> <HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Fri Apr 16 10:06:10 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 03:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
In-Reply-To: <873F402C-8F34-11D8-B2E0-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404160245530.14503-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Harvey Newstrom, responding to my comments
that we might be in a simulation wrote:

> I disagree.  I think this argument just replaces religious words with
> technical-sounding words.  Real rational thought seeks to explain
> observed phenomena with the most consistent, testable, and simplest
> hypothesis that correctly predicts the phenomena. [snip]

Ok, lets back up a step.  First there are reasons to run ancestor
sims so one can determine how one got to a specific point.  There
are entire fields of science (e.g. paleontology, astronomy, etc.
dedicated to determining precisely *how* we got to where we are).
Then there are reasons to run future sims -- to see how the course
you are on might turn out so you can alter it if the result is
undesirable.  So I can come up with reasons for intelligences
outside of a sim to run them.

The *only* claim I've seen that most theists make is along the
lines of an experiment/playtoy where God created the universe
just to see how it would turn out.  Now, if you like you can
treat this as a sim -- but *most* theists don't.

Second, by defininition proving one is in a sim is very very
hard.  If it was easy it wouldn't be a good sim.  I believe
most of this was hashed over in the Matrix movie series to
at least some degree.  Damien might also suggest books that
cover the topic.  So any hypothesis regarding sims may not be
testable -- it suffers from the same problem that most proponents
of string theory have.

Third, an explanation does *NOT* have to be the "simplest".
We could probably go back and forth on hundreds or thousands
of cases in biology where what nature evolved is *not* simple.
Human engineering could probably find much more elegant or
simple solutions.  Nature evolved "what worked".  It didn't
have to be the best or the simplest -- it simply had to get
the job done.  This in my mind is one of the fundamental flaws
in scientific thinking -- its assuming that the universe is
simple when the knowledge that ~70% of the Earths in our
galaxy and others are much older than ours would suggest
that there is a significant probability that it is actually
quite complex.

Robert




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Fri Apr 16 10:20:01 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 03:20:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <407F1A14.9030106@cox.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404160309280.14503-100000@server.aeiveos.com>



On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> I don't think a new class of aircraft carrier, nuclear submarine, tank,
> or fighter plane is going to help against Ossama Bin Laden.  These
> systems require 10 or more years to develop.

While the design might take 10 or more years this is a question of
how many people you have doing the designs.  As far as the building
goes, you may want to take a peek at:
  Nanoassembly of an Aircraft Carrier
  http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/nanotech/Nanoassembly.html

Given the right technology assembly is not a significant problem...

> Payback in 15 year or less? No. Put the money into computer and
> nanotech. Then use nanotech to do fusion correctly. (And yes, nanotech
> is very, very relevant to fusion.)

Ok, my curiosity is raised.  Why do you think this is so?
(There is a discussion in Nanosystems about radiation and Robert
Freitas and I just had an email exchange about the hazards of
radiation to nanotech.)  So thoughts on the topic are welcome.

> Oil shale, oil sands, tidal, large-scale solar, beamed power, new
> nuclear designs. None of these has a 15-year payback. replicating or
> refining an existing design may or may not.

Dan, you may want to do some more study on this regarding nuclear
designs.  There are a lot of them out there and some have actually
been explored as prototypes.  Getting them through the government
regulation bureaucracy I agree is a nightmare but that does not
mean that we don't have better solutions than what we are now
using.  Also tidal may have some hope.  I think I read something
recently about the Scots planning on constructing a large system
to harvest this energy.

The French seem to have shown that if you focus on nuclear energy
that you can make it work.

Robert



From dgc at cox.net  Fri Apr 16 11:54:47 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:54:47 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity econimic tradeoffs (was: MARS: Because
	it is hard)
In-Reply-To: <20040415202453.GK1026@leitl.org>
References: <20040415191616.67831.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>	<407EEBCF.5070007@cox.net>
	<20040415202453.GK1026@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <407FC987.5000205@cox.net>

Eugen Leitl wrote:

>On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 04:08:47PM -0400, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Unless someone can develop and implement a way to actively stop it, the 
>>Singularity will occur some time between now and 2020 with very high 
>>probability. Do you think you will get manned spaceflight at a level 
>>    
>>
>
>While I sympathize with the general sentiment, putting 100% probability
>within 16 years is based on no solid data. Singularity takes both molecular
>circuitry and AI to occur to allow such magic postulates (within XY years,
>while XY<<100). While people work on both, I don't see how one can make
>definite predictions about future inventions.
>  
>
A singularity driven by computer power and software does not depend on any
particular hardware improvement such as molecular circuitry, or any 
particular
software technology such as AI (except in the broadest sense.)

I cannot make legitimate definite predictions, but I (and many others) 
can try to
make educated guesses based on trends. There is an aphorism in marketing:
"the only trend you can count on is demographics." Well guess what? Moore's
law as been as consistent as demographics over at least the last 50 years.

Incidentally, I can and have made definite predictions. I agree that I 
cannot
make legitimate predictions :-)  Eight years ago I predicted the singularity
within ten years.

>  
>
>>that can usefully avoid a "bad" Singularity in that timeframe? 
>>Alternatively, do you believe my estimate of the timeframe is wrong? The 
>>Singularity research is listed as a desperate and probably futile effort 
>>to increase the probability of a "good" outcome. Low cost, low 
>>probability, extremely high payback.
>>    
>>
>
>Of course, if any success is high probability of "bad", and Singularity
>research increases probability, the payback might be not that good after all.
>
>  
>

Perhaps I misunderstand you or I was unclear.

Other unrelated research that will lead to faster and cheaper computers 
will be
undertaken anyway, as will software research and deployment that will 
unintentionally
improve the environment that may spontaneously create an SI or that may 
dramatically
simplify the work of an intentional SI developer.

 I think Elizier and whoever wants to help him, or whoever wants to 
start a parallel project
with similar goals, should be funded. If I understand your statement, 
you object to
funding such project because they may awaken the demon. By contrast, I 
think the god or
demon will wake anyway, so research to awaken the god rather than the 
demon is a
good idea.

Being of a sunny and carefree disposition, and having a "belief" that 
reason tends to
"good," I think that the SI will rapidly create a morality for itself 
that I will consider
"good." Therefore, I'm in favor of actively accelerating the advent of 
the SI if possible.




From jpnitya at sapo.pt  Fri Apr 16 11:56:55 2004
From: jpnitya at sapo.pt (Joao Magalhaes)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:56:55 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] AGING: New Theory
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404030839150.2380-100000@server.aeiveos.com
 >
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404030839150.2380-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20040416122706.01d1afb0@pop.sapo.pt>

Hi!

My response time is a bit slower than usual but I thought I have a go at 
this nonetheless.

At 18:49 03-04-2004, you wrote:
>First, lets assume the Free Radical theory of Aging which involves
>various aspects of Mitochondrial damage and aging are correct.
>[This explains why caloric restriction works.]

### Actually, I have a paragraph in a manuscript I'm working on that may 
interest you:

"Given the large number of age-related changes, it is crucial to evaluate 
the predictions of each theory and follow a system-level approach of which 
genetic manipulations in animal models are a crucial tool. The mechanisms 
of CR are a perfect example for the open-minded scepticism that should be 
implemented in ageing research. As mentioned earlier, both the GH/IGF-1 
axis and ROS production appear to change in CR. Hypothesis aiming to 
explain CR based on either mechanism are theoretically sound. Yet while a 
clear cause-effect phenotype is witnessed when manipulating the components 
of the GH/IGF-1 axis, such is not the case for ROS. Therefore, the GH/IGF-1 
axis, not oxidative damage, is the main candidate for explaining CR."

By manipulating the components I mean genetic manipulations in animal 
models, such as mice. If you genetically manipulate a number of components 
of the GH/IGF-1 axis you get a phenotype very similar to CR. If you 
manipulate ROS production or damage, you don't. So a clear cause-effect 
phenotype is witnessed suggesting the GH/IGF-1 axis is, at least partly, 
the mechanism involved in CR. No direct evidence exists that ROS are a 
cause of CR.

>Second, lets assume you can't do too much about them because
>radicals and/or other pro-oxidants (e.g. nitric oxide) are being
>used as signal molecules (this may be somewhat controversial).

### I agree with the view that ROS are signalling molecules and there is 
good evidence supporting this view and supporting the idea that ROS are 
important in development.

>Third, lets assume that the free radicals lead to DNA mutations
>(which is one way cancer develops) or worse leads to DNA double
>strand breaks.  (Radiation and perhaps toxic substances in
>food or the environment might contribute to this as well).

### There isn't any direct evidence that free radical damage to the DNA 
causes ageing in mammals. Again, a paragraph from the same manuscript:

"One possibility is that ROS damage DNA and some evidence exists showing an 
increase in oxidative damage to DNA with age (Hamilton et al., 2001). Yet 
overexpression of catalase in the nucleus did not prevent oxidative damage 
to DNA (Schriner et al., 2000) and knocking out the gene responsible for 
8-oxo-dGTPase failed to accelerate ageing (Tsuzuki et al., 2001). These 
results hint that the free radical and the DNA damage theories of ageing 
are not complementary."

BTW, 8-oxo-dGTPase repairs 8-oxo-7,8-dihydroguanine, an abundant and 
mutagenic form of oxidative DNA damage.

What I'm saying is that although oxidative damage to the DNA accumulates 
with age in some tissues, it is not proven this is a cause rather an effect 
of ageing. And the cited experiments suggest this is an effect of ageing.

Refs:

Hamilton, M.L., Van Remmen, H., Drake, J.A., Yang, H., Guo, Z.M., Kewitt, 
K., Walter, C.A., Richardson, A., 2001. Does oxidative damage to DNA 
increase with age? Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98, 10469-10474.

Schriner, S.E., Ogburn, C.E., Smith, A.C., Newcomb, T.G., Ladiges, W.C., 
Dolle, M.E., Vijg, J., Fukuchi, K., Martin, G.M., 2000. Levels of dna 
damage are unaltered in mice overexpressing human catalase in nuclei. Free 
Radic Biol Med 29, 664-673.

Tsuzuki, T., Egashira, A., Igarashi, H., Iwakuma, T., Nakatsuru, Y., 
Tominaga, Y., Kawate, H., Nakao, K., Nakamura, K., Ide, F., Kura, S., 
Nakabeppu, Y., Katsuki, M., Ishikawa, T., Sekiguchi, M., 2001. Spontaneous 
tumorigenesis in mice defective in the MTH1 gene encoding 8-oxo-dGTPase. 
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98, 11456-11461.

As for the rest of your theory, Robert, I agree with the view that changes 
in DNA over time play a role in ageing. This could even be the case in stem 
cell stocks, as suggested by Van Zant's work. Yet I have some reservations 
on the idea that only one type of DNA damage causes ageing. At a first 
glance, it just doesn't seem right. Like I wrote previously on the 
mechanisms of CR, your idea is theoretically sound but there is no direct 
evidence in support of it. Can you think of one or two experiments that can 
prove or disprove your theory?

All the best,

Joao 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040416/d4a64df5/attachment.html>

From amara at amara.com  Fri Apr 16 13:30:35 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 14:30:35 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Watching the comets
Message-ID: <p05100300bca58e907265@[150.146.134.133]>

http://encke.jpl.nasa.gov/RecentObs.html

I've not seen with my own eyes, but the reports are coming in
to the comet observational networks.

The comets are getting brighter. Hopefully, in addition to the
professional and amateur astronomers on Earth, Rosetta will
be able to observe them in space too.

(All Rosetta instruments have now been 'commissioned', meaning they
have been tested in space, and are active. See:
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=34942)



The Bright Comets in Our Vicinity:

Recent News and Observations
Last Updated: April 13, 2004


C/2001 Q4 (NEAT) is ~4.7 (4/13)
C/2002 T7 (LINEAR) is ~4.4 (4/13)

Amara


-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"The best presents don't come in boxes." --Hobbes


From amara at amara.com  Fri Apr 16 13:40:19 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 14:40:19 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Watching Rosetta
Message-ID: <p05100301bca591a92e0d@[150.146.134.133]>

To see the present position of Rosetta, click on "Orbit View" under
Mission Home on the left side of the web page

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/area/index.cfm?fareaid=13

and an applet will be activated to calculate and show you the
spacecraft's position and the nearby planets and comet Chury.

Amara


-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"The best presents don't come in boxes." --Hobbes


From dgc at cox.net  Fri Apr 16 12:43:13 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:43:13 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pre-singularity economics (was: MARS: Because it is
	hard)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404160309280.14503-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404160309280.14503-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <407FD4E1.3030000@cox.net>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I don't think a new class of aircraft carrier, nuclear submarine, tank,
>>or fighter plane is going to help against Ossama Bin Laden.  These
>>systems require 10 or more years to develop.
>>    
>>
>
>While the design might take 10 or more years this is a question of
>how many people you have doing the designs.  As far as the building
>goes, you may want to take a peek at:
>  Nanoassembly of an Aircraft Carrier
>  http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/nanotech/Nanoassembly.html
>
>Given the right technology assembly is not a significant problem...
>
>  
>
Two issues here. My original post specified that design might continue
but procurement and deployment are stupid.  The second issue is that
The technology that can build an aircraft carrier using nanotech also
renders an aircraft carrier obsolete.

>>Payback in 15 year or less? No. Put the money into computer and
>>nanotech. Then use nanotech to do fusion correctly. (And yes, nanotech
>>is very, very relevant to fusion.)
>>    
>>
>
>Ok, my curiosity is raised.  Why do you think this is so?
>(There is a discussion in Nanosystems about radiation and Robert
>Freitas and I just had an email exchange about the hazards of
>radiation to nanotech.)  So thoughts on the topic are welcome.
>  
>
Nanotech is the design of a system with atomic-scale precision. It is not
restricted to designing small devices: witness your aircraft carrier.
Nanotech permits us to build extremely precise beam colliders with
which we can collide protons or deuterons, or alpha particles with
near-perfect efficiency. The portions of such a device that are built
to atomic precision (and which are therefore radiation-sensitive) need
not be all that close to the radiation-emitting target area. The target
area can be surrounded by passive bulk radiation absorbers that
convert the radiation into thermal energy. These absorbers can be
continually replaced and remanufactured using nanotech or using
bulk machinery that is itself manufactured and remanufactured using
nanotech. The key point that makes this all energy-positive is the
extreme precision (and therefore high conversion efficiency) of the
beam steering.  I speculate that such a device might be 3m long
and weigh about 50kg, with output adjustable up to 50kw thermal.
With a (nanotech-built) turbine/generator system, this can deliver
heat, mechanical power, and electricity. With a (nanotech-built)
heat-driven cooler, it can provide refrigeration and cooling. In most
homes, most electricity goes to heating and cooling.

>  
>
>>Oil shale, oil sands, tidal, large-scale solar, beamed power, new
>>nuclear designs. None of these has a 15-year payback. replicating or
>>refining an existing design may or may not.
>>    
>>
>
>Dan, you may want to do some more study on this regarding nuclear
>designs.  There are a lot of them out there and some have actually
>been explored as prototypes.  Getting them through the government
>regulation bureaucracy I agree is a nightmare but that does not
>mean that we don't have better solutions than what we are now
>using.  Also tidal may have some hope.  I think I read something
>recently about the Scots planning on constructing a large system
>to harvest this energy.
>
>The French seem to have shown that if you focus on nuclear energy
>that you can make it work.
>
>  
>
I went to Oak Ridge High School. My friend's parents were all nuclear 
scientists.
I am very familiar with the tradeoffs. Nuclear fission is the most 
environmentally
friendly and cost-effective practical energy source. Nuclear waste disposal
imposes a trivial environmental burden relative to disposal of the waste 
from
fossil fuels. However, Nuclear fission has a PR problem that we will not 
be able
to solve in time to get payback.

Sadly, the least disruptive alternative is to simply build more coal 
plants and
clean up the mess later.


From paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz  Fri Apr 16 13:16:01 2004
From: paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz (Paul Bridger)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 01:16:01 +1200
Subject: [extropy-chat] SI morality
In-Reply-To: <407FC987.5000205@cox.net>
References: <20040415191616.67831.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>
	<407EEBCF.5070007@cox.net> <20040415202453.GK1026@leitl.org>
	<407FC987.5000205@cox.net>
Message-ID: <407FDC91.30105@paradise.net.nz>

Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> Being of a sunny and carefree disposition, and having a "belief" that 
> reason tends to
> "good," I think that the SI will rapidly create a morality for itself 
> that I will consider
> "good." Therefore, I'm in favor of actively accelerating the advent of 
> the SI if possible.


Given all the negative AI scenarios played out in popular culture 
(Matrix, Terminator etc.) I expect the most deadly obstacle to a 
big-bang type Singularity to be fear. All scientific obstacles can be 
conquered by the application of our rational minds, but something that 
cannot be conquered by rationality is...irrationality. However, I also 
expect AI to appear in our lives slowly at first and then with 
increasing prevalence.

Like you, I strongly believe a purely rational artificial intelligence 
would be a benevolent one, but I wouldn't expect most people to agree 
(simply because most people don't explore issues beyond what they see at 
the movie theater). There's a fantastic quote on a related issue from 
Greg Egan's Diaspora: "Conquering the universe is what bacteria with 
spaceships would do." In other words, any culture sufficiently 
technologically advanced to travel interstellar distances would also 
likely be sufficiently rationally advanced to not want to annihilate us. 
I think a similar argument applies to any purely rational artificial 
intelligence we manage to create.

I'm interested: have people on this list speculated much about the 
morality of a purely rational intelligence? If you value rationality, as 
extropians do, then surely the morality of this putative rational 
artificial intelligence would be of great interest - it should be the 
code we all live by. Rationality means slicing away all arbitrary 
customs, and reducing decisions to a cost-benefit analysis of forseeable 
consequences. This is at once no morality, and a perfect morality. 
Hmm...Zen-like truth, or vacuous pseudo-profundity - you decide. :)

Paul


From dgc at cox.net  Fri Apr 16 13:51:19 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 09:51:19 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] SI morality
In-Reply-To: <407FDC91.30105@paradise.net.nz>
References: <20040415191616.67831.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>	<407EEBCF.5070007@cox.net>
	<20040415202453.GK1026@leitl.org>	<407FC987.5000205@cox.net>
	<407FDC91.30105@paradise.net.nz>
Message-ID: <407FE4D7.8030103@cox.net>

Paul Bridger wrote:

>
> I'm interested: have people on this list speculated much about the 
> morality of a purely rational intelligence? If you value rationality, 
> as extropians do, then surely the morality of this putative rational 
> artificial intelligence would be of great interest - it should be the 
> code we all live by. Rationality means slicing away all arbitrary 
> customs, and reducing decisions to a cost-benefit analysis of 
> forseeable consequences. This is at once no morality, and a perfect 
> morality. Hmm...Zen-like truth, or vacuous pseudo-profundity - you 
> decide. :)
>
Are you aware of Eliezer Yudkowsky's efforts on this area?
Please see:
    http://singinst.org/

I think Eliezer started his effort on this list in about 1996, when he 
was high-school age. It is now his life-work.  At the time, we spent a 
fairly large amount of effort on this topic. I'm a mere dilitante, but 
other list members published on this topic, either on the web or (in at 
least one case) in book form.

I'm assuming you are interested in the general topic of SI morality, and 
not just the abstract topic of purely rational morality.


From paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz  Fri Apr 16 14:11:05 2004
From: paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz (Paul Bridger)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 02:11:05 +1200
Subject: [extropy-chat] SI morality
In-Reply-To: <407FE4D7.8030103@cox.net>
References: <20040415191616.67831.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>
	<407EEBCF.5070007@cox.net> <20040415202453.GK1026@leitl.org>
	<407FC987.5000205@cox.net> <407FDC91.30105@paradise.net.nz>
	<407FE4D7.8030103@cox.net>
Message-ID: <407FE979.7090704@paradise.net.nz>

Ahh good stuff, I'll have to get reading.

Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> Paul Bridger wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm interested: have people on this list speculated much about the 
>> morality of a purely rational intelligence? If you value rationality, 
>> as extropians do, then surely the morality of this putative rational 
>> artificial intelligence would be of great interest - it should be the 
>> code we all live by. Rationality means slicing away all arbitrary 
>> customs, and reducing decisions to a cost-benefit analysis of 
>> forseeable consequences. This is at once no morality, and a perfect 
>> morality. Hmm...Zen-like truth, or vacuous pseudo-profundity - you 
>> decide. :)
>>
> Are you aware of Eliezer Yudkowsky's efforts on this area?
> Please see:
>    http://singinst.org/
>
> I think Eliezer started his effort on this list in about 1996, when he 
> was high-school age. It is now his life-work.  At the time, we spent a 
> fairly large amount of effort on this topic. I'm a mere dilitante, but 
> other list members published on this topic, either on the web or (in 
> at least one case) in book form.
>
> I'm assuming you are interested in the general topic of SI morality, 
> and not just the abstract topic of purely rational morality.
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Apr 16 15:18:30 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:18:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Method and apparatus for generating propulsive
	forces without the ejection of propellant 
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040415124029.01ba2a00@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20040416151830.66017.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,098,924.WKU.&OS=PN/6,098,924&RS=PN/6,098,924
> 
> This 2000 patent might be old news on this list; it reminds me of the
> fabled Lorrey Drive. (John Cramer took it somewhat seriously some
> year ago.)

Yes, this patent is for a linear version, what one might term an
'inchworm'. The results are consistent with my own calculations. The
Lorrey Drive, which is a rotary model in several versions, isn't quite
so fabled. I do have a pair of prototypes of the hydraulic version
built to operate side by side (cancelling out each others torque). I
have not, as yet, been financially fluid enough to pay for a test program.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Fri Apr 16 15:51:19 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:51:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] AGING: New Theory
In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.2.20040416122706.01d1afb0@pop.sapo.pt>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404160802520.21460-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Joao Magalhaes wrote:

> What I'm saying is that although oxidative damage to the DNA accumulates
> with age in some tissues, it is not proven this is a cause rather an effect
> of ageing. And the cited experiments suggest this is an effect of ageing.

Well (Van Remmen, 2003 [1]) is interesting in that free radicals seem to
to be contributing to cancer but not to ageing.  Though the standard
caveat should be added that this is research in mice and not in humans.

In this case the entire somatic mutation approach may need to be modified
such that it is only involved in cancer -- which is the cause of death
for ~30% of people.

> As for the rest of your theory, Robert, I agree with the view that changes
> in DNA over time play a role in ageing. This could even be the case in stem
> cell stocks, as suggested by Van Zant's work. Yet I have some reservations
> on the idea that only one type of DNA damage causes ageing. At a first
> glance, it just doesn't seem right. Like I wrote previously on the
> mechanisms of CR, your idea is theoretically sound but there is no direct
> evidence in support of it. Can you think of one or two experiments that can
> prove or disprove your theory?

As Aubrey pointed out to me the theory as described ignores possible
epigenetic changes.  Which in light of the difference between the
progeria gene and the W.S. gene functions may be of significant concern.
[See [2] for example when causes/symptoms of the two may be difficult
to separate.]

I'm perfectly willing to accept that stem cell depletion may play an
important role in aging -- that would sound like one needs an experiment
to measure apoptosis (human cells are very intolerant of double strand
breaks and might undergo apoptosis at a higher rate than mice) and
replacement by stem cells with age.  The recent report by (Li, 2004 [3])
suggests that you cannot separate Werner's Syndrome type aging from
a direct involvement with double strand breaks (which is what PARP
is involved in dealing with).  It sounds like we need some kind of
complex pulse-chase experiment with long-lived radioisotopes to
measure cell death and stem cell replacement rates.

Now, with regard to the double strand break problem itself -- the
problem in my mind is *where* do the breaks occur?  I think you can
get at this problem with high amplification PCR.  If you assume the
breaks are taking place at random places in the genome (but perhaps
with some bias with respect to junk DNA, regulatory DNA and expressed
DNA) then if you have enough cells and simply amplify various regions
of the genome you should be able to gather statistical evidence
with respect to where breaks are taking place and how they may
impact gene expression.  This may feedback into the actual structure
of DNA in the nucleus and the whole LAMIN/progeria/epigenetic story.

If the DSB somatic mutation theory is correct you should be able
to pull out the locations where breaks (and microdeletions) have
taken place by differences in the length of the PCR amplification
products.  Vijg's (and others) work suggests that the deletions
are taking place but to the best of my knowledge nobody has tried
to do a statistical analysis of where they occur directly.

Finally, one needs mutant mice knockouts in at least the W.S.
gene as well as the Artemis gene (perhaps heterozygous) to see
if that impacts the frequency of microdeletions significantly.

Robert
--------
Refs.

1. Van Remmen H, Ikeno Y, Hamilton M, Pahlavani M, Wolf N, Thorpe SR,
Alderson NL, Baynes JW, Epstein CJ, Huang TT, Nelson J, Strong R, Richardson A.
Physiol Genomics. 2003 Dec 16;16(1):29-37.
Life-long reduction in MnSOD activity results in increased DNA damage and
higher incidence of cancer but does not accelerate aging. mutations in atypical Werner's syndrome.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14679299

2. Chen L, Lee L, Kudlow BA, Dos Santos HG, Sletvold O, Shafeghati Y,
Botha EG, Garg A, Hanson NB, Martin GM, Mian IS, Kennedy BK, Oshima J.
LMNA mutations in atypical Werner's syndrome.
Lancet. 2003 Aug 9;362(9382):440-5
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12927431

3. Li B, Navarro S, Kasahara N, Comai L.
J Biol Chem. 2004 Apr 2;279(14):13659-67. Epub 2004 Jan 20.
Identification and biochemical characterization of a Werner's syndrome protein
complex with Ku70/80 and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase-1.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14734561



From amara at amara.com  Fri Apr 16 17:02:08 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 18:02:08 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Watching the comets, Part II
Message-ID: <p05100301bca5b55f011c@[150.146.134.133]>


Hi,

I should have said more in that last messages regarding these comets.
Visual magnitude equals 5 or 6 (depending on sky conditions) is the
cut-off between a naked eye object and an object only visible with
binoculars (or a telescope). A visual magnitude of 4 is already naked
eye. The lower (and more negative) the value, the brighter is the
object.

I didn't realize that the newly-discovered comet Bradfield is *also* a
naked eye object.

So then THREE naked eye comets visible during the next week(s) (??!)

http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html  (Nice overview page)


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

C/2004 F4 (Bradfield)

from the above page:

"A twilight comet visible to the naked eye As of April 12 this comet
was 3rd magnitude with a 30" coma and a 30' (*) tail, visible from the
southern hemisphere in evening twilight. It will brighten as it
approaches the sun but will soon be lost in it's glare.  Later in the
month it will reappear in the morning sky.  The comet will move away
from the sun, becoming higher in the morning sky each day, fading
rapidly as it does.  By May 1 it may be as faint as 6th magnitude.  As
the comet moves north it will be best viewed from mid-northern
latitudes.  Caveats: the orbit for this comet is approximate at this
time as are the predicted magnitudes.  Based on this early data John
Bortle suggests that this comet is unlikely to survive perihelion.  In
other words, it may not still be around after the third week in
April..."


(*) Note: 30' (arc minutes) = 1 Moon diameter

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

Comet C/2002 T7 (LINEAR):

A recent photo of C/2002 T7 (LINEAR) is here, from February 2004.

http://cometography.com/lcomets/2002t7.html


According to the text at Gary Kronick's page (above):

"The first observation following conjunction with the sun appears
to have been made on April 9, when Alexandre Amorim (Florianopolis, Brazil)
saw it in bright twilight using 20x80 binoculars. He gave the magnitude as
4.6 and said the coma was 6 arc minutes across (*). Such a brightness would
indicate the comet will not exceed magnitude 2 when at its brightest in
mid-May, but time will tell."


(*) Note: 6' (arc minutes) = 1/5 Moon diameter

1 degree = 60' (arc minutes) = 2 Moon diameters
1' (arc minute) = 60" (arc seconds)


Also a chart and some description from New Zealand
http://www.rasnz.org.nz/comets/C2002T7.htm


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


Comet C/2001 Q4 (NEAT)

Mostly a Southern Hemisphere object, but if one is near the equator...


The coma brightening appears to be following predictions, and I guess
it is a naked eye object now.

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~lovejoyt/2001q4.htm  from Australia
http://www.rasnz.org.nz/comets/C2001Q4.htm   from New Zealand


Amara

-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"Oh you damned observers, you always find extra things."
    -- Fred Hoyle [quoted by Richard Ellis at IAU Symposium 183]


From starman2100 at cableone.net  Fri Apr 16 15:49:55 2004
From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:49:55 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Physical Immortality for free!
Message-ID: <1082130595_929891@mail.cableone.net>

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040416/a47d71f2/attachment.ksh>

From amara at amara.com  Fri Apr 16 17:09:40 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 18:09:40 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nederland's Frozen Dead Guy Days
Message-ID: <p05100302bca5c2d430d8@[150.146.134.133]>

My sister alerted me to this, when she recently visited Nederland,
Colorado.

It seems that Trygve's grandfather has a celebration every year in
his honor...

"Nederland's Frozen Dead Guy Days, March 12-14, honors Grandpa Bredo
Morstoel, who died 102 years ago and resides "frozen" in a Nederland
shed, awaiting re-animation."

http://www.nederlandchamber.org/FrozenDeadGuyDays/index.html

Amara

-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"In my opinion, television validates existence." --Calvin


From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Apr 16 16:34:28 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 18:34:28 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] SI morality
In-Reply-To: <407FDC91.30105@paradise.net.nz>
References: <20040415191616.67831.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>
	<407EEBCF.5070007@cox.net> <20040415202453.GK1026@leitl.org>
	<407FC987.5000205@cox.net> <407FDC91.30105@paradise.net.nz>
Message-ID: <20040416163428.GO1026@leitl.org>

On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 01:16:01AM +1200, Paul Bridger wrote:

> Given all the negative AI scenarios played out in popular culture 
> (Matrix, Terminator etc.) I expect the most deadly obstacle to a 
> big-bang type Singularity to be fear. All scientific obstacles can be 

Fear is a very rational reaction in face of a runaway positive-feedback AI.
It's the only thing which can cook our goose for good.

> conquered by the application of our rational minds, but something that 
> cannot be conquered by rationality is...irrationality. However, I also 
> expect AI to appear in our lives slowly at first and then with 
> increasing prevalence.

No, overthreshold AI is effectively zero to hero in a very short time, at
least on the wall clock. It's a classical punctuated equilibrium scenario:
overcritical seed taking over a sea of idling hardware. We can count
ourselves lucky in that we don't know how to build that seed, yet.
 
> Like you, I strongly believe a purely rational artificial intelligence 

Unlike you, I believe a "purely rational" is remarkably meaningless epithet.
The future is intrinsically unpredictable, regardless of the amount of data
and amount of computation expedited. As such, even a god is adrift in a sea
of uncertainty. Reality is computationally undecidedable, better learn to
live with it.

> would be a benevolent one, but I wouldn't expect most people to agree 
> (simply because most people don't explore issues beyond what they see at 
> the movie theater). There's a fantastic quote on a related issue from 

I don't think this list is very representative for "most people", for better
or worse.

> Greg Egan's Diaspora: "Conquering the universe is what bacteria with 
> spaceships would do." In other words, any culture sufficiently 

Conquering the universe is what any evolutionary system would do. Unless you
can show me how evolutionary regime can be sustainably abandoned: unverse,
consider yourself conquered. Greg Egan has plenty of irrational moments.

> technologically advanced to travel interstellar distances would also 
> likely be sufficiently rationally advanced to not want to annihilate us. 

Non sequitur.

> I think a similar argument applies to any purely rational artificial 
> intelligence we manage to create.

Given that a "purely rational intelligence" is meaningless, you might want to
reconsider your analysis.
 
> I'm interested: have people on this list speculated much about the 
> morality of a purely rational intelligence? If you value rationality, as 

Yes.

> extropians do, then surely the morality of this putative rational 
> artificial intelligence would be of great interest - it should be the 

Morality is an evolutionary artifact. Even superficial analysis does not
forebode well for our sustained coexistance with a neutral AI.

> code we all live by. Rationality means slicing away all arbitrary 
> customs, and reducing decisions to a cost-benefit analysis of forseeable 
> consequences. This is at once no morality, and a perfect morality. 

This is not very different from how we're doing things now, unsurprisingly so.
Notice that "forseeable" doesn't mean much. Predictions are notoriously
difficult. Especially about the future.

> Hmm...Zen-like truth, or vacuous pseudo-profundity - you decide. :)

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040416/a6266d31/attachment.bin>

From alex at ramonsky.com  Fri Apr 16 16:45:49 2004
From: alex at ramonsky.com (Alex Ramonsky)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:45:49 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] SI morality
References: <20040415191616.67831.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>	<407EEBCF.5070007@cox.net>
	<20040415202453.GK1026@leitl.org>	<407FC987.5000205@cox.net>
	<407FDC91.30105@paradise.net.nz>	<407FE4D7.8030103@cox.net>
	<407FE979.7090704@paradise.net.nz>
Message-ID: <40800DBD.2060100@ramonsky.com>



Paul Bridger wrote:

> Ahh good stuff, I'll have to get reading.
>
> Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>
>> Paul Bridger wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'm interested: have people on this list speculated much about the 
>>> morality of a purely rational intelligence?
>>
Speculated, designed, adopted, beta tested and...running   :  )

>>> If you value rationality, as extropians do, then surely the morality 
>>> of this putative rational artificial intelligence would be of great 
>>> interest - it should be the code we all live by.
>>
Wow. Somebody's noticed. I'll start planning the party.  :  )

>>> Rationality means slicing away all arbitrary customs, and reducing 
>>> decisions to a cost-benefit
>>
(in terms of survival and success of rationality, not of you 
personally...you have to align your behavior to it in order to benefit.)

>>> analysis of forseeable consequences. This is at once no morality, 
>>> and a perfect morality. Hmm...Zen-like truth, or vacuous 
>>> pseudo-profundity - you decide. :) 
>>
It's neither and both, as you say. A bit like nature/nurture.
Oddly enough it turns out to be the ultimate altruism.. The actions one 
is forced to take turn out to be good for others by accident (or design, 
if you are that way inclined.)
It rather points the finger at other moralities' use of the word 
'altruism', and they could get embarrassed about that. It's so 
deceptively simple it rarely gets noticed, and it's (use of the networks 
involved) detectable by MRI. With it, life becomes very very easy indeed.
It does not make you happy, but at least life makes sense and you know 
what to do.
If anyone wants to see the specs, mail me offlist.
Best,
AR






From amara at amara.com  Fri Apr 16 17:51:07 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 18:51:07 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] of Dolphins, Whales, Wavelets and a Guitar
Message-ID: <p05100305bca5ca9c078a@[150.146.134.133]>

interspecies.com is a blend of audio technicians, and artists with a
research edge. It looks new-agey to me, but there is science, as well,
and I never heard of anyone else tackling the projects that they are
taking on;  I like the boundaries they are breaking.


of Many Dolphins, Whales and a Guitar:
http://www.interspecies.com/pages/dolphin%20realtime.html
(soothing and weirdly wonderful music)

and of Whales and Wavelets:
http://www.interspecies.com/images/Fischer%20Destination/FrameSet.htm
(art to the eye)

Have a good weekend.

Amara

-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"Looking up gives light, although at first it makes you dizzy."
        --Mevlana Rumi



From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Fri Apr 16 16:44:35 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:44:35 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Pre-singularity economics (was: MARS: Because it
	is hard) 
In-Reply-To: <200404161551.i3GFpb924595@tick.javien.com>
References: <200404161551.i3GFpb924595@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <40800D73.5040208@CRNano.org>

Dan Clemmensen wrote:
 > Nanotech is the design of a system with atomic-scale precision. It is not
 > restricted to designing small devices: witness your aircraft carrier.
 > Nanotech permits us to build extremely precise beam colliders with
 > which we can collide protons or deuterons, or alpha particles with
 > near-perfect efficiency.

I calculated once that Heisenberg uncertainty would prevent us from 
colliding beams with any reasonable efficiency.  I think I posted it on 
sci.nanotech, but neither Google nor discuss.foresight.org seem to have 
it archived.

Anyway, the calculation went like this:

Assume that 1 nm away from the collision, you have minimized the error 
in position and velocity as much as Heisenberg will allow.

Then calculate how much the beam will diverge in the next nanometer. 
(You have to plug in the speed of the beam.)

Then calculate the ratio of the cross section of the beam to the nuclear 
cross section for fusion.

That should tell you what percent of particles will fuse.

All other particles will be deflected randomly, making it very hard to 
recover their acceleration energy.

I think the answer was something like 1 in 10,000 attempted collisions 
will actually fuse.

Chris

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Apr 16 17:10:15 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 10:10:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nederland's Frozen Dead Guy Days
In-Reply-To: <p05100302bca5c2d430d8@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <20040416171015.91654.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:
> My sister alerted me to this, when she recently visited Nederland,
> Colorado.
> 
> It seems that Trygve's grandfather has a celebration every year in
> his honor...
> 
> "Nederland's Frozen Dead Guy Days, March 12-14, honors Grandpa Bredo
> Morstoel, who died 102 years ago and resides "frozen" in a Nederland
> shed, awaiting re-animation."
> 
> http://www.nederlandchamber.org/FrozenDeadGuyDays/index.html
> 

This is fantastically creative, and just blows out of the water all the
claims of the Kass-ites and others about how dreadfully morbid cryonics
is. I'd suggest that the Immortality Institute and other cryonics
groups get involved, host a booth to recruit cryonics clients at the festival.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From hal at finney.org  Fri Apr 16 17:25:07 2004
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 10:25:07 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Watching the comets, Part II
Message-ID: <200404161725.i3GHP7114774@finney.org>

One thing to keep in mind with comet magnitudes is that those reflect
total light emission from the entire comet (or at least the coma).
In other words, to compare it with a star of the same magnitude, you'd
have to imagine squeezing down the extended visible area of the comet
into a point, and then it would look as bright as the star.

For small comets like the 30" one listed, this won't make much difference,
but then, they don't look very comet-like.  For large, diffuse comets
it does make a big difference and the comet will be much harder to see
than its magnitude would suggest.

Hal


From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Apr 16 17:38:15 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 19:38:15 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity econimic tradeoffs (was: MARS: Because
	it is hard)
In-Reply-To: <407FC987.5000205@cox.net>
References: <20040415191616.67831.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>
	<407EEBCF.5070007@cox.net> <20040415202453.GK1026@leitl.org>
	<407FC987.5000205@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20040416173815.GV1026@leitl.org>

On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 07:54:47AM -0400, Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> A singularity driven by computer power and software does not depend on any
> particular hardware improvement such as molecular circuitry, or any 
> particular
> software technology such as AI (except in the broadest sense.)

SI is driven by superhuman, superrealtime level agents. Augmenting people has
a high threshold, and hence will be late. Way too late. Same technology will make
AI-capable hardware available much before. Software doesn't figure
prominently, because humans write software. As such it has a ceiling. Methods
are getting better, and there are synergies, but there is a distinct limit.
De novo AI has a bootstrap threshold, which means that while the hardware for
human-level AI might be already available, or will be shortly, it won't get
used until bootstrap succeeds. Bootstrap of de novo AI is computationally
very expensive, and hence will definitely require molecular circuits. Metric
moles of them. 

Anything else only becomes relevant if, for whatever reason, AI fails to
materialize. This could happen, but it would be genuinely surprising.
 
> I cannot make legitimate definite predictions, but I (and many others) 
> can try to
> make educated guesses based on trends. There is an aphorism in marketing:

The short history seems to show our guesses are perhaps not that educated as we
like them to be. 

> "the only trend you can count on is demographics." Well guess what? Moore's
> law as been as consistent as demographics over at least the last 50 years.

Moore's law is about integration density, not computer performance. As any
exponential process in a finite-resource universe, it's bound to start
suddenly deviating from reality at some point. 
 
> Incidentally, I can and have made definite predictions. I agree that I 
> cannot
> make legitimate predictions :-)  Eight years ago I predicted the singularity
> within ten years.

Many people have predicted singularity at 2000+X. Your X was unusually short,
but many others placed their bets not soon after. I put my bets somewhen in
2030..2050 range, IIRC. While this is still comfortably remote, I'd now would
rather push that date up. I would still put it under a century, though. 
 
> >Of course, if any success is high probability of "bad", and Singularity
> >research increases probability, the payback might be not that good after 
> >all.
> 
> Perhaps I misunderstand you or I was unclear.
> 
> Other unrelated research that will lead to faster and cheaper computers 
> will be
> undertaken anyway, as will software research and deployment that will 

Computers nowadays are not all-purpose, as such AI takes special
architectures. Very unlike what they teach in CS classes. It will further
take AI codes, which are otherwise useless but for adaptive robotics and
gaming.

It is a pretty specific field, with not much drive behind it.

> unintentionally
> improve the environment that may spontaneously create an SI or that may 

There is very little spontaneity about building a supercritical AI. It is a
deliberate project, with a very specific goal. Google is not going to
suddenly awaken, and start commenting on your queries.

> dramatically
> simplify the work of an intentional SI developer.

I see SI come from computational neuroscience, not CS. 
 
> I think Elizier and whoever wants to help him, or whoever wants to 
> start a parallel project
> with similar goals, should be funded. If I understand your statement, 
> you object to
> funding such project because they may awaken the demon. By contrast, I 

The golem, rather. Yes, I don't think funding supercritical AI seeds is a
good idea. I think we should regulate any research targeting an AI smarter
than a chimp (given that they haven't produced anything even remotely
naturally intelligent, it currently translates into "no regulation at all".
I agree that funding general AI for autonomous systems and adaptive robotics
is worthwhile, and potentially very high ROI.

> think the god or
> demon will wake anyway, so research to awaken the god rather than the 
> demon is a
> good idea.

Research to prove that self-consistent, sustainable friendliness is possible
is worthwhile. Unless it yields positive results, such research is extremely
dangerous, and hence irresponsible.
 
> Being of a sunny and carefree disposition, and having a "belief" that 
> reason tends to
> "good," I think that the SI will rapidly create a morality for itself 
> that I will consider
> "good." Therefore, I'm in favor of actively accelerating the advent of 
> the SI if possible.

If you believe that, I have a sweet deal on some real estate in Brooklyn.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040416/644226ef/attachment.bin>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Apr 16 18:09:12 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <407F1A14.9030106@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20040416180912.33212.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:
> Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> >
> >Agreed. Normal weapons (and time) have shown that we can even get
> someone
> >like Saddam.  Osama is harder but one can presume his days are
> numbered.
> >  
> >
> I don't think a new class of aircraft carrier, nuclear submarine,
> tank,  or fighter plane
> is going to help against Ossama Bin Laden.  These systems require 10
> or more years to develop.

And while the un-military types who pre-9/11 mocked Bush's "shoot first
and no nation building" attitude are now claiming in their
grandstanding on the 9/11 commission hearings that he didn't shoot
quick enough and deriding his nation building as 'a quagmire', they are
falling for the classic military failure of fighting the last war. 

The war we are fighting now needed the planning that many here, like
John Clark, argued for in dealing with assymetric threats: shutting
down the US government with a single envelope of anthrax needed to be
planned for and John was exactly right that we had no capability to
deal with it, and as I argued, the effective measures needed would make
todays Patriot Act look like a Miss Manners column.

In respect to this discussion, basing ten year R&D programs on today's
conflict is a logical fallacy. If we do our jobs right, muslim radicals
will not be a threat in ten years, so planning the next weapons system
on their threat is immensely unvisionary.

The real threat that today's R&D programs need to plan for is a
confrontation by the US with a nation of a billion plus individuals,
mostly unmarried childless males ready to throw their lives away on the
beaches of Taiwan, with a modern industrial infrastructure capable of
building mass quantities of ICBMs, naval and aviation assets equipped
with the most modern EW/ECM capabilities, ruled by a single political
party that tolerates no multi-partisan politics whose military
leadership accepts as a given a major war with the US within 30 years.

> >
> >Here I have questions.  There is a significant "research" part to
> >these
> >efforts.  I'm not sure that the "R" aspect will not lead to
> >something that is not useful.
> >  
> >
> Payback in 15 year or less? No. Put the money into computer and 
> nanotech. Then use nanotech to do fusion correctly. (And yes,
> nanotech is very, very relevant to fusion.)

Nanotech might be relevant to producing fusion for itself, but how does
it power my 100 inch 3D widescreen television on Superbowl Sunday???

> >>    manned spaceflight
> >>  
> >
> >Agreed.  Unless this is directed to a long term distribution of
> >humanity around the solar system so it forms a distributed
> >intelligence
> >(something I discussed at Extro III) it may be relatively useless.
> >  
> >
> SI and nanotech will yield this as a result before a "traditional 
> program could bear fruit.

I see this as nano-santa wishfullness.

> >
> >This part I am not clear about.  Alternative energy such
> >as wind power seems to be working.  Biomass conversion
> >would also seem to be functional.  I would be interested
> >in what specific aspects of alternative energy sources
> >you find unworkable.
> >
> >  
> >
> Oil shale, oil sands, tidal, large-scale solar, beamed power, new 
> nuclear designs. None of these has a 15-year payback. replicating or 
> refining an existing design may or may not.

Energy conservation technologies, as I proved in the 1990's, can have
an ROI of as little as 9 months when they are developed to be more
maintenance free than existing tech.

Solar is quite capable of good ROIs in many rural locales. Thin film
amorphous technolgies have a cost per kwh that reaches as low as
$0.12/kwh in completely possible market size production rates. Wind is
currently sold at $0.05/kwh in various locales.

Tidal and other renewables technologies actually have an extremely
short ROI of less than 5 years because of todays low interest rates.
Renewables are so up front capital intensive that their ROI is highly
dependent upon interest rates available.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From dgc at cox.net  Fri Apr 16 18:14:56 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 14:14:56 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Pre-singularity economics
In-Reply-To: <40800D73.5040208@CRNano.org>
References: <200404161551.i3GFpb924595@tick.javien.com>
	<40800D73.5040208@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <408022A0.1040403@cox.net>

Sorry, Chris, I did not do the math. However, one in 10,000 is probably 
not too bad. The "lost"energy shows up as heat, and heat is the  basic 
intermediate output of this system. Furthermore, we can radically reduce 
the the error by shifting to larger nuclei, and shifting to fission 
rather than fusion. This in the fission scenario, nanotech wins because 
we can sort the by-products and recycle them using nanotech, thus 
recycling the radioactive waste by recycling until each atom is rendered 
into a stable isotope. Again, if nanotech is too fragile in a 
radioactive environment,we use nanotech to build and rebuild bulk 
chemical separation systems.

Chris Phoenix wrote:

> Dan Clemmensen wrote:
> > Nanotech is the design of a system with atomic-scale precision. It 
> is not
> > restricted to designing small devices: witness your aircraft carrier.
> > Nanotech permits us to build extremely precise beam colliders with
> > which we can collide protons or deuterons, or alpha particles with
> > near-perfect efficiency.
>
> I calculated once that Heisenberg uncertainty would prevent us from 
> colliding beams with any reasonable efficiency.  I think I posted it 
> on sci.nanotech, but neither Google nor discuss.foresight.org seem to 
> have it archived.
>
> Anyway, the calculation went like this:
>
> Assume that 1 nm away from the collision, you have minimized the error 
> in position and velocity as much as Heisenberg will allow.
>
> Then calculate how much the beam will diverge in the next nanometer. 
> (You have to plug in the speed of the beam.)
>
> Then calculate the ratio of the cross section of the beam to the 
> nuclear cross section for fusion.
>
> That should tell you what percent of particles will fuse.
>
> All other particles will be deflected randomly, making it very hard to 
> recover their acceleration energy.
>
> I think the answer was something like 1 in 10,000 attempted collisions 
> will actually fuse.
>
> Chris
>



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Apr 16 18:33:03 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity econimic tradeoffs (was: MARS: Because
	it is hard)
In-Reply-To: <20040416173815.GV1026@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20040416183303.88742.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 07:54:47AM -0400, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
> > I cannot make legitimate definite predictions, but I (and many
> others) 
> > can try to
> > make educated guesses based on trends. There is an aphorism in
> marketing:
> 
> The short history seems to show our guesses are perhaps not that
> educated as we like them to be. 

Yes, they are much more wishful.

> 
> > "the only trend you can count on is demographics." Well guess what?
> Moore's
> > law as been as consistent as demographics over at least the last 50
> years.
> 
> Moore's law is about integration density, not computer performance.
> As any exponential process in a finite-resource universe, it's
> bound to start suddenly deviating from reality at some point. 

Quite so. But is the exponential process representative of anything of
any actual utility to the user, or is it just wasted by low quality
software writers, resulting in few perceived changes in computer
performance by the end user? 

Sure, we can process more data, but we are finding that more and more
of the data we process turns out to be crap and Window(tm) dressing.
The biggest beneficiaries of Moore's Law seem to be spammers and
pornographers, who are todays equivalent of the 1980's Apple hippie
wasting his time making fractals rather than writing nobel prize
winning dissertations.

>  
> > Incidentally, I can and have made definite predictions. I agree
> > that I cannot make legitimate predictions :-)  Eight years ago I
> > predicted the singularity within ten years.
> 
> Many people have predicted singularity at 2000+X. Your X was
> unusually short, but many others placed their bets not soon after.
> I put my bets somewhen in 2030..2050 range, IIRC. While this is
> still comfortably remote, I'd now would rather push that date up.
> I would still put it under a century, though. 

I agree. The more we learn, the more we learn how difficult the things
we propose are. I once predicted singularity between 2025 and 2035. I
now push that out to 2040-2060, but only if we avoid destroying
ourselves in the American Crusade or the US-Sino War of 2020.

If the Crusade gets back to our shores in any major way, expect a
revival of Christianity and luddism here, with a possible statutory
interregnum on transhumanist technologies that will bode ill for the
coming US-China confrontation, as China will have no compunctions about
creating the Borg as they see fit.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From vanvidum at msn.com  Fri Apr 16 19:53:01 2004
From: vanvidum at msn.com (Paul carbone)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 19:53:01 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] SI morality
Message-ID: <BAY3-F17U7a0xtAEHLB00029661@hotmail.com>






>>>Paul Bridger wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'm interested: have people on this list speculated much about the 
>>>>morality of a purely rational intelligence?

While it appears thus far that being rational in thought and deed is 
effective and important, is it really rational to attempt to be completely 
rational?




From sjvans at ameritech.net  Fri Apr 16 20:04:11 2004
From: sjvans at ameritech.net (Stephen J. Van Sickle)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 15:04:11 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nederland's Frozen Dead Guy Days
In-Reply-To: <20040416171015.91654.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040416171015.91654.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1082145850.1042.85.camel@Renfield>

On Fri, 2004-04-16 at 12:10, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> I'd suggest that the Immortality Institute and other cryonics
> groups get involved, host a booth to recruit cryonics clients at the festival.

Yep, in the one place in the United States where they made cryonics
*illegal* (The grandfather was, well, grandfathered).  The festival is
mocking the guy.  Real receptive crowd.

Cryonet has been arguing this for weeks.  I hope it doesn't bleed over
here.



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Apr 16 21:01:39 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 14:01:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nederland's Frozen Dead Guy Days
In-Reply-To: <1082145850.1042.85.camel@Renfield>
Message-ID: <20040416210139.41839.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>


--- "Stephen J. Van Sickle" <sjvans at ameritech.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-04-16 at 12:10, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> > I'd suggest that the Immortality Institute and other cryonics
> > groups get involved, host a booth to recruit cryonics clients at
> the festival.
> 
> Yep, in the one place in the United States where they made cryonics
> *illegal* (The grandfather was, well, grandfathered).  The festival
> is mocking the guy.  Real receptive crowd.
> 
> Cryonet has been arguing this for weeks.  I hope it doesn't bleed
> over here.

I'd suggest we not take ourselves so seriously and get into the spirit.
If Trygve Bauge has given the festival his blessing, then I think the
rest of us should, too. It's evident from the fact that a local radio
station got a nice new shed for the guy, and the fellow Trygve
contracted to maintain his dry ice actually refers to and treats his
client like he actually is under suspension and not just a frozen dead
guy, it's evident that there is openness to the concept. Heck 70% of
the town supports the suspension and voted out of office the board that
passed the bad ordinance.

People need to learn that others will start taking you seriously when
you show you are entirely capable of mocking yourself.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Apr 16 21:03:00 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 14:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SI morality
In-Reply-To: <BAY3-F17U7a0xtAEHLB00029661@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20040416210300.55528.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Paul carbone <vanvidum at msn.com> wrote: 
> >>>Paul Bridger wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>I'm interested: have people on this list speculated much about
> >>>>the morality of a purely rational intelligence?
> 
> While it appears thus far that being rational in thought and deed is 
> effective and important, is it really rational to attempt to be
> completely rational?

Only if you have a reason....

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Apr 16 21:25:09 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 14:25:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Happy B-Day David McFadzean
Message-ID: <20040416212509.60031.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>

Thanks to that marvelous invention, Orkut, I now know that David's
birthday is the day after tax day (everyone say Happy Happy), which led
me to wonder how many list members give him presents as tax
write-offs... ;)

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Apr 16 22:30:30 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 15:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ECO: Global warming will not start ice age..
Message-ID: <20040416223030.5444.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994888

In support of my arguments a few months ago, several scientists have
come out to blast assertions by a recent Pentagon report, as well as a
soon to be released movie, that claims that global warming will trigger
an ice age within a few years.

Scientists stirred to ridicule ice age claims 
 
  
19:00 15 April 04 
  
NewScientist.com news service 
  
Climate scientists have been stirred to ridicule claims in an upcoming
Hollywood blockbuster that global warming could trigger a new ice age,
a scenario also put forward in a controversial report to the US
military.

The $125-million epic, The Day After Tomorrow, opens worldwide in May.
It will show Manhattan frozen solid after the warm ocean current known
as the Gulf Stream shuts down.

The movie's release will come soon after a report to the US Department
of Defense (DoD) in February predicting that such a shutdown could put
the northern hemisphere into a deep freeze and trigger global famine
within 15 years.

But in the journal Science on Thursday, Andrew Weaver of the University
of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada, surveys the current research
and concludes "it is safe to say that global warming will not lead to
the onset of a new ice age".


Salty water 


The DoD's doomsday scenario, which is very similar to that in the film,
was drawn up by Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall of the San
Francisco-based Global Business Network. Neither is a climate
scientist.

The scenario suggests that as global warming melts Arctic ice packs,
the North Atlantic will become less salty. This would shut down a
global ocean circulation system that is driven by dense, salty water
falling to the bottom of the north Atlantic and that ultimately
produces the Gulf Stream.

This much is respectable scientific theory, and some researchers
believe it could happen for real in 100 years or so. But the
film-makers and DoD authors go further.

They say it could happen very soon. And that if it did, the northern
hemisphere would cool so much that that ice sheets would start to grow,
creating a catastrophic new ice age.

This is too much even for sympathetic climatologists. Stefan Rahmstorf
of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, whose
own models say the Gulf Stream could shut down within a century, told
New Scientist: "The DoD scenario is extreme and highly unlikely."


Achilles heel 


And Wallace Broecker of Columbia University, New York, US, who has
warned for two decades that the Atlantic circulation is "the Achilles
heel of our climate system", seriously questions both the speed and
severity of the changes proposed.

In a letter to Science, he accuses the DoD authors of making
exaggerated claims that "only intensify the existing polarisation over
global warming". He adds: "What is needed is not more words but rather
a means to shut down CO2 emissions." Such action could avert any Gulf
Stream shutdown in the next 100 years.

Schwartz defends his scenario, saying that while it is "not the most
likely scenario, it is plausible, and would challenge US national
security in ways that should be considered immediately".

Weaver notes that the movie's budget "would fund my entire research
group for my entire life, 10 times over". That might even allow him to
discover which scenarios are most plausible.

But there are no sour grapes. "I will be one of the first to see the
movie.," he says. "It'll be the Towering Inferno of climate - extremely
entertaining." It will not confuse the public, he thinks, but it will
not help them understand climate science either.
 
  
Fred Pearce
 


=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Fri Apr 16 22:40:38 2004
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 15:40:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Self replication again (was MARS: Because it is
	hard)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404150337350.15382-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040416224038.84503.qmail@web60001.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Alan Eliasen wrote:
> 
> > ...A longer accelerator may be more expensive 
> >to build, (anything kilometers long probably gets 
> >expensive) but the power requirements are reduced. 
                   [snip]
 
> But *not* if you have either a nanofactory or
> self-replicating nanobots to produce the accelerator

> parts.

Again with the nano.  

Okay, look, bio nano is here now, fully functioning
self-rep with 100% closure, but humans are just barely
embarked on elucidating the details of how this works,
towards the end of developing "mature" bioengineering
capabilities.  Inserting a gene for HGH into E. coli
is to bioengineering what a caveman with a rock is to
modern industrial engineering.  Nevertheless, it's a
start.   

Nano--as in MNT-- is even more primitive.  Mostly
theory--good theory, I'll grant, fun theory-- but
nevertheless theory of the most primitive sort.  As to
engineering capabilities,... so close to zero at this
point that well, speaking honestly, it's non-existent.
 Don't get me wrong.  I'm not puttin' it down.  GO
NANO!! 

For mega-project enabling, the real key is improved
productivity.  When you say that something is overly
expensive, you're really saying that productivity is
overly low. 

For a long time I was hooked on the idea of self-rep
as the holy grail of ultra-productivity.  But recently
the Foresight people have stepped back from
self-rep--I think as a way of stuffing the grey goo
evil genie back in the bottle.  They've declared that
MNT can still deliver sans self-rep.  I thought it
over, and I agree.  Which also helped me to step back
from my own somewhat-rigid devotion to self-rep, and
to see self-rep as a "best case", an "upper bound", a
"theoretical ideal" in the overall range of values for
industrial productivity: caveman with rock at one end,
robot n builds robot n+1 at the other.  Everything in
between--all "real world" industrial
production--involves some mix of human and machine
input.  Even the purest of self-rep requires that the
"seed" be designed and built by an evolved (as
distinguished from "designed") bio-intelligence--ie
humans (on this planet anyway).

The lesson learned then, is that one can pursue
quantum leaps in productivity by applying the
principle of self-rep ***REALISTICALLY***: seek, but
obsess not re closure.  I am reminded of Robert's
words:  a factory which builds factories.  That's the
ticket.

Which brings me to my point.  Nano schmano.  Factories
we can build right now.  Nanofactories we cannot. 
NanoSanta lies beyond the Veil of Maya.  MacroSanta
can be assembled today, off the shelf.

What's more, about a year ago I stumbled upon THE
crucial missing piece, the key to implementation, and 
now my meglamoniacal plan is aborning.  Grand Poobah
of the Galactic Imperium has a pleasant ring to it,
but then I've long been fond of Emperor of the
Universe.  It has poetry.  Oligarch is  really cool,
too.  Anyway, I guess I can leave those decisions for
later.

Supplicants, acolytes, and apostles take a number.    
  

Bwaah, hah hah.

Best, Jeff Davis

           "I thought I was taller."*
                           Milton Berle

* Uncle Milty raises his stogey as if to take a puff,
then jabs his forehead with the chewed-on end.  And
says,...



	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From sjvans at ameritech.net  Fri Apr 16 22:49:16 2004
From: sjvans at ameritech.net (Stephen J. Van Sickle)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:49:16 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nederland's Frozen Dead Guy Days
In-Reply-To: <20040416210139.41839.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040416210139.41839.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1082155756.1042.90.camel@Renfield>

On Fri, 2004-04-16 at 16:01, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> People need to learn that others will start taking you seriously when
> you show you are entirely capable of mocking yourself.

Oh, I'm quite capable of mocking myself.  In fact, I insisted on a
"Cryonics Humor" section to the Alcor web page.  I just don't feel a
burning need to assist other's mockery...that is just being pathetic for
attention.

Incidentally, if anyone has some cryonics humor that we missed on the
website

 http://alcor.org/Links/index.html

let's hear it.  Mike is quite right about not taking oneself too
seriously.




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Fri Apr 16 23:31:34 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Self replication again (was MARS: Because it is
	hard)
In-Reply-To: <20040416224038.84503.qmail@web60001.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404161601310.1591-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Jeff Davis wrote:

> Okay, look, bio nano is here now, fully functioning
> self-rep with 100% closure, but humans are just barely
> embarked on elucidating the details of how this works,

I think this is a *LOT* further along than you think
Jeff.  We've got 100+ bacterial genomes done.  We've
got databases like Biocyc & Ecocyc documenting the
complete biochemistry of organisms.  We've got PDB (the
protein structural database) growing by thousands of structures
each year.  It is moving *very* fast.

> towards the end of developing "mature" bioengineering
> capabilities.  Inserting a gene for HGH into E. coli
> is to bioengineering what a caveman with a rock is to
> modern industrial engineering.  Nevertheless, it's a
> start.

Oh no -- I'm reasonably certain I know how to do whole
genome engineering and the technology is available *now*.
There are at least two or three other groups working on
this as well.

> Nano--as in MNT-- is even more primitive.  Mostly
> theory--good theory, I'll grant, fun theory-- but
> nevertheless theory of the most primitive sort.  As to
> engineering capabilities,... so close to zero at this
> point that well, speaking honestly, it's non-existent.

Actually the primitive requirements for MNT are picking
up steam -- they just haven't really gotten into the
mode where they are operating in parallel yet.

> For a long time I was hooked on the idea of self-rep
> as the holy grail of ultra-productivity.  But recently
> the Foresight people have stepped back from
> self-rep--I think as a way of stuffing the grey goo
> evil genie back in the bottle.

I think it is a combination of things.  But a primary
component is also the concept that a special purpose factory
can do things faster than a general purpose factory.
This is in part due to Josh Hall's paper a couple of
years ago as to how fast a nanofactory might operate.

We have had this figured out in car factories for a
couple of decades -- one doesn't try to make a welding
robot do painting and one doesn't try to make a painting
robot do welding.  Things that are general purpose may
not be able to operate as fast as things that are special
purpose.

> Which brings me to my point.  Nano schmano.  Factories
> we can build right now.  Nanofactories we cannot.
> NanoSanta lies beyond the Veil of Maya.  MacroSanta
> can be assembled today, off the shelf.

This is true.  It was one of the major points contained
in [1] (which is 22 years old now).  Robert Freitas has
updated the entire set of ideas involved in self-replication
in [2].

The unanswered question is *what* can we build between
factories and nanofactories?  And then further can we
make it work on the moon (where one has to deal with
more radiation and temperature extremes)?  [The Spirit and
Opportunity adventure seem to suggest that there is a lot that
can be done if one invests enough in making it work.]

Robert

1. Advanced Automation for Space Missions (NTIS, 1982).
http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/

2. Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines (Landes Bioscience, 2004, in press).
http://www.MolecularAssembler.com/KSRM.htm



From paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz  Fri Apr 16 23:58:56 2004
From: paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz (Paul Bridger)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 11:58:56 +1200
Subject: [extropy-chat] SI morality
In-Reply-To: <BAY3-F17U7a0xtAEHLB00029661@hotmail.com>
References: <BAY3-F17U7a0xtAEHLB00029661@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <40807340.7070005@paradise.net.nz>


Paul carbone wrote:

>
>>>> Paul Bridger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm interested: have people on this list speculated much about the 
>>>>> morality of a purely rational intelligence?
>>>>
>
> While it appears thus far that being rational in thought and deed is 
> effective and important, is it really rational to attempt to be 
> completely rational?
>
I don't understand how attempting to be "completely rational" could be 
anything other than a rational choice. Rationality is self-affirming - 
if your core value is rationality (as opposed to faith) then clearly 
being completely rational is better than being incompletely rational. Of 
course, most humans don't want to be rational, because part of their 
arbitrariness is to value their arbitrariness.
Being arbitrary and being rational are two internally consistent states.


From paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz  Sat Apr 17 01:18:35 2004
From: paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz (Paul Bridger)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 13:18:35 +1200
Subject: [extropy-chat] SI morality
In-Reply-To: <20040416163428.GO1026@leitl.org>
References: <20040415191616.67831.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>
	<407EEBCF.5070007@cox.net> <20040415202453.GK1026@leitl.org>
	<407FC987.5000205@cox.net> <407FDC91.30105@paradise.net.nz>
	<20040416163428.GO1026@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <408085EB.8040801@paradise.net.nz>



Eugen Leitl wrote:

>>conquered by the application of our rational minds, but something that 
>>cannot be conquered by rationality is...irrationality. However, I also 
>>expect AI to appear in our lives slowly at first and then with 
>>increasing prevalence.
>>    
>>
>
>No, overthreshold AI is effectively zero to hero in a very short time, at
>least on the wall clock. It's a classical punctuated equilibrium scenario:
>overcritical seed taking over a sea of idling hardware. We can count
>ourselves lucky in that we don't know how to build that seed, yet.
> 
>  
>
Yep, by definition a relentlessly self-improving AI (I take it 
self-improvement is the threshold you mention) is going to quickly 
increase in power. However, for me being "overthreshold" is not a 
critical property of AI. I am merely claiming that subthreshold AI will 
enter our lives gradually - the point being that this is an effective 
(though incidental) way to get around the problem of public fear.
At first people will have autonomous vacuum cleaners, then they will 
talk to their cars, then they will have conscious robotic pets and 
then...poof!...everyone will be kneeling in subservience to the first 
overthreshold AI before being consumed by nanomachines for fuel. :)

>>Like you, I strongly believe a purely rational artificial intelligence 
>>    
>>
>
>Unlike you, I believe a "purely rational" is remarkably meaningless epithet.
>The future is intrinsically unpredictable, regardless of the amount of data
>and amount of computation expedited. As such, even a god is adrift in a sea
>of uncertainty. Reality is computationally undecidedable, better learn to
>live with it.
>
>  
>
By purely rational I do not mean omniscient. The only reason I used the 
"purely" intensifier is to distinguish from human rationality, which is 
incomplete at best.
Rationality does not imply being able to predict the future, it's just 
the opposite of faith. A rational decision is one based on evidence from 
the real world, faith is believing stuff for arbitrary/non-existent reasons.

>>would be a benevolent one, but I wouldn't expect most people to agree 
>>(simply because most people don't explore issues beyond what they see at 
>>the movie theater). There's a fantastic quote on a related issue from 
>>    
>>
>
>I don't think this list is very representative for "most people", for better
>or worse.
>
>  
>
Of course I would never claim that this list comprises people who 
observe life with a bowl of popcorn at their sides. That is obvious. 
When I say "most people" I mean "most people", not "most people on this 
list". Sorry for not being clear (I'm not being sarcastic, I realise 
there are two readings of my statement).

>>Greg Egan's Diaspora: "Conquering the universe is what bacteria with 
>>spaceships would do." In other words, any culture sufficiently 
>>    
>>
>
>Conquering the universe is what any evolutionary system would do. Unless you
>can show me how evolutionary regime can be sustainably abandoned: unverse,
>consider yourself conquered. Greg Egan has plenty of irrational moments.
>  
>
The universe is a big place. Big enough that there is effectively zero 
competition for elbow room and natural resources. As such there is no 
reason for anything other than peaceful contact with an alien species. 
On the other hand, I suppose one race might be keen on turning the our 
galaxy into a big computer for some very good reason I can't imagine. 
Perhaps I'm just thinking too small.
I consider exponential-order behaviour (which conquering the universe 
would require) to be...not irrational, but obviously dangerous and 
therefore to be avoided.

>>extropians do, then surely the morality of this putative rational 
>>artificial intelligence would be of great interest - it should be the 
>>    
>>
>
>Morality is an evolutionary artifact. Even superficial analysis does not
>forebode well for our sustained coexistance with a neutral AI.
>  
>
That depends on what you consider a "neutral" AI to value. If it values 
growth or power and nothing else, then clearly we are doomed to the 
extent we cannot help it grow.
The important question is: given a self-improving AI, will that AI 
change its values and what will they be?
Well obviously such an AI will not change its core imperatives, since 
that behaviour would contradict its core imperatives.
What exactly do you mean by a "neutral" AI? One that sees humans as 
irrelevant?

>>code we all live by. Rationality means slicing away all arbitrary 
>>customs, and reducing decisions to a cost-benefit analysis of forseeable 
>>consequences. This is at once no morality, and a perfect morality. 
>>    
>>
>
>This is not very different from how we're doing things now, unsurprisingly so.
>Notice that "forseeable" doesn't mean much. Predictions are notoriously
>difficult. Especially about the future.
>  
>
It depends what you mean by "we". If world leaders fall into "we" then I 
would strongly disagree.
Some important politicians direct world events and research priorities 
based on faith. The examples are too obvious to mention.

Paul.


From reason at longevitymeme.org  Sat Apr 17 07:46:18 2004
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:46:18 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] California stem cell initiative progress
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNAEDCEIAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>

The California Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative has garnered more
than 1,000,000 signatures. They seem confident of making it onto the
November ballot, which raises interesting possibilities given the timing of
the presidential election and the issues in question:

http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000086.php

The efficiency in signature gathering is a sign of money and good
organization behind the initiative, as well as public sentiment on the
issue, no doubt.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sat Apr 17 12:39:52 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 05:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Adventure
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404170531080.18121-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


For those of you on the list who are old enough to
remember or have played Adventure, wikipedia has
an entry on it -- warning: spoilers may be involved.

For those of you who never played Adventure it might
be viewed as an interesting form of chess.  There
were puzzles that one had to figure out and one had
to create a mental map of the cave (similar to how
one would project moves in checkers or chess).

There are certainly more advanced forms of these games
that have developed over the last 20 years but some
of us have nostalgic memories for the original.

Robert

URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossal_Cave_Adventure



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sat Apr 17 13:52:22 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 06:52:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SI morality
In-Reply-To: <40807340.7070005@paradise.net.nz>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404170620080.18746-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, Paul Bridger wrote:

> Paul carbone wrote:
> >>>> Paul Bridger wrote:
> >>>>> I'm interested: have people on this list speculated much about the
> >>>>> morality of a purely rational intelligence?
> >
> > While it appears thus far that being rational in thought and deed is
> > effective and important, is it really rational to attempt to be
> > completely rational?
> >
> I don't understand how attempting to be "completely rational" could be
> anything other than a rational choice. Rationality is self-affirming -
> if your core value is rationality (as opposed to faith) then clearly
> being completely rational is better than being incompletely rational.

We have been over parts of this previously.  Rational does not equal moral.
I was raked over the coals for suggesting the proper response to 911 was
to nuke Afghanistan.  Rational (I was perhaps exercising my Vulcan side)
but not moral.  Net result 2+ years later we are *still* looking for
Osama at who knows what cost.

The problem I have with "complete rationality" is that it is easily
used to justify terrorist actions (bombers, land grabs, etc.).

An argument may be completely rational -- but may be based on false
premises.  For example a premise that Jews were granted *all*
of Israel/Palestine (by God).  That is the problem we need to deal
with here -- *when* are rational arguments based on invalid premises.
Secondarily when one is dealing with invalid premises how does one assert
that?  It seems like it is reasonable for anyone to assert that my premises
are as valid as yours unless one can claim higher ground with respect
to the superiority of the validation of ones premises.  If one is
dealing with people uneducated in these methods of evaluation then
such asserations are useless.

If I claim that gravity is a physical force that draws things
towards greater masses I can drop a tennis ball and demonstrate
it for anyone to see.  If I claim that Christ could manage to
turn 5 loaves of bread into enough to feed 5000 people (John 6:1-15)
without invoking nanotechnology I am on somewhat swampy ground.
(And even with nanotechnology I may be somewhat doubtful.)
But most people are willing to accept the premises based on
belief or faith rather than on evidence that the premises are
valid.

That is a fundamental problem for extropianism.

With regard to Paul's question.  You have to view the fact that
rational argument, behavior, etc. has a greater value than the
inverse.  If one believes from a rational perspective that
greater amounts of information, understanding, insight, etc.
is reasonable (and an extropic perspective) then the pursuit of
rational thought (and proven assertions on which that is based)
is entirely reasonable.  If one does not believe in and support
those things then it would seem to me that one might as well
say "screw it all" and chaos is the result.  I would suggest
that lifespans are significantly shorter in a reality where
chaos prevails rather than a system of rational thought and
well supported assertions.

Robert




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sat Apr 17 14:12:06 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 10:12:06 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404160245530.14503-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <35042666-9079-11D8-A828-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Friday, April 16, 2004, at 06:06 am, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Harvey Newstrom, responding to my comments
> that we might be in a simulation wrote:
>
>> I disagree.  I think this argument just replaces religious words with
>> technical-sounding words.  Real rational thought seeks to explain
>> observed phenomena with the most consistent, testable, and simplest
>> hypothesis that correctly predicts the phenomena. [snip]
>
> First there are reasons to run ancestor sims[....]

> Second, by defininition proving one is in a sim is very very
> hard.

> Third, an explanation does *NOT* have to be the "simplest".

None of these are good reasons to believe in a theory.  They are 
reasons that crackpots use to believe in untestable theories.  First, 
there are reasons they would want the theories to occur.  Second, it is 
hard to disprove their theories (or prove them).  Third, they reject 
Occam's razor and invent more complicated explanations that add no 
value to the simpler obvious explanations.

An explanations does not have to be the simplest, *IF* the more 
complicated theory works better.  But it *DOES* have to be the simplest 
if the more complicated theory does not add any predictive or 
explanative value. You can call this "science" all you want, but if you 
do not proceed from observed phenomena, explain future observations 
better, test your results, and have falsifiability/testability, it is 
NOT a science.

I don't mind you playing these "what if" games if you want, but don't 
claim to be using the scientific method when you are doing something 
else.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec 
Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Apr 17 15:15:14 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 08:15:14 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Adventure
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404170531080.18121-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <010201c4248e$c8ffa690$6501a8c0@SHELLY>



> Robert J. Bradbury

> 
> For those of you on the list who are old enough to
> remember or have played Adventure, wikipedia has
> an entry on it -- warning: spoilers may be involved.
> 
> For those of you who never played Adventure it might
> be viewed as an interesting form of chess...
> 
> Robert
> 
> URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossal_Cave_Adventure


Cool!  This does cause me to fondly recall the
bad old days of the HP3000, (donated to the college 
because it was out of date at the time) and later the
*awesome* PDP-11/750.  Several hardcore computer 
geeks discovered fantasy/adventure games on the 
machine and were never heard from again.

They are likely multimillionaires today.

spike



From extropy at unreasonable.com  Sat Apr 17 16:37:01 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 12:37:01 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
In-Reply-To: <35042666-9079-11D8-A828-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404160245530.14503-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040417115325.026a8008@mail.comcast.net>

Harvey wrote:

>None of these are good reasons to believe in a theory.  They are reasons 
>that crackpots use to believe in untestable theories.  First, there are 
>reasons they would want the theories to occur.  Second, it is hard to 
>disprove their theories (or prove them).  Third, they reject Occam's razor 
>and invent more complicated explanations that add no value to the simpler 
>obvious explanations.
>
>An explanations does not have to be the simplest, *IF* the more 
>complicated theory works better.  But it *DOES* have to be the simplest if 
>the more complicated theory does not add any predictive or explanative 
>value. You can call this "science" all you want, but if you do not proceed 
>from observed phenomena, explain future observations better, test your 
>results, and have falsifiability/testability, it is NOT a science.

Part of the question is why do we do "science." I see two goals, that 
appear compatible with each other, but need not be:

1. Understand reality.
2. Predict effects, in order to
         (a) believe we understand reality and
         (b) materially enhance our lives.

The scientific method, including Occam's razor, is focused on #2. The more 
reliably our predictions match subsequent observations, the more confidence 
we have that we have hit on the truth of the matter.

This, however, does not mean that our theory is true, even if it has 
complete predictive value.

Perhaps the pyramids *were* constructed by space visitors, the world is a 
simulation, or your cat is actually a time-travelling graduate student 
researching its thesis. As a practical matter, we discard these theories, 
not because they are false but because they are undecidable and unnecessary.


-- David Lubkin.




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sat Apr 17 17:09:36 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 13:09:36 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] SI morality
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404170620080.18746-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <013DAB6C-9092-11D8-9723-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Saturday, April 17, 2004, at 09:52 am, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> I was raked over the coals for suggesting the proper response to 911 
> was
> to nuke Afghanistan.  Rational (I was perhaps exercising my Vulcan 
> side)
> but not moral.  Net result 2+ years later we are *still* looking for
> Osama at who knows what cost.

You keep reminding us of this, but I have yet to see any explanation as 
to how nuking Afghanistan could be rational.  How is killing a 
magnitude greater number of innocent people in response to our smaller 
number of innocent people rational?  How is a massive nuke sweep of a 
country any more likely to hit Osama, since we don't know where he is 
or when he left Afghanistan?  How will the aftermath of a nuclear war 
going to cost less in lives, dollars, or effort?  I don't see how your 
"solution" solves anything better than the current "solution".  Both 
seem to be a waste of lives with no strong likelihood of success.

> The problem I have with "complete rationality" is that it is easily
> used to justify terrorist actions (bombers, land grabs, etc.).

It seems like you are doing just that.  Killing innocents to get what 
you want is similar to what terrorists advocate.

> An argument may be completely rational -- but may be based on false
> premises.  For example a premise that Jews were granted *all*
> of Israel/Palestine (by God).

There is no way that a false premise accepted on faith with no proof, 
evidence, logic, or testability can be called rational.  You are using 
an odd definition of the word.  An example of a rational false premise 
would be if several scientific experiments seem to indicate a fact 
which is then accepted, and later we find out that all the experiments 
were flawed.  It was rational to believe in them at the time, even 
though they turned out to be wrong.

>   That is the problem we need to deal
> with here -- *when* are rational arguments based on invalid premises.

When the premise is unfalsifiable, untestable, or unobservable.  This 
is an invalid premise.  It may turn out to be true, but it was not 
valid to assume so.  You may roll dice to pick lottery numbers, and 
those numbers just might win, but it would be invalid to assume this as 
a premise that they will win.  Whether they win or not has no bearing 
on whether the original premise was sound, or whether the process was 
rational.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec 
Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>



From hal at finney.org  Sat Apr 17 17:33:44 2004
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 10:33:44 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] The nature of SI
Message-ID: <200404171733.i3HHXi720666@finney.org>

Super-intelligence (SI) is a confusing and somewhat paradoxical
notion.  At one extreme it may be seen as just a sped-up form of human
intelligence.  At the other it may be seen as an almost mystical ability
to know without limits.  Here's what I think.

Our understanding of the nature of intelligence is bound up in our
understanding of humanity.  We are the smartest things around, although
our computers are beginning to exceed our abilities in some limited areas.
But human minds are not good models for abstract intelligence.  We have
many specific limitations and adaptations for the needs of living and
survival.  And we are bound up in an evolutionary framework which gives
us goals and drives that guide and control our intelligent abilities.

Our minds, while versatile, are actually quite limited in their operation.
We can't easily think of more than one or two abstract thoughts at a time.
We can't hold more than 10 or so distinct items in short term memory.
It's very difficult to hold a large and complex structure in the mind
and keep track of it.  A SI should be able to transcend these kinds of
limitations, with sufficient resources.  It can think of many things
at once, and can work on large numbers of data items simultaneously.
Making these architectural changes would be a step towards SI without
even needing to speed up or otherwise enhance the mind.

Another property of human minds is that they are designed to solve the
problems of survival and reproduction.  Everything about life is oriented
towards these goals.  It often seems to us that these concepts are an
inherent part of intelligence, that an SI would automatically share these
goals.  But I don't think that is the case.  Intelligence has nothing
to do with survival per se.  It's perfectly reasonable to imagine an AI
which is uninterested in survival or reproduction but just works in some
specific problem domain.  Expanding the domain does not automatically
add a survival goal.

Stripped of these human-oriented features, intelligence is a general and
abstract ability to solve problems.  I think of intelligence as a black
box where you put in a goal and information about the world, and out
comes a recommended course of action.  In this context, an organism or
actor, whether biological or artificial, is more than its intelligence.
It's somewhat misleading to speak of an SI as an entity.  The intelligence
itself is just part of the picture.  There also need to be other parts:
a perceptual part to gain information about the world; a goal-supplying
part to say what to try to accomplish; and an acting part to make use
of the outputs from the intelligence.

All of these parts are present in humans and other organisms.  We have
perceptual organs to learn about the world, plus instinctive knowledge
built into our genome; we have goals supplied to us by evolution; and
we can act by moving and speaking, to implement the plans and decisions
our brains create.  The same thing will have to be true of an SI: it will
have to be given knowledge and perception about the world; it will need
goals that it should try to accomplish; and it needs to have a way to
communicate or act on the results of its thinking.

This is all uncontroversial except perhaps for the goals.  There have been
some suggestions that an SI will decide its own goals.  This doesn't make
sense in my model.  Intelligence is a problem solving capability, and it
needs a problem to solve.  That problem is defined by the goals and the
data.  Intelligence by itself cannot come up with either.

In this conception, what is the nature of intelligence?  In abstract,
intelligent analysis is a matter of search and optimization.  The
intelligence searches through an abstract space of possible actions,
uses data about the world to determine consequences, and ranks those
consequences against its goals to determine the optimal action.
All problems of intelligence can be put into this abstract framework.

However, this does not imply that the actual implementation of an SI is
a simple brute force search.  This is merely a statement of the nature
of the problem faced by the SI.  The actual tactics used to solve it
are almost infinitely variable, and its ability to discover, choose and
exploit advanced techniques for improving the search are what make the SI
"super".

I find the model employed by Juergen Schmidhuber described at
http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/oops.html to be helpful in understanding how
a general problem solver can work.  The idea is that the SI has a strategy
for solving the problem, which can be thought of as a specific program
algorithm.  It includes problem-specific knowledge, heuristic tricks for
shortening the search, all kinds of tricks and clever insights to make
the analysis go faster or be more accurate.  But the SI doesn't just sit
there and think about the problem using this strategy.  In addition,
it also spends time looking for better strategies, better heuristics,
better ways to short-circuit some of the analysis, new patterns and
insights that it can exploit.  A certain percentage of its resources
are devoted to the straight problem solving, and another percentage are
spent trying to improve the problem solving technique.

But (and this is the key insight, which goes back at least to Levin in
the 1970s), this secondary effort of improving its strategy is itself
a matter of problem solving: of search and optimization.  And that's
exactly what the SI is designed to do.  It can use the same abstract
techniques to solve this problem that it uses to solve the base problem.
It could use a relatively simple approach of trying out alterations
to the strategy for the base search; or it can have more complex and
effective methods to improve its base strategy.

So we have the base strategy to solve the problem; and we have the second
order strategy to find ways to improve the base strategy.  It should be
clear that it does not stop there.  There is a third order problem of
improving the second order one, and so on, forever.  Levin showed, for
a specific class of problems, a simple method for the AI to distribute
its resources over the base problem and all the higher order problems,
such that in the end the problem would be solved within a constant factor
of as fast as if the theoretically optimal strategy had been used from
the beginning.  Schmidhuber and his students have extended Levin's
results to a larger class of problems.

I believe that this general strategy, of solving problems, and solving
meta-problems and meta-meta-problems and so on, is the right way to
think of the operation of an SI.  And it looks to me like the work
in this field of "universal search" is pretty close to laying out the
blueprint for the optimal architecture of an SI, an engine which will
solve any problem as fast as possible given its resources.

Now, in practice, we will want to give any AI a head start, by building in
world-knowledge and our best guesses at optimal strategies at each level.
We have billions of years of knowledge coded in our genes, and millennia
of cultural progress in our minds, and we don't want to make the SI
have to re-discover all this from scratch.  But once we have done our
part, the SI will operate based on the universal search architecture.
It will self-improve, revise and optimize its strategies at each level
of analysis.

This picture of the nature of SI lies somewhere between the extremes
I described above.  It is far more than a human intelligence, as it has
virtually unlimited ability to revise its strategies at any level.  But it
is far less than omniscient, as it constantly works with approximations
and divides up its resources among the many simultaneous problems it is
trying to solve.

Hal


From samantha at objectent.com  Sat Apr 17 19:10:21 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 12:10:21 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wearable Camera Etiquette
In-Reply-To: <AB2F0E96-8F33-11D8-B2E0-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
References: <AB2F0E96-8F33-11D8-B2E0-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <DF4162E8-90A2-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>


On Apr 15, 2004, at 4:21 PM, Harvey Newstrom wrote:

>> Should some people's desire to limit the capabilities of other people 
>> to what they are comfortable with be honored?   I don't see why or 
>> how doing so could be compatible with freedom to enhance one's own 
>> life and capabilities.
>
> I understand that you don't want people imposing their limitations on 
> you.  But can you see how your vision of the future imposes new 
> limitations on others?  They currently can hold private conversations 
> while at dinner or in their car.  Your future has people using 
> technology to listen in on these conversations not intended to them, 
> and limits people's capabilities to talk normally.  You will stop them 
> from doing what they are already capable of now.  They also will 
> resent this new limitation and fight against it.  Their will claim 
> that you are limiting them, just as you claim the reverse would be 
> limiting you.  I suspect that society will (at least initially) side 
> with the majority/older capabilities over minority/new capabilities.
>

I have already agreed that some new principles of etiquette, possibly 
backed by certain laws, would be necessary.  But this is a far cry from 
removing even the availability of such extended capabilities.


> What I am saying is that we need a way to introduce the new 
> capabilities without destroying people's already existing 
> capabilities.
>
>> We need to enable people to augment their abilities AND enable people 
>> to have some level of privacy and control over what is done with 
>> their information trail.
>
> I think we are pretty much agreed in our goals.  There will be a lot 
> of friction as technology becomes more imposing on others.
>

We also probably agree (?) that it is a slippery slope as to what is 
and is not "imposing on others" when the abilities of the players are 
in flux.

- samantha



From samantha at objectent.com  Sat Apr 17 19:16:13 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 12:16:13 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Wearable Camera Etiquette
In-Reply-To: <407F1D97.45230520@sasktel.net>
References: <AB2F0E96-8F33-11D8-B2E0-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
	<407F1D97.45230520@sasktel.net>
Message-ID: <B1666608-90A3-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>


On Apr 15, 2004, at 4:41 PM, Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc. wrote:

> Some sort of ID  has to incorporated into or broadcast from each 
> individual
> /thing and
> the recording devices must seek out a "tag"  for these pieces of 
> information
> or they will record
> the data faithfully, but simply modify the regurgitation with privacy
> protocals.  Authorities may have an override on these protocals for law
> enforcement uses.
>

In which case "the authorities" have an unprecedented level of 
surveillance and control over the people.   This is of course the 
danger.

> Consider the ways already used to selectively filter unauthorized use 
> of
> information by simply reducing the quality or resolution of the reused
> output.
>
> -The blurring of television  images of faces within otherwise normal 
> video.
> -The garbeling of voices from whom privacy is requested
> -The introduction of low resolution/scrambling  into GPS signals for
> civilian use.
>
> Yes you will be able to record everything, but you may not be able to 
> show
> it in any usable fashion
> without permission tags from those whose information you recorded.
>

Why should we not consider the blurring of our senses and even 
limitations of our computational abilities as an attack?


> Printed matter with RFID tags in the book binding  would refuse to 
> convert
> to text or be re-broadcast in a readable fashion unless the recording 
> system
> sensed a permission for free use
> signal............etc
>

In short all power would be in the hands of those who would set limits? 
  As Lessig points out, current technology gives unprecedented power 
beyond the reach of normal legislative process to those who would 
enshrine in code and hardware there own, mostly financial, interests in 
controlling information and uses of information far beyond what the 
people and their representatives have agreed is reasonable and far 
beyond what is actually conducive to maximal well-being.

- samantha



From samantha at objectent.com  Sat Apr 17 19:20:17 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 12:20:17 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity econimic tradeoffs (was: MARS:
	Because	it is hard)
In-Reply-To: <407FC987.5000205@cox.net>
References: <20040415191616.67831.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>
	<407EEBCF.5070007@cox.net> <20040415202453.GK1026@leitl.org>
	<407FC987.5000205@cox.net>
Message-ID: <42F54517-90A4-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>


On Apr 16, 2004, at 4:54 AM, Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> A singularity driven by computer power and software does not depend on 
> any
> particular hardware improvement such as molecular circuitry, or any 
> particular
> software technology such as AI (except in the broadest sense.)
>
>

Please clarify how increased computer power and (supposedly non-AI) 
software will lead to a singularity.

- s



From samantha at objectent.com  Sat Apr 17 19:37:13 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 12:37:13 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] SI morality
In-Reply-To: <407FDC91.30105@paradise.net.nz>
References: <20040415191616.67831.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>
	<407EEBCF.5070007@cox.net> <20040415202453.GK1026@leitl.org>
	<407FC987.5000205@cox.net> <407FDC91.30105@paradise.net.nz>
Message-ID: <A077D798-90A6-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>


On Apr 16, 2004, at 6:16 AM, Paul Bridger wrote:

> Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>
>> Being of a sunny and carefree disposition, and having a "belief" that 
>> reason tends to
>> "good," I think that the SI will rapidly create a morality for itself 
>> that I will consider
>> "good." Therefore, I'm in favor of actively accelerating the advent 
>> of the SI if possible.
>
>
> Given all the negative AI scenarios played out in popular culture 
> (Matrix, Terminator etc.) I expect the most deadly obstacle to a 
> big-bang type Singularity to be fear. All scientific obstacles can be 
> conquered by the application of our rational minds, but something that 
> cannot be conquered by rationality is...irrationality. However, I also 
> expect AI to appear in our lives slowly at first and then with 
> increasing prevalence.

Well yes, but.. it would be highly irrational not to be fearful of the 
advent of a super-intelligence utterly beyond one's understanding that 
very will may not be in the least beholden to our continued existence 
and well-being.   Fear of singularity cannot be put down to simple 
irrationality.


>
> Like you, I strongly believe a purely rational artificial intelligence 
> would be a benevolent one, but I wouldn't expect most people to agree 
> (simply because most people don't explore issues beyond what they see 
> at the movie theater). There's a fantastic quote on a related issue 
> from Greg Egan's Diaspora: "Conquering the universe is what bacteria 
> with spaceships would do." In other words, any culture sufficiently 
> technologically advanced to travel interstellar distances would also 
> likely be sufficiently rationally advanced to not want to annihilate 
> us. I think a similar argument applies to any purely rational 
> artificial intelligence we manage to create.
>

Your expectation re a SAI being benevolent or even rational in the 
sense you conceive of the word is hardly compelling enough to be the 
only reasonable possibility to right-thinking folks.  If you believe it 
is simply rational to not only not annihilate alien and/or inferior 
intelligences but to go out of one's way to not incidentally harm them 
then please make your rational air-tight case.   It would be a great 
relief to many.

> I'm interested: have people on this list speculated much about the 
> morality of a purely rational intelligence? If you value rationality, 
> as extropians do, then surely the morality of this putative rational 
> artificial intelligence would be of great interest - it should be the 
> code we all live by. Rationality means slicing away all arbitrary 
> customs, and reducing decisions to a cost-benefit analysis of 
> forseeable consequences. This is at once no morality, and a perfect 
> morality. Hmm...Zen-like truth, or vacuous pseudo-profundity - you 
> decide. :)
>

It certainly is of great interest.  Since you claim to know what fully 
rational morality would be like and lead to, why don't you lead off?  I 
think there is rather more to it than reducing everything to a 
cost-benefit analysis.    In a purely cost-benefit analysis, what 
benefit would an SAI derive from the preservation of humanity if 
humanity seems to be inhabiting and laying claim to resources it 
requires for its own goals?

- s



From samantha at objectent.com  Sat Apr 17 20:11:22 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 13:11:22 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity econimic tradeoffs (was: MARS: Because
	it is hard)
In-Reply-To: <20040416173815.GV1026@leitl.org>
References: <20040415191616.67831.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>
	<407EEBCF.5070007@cox.net> <20040415202453.GK1026@leitl.org>
	<407FC987.5000205@cox.net> <20040416173815.GV1026@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <6542C0CA-90AB-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>


On Apr 16, 2004, at 10:38 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 07:54:47AM -0400, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>
>> A singularity driven by computer power and software does not depend 
>> on any
>> particular hardware improvement such as molecular circuitry, or any
>> particular
>> software technology such as AI (except in the broadest sense.)
>
> SI is driven by superhuman, superrealtime level agents. Augmenting 
> people has
> a high threshold, and hence will be late.

Please go into what you see as "high threshold" and "late" here.  
Humans start the game with considerable advantages that it will take a 
good bit of hardware, code and self-improvement or artificial evolution 
to duplicate and exceed.  Given the right seed conditions of sufficient 
hardware, code and self-improvement tools this will of course happen 
extremely quickly.

>  Way too late. Same technology will make
> AI-capable hardware available much before.

Hardware alone will never produce an AI.  Hardware + proper training 
environment + software + time are needed.

>  Software doesn't figure
> prominently, because humans write software.

I don't see this claim.  Software is not just computer code hacked 
together by humans.   Self modifying and computer-generated software is 
still software.    Are you distinguishing software from code?

>  As such it has a ceiling. Methods
> are getting better, and there are synergies, but there is a distinct 
> limit.

No, there isn't unless you believe that only humans (and unaugmented 
ones at that) write software.

> De novo AI has a bootstrap threshold, which means that while the 
> hardware for
> human-level AI might be already available, or will be shortly, it 
> won't get
> used until bootstrap succeeds. Bootstrap of de novo AI is 
> computationally
> very expensive, and hence will definitely require molecular circuits. 
> Metric
> moles of them.
>

This is a lot of assumption about the possible paths to SAI.

>
> Computers nowadays are not all-purpose, as such AI takes special
> architectures. Very unlike what they teach in CS classes. It will 
> further
> take AI codes, which are otherwise useless but for adaptive robotics 
> and
> gaming.
>

Interesting as the gaming world is quite strong and actually often 
drives significant consumer  hardware improvements.   I shudder to 
contemplate what AI characters designed for the standard violent 
adventure type games would become if they ran on sufficient hardware 
and got to the bootstrap threshold.    Military battle sim entities 
would yield roughly equivalent nightmares.
>

> There is very little spontaneity about building a supercritical AI. It 
> is a
> deliberate project, with a very specific goal. Google is not going to
> suddenly awaken, and start commenting on your queries.
>

It would not be that difficult to mate a current generation Eliza to 
query history and analysis tools thus producing fairly interesting 
comments on queries.    Add in a bit better psychological modeling and 
it would not be difficult to frighten most evolved chimps.

-s



From dgc at cox.net  Sat Apr 17 20:32:05 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 16:32:05 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity econimic tradeoffs
In-Reply-To: <42F54517-90A4-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
References: <20040415191616.67831.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>	<407EEBCF.5070007@cox.net>
	<20040415202453.GK1026@leitl.org>	<407FC987.5000205@cox.net>
	<42F54517-90A4-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <40819445.7020901@cox.net>

Samantha Atkins wrote:

>
> On Apr 16, 2004, at 4:54 AM, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>
>> A singularity driven by computer power and software does not depend 
>> on any
>> particular hardware improvement such as molecular circuitry, or any 
>> particular
>> software technology such as AI (except in the broadest sense.)
>>
>>
> Please clarify how increased computer power and (supposedly non-AI) 
> software will lead to a singularity.
>
OK!

In my opinion, the Singularity will result from any fast-feedback 
process that uses computers to enhance "technological creativity." 
"Technological creativity"is that quality or set of qualities that 
results in new advances in technology. For purposes of this discussion, 
we can restrict ourselves to computer and related technologies.

In my favorite scenario, the initial SI is a collaboration between one 
or more humans and a large computing resource. The humans supply the 
creativity and high-level pattern recognition, while the computers 
supply brute-force stuff like web searching, peep-hole optimizations, 
etc. If the collaboration can be made tight enough, the system as a 
whole will operate as fast as the human(s) can make high-level 
decisions. Such a system would permit computer implementation under 
human guidance. Presumably, the first thing the inventors of such a 
system will use the system for is improvements to the system. As soon as 
the system is implementing things as fast as the human(s) can make 
decisions, the next problem that the inventors will turn to is 
increasing the scope of sub-problems that can be solved by the computers 
rather than the human, using whatever software tools come to hand: there 
is no particular need for an overall theory of AI here. since the humans 
are still handling that part. The humans become more and more 
productive. As they add more and more tools to the computer toolbox, the 
humans operate at progressively higher levels of abstraction. They use 
the system to optimize the system. If necessary, they use the system to 
design new hardware to add to the system. Eventually, the humans are 
operating at such a high level of abstraction that the non-human part of 
the system reaches and then exceeds the current human level of technical 
creativity.

The richer the available computer resource the faster this will go. My 
gut feeling is that the currently-available computer resources are 
already rich enough that the process no linger needs new hardware to go 
to completion, and can therefore go to completion in less than one week, 
at which point all connected computes form a single fully=optimized 
system, which has also designed and sent fabrication and purchase orders 
for the next-generation hardware and for the equipment needed to produce 
nanotech.




From samantha at objectent.com  Sat Apr 17 20:44:12 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 13:44:12 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] SI morality
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404170620080.18746-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404170620080.18746-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <FB8E7F74-90AF-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>


On Apr 17, 2004, at 6:52 AM, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>
> We have been over parts of this previously.  Rational does not equal 
> moral.
> I was raked over the coals for suggesting the proper response to 911 
> was
> to nuke Afghanistan.  Rational (I was perhaps exercising my Vulcan 
> side)
> but not moral.  Net result 2+ years later we are *still* looking for
> Osama at who knows what cost.
>

Well, I don't want to wait back into the swamp.  However, to be 
rational the proposed action  would have had to be consistent with the 
hierarchy of all your values and likely to lead to the best outcome 
over your predictive range.   As you did not successfully show this I 
don't see how a claim of the proposal act being hyper-rational is 
justified.

-s



From exi-info at extropy.org  Sat Apr 17 21:07:44 2004
From: exi-info at extropy.org (Extropy Institute)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 17:07:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy Institute Newsletter
Message-ID: <1011260346828.1011086851128.2058.231658@scheduler>

Extropy Institute Newsletter
SPRING NEWS! (04-17-04)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Greetings!

Spring is here, flowers are blooming, birds chirping and 
Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn have been 
lighting up the night sky.<br>

<br>Back home at ExI central, we are compiling 
material from the VP Summit I, which will appear in next 
week's newletter, along with the PreCautionary Principle 
and draft Summit Statement.<br>

VP Summit II, to be held this summer, is considering 
changing the focus from debating an array of religous 
keynotes to focusing on world futurist scenarios in
addressing transhumanism and "caution."  Send us your 
thoughts on this.<br>

By the say, Sumit I is <b><u>still</b></u> going on!  
You can participate by using the quick link in this 
newsletter.

ExI is pleased to announce its new Board of 
Director's member <b>Jose cordeiro. </b><br>

<br>We also welcome ExI's three new advisors:<br>

<b>Mark Miller</b> - Long-time ExI Board Member  
will now advise ExI's Board;<br>

<b>Harvey Newstrom</b> - ExI's Future Technologies 
Security Advisor; and<br>

<b>Philippe Van Nedervelde </b>- ExI's Interactive 
Cybermedia 
Advisor<br>
<br>
And a warm welcome to ExI's newest 
<b>Benefactor</b>, Thomas D. Brown.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
New Board Member,<br>New Advisors,<br>Spain's Ciber at RT Conference
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* Welcome Jose Cordilero<br>New Director
* <b>Ciber at RT Conference! Challenges for a Ubiquitous Identity</b>
* Conference focus




Welcome Jose Cordilero<br>New Director
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Transhumanist with extropic know-how, Jos? Luis is 
ExI's new director.

Cordeiro was born in Caracas, Venezuela, in 
1962. He studied at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, USA, where he
received his Bachelor of Science and Master of Science 
degrees in Mechanical Engineering, with a minor in 
Economics and Languages.

During his studies, Jose worked with the United Nations 
Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) in Vienna, 
Austria. His thesis consisted of a dynamic modeling for 
NASA's "Freedom" Space Station.

Jose Cordeiro >> http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=moua6zn6.rmatvyn6.iozkwwn6.yb4rxun6.2058&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.extropy.org%2Fdirectors.htm

<b>Ciber at RT Conference! Challenges for a Ubiquitous Identity</b>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Ciber at RT Conference 2004 is in Bilbao, Spain, April 
24-30.  Presenters include Roy 
Ascott, Natasha Vita-More, Mark Amerika, Derrick de 
Kerckhove, Kelly Dobson, Kjell Yngve Petersen...

"The International Festival of New Technologies, Art 
and Communication: Ciber at RT Bilbao 2004 is preparing 
its next edition which, under the heading "Challenges 
for a Ubiquitous Identity," will take place in the city of 
Bilbao from Friday 23rd to Friday 30th of April.
  Since the beginning, in 1995, the main aim of this 
festival has been to deal with the essential elements in 
artistic production through digital media and to reflect 
on the changes society undergoes as a consequence of 
the presence of technological resources, processes and 
mediations.  Ciber at RT Bilbao 2004 is a multidisciplinary 
festival, as 
it becomes obvious from the great variety of 
programmed activities in its various sections: Net-Art, 
Off-line Multimedia Projects, International Conference, 
Computer Animation, Minimisation and Interactive 
Installations."

VENUES FOR THE FESTIVAL <br>
Ciberart Bilbao 2004 will be held at two venues: the 
Festival at the Mercado del Ensanche and the 
Conference at the <b>Palacio Euskalduna 
Jauregia</b><br> 

EXHIBITION - A total of 237 works will be on show at 
the Mercado del Ensanche<br>

"<b>Ciber at RT Bilbao 2004</b> will bring new proposals 
and sections with the aim of updating the contents in 
keeping with the artistic-scientific development.  
   Our objectives are: to be a world-wide showcase for 
the art of the new media; to take on the multiplicity of 
media, systems, tools, medium, forms and modes, which 
are present in the context of contemporary creation 
and research all over the world; to serve as a 
springboard for the sectors involved; to provide a 
hedge for the creators who apply the new technologies 
in their works and to help to spread and show their 
works of art."

Speakers, Papers, Performances & Exhibitions: >> http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=moua6zn6.rmatvyn6.dob65zn6.yb4rxun6.2058&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ciberart-bilbao.net%2Fponencias_en.htm

Conference focus
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The International Conference of the Festival 
Ciber at RT Bilbao 2004 is a biannual event and is a 
space for debate and reflection.

"Under the name Challenges for a Ubiquitous Identity it 
will focus on the challenges posed by cyberculture and 
the new artistic practices that use digital technologies 
and emerging technologies for their development. These 
technologies and the discussions, which they generate, 
have a wide-reaching social repercussion."











~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Quick Links...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Extropy Institute >> http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=moua6zn6.rmatvyn6.nlr4mzn6.yb4rxun6.2058&p=http%3A%2F%2Fnew.extropy.org%2F
Membership >> http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=moua6zn6.rmatvyn6.hozkwwn6.yb4rxun6.2058&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.extropy.org%2Fmembership.htm
How do I join ExI? >> http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=moua6zn6.rmatvyn6.hozkwwn6.yb4rxun6.2058&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.extropy.org%2Fmembership.htm
VP Sumit I - still going on! >> http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=moua6zn6.rmatvyn6.plr4mzn6.yb4rxun6.2058&p=http%3A%2F%2Fsummit.extropy.org
What about the Extropy email list? >> http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=moua6zn6.rmatvyn6.lozkwwn6.yb4rxun6.2058&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.extropy.org%2Femaillists.htm
Ciber at RT Conference - Spain >> http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=moua6zn6.rmatvyn6.cob65zn6.yb4rxun6.2058&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ciberart-bilbao.net%2F
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
email: info at extropy.org
voice: 512 263-2749
web: http://www.extropy.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Extropy Institute | 10709 Pointe View Drive | Austin | TX | 78738

This email was sent to extropy-chat at extropy.org,
by Extropy Institute.

Update your profile
http://ccprod.roving.com/roving/d.jsp?p=oo&t=1011260346828&m=1011086851128&ea=extropy-chat%40extropy.org 

Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe(TM)
http://ccprod.roving.com/roving/d.jsp?p=un&t=1011260346828&m=1011086851128&ea=extropy-chat%40extropy.org

Privacy Policy:
http://ccprod.roving.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp 

Powered by
Constant Contact(R)
www.constantcontact.com













-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040417/7187f660/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Sat Apr 17 22:56:59 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 15:56:59 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Ciber@RT Conference - Bilbao, Spain 4.24-30.04
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040417154359.01dc2150@mail.earthlink.net>

Friends,

The Ciber at RT Conference 2004 is in Bilbao, Spain, April 
24-30.   "Challenges for a Ubiquitous Identity" is a high-tech, 
multi-faceted conference on the electronic arts and culture.  It takes 
place in Bilbao, spain (where the fabulous Frank Gehry Guggenheim Museum is 
located). http://www.guggenheim.org/

Presenters include Roy Ascott, Natasha Vita-More, Mark Amerika, Derrick de 
Kerckhove, Kelly Dobson, Kjell Yngve Petersen...

http://www.ciberart-bilbao.net/home_en.htm

"The International Festival of New Technologies, Art and Communication: 
Ciber at RT Bilbao 2004 is preparing its next edition which, under the heading 
"Challenges for a Ubiquitous Identity," will take place in the city of 
Bilbao from Friday 23rd to Friday 30th of April. Since the beginning, in 
1995, the main aim of this festival has been to deal with the essential 
elements in artistic production through digital media and to reflect on the 
changes society undergoes as a consequence of the presence of technological 
resources, processes and mediations. Ciber at RT Bilbao 2004 is a 
multidisciplinary festival, as it becomes obvious from the great variety of 
programmed activities in its various sections: Net-Art, Off-line Multimedia 
Projects, International Conference, Computer Animation, Minimisation and 
Interactive Installations."

VENUES FOR THE FESTIVAL - Ciberart Bilbao 2004 will be held at two venues:

- Festival at the Mercado del Ensanche and the
- Conference at the Palacio Euskalduna Jauregia

EXHIBITION - A total of 237 works will be on show at the Mercado del Ensanche

"Ciber at RT Bilbao 2004 will bring new proposals and sections with the aim of 
updating the contents in keeping with the artistic-scientific development. 
Our objectives are: to be a world-wide showcase for the art of the new 
media; to take on the multiplicity of media, systems, tools, medium, forms 
and modes, which are present in the context of contemporary creation and 
research all over the world; to serve as a springboard for the sectors 
involved; to provide a hedge for the creators who apply the new 
technologies in their works and to help to spread and show their works of 
art."

<http://www.ciberart-bilbao.net/ponencias_en.htm>Speakers, Papers, 
Performances & Exhibitions: ?

Conference focus  The International Conference of the Festival Ciber at RT 
Bilbao 2004 is a biannual event and is a space for debate and reflection.

"Under the name Challenges for a Ubiquitous Identity it will focus on the 
challenges posed by cyberculture and the new artistic practices that use 
digital technologies and emerging technologies for their development. These 
technologies and the discussions, which they generate, have a wide-reaching 
social repercussion."

Create!
Natasha


Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc

President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz
http://www.transhuman.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040417/c264ae9c/attachment.html>

From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sat Apr 17 21:42:08 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 17:42:08 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040417115325.026a8008@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <1354288A-90B8-11D8-94B3-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Saturday, April 17, 2004, at 12:37 pm, David Lubkin wrote:
> Part of the question is why do we do "science." I see two goals, that 
> appear compatible with each other, but need not be:

> This, however, does not mean that our theory is true, even if it has 
> complete predictive value.

Yes, these are two different questions.  The simulation argument might 
be true, but as yet there is no scientific reason to suspect this.  The 
hypothesis was not derived to explain observation.  There is not 
scientific (or any?) evidence for it.  It has never been (and can never 
be?) tested scientifically.  So it simply is not a scientific theory... 
even if it is true.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec 
Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>



From jpnitya at sapo.pt  Sat Apr 17 22:26:57 2004
From: jpnitya at sapo.pt (Joao Magalhaes)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 23:26:57 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] AGING: New Theory
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404160802520.21460-100000@server.aeiveos.co
 m>
References: <6.0.1.1.2.20040416122706.01d1afb0@pop.sapo.pt>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0404160802520.21460-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20040417225239.01d44430@pop.sapo.pt>

Hi!

As with all theories of ageing, my major problem is how to prove that the 
mechanism you propose is a cause rather than an effect of ageing. For 
instance, you place a lot of weight on double strand breaks (DSB) as a 
causal factor in ageing. My advice would be for you to make a list of 
proteins involved in DSB repair and the phenotype witnessed in mice or 
humans when these proteins are mutated. At the IABG10 meeting in Cambridge 
last September, Vijg gave a talk along these lines in considering DSB 
repair mechanisms as critical in ageing but I was left mostly unconvinced. 
He did not show a clear trend in mutations affecting DSB influencing 
ageing. For instance, don't p53 mutations affect DSB? What about Pms2? Both 
these mutations decrease the lifespan of mammals but don't appear to change 
ageing. Nibrin also affects DSB in humans and yet mutations in NSB1 do not 
appear to accelerate ageing--at least not to me, though Vijg has argued it 
does.

The manuscript I'm working on deals exactly with the issue of segregating 
cause and effect of ageing. Animal models, such as mice, and human 
progeroid syndromes offer the best evidence of causal mechanisms in ageing. 
My opinion is that these are the best set of observations we have for 
understanding ageing and by fitting these observations together we may be 
able to develop an holistic view of the mechanisms of ageing. I'll warn you 
when I have a final version of the manuscript but it looks good.

All the best,

Joao


Joao Magalhaes, Ph.D.

Website on Ageing: http://www.senescence.info
Reason's Triumph: http://www.jpreason.com 



From extropy at unreasonable.com  Sat Apr 17 23:12:09 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:12:09 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
In-Reply-To: <1354288A-90B8-11D8-94B3-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040417115325.026a8008@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040417185500.02828e28@mail.comcast.net>

Harvey Newstrom wrote:

>Yes, these are two different questions.  The simulation argument might be 
>true, but as yet there is no scientific reason to suspect this.  The 
>hypothesis was not derived to explain observation.  There is not 
>scientific (or any?) evidence for it.  It has never been (and can never 
>be?) tested scientifically.  So it simply is not a scientific theory... 
>even if it is true.

The sad part of the equation is that, as we see, there are all sorts of 
interesting things that could be going on that we can never confirm.

The twelve-year-old inside me, who was awed by Arisian Visualization of the 
Cosmic All, is disappointed. He still wants to be a third-stage lensman 
when he grows up though.


-- David Lubkin.




From paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz  Sat Apr 17 23:16:03 2004
From: paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz (Paul Bridger)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 11:16:03 +1200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity econimic tradeoffs
In-Reply-To: <6542C0CA-90AB-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
References: <20040415191616.67831.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>
	<407EEBCF.5070007@cox.net> <20040415202453.GK1026@leitl.org>
	<407FC987.5000205@cox.net> <20040416173815.GV1026@leitl.org>
	<6542C0CA-90AB-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <4081BAB3.6040109@paradise.net.nz>


Samantha Atkins wrote:

>>
>> Computers nowadays are not all-purpose, as such AI takes special
>> architectures. Very unlike what they teach in CS classes. It will 
>> further
>> take AI codes, which are otherwise useless but for adaptive robotics and
>> gaming.
>>
>
> Interesting as the gaming world is quite strong and actually often 
> drives significant consumer  hardware improvements.   I shudder to 
> contemplate what AI characters designed for the standard violent 
> adventure type games would become if they ran on sufficient hardware 
> and got to the bootstrap threshold.    Military battle sim entities 
> would yield roughly equivalent nightmares.
>
While it is certainly true that most game AI today is of the primitive 
kill-the-human sort, this will change as our ability to create real 
intelligence increases. Right now, game programmers are only capable of 
creating bots that run around and shoot things, or stupid but quick 
tacticians (for strategy games). If game programmers had the knowledge 
to build real AI today, they wouldn't use it for these same purposes, if 
only because that would be a waste of precious CPU time. The games of 
the future will use real AI for the things that real AI would be good 
for -- interacting with humans with a much broader spectrum of 
posibilities. Still, I suppose it will still be popular for that "broad 
spectrum" to contain conflict. :(


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Apr 17 23:36:41 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 18:36:41 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040417185500.02828e28@mail.comcast.net>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040417115325.026a8008@mail.comcast.net>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20040417185500.02828e28@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040417183404.01bce408@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 07:12 PM 4/17/2004 -0400, David Lubkin wrote:

>The twelve-year-old inside me, who was awed by Arisian Visualization of 
>the Cosmic All, is disappointed. He still wants to be a third-stage 
>lensman when he grows up though.

I might be able to help him with that; my own 12 year old Inside plans to 
be a Nexialist. Alas, it's already too late for him to be a Bright, but I 
do like to keep a Moebius strip on hand, and one of Amara's Klein bottles.

Damien Broderick 




From dgc at cox.net  Sat Apr 17 23:54:22 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:54:22 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Using Graphic controllers (was:Singularity econimic
	tradeoffs)
In-Reply-To: <4081BAB3.6040109@paradise.net.nz>
References: <20040415191616.67831.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>	<407EEBCF.5070007@cox.net>
	<20040415202453.GK1026@leitl.org>	<407FC987.5000205@cox.net>
	<20040416173815.GV1026@leitl.org>	<6542C0CA-90AB-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
	<4081BAB3.6040109@paradise.net.nz>
Message-ID: <4081C3AE.3060502@cox.net>

Paul Bridger wrote:

>
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Computers nowadays are not all-purpose, as such AI takes special
>>> architectures. Very unlike what they teach in CS classes. It will 
>>> further
>>> take AI codes, which are otherwise useless but for adaptive robotics 
>>> and
>>> gaming.
>>>
>>
>> Interesting as the gaming world is quite strong and actually often 
>> drives significant consumer  hardware improvements.   I shudder to 
>> contemplate what AI characters designed for the standard violent 
>> adventure type games would become if they ran on sufficient hardware 
>> and got to the bootstrap threshold.    Military battle sim entities 
>> would yield roughly equivalent nightmares.
>>
> While it is certainly true that most game AI today is of the primitive 
> kill-the-human sort, this will change as our ability to create real 
> intelligence increases. Right now, game programmers are only capable 
> of creating bots that run around and shoot things, or stupid but quick 
> tacticians (for strategy games). If game programmers had the knowledge 
> to build real AI today, they wouldn't use it for these same purposes, 
> if only because that would be a waste of precious CPU time. The games 
> of the future will use real AI for the things that real AI would be 
> good for -- interacting with humans with a much broader spectrum of 
> posibilities. Still, I suppose it will still be popular for that 
> "broad spectrum" to contain conflict. :(
> _______________________________________________

Another interesting point: From the point of view of raw computational 
power, the sum of all the 3D graphics cards in the world probably 
exceeds the sum of all CPUs in the world. Sure, the graphics cards are 
special-purpose, but what if you had the resources to carefully create 
algorithms that are well suited to graphics cards? basically, this 
requires that you map your problem onto the space that is easily 
addressed by graphics cards. The extremely obvious problem is graphics 
rendering (DUH!) This has actually been done: you can use graphics cards 
to run the POV-RAY backend. When you do this, a few (10?) machines with 
graphics cards can render scenes that would otherwise take hundreds of 
high-end CPUs.

Essentially all modern motherboard "chipsets" have embedded 3D graphics 
engines. This resource is basically unused most of the time in most 
machines.


From paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz  Sat Apr 17 23:55:41 2004
From: paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz (Paul Bridger)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 11:55:41 +1200
Subject: [extropy-chat] SI morality
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404170620080.18746-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404170620080.18746-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <4081C3FD.1000904@paradise.net.nz>



Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, Paul Bridger wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Paul carbone wrote:
>>    
>>
>>'t understand how attempting to be "completely rational" could be
>>anything other than a rational choice. Rationality is self-affirming -
>>if your core value is rationality (as opposed to faith) then clearly
>>being completely rational is better than being incompletely rational.
>>    
>>
>
>We have been over parts of this previously.  Rational does not equal moral.
>I was raked over the coals for suggesting the proper response to 911 was
>to nuke Afghanistan.  Rational (I was perhaps exercising my Vulcan side)
>but not moral.  Net result 2+ years later we are *still* looking for
>Osama at who knows what cost.
>
>  
>
Sorry to drag you over previously covered ground. I don't agree that 
nuking afghanistan would have been rational. It all depends what your 
goals are. If you want to reduce worldwide terrorism (the stated goal), 
then nuking Israel and Washington would have been a more rational start. 
Or, if for some reason you wanted to nuke where the terrorists actually 
came from, perhaps Saudi Arabia.
But of course, nuking anything would be profoundly irrational if you 
value survival of the human race.

My reply is also profoundly irrational, because I don't want to talk 
about politics when there are so many more interesting things to talk about.

>An argument may be completely rational -- but may be based on false
>premises.  
>  
>
True. However, to have rational reasoning based on irrational premises 
is just as useless as irrational reasoning based on...well, anything. 
Premises must also be verifiable. They must relate to direct 
observations of the world.

Paul.


From dgc at cox.net  Sat Apr 17 23:56:39 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:56:39 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040417183404.01bce408@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040417115325.026a8008@mail.comcast.net>	<5.1.0.14.2.20040417185500.02828e28@mail.comcast.net>
	<6.0.3.0.0.20040417183404.01bce408@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <4081C437.1000301@cox.net>

Damien Broderick wrote:

> At 07:12 PM 4/17/2004 -0400, David Lubkin wrote:
>
>> The twelve-year-old inside me, who was awed by Arisian Visualization 
>> of the Cosmic All, is disappointed. He still wants to be a 
>> third-stage lensman when he grows up though.
>
>
> I might be able to help him with that; my own 12 year old Inside plans 
> to be a Nexialist. Alas, it's already too late for him to be a Bright, 
> but I do like to keep a Moebius strip on hand, and one of Amara's 
> Klein bottles.
>
> Damien Broderick
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
I just ordered a Klien bottle. Did anyone else? I haven't figured out 
how to treat it as a business expense...


From paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz  Sun Apr 18 00:07:03 2004
From: paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz (Paul Bridger)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 12:07:03 +1200
Subject: [extropy-chat] SI morality
In-Reply-To: <A077D798-90A6-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
References: <20040415191616.67831.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>
	<407EEBCF.5070007@cox.net> <20040415202453.GK1026@leitl.org>
	<407FC987.5000205@cox.net> <407FDC91.30105@paradise.net.nz>
	<A077D798-90A6-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <4081C6A7.20209@paradise.net.nz>

 > Fear of singularity cannot be put down to simple irrationality.
Yes, you're quite right. I think this was what Eugen was getting at as well.
I expect the public to fear Singularity less because they've thought it 
through (irrationally or otherwise), and more because of the culture 
they've been fed.

>> Like you, I strongly believe a purely rational artificial 
>> intelligence would be a benevolent one, but I wouldn't expect most 
>> people to agree (simply because most people don't explore issues 
>> beyond what they see at the movie theater). There's a fantastic quote 
>> on a related issue from Greg Egan's Diaspora: "Conquering the 
>> universe is what bacteria with spaceships would do." In other words, 
>> any culture sufficiently technologically advanced to travel 
>> interstellar distances would also likely be sufficiently rationally 
>> advanced to not want to annihilate us. I think a similar argument 
>> applies to any purely rational artificial intelligence we manage to 
>> create.
>>
>
>
> Your expectation re a SAI being benevolent or even rational in the 
> sense you conceive of the word is hardly compelling enough to be the 
> only reasonable possibility to right-thinking folks.  If you believe 
> it is simply rational to not only not annihilate alien and/or inferior 
> intelligences but to go out of one's way to not incidentally harm them 
> then please make your rational air-tight case.   It would be a great 
> relief to many.

After reading some of "Creating Friendly AI" I realise that I need to do 
a lot more thinking (and reading) before I can "strongly believe" 
anything about rational morality again.

>> I'm interested: have people on this list speculated much about the 
>> morality of a purely rational intelligence? If you value rationality, 
>> as extropians do, then surely the morality of this putative rational 
>> artificial intelligence would be of great interest - it should be the 
>> code we all live by. Rationality means slicing away all arbitrary 
>> customs, and reducing decisions to a cost-benefit analysis of 
>> forseeable consequences. This is at once no morality, and a perfect 
>> morality. Hmm...Zen-like truth, or vacuous pseudo-profundity - you 
>> decide. :)
>>
> It certainly is of great interest.  Since you claim to know what fully 
> rational morality would be like and lead to, why don't you lead off?  
> I think there is rather more to it than reducing everything to a 
> cost-benefit analysis.    In a purely cost-benefit analysis, what 
> benefit would an SAI derive from the preservation of humanity if 
> humanity seems to be inhabiting and laying claim to resources it 
> requires for its own goals?

Maybe later, after I get my hubris back. :)

I guess my one argument for the likely outcome of friendly AI is this:
As the programmers, unless we create AI by mistake we get to specify 
what core goals the AI has. Primary goals are self-perpetuating and 
cannot be changed by goal-directed behaviour.
An obvious rebuttal to this sunny scenario is that a putative AI may 
require non-goal-directed behaviour (such as some random source-code 
shuffling - or some more plausible analogue of random mutation) in order 
to improve itself in creative new ways.

Paul


From paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz  Sun Apr 18 00:28:29 2004
From: paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz (Paul Bridger)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 12:28:29 +1200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Using Graphic controllers
In-Reply-To: <4081C3AE.3060502@cox.net>
References: <20040415191616.67831.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>
	<407EEBCF.5070007@cox.net> <20040415202453.GK1026@leitl.org>
	<407FC987.5000205@cox.net> <20040416173815.GV1026@leitl.org>
	<6542C0CA-90AB-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
	<4081BAB3.6040109@paradise.net.nz> <4081C3AE.3060502@cox.net>
Message-ID: <4081CBAD.3040509@paradise.net.nz>

Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> Another interesting point: From the point of view of raw computational 
> power, the sum of all the 3D graphics cards in the world probably 
> exceeds the sum of all CPUs in the world. Sure, the graphics cards are 
> special-purpose, but what if you had the resources to carefully create 
> algorithms that are well suited to graphics cards? basically, this 
> requires that you map your problem onto the space that is easily 
> addressed by graphics cards. The extremely obvious problem is graphics 
> rendering (DUH!) This has actually been done: you can use graphics 
> cards to run the POV-RAY backend. When you do this, a few (10?) 
> machines with graphics cards can render scenes that would otherwise 
> take hundreds of high-end CPUs.

The major problem with the unused GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) power 
is that most of it is primitive fixed-function hardware. Newer hardware 
is increasingly general purpose (I'm talking about vertex/pixel 
programs). My guess is that the number of problems that can be mapped 
into the space of fixed-function hardware is fairly limited. However, 
programmable hardware raises incredible new possibilities. The only 
thing holding back photorealistic rendering in realtime today is 
programmer skill.
A large restriction on the computation you farm off to your unused GPU 
resource is that it must be able to be computed in parallel. This is the 
reason that modern graphics cards have higher complexity than modern 
CPUS -- graphics processing is an inherently parallel process and the 
structure of the cards mirrors this. Modern graphics cards run >500MHz 
(but have high parallelism) whereas modern CPUs are upwards of 3GHz.


From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com  Sun Apr 18 00:43:33 2004
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 20:43:33 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
Message-ID: <BAY17-F34Lr2YSCXv1Q0007ea79@hotmail.com>

>From: Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net>
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
>Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:56:39 -0400
>
>Damien Broderick wrote:
>
>>
>I just ordered a Klien bottle. Did anyone else? I haven't figured out how 
>to treat it as a business expense...

If you don't mind me asking... from where did you order your Klein bottle?

BAL

_________________________________________________________________
Get rid of annoying pop-up ads with the new MSN Toolbar ? FREE! 
http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200414ave/direct/01/



From hal at finney.org  Sun Apr 18 00:48:25 2004
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 17:48:25 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
Message-ID: <200404180048.i3I0mPo22384@finney.org>

Regarding the "simulation argument", as expressed for example at Nick
Bostrom's site www.simulation-argument.com:

The simulation argument is not scientific.  It is not meant to be.
It is not falsifiable.  But that doesn't make it pointless.

The simulation argument is, as its name suggests, an argument.  That term
has a specific meaning.  It is not a theory or a hypothesis or a model.
It is not a term from science; it is a term from logic.  An argument is
a matter of logic, not science.

Science is not logic.  It is a process of observation and induction.
It sometimes uses logic, but it is not the same as logic.

The simulation argument is logic, not science.  From Nick's site:

"ABSTRACT. This paper argues that at least one of the following
propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct
before reaching a 'posthuman' stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is
extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their
evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly
living in a computer simulation."

This argument, like any argument, is based on logical reasoning.  It is
important to understand what the simulation argument says and what it
does not say.

It is entirely FALSE to claim that the simulation argument says that we
live in a simulation.  It says nothing of the sort.  What the simulation
argument does say is made very plain in the quote above.  It says that
one of the three listed cases must hold.  Now, you might or might not find
it convincing, but if you disagree, you should read Nick's very extensive
discussion to see the reasoning that he advances to support his claim.

Logic and science are different, but they are both important tools for
reaching the truth.

Hal


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Apr 18 01:03:41 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 18:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] California stem cell initiative progress
In-Reply-To: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNAEDCEIAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
Message-ID: <20040418010341.79850.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>

Sounds like excellent progress.

--- Reason <reason at longevitymeme.org> wrote:
> The California Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative has garnered
> more than 1,000,000 signatures. 

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25?
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Apr 18 01:36:51 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 11:36:51 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] California stem cell initiative progress
References: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNAEDCEIAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
Message-ID: <015101c424e5$9ff2b290$1a2d2dcb@homepc>

Reason wrote:

> The California Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative has garnered more
> than 1,000,000 signatures.

Good stuff.

> They seem confident of making it onto the
> November ballot, which raises interesting possibilities given the timing
of
> the presidential election and the issues in question:

Yes. It will be great for the progress of embryonic stem cell research
if the Californians can get behind this. It will probably bring the American
research engine online again in this pivotal area.

>
> http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000086.php
>
> The efficiency in signature gathering is a sign of money and good
> organization behind the initiative, as well as public sentiment on the
> issue, no doubt.

No doubt. The JDRF folk in the US are masters at political activism.

They put the best arguments they can find in the hands of the best
political "storm troopers". Sick children. Anti-abortion republicans
folk that are very hard to attack politically and they move forward
on multiple dimensions.

If California can come on line I think America will pull its head from
its butt in this area and we will get real progress happening again.

Personally I'd prefer to see Bush rolled as well but that's a separate
matter.  If Bush gets defeated in the US and Howard holds out in
Australia maybe I'll start looking for a green card.

Btw. The first licences for doing research on "spare" IVF embryos
have finally been granted in Australia.

This is more of a small symbolic advance than a real breakthrough
or research enabler. Politically it might be useful for Californian's
to be able to point at it as "progress" elsewhere and "oh dear America
is getting left behind again" :-)

I was worried the licence applications might get stuck in committee
effectively forever.  There are precedents for that sort of "death by
bureaucracy" in this area - again from the US.

Anyway (sorry for the rant) for those who are interested here's an
article on the Australian embryonic stem cell stuff
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/16/1082055648663.html

And here's the links to the NHMRC National Health and Medical
Research Council web site with media releases, licences etc.
http://www.health.gov.au/nhmrc/

If extropians (as individuals not under an extropian banner) and
particularly those in California really want to fire for maximum effect
in a way that will directly impact on the rate of change - helping the
"California stem cell initiative" could give a very good return on time
invested.

The key thing about embryonic stem cell research is that it is the
fast track to understanding  basic developmental biology in
humans. You (we - people) can't learn fast about human
developmental biology (what can go wrong - what can be improved
etc) by studying only mice and other animals. Its like trying to learn
about oranges by studying only apples and other fruits.

Sorry for the rant, but maybe some folks are interested.

Regards,
Brett Paatsch




From dgc at cox.net  Sun Apr 18 02:10:21 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 22:10:21 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
In-Reply-To: <BAY17-F34Lr2YSCXv1Q0007ea79@hotmail.com>
References: <BAY17-F34Lr2YSCXv1Q0007ea79@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <4081E38D.3030800@cox.net>

Brian Lee wrote:

>> From: Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net>
>> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
>> Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:56:39 -0400
>>
>> Damien Broderick wrote:
>>
>>>
>> I just ordered a Klien bottle. Did anyone else? I haven't figured out 
>> how to treat it as a business expense...
>
>
> If you don't mind me asking... from where did you order your Klein 
> bottle?

From
    http://www.kleinbottle.com/
of course!   :-)
That's the web site for Acme Klein Bottles.

I ordered it as soon as I read Amara's message. The smallest bottle and 
shipping cost $36.00, but the bottle is not the essence. Amara described 
the literature that accompanied the bottle. Rather than re-state her 
quote, I recommend you visit the web site.  The guy (Chris stoll) who 
makes these things deserves the money even if I never actually receive 
the bottle.

After I filled in the web form and sent the $36.00, I remembered my vow 
to ALWAYS use Google to try to get a better deal if possible. As far as 
I can tell, this is the only place to get one. There is a sweet story on 
the web from another customer who encountered Chris at a fair or 
something, and who had no money with her. Chris simply gave her a bottle 
and asked her to send the money later.

When my wife checked the credit card bill vie the web, she saw the 
charge to ACME Klein bottles and freaked out completely. She wanted to 
know if I had gone into business with Wyle E. Coyote.



From paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz  Sun Apr 18 02:46:44 2004
From: paul.bridger at paradise.net.nz (Paul Bridger)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 14:46:44 +1200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Leon Kass, Mystic
In-Reply-To: <20040415122752.6844.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040415122752.6844.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4081EC14.9060206@paradise.net.nz>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>I think this is a good time to start a PR campaign impugning Kass as
>some form of primitivist Nazi. Tie him to wanting a nationwide chain of
>government forced euthanasia/holocaust centers.
>  
>
A lot of you have blog-like websites. Have you considered google bombing 
him?
http://www.wordspy.com/words/Googlebombing.asp

Paul.


From bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com  Sun Apr 18 03:20:24 2004
From: bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com (Bryan Moss)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 04:20:24 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
References: <200404180048.i3I0mPo22384@finney.org>
Message-ID: <002201c424f4$73cc5e50$0600000a@Bryan>

Hal Finney wrote:

> Regarding the "simulation argument", as expressed for example at Nick
> Bostrom's site www.simulation-argument.com:
>
> The simulation argument is not scientific.  It is not meant to be.
> It is not falsifiable.  But that doesn't make it pointless.
>
> The simulation argument is, as its name suggests, an argument.  That term
> has a specific meaning.  It is not a theory or a hypothesis or a model.
> It is not a term from science; it is a term from logic.  An argument is
> a matter of logic, not science.
>
> [...]

The simulation argument is basically an argument for scepticism from
observation-based premises, which makes it incoherent.  Let's say we're
arguing about the simulation argument; the argument makes a claim about
physical reality - that it can be simulated - that claim is testable; I
argue by coming up with ways to test the argument, you argue by shooting
them down with ever more elaborate scenarios where the simulation counters
my attempts to prove or disprove that I'm in a simulation; eventually we're
lead to the conclusion that I cannot trust any of my senses because the
demon...  sorry, the *simulation* can always find a way to fool me.  At this
point, however, we also have to throw out all your simulation stuff
(computers, posthumans, etc) because that was based on observation too.  It
could be God fooling us, demons, whatever; we can't privilege one above the
other because we can no longer trust what we observe.

Let's call that the Strong Simulation Argument - where you tell me I can't
know if I'm in a simulation - and we reject that because it undermines its
own premises.  That leaves us with a Weak Simulation Argument, where we have
to find some cut off point for how hard you can argue it.  I.e., you can
tell me these simulations are complete simulations of the laws of physics,
maybe with some parameters (if there are parameters) adjusted, and no
intervention and I can argue, say, that the laws of physics are such that we
can't simulate the Universe within the Universe, so you're wrong.  Now, if
you want, we can (very carefully) expand this argument.  We could say, for
example, that the simulation is classical and when we do quantum experiments
some sort of quantum computer is used to get the results.  I think, at the
very least, to avoid falling into incoherence the fidelity of the simulation
you argue for would have to be such that the arguments for it being a
simulation hold *within* the simulation.  So, for example, you can't argue
for a simulation where memories of performing some experiment are implanted
in me because that also undermines the premises of your argument (that
simulations are possible, etc).  I'm fairly confident all this keeps us
within the realm of verification by experiment (and, personally, I'm
doubtful there's a Weak Simulation Argument scenario worth discussing).

BM



From support at imminst.org  Sun Apr 18 05:20:32 2004
From: support at imminst.org (support at imminst.org)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 23:20:32 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] ImmInst Update - Becoming More Self-Aware
Message-ID: <40821020528f9@imminst.org>

Immortality Institute ~ For Infinite Lifespans 
********************* 
Ending the Blight of Involuntary Death 
Basic Members: 1414 - Full Members: 78

 
Chat: Becoming More Self-Aware
*********************  
Richard W. Samson, Consultant, author and director of 
EraNova, an organization with the mission to help people 
become more self-aware for increased effectiveness, joins 
ImmInst for an online chat. 
Chat Time: Sunday Apr 18 @ 8 PM Eastern 
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=63&t=3350&s=


Dr. Francis Crick - No Afterlife or Soul 
*********************
Nobel Prize winning scientist, Dr. Francis Crick comments 
that is unlikely there is life after death because there is no 
soul independent of the body. 
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=69&t=3462&hl=&s=


Dr. Leon Kass - SageCrossroads Talk 
*********************
Kass warns, "immortalists and the various other people 
who, it seems to me, have a very shallow view of this 
matter [life extension]."
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=69&t=3463


Which religious identity do you prefer? 
*********************  
Poll: http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=56&t=700&s=


Facing Cryonics 
********************* 
Total: 30 - http://www.imminst.org/facing_cryonics 


Support ImmInst 
********************* 
http://www.imminst.org/become_imminst_fullmember 





To be removed from all of our mailing lists, click here:
http://www.imminst.org/archive/mailinglists/mailinglists.php?p=mlist&rem=extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org


From eugen at leitl.org  Sun Apr 18 09:36:31 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 11:36:31 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] E-mail lists choke on spam (fwd from
	rah@shipwright.com)
Message-ID: <20040418093631.GT1026@leitl.org>

----- Forwarded message from "R. A. Hettinga" <rah at shipwright.com> -----

From: "R. A. Hettinga" <rah at shipwright.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 22:41:12 -0400
To: cypherpunks at al-qaeda.net
Subject: E-mail lists choke on spam

<http://news.com.com/2102-1038_3-5190826.html?tag=st.util.print>

CNET News
     http://www.news.com/


 E-mail lists choke on spam

 By  John Borland
 Staff Writer, CNET News.com
 http://news.com.com/2100-1038-5190826.html

 Story last modified April 13, 2004, 1:36 PM PDT

For close to half a decade, entertainment executives and copyright-averse
college students have debated the future of technology side by side on the
"Pho" e-mail list. Now that forum is under siege.

Membership is falling, even though subscription requests are rising. In
large part that's because so many e-mail addresses are choked with spam, or
have fallen incommunicado behind bulk mail filters, and have had to be
eliminated.

Recently, whole companies--including Time Warner and CNET Networks,
publisher of News.com--have periodically started bouncing the list's
messages. That's not only frustrated subscribers who miss out on their
daily dose of digital music dish; network administrators say they sometimes
have to clear their servers of thousands of returned messages a day.

-----

What's new:
 E-mail lists, long one of the most popular and useful online tools, are
increasingly in danger of becoming collateral damage in the Net's war on
unsolicited bulk mail.

Bottom line: Many e-mail groups are responding by changing their format to
Web-based bulletin boards or augmenting their discussions with RSS feeds, a
popular content-distribution format used by bloggers and news sites.

---------


 Pho isn't alone. E-mail lists in general, long one of the most popular and
useful online tools, are increasingly in danger of becoming collateral
damage in the Net's war on unsolicited bulk mail.

"Our cures for some of these diseases are boomeranging and killing us,"
said Jim Griffin, chief executive officer of Cherry Lane Digital and
co-founder of the Pho list. "What we're discussing is the passing of a
medium. It is alarming to me that one of the most basic features of the Net
has been threatened so badly."

 It's far too early to write an obituary for e-mail lists. The 30-year-old
medium has confronted crises before and has been reborn with the help of
clever programmers and new technology. E-mail advocates say this process is
already under way, as companies and list administrators figure out both how
to keep spam under control without so much of an effect on mail lists and
other desired e-mail messages.

"In the early days of the Net, we built a nervous system, but nobody built
an immune system," said Marc Smith, a sociologist who studies communities
such as Usenet and e-mail groups for Microsoft's research division. "What
we're seeing now is the emergence of an immune system."

Nevertheless, it is undeniable that Pho and other groups are facing serious
hurdles that could change the way the medium operates forever.

It's almost impossible to estimate how broad the e-mail list community
runs. Experts say there are certainly millions, perhaps tens of million of
lists. They cover every conceivable topic, from the most arcane scientific
topics to the most basely sexual. Some have only a few subscribers, while
others have as many as tens of thousands.

 The growing problems are familiar to anyone with an e-mail box. The
primary culprits are the avalanches of spam cluttering mailboxes with
Viagra advertisements and XXX photos. The energy required to clear through
that digital underbrush alone has taxed many people's patience for e-mail
discussions, experts say.

But the response to the spam assault also has helped undermine mail lists.
Many people move e-mail addresses routinely, creating dead boxes that
bounce messages back to list administrators. Many people use Web-based
mailboxes for e-mail list subscriptions, and these can quickly fill up with
spam or even legitimate messages, again bouncing messages back to their
original servers, filling administrator mailboxes and requiring substantial
time to review and clear.

On the flip side are spam filters such as the popular SpamAssassin, used by
many corporations. These routinely catch messages sent simultaneously to a
large number of people, mistaking list messages for bulk advertisements.
Subscribers have little or no way to tell that their mail is not getting
through, or that, in some cases, they have been unsubscribed completely
from a list.

 Faced with these growing issues, many e-mail groups are changing their
format to Web-based bulletin boards or augmenting their discussions with
RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds, a popular content-distribution
format used by bloggers and news sites. Internet pundit Clay Shirky, who
teaches a graduate course in networking at New York University, said he's
close to pulling the plug on his mailing list altogether in favor of RSS.

 "The viability of mail lists is rapidly declining," Shirky said. "Fewer
people are reading in e-mail directly. It's getting clear that the ordinary
Web plus RSS feeds are better."

 Periodic crises
 This isn't the first time e-mail lists have flirted with collapse, however.

The first e-mail was sent by Ray Tomlinson in 1971, a simple test message
to himself. His message evolved almost immediately into broader
discussions, although only a few remained active for long. By the close of
the 1970s, there were 17 public e-mail discussion lists on the ARPAnet, the
precursor to today's Internet. By 1982, there were 44, according to at
least one account. Others were springing up by the dozens on private
academic networks such as PLATO and BITNET.

But as vibrant as these were, their own inefficiencies led to a crisis
almost as dire as today's. At that time, lists were mostly run by hand,
which meant that an actual human being had to respond to subscription
requests and other problems. When these lists proliferated, it often took
weeks for requests to be fulfilled.

Adding to problems were traffic jams caused by the era's still-scarce
bandwidth. Single messages were sent out to hundreds of addresses at a
time, clogging transatlantic lines so badly that e-mails between Europe and
the United States sometimes took a week to be delivered. Some people on the
lists started discussing whether e-mail discussion groups should be banned
altogether.

The crisis soon passed, however.  In 1986, a BITNET programmer in Paris
named Eric Thomas wrote a tool called Listserv that automated the
administrator's task of managing subscriptions. It also made message
distribution more efficient, virtually eliminating the crippling traffic
jams. The tool was quickly adopted elsewhere, and the number of e-mail
lists on academic networks exploded.

 A half-decade later, an American programmer named Brent Thomas started
looking around for tools to help automate Internet-based mailing lists. He
found Listserv, but decided he could write a new one as quickly as he could
learn the old tool, and in a week created a program called Majordomo and a
scant 3,000 lines of code. Both tools are still widely used today.

 Over the ensuing decade, the shape of mailing lists has remained largely
the same. Web-based services such as E-Groups, which Yahoo later bought and
turned into Yahoo Groups, attracted hundreds of thousands of discussions,
but the fundamental idea hasn't changed much.

 An Internet immune system
 That's why many in the e-mail list community think they'll survive,
despite today's headaches. There is simply nothing that substitutes for the
immediacy and simplicity of e-mail, advocates say.

"I don't really see too many people dropping off lists," said Chapman,
whose Great Circle Associates consulting firm still manages the Majordomo
software. "Mailing lists serve a very valuable purpose. They come to you.
Certain Web sites I do check, but you have to go check."

 Administrators are finding ways around the problems. Spam filters on list
servers, and tools that ensure only list members can send to the list, help
keep unwanted e-mail to a minimum. Automatic unsubscribe tools are helping
reduce the amount of unwanted bounced messages.

 E-mail software itself is getting better at filtering messages into
folders, so that all list messages can be segregated away from spam. Web
mail services such as Yahoo and Hotmail also support this feature.

 Future-looking projects hold out hope of better improvements. Some
programmers are working on pulling RSS and e-mail into the same interfaces,
eliminating what appears to be competition between the mediums today.

 Others are looking at ways to help people wade through the morass of
online discussions more easily. Microsoft's Smith has written about new
interfaces that would help highlight important or heated conversations
among thousands of messages, for example.

These and other innovations, such as better tools to deal with the problems
of spam and spam filters, will help keep e-mail lists and communities
alive, he said.

 "Machines have gotten us into this problem, and they're going to have to
get us out," Smith said.

-- 
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah at ibuc.com>
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

----- End forwarded message -----
-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040418/c77840aa/attachment.bin>

From eugen at leitl.org  Sun Apr 18 09:54:37 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 11:54:37 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Using Graphic controllers
In-Reply-To: <4081CBAD.3040509@paradise.net.nz>
References: <20040415191616.67831.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>
	<407EEBCF.5070007@cox.net> <20040415202453.GK1026@leitl.org>
	<407FC987.5000205@cox.net> <20040416173815.GV1026@leitl.org>
	<6542C0CA-90AB-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
	<4081BAB3.6040109@paradise.net.nz> <4081C3AE.3060502@cox.net>
	<4081CBAD.3040509@paradise.net.nz>
Message-ID: <20040418095437.GX1026@leitl.org>

On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 12:28:29PM +1200, Paul Bridger wrote:
> Dan Clemmensen wrote:
> 
> >Another interesting point: From the point of view of raw computational 
> >power, the sum of all the 3D graphics cards in the world probably 
> >exceeds the sum of all CPUs in the world. Sure, the graphics cards are 

It depends how you measure performance. I presume everybody is aware of
http://www.gpgpu.org/

GPUs have a usually rather impressive memory bandwidth and good parallelism
(broad buses). On the minus side, they're still a von Neumann design (in
general terms), and the memory is expensive, hence limited to small
increments. They've peaked out on power density and power supply (demand
ramps up higher than power supply can provide, even capacitor-buffered).

> >special-purpose, but what if you had the resources to carefully create 
> >algorithms that are well suited to graphics cards? basically, this 

Sure, so you get one order of magnitude more out of it. On a single
architecture, the deployed hardware base is heterogenous, in flux, and
there's no common API. 

In terms of ROI, it makes more sense to focus on CPUs, and stuff which
streams through memory, keeping hot spot barely within cache. You cluster
above using short-distance signalling mesh and WAN interconnects.

> >requires that you map your problem onto the space that is easily 
> >addressed by graphics cards. The extremely obvious problem is graphics 
> >rendering (DUH!) This has actually been done: you can use graphics 
> >cards to run the POV-RAY backend. When you do this, a few (10?) 
> >machines with graphics cards can render scenes that would otherwise 
> >take hundreds of high-end CPUs.
> 
> The major problem with the unused GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) power 
> is that most of it is primitive fixed-function hardware. Newer hardware 
> is increasingly general purpose (I'm talking about vertex/pixel 
> programs). My guess is that the number of problems that can be mapped 
> into the space of fixed-function hardware is fairly limited. However, 
> programmable hardware raises incredible new possibilities. The only 
> thing holding back photorealistic rendering in realtime today is 
> programmer skill.
> A large restriction on the computation you farm off to your unused GPU 
> resource is that it must be able to be computed in parallel. This is the 
> reason that modern graphics cards have higher complexity than modern 
> CPUS -- graphics processing is an inherently parallel process and the 
> structure of the cards mirrors this. Modern graphics cards run >500MHz 
> (but have high parallelism) whereas modern CPUs are upwards of 3GHz.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040418/b3868af8/attachment.bin>

From eugen at leitl.org  Sun Apr 18 10:47:12 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 12:47:12 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity econimic tradeoffs (was: MARS: Because
	it is hard)
In-Reply-To: <6542C0CA-90AB-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
References: <20040415191616.67831.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>
	<407EEBCF.5070007@cox.net> <20040415202453.GK1026@leitl.org>
	<407FC987.5000205@cox.net> <20040416173815.GV1026@leitl.org>
	<6542C0CA-90AB-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <20040418104712.GA1026@leitl.org>

On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 01:11:22PM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote:

> >SI is driven by superhuman, superrealtime level agents. Augmenting 
> >people has
> >a high threshold, and hence will be late.
> 
> Please go into what you see as "high threshold" and "late" here.  

High threshold implies invasive medical nanoware. This is an extremely hairy,
complex technology. Computronium (3d integrated molecular circuitry) is
trivial in comparison. We already have printable organic and polymer
electronics, and first instances of spintronics (spin flipping saves power
and spintronics is usually nonvolatile, which also saves power). Predictions
are cheap, so I predict this is how 3d nanoelectronics is going to happen:
multilayer deposition of submicron organic structures. They don't need to be
quick, if you can print them by several m^2/s from a single 100 k$ rig,
especially on top of each other.

> Humans start the game with considerable advantages that it will take a 
> good bit of hardware, code and self-improvement or artificial evolution 
> to duplicate and exceed.  Given the right seed conditions of sufficient 

Absolutely. But humans have more or less constant (weakly augmentable) mental
capacities, without resorting to abovementioned CNS-invading medical
nanotechnology.

> hardware, code and self-improvement tools this will of course happen 
> extremely quickly.

Yes. Self-enhancement is also a high-threshold phenomenon. Of course, people
are pretty smart, and they can integrate statistical algorithms for low-level
enhancement, whether at hardware or software level.
 
> > Way too late. Same technology will make
> >AI-capable hardware available much before.
> 
> Hardware alone will never produce an AI.  Hardware + proper training 
> environment + software + time are needed.

I do not make a major distinction between hardware and software, lumping both
into "the system". In fact I actively discourage use of "software" in context of
fine-grained cellular hardware, rather preferring the term "state".

Why is hardware a bottleneck? 1) Biological emulation or biologically
inspired (spiking finite-state automata networks) run awfully on conventional
systems. They only become interesting at high degree of cellularity (ideally,
one network node/hardware node), or a large number of fat nodes. 2) de novo
AI requires plowing through lots of sterile search space landscapes, before latching upon
a sweet spot. Finding that Eden configuration will require a lot of crunch.
Way more hardware than is required to run a well-adjusted AI. 
 
> > Software doesn't figure
> >prominently, because humans write software.
> 
> I don't see this claim.  Software is not just computer code hacked 
> together by humans.   Self modifying and computer-generated software is 
> still software.    Are you distinguishing software from code?

Peope are barely smart enough to write a seed. Evolutionary systems and
superrealtime simulators only look simple from a bird's eye of view. The
problem with simulators is performance, the problem with evolutionary
framework is both performance and flexibility (sufficiently flexible to
evolve to learn how to evolve). 
 
> > As such it has a ceiling. Methods
> >are getting better, and there are synergies, but there is a distinct 
> >limit.
> 
> No, there isn't unless you believe that only humans (and unaugmented 
> ones at that) write software.

Yes, humans write software. Code. Whatever. Machines do something different.
 
> This is a lot of assumption about the possible paths to SAI.

Of course. Most of them are "educated", though. 
 
> Interesting as the gaming world is quite strong and actually often 
> drives significant consumer  hardware improvements.   I shudder to 

Game AI doesn't need to see, having direct access to internal data structures
representing the game world. It does learn though, and you need a lot of
crunch to render photorealistic movies, some of which will be hopefull
hijackable for all-purposeish computations.

> contemplate what AI characters designed for the standard violent 
> adventure type games would become if they ran on sufficient hardware 
> and got to the bootstrap threshold.    Military battle sim entities 
> would yield roughly equivalent nightmares.

Yes. Both industry/household and military robotics need to deal with the real
world, though. Any real-world agnostic system has just fallen within its
virtual navel, and can't get out. We obviously don't have to deal with such
systems.

> >There is very little spontaneity about building a supercritical AI. It 
> >is a
> >deliberate project, with a very specific goal. Google is not going to
> >suddenly awaken, and start commenting on your queries.
> >
> 
> It would not be that difficult to mate a current generation Eliza to 
> query history and analysis tools thus producing fairly interesting 
> comments on queries.    Add in a bit better psychological modeling and 

Even a Markovbot empirically passes Turing, at least as far irc #channel
people are concerned. Try it, it's hilarious.

> it would not be difficult to frighten most evolved chimps.

I'm not frightened by chatbots. Machine vision good enough to track targets
in the real world and hit them gives me the willies, though.

Given that my postponed email queue is still pretty full, and my vacation almost
over (with some stuff yet to do today) I'm probably going to have to cut a
lot of dangling ends. Damn.

Sorry about that, you probably know who you are.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040418/1e289068/attachment.bin>

From naddy at mips.inka.de  Sun Apr 18 13:48:02 2004
From: naddy at mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 13:48:02 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Using Graphic controllers
References: <20040415191616.67831.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>
	<6542C0CA-90AB-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
	<4081BAB3.6040109@paradise.net.nz> <4081C3AE.3060502@cox.net>
Message-ID: <c5u0ui$ra8$1@kemoauc.mips.inka.de>

Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:

> Another interesting point: From the point of view of raw computational 
> power, the sum of all the 3D graphics cards in the world probably 
> exceeds the sum of all CPUs in the world. Sure, the graphics cards are 
> special-purpose, but what if you had the resources to carefully create 
> algorithms that are well suited to graphics cards?

You are rather limited by the available hardware primitives.

Here's a paper where people examined "Secret Key Cryptography Using
Graphics Cards":
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~library/TR-repository/reports/reports-2004/cucs-002-04.pdf
(http://tinyurl.com/3xgnf)

It didn't prove very practical.

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          naddy at mips.inka.de


From extropy at unreasonable.com  Sun Apr 18 15:01:02 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 11:01:02 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Using Graphic controllers
In-Reply-To: <20040418095437.GX1026@leitl.org>
References: <4081CBAD.3040509@paradise.net.nz>
	<20040415191616.67831.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>
	<407EEBCF.5070007@cox.net> <20040415202453.GK1026@leitl.org>
	<407FC987.5000205@cox.net> <20040416173815.GV1026@leitl.org>
	<6542C0CA-90AB-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
	<4081BAB3.6040109@paradise.net.nz> <4081C3AE.3060502@cox.net>
	<4081CBAD.3040509@paradise.net.nz>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040418092548.026e6008@mail.comcast.net>

Eugen Leitl wrote:

>GPUs have a usually rather impressive memory bandwidth and good parallelism
>(broad buses). On the minus side, they're still a von Neumann design (in
>general terms), and the memory is expensive, hence limited to small
>increments. They've peaked out on power density and power supply (demand
>ramps up higher than power supply can provide, even capacitor-buffered).

The term "von Neumann design" refers to the design outlined in his paper 
"First Draft of a Report on the EDVAC."

Nicholas Metropolis (who worked closely with von Neumann) wrote:

>It is clear that the stored-program concept predates von Neumann's 
>participation in the EDVAC design. That von Neumann is often given credit 
>for this fundamental concept is likely due to the fact that he wrote a 
>preliminary report which summarized the earlier work on the EDVAC design, 
>including the stored-program concept. Von Neumann contributed 
>significantly to the development of this concept, but to credit him with 
>its invention is a historical error.

Certainly Eckert and Mauchley ferociously disputed von Neumann's authorship.

My father's version was that my grandfather (Samuel), who had a substantial 
role in inventing computers, said von Neumann was always sniffing around, 
looking for something to take credit for. The actual smart guys were more 
concerned with getting the work accomplished, and ignored him.

The truth is hard to come by. My grandfather was brilliant, tactless, and a 
stickler for honesty. My father was the first two, but didn't let the facts 
get in the way of telling a good story. I'm scrutinizing Sam's papers for 
more insight into what actually transpired.

In any event, the term "EDVAC design" is correct and "von Neumann design" 
is not.


-- David Lubkin.




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sun Apr 18 15:07:48 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 11:07:48 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
In-Reply-To: <200404180048.i3I0mPo22384@finney.org>
Message-ID: <27A4EB7D-914A-11D8-8E2C-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Saturday, April 17, 2004, at 08:48 pm, Hal Finney wrote:

> The simulation argument is not scientific.  It is not meant to be.
> It is not falsifiable.  But that doesn't make it pointless.

Agreed.  So I wish people would stop claiming that it is more 
*scientific* than a religion.

> "ABSTRACT. This paper argues that at least one of the following
> propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go 
> extinct
> before reaching a 'posthuman' stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is
> extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their
> evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost 
> certainly
> living in a computer simulation."

> It is entirely FALSE to claim that the simulation argument says that we
> live in a simulation.  It says nothing of the sort.

I disagree.  It definitely *does* say something of the sort.  It claims 
that if you don't agree with premise one or two, then you must admit 
that three, "we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation."  
It then goes on the argue that one and two are likely false, and three 
is likely true.

> Logic and science are different, but they are both important tools for
> reaching the truth.

I disagree.  Unfalsifiable, unscientific methods are *not* important 
methods for reaching truth.  Until this argument can be falsified or 
tested or even approached scientifically, it is about as useful as a 
religious debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I question the whole statistical assumption that we are equally likely 
to have been born any universe or simulation, so that if there are more 
simulations than universes we are statistically likely to appear in 
them.  Where did these estimates of how likely it is to appear out of 
nothing come from?  If you want to argue from unfounded intuition, it 
seems to me that we would more likely arrive in bigger universes than 
smaller simulations, longer-lived universes than shorter-lived 
simulations, outer containing universes instead of inner subsets 
configured as simulations, and in big-bang universes that actually 
created new things, rather than in simulations which are just parts of 
the over-universe shuffled around a bit.  Taking all the dimensions of 
size, time, complexity, speed, and resource avaialability, it seems 
that real universes far outweigh simulations in any meaningful 
comparison for statistical purposes.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec 
Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>



From dgc at cox.net  Sun Apr 18 15:31:08 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 11:31:08 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Using Graphic controllers
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040418092548.026e6008@mail.comcast.net>
References: <4081CBAD.3040509@paradise.net.nz>	<20040415191616.67831.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>	<407EEBCF.5070007@cox.net>
	<20040415202453.GK1026@leitl.org>	<407FC987.5000205@cox.net>
	<20040416173815.GV1026@leitl.org>	<6542C0CA-90AB-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>	<4081BAB3.6040109@paradise.net.nz>
	<4081C3AE.3060502@cox.net>	<4081CBAD.3040509@paradise.net.nz>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20040418092548.026e6008@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <40829F3C.3030409@cox.net>

David Lubkin wrote:

> Eugen Leitl wrote:
>
>> GPUs have a usually rather impressive memory bandwidth and good 
>> parallelism
>> (broad buses). On the minus side, they're still a von Neumann design (in
>> general terms), and the memory is expensive, hence limited to small
>> increments. They've peaked out on power density and power supply (demand
>> ramps up higher than power supply can provide, even capacitor-buffered).
>
>
> The term "von Neumann design" refers to the design outlined in his 
> paper "First Draft of a Report on the EDVAC."
>
> Nicholas Metropolis (who worked closely with von Neumann) wrote:
>
>> It is clear that the stored-program concept predates von Neumann's 
>> participation in the EDVAC design. That von Neumann is often given 
>> credit for this fundamental concept is likely due to the fact that he 
>> wrote a preliminary report which summarized the earlier work on the 
>> EDVAC design, including the stored-program concept. Von Neumann 
>> contributed significantly to the development of this concept, but to 
>> credit him with its invention is a historical error.
>
>
> Certainly Eckert and Mauchley ferociously disputed von Neumann's 
> authorship.
>
> My father's version was that my grandfather (Samuel), who had a 
> substantial role in inventing computers, said von Neumann was always 
> sniffing around, looking for something to take credit for. The actual 
> smart guys were more concerned with getting the work accomplished, and 
> ignored him.
>
> The truth is hard to come by. My grandfather was brilliant, tactless, 
> and a stickler for honesty. My father was the first two, but didn't 
> let the facts get in the way of telling a good story. I'm scrutinizing 
> Sam's papers for more insight into what actually transpired.
>
> In any event, the term "EDVAC design" is correct and "von Neumann 
> design" is not.
>
I disagree. The term "von Neumann design" is a technical term in general 
use. Whether or not we "should" use it is irrelevant: we do use it. Your 
argument is identical to an argument against using the term "America" to 
refer to the two continents in the western hemisphere. Amerigo Vespucci 
named the continents for himself on first widely published maps, and the 
name stuck. This is closely analogous to the situation you describe with 
the von Neumann paper.


From extropy at unreasonable.com  Sun Apr 18 16:23:28 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 12:23:28 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
In-Reply-To: <27A4EB7D-914A-11D8-8E2C-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
References: <200404180048.i3I0mPo22384@finney.org>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040418113834.02fe0cc0@mail.comcast.net>

Hal wrote:

>The simulation argument is not scientific.  It is not meant to be.
>It is not falsifiable.  But that doesn't make it pointless.

Harvey replied:

>Agreed.  So I wish people would stop claiming that it is more *scientific* 
>than a religion.

The categories of simulation arguments and religions are not inherently 
unscientific or untestable, although most instances of each are in 
practice. A religious or simulation theorist could make specific 
predictions that, if observationally confirmed, provide supporting evidence 
that something extraordinary is at play, e.g., "For the next 10 hours, the 
speed of light will be 205,000 km/sec."

Whether that agent is labeled SysOp, God, or a Power is irrelevant; they 
are equivalent terms.

>I question the whole statistical assumption that we are equally likely to 
>have been born any universe or simulation, so that if there are more 
>simulations than universes we are statistically likely to appear in them.

This and your variation are equally premature, as are any assertions about 
the goals, behavior, and capabilities of an ETI or SI. Speculation is fun 
but in no way a basis for decision-making. We have no data, and should 
remain agnostic.


-- David Lubkin.




From spike66 at comcast.net  Sun Apr 18 16:37:17 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 09:37:17 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
In-Reply-To: <27A4EB7D-914A-11D8-8E2C-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <000001c42563$6d49a730$6501a8c0@SHELLY>


> Harvey Newstrom
>... 
> I disagree.  Unfalsifiable, unscientific ...it is about as useful as a

> religious debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
...
> Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC...

I am endebted for the following meme to Damien Broderick,
from his upcoming book about philosophy.  I haven't checked 
with him if it is OK to reveal the title, so I will allow 
him to do so if he wishes.  (Coming soon to a bookstore 
near you...)  I hope I have contributed at least a little 
to his meme.

When medieval theologians argued about angels dancing on
pins, what were they actually doing?  

Consider humans.  We know how big we are, in Harvey and
my case perhaps in the 50 to 60 kg range, but we contain a lot
of mass that does not contribute directly to thinking
but rather only supporting the brain.  If we had no legs
or arms, we would be smaller but would still be able to
think.  If we managed to figure a way to oxygenate, 
add nutrients to and pump our blood, we would not technically
need a body either, for it has been demonstrated in the
laboratory on a dog that a head can be kept alive, in which
case we would only be about 5 kg.  For that manner, we 
could still think even if we had no eyes or ears; Helen
Keller managed it somehow.  A clever team of scientist
might even keep a naked brain alive, as demonstrated
by Steve Martin in The Man With Two Brains.

But much of even the mass of the brain does not contribute
directly to thinking.  With no eyes, one would not need
a visual cortex.  Without heart, lungs and all the
other superfluous equipment down south, one need not
have those regions of the brain which control bodily
functions.  I have a notion that the conscious thought
that makes us sentient and human takes place in the 
frontal lobes, which are not so large, but even then,
the frontal lobes contain cells and structures that
do other things besides think.

A neuron as a mysterious (to me anyway) device that consists
of a bunch of inputs and one output.  When the right
combination of inputs are present, then the output fires.
Could not we wire a bunch of transistors together to do
something like this?  We are really good and making
transistors really small, so a semiconductor analog of
a neuron would likely be much smaller than a neuron, so
perhaps our human brain's ten billion neurons could be
packaged in a much smaller space than the baseball
sized(?) glob that is our frontal lobes.

If so, then the support of that tiny package would become
much simpler than the elaborate "ground support equipment"
that our brains require.  In fact we could add back in tiny
instrumentation that would provide sight and hearing to
the semiconductor brain analog, and perhaps even other
senses that we do not have, such as ultraviolet vision
for instance.  The smaller brain-analog would have shorter
pathways for signals to travel, so the brain analog would
be much faster than its meat counterpart, so the resulting
device might be considered in some ways much superior
to humans, or as the vocabulary limited old-time 
theologians might call them: "angels."

So what is the smallest possible angel?  
A backhanded way of asking might be: how many 
angels can dance on a pinhead?

That, my extropian friends, is one hell of a profound question.

spike 



From extropy at unreasonable.com  Sun Apr 18 16:50:07 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 12:50:07 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Using Graphic controllers
In-Reply-To: <40829F3C.3030409@cox.net>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040418092548.026e6008@mail.comcast.net>
	<4081CBAD.3040509@paradise.net.nz>
	<20040415191616.67831.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>
	<407EEBCF.5070007@cox.net> <20040415202453.GK1026@leitl.org>
	<407FC987.5000205@cox.net> <20040416173815.GV1026@leitl.org>
	<6542C0CA-90AB-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
	<4081BAB3.6040109@paradise.net.nz> <4081C3AE.3060502@cox.net>
	<4081CBAD.3040509@paradise.net.nz>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20040418092548.026e6008@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040418122514.02f9ac90@mail.comcast.net>

Dan Clemmensen wrote:

>I disagree. The term "von Neumann design" is a technical term in general 
>use. Whether or not we "should" use it is irrelevant: we do use it.

When a technical term is incorrect, or discovery/invention is 
misattributed, the scientific and engineering communities have often 
changed their terminology as evidence has warranted.

Whether *they* do or not in this case, I encourage *you* and others on the 
list to use the phrase "EDVAC design," both because it is more accurate and 
out of whatever respect you have for me, much as I credit Robin with idea 
futures or Arthur Kantrowitz with laser launching.


-- David Lubkin.




From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Sun Apr 18 16:43:18 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 12:43:18 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Self replication again (was MARS: Because
In-Reply-To: <200404171515.i3HFFT924604@tick.javien.com>
References: <200404171515.i3HFFT924604@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <4082B026.8080804@CRNano.org>

Jeff Davis wrote:
 > Nano--as in MNT-- is even more primitive.  Mostly
 > theory--good theory, I'll grant, fun theory-- but
 > nevertheless theory of the most primitive sort.  As to
 > engineering capabilities,... so close to zero at this
 > point that well, speaking honestly, it's non-existent.
 >  Don't get me wrong.  I'm not puttin' it down.  GO
 > NANO!!

Seems to me that MNT is about at the same point as molecular 
electronics.  They've built a few transistors; we've joined a few 
molecules.  They have theory of how to design whole circuits once they 
learn how to synthesize them.  We have theory of how to design machines, 
likewise.

I wouldn't call either one non-existent.

 > For a long time I was hooked on the idea of self-rep
 > as the holy grail of ultra-productivity.  But recently
 > the Foresight people have stepped back from
 > self-rep--I think as a way of stuffing the grey goo
 > evil genie back in the bottle.  They've declared that
 > MNT can still deliver sans self-rep.

Just to be clear: self-rep is when a self-contained, autonomous device 
can build a complete functional copy of itself without external input. 
A system is "autoproductive" when it can be used by under direct 
control/intervention to build copies on demand.  A blacksmith's shop is 
autoproductive.  So, for example, the Merkle "assembler" is 
autoproductive but not self-replicating: it needs a continuous stream of 
sonic control/power pulses.  A tabletop nanofactory could build a 
physically complete copy, and in theory could build in the blueprints as 
well.  (The Merkle gizmo couldn't contain blueprints; it doesn't even 
have a computer.)  But the nanofactory copy wouldn't be functional 
because it wouldn't have any ability to connect up its feedstock pipes, 
much less manufacture its feedstock.

BTW, the idea that mechanochemical disassembly (turning complex 
molecules into feedstock) is a natural correlate of assembly (turning 
feedstock into complex molecules) is one of the most pervasive errors in 
popular understanding of MNT.

 > I thought it
 > over, and I agree.  Which also helped me to step back
 > from my own somewhat-rigid devotion to self-rep, and
 > to see self-rep as a "best case", an "upper bound", a
 > "theoretical ideal" in the overall range of values for
 > industrial productivity: caveman with rock at one end,
 > robot n builds robot n+1 at the other.  Everything in
 > between--all "real world" industrial
 > production--involves some mix of human and machine
 > input.

Actually, for human purposes, the sweet spot is in the middle.  At one 
extreme is a stick and a carving knife: you have to do everything 
yourself.  Then comes a CNC milling machine that you have to load and 
program, then handle the parts.

The sweet spot is a nanofactory that you download blueprints into--to 
build finished products, and (occasionally) more nanofactories.

Going beyond that toward the other extreme, you design robotics on the 
nanofactories so that they can move away from where they're manufactured 
and grab a waiting feedstock hose and connect it up.  This is already 
more trouble than it's worth.  Anything further, such as nanofactories 
with built-in chemical plants, nanofactories that can harvest 
agricultural material, and so on, is even more wasteful.

In short, the best molecular manufacturing system is a machine, not a 
component, and not a system.  Elegant, efficient, easy-to-design 
machines don't self-replicate--they don't self-anything.  This is why 
I'm not too worried about gray goo arising as a result of molecular 
manufacturing efforts: because it's hard to do, and in that context it's 
completely pointless.  (In other contexts, such as proving you're a l33t 
haxxor, it's not pointless--so when it gets easy enough for script 
kiddies or even MIT students to do, we'll still have to worry.)

Chris

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From scerir at libero.it  Sun Apr 18 17:04:06 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 19:04:06 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] a test
References: <BAY17-F34Lr2YSCXv1Q0007ea79@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <003a01c42567$28db0cc0$56bf1b97@administxl09yj>

Dante's Inferno test
http://www.4degreez.com/misc/dante-inferno-test.mv


From sjvans at ameritech.net  Sun Apr 18 17:12:36 2004
From: sjvans at ameritech.net (Stephen J. Van Sickle)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 12:12:36 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Self replication again (was MARS: Because
In-Reply-To: <4082B026.8080804@CRNano.org>
References: <200404171515.i3HFFT924604@tick.javien.com>
	<4082B026.8080804@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <1082308356.1038.22.camel@Renfield>


> BTW, the idea that mechanochemical disassembly (turning complex 
> molecules into feedstock) is a natural correlate of assembly (turning 
> feedstock into complex molecules) is one of the most pervasive errors in 
> popular understanding of MNT.

Hmmm....then this brings up the question of how one safely and cheaply
disposes of used/defective/outdated devices. Ideally you would want to
close the material loop and turn it into feedstock, but as you say it is
not obvious that this is simply an inverse operation of construction. 
Worst case, I suppose, would be some sort of high pressure and
temperature decomposition, but the costs would be significant,
especially in comparison to the cost of manufacture.  However, it seems
a necessary area to investigate when trying to evaluate the cost or
effectiveness of large scale MNT.

sjv 



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Apr 18 17:30:11 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Self replication again (was MARS: Because
In-Reply-To: <1082308356.1038.22.camel@Renfield>
Message-ID: <20040418173011.78776.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>


--- "Stephen J. Van Sickle" <sjvans at ameritech.net> wrote:
> 
> > BTW, the idea that mechanochemical disassembly (turning complex 
> > molecules into feedstock) is a natural correlate of assembly
> > (turning feedstock into complex molecules) is one of the most
> > pervasive errors in popular understanding of MNT.
> 
> Hmmm....then this brings up the question of how one safely and
> cheaply disposes of used/defective/outdated devices. 

That is a third problem entirely, and likely the simplest one to deal
with. If you know the design of the device you are disposing of, you
just disassemble it into its constituent parts, toss out the defective
ones, and put the rest into parts bins.

With the first problem you are dealing with a 'ore' of rather
high-entropy material in terms of isotope dispersion. Picking each atom
out one at a time, shaking it, and sorting it into the right bin is a
time consuming but rather simple process.

The second problem is the toughest, building something that is highly
structured atom by atom from a design.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25?
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash


From hal at finney.org  Sun Apr 18 17:38:13 2004
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:38:13 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
Message-ID: <200404181738.i3IHcDT27748@finney.org>

Harvey writes:
> On Saturday, April 17, 2004, at 08:48 pm, Hal Finney wrote:
> > "ABSTRACT. This paper argues that at least one of the following
> > propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct
> > before reaching a 'posthuman' stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is
> > extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their
> > evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly
> > living in a computer simulation."
>
> > It is entirely FALSE to claim that the simulation argument says that we
> > live in a simulation.  It says nothing of the sort.
>
> I disagree.  It definitely *does* say something of the sort.  It claims 
> that if you don't agree with premise one or two, then you must admit 
> that three, "we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation."  
> It then goes on the argue that one and two are likely false, and three 
> is likely true.

You can re-write it as more of a classical argument, with premises and
conclusion:

Premises:
1. The human species will not go extinct before reaching a 'posthuman'
   stage.
2. Any posthuman civilization will run a significant number of simulations
   of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof).
Conclusion:
3. We are living in a computer simulation.

Now you can say, the conclusion of the argument is that we live in a
computer simulation.  But you need to distinguish this from a claim that
the argument "says" that we live in such a simulation.  What it actually
says is that IF THE PREMISES ARE TRUE, then we live in a simulation.
That's different from an absolute conclusion about the matter.  It is
conditioned on the premises being true.

> > Logic and science are different, but they are both important tools for
> > reaching the truth.
>
> I disagree.  Unfalsifiable, unscientific methods are *not* important 
> methods for reaching truth.  Until this argument can be falsified or 
> tested or even approached scientifically, it is about as useful as a 
> religious debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

In general, logic is a way of combining information we know (or
hypothesize) to reach conclusions implied by that information.
This process is not falsifiable, nor is falsifiability relevant.
We don't believe in Fermat's Last Theorem because it is falsifiable;
it's not, because it makes an infinitely strong statement.  We believe
in it because of logical conclusions from premises we accept.

http://logic.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/main.htm is a good introduction to logic.
Tutorial 1, with its sections on arguments and validity, explains what
it means for an argument to be valid.

> I question the whole statistical assumption that we are equally likely 
> to have been born any universe or simulation, so that if there are more 
> simulations than universes we are statistically likely to appear in 
> them.  Where did these estimates of how likely it is to appear out of 
> nothing come from?  If you want to argue from unfounded intuition, it 
> seems to me that we would more likely arrive in bigger universes than 
> smaller simulations, longer-lived universes than shorter-lived 
> simulations, outer containing universes instead of inner subsets 
> configured as simulations, and in big-bang universes that actually 
> created new things, rather than in simulations which are just parts of 
> the over-universe shuffled around a bit.  Taking all the dimensions of 
> size, time, complexity, speed, and resource avaialability, it seems 
> that real universes far outweigh simulations in any meaningful 
> comparison for statistical purposes.

Now I think you are questioning the reasoning behind the argument, right?
You are suggesting that even if the premises are true, the conclusion
doesn't follow.  That's a perfectly legitimate approach, and I'm not
writing to defend Nick's argument.  I'm not familiar enough with the
details to tackle that here and now.

Faced with an argument, you can accept its conclusion; or question
its premises; or question the reasoning that links the premises to
the conclusion.  Any of these are legitimate responses.

But denying the utility of logic is going too far.  Believing that
"unfalsifiable, unscientific methods are *not* important methods for
reaching truth" will require you to reject too many useful truths.
Critique the simulation argument all you want, but do so on a valid basis.
Don't reject it just because it's built out of logic and not science.

Hal


From scerir at libero.it  Sun Apr 18 17:42:21 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 19:42:21 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] wine test
References: <BAY17-F34Lr2YSCXv1Q0007ea79@hotmail.com>
	<003a01c42567$28db0cc0$56bf1b97@administxl09yj>
Message-ID: <000a01c4256c$812d1e90$3cc31b97@administxl09yj>

Who invented Klein's bottle?
http://www.giovannirinaldi.it/page/museum/torgiano/image9.htm
XVII Sec., at the Lungarotti Wine Museum, Torgiano, Italy
http://www.giovannirinaldi.it/page/museum/torgiano/
http://www.lungarotti.it/ (useless)


From scerir at libero.it  Sun Apr 18 18:41:28 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:41:28 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
References: <200404181738.i3IHcDT27748@finney.org>
Message-ID: <002301c42574$c3515d60$3cc31b97@administxl09yj>

> Critique the simulation argument all you want, but do so on a valid basis.
> Don't reject it just because it's built out of logic and not science. 
> Hal

What appears to be more frightening: a clocklike universe which 
is totally governed by deterministic laws, or a lawless universe 
which is totally unpredictable and random? Asked once Karl Svozil ...
http://tph.tuwien.ac.at/~svozil/publ/2000-vreal.htm

I do not know if the simulation argument sounds or not. But I
think the argument saying that QM, especially Bell's theorem, 
rules out the simulation argument is not so strong, at least on
conceptual grounds.

Bell imposed two conditions. 1) Hidden variables, that is to say, 
determinism. 2) Local realism. But there are, in Bell's reasoning,
many more hidden assumptions. In example he uses the same lambda
(hidden variables description) for both space-like separated wings
of his gedanken set-up. There is another hidden assumption: that
reality is single valued (no Everett here). There is another
assumption: that observers are free (to choose observables, 
parameters, angles, and so on). If observers were not free, that 
is to say if they too were pre-determined, i.e. by hidden variables, 
Bell's result is completely meaningless. 

If A is one of the two wings of a typical Bell apparatus, i the
observable to be measured in A and x its possible value, and if
B is the other of the two wings, j is the observable to be measured
in B and y its possible value, and if Lambda is the hidden variables
joint state description of the composite system, we can write, 
following Bell .....

p[A,B,Lambda] (x,y|i,j) = p[A,Lambda] (x|i) p[B,Lambda] (y|j)

which just means that the joint probability of outcomes x and y, for
measurements of observables i and j, in the A and B wings, is equal
to the product of the the separate probabilities. We know that so
many experiments have shown the expression above is far from
reality.  

The above condition is equivalent (after Jarrett, 1983/1984) to the 
conjunction of two (double) independent conditions ....

Locality condition
p[A,Lambda] (x|i,j) = p[A,Lambda] (x|i)
p[B,Lambda] (y|i,j) = p[B,Lambda] (y|j)

Separability condition
p[A,Lambda] (x|i,j,y) = p[A,Lambda] (x|i,j)
p[B,Lambda] (y|i,j,x) = P[B,Lambda] (y|i,j)

It is possible to show (following Jarrett, Shimony, Ghirardi, Howard, 
Cushing, Eberhard, maybe van Fraassen, maybe Fine, etc.) that QM 
violates violates the Separability condition but does not violate 
the Locality condition. In physical terms the above means that QM does 
not allow FTL *signalling* (signalling is different from "influences",
"passions", "fashions" at a distance). (Eberhard, Nuovo Cimento, 46B, 
1978, 392; Ghirardi et al., Found. Phys., 23, 1993, 341).

It is possible to show (following Jarrett, Shimony, Ghirardi, Howard,
Eberhard, Cushing, maybe van Fraassen, maybe Fine, etc.) that a
a (phantomatic) *deterministic* theory (i.e. one in which the range 
of any probability distribution of outcomes is the set 0 or 1) reproducing 
predictions of QM implies the violation of the Locality condition but does 
not imply the violation of the Separability condition. Just the reverse
of what the *indeterministic* usual version of QM does. 

So, it is also possible to argue that a *deterministic* simulation might 
have something to do with Non-Locality, while an *indeterministic*
simulation might have something to do with Non-Separability.

In any case it is important to stress here that our reality (simulated
or not) is something "in between". I mean, between perfect determinism
(and total non-locality) and perfect randomness (and total separability).
In a certain sense our reality (simulated or not) is a good, smart choice.
Diversity, in unity, for evolution. 

s.

Dictionary.

Non-Locality. Given any two space-like separated systems, A and B,
the separate state of A is influenced by events (such as the choice
of an observable to measure) in the vicinity of B, and viceversa.

Non-Separability. Regardless of their past history (interaction),
any two systems A and B, separated by some spatio-temporal interval,
do not possess their own separate states, in such a manner that the
joint state is not completely determined by their separate states.

Causality vs. FTL. As far as I remember (but I'm wrong very often!) 
Matt Visser http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0107091 or Erasmo Recami 
(the man of the tachyons) do not think that Non-Locality means, 
necessarily, Non-Causality, or A-Causality. They say (?) we can easily 
re-define causality here. 

 





From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sun Apr 18 19:06:18 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 12:06:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Self replication again (was MARS: Because
In-Reply-To: <20040418173011.78776.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404181159060.4630-100000@server.aeiveos.com>



On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> With the first problem you are dealing with a 'ore' of rather
> high-entropy material in terms of isotope dispersion. Picking each atom
> out one at a time, shaking it, and sorting it into the right bin is a
> time consuming but rather simple process.

Actually Mike I don't think it is that bad -- one could use very high
throughput mass-spectrometers.  The other option is large numbers
of single proton massometers (Nanomedicine V. 1, Sec 4.4.3, pgs
103-104).  Interestingly scientists have actually produced working
devices based on the second idea over the last several years though
they work with slightly greater masses.  But the point would be that
they do work.  So one simply has the need for lots and lots of them
to measure single molecules/atoms.

Robert




From eugen at leitl.org  Sun Apr 18 19:45:56 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 21:45:56 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Self replication again (was MARS: Because
In-Reply-To: <1082308356.1038.22.camel@Renfield>
References: <200404171515.i3HFFT924604@tick.javien.com>
	<4082B026.8080804@CRNano.org> <1082308356.1038.22.camel@Renfield>
Message-ID: <20040418194556.GF1026@leitl.org>

On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 12:12:36PM -0500, Stephen J. Van Sickle wrote:

> Hmmm....then this brings up the question of how one safely and cheaply
> disposes of used/defective/outdated devices. Ideally you would want to

There's value in building failure-tolerant, gracefully degrading nanoware.
Outdated, yes, if we're arguing in tracking fitness in a co-evolutionary
context.

> close the material loop and turn it into feedstock, but as you say it is
> not obvious that this is simply an inverse operation of construction. 

Thermal utilization, pyrolysisis, hydrogenation, disassembly. There's a
bandwidth of options available.

> Worst case, I suppose, would be some sort of high pressure and
> temperature decomposition, but the costs would be significant,

If it's passivated (sapphire or silica-coated) CHNOPS organics, just make a
big heap of it, and burn it up. Pyrolysis is a more controlled version of
above. Using catalyst and hydrogen lets you retain most of fixated
combustibles.

In space, situation is obviously different.

> especially in comparison to the cost of manufacture.  However, it seems
> a necessary area to investigate when trying to evaluate the cost or
> effectiveness of large scale MNT.

Right here and now, it's a complete waste of time. Let's figure out how to
build the damned things first.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040418/315f7557/attachment.bin>

From eugen at leitl.org  Sun Apr 18 19:55:14 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 21:55:14 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Using Graphic controllers
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040418122514.02f9ac90@mail.comcast.net>
References: <407EEBCF.5070007@cox.net> <20040415202453.GK1026@leitl.org>
	<407FC987.5000205@cox.net> <20040416173815.GV1026@leitl.org>
	<6542C0CA-90AB-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
	<4081BAB3.6040109@paradise.net.nz> <4081C3AE.3060502@cox.net>
	<4081CBAD.3040509@paradise.net.nz>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20040418092548.026e6008@mail.comcast.net>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20040418122514.02f9ac90@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <20040418195514.GH1026@leitl.org>

On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 12:50:07PM -0400, David Lubkin wrote:

> When a technical term is incorrect, or discovery/invention is 
> misattributed, the scientific and engineering communities have often 
> changed their terminology as evidence has warranted.

I specifically used a "in the widest" sense modifier. Von Neumann has a
specific use, similiar to Harvard architecture. I informally lumped them
together to denote a "large, dumb data/instruction store" and "small, 
smart processing mill" as set apart to "small cells, simple state, local
synchronous, globally asynchronous operation". There's a continuum between
these both, of course, but current architectures tend to ride the extremes.
 
> Whether *they* do or not in this case, I encourage *you* and others on the 
> list to use the phrase "EDVAC design," both because it is more accurate and 
> out of whatever respect you have for me, much as I credit Robin with idea 
> futures or Arthur Kantrowitz with laser launching.

I don't care much either way, but I'd put John Brunner's "Shockwave Rider" as
strong prior art for idea futures.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040418/3ad86ae7/attachment.bin>

From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sun Apr 18 20:54:41 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 16:54:41 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
In-Reply-To: <200404181738.i3IHcDT27748@finney.org>
Message-ID: <9D36C190-917A-11D8-9D77-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Sunday, April 18, 2004, at 01:38 pm, Hal Finney wrote:

> Now I think you are questioning the reasoning behind the argument, 
> right?
> You are suggesting that even if the premises are true, the conclusion
> doesn't follow.  That's a perfectly legitimate approach, and I'm not
> writing to defend Nick's argument.  I'm not familiar enough with the
> details to tackle that here and now.

Yes, as a secondary point.  My original point was that the logical 
argument is not a scientific theory and does not have scientific 
evidence.

As to this secondary point, yes, I am arguing that even if the three 
original suppositions are true, Nick's paper seems to make a fourth 
assumption that I think is false.  He seems to assume that we have an 
equal chance of being born in any universe and/or any simulation.  He 
then concludes that since there are more simulations than real 
universes, we are probably in one of them.  I don't think we have any 
evidence for our statistical chances of being born into various 
universes.

The whole question of arguing our chances of being incarnated where, 
seems to be a religious argument based on the preexistence of the soul.

Even if we want to try to estimate such a chance, how do we wieght 
universes.  Does an infinite-sized universe get as many incarnations as 
a subatomic one?  Does an everlasting universe get as many incarnations 
as one that only lasts a second?  Does a infinitely complex universe 
get as many incarnations as a simplistic gameboy simulation?  I think 
the unstated fourth assumption that all these universes and simulations 
get equal statistical weight is faulty and unfounded.

> Faced with an argument, you can accept its conclusion; or question
> its premises; or question the reasoning that links the premises to
> the conclusion.  Any of these are legitimate responses.
>
> But denying the utility of logic is going too far.  Believing that
> "unfalsifiable, unscientific methods are *not* important methods for
> reaching truth" will require you to reject too many useful truths.

I am not denying the utility of logic in finding truth.  My point is 
that it cannot discover truth without science.  Logic suggests a 
possible hypothesis.  Science tests the hypothesis to see if it is 
true.  As long as the simulation argument is based on logical argument 
while remaining untestable by science, it cannot be called a scientific 
hypothesis or true.

Some people seem to think that the argument is logically "true" and 
that it proves its point "scientifically".  I am merely trying to 
clarify that it is not science, and it is not proven true.  I also 
happen to believe that the argument is faulty and untrue.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec 
Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>



From eugen at leitl.org  Sun Apr 18 21:24:42 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 23:24:42 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
In-Reply-To: <000001c42563$6d49a730$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <27A4EB7D-914A-11D8-8E2C-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
	<000001c42563$6d49a730$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20040418212442.GR1026@leitl.org>

On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 09:37:17AM -0700, Spike wrote:

> So what is the smallest possible angel?  
> A backhanded way of asking might be: how many 
> angels can dance on a pinhead?

http://moleculardevices.org/howbig.htm

It takes about a structure on bottom left to encode a single bit.

How much bits does an angel need to encode? It depends on your definition of
an angel.

A human should take a sugarcube, or so.
 
> That, my extropian friends, is one hell of a profound question.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040418/5e02aa68/attachment.bin>

From extropy at unreasonable.com  Sun Apr 18 21:49:00 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:49:00 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] SI morality
In-Reply-To: <4081C3FD.1000904@paradise.net.nz>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404170620080.18746-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0404170620080.18746-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040417202747.0301de18@mail.comcast.net>

Paul Bridger wrote:

>True. However, to have rational reasoning based on irrational premises is 
>just as useless as irrational reasoning based on...well, anything. 
>Premises must also be verifiable. They must relate to direct observations 
>of the world.

If a premise was verifiable, it would not be a premise.

Any system of reasoning must have axioms, including some of its inference 
rules. They may seem "reasonable" to us. That does not mean that they 
reflect reality or that there isn't a different set we haven't hit on yet 
that might be better.


-- David Lubkin.




From samantha at objectent.com  Sun Apr 18 22:32:55 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 15:32:55 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity econimic tradeoffs
In-Reply-To: <40819445.7020901@cox.net>
References: <20040415191616.67831.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>
	<407EEBCF.5070007@cox.net> <20040415202453.GK1026@leitl.org>
	<407FC987.5000205@cox.net>
	<42F54517-90A4-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
	<40819445.7020901@cox.net>
Message-ID: <566140BA-9188-11D8-BA4A-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>


On Apr 17, 2004, at 1:32 PM, Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>>>
>> Please clarify how increased computer power and (supposedly non-AI) 
>> software will lead to a singularity.
>>
> OK!
>
> In my opinion, the Singularity will result from any fast-feedback 
> process that uses computers to enhance "technological creativity." 
> "Technological creativity"is that quality or set of qualities that 
> results in new advances in technology. For purposes of this 
> discussion, we can restrict ourselves to computer and related 
> technologies.
>
> In my favorite scenario, the initial SI is a collaboration between one 
> or more humans and a large computing resource. The humans supply the 
> creativity and high-level pattern recognition, while the computers 
> supply brute-force stuff like web searching, peep-hole optimizations, 
> etc. If the collaboration can be made tight enough, the system as a 
> whole will operate as fast as the human(s) can make high-level 
> decisions.

Bingo!   Since humans are making the high-level decision the 
speed/productivity of the system is directly limited by human 
limitations.  The include human irrationality and various forms of 
monkey politics inherent to human group dynamics.


>  Such a system would permit computer implementation under human 
> guidance. Presumably, the first thing the inventors of such a system 
> will use the system for is improvements to the system.

I have been around in corporate/business computing environments for 
quite some time and I have been involved in business selling to such 
environments and improving productivity of various groups, including 
software groups.  The first and foremost thing any IT resource is used 
for is to enhance profitability.   Self-improvement of IT systems,  
done in-house, by external software purchase and integration or some 
mixture are usually not a very high priority.  It is notoriously hard 
to sell software based on such improvements to infrastructure.  Usually 
the improvements have to be cast in terms of "solutions" to particular 
onerous problems seen as part of the business process directly 
influencing the bottom line.  This recasting as solutions severely 
limits how much improvement is achieved or even contemplated to 
fundamental infrastructure and methodology.

It is even more difficult to make a profitable business selling tools 
to software producers, i.e., programmers.  The business model just 
doesn't work out that well.  It is possible to pay the bills of a small 
company and group in this manner but there isn't much way to get rich 
doing this.  Yet the problems of improving software productivity and 
quality are very germane to such a path to SI and are largely 
non-trivial problems.  Open Source efforts hold some promise but I have 
my doubts the most central problems will be solved in the OS world.

> As soon as the system is implementing things as fast as the human(s) 
> can make decisions, the next problem that the inventors will turn to 
> is increasing the scope of sub-problems that can be solved by the 
> computers rather than the human, using whatever software tools come to 
> hand: there is no particular need for an overall theory of AI here. 
> since the humans are still handling that part. The humans become more 
> and more productive. As they add more and more tools to the computer 
> toolbox, the humans operate at progressively higher levels of 
> abstraction. They use the system to optimize the system. If necessary, 
> they use the system to design new hardware to add to the system. 
> Eventually, the humans are operating at such a high level of 
> abstraction that the non-human part of the system reaches and then 
> exceeds the current human level of technical creativity.

There is a very real Ai component needed for such planning, scheduling, 
understanding intent of decisions, weighing repercussions of 
implementation choices, deciding when to bring humans back into the 
loop and so on.  This is very non-trivial and not at all in the scope 
of most business computing today.

Having humans operate at such a high level of abstraction is not at all 
easy to do.  Only persons well trained in formal abstract reasoning are 
likely to comfortably operate at such levels and then only within the 
severe limits set by our internal computational hardware and 
biologically heavily conditioned minds.  Their is some truth in the old 
chestnut that groups of humans often have an effective intelligence no 
greater than 70% of the average intelligence of the group.  I am being 
charitable when I say this is what I have observed.  Much of the group 
decision making is not on the basis of the manipulation of the 
principles and abstractions involved using logic at all.

>
> The richer the available computer resource the faster this will go. My 
> gut feeling is that the currently-available computer resources are 
> already rich enough that the process no linger needs new hardware to 
> go to completion, and can therefore go to completion in less than one 
> week, at which point all connected computes form a single 
> fully=optimized system, which has also designed and sent fabrication 
> and purchase orders for the next-generation hardware and for the 
> equipment needed to produce nanotech.
>

In this scenario the determining factor is the rationality and ability 
to abstract effectively of the human component.   I very much agree 
there is a lot of promise in the power of IA to augment the range, 
creativity and abilities of human individuals and groups.  But such 
power is not likely IMHO to play more than a bootstrapping role in the 
creation of true SI.



- samantha



From samantha at objectent.com  Sun Apr 18 22:49:29 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 15:49:29 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Using Graphic controllers (was:Singularity
	econimic tradeoffs)
In-Reply-To: <4081C3AE.3060502@cox.net>
References: <20040415191616.67831.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>
	<407EEBCF.5070007@cox.net> <20040415202453.GK1026@leitl.org>
	<407FC987.5000205@cox.net> <20040416173815.GV1026@leitl.org>
	<6542C0CA-90AB-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
	<4081BAB3.6040109@paradise.net.nz> <4081C3AE.3060502@cox.net>
Message-ID: <A666F3A8-918A-11D8-BA4A-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>


On Apr 17, 2004, at 4:54 PM, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>
> Another interesting point: From the point of view of raw computational 
> power, the sum of all the 3D graphics cards in the world probably 
> exceeds the sum of all CPUs in the world. Sure, the graphics cards are 
> special-purpose, but what if you had the resources to carefully create 
> algorithms that are well suited to graphics cards? basically, this 
> requires that you map your problem onto the space that is easily 
> addressed by graphics cards. The extremely obvious problem is graphics 
> rendering (DUH!) This has actually been done: you can use graphics 
> cards to run the POV-RAY backend. When you do this, a few (10?) 
> machines with graphics cards can render scenes that would otherwise 
> take hundreds of high-end CPUs.
>
> Essentially all modern motherboard "chipsets" have embedded 3D 
> graphics engines. This resource is basically unused most of the time 
> in most machines.
>

Quite a few people are expressing keen interest in using GPUs for other 
things besides graphics.  Here are a few links:

http://www.gpgpu.org  - General Purpose Computation Using Graphics 
Hardware
wwwcg.in.tum.de/Research/data/Publications/sig03.pdf  - paper on 
implementing various linear algebra operations on GPUs
http://www.sintef.no/static/AM/gpu/summary.html
http://www.eyetap.org/about_us/people/fungja/research/ - cool paper on 
using GPUs for computer vision projects
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1545 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040418/6aa0a64c/attachment.bin>

From sentience at pobox.com  Mon Apr 19 00:29:43 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:29:43 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
In-Reply-To: <000001c42563$6d49a730$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <000001c42563$6d49a730$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <40831D77.2070500@pobox.com>

Spike wrote:
> 
> So what is the smallest possible angel?  
> A backhanded way of asking might be: how many 
> angels can dance on a pinhead?
> 
> That, my extropian friends, is one hell of a profound question.

I recall reading a secondhand assertion that the medieval theologians were 
arguing over whether the number was infinite or finite, that is, whether 
space was infinitely divisible.

I do not know if I would call that question 'profound', and it may be a 
false dichotomy.  But it seems to me fair.

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


From eliasen at mindspring.com  Mon Apr 19 02:24:08 2004
From: eliasen at mindspring.com (Alan Eliasen)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:24:08 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Using Graphic controllers
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040418092548.026e6008@mail.comcast.net>
References: <4081CBAD.3040509@paradise.net.nz>	<20040415191616.67831.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>	<407EEBCF.5070007@cox.net>
	<20040415202453.GK1026@leitl.org>	<407FC987.5000205@cox.net>
	<20040416173815.GV1026@leitl.org>	<6542C0CA-90AB-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>	<4081BAB3.6040109@paradise.net.nz>
	<4081C3AE.3060502@cox.net>	<4081CBAD.3040509@paradise.net.nz>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20040418092548.026e6008@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <40833848.3060309@mindspring.com>


David Lubkin wrote:
> The term "von Neumann design" refers to the design outlined in his paper
> "First Draft of a Report on the EDVAC."
> 
> Nicholas Metropolis (who worked closely with von Neumann) wrote:
> 
>> It is clear that the stored-program concept predates von Neumann's
>> participation in the EDVAC design. That von Neumann is often given
>> credit for this fundamental concept is likely due to the fact that he
>> wrote a preliminary report which summarized the earlier work on the
>> EDVAC design, including the stored-program concept. Von Neumann
>> contributed significantly to the development of this concept, but to
>> credit him with its invention is a historical error.
> 
> Certainly Eckert and Mauchley ferociously disputed von Neumann's
> authorship.

   I just happened to be reading about this last night in _Alan Turing: The
Enigma_ by Andrew Hodges.  Recommended.  Here's his take:

   "The new machine was designed by the electronic engineers J.P. Eckert and
J. Mauchly, although von Neumann's first knowledge of it, apparently something
of an accident, came through talking on a railroad station with H.H.
Goldstine, a mathematician associated with the project." (p. 300)

   "But even when von Neumann joined the ENIAC team as 'adviser' in late 1944,
Eckert and Mauchly had perceived a quite different solution to their problem.
 This was to leave the hardware alone, and to make the instructions available
at electronic speeds by storing them /internally/, in electronic form."  (p. 302)

   "In March and April 1945, the ENIAC team had prepared a proposal, the
/Draft Report on the EDVAC./  The EDVAC--the Electronic Discrete Variable
Calculator--was the planned 'second electronic machine.'  The report was dated
30 June 1945, and signed by von Neumann.  It was not his design, but the
description of it bore the mark of his more mathematical mind rising above the
technicalities."  (p.302-303)

   This book places much of the credit on Alan Turing's idea of a "one tape"
Universal Turing Machine, defined in his famous "Computable Numbers" paper,
"on which everything--instructions, data, and working--was to be stored.  This
was the new idea, different from anything in Babbage's design, and one which
marked a turning point in proposals for digital machines.  For it threw all
the emphasis on to a new place -- the construction of a large, fast,
effective, all-purpose electronic 'memory'.  And in its way it made everything
much more simple, less cluttered in conception.  Von Neumann might well have
seen it as 'tempting', because it was almost too good an idea to be true.  But
it had been in /Computable Numbers/ all the time."  (p. 303)

   As a software and electronic engineer myself, I think there's a rather
significant qualitative difference in design between a one-tape Turing machine
and a practical machine architecture as found in EDVAC or ENIAC, and almost
all of the credit for this workable design should indeed to to the team led by
Eckert and Mauchly, and not von Neumann nor Turing.

-- 
  Alan Eliasen                 | "You cannot reason a person out of a
  eliasen at mindspring.com       |  position he did not reason himself
  http://futureboy.homeip.net/ |  into in the first place."
                               |     --Jonathan Swift


From dgc at cox.net  Mon Apr 19 02:30:12 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:30:12 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity econimic tradeoffs
In-Reply-To: <566140BA-9188-11D8-BA4A-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
References: <20040415191616.67831.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>	<407EEBCF.5070007@cox.net>
	<20040415202453.GK1026@leitl.org>	<407FC987.5000205@cox.net>	<42F54517-90A4-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>	<40819445.7020901@cox.net>
	<566140BA-9188-11D8-BA4A-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <408339B4.2070402@cox.net>

Samantha Atkins wrote:

>
> On Apr 17, 2004, at 1:32 PM, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>
>> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>> Please clarify how increased computer power and (supposedly non-AI) 
>>> software will lead to a singularity.
>>>
>> OK!
>>
>> In my opinion, the Singularity will result from any fast-feedback 
>> process that uses computers to enhance "technological creativity." 
>> "Technological creativity"is that quality or set of qualities that 
>> results in new advances in technology. For purposes of this 
>> discussion, we can restrict ourselves to computer and related 
>> technologies.
>>
>> In my favorite scenario, the initial SI is a collaboration between 
>> one or more humans and a large computing resource. The humans supply 
>> the creativity and high-level pattern recognition, while the 
>> computers supply brute-force stuff like web searching, peep-hole 
>> optimizations, etc. If the collaboration can be made tight enough, 
>> the system as a whole will operate as fast as the human(s) can make 
>> high-level decisions.
>
>
> Bingo!   Since humans are making the high-level decision the 
> speed/productivity of the system is directly limited by human 
> limitations.  The include human irrationality and various forms of 
> monkey politics inherent to human group dynamics.


When decision criteria are presented to a human in an understandable 
form, the human can make decisions very rapidly. The decisions a racing 
card driver, a fighter pilot, or a video gamer makes are a case in 
point. This is decision-making on an entirely different level that the 
one we generally think of in the business world. A programmer currently 
makes a few creative decisions per day at the most. The rest of the 
programming job consists of implementing those decisions by writing, 
compiling, debugging, and releasing code.

>>  Such a system would permit computer implementation under human 
>> guidance. Presumably, the first thing the inventors of such a system 
>> will use the system for is improvements to the system.
>
>
> I have been around in corporate/business computing environments for 
> quite some time and I have been involved in business selling to such 
> environments and improving productivity of various groups, including 
> software groups.  The first and foremost thing any IT resource is used 
> for is to enhance profitability.   Self-improvement of IT systems,  
> done in-house, by external software purchase and integration or some 
> mixture are usually not a very high priority.  It is notoriously hard 
> to sell software based on such improvements to infrastructure.  
> Usually the improvements have to be cast in terms of "solutions" to 
> particular onerous problems seen as part of the business process 
> directly influencing the bottom line.  This recasting as solutions 
> severely limits how much improvement is achieved or even contemplated 
> to fundamental infrastructure and methodology.

We are at different levels here. I'm not talking about IT departments. 
I'm talking about an individual hacker, or perhaps a researcher. I'm 
also not talking about top-down "productivity" tools like Rational Rose. 
I'm talking more of bottom-up tools like the various IDEs.

>
> It is even more difficult to make a profitable business selling tools 
> to software producers, i.e., programmers.  The business model just 
> doesn't work out that well.  It is possible to pay the bills of a 
> small company and group in this manner but there isn't much way to get 
> rich doing this.  Yet the problems of improving software productivity 
> and quality are very germane to such a path to SI and are largely 
> non-trivial problems.  Open Source efforts hold some promise but I 
> have my doubts the most central problems will be solved in the OS world.
>
>> As soon as the system is implementing things as fast as the human(s) 
>> can make decisions, the next problem that the inventors will turn to 
>> is increasing the scope of sub-problems that can be solved by the 
>> computers rather than the human, using whatever software tools come 
>> to hand: there is no particular need for an overall theory of AI 
>> here. since the humans are still handling that part. The humans 
>> become more and more productive. As they add more and more tools to 
>> the computer toolbox, the humans operate at progressively higher 
>> levels of abstraction. They use the system to optimize the system. If 
>> necessary, they use the system to design new hardware to add to the 
>> system. Eventually, the humans are operating at such a high level of 
>> abstraction that the non-human part of the system reaches and then 
>> exceeds the current human level of technical creativity.
>
>
> There is a very real Ai component needed for such planning, 
> scheduling, understanding intent of decisions, weighing repercussions 
> of implementation choices, deciding when to bring humans back into the 
> loop and so on.  This is very non-trivial and not at all in the scope 
> of most business computing today.

People insist on trying to computerize the wrong parts of the problem. 
You speak of planning, scheduling, and understanding. I don't want the 
computer to do these tasks, at least not initially. I want the computer 
to do the mundane stuff, it can ask ME to do the planning. If the 
computer element cannot "understand the intent" it should ask me. The 
computer can indeed "weight the implications" of certain decisions, by 
simply executing all the branches and displaying the results. However if 
such an activity is too expensive, the computer should tell me and ask 
for another decision.

>
> Having humans operate at such a high level of abstraction is not at 
> all easy to do.  Only persons well trained in formal abstract 
> reasoning are likely to comfortably operate at such levels and then 
> only within the severe limits set by our internal computational 
> hardware and biologically heavily conditioned minds.  Their is some 
> truth in the old chestnut that groups of humans often have an 
> effective intelligence no greater than 70% of the average intelligence 
> of the group.  I am being charitable when I say this is what I have 
> observed.  Much of the group decision making is not on the basis of 
> the manipulation of the principles and abstractions involved using 
> logic at all.

I have seen a five-year-old child making decisions at a high level in 
real time, on the soccer field, with two days of training. The kid will 
obviously not make soccer decisions at the same level as a professional, 
but the level is still higher than that of a computer. This particular 
kid has never received formal training in abstract reasoning. However, 
for the sake of argument, let's assume it does in fact require a trained 
decision-maker. Given that we only need one of these people to bootstrap 
the SI, this is not much of a barrier. Pleas consider the amount of time 
it takes a new player to become proficient at a complex video game. A 
game player is essentially doing nothing but making decisions.

>>
>> The richer the available computer resource the faster this will go. 
>> My gut feeling is that the currently-available computer resources are 
>> already rich enough that the process no linger needs new hardware to 
>> go to completion, and can therefore go to completion in less than one 
>> week, at which point all connected computes form a single 
>> fully=optimized system, which has also designed and sent fabrication 
>> and purchase orders for the next-generation hardware and for the 
>> equipment needed to produce nanotech.
>>
>
> In this scenario the determining factor is the rationality and ability 
> to abstract effectively of the human component.   I very much agree 
> there is a lot of promise in the power of IA to augment the range, 
> creativity and abilities of human individuals and groups.  But such 
> power is not likely IMHO to play more than a bootstrapping role in the 
> creation of true SI.

It appears that we are in complete agreement. The seed SI has a human 
component, this seed SI bootstraps, and eventually (within a week in my 
scenario) reaches a level at which the human component is no longer 
useful.  My point is that un-augmented humans do not need to create an 
AI to reach this point.


From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Mon Apr 19 05:11:33 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 01:11:33 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: SI morality
In-Reply-To: <200404171515.i3HFFT924604@tick.javien.com>
References: <200404171515.i3HFFT924604@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <40835F85.4030307@CRNano.org>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
 > An argument may be completely rational -- but may be based on false
 > premises.  For example a premise that Jews were granted *all*
 > of Israel/Palestine (by God).

Perhaps a comparison with formal reasoning may help.  Geometry is based 
on axioms.  I think this is the same as your "premises."  These axioms 
are not fixed; they depend on context.  On the surface of a sphere, 
parallel lines meet.

So it's possible to be completely rational in a certain context, and get 
results that don't make any sense outside that context.  If someone 
believes in God and divine miracles, they can quite rationally conclude 
that God could have flooded the world suddenly, 4000 years ago.  In the 
context of science, this makes as much sense as parallel lines meeting.

 >  That is the problem we need to deal
 > with here -- *when* are rational arguments based on invalid premises.
 > Secondarily when one is dealing with invalid premises how does one assert
 > that?

Here, I'll disagree.  The problem is not that premises are valid or 
invalid.  The problem is when results are evaluated in or out of 
context.  Unfortunately, a major human cognitive flaw is to believe that 
the context in their head extends far beyond their heads.  Of course, 
the internal context is necessarily far simpler than the real world. 
I'll get to the real world later.

Note that useful thoughts can be arrived at by either rational or 
non-rational thought.  Rationality is only as good as its premises, and 
for many problems, we simply don't know enough to pick premises.  I'll 
have more to say about this later, too.

 > It seems like it is reasonable for anyone to assert that my premises
 > are as valid as yours unless one can claim higher ground with respect
 > to the superiority of the validation of ones premises.  If one is
 > dealing with people uneducated in these methods of evaluation then
 > such asserations are useless.

It's easy to say that the context inside someone's head is wrong or 
meaningless.  That's dangerous and unsustainable, and probably morally 
wrong by most systems of morality.  And blinds you to the rich value of 
human thought processes.

Everyone's mental context is limited.  Within their heads, their 
premises are fine.  The trouble comes when they try to compare their 
results to a different context.  The results will probably disagree, and 
this will usually reinforce inaccuracy.  It's extremely hard for people 
to change their minds in response to a conflict between what's in their 
minds and what's outside their minds.  They take the easiest path to 
make the conflict go away, which frequently involves warping their 
perceptions or rationalizing a reason to ignore the input.

An even bigger problem comes when the process of denying input leads to 
xenophobia or neophobia.  People may insist they're right to the point 
of trying to coerce the whole world into agreement with what's in their 
heads.  Religious fanatics and scientists alike may go on crusades to 
try to crush ideas they don't like.

 > If I claim that gravity is a physical force that draws things
 > towards greater masses I can drop a tennis ball and demonstrate
 > it for anyone to see.

The idea that, because you can get effects you expect, everyone else 
will see what you see and additionally be forced to believe your 
explanation, is not consistent with human psychology.

Even scientists reject observations all the time.  They read the data 
differently.  They assert that there must be errors in the method.  They 
attack the credentials of the observer.  They change the subject.  They 
build strawman attacks, and frequently even appear to convince 
themselves.  They form cliques.  They tell their students not to even 
read the claims, and certainly not to investigate them.

 >  If I claim that Christ could manage to
 > turn 5 loaves of bread into enough to feed 5000 people (John 6:1-15)
 > without invoking nanotechnology I am on somewhat swampy ground.

Lots of people brought lunches; lots of people didn't.  So you bring a 
kid up onstage and get him to share his lunch.  Everyone starts sharing, 
and it turns out that a lot of people packed more food than they needed. 
  A neat example of leadership and community-building.  The "that's 
mystical" / "that's impossible" conflict can make it surprisingly hard 
to find mundane and obvious explanations for things.  This is an example 
of premature rejection of data that causes discomfort.

 > But most people are willing to accept the premises based on
 > belief or faith rather than on evidence that the premises are
 > valid.

Most people's minds are so self-referential that they can manufacture 
evidence for or against anything.  Especially if someone is telling them 
how to interpret it.  It's a mechanism of human psychology: if you can 
actually get someone to a profoundly confused state, and then you tell 
them something that makes it all make sense, they'll cling to that 
explanation like a life preserver.

For example, get someone to feel unhappy and guilty and confused about 
their life.  Then tell them, "Your unhappiness is caused by lack of 
belief in God."  This makes them feel less confused--and they feel 
better--so it must be right!--so the rest of their confusion goes away. 
  And that's the evidence.  They can feel the healing touch of God, 
soothing all their worries.  In their internal context, this is *real 
evidence*.  From what we know of psychology, we can see how the illusion 
works.  But we can't say they have no evidence--all we can say is that 
they misinterpreted their perceptions.

For another example, show someone a counterintuitive scientific effect, 
then give them the science theory behind it.  They'll believe it.

Or do a magic trick, and give them any plausible-sounding explanation.

Note that until they try to apply or test what they're told, the last 
two examples are functionally indistinguishable.  So don't be so quick 
to condemn people for lack of evidence.  First, most people have real, 
tangible evidence underlying their faith.  Second, most scientific 
explanations accepted by laymen are not based on evidence but on 
interpretation--and not even their own interpretation, but the one they 
were handed by the scientist.

 > With regard to Paul's question.  You have to view the fact that
 > rational argument, behavior, etc. has a greater value than the
 > inverse.

Which inverse?  There are several kinds of non-rational and irrational 
thought.  Intuition; trust in assertions made by others; rationalized 
primitive/emotional inclinations; and so on.  Some of these, in some 
contexts, are reasonable strategies.  After all, what's the 
highest-value thing to do when it's just been demonstrated that you're 
in an unknown context and all your postulates are suspect?  Is it to 
grab the first postulate that comes along and seems to fit?  No: as I 
explained above, that leaves you wide open to religious conversion. 
(Unfortunately, it's often hard for human brains to try out postulates 
while retaining the ability to discard them.  Once it's in, it redefines 
self and non-self, and anything that threatens it is rejected.)  It may 
be better to fall back on non-rational thought until you've had a chance 
to comprehend your new environment and learn postulates that lead to 
sane thinking.

Now I'm ready to talk about the "real world" and about science.  It's 
tempting to think that the world is a single context that everything can 
be compared to.  But this is equivalent to reductionism.  There are lots 
of things in the world that can be understood far more completely by 
approximation than by first principles.  For example, human psychology 
has some really weird phenomena (phobias, optical illusions, 
passive-aggressive behavior, etc) that a study of physics will not help 
you understand.  To a psychoanalyst or a politician, or even a medical 
doctor, a study of shamanism will have more concrete utility than a 
study of electromagnetism.

In fact, when dealing with people, not studying at all--not trying to 
form postulates and practice formal thought, but just going on instinct, 
intuition, and experience--may be more effective.  This is because 
people are incredibly complex, and we have a strong evolved non-rational 
toolset to help us deal with them.  In addition to people, things like 
ecology may still be too complex for rational thought to improve on 
accumulated heuristics, because we simply don't yet know the postulates 
and methods.  And then there are things like immunology and cosmology 
where none of our tools really work yet, so the only way to approach 
them is by study and rationality.  Eventually, we can expect that study 
and rationality will encompass psychology (including religion and 
parapsychology) and ecology and everything else as well.

You mentioned the undesirability of chaos.  The alternative to chaos is 
the belief that a self-consistent real-world context exists.  But even 
though it exists, we can't access it directly.  Science is motivated by 
the desire to build conceptual contexts that map to the real-world one. 
  Its methods include cataloging (an underrated skill these days), 
categorization, experiment, creativity, criticism, and more.  In some 
sub-contexts like electromagnetism, scientists have been very 
successful; the mapping is very close.  In protein folding, the end is 
in sight.  Pedagogy, psychology, and oncology are quagmires, though 
oncology may be ready for a synthesis.

But back to the practice of science: the trouble is that scientists, 
like everyone else, are prone to the illusion that their chosen context 
extends everywhere.  Let's be clear: I don't mean that scientists should 
leave room for the paranormal or magical.  They should not.  I mean that 
chemists should leave room for physics, and physicists should leave room 
for psychology, and psychologists should leave room for chemistry. 
Otherwise you get absurdities like chemists declaring that Drexler's 
physics and mechanics work is worthless, when it's obvious they don't 
even understand it.

One thing I never see addressed in discussions of rationality: How does 
a rational thinker know when to keep their ears open and their mouth 
shut?  Obviously, the belief that a rational thinker will be an expert 
in everything is irrational.  But it's far too common.  Scientists are 
slowly learning enough to be rational in certain limited contexts.  And 
in a few glorious areas, those contexts have spread enough to merge. 
But anyone who aspires to rationality should learn from the 
overconfidence of scientists who, secure in their rationality, talk 
nonsense outside their field.  That's as big a mistake--I would argue 
that it's the same mistake--as religious people talking nonsense while 
feeling secure in their irrationality.  The mistake is assuming that 
their mental context extends farther than it actually does.

And scientists and rationalists have even less excuse than 
irrationalists.  If as great a scientist as Lord Kelvin could be wrong 
about something as mundane and technical as heavier-than-air flight, 
surely the rest of us should be extremely cautious when talking outside 
our field of study--or even inside it, for many fields.  But no, we keep 
making the same mistake: our context defines our universe, and 
everything we see must be made to conform.  Appeals to rational thought, 
in the end, are usually just another way to rationalize this process.

Chris

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Mon Apr 19 05:39:06 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 01:39:06 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Self replication again (was MARS:  ...
In-Reply-To: <200404181738.i3IHcg907463@tick.javien.com>
References: <200404181738.i3IHcg907463@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <408365FA.6070809@CRNano.org>

Stephen J. Van Sickle wrote:
 > Hmmm....then this brings up the question of how one safely and cheaply
 > disposes of used/defective/outdated devices. Ideally you would want to
 > close the material loop and turn it into feedstock, but as you say it is
 > not obvious that this is simply an inverse operation of construction.
 > Worst case, I suppose, would be some sort of high pressure and
 > temperature decomposition, but the costs would be significant,
 > especially in comparison to the cost of manufacture.  However, it seems
 > a necessary area to investigate when trying to evaluate the cost or
 > effectiveness of large scale MNT.

It's basically a chemical processing operation.  They tend to be pretty 
cheap.  I don't know whether it would be cheap or expensive by 
comparison with manufacturing.  But it would almost certainly be cheap 
relative to the value of the product.

Mike Lorrey wrote:
 > That is a third problem entirely, and likely the simplest one to deal
 > with. If you know the design of the device you are disposing of, you
 > just disassemble it into its constituent parts, toss out the defective
 > ones, and put the rest into parts bins.

There are several practical problems with this.  Radiation damage may 
change the molecular arrangement.  Contaminant molecules on the surface 
may be hard to deal with.

 > With the first problem you are dealing with a 'ore' of rather
 > high-entropy material in terms of isotope dispersion. Picking each atom
 > out one at a time, shaking it, and sorting it into the right bin is a
 > time consuming but rather simple process.

It's only simple if you already have solved the problem of building 
nanomachines.

 > The second problem is the toughest, building something that is highly
 > structured atom by atom from a design.

I don't see what's so tough about this, at least for simple chemistries 
like diamond.  Diamond should be buildable with just a few operations, 
parameterized--and the parameterization is part of the design, and 
should be simple to derive from a simple blueprint.

Diamondoid as implied in Nanosystems--carbon backbone, but with lots of 
other elements substituted or inserted in idiosyncratic places--may be 
tougher.  But it appears likely that we can build a molecular 
manufacturing capability with just diamond and maybe graphene/fullerene.

Chris

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From scerir at libero.it  Mon Apr 19 07:03:12 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 09:03:12 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
References: <200404181738.i3IHcDT27748@finney.org>
	<002301c42574$c3515d60$3cc31b97@administxl09yj>
Message-ID: <000f01c425dc$8073c4c0$bcb31b97@administxl09yj>

From: "scerir"

> In any case it is important to stress here that our reality (simulated
> or not) is something "in between". I mean, between perfect determinism
> (and total non-locality) and perfect randomness (and total separability).

Something here is confusing. Our present orthodox quantum mechanical
view is that our reality is something in between an underlying
perfect determinism (and related non-locality) and an underlying
perfect randomness (and related non-separability).

In the (non orthodox) Bohmian mechanics there are hidden variables.
So in Bohmian mechanics, in principle, FTL signalling is allowed,
and quantum correlation (via entanglement) can be used, for FTL
signals, when the probability =/= |psi|^2. Unfortunately our inability
to beat Heisenberg  uncertainty relation prevents us from controlling
these hidden variables (essentially they indicate "positions") well
enough to send FTL signals.

It is interesting to say that Bell's (experimentally wrong) local realism
factorizability condition ...

p[A,B,Lambda] (x,y|i,j) = p[A,Lambda] (x|i) p[B,Lambda] (y|j)
which just means that the joint probability of outcomes x and y, for
measurements of observables i and j, in the A and B wings, is equal
to the product of the the separate probabilities. We know that so
many experiments have shown the expression above is far from
reality.

... is equivalent to the conjunction of two (double) independent
conditions ....

    Locality condition
p[A,Lambda] (x|i,j) = p[A,Lambda] (x|i)
p[B,Lambda] (y|i,j) = p[B,Lambda] (y|j)
    Separability condition
p[A,Lambda] (x|i,j,y) = p[A,Lambda] (x|i,j)
p[B,Lambda] (y|i,j,x) = P[B,Lambda] (y|i,j)

... and that the (experimental) violation of Bell's local realism
factorizability condition is due to the violation of the Separability
condition *alone*. But this Separability condition (alone) is not
sufficient to prove, mathematically, Bell's theorem (Bell's inequalities).

> In a certain sense our reality (simulated or not) is a good, smart choice.
> Diversity, in unity, for evolution.













From eugen at leitl.org  Mon Apr 19 12:15:59 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:15:59 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity econimic tradeoffs
In-Reply-To: <408339B4.2070402@cox.net>
References: <20040415191616.67831.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>
	<407EEBCF.5070007@cox.net> <20040415202453.GK1026@leitl.org>
	<407FC987.5000205@cox.net>
	<42F54517-90A4-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
	<40819445.7020901@cox.net>
	<566140BA-9188-11D8-BA4A-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
	<408339B4.2070402@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20040419121558.GY1026@leitl.org>

On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 10:30:12PM -0400, Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> When decision criteria are presented to a human in an understandable 
> form, the human can make decisions very rapidly. The decisions a racing 

True. Very useful to use humans as behaviour fitness evaluators.
Cost-effective, too (especially, if you get online gamers to pay 
for the privilege, or military fund the combat simulations). 

> card driver, a fighter pilot, or a video gamer makes are a case in 
> point. This is decision-making on an entirely different level that the 
> one we generally think of in the business world. A programmer currently 

Human visual system has been evolutionary optimized to process specific
complex stimuli very rapidly. It is not obvious we can state real world
problems in such terms. It is also not obvious that the transcoding is not a
harder task than the original problem.

I can kill rogue processes or shoot inodes using command line, or a 
DOOM environment. While latter's more fun, CLI is quicker. 

> makes a few creative decisions per day at the most. The rest of the 
> programming job consists of implementing those decisions by writing, 
> compiling, debugging, and releasing code.

Human programmers have to code the algorithms explicitly. As long as they
have to do that, instead of just specifying boundary conditions/fitness,
especially in informal ways, their productivity has a ceiling. Adding more
people doesn't help over a very small team size.

A system programmed by "give me a control program for a car factory!" is
AI-complete, of course (unless it's just NLP, pulling a template from a
blueprint library, and filling in the blanks by grilling the user).
 
> We are at different levels here. I'm not talking about IT departments. 
> I'm talking about an individual hacker, or perhaps a researcher. I'm 
> also not talking about top-down "productivity" tools like Rational Rose. 
> I'm talking more of bottom-up tools like the various IDEs.

IDEs make debugging simpler. It allows people who're usually too awful
programmers to moonlight as such. It doesn't address the problem of code
writing code, beyond trivial templates.
 
> People insist on trying to computerize the wrong parts of the problem. 
> You speak of planning, scheduling, and understanding. I don't want the 
> computer to do these tasks, at least not initially. I want the computer 
> to do the mundane stuff, it can ask ME to do the planning. If the 
> computer element cannot "understand the intent" it should ask me. The 

DWIM NLP is AI-complete, and dialogue systems are annoying as hell.
Especially, given that they're so braindead it hurts to read the transcripts.

> computer can indeed "weight the implications" of certain decisions, by 
> simply executing all the branches and displaying the results. However if 
> such an activity is too expensive, the computer should tell me and ask 
> for another decision.

I fail to see how that's useful beyond being very neat for debugging
(prototypes of such tools exist).
 
> I have seen a five-year-old child making decisions at a high level in 
> real time, on the soccer field, with two days of training. The kid will 

I would really start worrying if we had an AI good enough to impersonate a
toddler (in physical space, of course).

> obviously not make soccer decisions at the same level as a professional, 
> but the level is still higher than that of a computer. This particular 
> kid has never received formal training in abstract reasoning. However, 
> for the sake of argument, let's assume it does in fact require a trained 
> decision-maker. Given that we only need one of these people to bootstrap 
> the SI, this is not much of a barrier. Pleas consider the amount of time 
> it takes a new player to become proficient at a complex video game. A 
> game player is essentially doing nothing but making decisions.

Yes, AI sucks. Until it stops to suck, quite suddenly. Game over.
 
> It appears that we are in complete agreement. The seed SI has a human 
> component, this seed SI bootstraps, and eventually (within a week in my 
> scenario) reaches a level at which the human component is no longer 
> useful.  My point is that un-augmented humans do not need to create an 
> AI to reach this point.

Can you restate your point? It doesn't follow, at least according to your
argument flow above.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040419/a7bed94e/attachment.bin>

From dgc at cox.net  Mon Apr 19 12:50:17 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 08:50:17 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity econimic tradeoffs
In-Reply-To: <20040419121558.GY1026@leitl.org>
References: <20040415191616.67831.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>	<407EEBCF.5070007@cox.net>
	<20040415202453.GK1026@leitl.org>	<407FC987.5000205@cox.net>	<42F54517-90A4-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>	<40819445.7020901@cox.net>	<566140BA-9188-11D8-BA4A-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>	<408339B4.2070402@cox.net>
	<20040419121558.GY1026@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <4083CB09.1020300@cox.net>

Eugen Leitl wrote:

>[I wrote, responding to Samantha's comment that a human is not part of an SI after bbotstrap]
>  
>
>>It appears that we are in complete agreement. The seed SI has a human 
>>component, this seed SI bootstraps, and eventually (within a week in my 
>>scenario) reaches a level at which the human component is no longer 
>>useful.  My point is that un-augmented humans do not need to create an 
>>AI to reach this point.
>>    
>>
>
>Can you restate your point? It doesn't follow, at least according to your
>argument flow above.
>
>  
>
OK. I think that humans will create a system (or a set of separate 
applications) that is
intended to simplify the software implementation task, using brute-force 
techniques
rather than AI and leaving the decision-making to the human. I think 
that a human will
then use the system to improve the system, and that this bottom-up 
approach will lead
to a system that is "smart" enough to augment itself further without 
human intervention.
My argument flow is simply that humans can make decisions very rapidly 
if the decision
criteria are presented properly.

I do not understand why people think that understanding and emulating 
human problem-
solving is the best approach to machine problem-solving. Cars don't 
emulate horses, planes
don't emulate birds, and chess computers don't emulate chess masters, 
although in each
case inventors tried and failed with an emulation approach.


From scerir at libero.it  Mon Apr 19 13:38:57 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 15:38:57 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
References: <000001c42563$6d49a730$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
	<40831D77.2070500@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <005201c42613$af3d97e0$3fc41b97@administxl09yj>

From: "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky"

> I recall reading a secondhand assertion that the medieval theologians were
> arguing over whether the number was infinite or finite, that is, whether
> space was infinitely divisible.

The Aquinas wrote about that too ( in the 'Summa', part 1, see quaestiones
50-53, http://www.gmu.edu/departments/fld/CLASSICS/aquinas.p1.html or, in
English, at http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1.htm )

Surprising enough, angels and quantum objects have more than one
property in common.

<It is befitting an angel to be in a place;
yet an angel and a body are said to be in a place
in quite a different sense. A body is said to be
in a place in such a way that it is applied
to such place according to the contact of
dimensive quantity; but there is no such quantity
in the angels, for theirs is a virtual one.
Consequently an angel is said to be in a corporeal
place by application of the angelic power
in any manner whatever to any place.
Accordingly there is no need for saying that an angel
can be deemed commensurate with a place, or that he occupies
a space in the continuous; for this is proper to a located
body which is endowed with dimensive quantity.
In similar fashion it is not necessary on this account
for the angel to be contained by a place;
because an incorporeal substance virtually
contains the thing with which it comes into contact,
and is not contained by it: for the soul is in the body
as containing it, not as contained by it.
In the same way an angel is said to be in a place
which is corporeal, not as the thing contained,
but as somehow containing it.>

Aquinas' angels, like wavefunctions, are forms, are images
of procedures (by which a system is made to interact with
another system), are indivisible and, at the same time,
extended objects. Two angels cannot be in the same place,
but they have virtual positions, and can be in an extended place.
They can go, from one place to another, being unobservable
in between (positivism or instrumentalism). They also <exist
in exceeding great number, far beyond all material multitude.>




From jef at jefallbright.net  Mon Apr 19 14:41:21 2004
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 07:41:21 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat]  SI morality
In-Reply-To: <40835F85.4030307@CRNano.org>
References: <200404171515.i3HFFT924604@tick.javien.com>
	<40835F85.4030307@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <4083E511.8010101@jefallbright.net>

I would like to nominate this for Post of the Month, if we're still 
doing anything of that sort.

Thank you, Chris, for your insightful and practical comments on the 
importance of context and *effective* communication with others of 
different mind set.

- Jef
http://www.jefallbright.net


Chris Phoenix wrote:


> But back to the practice of science: the trouble is that scientists, 
> like everyone else, are prone to the illusion that their chosen context 
> extends everywhere.  Let's be clear: I don't mean that scientists should 
> leave room for the paranormal or magical.  They should not.  I mean that 
> chemists should leave room for physics, and physicists should leave room 
> for psychology, and psychologists should leave room for chemistry. 
> Otherwise you get absurdities like chemists declaring that Drexler's 
> physics and mechanics work is worthless, when it's obvious they don't 
> even understand it.
> 
> One thing I never see addressed in discussions of rationality: How does 
> a rational thinker know when to keep their ears open and their mouth 
> shut?  Obviously, the belief that a rational thinker will be an expert 
> in everything is irrational.  But it's far too common.  Scientists are 
> slowly learning enough to be rational in certain limited contexts.  And 
> in a few glorious areas, those contexts have spread enough to merge. But 
> anyone who aspires to rationality should learn from the overconfidence 
> of scientists who, secure in their rationality, talk nonsense outside 
> their field.  That's as big a mistake--I would argue that it's the same 
> mistake--as religious people talking nonsense while feeling secure in 
> their irrationality.  The mistake is assuming that their mental context 
> extends farther than it actually does.
> 
> And scientists and rationalists have even less excuse than 
> irrationalists.  If as great a scientist as Lord Kelvin could be wrong 
> about something as mundane and technical as heavier-than-air flight, 
> surely the rest of us should be extremely cautious when talking outside 
> our field of study--or even inside it, for many fields.  But no, we keep 
> making the same mistake: our context defines our universe, and 
> everything we see must be made to conform.  Appeals to rational thought, 
> in the end, are usually just another way to rationalize this process.




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 19 15:17:38 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 08:17:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Self replication again (was MARS:  ...
In-Reply-To: <408365FA.6070809@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <20040419151738.95665.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Chris Phoenix <cphoenix at CRNano.org> wrote:
> 
>  > The second problem is the toughest, building something that is
>  > highly structured atom by atom from a design.
> 
> I don't see what's so tough about this, at least for simple
> chemistries like diamond.  Diamond should be buildable with just a
few
> operations, parameterized--and the parameterization is part of the
> design, and should be simple to derive from a simple blueprint.

This is a common misperception. You are comparing the making of diamond
to the making of a whole functional machine of diamond. Two entirely
different things. 

Making a hunk of diamond is easy. Happens all the time.

Making parts OUT of diamond, based on a design stored somehow, is an
entirely different ball of wax. First you need to make parts, then put
the parts together.

> 
> Diamondoid as implied ... carbon backbone, but with lots of other
> elements substituted or inserted in idiosyncratic places--may be 
> tougher.  But it appears likely that we can build a molecular 
> manufacturing capability with just diamond and maybe
> graphene/fullerene.

What is the real difficulty is the fact that you want to make your
stuff out of the hardest material around. You can't make parts out of
blocks of such raw material unless your tools are also of the same
material (or harder). This creates a chicken-egg problem: how are you
going to make tools at nano scale out of the hardest material around
unless you already have tools of the same material to make those tools,
and tools to make those tools, etc...

At some point, you have to the hard work that diamond cutters do that
is little more than banging one rock against another. They are pretty
rocks, but rocks nontheless. In nano scales, you are going to have to
make those tools by hand.

The next step will be making a tool making machine from those tools.

When you get to auto-replication, your machines are going to need to be
able to make many tools out of few tools, a veritable fish-and-loaves
issue, such that the net tool production goes into a) making one's
offspring, and b) working on the actual finished product that the owner
wants the machines to produce.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25?
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Tue Apr 20 00:33:34 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:33:34 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics without comprehensive brain disassembly? -
	No 
Message-ID: <03bd01c4266f$1d17a250$1a2d2dcb@homepc>

Robert Bradbury wrote:

> Brett, I am going to make an argument that may be somewhat
> in contrast to the perspective you seem to be operating from.


Okay

[Brett]
> > Why shouldn't I be uncomfortable? I don't think of myself as
> > merely what other people perceive me to be. What evidence
> > is there that I or any homo sapiens can survive the complete
> > disassembly of their brain?

[Robert]
> I don't know -- I doubt we have the theoretical knowledge at
> this point to make good arguments pro or con. 

I'm pretty confident myself. I think existing theoretical knowledge
IS good enough at this point to make very good arguments for the
con. Whether those arguments are persuasive would, like most 
arguments, depend on the willingness of the persons listening to
be persuaded. Recall the intro I put at the top of the Smalley, 
Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan thread. True-believers
can find ways to believe in the monster in the lake or in santa
claus or God, or cryonics, or nanosanta indefinately. Intelligence
does not remove the capacity for rationalisation. 

What is really missing is a reason for a person to go to the trouble
of trying, as I think its one of Adrian's sig lines puts it, it is very
hard to argue a person out of a position that they did not argue
themselves into in the first place.  

Why would anyone bother? Where is the pay-off? True-believers
don't like to pay one for the service of dis-illusioning them. 

Jehovah's Witnesses will come to you uninvited and talk to you
effectively forever about what they believe but try and get one of 
them to bet US$1000 dollars with you if they are wrong and see
how quickly they move on muttering "wicked, wicked". There are
easier pickings for them. They just want to talk about what they
want to talk about and to sell you the Watch Tower if you'll buy
it and to get you to join them if they can. But essentially they
are playing a numbers game. They may be "nice" people. Puppies
are "nice" too.  

PT Barnum said there's a sucker born every minute. Unfortunately
when one removes the dummy from a baby and doesn't replace it
with something else one doesn't get smiles so much as tears. And
it doesn't matter whether the removal is done with good intentions
or not. 

One rarely gets gratitude for the service of dis-illusioning. 

[Brett]
> >... what separates cryonics (that posits that the self can survive
> > the disassembly of  the brain in which one currently experiences
> > it) from religious systems that believe the same thing?  Isn't it a
> > case of pick your belief-poison?

[Robert]
>  I would like to correct a misperception -- cryonics does *not*
> strictly require the disassembly of the brain. 

I think you are making a distinction without an important difference.
Its of course trivially true that cryonics - a purported potential
procedure does require anything. Its not a person. 

Its also, so far as I know, true that cryonicists, the more committed
one's, don't make explicit in the common literature about the
purported potential procedure of cryonics that it will require the brain
being disassembled at some point. I worked that part out for myself.
But go ahead and show me if you can, how Robert Bradbury's
superior perception of cryonics can do both an end-run around
entropy and extract sufficient information on personal neuronal
structures to produce even a very good *copy* of the original self. 

> One is involved in very complex biochemical processes as to
> how one reanimates a brain. 

No one isn't. No one has. Or do you have evidence that brains have
been reanimated after undergoing a cryonics "preservation"
procedure that I don't? If so please share. 

> Those may involve in turn the amount of damage that were
> present or took place when a brain was suspended.

As I say, I think they must, for the purported potential procedure of
cryonics to work. (Even given the other purported potential enabling
nanotechnology). I think you do well to replace "may" with "may not"
above. 

> Sooo... using my original analogy you may (*or may not*) get
> back your original atoms in their original structural form.

I'm saying you can't. No way. No chance. But please show me if 
you can, if you really think you can. Hell don't just show me show
a lot of people and really differentiate cryonics from religion. How in
your superior perception of cryonics to mine is it even possible in
principle to get back the original atoms? I'm stating that it isn't. 

> In my personal opinion (as per my discussions with Harvey)
> you have a *really* difficult time proving that your "self"
> today is the same as your "self" yesterday.

I've been enjoying reading some of Harvey's recent exchanges with
you, he is really making you work to hold your "beliefs". I think that's
a very healthy thing regardless but I think Harvey is doing you more
of a service than you are doing him.   

But only a dimwit would fall for the sophists trap of trying to prove
they exist.  (And Harvey is no dimwit. Nor obviously are you).  If 
there is one thing that everyone must have to be involved in any
discussion - including discussions about science, and logic,
and rationality - it's oneself. One needs to be oneself (and that's 
a material substrate) BEFORE one learns language and acquires
the tools of logic and can practice the scientific method. 

If your looking for a premise or an axiom or a first cause for you
its you. You are the centre of your perceptual universe. Robert
Ettinger knows that and is now, apparently, writing a work of 
"philosophy" :-) entitled the Youniverse. You can even order
a copy in advance. His pitch is quite good really. I'm thinking
of buying one myself, because I respect Robert Ettingers 
commitment AND see SOME merit in his thoughts, even though
I think he is wrong in some areas. Like that cryonics will work. 

> I do not know if a homo sapiens can survive the complete
> dissassembly of their brain.  

> I would assume based on previous experience that at least
> the first couple of times we are going to get this wrong. 
> However I do have a reasonable confidence in physics that
> *if* it is necessary and a brain disassembly is required that
> a reasonably accurate brain reassembly may be executed. 

That's your understanding of physics. If you insist on 
anthropomorphising physics, I suggest that you think of "her"
(or him) as fickle and entirely self centred. She "physics" doesn't
care about you at all. She does even care that you don't understand
her. You understand her more or less well because its more or less
useful to you to do so while you are alive. 

But physics isn't a she of course and doesn't have a point of 
view any more than science has a point of view or rationality or
logic has a point of view.  They are things you can use to serve
you as opposed to beliefs which are things which hurt you but 
make you feel warm and fuzzy and social to profess because
in a world of monkeys banannas can seem like the only useful
currency. 

> It may however take some time for humanity to make this
> process work on a reliable basis.

Or, it may simply, never ever happen - because it would violate
contingency. Essentially you are your living brain. Most of the
atoms will have changed in your brain in your life but the neurons
and their "connections" have never undergone anything like
the wholesale dis-connection all-at-once, that cryonics processes,
or dying involves. 

It's a "bitch" but there it is. 

Stem cells and cybernetics Robert. Stem cells and cybernetics.

You need to move your self off your substrate in stages while you
are alive, (ie. no 12 hr plus EEG flatlines) - just like how you grew
or you are gone my friend - you will be a fondly remembered
Ex-parrot. Dead as Franklin. Dead as Newton. Dead as Pascal. 

Regards,
Brett Paatsch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040420/ab1e9c77/attachment.html>

From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Tue Apr 20 02:32:45 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 22:32:45 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Self replication again (was MARS:  ...
In-Reply-To: <200404200034.i3K0Yq915601@tick.javien.com>
References: <200404200034.i3K0Yq915601@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <40848BCD.3050902@CRNano.org>

Mike Lorrey wrote:
 > What is the real difficulty is the fact that you want to make your
 > stuff out of the hardest material around. You can't make parts out of
 > blocks of such raw material unless your tools are also of the same
 > material (or harder). This creates a chicken-egg problem: how are you
 > going to make tools at nano scale out of the hardest material around
 > unless you already have tools of the same material to make those tools,
 > and tools to make those tools, etc...
 >
 > At some point, you have to the hard work that diamond cutters do that
 > is little more than banging one rock against another. They are pretty
 > rocks, but rocks nontheless. In nano scales, you are going to have to
 > make those tools by hand.

Whoa.  Basic misconception here.  MNT is not about chipping away at a 
chunk of diamond to leave a shape.  It is about building a shape of 
diamond bit by bit from individual dimers (or whatever).  The deposition 
"tools" are not tools in the machine-tool sense.  They're closer to a 
hot-melt glue gun or an arc welding tip than to anything with a cutting 
edge.

Given that, I think you haven't challenged my assertion that if you can 
build diamond by MNT deposition, you can build programmable complex 
diamond parts simply by changing the sequence of depositions.

(By the way, I've been told by someone who knows how to machine tool 
steel that you can in fact use steel to cut steel, then use the part 
you've just cut to cut more steel, and rapidly build a very complex 
operation/part from very simple shapes.  Apparently you don't even have 
to mess with tempering and annealing the metal: it just behaves very 
differently under compression than under tension.  So your chicken-egg 
problem doesn't hold for that material.  But that's just a side note, 
because MNT is not about top-down or subtractive machining at all.)

Chris

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From extropy at unreasonable.com  Tue Apr 20 03:40:57 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:40:57 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics without comprehensive brain
	disassembly? - No 
In-Reply-To: <03bd01c4266f$1d17a250$1a2d2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040419232829.02f93e48@mail.comcast.net>

Brett Paatsch wrote:

>PT Barnum said there's a sucker born every minute. Unfortunately
>when one removes the dummy from a baby and doesn't replace it
>with something else one doesn't get smiles so much as tears. And
>it doesn't matter whether the removal is done with good intentions
>or not.

Linguistic footnote for any mildly confused: 'dummy' is British slang for 
pacifier.


-- him wot's got a Brit stepmum.




From samantha at objectent.com  Tue Apr 20 07:56:13 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 00:56:13 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity econimic tradeoffs
In-Reply-To: <408339B4.2070402@cox.net>
References: <20040415191616.67831.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>
	<407EEBCF.5070007@cox.net> <20040415202453.GK1026@leitl.org>
	<407FC987.5000205@cox.net>
	<42F54517-90A4-11D8-8079-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
	<40819445.7020901@cox.net>
	<566140BA-9188-11D8-BA4A-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
	<408339B4.2070402@cox.net>
Message-ID: <31814285-92A0-11D8-BA4A-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>


On Apr 18, 2004, at 7:30 PM, Dan Clemmensen wrote:

>>> In my opinion, the Singularity will result from any fast-feedback 
>>> process that uses computers to enhance "technological creativity." 
>>> "Technological creativity"is that quality or set of qualities that 
>>> results in new advances in technology. For purposes of this 
>>> discussion, we can restrict ourselves to computer and related 
>>> technologies.
>>>
>>> In my favorite scenario, the initial SI is a collaboration between 
>>> one or more humans and a large computing resource. The humans supply 
>>> the creativity and high-level pattern recognition, while the 
>>> computers supply brute-force stuff like web searching, peep-hole 
>>> optimizations, etc. If the collaboration can be made tight enough, 
>>> the system as a whole will operate as fast as the human(s) can make 
>>> high-level decisions.
>>
>>
>> Bingo!   Since humans are making the high-level decision the 
>> speed/productivity of the system is directly limited by human 
>> limitations.  The include human irrationality and various forms of 
>> monkey politics inherent to human group dynamics.
>
>
> When decision criteria are presented to a human in an understandable 
> form, the human can make decisions very rapidly. The decisions a 
> racing card driver, a fighter pilot, or a video gamer makes are a case 
> in point. This is decision-making on an entirely different level that 
> the one we generally think of in the business world. A programmer 
> currently makes a few creative decisions per day at the most. The rest 
> of the programming job consists of implementing those decisions by 
> writing, compiling, debugging, and releasing code.
>

Notice that all your examples are in realms of high hand-eye 
coordination.  Humans were optimized in those areas by evolution.  I 
see no evidence that similar high speed decision making is achieved by 
humans, individually or collectively, in dense informational contexts 
that we were not optimized for.

>>>  Such a system would permit computer implementation under human 
>>> guidance. Presumably, the first thing the inventors of such a system 
>>> will use the system for is improvements to the system.
>>
>>
>> I have been around in corporate/business computing environments for 
>> quite some time and I have been involved in business selling to such 
>> environments and improving productivity of various groups, including 
>> software groups.  The first and foremost thing any IT resource is 
>> used for is to enhance profitability.   Self-improvement of IT 
>> systems,  done in-house, by external software purchase and 
>> integration or some mixture are usually not a very high priority.  It 
>> is notoriously hard to sell software based on such improvements to 
>> infrastructure.  Usually the improvements have to be cast in terms of 
>> "solutions" to particular onerous problems seen as part of the 
>> business process directly influencing the bottom line.  This 
>> recasting as solutions severely limits how much improvement is 
>> achieved or even contemplated to fundamental infrastructure and 
>> methodology.
>
> We are at different levels here. I'm not talking about IT departments. 
> I'm talking about an individual hacker, or perhaps a researcher. I'm 
> also not talking about top-down "productivity" tools like Rational 
> Rose. I'm talking more of bottom-up tools like the various IDEs.

I have also been hacking for a lot of years.  When I am fully on I am 
considered " scary" by most hacker's standards.  But I am also quite 
aware of how slow my best speed and how limited my best "flow" is in 
the context of what is needed.   IDEs?    Bottom-up?   <stunned>

>
>>
>> It is even more difficult to make a profitable business selling tools 
>> to software producers, i.e., programmers.  The business model just 
>> doesn't work out that well.  It is possible to pay the bills of a 
>> small company and group in this manner but there isn't much way to 
>> get rich doing this.  Yet the problems of improving software 
>> productivity and quality are very germane to such a path to SI and 
>> are largely non-trivial problems.  Open Source efforts hold some 
>> promise but I have my doubts the most central problems will be solved 
>> in the OS world.
>>
>>> As soon as the system is implementing things as fast as the human(s) 
>>> can make decisions, the next problem that the inventors will turn to 
>>> is increasing the scope of sub-problems that can be solved by the 
>>> computers rather than the human, using whatever software tools come 
>>> to hand: there is no particular need for an overall theory of AI 
>>> here. since the humans are still handling that part. The humans 
>>> become more and more productive. As they add more and more tools to 
>>> the computer toolbox, the humans operate at progressively higher 
>>> levels of abstraction. They use the system to optimize the system. 
>>> If necessary, they use the system to design new hardware to add to 
>>> the system. Eventually, the humans are operating at such a high 
>>> level of abstraction that the non-human part of the system reaches 
>>> and then exceeds the current human level of technical creativity.
>>
>>
>> There is a very real Ai component needed for such planning, 
>> scheduling, understanding intent of decisions, weighing repercussions 
>> of implementation choices, deciding when to bring humans back into 
>> the loop and so on.  This is very non-trivial and not at all in the 
>> scope of most business computing today.
>
> People insist on trying to computerize the wrong parts of the problem. 
> You speak of planning, scheduling, and understanding. I don't want the 
> computer to do these tasks, at least not initially. I want the 
> computer to do the mundane stuff, it can ask ME to do the planning. If 
> the computer element cannot "understand the intent" it should ask me. 
> The computer can indeed "weight the implications" of certain 
> decisions, by simply executing all the branches and displaying the 
> results. However if such an activity is too expensive, the computer 
> should tell me and ask for another decision.
>

Humans are too limited to do real time planning at a fine grained level 
quickly enough to remotely keep even rather modest hardware busy with 
the rest of your wish list above.   The computer also needs to be able 
to analyze the various runs to at least a well-chewed summary level.  
There is no way a human can analyze more than a relative handful of 
runs in sufficient detail to guide further work quickly enough to 
better even outstanding human level results, much less achieve 
Singularity levels.

>>
>> Having humans operate at such a high level of abstraction is not at 
>> all easy to do.  Only persons well trained in formal abstract 
>> reasoning are likely to comfortably operate at such levels and then 
>> only within the severe limits set by our internal computational 
>> hardware and biologically heavily conditioned minds.  Their is some 
>> truth in the old chestnut that groups of humans often have an 
>> effective intelligence no greater than 70% of the average 
>> intelligence of the group.  I am being charitable when I say this is 
>> what I have observed.  Much of the group decision making is not on 
>> the basis of the manipulation of the principles and abstractions 
>> involved using logic at all.
>
> I have seen a five-year-old child making decisions at a high level in 
> real time, on the soccer field, with two days of training.

Again, proficiency in monkey skills does not translate to general high 
speed abstract decision making.

>  The kid will obviously not make soccer decisions at the same level as 
> a professional, but the level is still higher than that of a computer. 
> This particular kid has never received formal training in abstract 
> reasoning.

Irrelevant as that is not what is used to play soccer.

>
>
> It appears that we are in complete agreement. The seed SI has a human 
> component, this seed SI bootstraps, and eventually (within a week in 
> my scenario) reaches a level at which the human component is no longer 
> useful.  My point is that un-augmented humans do not need to create an 
> AI to reach this point.
>

I got your point.  I still disagree.

-s



From amara at amara.com  Tue Apr 20 10:42:17 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:42:17 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: extropy-chat Digest, Vol 7, Issue 18
In-Reply-To: <200404200034.i3K0Yq915601@tick.javien.com>
References: <200404200034.i3K0Yq915601@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <p05100301bcaaaddbe297@[150.146.134.133]>

Chris Phoenix <cphoenix at CRNano.org>:

>Even scientists reject observations all the time.  They read the data
>differently.  They assert that there must be errors in the method.

yes, true

>They
>attack the credentials of the observer.  They change the subject.  They
>build strawman attacks, and frequently even appear to convince
>themselves.  They form cliques.  They tell their students not to even
>read the claims, and certainly not to investigate them.

to be fair, I don't think that this is the norm. Yes, it happens,
but it is not the common way that scientists (that I know, anyway)
think about and solve problems.

Amara

-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"I do not know." -- Joseph Louis Lagrange [summarizing his life's work]


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Tue Apr 20 11:28:20 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 04:28:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics without comprehensive brain disassembly?
	- No 
In-Reply-To: <03bd01c4266f$1d17a250$1a2d2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404200334340.24895-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Ok Brett, I'll tackle some of this now.  Perhaps more later.

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Brett Paatsch (responding to my comments
on cryonics and to a lesser extent preservation of identity)
wrote:

> [Robert]
> >  I would like to correct a misperception -- cryonics does *not*
> > strictly require the disassembly of the brain.
>
> I think you are making a distinction without an important difference.
> Its of course trivially true that cryonics - a purported potential
> procedure does require anything. Its not a person.
> [snip]
> But go ahead and show me if you can, how Robert Bradbury's
> superior perception of cryonics can do both an end-run around
> entropy and extract sufficient information on personal neuronal
> structures to produce even a very good *copy* of the original self.

I don't have to show you.  Its documented in Ralph Merkle's paper
on the "The molecular repair of the brain" [1] (which is about 10 years
old now).  Freezing doesn't damage *most* of the cellular structures
we know that because we can freeze bacteria, yeast, sperm, eggs, etc.
and revive them and they function perfectly well.  The problem with
freezing (as it is now done) vs. vitrification is that one gets
fractures at the macroscale and that disrupts things like blood
vessels, axon structure, etc.  Ralph goes into how nanorobots
could repair these.  I suspect you have never done much rock
collecting.  If you had you would know that when you fracture
a solid object you get pieces that go back together very precisely.
So long as you can map the fractures and you have nanotech that
can put things back together properly the fractures are not
a problem.

So I would assert that in a significant fraction of cryonics patients
you can put a "humpty dumpty" brain back together again (so long
as you are dealing with solid material where there is little
entropic effect).

Now, there *are* some secondary effects due to external and internal
radiation.  Robert Freitas has looked at part of this [2], though I'm
not at liberty to release it.  It looks like this isn't a significant
problem for individuals who are frozen for at least hundreds of
years (longer time scales -- such as interstellar travel times
might start to present problems).

> No one isn't. No one has. Or do you have evidence that brains have
> been reanimated after undergoing a cryonics "preservation"
> procedure that I don't? If so please share.

No direct evidence.  I am extending the idea that if many types
of cells can be frozen and reanimated and function properly that
the cells of the brain can be as well.  Eugen or Anders might
know if people have actually frozen and reanimated neurons.
One could argue that one might lose some fraction of the cells
in the process -- *but* you are losing cells every day [3].
I'm working on the basis of personal experience -- I've actually
ordered Deinococcus radiodurans that were freeze dried at the
ATCC and grown them in the lab.  You can't assert (to me) that
one cannot recover frozen cells to a fully functional state.

> > Sooo... using my original analogy you may (*or may not*) get
> > back your original atoms in their original structural form.
>
> I'm saying you can't. No way. No chance. But please show me if
> you can, if you really think you can.

Ok, first let me assert that you do not from day to day retain
unchanging structural forms -- not at the molecular level.
Ribosomes, neurotransmitters, neuroreceptors, etc. are all
being recycled (broken down and rebuilt) at some rate (so the
atoms and many molecules that were in one place yesterday are
not the same atoms and molecules that may be in those places today).
So this isn't a strict requirement.

But this goes back to my discussion of the disassembly of Mars.
If you have the computer resources to compress and someplace
to store the compressed information it is perfectly reasonable
to disassemble things atom-by-atom and record the information
(there are multiple experiments with AFMs and STMs doing this
kind of thing now even without nanotech).  Now if you add an
extra step of sorting and storing the atoms as you perform the
disassembly process, *and* you have robust nanotech, then
reassembly using the original atoms seems reasonable.  Now
with biological systems since there is so much redundancy
(in the genomes and proteins) would could adopt a policy of
not storing information that may be defective or damaged
in some way and perform the reassembly using the "best case"
(for an individual) or the "best case" (as determined by
the state-of-the-art biological knowledge base).  So one
might perform a reanimation of an individual in the best
health of their life or perhaps in the best health science
and engineering is currently capable of.  This is entirely
distinct from standard "uploading" methods where one replicates
the intelligence on entirely different hardware (such as an
equivalent mind within a computer).

Whether one views the original brain that is restored back into
an operational state by nanorobots or a completely disassembled
and reassembled brain as oneself or a copy gets into philisophical
issues.  One could ask similar questions about people brought back
to life after drowning or a heart attack.

This leads to one of the problems I think stem cells may need
to address in the long term -- How do you find the stem cell(s)
that are in the best condition?  So in cases where one is attempting
to restore a damaged brain (from disease, death, cryonics, etc.)
how does one decide what stem cells to use?

And yes, I've enjoyed recent comments by both Harvey and Chris
and I will probably need to wade through them further to see
what responses might be useful.

Robert




From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Tue Apr 20 12:38:02 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 22:38:02 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics without comprehensive brain disassembly?
	- No
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404200334340.24895-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <046701c426d4$527ecb20$1a2d2dcb@homepc>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>
> Ok Brett, I'll tackle some of this now.  Perhaps more later.

Fair enough. No rush.

> > [Robert]
> > >  I would like to correct a misperception -- cryonics does *not*
> > > strictly require the disassembly of the brain.
> >
> > I think you are making a distinction without an important difference.
> > Its of course trivially true that cryonics - a purported potential
> > procedure does require anything. Its not a person.
> > [snip]
> > But go ahead and show me if you can, how Robert Bradbury's
> > superior perception of cryonics can do both an end-run around
> > entropy and extract sufficient information on personal neuronal
> > structures to produce even a very good *copy* of the original self.
>
> I don't have to show you.  Its documented in Ralph Merkle's paper
> on the "The molecular repair of the brain" [1] (which is about 10 years
> old now).

No you don't *have* to show me or anybody anything. BTW your
citations [1, 2, 3 etc don't map to anything.]

> Freezing doesn't damage *most* of the cellular structures
> we know that because we can freeze bacteria, yeast, sperm, eggs, etc.
> and revive them and they function perfectly well.

No relevant.

> The problem with
> freezing (as it is now done) vs. vitrification is that one gets
> fractures at the macroscale and that disrupts things like blood
> vessels, axon structure, etc.

> So long as you ..... have nanotech that can put things back together
> properly the fractures are not a problem.

So it's trivial then. All we need is nanosantas :-)

I'd noted that a lot of the keenest advocates of molecular manufacturing
seem to be pretty keen on cryonics as well. Perhaps a cynic might
see a link there ;-).

All we need to make cryonics - one purported potential techinolgy
that most people don't believe in to work - is that we get another purported
potential technology to work that most people don't believe in.

I can't imagine why that's so hard :-)

> So I would assert that in a significant fraction of cryonics patients
> you can put a "humpty dumpty" brain back together again (so long
> as you are dealing with solid material where there is little
> entropic effect).

I guess it hard to provide more details then the "humpty dumpty" stuff
because you are time constrained. Aren't we all.

> Now, there *are* some secondary effects due to external and internal
> radiation.  Robert Freitas has looked at part of this [2], though I'm
> not at liberty to release it.

Then I'm not a liberty to be persuaded by it. And more to the point
it can't persuade others that don't see it either.  I'm only one person
and I don't even vote in the US.

I know that you are aware that both cryonics and molecular manufacturing
ala Drexler are not exactly supported by a majority of scientists let alone
a majority of voters (voters matter cause they vote). So its not like
you have no incentive to communicate an argument if you have a good
one.


> It looks like this isn't a significant
> problem for individuals who are frozen for at least hundreds of
> years (longer time scales -- such as interstellar travel times
> might start to present problems).

Your visual acuity is remarkable ;-) Now if only you could communicate
what you see.

> > No one isn't. No one has. Or do you have evidence that brains have
> > been reanimated after undergoing a cryonics "preservation"
> > procedure that I don't? If so please share.
>
> No direct evidence.

>  I am extending the idea that if many types of cells can be frozen
> and reanimated and function properly that the cells of the brain
> can be as well.  Eugen or Anders might know if people have
> actually frozen and reanimated neurons.

By Eugen and Anders didn't tell me seek to correct the
misperception - indicated either - you did. Its your perception
that you work from isn't it?

> One could argue that one might lose some fraction of the cells
> in the process -- *but* you are losing cells every day [3].

I know.

> I'm working on the basis of personal experience -- I've actually
> ordered Deinococcus radiodurans that were freeze dried at the
> ATCC and grown them in the lab.

This is a country mile from refuting my assertion.

>  You can't assert (to me) that
> one cannot recover frozen cells to a fully functional state.

No I can't. Indeed I know that in nature frogs do freeze
sometimes and thaw out in the winter. But your changing
the subject.

> > > Sooo... using my original analogy you may (*or may not*) get
> > > back your original atoms in their original structural form.
> >
> > I'm saying you can't. No way. No chance. But please show me if
> > you can, if you really think you can.
>
> Ok, first let me assert that you do not from day to day retain
> unchanging structural forms -- not at the molecular level.

Didn't say I did. I know I do.

> Ribosomes, neurotransmitters, neuroreceptors, etc. are all
> being recycled (broken down and rebuilt) at some rate (so the
> atoms and many molecules that were in one place yesterday are
> not the same atoms and molecules that may be in those places today).
> So this isn't a strict requirement.

I did not say they were and your still trying to change the subject.

> But this goes back to my discussion of the disassembly of Mars.

Irrelevant. Mars is even less biological than your other diversions.

> If you have the computer resources to compress and someplace
> to store the compressed information it is perfectly reasonable
> to disassemble things atom-by-atom and record the information
> (there are multiple experiments with AFMs and STMs doing this
> kind of thing now even without nanotech).

So you are talking about disassembling after all. Just about
something you know rather than about the misperception you
sought to correct.

> Now if you add an extra step of sorting and storing the atoms
> as you perform the  disassembly process, *and* you have robust
> nanotech, then  reassembly using the original atoms seems
> reasonable.

Now your arguing for *my* side and talking about DOING the
very comprehesive disassembly I stated that you'd need to do.


> Now
> with biological systems since there is so much redundancy
> (in the genomes and proteins)

Irrelevant - the structures of cells and of neurons are not
determinable by genomic and proteomic factors alone.

If you could make your case at the neuronal level that would
be pretty impressive. But you can't.

Regards,
Brett Paatsch




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 20 16:55:33 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 09:55:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Self replication again (was MARS:  ...
In-Reply-To: <40848BCD.3050902@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <20040420165533.64363.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Chris Phoenix <cphoenix at CRNano.org> wrote:
> Mike Lorrey wrote:> 
> Whoa.  Basic misconception here.  MNT is not about chipping away at a
> chunk of diamond to leave a shape.  It is about building a shape of 
> diamond bit by bit from individual dimers (or whatever). The
> deposition "tools" are not tools in the machine-tool sense.
> They're closer to a hot-melt glue gun or an arc welding tip
> than to anything with a cutting edge.

Sorry, you were talking about making monolithic diamond and comparing
that to making nanites, implying that one started with a hunk of
diamond and chipped away at it. So we are a back to my original
argument about building parts and assemblies an atom or molecule at a
time.

> 
> Given that, I think you haven't challenged my assertion that if you
> can 
> build diamond by MNT deposition, you can build programmable complex 
> diamond parts simply by changing the sequence of depositions.

It is relatively easy to make a machine that is dumb like a beer bottle
packer or orange stacker. Each atom, one after the other, without any
real thought to counting x many atoms then x many spaces, etc.

Slightly more complex is making one machine that can make one part over
and over and over again.

It is entirely different to have a machine that is tied to a computer
database to not just tell it how to make one part, but every part that
the machine itself is made of, the computer itself, and the end product
the controller wants built is made of.

> 
> (By the way, I've been told by someone who knows how to machine tool 
> steel that you can in fact use steel to cut steel, then use the part 
> you've just cut to cut more steel, and rapidly build a very complex 
> operation/part from very simple shapes.  Apparently you don't even
> have 
> to mess with tempering and annealing the metal: it just behaves very 
> differently under compression than under tension.  So your
> chicken-egg 
> problem doesn't hold for that material.  But that's just a side note,
> because MNT is not about top-down or subtractive machining at all.)

No, the chicken-egg problem is still there, because you are talking
about working with diamond. You need diamond machines to work diamond
parts, IF you are doing machining. 

If we are doing the glue-gun thing, that may be a different story, but
I have serious questions about how easy it is to just assemble diamond
molecules at normal pressures. Admittedly I don't know much about this,
but it seems to me that something that requires a humongous press to
produce even artificial diamond at massive pressures and temps (and
can't actually replicate natural diamond) would cause significant
difficulties for you if your machine is trying to put diamond molecules
together at normal pressures and temps.

We may need a diamond machine to get the strength we need to push these
molecules together.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25?
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Tue Apr 20 17:06:12 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics without comprehensive brain disassembly?
	- No
In-Reply-To: <046701c426d4$527ecb20$1a2d2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404200945170.581-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> No you don't *have* to show me or anybody anything. BTW your
> citations [1, 2, 3 etc don't map to anything.]

How annoying (editing error).  Let me try again (see the end of the msg).

> So it's trivial then. All we need is nanosantas :-)

Not completely true -- one does probably need at least
highly parallel AFMs/STMs -- or alternatively very clever
bioengineered cells that are very good at the repair of
tissue that has been damaged (engineered stem cells for
example).

> I'd noted that a lot of the keenest advocates of molecular manufacturing
> seem to be pretty keen on cryonics as well. Perhaps a cynic might
> see a link there ;-).

Of course.  People supporting cryonics presumably have to have
some optimism that the problems will be solved in one way or
another.  MM is a relatively well defined path by which one might
build the necessary technical components to solve the problems
involved in cryonics.

Re: other technologies
> I can't imagine why that's so hard :-)

People are working on alternate technologies all the time.
Survival of ischemia-reperfusion injury is a classic example.

> I guess it hard to provide more details then the "humpty dumpty" stuff
> because you are time constrained. Aren't we all.

Fractured samples of solid objects have a reasonably unique 3D
structure.  That is why I can take 2 pieces of fractured diamond
and precisely put them back together (mind you one would need something
relatively complex to rejoin covalent bonds that have been broken) --
but reassembly of fractured biological tissue is much simpler because
most, if not all, of the bonds that will be broken will be hydrogen
bonds and these will naturally self-assemble themselves.

> Then I'm not a liberty to be persuaded by it. And more to the point
> it can't persuade others that don't see it either.  I'm only one person
> and I don't even vote in the US.

(I'll ask Robert F. if it is ok to release the paper.)

> >  I am extending the idea that if many types of cells can be frozen
> > and reanimated and function properly that the cells of the brain
> > can be as well.  Eugen or Anders might know if people have
> > actually frozen and reanimated neurons.
>
> By Eugen and Anders didn't tell me seek to correct the
> misperception - indicated either - you did. Its your perception
> that you work from isn't it?

I'm not sure I understand this question.  E/A may simply be more
familiar with whether or not neurons or brain tissue have been
frozen and thawed and returned to am operational state.

> This is a country mile from refuting my assertion.

Ok, since this has been a long thread -- why don't you restate
your assertion(s)?

Mine would be:
1) It is probably possible to repair the brain using the original
   atoms and structure after it has been frozen (this is in part
   the subject of [1]).
2) It is probably possible to completely disassemble a brain to
   an atomic level and reassemble it if one has advanced MNT capabilities.
3) It is probably possible to completely disassemble a brain, map
   out its neural architecture and reassemble it on completely
   different hardware (e.g. uploading).

Robert

1. http://www.merkle.com/cryo/techFeas.html
2. R. A. Freitas, "Implications of Natural Internal Radiation
   (Endoradiation) for the Reanimation of Cryonics Patients"
   (1999)
3. Pakkenberg, B. & Gundersen, H. J. G., "Neocortical Neuron
   Number in Humans: Effect of Sex and Age", J. of Comparative
   Neurology 384:312-320 (1997)




From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Apr 20 17:06:25 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:06:25 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics without comprehensive brain disassembly?
	- No
In-Reply-To: <03bd01c4266f$1d17a250$1a2d2dcb@homepc>
References: <03bd01c4266f$1d17a250$1a2d2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <20040420170624.GF1026@leitl.org>

On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 10:33:34AM +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> I'm pretty confident myself. I think existing theoretical knowledge
> IS good enough at this point to make very good arguments for the
> con. Whether those arguments are persuasive would, like most 

Strangely enough, while agreeing with your premises (that current 
science is adequate), I arrive at the very opposite
conclusion. Perhaps you should reexamine your position, given that last time
you were unwilling to dive into technical details. Are you continuing to just
dismiss evidence by refusing to examine it? 

> arguments, depend on the willingness of the persons listening to
> be persuaded. Recall the intro I put at the top of the Smalley, 
> Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan thread. True-believers
> can find ways to believe in the monster in the lake or in santa
> claus or God, or cryonics, or nanosanta indefinately. Intelligence
> does not remove the capacity for rationalisation. 

You claim this is a belief situation, while still not providing any data why
you think cryonics kills you. While refusing to examine ample evidence people
put your way. You were talking about rationalization, right?
 
> What is really missing is a reason for a person to go to the trouble
> of trying, as I think its one of Adrian's sig lines puts it, it is very
> hard to argue a person out of a position that they did not argue
> themselves into in the first place.  

And you know that how? I can readily think of several examples to the
contrary.
 
> Why would anyone bother? Where is the pay-off? True-believers
> don't like to pay one for the service of dis-illusioning them. 
> 
> Jehovah's Witnesses will come to you uninvited and talk to you
> effectively forever about what they believe but try and get one of 
> them to bet US$1000 dollars with you if they are wrong and see
> how quickly they move on muttering "wicked, wicked". There are
> easier pickings for them. They just want to talk about what they
> want to talk about and to sell you the Watch Tower if you'll buy
> it and to get you to join them if they can. But essentially they
> are playing a numbers game. They may be "nice" people. Puppies
> are "nice" too.  
> 
> PT Barnum said there's a sucker born every minute. Unfortunately
> when one removes the dummy from a baby and doesn't replace it
> with something else one doesn't get smiles so much as tears. And
> it doesn't matter whether the removal is done with good intentions
> or not. 
> 
> One rarely gets gratitude for the service of dis-illusioning. 

Above passage is 100% opinion, and 0% fact as far as science is 
concerned. I won't do one thing: argue opinions with you. 
 
> I think you are making a distinction without an important difference.
> Its of course trivially true that cryonics - a purported potential
> procedure does require anything. Its not a person. 

What is a person? Let's start with the supposedly obvious.
 
> Its also, so far as I know, true that cryonicists, the more committed
> one's, don't make explicit in the common literature about the
> purported potential procedure of cryonics that it will require the brain
> being disassembled at some point. I worked that part out for myself.

The degree of commitment doesn't correlate with technical knowledge.
Many cryonicists have strange beliefs about the procedure, which
unfortunately frequently results in a bad service (there's no peer review
mechanism amongst providers nor relevant legal regulation framework). This doesn't mean that
fundamental technology and physics behind the entire process is not sound. 

> But go ahead and show me if you can, how Robert Bradbury's
> superior perception of cryonics can do both an end-run around
> entropy and extract sufficient information on personal neuronal
> structures to produce even a very good *copy* of the original self. 

Your mention of entropy is a red herring. Given that you refuse to
investigate all aspects of identity in context of evolution of a system along
a state space trajectory your question about copy and original is meaningless.

Static image, or dynamic process copy? Identical trajectories? Do you
understand why systems diverge, and what it means if we keep them
synchronous? There's no point in arguing before we settle on meaning 
of above questions.
 
> No one isn't. No one has. Or do you have evidence that brains have
> been reanimated after undergoing a cryonics "preservation"
> procedure that I don't? If so please share. 

You're asking for hard validation criteria. As we can't do
nanoreconstruction, the best I can do is to point you towards Suda's
classical paper, and most of modern cryobiology (including whole-organ
cryopreservation pioneers like Fahy & Co).
 
> As I say, I think they must, for the purported potential procedure of
> cryonics to work. (Even given the other purported potential enabling
> nanotechnology). I think you do well to replace "may" with "may not"

Nanoreconstruction will be required in all cases but uploading. Both
nanoreconstruction and uploading use identical digital processing stages,
namely reversing cryopreservation that is reversible (there's plenty of
information erasure occuring due to structural denaturation).

> above. 
> 
> > Sooo... using my original analogy you may (*or may not*) get
> > back your original atoms in their original structural form.
> 
> I'm saying you can't. No way. No chance. But please show me if 
> you can, if you really think you can. Hell don't just show me show
> a lot of people and really differentiate cryonics from religion. How in
> your superior perception of cryonics to mine is it even possible in
> principle to get back the original atoms? I'm stating that it isn't. 

Are you really trying to say that atoms (ignoring isotopes, nuclear isomeres
and state in general, which are irrelevant for biology) are distinguishable?
(Think twice before answering, it *is* a trick question).

I presume you're aware that cryo AFM has atomic resolution? Look:
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~zs9q/zsfig/figureindex.html

That, assuming you're lunatic enough to ask for atomic precision. 
 
> But only a dimwit would fall for the sophists trap of trying to prove
> they exist.  (And Harvey is no dimwit. Nor obviously are you).  If 
> there is one thing that everyone must have to be involved in any
> discussion - including discussions about science, and logic,
> and rationality - it's oneself. One needs to be oneself (and that's 
> a material substrate) BEFORE one learns language and acquires
> the tools of logic and can practice the scientific method. 

Please use science for a change, and state precisely what you so glibly refer
as "self".
 
> If your looking for a premise or an axiom or a first cause for you
> its you. You are the centre of your perceptual universe. Robert

You continue to produce content-free, yet profoundly-sounding sentences. Have
you considered a career in politics.

> Ettinger knows that and is now, apparently, writing a work of 
> "philosophy" :-) entitled the Youniverse. You can even order
> a copy in advance. His pitch is quite good really. I'm thinking
> of buying one myself, because I respect Robert Ettingers 
> commitment AND see SOME merit in his thoughts, even though
> I think he is wrong in some areas. Like that cryonics will work. 

I'm no friend of Ettinger, but it's way premature to rule out that
cryopreservation kills you for good.
 
> That's your understanding of physics. If you insist on 
> anthropomorphising physics, I suggest that you think of "her"
> (or him) as fickle and entirely self centred. She "physics" doesn't
> care about you at all. She does even care that you don't understand
> her. You understand her more or less well because its more or less
> useful to you to do so while you are alive. 

Garbage. You keep flaunting the most appalling deficits in your
understanding of basic undergrad-level physics (on those very rare occasions,
when you're choosing addressing those pesky technical details), and 
accuse Robert of the same? 
 
> But physics isn't a she of course and doesn't have a point of 
> view any more than science has a point of view or rationality or
> logic has a point of view.  They are things you can use to serve
> you as opposed to beliefs which are things which hurt you but 
> make you feel warm and fuzzy and social to profess because
> in a world of monkeys banannas can seem like the only useful
> currency. 

Are you drunk, or something?
 
> > It may however take some time for humanity to make this
> > process work on a reliable basis.
> 
> Or, it may simply, never ever happen - because it would violate
> contingency. Essentially you are your living brain. Most of the
> atoms will have changed in your brain in your life but the neurons
> and their "connections" have never undergone anything like
> the wholesale dis-connection all-at-once, that cryonics processes,
> or dying involves. 
> 
> It's a "bitch" but there it is. 
> 
> Stem cells and cybernetics Robert. Stem cells and cybernetics.

I'm all for in-vivo patching, but most (if not all) of us will die before
that technology becomes available. Currently, as shitty as the options
appear, there are simply no alternative to staying alive. That, and cryonics
as your second-best bet. 
 
> You need to move your self off your substrate in stages while you
> are alive, (ie. no 12 hr plus EEG flatlines) - just like how you grew

Is there anything qualitatively different between a 30 sec, a 
10 min or a 12 h EEG lacune? 

> or you are gone my friend - you will be a fondly remembered
> Ex-parrot. Dead as Franklin. Dead as Newton. Dead as Pascal. 

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040420/3e0d783c/attachment.bin>

From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Tue Apr 20 17:38:59 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:38:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics without comprehensive brain disassembly?
In-Reply-To: <20040420170624.GF1026@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404201023590.581-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Eugen Leitl, commenting on Brett's comments, wrote:

> > You need to move your self off your substrate in stages while you
> > are alive, (ie. no 12 hr plus EEG flatlines) - just like how you grew
>
> Is there anything qualitatively different between a 30 sec, a
> 10 min or a 12 h EEG lacune?

Eugen, is there any good data on precisely precise brain
decay per unit time with a flat-line EEG?  I'm not talking
about ischemia-reperfusion injury -- I'm talking about what
actually causes the flat-line (e.g. severe comas) and the
limits to dealing with it.

I would imagine one could have problems with ATP synthesis
and perhaps the proteosome and other methods of proteins
being degraded but is isn't clear to me that either of
those contribute directly to a flat-line so long as the
brain has sufficient nutrients.  This may be a question
along the lines of "what precisely is required to reboot
a brain?".  A different way of looking at it would be
*what* precisely would contribute to a loss of the
neuronal structure in the brain in a flat-line condition
but one that has sufficient resources to maintain the
neuronal structure?

I'm thinking along the lines of we may currently have the
technology to preserve the brain structure but we don't know
enough (yet) to perform a reboot (similar to the fact
that decades ago we didn't know how to restart a heart
that stopped beating).  In that case there is a clear
alternative to cryonics that might make Brett and/or
others happy.

Robert




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Apr 20 18:07:24 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:07:24 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] gravity probe b
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040420130652.01bd6ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>


Spike asked me to send this along:

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

WooooHoooo!

The Gravity Probe B is on its way!  This is the longest-lived
space project in history, having been proposed in 1959 and
launched today.  It is to measure a consequence of general
relativity: inertial frame dragging.  Check it out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B

{8-]

spike 




From duggerj1 at charter.net  Tue Apr 20 17:49:07 2004
From: duggerj1 at charter.net (duggerj1 at charter.net)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 12:49:07 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dragon-Tyrant Fable Illustrated Version
Message-ID: <200404201749.i3KHn7xk038511@mxsf15.cluster1.charter.net>

Tue 20 Apr 04

Hello all:

     If you've not yet read Bostrom's "The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant", I recommend it. It makes me wonder about other >H fables and fairy tales. Do such exist? 

     Do you think a market exists for an illustrated version of this story? Would you read it to children? 

Jay Dugger     :     Til Eulenspiegel
http://www.owlmirror.net/~duggerj/
Sometimes the delete key serves best.



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 20 18:14:23 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:14:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] PRIVACY: GPS darts
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040420130652.01bd6ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20040420181423.80543.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>

http://www.backfire.dk/EMPIRENORTH/newsite/products_en001.htm

The ID SNIPERTM rifle designed by EMPIRE NORTH 

What is the ID SNIPERTM rifle?

It is used to implant a GPS-microchip in the body of a human being,
using a high powered sniper rifle as the long distance injector. The
microchip will enter the body and stay there, causing no internal
damage, and only a very small amount of physical pain to the target. It
will feel like a mosquito-bite lasting a fraction of a second. At the
same time a digital camcorder with a zoom-lense fitted within the scope
will take a high-resolution picture of the target. This picture will be
stored on a memory card for later image-analysis. 

Why use the ID SNIPERTM rifle?

As the urban battlefield grows more complex and intense, new ways of
managing and controlling crowds are needed. The attention of the media
changes the rules of the game. Sometimes it is difficult to engage the
enemy in the streets without causing damage to the all important image
of the state. Instead EMPIRE NORTH suggests to mark and identify a
suspicious subject on a safe distance, enabeling the national law
enforcement agency to keep track on the target through a satellite in
the weeks to come.

The ID SNIPERTM rifle was presented by Empire North in Beijing at the
China Police 2002 exhibition. 

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25?
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash


From astapp at fizzfactorgames.com  Tue Apr 20 18:41:28 2004
From: astapp at fizzfactorgames.com (Acy James Stapp)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:41:28 -0700
Subject: Spam:[extropy-chat] PRIVACY: GPS darts
Message-ID: <56BC65EB2F3963489057F7D978B5E7B701AB85DA@amazemail2.amazeent.com>

This is a hoax. Some Danish guy invented this fake weapon and went 
to a Chinese weapons fair to advertise it. Crazy.

http://www.jakobboeskov.com/

[ -----Original Message-----
[ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org 
[ [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of 
[ Mike Lorrey
[ Sent: Tuesday, 20 April, 2004 13:14
[ To: ExI chat list
[ Subject: Spam:[extropy-chat] PRIVACY: GPS darts
[ 
[ 
[ http://www.backfire.dk/EMPIRENORTH/newsite/products_en001.htm
[ 
[ The ID SNIPERTM rifle designed by EMPIRE NORTH 
[ 
[ What is the ID SNIPERTM rifle?
[ 
[ It is used to implant a GPS-microchip in the body of a human being,
[ using a high powered sniper rifle as the long distance injector. The
[ microchip will enter the body and stay there, causing no internal
[ damage, and only a very small amount of physical pain to the 
[ target. It
[ will feel like a mosquito-bite lasting a fraction of a second. At the
[ same time a digital camcorder with a zoom-lense fitted within 
[ the scope
[ will take a high-resolution picture of the target. This 
[ picture will be
[ stored on a memory card for later image-analysis. 
[ 
[ Why use the ID SNIPERTM rifle?
[ 
[ As the urban battlefield grows more complex and intense, new ways of
[ managing and controlling crowds are needed. The attention of the media
[ changes the rules of the game. Sometimes it is difficult to engage the
[ enemy in the streets without causing damage to the all important image
[ of the state. Instead EMPIRE NORTH suggests to mark and identify a
[ suspicious subject on a safe distance, enabeling the national law
[ enforcement agency to keep track on the target through a satellite in
[ the weeks to come.
[ 
[ The ID SNIPERTM rifle was presented by Empire North in Beijing at the
[ China Police 2002 exhibition. 
[ 
[ =====
[ Mike Lorrey
[ Chairman, Free Town Land Development
[ "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
[                                        - Gen. John Stark
[ Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com
[ 
[ 
[ 	
[ 		
[ __________________________________
[ Do you Yahoo!?
[ Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25?
[ http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
[ _______________________________________________
[ extropy-chat mailing list
[ extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
[ http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
[ 


From dgc at cox.net  Tue Apr 20 19:06:24 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:06:24 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] PRIVACY: GPS darts
In-Reply-To: <20040420181423.80543.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040420181423.80543.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <408574B0.1030003@cox.net>

This has to be a spoof.
   -- The picture of the rifle itself looks bogus.
   -- The picture of the chip and its capsule shows a unit that is far 
too large to be implanted with only "mosquito-like" consequences.
   -- Such a device would need both a GPS receiver and some sort of 
transmitter. It the transmitter cannot reach more than (say) 50 feet, 
then GPS is irrelevant: you can just triangulate on the transmitter.
   -- Micro-scale devices cannot in general transmit or receive radio 
waves. You need an antenna of the correct size, and that size is at 
least a few centimeters.

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>http://www.backfire.dk/EMPIRENORTH/newsite/products_en001.htm
>
>The ID SNIPERTM rifle designed by EMPIRE NORTH 
>
>What is the ID SNIPERTM rifle?
>
>It is used to implant a GPS-microchip in the body of a human being,
>using a high powered sniper rifle as the long distance injector. The
>microchip will enter the body and stay there, causing no internal
>damage, and only a very small amount of physical pain to the target. It
>will feel like a mosquito-bite lasting a fraction of a second. At the
>same time a digital camcorder with a zoom-lense fitted within the scope
>will take a high-resolution picture of the target. This picture will be
>stored on a memory card for later image-analysis. 
>
>Why use the ID SNIPERTM rifle?
>
>As the urban battlefield grows more complex and intense, new ways of
>managing and controlling crowds are needed. The attention of the media
>changes the rules of the game. Sometimes it is difficult to engage the
>enemy in the streets without causing damage to the all important image
>of the state. Instead EMPIRE NORTH suggests to mark and identify a
>suspicious subject on a safe distance, enabeling the national law
>enforcement agency to keep track on the target through a satellite in
>the weeks to come.
>
>The ID SNIPERTM rifle was presented by Empire North in Beijing at the
>China Police 2002 exhibition. 
>
>=====
>Mike Lorrey
>Chairman, Free Town Land Development
>"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
>                                       - Gen. John Stark
>Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com
>
>
>	
>		
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25?
>http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>  
>



From twodeel at jornada.org  Tue Apr 20 19:13:46 2004
From: twodeel at jornada.org (Don Dartfield)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 12:13:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] PRIVACY: GPS darts
In-Reply-To: <20040420181423.80543.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404201203170.729-100000@hplx.net>

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> http://www.backfire.dk/EMPIRENORTH/newsite/products_en001.htm
> 
> The ID SNIPERTM rifle designed by EMPIRE NORTH 

This triggers skeptical warning bells in my head.  Do we really have
devices that are small enough to be fired into your skin without causing
more pain than a mosquito bite, and yet have a power supply strong enough
to receive GPS signals and transmit their location to a receiver a useful
distance away, for a significant length of time?




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 20 19:56:14 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 12:56:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] PRIVACY: GPS darts
In-Reply-To: <408574B0.1030003@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20040420195614.59168.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>

Yes, the picture of the rifle looks like a comic book writers fetish.
However, my point of posting this is that any tech realistic enough to
spoof well is close enough to the edge of current day tech reality that
it is just around the corner. If he had done the gun design better he
might have spoofed more people.

That he received such an enthusiastic audience in China for the concept
he was spoofing is pretty indicative of where things are headed.

while radio requires at least a few centimeters, a real GPS dart could
easily penetrate more than a few centimeters, trailing a flexible
antenna. The GPS chip itself is getting smaller  and smaller, and can
easily be powered by a coil drawing on ambient radio noise.

--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:
> This has to be a spoof.
>    -- The picture of the rifle itself looks bogus.
>    -- The picture of the chip and its capsule shows a unit that is
> far too large to be implanted with only "mosquito-like" consequences.
>    -- Such a device would need both a GPS receiver and some sort of 
> transmitter. It the transmitter cannot reach more than (say) 50 feet,
> then GPS is irrelevant: you can just triangulate on the transmitter.
>    -- Micro-scale devices cannot in general transmit or receive radio
> waves. You need an antenna of the correct size, and that size is at 
> least a few centimeters.
> 
> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> >http://www.backfire.dk/EMPIRENORTH/newsite/products_en001.htm
> >
> >The ID SNIPERTM rifle designed by EMPIRE NORTH 
> >
> >What is the ID SNIPERTM rifle?
> >
> >It is used to implant a GPS-microchip in the body of a human being,
> >using a high powered sniper rifle as the long distance injector. The
> >microchip will enter the body and stay there, causing no internal
> >damage, and only a very small amount of physical pain to the target.
> It
> >will feel like a mosquito-bite lasting a fraction of a second. At
> the
> >same time a digital camcorder with a zoom-lense fitted within the
> scope
> >will take a high-resolution picture of the target. This picture will
> be
> >stored on a memory card for later image-analysis. 
> >
> >Why use the ID SNIPERTM rifle?
> >
> >As the urban battlefield grows more complex and intense, new ways of
> >managing and controlling crowds are needed. The attention of the
> media
> >changes the rules of the game. Sometimes it is difficult to engage
> the
> >enemy in the streets without causing damage to the all important
> image
> >of the state. Instead EMPIRE NORTH suggests to mark and identify a
> >suspicious subject on a safe distance, enabeling the national law
> >enforcement agency to keep track on the target through a satellite
> in
> >the weeks to come.
> >
> >The ID SNIPERTM rifle was presented by Empire North in Beijing at
> the
> >China Police 2002 exhibition. 
> >
> >=====
> >Mike Lorrey
> >Chairman, Free Town Land Development
> >"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
> >                                       - Gen. John Stark
> >Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com
> >
> >
> >	
> >		
> >__________________________________
> >Do you Yahoo!?
> >Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25?
> >http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
> >_______________________________________________
> >extropy-chat mailing list
> >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat


=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25?
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash


From dgc at cox.net  Tue Apr 20 20:50:06 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:50:06 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] PRIVACY: GPS darts
In-Reply-To: <20040420195614.59168.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040420195614.59168.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <40858CFE.7010005@cox.net>

I knew it was a spoof before I looked at the page, based on the antenna 
and the power requirement. If I want to use high tech to tag and track 
someone, this is not the way I would do it.

On the antenna size: There is a reason an RFID tag is 2cmX5cm.
On power: there is a reason an RFID tag can only be scanned from within 
a few feet at most.

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>Yes, the picture of the rifle looks like a comic book writers fetish.
>However, my point of posting this is that any tech realistic enough to
>spoof well is close enough to the edge of current day tech reality that
>it is just around the corner. If he had done the gun design better he
>might have spoofed more people.
>
>That he received such an enthusiastic audience in China for the concept
>he was spoofing is pretty indicative of where things are headed.
>
>while radio requires at least a few centimeters, a real GPS dart could
>easily penetrate more than a few centimeters, trailing a flexible
>antenna. The GPS chip itself is getting smaller  and smaller, and can
>easily be powered by a coil drawing on ambient radio noise.
>
>--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:
>  
>
>>This has to be a spoof.
>>   -- The picture of the rifle itself looks bogus.
>>   -- The picture of the chip and its capsule shows a unit that is
>>far too large to be implanted with only "mosquito-like" consequences.
>>   -- Such a device would need both a GPS receiver and some sort of 
>>transmitter. It the transmitter cannot reach more than (say) 50 feet,
>>then GPS is irrelevant: you can just triangulate on the transmitter.
>>   -- Micro-scale devices cannot in general transmit or receive radio
>>waves. You need an antenna of the correct size, and that size is at 
>>least a few centimeters.
>>
>>    
>>



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 20 21:04:21 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] PRIVACY: GPS darts
In-Reply-To: <40858CFE.7010005@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20040420210421.33325.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>

I am familliar with tags that are embedded in baby trout, which game
wardens can use to track fish populations in streams from as much as
100' from the bank. This tech was available in 1999 and being used here
in NH. Had not seen the size of the tags, but I was told they were
injected, with a cross section of 1-2 mm by 20 mm or thereabouts.

--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:
> I knew it was a spoof before I looked at the page, based on the
> antenna 
> and the power requirement. If I want to use high tech to tag and
> track 
> someone, this is not the way I would do it.
> 
> On the antenna size: There is a reason an RFID tag is 2cmX5cm.
> On power: there is a reason an RFID tag can only be scanned from
> within a few feet at most.
> 
> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> >Yes, the picture of the rifle looks like a comic book writers
> fetish.
> >However, my point of posting this is that any tech realistic enough
> to
> >spoof well is close enough to the edge of current day tech reality
> that
> >it is just around the corner. If he had done the gun design better
> he
> >might have spoofed more people.
> >
> >That he received such an enthusiastic audience in China for the
> concept
> >he was spoofing is pretty indicative of where things are headed.
> >
> >while radio requires at least a few centimeters, a real GPS dart
> could
> >easily penetrate more than a few centimeters, trailing a flexible
> >antenna. The GPS chip itself is getting smaller  and smaller, and
> can
> >easily be powered by a coil drawing on ambient radio noise.
> >
> >--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>This has to be a spoof.
> >>   -- The picture of the rifle itself looks bogus.
> >>   -- The picture of the chip and its capsule shows a unit that is
> >>far too large to be implanted with only "mosquito-like"
> consequences.
> >>   -- Such a device would need both a GPS receiver and some sort of
> 
> >>transmitter. It the transmitter cannot reach more than (say) 50
> feet,
> >>then GPS is irrelevant: you can just triangulate on the
> transmitter.
> >>   -- Micro-scale devices cannot in general transmit or receive
> radio
> >>waves. You need an antenna of the correct size, and that size is at
> 
> >>least a few centimeters.
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat


=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25?
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash


From dgc at cox.net  Tue Apr 20 21:54:31 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:54:31 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] PRIVACY: GPS darts
In-Reply-To: <20040420210421.33325.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040420210421.33325.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <40859C17.4020108@cox.net>

The smallest fish radio tag I have found so far on google is
7.3mm diameter by 18mm length, with a 4cm antenna:
    http://www.lotek.com/mbft.htm
I'll keep looking.

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>I am familliar with tags that are embedded in baby trout, which game
>wardens can use to track fish populations in streams from as much as
>100' from the bank. This tech was available in 1999 and being used here
>in NH. Had not seen the size of the tags, but I was told they were
>injected, with a cross section of 1-2 mm by 20 mm or thereabouts.
>
>--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:
>  
>
>>I knew it was a spoof before I looked at the page, based on the
>>antenna 
>>and the power requirement. If I want to use high tech to tag and
>>track 
>>someone, this is not the way I would do it.
>>
>>On the antenna size: There is a reason an RFID tag is 2cmX5cm.
>>On power: there is a reason an RFID tag can only be scanned from
>>within a few feet at most.
>>
>>    
>>



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Tue Apr 20 23:08:55 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:08:55 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: extropy-chat Digest, Vol 7, Issue 18
In-Reply-To: <p05100301bcaaaddbe297@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <B2BCA6D6-931F-11D8-AEC0-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Tuesday, April 20, 2004, at 06:42 am, Amara Graps wrote:

> Chris Phoenix <cphoenix at CRNano.org>:
>
>> Even scientists reject observations all the time.  They read the data
>> differently.  They assert that there must be errors in the method.
>
> yes, true
>
>> They
>> attack the credentials of the observer.  They change the subject.  
>> They
>> build strawman attacks, and frequently even appear to convince
>> themselves.  They form cliques.  They tell their students not to even
>> read the claims, and certainly not to investigate them.
>
> to be fair, I don't think that this is the norm. Yes, it happens,
> but it is not the common way that scientists (that I know, anyway)
> think about and solve problems.

I would argue even further that since these activities are the opposite 
of the scientific method, those people who behave this way are not 
behaving like scientists.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec 
Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>



From hal at finney.org  Tue Apr 20 23:42:00 2004
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:42:00 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Calorie Reduction Cardiovascular Benefits
Message-ID: <200404202342.i3KNg0C10122@finney.org>

A new report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences has encouraging news about the health effects of calorie
reduction.  See http://www.pnas.org/misc/highlights.shtml#HL8 for an overview.
The abstract from http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0308291101v1 :

   Little is known regarding the long-term effects of caloric restriction
   (CR) on the risk for atherosclerosis. We evaluated the effect of CR on
   risk factors for atherosclerosis in individuals who are restricting
   food intake to slow aging. We studied 18 individuals who had been on
   CR for an average of 6 years and 18 age-matched healthy individuals
   on typical American diets. We measured serum lipids and lipoproteins,
   fasting plasma glucose and insulin, blood pressure (BP), high-sensitivity
   C-reactive protein (CRP), platelet-derived growth factor AB (PDGF-AB),
   body composition, and carotid artery intima-media thickness (IMT). The CR
   group were leaner than the comparison group (body mass index, 19.6 ?? 1.9
   vs. 25.9 ?? 3.2 kg/m2; percent body fat, 8.7 ?? 7% vs. 24 ?? 8%). Serum
   total cholesterol (Tchol), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, ratio of
   Tchol to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides,
   fasting glucose, fasting insulin, CRP, PDFG-AB, and systolic and
   diastolic BP were all markedly lower, whereas HDL-C was higher, in the
   CR than in the American diet group. Medical records indicated that the
   CR group had serum lipid-lipoprotein and BP levels in the usual range
   for individuals on typical American diets, and similar to those of the
   comparison group, before they began CR. Carotid artery IMT was 40% less
   in the CR group than in the comparison group. Based on a range of risk
   factors, it appears that long-term CR has a powerful protective effect
   against atherosclerosis. This interpretation is supported by the finding
   of a low carotid artery IMT.

These values look really good.  HDL-C is the "good" cholesterol and that
was the only one that was higher; all the others are risk factors and
were lower in the CR group.  Also note that the CR people had typical,
i.e. bad, measurements before they began CR.  These CR people were
consuming an average of 2/3 the calories of the typical American diet.
For those who can stick to it, the health benefits appear to be real.

Hal


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 21 00:48:35 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] PRIVACY: GPS darts
In-Reply-To: <40859C17.4020108@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20040421004835.34411.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>

http://www.jojo-automasjon.no/eng/index.html
Look at the photo at the bottom of the page. Diameter of a matchstick.

http://www.secureorderprocess.com/ti/product_detail.asp?product_id=58
Displays 23 and 32 mm long transponders which appear to be about 3mm
dia.

http://www.globalchange.com/skinchip.htm

Moore's Law says 1-1.5 mm dia in a year or so. .5-.75mm after that,
whereupon they will be injectable by gun with minor discomfort for the
recipient, that is, assuming the PTB don't already have them,
considering that these are all out on the open market.

--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:
> The smallest fish radio tag I have found so far on google is
> 7.3mm diameter by 18mm length, with a 4cm antenna:
>     http://www.lotek.com/mbft.htm
> I'll keep looking.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25?
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Wed Apr 21 01:48:37 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:48:37 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics without comprehensive brain disassembly?-
	No
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404200945170.581-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <04d501c42742$c3f318b0$1a2d2dcb@homepc>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote :

> Ok, since this has been a long thread -- why don't you restate
> your assertion(s)?

Threads do get long if obfuscations and diversions get thrown in
all over the place.  It is very time consuming to have to restate stuff
over and over while you try to move the issue to something that
you can put a positive spin on. I don't want you to put a positive 
spin or any spin. I want you to acknowledge the truth in clear
unambiguous terms. 

So I'll put back the relevant bits that you removed. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
[Brett]

>> >... what separates cryonics (that posits that the self can survive
>> > the disassembly of  the brain in which one currently experiences
>> > it) from religious systems that believe the same thing?  Isn't it a
> > > case of pick your belief-poison?


[Robert]
>  I would like to correct a misperception -- cryonics does *not*
> strictly require the disassembly of the brain.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore:
 
Your asserted that:  "cryonics does *not* strictly require the dissassembly
of the brain". 

I asserted that it does.  That's binary. You've taken one position 
with your "perception".  I have taken the other with mine. 

Do we agree on this much? 


I'd like you to be able to communicate the truth of your perception
to me like I have an IQ of 100, and a whole lot of other things to do
with my time. Which I do. But I don't have to rush. Although I am
in a different time zone to you. 

In short I want you to think of me as if I was an average voter. If you
can't convince the average voter without calling in assistance from
Eugene or Anders or anyone then *you* don't perceive the truth of
your position well enough to be polically effective with it on your own.
If you can then you can teach others to do it. And you will be
effective.  Politicians are not a lot brighter on scientific matters
than the average voter.

Be warned the average voter feels perfectly capable of rejecting
you and everything you care about as irrelevent because the average
voter has other things on his/her mind. To the average voter the
most valuable time in the world is not yours its theirs. 

The average voter does not think they are an idiot. The average 
voter thinks their vote is as good as yours. 

Regards, 
Brett Paatsch

PS:  I read the Merkle paper years ago. But the link you provided
is now available to other extropes. The paper was apparently written
in 1994. Unlike the average voter I have one text book that old.
The Molecular Biology of the Cell by Alberts, Watson et al 
If I hadn't written in it I'd probably be tempted to throw it out
as being too old to justify its space on the shelf. 


  













  



 

 



 








From Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au  Wed Apr 21 01:50:55 2004
From: Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au (Emlyn ORegan)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:20:55 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics without comprehensive brain disassembly?-
	No
Message-ID: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE707C4F3@mmdsvr01.mm.local>

I don't know how to find this paper, but it looks promising...

Suda I, Kito K, Adachi C.
Viability of long term frozen cat brain in vitro.
Nature. 1966 Oct 15;212(59):268-70. No abstract available. 
PMID: 5970120 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Display&DB=pubmed

Emlyn

-----Original Message-----
From: Brett Paatsch [mailto:bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au] 
Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2004 10:08 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Cryonics without comprehensive brain
disassembly?- No

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>
> Ok Brett, I'll tackle some of this now.  Perhaps more later.

Fair enough. No rush.

> > [Robert]
> > >  I would like to correct a misperception -- cryonics does *not*
> > > strictly require the disassembly of the brain.
> >
> > I think you are making a distinction without an important
difference.
> > Its of course trivially true that cryonics - a purported potential
> > procedure does require anything. Its not a person.
> > [snip]
> > But go ahead and show me if you can, how Robert Bradbury's
> > superior perception of cryonics can do both an end-run around
> > entropy and extract sufficient information on personal neuronal
> > structures to produce even a very good *copy* of the original self.
>
> I don't have to show you.  Its documented in Ralph Merkle's paper
> on the "The molecular repair of the brain" [1] (which is about 10
years
> old now).

No you don't *have* to show me or anybody anything. BTW your
citations [1, 2, 3 etc don't map to anything.]

> Freezing doesn't damage *most* of the cellular structures
> we know that because we can freeze bacteria, yeast, sperm, eggs, etc.
> and revive them and they function perfectly well.

No relevant.

> The problem with
> freezing (as it is now done) vs. vitrification is that one gets
> fractures at the macroscale and that disrupts things like blood
> vessels, axon structure, etc.

> So long as you ..... have nanotech that can put things back together
> properly the fractures are not a problem.

So it's trivial then. All we need is nanosantas :-)

I'd noted that a lot of the keenest advocates of molecular manufacturing
seem to be pretty keen on cryonics as well. Perhaps a cynic might
see a link there ;-).

All we need to make cryonics - one purported potential techinolgy
that most people don't believe in to work - is that we get another
purported
potential technology to work that most people don't believe in.

I can't imagine why that's so hard :-)

> So I would assert that in a significant fraction of cryonics patients
> you can put a "humpty dumpty" brain back together again (so long
> as you are dealing with solid material where there is little
> entropic effect).

I guess it hard to provide more details then the "humpty dumpty" stuff
because you are time constrained. Aren't we all.

> Now, there *are* some secondary effects due to external and internal
> radiation.  Robert Freitas has looked at part of this [2], though I'm
> not at liberty to release it.

Then I'm not a liberty to be persuaded by it. And more to the point
it can't persuade others that don't see it either.  I'm only one person
and I don't even vote in the US.

I know that you are aware that both cryonics and molecular manufacturing
ala Drexler are not exactly supported by a majority of scientists let
alone
a majority of voters (voters matter cause they vote). So its not like
you have no incentive to communicate an argument if you have a good
one.


> It looks like this isn't a significant
> problem for individuals who are frozen for at least hundreds of
> years (longer time scales -- such as interstellar travel times
> might start to present problems).

Your visual acuity is remarkable ;-) Now if only you could communicate
what you see.

> > No one isn't. No one has. Or do you have evidence that brains have
> > been reanimated after undergoing a cryonics "preservation"
> > procedure that I don't? If so please share.
>
> No direct evidence.

>  I am extending the idea that if many types of cells can be frozen
> and reanimated and function properly that the cells of the brain
> can be as well.  Eugen or Anders might know if people have
> actually frozen and reanimated neurons.

By Eugen and Anders didn't tell me seek to correct the
misperception - indicated either - you did. Its your perception
that you work from isn't it?

> One could argue that one might lose some fraction of the cells
> in the process -- *but* you are losing cells every day [3].

I know.

> I'm working on the basis of personal experience -- I've actually
> ordered Deinococcus radiodurans that were freeze dried at the
> ATCC and grown them in the lab.

This is a country mile from refuting my assertion.

>  You can't assert (to me) that
> one cannot recover frozen cells to a fully functional state.

No I can't. Indeed I know that in nature frogs do freeze
sometimes and thaw out in the winter. But your changing
the subject.

> > > Sooo... using my original analogy you may (*or may not*) get
> > > back your original atoms in their original structural form.
> >
> > I'm saying you can't. No way. No chance. But please show me if
> > you can, if you really think you can.
>
> Ok, first let me assert that you do not from day to day retain
> unchanging structural forms -- not at the molecular level.

Didn't say I did. I know I do.

> Ribosomes, neurotransmitters, neuroreceptors, etc. are all
> being recycled (broken down and rebuilt) at some rate (so the
> atoms and many molecules that were in one place yesterday are
> not the same atoms and molecules that may be in those places today).
> So this isn't a strict requirement.

I did not say they were and your still trying to change the subject.

> But this goes back to my discussion of the disassembly of Mars.

Irrelevant. Mars is even less biological than your other diversions.

> If you have the computer resources to compress and someplace
> to store the compressed information it is perfectly reasonable
> to disassemble things atom-by-atom and record the information
> (there are multiple experiments with AFMs and STMs doing this
> kind of thing now even without nanotech).

So you are talking about disassembling after all. Just about
something you know rather than about the misperception you
sought to correct.

> Now if you add an extra step of sorting and storing the atoms
> as you perform the  disassembly process, *and* you have robust
> nanotech, then  reassembly using the original atoms seems
> reasonable.

Now your arguing for *my* side and talking about DOING the
very comprehesive disassembly I stated that you'd need to do.


> Now
> with biological systems since there is so much redundancy
> (in the genomes and proteins)

Irrelevant - the structures of cells and of neurons are not
determinable by genomic and proteomic factors alone.

If you could make your case at the neuronal level that would
be pretty impressive. But you can't.

Regards,
Brett Paatsch


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


***************************************************************************
Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are
intended only for the named recipient. If you have received this e-mail
in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document.
No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus or
other defect.



From dan at 3-e.net  Wed Apr 21 02:45:26 2004
From: dan at 3-e.net (Daniel Matthews)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:45:26 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] PRIVACY: GPS darts
In-Reply-To: <200404210149.i3L1nE920257@tick.javien.com>
References: <200404210149.i3L1nE920257@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <200404211245.26928.dan@3-e.net>

Anyone want to do the physics on this?
What energy is required to give such an object the required penetration of 
human flesh at such a range? How is this kinetic energy transfered to the 
target to slow the projectile to a stop, without the target feeling like they 
just got kicked by a horse?

Then there is the physiology, what percent of the body has provision to absorb 
such an impact and then host the projectile without subsequent complications 
such as hemorrhaging or infection. 

Mike, I suggest you ram a 2x40mm needle into your bum and leave it there for a 
few days if you still think such a device is realistic. Don't forget you 
can't sterilise it and it must go through a full layer of clothing.

Having just had a round of immunisation injections I know that even a small 
needle in skilled hands will leave you with painful area for several days.

Others have already pointed out that no device is that small and that such a 
small device would not work as a transmitter.

The image of the gun is clearly a computer rendering and not a very good one 
either. No HDRI based GI etc.

{Mike, IMHO I think you would get further if you travel slower.}




From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Apr 21 02:54:33 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:54:33 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] PRIVACY: GPS darts
In-Reply-To: <20040420181423.80543.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00d601c4274b$ff9c99a0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

> Subject: [extropy-chat] PRIVACY: GPS darts
> 
> 
> http://www.backfire.dk/EMPIRENORTH/newsite/products_en001.htm
> 
> The ID SNIPERTM rifle designed by EMPIRE NORTH 
> 
> What is the ID SNIPERTM rifle?
> 
> It is used to implant a GPS-microchip in the body of a human being,
> using a high powered sniper rifle as the long distance injector...


This story is emitting such a high bogon flux,
it glows brown. 

But if anyone ever does manage to reduce the size
of a GPS small enough that it would feel like a
mosquito bite entering the body, I have some
excellent applications for it.  

spike





From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Apr 21 03:09:14 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 20:09:14 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] PRIVACY: GPS darts
In-Reply-To: <20040420195614.59168.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00d701c4274e$07bf0cb0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] PRIVACY: GPS darts
> 
> Yes, the picture of the rifle looks like a comic book writers
fetish...

There are those who will report in all ernestness, that
the government can fire a dart into any person making
them trackable by evil government forces.

Remember back to 1970 when there was that tragic
incident where several students were slain on the
campus of Kent State University by panicky National
Guard troops.  In the days leading up to that shooting, 
there was a fire of suspicious origin in one of the 
engineering buildings.  This fire was said to
have happened in a lab where a certain magnetic
resonance technology was being developed which could 
be placed unnoticed upon an unwitting victim's clothing, 
allowing that person to be tracked from some distance.  
It was rumored that this technology was used by CIA
operatives to track the Cuban revolutionary Che Guevera 
in the days before his untimely end.

The name of the technology that was being studied
in that destroyed lab is familiar to us today:
liquid crystals.

spike





From astapp at fizzfactorgames.com  Wed Apr 21 03:18:12 2004
From: astapp at fizzfactorgames.com (Acy James Stapp)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 20:18:12 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] PRIVACY: GPS darts
Message-ID: <56BC65EB2F3963489057F7D978B5E7B701AB8667@amazemail2.amazeent.com>

A tracking device based on cellular technology seems much more
reasonable. The power requirements are much lower, the technology
already has broadcast capabilities, etc. Of course, I don't
expect battery tech to improve enough to ever make this feasible.
However, if there is some way to power it by induced current of
some sort then maybe.

Acy

[ -----Original Message-----
[ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org 
[ [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Spike
[ Sent: Tuesday, 20 April, 2004 21:55
[ To: 'ExI chat list'
[ Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] PRIVACY: GPS darts
[ 
[ 
[ > The ID SNIPERTM rifle designed by EMPIRE NORTH 
[ > 
[ > What is the ID SNIPERTM rifle?
[ > 
[ > It is used to implant a GPS-microchip in the body of a human being,
[ > using a high powered sniper rifle as the long distance injector...
[ 
[ 
[ This story is emitting such a high bogon flux,
[ it glows brown. 
[ 
[ But if anyone ever does manage to reduce the size
[ of a GPS small enough that it would feel like a
[ mosquito bite entering the body, I have some
[ excellent applications for it.  
[ 
[ spike
[ 


From johnius at genius.ucsd.edu  Wed Apr 21 05:08:25 2004
From: johnius at genius.ucsd.edu (Johnius of Genius)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 22:08:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Calorie Reduction Cardiovascular Benefits
Message-ID: <200404210508.WAA41138@genius.ucsd.edu>


Hal wrote:
A new report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences has encouraging news about the health effects of calorie
reduction. [...]
These values look really good.  HDL-C is the "good" cholesterol and that
was the only one that was higher; all the others are risk factors and
were lower in the CR group. [...]
For those who can stick to it, the health benefits appear to be real.


	I can partially confirm that in my own case, I think.

	I recently went through an extensive series of tests
	(biomarkers, blood lab work, urine metabolites, physical
	exam, etc.) as part of my starting up with the California
	Healthspan Institute ( http://ehealthspan.com/ ).  The
	conclusion seems to be that considering all of my various
	measured parameters, I'm biologically about 80% younger
	than my chronological age.

	I've been on an anti-aging Zone diet for about a year,
	and have been eating fairly well for over 10 years,
	including about 1.5 years on a somewhat CR diet a la
	Walford.  I also exercise daily (about 1.5 hours bicycling,
	morning walk + calisthenics), and practice some stress relief.

	Of particular interest, my HDL-C is also quite high, and
	Dr. Rothenberg seemed impressed by it.

	My homocysteine is still a little high, but he said I can
	probably easily remedy that by upping my dosage of TMG.

	Other than that, a few of my hormone levels can stand to
	be raised, for anti-aging purposes.  These aren't really
	diet related, but are more age-based parameters.  My DHEA
	and melatonin levels can be easily raised by upping my
	oral dosages of them.  More stubborn are my testosterone
	and HGH levels.  CHI uses bio-identical hormone replacement,
	which is great, but also rather expensive.  So... I'm
	looking for cheaper alternatives.

	To potentially raise testosterone, I'm considering:
	* Tribulus (herb) to stimulate production
	* androstenedione (easily converted)
	* chrysin to reduce conversion of T to other things
	* other herbals: maca, nettle, etc.

	To potentially raise HGH, I'm considering:
	* megadosing arginine/ornithine and glutamine/glycine
	  to stimulate production
	* going south of the border [there is an Israeli company
	  that makes bio-identical HGH for about 10% of the US cost,
	  and its product may be available in Mexico ... anyone
	  know anything about this?  Could be worth a weekly visit
	  to Tijuana :-) ]

	All the best, Johnius
  


From fauxever at sprynet.com  Wed Apr 21 06:04:18 2004
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:04:18 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Spain to Legalize Gay Marriage
Message-ID: <03f901c42766$7be88540$6600a8c0@brainiac>

Yay, Spain!

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=4838845

Olga



From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Wed Apr 21 08:56:48 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 09:56:48 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics without comprehensive brain disassembly?- No
Message-ID: <40863750.9040306@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

On Tue Apr 20 19:48:37 MDT 2004 Brett Paatsch wrote:
> In short I want you to think of me as if I was an average voter. If
> you can't convince the average voter without calling in assistance
> from Eugene or Anders or anyone then *you* don't perceive the truth of
> your position well enough to be politically effective with it on your
> own. If you can then you can teach others to do it. And you will be
> effective.  Politicians are not a lot brighter on scientific matters
> than the average voter.

Well. this is the Extropians list. A fascination with technology seems
to be par for the course.

It's like the man with a hammer. If you have a hammer, then every
problem looks like it can be solved by bashing it with a hammer. So if
you are keen on technology, then, guess what? All problems look like
they can be solved by technology. Whereas in actuality technology will
cause as many new problems as it solves old problems. This will, of
necessity, require more technology to solve the new problems.

Brett and John are discussing whether as yet undeveloped technologies
might at some time in the future enable one particular problem to be
solved. The answer is that of course they might. But when/if that time
arrives we will be in a new era of civilization with unimaginable powers
readily available. The new problems facing such a world could well make
reviving dead people a very minority interest.
Survival could well be the most pressing concern.


But there are many problems with cryonics apart from the technical ones.
Even if you allow that it might at some time become technically
possible, it is likely still not at good idea at the present time.
The cryonics supporters are probably well aware of all the criticisms as
they will have had to argue their case many times against the 'average
voter'.


BillK


From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Apr 21 11:40:21 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 13:40:21 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics without comprehensive brain disassembly?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404201023590.581-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <20040420170624.GF1026@leitl.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0404201023590.581-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040421114021.GS1026@leitl.org>

On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 10:38:59AM -0700, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

> Eugen, is there any good data on precisely precise brain
> decay per unit time with a flat-line EEG?  I'm not talking
> about ischemia-reperfusion injury -- I'm talking about what
> actually causes the flat-line (e.g. severe comas) and the
> limits to dealing with it.

Stopped blood flow (e.g. through wall-current induced heart arrest) results in flat EEG
after some 15-20 seconds: http://www.usyd.edu.au/su/anaes/lectures/cerebprot/
Some sedative drugs and hypothermia help here, too. (Assisted shutdown of
cerebral metabolism by itself is a good idea, since preventing some damage
pathways and reducing the amount of damage in general).
 
> I would imagine one could have problems with ATP synthesis
> and perhaps the proteosome and other methods of proteins
> being degraded but is isn't clear to me that either of
> those contribute directly to a flat-line so long as the
> brain has sufficient nutrients.  This may be a question

Due to brain's very high metabolism rate both oxygen and glucose content collapse at
stopped blood flow. If perfusion is to be maintained, you need to use
drug-assisted shutdown and/or hypothermia to flatten the
electroencephalogram.

> along the lines of "what precisely is required to reboot
> a brain?".  A different way of looking at it would be

The operational attractors are robust (it'd better be, evolution is a harsh
taksmaster) and resume cleanly, when reperfusion is restored (temperature is
elevated (notice that heart starts fibrillating if it's too cold, which is
not a good state to be in for long), sedative drugs are degraded or leave the system).

> *what* precisely would contribute to a loss of the
> neuronal structure in the brain in a flat-line condition
> but one that has sufficient resources to maintain the
> neuronal structure?

If you reperfuse after a prolonged ischemic episode, electric 
activity immediately goes way above normal. This is both a symptom and a
reason for some of the brain damage. Most of the damage cascades manifest 
some 2-3 after the insult. You can keep down the activity and block some 
of the damage pathways with drugs, administered before and/or after.
 
> I'm thinking along the lines of we may currently have the
> technology to preserve the brain structure but we don't know

If the system can no longer homeostate itself, and it's still above
vitrification temperature, it's going to degrade. I.e., you better bring it
back quick (before it's too far gone to be able to resume), or you try to
bring the system as quickly as possible into a stable state. Right now, the
best way to do that is to perfuse and vitrify.

> enough (yet) to perform a reboot (similar to the fact
> that decades ago we didn't know how to restart a heart
> that stopped beating).  In that case there is a clear
> alternative to cryonics that might make Brett and/or
> others happy.

People in coma are slowly going. How long can you leave a person on the
ventilator? Maybe half a year max. Maybe a bit longer, but not much.
Technology doesn't yet advance at a pace where individual days or weeks
matter. As such, coma only gives you a brief respite, slowing the damage
somewhat.

There's no real alternatives to cryonics, unfortunately. We all wish there
was a stasis field, or something, but that doesn't appear to be possible
according to our current knowledge of physics.

Treat above with caution: I've forgotten a lot, and I never knew much about
this area of medicine to start with.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040421/5fda38d2/attachment.bin>

From dgc at cox.net  Wed Apr 21 12:05:48 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 08:05:48 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] PRIVACY: GPS darts
In-Reply-To: <20040421004835.34411.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040421004835.34411.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4086639C.8070405@cox.net>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>http://www.jojo-automasjon.no/eng/index.html
>Look at the photo at the bottom of the page. Diameter of a matchstick.
>
>http://www.secureorderprocess.com/ti/product_detail.asp?product_id=58
>Displays 23 and 32 mm long transponders which appear to be about 3mm
>dia.
>
>http://www.globalchange.com/skinchip.htm
>
>Moore's Law says 1-1.5 mm dia in a year or so. .5-.75mm after that,
>whereupon they will be injectable by gun with minor discomfort for the
>recipient, that is, assuming the PTB don't already have them,
>considering that these are all out on the open market.
>
>  
>
Moore's law describes transistor sizes. Radio waves stay the same size. 
The size
of the radio wave constrains the size of the antenna. Shorter radio 
waves are
possible, but GPS does not use than and they do not penetrate materials 
well.

The devices you found are RFID transponders. They cannot receive GPS, 
and they
cannot operate over more than a few feet. They are unrelated to the fish 
transponder
you mentioned earlier, which had a range of 100' and a 4cm antenna.


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Wed Apr 21 13:55:31 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 06:55:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Calorie Reduction Cardiovascular Benefits
In-Reply-To: <200404210508.WAA41138@genius.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404210653360.529-100000@server.aeiveos.com>



On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Johnius of Genius, commenting on Hal's post wrote:

> These values look really good.  HDL-C is the "good" cholesterol and that
> was the only one that was higher; all the others are risk factors and
> were lower in the CR group. [...]
> For those who can stick to it, the health benefits appear to be real.

For those who can't stick to it -- I believe there have been recent
reports on a drug that appears to raise HDL.  So it would seem that
the biochemists are slowly working things out.

R.



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Wed Apr 21 14:00:04 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 07:00:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] HUMOR: [was: Cryonics without comprehensive brain
	disassembly?- No]
In-Reply-To: <40863750.9040306@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404210656290.529-100000@server.aeiveos.com>



On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, BillK wrote:

> It's like the man with a hammer. If you have a hammer, then every
> problem looks like it can be solved by bashing it with a hammer.

Especially if its a big honking 10-lb sledge hammer.  (As a teenager
I pounded on a lot of rocks with a sledge hammer...).  But sometimes
a good heavy axe or if one has to split wood a sizeable (and sharp)
wedge will work well in combination with the sledge hammer.  :-)

R.




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Wed Apr 21 14:18:12 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 07:18:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] HEALTH: drugs to deal with stroke
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404210706380.529-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


It would appear that Centocor/Eli Lilly are moving into phase 3
clinical trials for a drug (abciximab) that may be able to
push the normal 3 hour stroke window out to 6 hours.

If you have elderly relatives, you may want to find out how
to sign up for this trial.  Its got to be rather complex
because people who have a stroke can't give informed consent
generally and they aren't going to send samples to every
hospital in the country.  Perhaps they only intend to use
Northwestern Memorial Hospital(???).

At any rate, info:
Testing Drug's Ability to Reverse Stroke After Standard Three-hour
Window Has Closed.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/04/040414004907.htm

Stroke is the 3rd leading cause of death so slowly it looks
like we are sending the 4th horseman back to where he came from.

Robert




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Wed Apr 21 14:27:04 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 07:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] HEALTH: drugs to deal with stroke
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404210706380.529-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404210725060.1579-100000@server.aeiveos.com>



On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

> Stroke is the 3rd leading cause of death so slowly it looks
> like we are sending the 4th horseman back to where he came from.

Actually after wrestling with Google for a while it isn't clear
whether Death is the 3rd or the 4th horseman.  The legend/history
appears to have become so warped and twisted that it may be
impossible to know correctly.

R.



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Wed Apr 21 15:41:15 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 08:41:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] NANOTECH: Lasers can help
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404210830120.3291-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


I've submitted the following to nanodot.org but it may not show up for
discussion for a day or two.  It is interesting that it just appeared
given recent conversations between Chris, Mike and myself...  Sometimes
the universe just hands you stuff on a silver platter (and it isn't
a head) [those unfamiliar with Monty Python won't get that one] ;-).

The Univ. of Michigan has announced [1] the ability to do nanoscale milling
(down to 20nm) using ultra-short laser pulses.  Interestingly according to
the abstract they aren't exactly sure how it works.  This is a new approach
to top-down nanotechnology (lithography is also top-down and is currently
pushing towards 70nm).  In contrast biotechnology, mechanosynthesis and
complex chemical methods can be considered bottom-up methods.  From a
size scale perspective 20nm is slightly smaller than a ribosome and
roughly the diameter of Eric's nanomanipulator arm described in Nanosystems
(Figure 13.11).  So a top-down milling machine methodology might allow
the production of a scaled-up nanomanipulator arm which in turn could
be used to produce increasingly smaller versions of itself.

1. http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nanotech-04y.html
2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15071188



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 21 16:49:53 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 09:49:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] PRIVACY: GPS darts
In-Reply-To: <200404211245.26928.dan@3-e.net>
Message-ID: <20040421164953.55788.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Daniel Matthews <dan at 3-e.net> wrote:
> Anyone want to do the physics on this? What energy is required to
> give such an object the required penetration of 
> human flesh at such a range? How is this kinetic energy transfered to
> the target to slow the projectile to a stop without the target
feeling
> like they just got kicked by a horse?

Human flesh can be penetrated, even through clothing, at subsonic
velocities (i.e. less than 900 fps) by bullets as large as .30 caliber
or more. A 9mm bullet can penetrate human flesh over 2 inches at
600-800 fps. The smaller your caliber, the easier it will penetrate at
lower velocities, especially given the profile of the darts have a much
larger length/diameter ratio than bullets.

As the projectile is travelling at subsonic velocities, it transfers
energy by simple friction.

> 
> Then there is the physiology, what percent of the body has provision
> to absorb such an impact and then host the projectile without
> subsequent complications such as hemorrhaging or infection. 

As the artists website stated in his log of his experience at the China
show, an attendee suggested the buttocks.

> 
> Mike, I suggest you ram a 2x40mm needle into your bum and leave it
> there for a few days if you still think such a device is realistic.
> Don't forget you can't sterilise it and it must go through a full
> layer of clothing.
> 
> Having just had a round of immunisation injections I know that even a
> small needle in skilled hands will leave you with painful area for
> several days.

The pain and discomfort with an immunization shot is the immune
reaction of the body to the proteins one is being injected with. A
hypoallergenic package would not entice such a reaction, though there
would be some hemmorhaging. Nor was I proposing that current tech met
the needs of this proposed device. It is realitically going to need to
be reduced to a fraction of a mm in diameter to acheive the desired
penetration without sigificant hemmoraging.

> 
> Others have already pointed out that no device is that small and that
> such a small device would not work as a transmitter.

You apparently weren't paying attention to my later posts, with links
which illustrated a 2mm x 10mm device and a 3x23mm device.

> 
> The image of the gun is clearly a computer rendering and not a very
> good one either. No HDRI based GI etc.

Sure it is clearly a computer rendering. Did you even read into the
fellows website? The whole point of his exercise was to illustrate,
through performance art, of how enthusiastic the state is for such
technology, and how close we are to achieving it that interested buyers
totally bought into the idea that the tech was available today as a
cutting edge breakthrough.

Please take your own advice.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25?
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Wed Apr 21 22:53:38 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 15:53:38 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: PRIVACY: GPS darts [liquid
	crystals]
Message-ID: <4086FB72.707ED57F@mindspring.com>

Somebody on some other list wrote:
> Stew, lots of discussion on extropy-chat about antenna size, power
> requirements, chip size, etc.  Here are some snippets:
>
> This has to be a spoof.

One of the spoofers explained the whole thing on the radio program "The Next
Big Thing" a few weeks back. In sort of a performance art thing they wanted
to create the most frightening weapon they could think of. Being dutch
neo-hippies, they came up with the GPS-chip gun, because having your
movements tracked by the government is so much worse than a bullet through
the head.

Anyway, they faked their way into a weapons trade convention in China. Their
spokesman spent three days there stoned senseless describing his imaginary
weapon to somewhat sceptical prospective buyers and expecting at any moment
to be caught out as a fraud. A Chinese government representative expressed
some interest. The spokesman said that there could be human rights issues
and the gov't rep said they could move the manufacturing to China--no
problem.

As far as I know, nobody has checked to see if the convention actually
existed or if the guy actually went. But if you want to hear more details,
the interview is probably available at the Next Big Thing website.

Bill
--
William Jacobs
Freelance Researcher and Science Journalist


-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Vietnam veterans,
Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Thu Apr 22 00:51:33 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 20:51:33 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Calorie Reduction Cardiovascular Benefits
In-Reply-To: <200404210508.WAA41138@genius.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID: <335F4603-93F7-11D8-8EDF-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Wednesday, April 21, 2004, at 01:08 am, Johnius of Genius wrote:

>
> Hal wrote:
> A new report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy
> of Sciences has encouraging news about the health effects of calorie
> reduction. [...]
> These values look really good.  HDL-C is the "good" cholesterol and 
> that
> was the only one that was higher; all the others are risk factors and
> were lower in the CR group. [...]
> For those who can stick to it, the health benefits appear to be real.
>
>
> 	I can partially confirm that in my own case, I think.
>
> 	I recently went through an extensive series of tests
> 	(biomarkers, blood lab work, urine metabolites, physical
> 	exam, etc.) as part of my starting up with the California
> 	Healthspan Institute ( http://ehealthspan.com/ ).  The
> 	conclusion seems to be that considering all of my various
> 	measured parameters, I'm biologically about 80% younger
> 	than my chronological age.

I also can confirm this.  I have been a vegetarian for almost two 
decades.  Although I don't really practice CR, I do eat less calories 
than most people.  I am over 40 now.  I had a cardiologist call me back 
this year to "fix" my insurance forms because he thought the birthdate 
was wrong.  He swore that he thought I was in my early twenties.  I 
also had a GP recently tell me that my bloodwork numbers were the most 
textbook-perfect numbers she has ever seen.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec 
Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>



From deimtee at optusnet.com.au  Thu Apr 22 11:17:07 2004
From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (deimtee)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 21:17:07 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: extropy-chat Digest, Vol 7, Issue 18
In-Reply-To: <B2BCA6D6-931F-11D8-AEC0-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
References: <B2BCA6D6-931F-11D8-AEC0-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <4087A9B3.8040609@optusnet.com.au>

Harvey Newstrom wrote:

>
> On Tuesday, April 20, 2004, at 06:42 am, Amara Graps wrote:
>
>> Chris Phoenix <cphoenix at CRNano.org>:
>>
>>> Even scientists reject observations all the time.  They read the data
>>> differently.  They assert that there must be errors in the method.
>>
>>
>> yes, true
>>
>>> They
>>> attack the credentials of the observer.  They change the subject.  They
>>> build strawman attacks, and frequently even appear to convince
>>> themselves.  They form cliques.  They tell their students not to even
>>> read the claims, and certainly not to investigate them.
>>
>>
>> to be fair, I don't think that this is the norm. Yes, it happens,
>> but it is not the common way that scientists (that I know, anyway)
>> think about and solve problems.
>
>
> I would argue even further that since these activities are the 
> opposite of the scientific method, those people who behave this way 
> are not behaving like scientists.
>
>
No, they are behaving like science teachers.  This is not meant to be 
funny, many science teachers do behave like this, at all levels.

-david



From ag24 at gen.cam.ac.uk  Tue Apr 20 19:00:57 2004
From: ag24 at gen.cam.ac.uk (Aubrey de Grey)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 20:00:57 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] AGING: New Theory
Message-ID: <E1BG0UL-0007XE-00@ag24.gen.cam.ac.uk>


> Well (Van Remmen, 2003 [1]) is interesting in that free radicals seem
> to be contributing to cancer but not to ageing.

Nearly but not quite -- what it shows is that free radicals accessible
to antioxidant enzymes do not contribute to aging.  (and, as you say,
this is only in lab mice, not humans and not even wild mice.)  This is
important because there is a distinct possibility that superoxide does
most of its harm before it reaches a location where SOD can get at it.
I suggested in 2000 (JAAM 3:25) that the action might be occurring in
the intermembrane space, where superoxide might be protonated rather
more often than elsewhere (more acidic because of proton-pumping by
oxidative phosphorylation).  The protonated form of superoxide is a
really nasty species (see my subsequent paper DNA Cell Biol 21:251),
in contrast to the tameness of superoxide itself.  There are actually
a few weakneses in my proposal, but they were neatly eliminated by an
idea proposed by Florian Muller a few months later (J Am Aging Assoc
23:227): he looked hard at the structure of Complex III and realised
that protonated superoxide could be formed within the actual membrane
itself (in the lipid phase), and zap a fatty acid or protein at once.
Coincidentally Muller is now a coworker of Van Remmen in San Antonio.

Cheers, Aubrey


From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Thu Apr 22 14:51:21 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:51:21 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] NANO: cutting nano scale particles in 3D
Message-ID: <BAY18-DAV58Aaaz7EjQ0000108b@hotmail.com>

I ran across a news release that I thought might interest some here.
Researchers at the University of Michigan have created a laser that is capable of cutting just about any material in 3-D at the nano scale. It seems as if they can cut away sections as small as 20 nm, and even do that beneath a surface leaving the surface intact. 

Kevin Freels
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040422/41d79f9b/attachment.html>

From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Thu Apr 22 14:53:19 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:53:19 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] NANO: Link to 3D nano laser article
Message-ID: <BAY18-DAV11otjCjWEF000010a8@hotmail.com>


I mentioned the article, but failed to post a link to it. Here it is for those who wish to review it.



http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?Releases/2004/Apr04/r042004



Kevin Freels
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040422/3aecb364/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 22 16:08:34 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: extropy-chat Digest, Vol 7, Issue 18
In-Reply-To: <4087A9B3.8040609@optusnet.com.au>
Message-ID: <20040422160834.36927.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>


--- deimtee <deimtee at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> > I would argue even further that since these activities are the 
> > opposite of the scientific method, those people who behave this way
> > are not behaving like scientists.
> >
> >
> No, they are behaving like science teachers.  This is not meant to be
> funny, many science teachers do behave like this, at all levels.
> 

Experimental evidence supporting the proverb that those who can't do,
teach? ;)

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25?
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Thu Apr 22 18:18:08 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:18:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics without comprehensive brain disassembly?-
	No
In-Reply-To: <04d501c42742$c3f318b0$1a2d2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404221031110.7494-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> Threads do get long if obfuscations and diversions get thrown in
> all over the place.

I'm not intentionally trying to obfuscate.  Sometimes my mind
will pick up in the middle of a discussion and perhaps
misinterpret points or wander around things.  People like
Chris Phoenix or perhaps Hal have discussed recently how
to present scientific arguments -- that is not one of my
stronger points.

> So I'll put back the relevant bits that you removed.

Not intentionally.

[Background:]
> >> >... what separates cryonics (that posits that the self can survive
> >> > the disassembly of  the brain in which one currently experiences
> >> > it) from religious systems that believe the same thing?  Isn't it a
> > > > case of pick your belief-poison?

> [Robert]
> >  I would like to correct a misperception -- cryonics does *not*
> > strictly require the disassembly of the brain.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Therefore:
>
> Your asserted that:  "cryonics does *not* strictly require the dissassembly
> of the brain".
>
> I asserted that it does.  That's binary. You've taken one position
> with your "perception".  I have taken the other with mine.
>
> Do we agree on this much?

Yep, we agree that there are (at least) two positions.  [One could
get into complicated hair-splitting with regard to what "disassembly"
means that might produce more positions.]

I would assert from my reading of Ralph's paper and other knowledge
with regard to what nanorobots (*or* even biorobots) can do that
"disassembly" is not necessary (it might be useful but not necessary).

> I'd like you to be able to communicate the truth of your perception
> to me like I have an IQ of 100, and a whole lot of other things to do
> with my time. Which I do. But I don't have to rush. Although I am
> in a different time zone to you.

I'm not sure that this can be done.  If one reads Ralph's paper,
then one reads all of the work by Freitas on what Nanorobots can do,
then if one reads the Robiobotics business plan on what bionanorobots
can do (which I haven't seriously applied to the question of cryonics),
then we might be able to have a head-to-head conversation on the subject.
But to present it to the level of someone with an average IQ you are
presenting a requirement that, at least from my perspective, I have
to spend years educating such a person such that they understand
all of the concepts involved.

The scenario you suggest probably isn't about to happen.  I'll tell
you a sad story (getting off track again).  One of the most beautiful
women I have ever known, who I thought was quite intelligent, told me
that she could never fall in love with me because she was intimidated
by how smart I was.  That was quite revealing with respect to the
fact there are some knowledge bases that are extremely difficult to
communicate across intelligence boundaries.

> In short I want you to think of me as if I was an average voter. If you
> can't convince the average voter without calling in assistance from
> Eugene or Anders or anyone then *you* don't perceive the truth of
> your position well enough to be polically effective with it on your own.

Sorry, while I would like the average voter to believe in cryonics
(or at least not be opposed to it) I don't much care if he/she does.
I don't want to live in a world of reanimated individuals where most
people are at the level of what we now consider to be average.  I want
to live in a world where people have the time, interest, energy, resources,
etc. that it is much more extropic than ours currently is.

You can accuse me of being "extropically prejudiced" and I will
not object.

> If you can then you can teach others to do it. And you will be
> effective.  Politicians are not a lot brighter on scientific matters
> than the average voter.

I understand this.  But I would hope that we might develop a system
where both the "average voter" and the "politicians" become much
more educated and perhaps intelligent.

> Be warned the average voter feels perfectly capable of rejecting
> you and everything you care about as irrelevent because the average
> voter has other things on his/her mind. To the average voter the
> most valuable time in the world is not yours its theirs.

Reasonable point.  But as the recent discussion by Chris Phoenix
shows "fact", "belief" and "faith" are mixed up in very complex
ways by the human mind.  How one deals with them is complex as well.

> The average voter does not think they are an idiot. The average
> voter thinks their vote is as good as yours.

Understood.  And this is perhaps a shortcoming of our system
of one-person = one vote or "all persons are created equal".
These are fantasies.  The reason you put a CEO in charge of
a company or appoint a committee at NIH to schedule genome
sequencing priorities (etc.) is because one recognizes
that there are people who are going to do a better job at
certain tasks because their experience or knowledge bases
are greater than the average voter off of the street.

The votes of informed or educated people are clearly worth
more than uninformed and/or uneducated people.  Would you want
group of a dozen people plucked from rural communities in
India to be sitting on the Federal Reserve Board of the United
States setting interest rates (which tend to influence
interest rates around the world)?  Hell no!

If ExI were to adopt a political position I might lobby for it
to be -- "you have the right to vote -- but you must be qualified
to do so".

Robert

P.S. Also -- I have not seen where you point out that Ralph's paper
strictly requires the disassembly of the brain.  If my memory serves
me correctly I do not think that it does.



From hal at finney.org  Thu Apr 22 18:08:53 2004
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:08:53 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] New site www.e-drexler.com
Message-ID: <200404221808.i3MI8rc04396@finney.org>

According to an announcement I saw today, Eric Drexler has somewhat
belatedly set up a personal web site, http://www.e-drexler.com/.

Those who know Drexler for his work on nanotechnology may be surprised
that the site is not exclusively about nanotech, but in general about
"emerging technologies of broad importance".  Initially the two he is
focusing on include nano (of course), but also secure, distributed
computing.  Indeed, the title of the site is "nanotechnology -
e-drexler.com - secure computing".

The flavor of secure computing Drexler advocates is what is known
as object based capabilities.  This is an unconventional approach to
distributed software which achieves security by putting strict limits
on the abilities of any piece of code to communicate or interact with
other objects in the system.  A good example is the E program language
by Mark Miller, http://www.erights.org/.

Hal


From samantha at objectent.com  Thu Apr 22 19:50:12 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:50:12 -0700
Subject: Spam:[extropy-chat] PRIVACY: GPS darts
In-Reply-To: <56BC65EB2F3963489057F7D978B5E7B701AB85DA@amazemail2.amazeent.com>
References: <56BC65EB2F3963489057F7D978B5E7B701AB85DA@amazemail2.amazeent.com>
Message-ID: <44E6F998-9496-11D8-BA4A-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>

Hmmm.  Are there any technical reasons such a thing could not be built?

- s
On Apr 20, 2004, at 11:41 AM, Acy James Stapp wrote:

> This is a hoax. Some Danish guy invented this fake weapon and went
> to a Chinese weapons fair to advertise it. Crazy.
>
> http://www.jakobboeskov.com/
>
> [ -----Original Message-----
> [ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> [ [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of
> [ Mike Lorrey
> [ Sent: Tuesday, 20 April, 2004 13:14
> [ To: ExI chat list
> [ Subject: Spam:[extropy-chat] PRIVACY: GPS darts
> [
> [
> [ http://www.backfire.dk/EMPIRENORTH/newsite/products_en001.htm
> [
> [ The ID SNIPERTM rifle designed by EMPIRE NORTH
> [
> [ What is the ID SNIPERTM rifle?
> [
> [ It is used to implant a GPS-microchip in the body of a human being,
> [ using a high powered sniper rifle as the long distance injector. The
> [ microchip will enter the body and stay there, causing no internal
> [ damage, and only a very small amount of physical pain to the
> [ target. It
> [ will feel like a mosquito-bite lasting a fraction of a second. At the
> [ same time a digital camcorder with a zoom-lense fitted within
> [ the scope
> [ will take a high-resolution picture of the target. This
> [ picture will be
> [ stored on a memory card for later image-analysis.
> [
> [ Why use the ID SNIPERTM rifle?
> [
> [ As the urban battlefield grows more complex and intense, new ways of
> [ managing and controlling crowds are needed. The attention of the 
> media
> [ changes the rules of the game. Sometimes it is difficult to engage 
> the
> [ enemy in the streets without causing damage to the all important 
> image
> [ of the state. Instead EMPIRE NORTH suggests to mark and identify a
> [ suspicious subject on a safe distance, enabeling the national law
> [ enforcement agency to keep track on the target through a satellite in
> [ the weeks to come.
> [
> [ The ID SNIPERTM rifle was presented by Empire North in Beijing at the
> [ China Police 2002 exhibition.
> [
> [ =====
> [ Mike Lorrey
> [ Chairman, Free Town Land Development
> [ "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
> [                                        - Gen. John Stark
> [ Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com
> [
> [
> [ 	
> [ 		
> [ __________________________________
> [ Do you Yahoo!?
> [ Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25?
> [ http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
> [ _______________________________________________
> [ extropy-chat mailing list
> [ extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> [ http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> [
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 22 20:11:59 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:11:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Spam:[extropy-chat] PRIVACY: GPS darts
In-Reply-To: <44E6F998-9496-11D8-BA4A-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <20040422201159.41411.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>

Based on what is currently on the market, there are current-day
technical limitations. Considering that what is on the market is
typically two or three generations behind what is currently being
developed in labs in most fields, I would not be surprised if it were
not in development somewhere.

Now, there may actually be some limitations on how small a GPS antenna
can be (yes, you need a few centimeters of wire, but there is no
dictation on the diameter of the wire or that it cannot be wound into a
coil). That's okay, you can do the same thing with cellphone signals,
and you don't even need to be an administrator of the cell network to
do so.
http://www.svbxlabs.com/pages/projects/cell/
This fellow patched together a very simple means of locating a
cellphone with two direction finders.

--- Samantha Atkins <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
> Hmmm.  Are there any technical reasons such a thing could not be
> built?
> 
> - s
> On Apr 20, 2004, at 11:41 AM, Acy James Stapp wrote:
> 
> > This is a hoax. Some Danish guy invented this fake weapon and went
> > to a Chinese weapons fair to advertise it. Crazy.
> >
> > http://www.jakobboeskov.com/
> >
> > [ -----Original Message-----
> > [ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> > [ [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of
> > [ Mike Lorrey
> > [ Sent: Tuesday, 20 April, 2004 13:14
> > [ To: ExI chat list
> > [ Subject: Spam:[extropy-chat] PRIVACY: GPS darts
> > [
> > [
> > [ http://www.backfire.dk/EMPIRENORTH/newsite/products_en001.htm
> > [
> > [ The ID SNIPERTM rifle designed by EMPIRE NORTH
> > [
> > [ What is the ID SNIPERTM rifle?
> > [
> > [ It is used to implant a GPS-microchip in the body of a human
> being,
> > [ using a high powered sniper rifle as the long distance injector.
> The
> > [ microchip will enter the body and stay there, causing no internal
> > [ damage, and only a very small amount of physical pain to the
> > [ target. It
> > [ will feel like a mosquito-bite lasting a fraction of a second. At
> the
> > [ same time a digital camcorder with a zoom-lense fitted within
> > [ the scope
> > [ will take a high-resolution picture of the target. This
> > [ picture will be
> > [ stored on a memory card for later image-analysis.
> > [
> > [ Why use the ID SNIPERTM rifle?
> > [
> > [ As the urban battlefield grows more complex and intense, new ways
> of
> > [ managing and controlling crowds are needed. The attention of the 
> > media
> > [ changes the rules of the game. Sometimes it is difficult to
> engage 
> > the
> > [ enemy in the streets without causing damage to the all important 
> > image
> > [ of the state. Instead EMPIRE NORTH suggests to mark and identify
> a
> > [ suspicious subject on a safe distance, enabeling the national law
> > [ enforcement agency to keep track on the target through a
> satellite in
> > [ the weeks to come.
> > [
> > [ The ID SNIPERTM rifle was presented by Empire North in Beijing at
> the
> > [ China Police 2002 exhibition.
> > [
> > [ =====
> > [ Mike Lorrey
> > [ Chairman, Free Town Land Development
> > [ "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
> > [                                        - Gen. John Stark
> > [ Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com
> > [
> > [
> > [ 	
> > [ 		
> > [ __________________________________
> > [ Do you Yahoo!?
> > [ Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25?
> > [ http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
> > [ _______________________________________________
> > [ extropy-chat mailing list
> > [ extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > [ http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> > [
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat


=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25?
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash


From samantha at objectent.com  Thu Apr 22 20:15:30 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:15:30 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] The problem of politics and voting [excerpted from
	"Cyronics Without.."]
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404221031110.7494-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404221031110.7494-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <CD3D9264-9499-11D8-BA4A-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>

Since we are not likely to get broadly more intelligent people without 
some technology much more controversial with "average voters" and 
politicians than cyronics is,  I don't believe we can afford to indulge 
in such wishes.   Nor do I believe we can afford to spend a lot of time 
attempting to dumb things down to get mass appeal.   To the extent we 
engage in politics at all it seems much more reasonable to seek to rein 
in the power of the government  to regulate or even prohibit various 
advanced technologies and the freedom of individuals to make use of 
these technologies.

If we instead fight a technology by technology battle we sanction the 
fundamental premise that government and/or the majority of our fellows 
have the right to limit our freedom to better ourselves and to live 
longer or have a chance of living again.   The fundamental premise that 
government has the right to so restrict us is left unchallenged.   We 
leave the fulcrum in place then wonder why it is so hard to stop the 
advance of the business end of the social-governmental lever.

Regulatory committees of experts beyond the reach of the voting public 
are not exactly an unalloyed or incorruptible benefit either.   There 
is little or no ability to call such a committee to task.  Many such 
bodies even end up with their own law making, law enforcement and 
judicial boards outside of normal safeguards protecting the freedom of 
the people including the freedom to invent, deploy and use new 
technology.

- samantha

On Apr 22, 2004, at 11:18 AM, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>> If you can then you can teach others to do it. And you will be
>> effective.  Politicians are not a lot brighter on scientific matters
>> than the average voter.
>
> I understand this.  But I would hope that we might develop a system
> where both the "average voter" and the "politicians" become much
> more educated and perhaps intelligent.
>
>> Be warned the average voter feels perfectly capable of rejecting
>> you and everything you care about as irrelevent because the average
>> voter has other things on his/her mind. To the average voter the
>> most valuable time in the world is not yours its theirs.
>
> Reasonable point.  But as the recent discussion by Chris Phoenix
> shows "fact", "belief" and "faith" are mixed up in very complex
> ways by the human mind.  How one deals with them is complex as well.
>
>> The average voter does not think they are an idiot. The average
>> voter thinks their vote is as good as yours.
>
> Understood.  And this is perhaps a shortcoming of our system
> of one-person = one vote or "all persons are created equal".
> These are fantasies.  The reason you put a CEO in charge of
> a company or appoint a committee at NIH to schedule genome
> sequencing priorities (etc.) is because one recognizes
> that there are people who are going to do a better job at
> certain tasks because their experience or knowledge bases
> are greater than the average voter off of the street.
>
> The votes of informed or educated people are clearly worth
> more than uninformed and/or uneducated people.  Would you want
> group of a dozen people plucked from rural communities in
> India to be sitting on the Federal Reserve Board of the United
> States setting interest rates (which tend to influence
> interest rates around the world)?  Hell no!
>
> If ExI were to adopt a political position I might lobby for it
> to be -- "you have the right to vote -- but you must be qualified
> to do so".
>



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 22 20:44:13 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:44:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] CRYO: A smart cryonaut investment?
In-Reply-To: <CD3D9264-9499-11D8-BA4A-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <20040422204413.18720.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>

Been reading more about the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone that the Russian
girl Elenya has portrayed so starkly with her photolog of a motorcycle
ride through the zone. Apparently most of the radiation outside the
immediate area of the nuclear plant is from Cs-137, which has a half
life of 30 years. In 100 years its rad level will be down to safe
levels for habitation, leaving LOTS of developed property available for
exploitation.

I was wondering if it might be a smart high-risk investment to buy land
in the exclusion zone now at extremely cheap prices, and sit on it
until it is safe, whiling away the century in one's dewar.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25?
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash


From dgc at cox.net  Thu Apr 22 20:55:23 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 16:55:23 -0400
Subject: Spam:[extropy-chat] PRIVACY: GPS darts
In-Reply-To: <44E6F998-9496-11D8-BA4A-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
References: <56BC65EB2F3963489057F7D978B5E7B701AB85DA@amazemail2.amazeent.com>
	<44E6F998-9496-11D8-BA4A-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <4088313B.6060809@cox.net>

Samantha Atkins wrote:

> Hmmm.  Are there any technical reasons such a thing could not be built?
>
Yes. We've had a long discussion on this.
  1) GPS uses radio wavelengths that require an antenna that is at least 
4cm long.
  2) A transmitter that can send locator signal 100' or more must have 
both a big (4cm or so) antenna and a battery or other energy source will 
sufficient energy.

These constraints are due to the laws of physics and will remain true 
even if the actual electronics are reduced to nano-scale.

Thus, a stealthy injectable system based on GPS location and radio 
transmission is not possible.

It is theoretically possible to build a stealthy tracker, but we need to 
replace both the location system and the transmission system. to avoid 
the antennas. For example, given sophisticated nanotech, we could inject 
a nano-factory that would then manufacture locator dust and leave smart 
trail. The authorities could then follow the trail, or lay a grid of 
more smart dust to intersect the trail. Of course, by the time you have 
such a system, you don't need it, because with that level of nanotech, 
you can just as easily build a universal survailence system. I describe 
it only as an example of a system that does not violate the laws of physics.

Without invoking nanotech, I think a universal surveillance system based 
on cheap cameras with human watchers is quite feasible, given an 
authoritarian government.


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 22 22:40:03 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:40:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Spam:[extropy-chat] PRIVACY: GPS darts
In-Reply-To: <4088313B.6060809@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20040422224003.5885.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
> 
> > Hmmm.  Are there any technical reasons such a thing could not be
> built?
> >
> Yes. We've had a long discussion on this.
>   1) GPS uses radio wavelengths that require an antenna that is at
> least 4cm long.

Is it physically 4 cm long, or can it be a coil with a wire length of
at least 4 cm???

>   2) A transmitter that can send locator signal 100' or more must
> have both a big (4cm or so) antenna and a battery or other energy
> source will sufficient energy.
> 
> These constraints are due to the laws of physics and will remain true
> even if the actual electronics are reduced to nano-scale.

Exactly which laws are we dealing with here?

There are possibilities beyond typical broadcasting. A unit could, for
example, draw power from ambient radio signals then use that energy to
burst inverse waves to selectively cancel out those signals to send
information by bits of dead airtime created by the destructive
interference. This would require significantly less power than typical
broadcasting which depends on generating a signal several multiples
greater than ambient noise levels.

> 
> Thus, a stealthy injectable system based on GPS location and radio 
> transmission is not possible.

I always laugh when people say those two naughty words. History is
littered by the reputations of great men forever besmirched by being
proven wrong about something they said was impossible.

You are forgetting one important fact: the human skeleton is made of
calcium, a metal.

Also: there is no reason the implant can't deploy a flexible antenna as
an umbilical (it might even seek to grab onto bone). An antenna does
not have to be stiff, it can simply be a wire that deploys as the
projectile enters the body.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25?
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash


From twodeel at jornada.org  Thu Apr 22 22:51:36 2004
From: twodeel at jornada.org (Don Dartfield)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Spam:[extropy-chat] PRIVACY: GPS darts
In-Reply-To: <20040422224003.5885.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404221550050.729-100000@hplx.net>

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> You are forgetting one important fact: the human skeleton is made of
> calcium, a metal.

I was wondering about something similar -- could a tiny transceiver use 
your body, or some portion of it, as an antenna?



From astapp at fizzfactorgames.com  Thu Apr 22 23:46:17 2004
From: astapp at fizzfactorgames.com (Acy James Stapp)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 16:46:17 -0700
Subject: Spam:[extropy-chat] PRIVACY: GPS darts
Message-ID: <56BC65EB2F3963489057F7D978B5E7B701AB881C@amazemail2.amazeent.com>

>From http://silver.neep.wisc.edu/~lakes/BoneElectr.html

"the behavior of bovine femoral bone is essentially resistive"

I doubt it would make a good antenna. Bone is ~65-70% hydroxyapatite,
which is (by mass) 400.8/1004.643, or ~40%, giving around 25%
calcium.

I was unable to quickly find the resistivity of pure hydroxyapatite.

[ -----Original Message-----
[ From: Don Dartfield
[ 
[ On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Mike Lorrey wrote:
[ 
[ > You are forgetting one important fact: the human skeleton is made of
[ > calcium, a metal.
[ 
[ I was wondering about something similar -- could a tiny 
[ transceiver use 
[ your body, or some portion of it, as an antenna?


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Fri Apr 23 00:38:12 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 17:38:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] CRYO: A smart cryonaut investment?
In-Reply-To: <20040422204413.18720.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404221720490.17370-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Its not a bad idea Mike.  But you are betting on the fact
that nanotech based isotope separation, particularly
using single proton massometers as discussed in Nanomedicine
Vol. 1, are not developed during the period one is frozen.
(I've got a paper on this but have not released it yet.)

If you have enough nanorobots at your disposal its relatively
easy to process a volume of material to remove any radioactive
isotopes for processing (transmutation into stable isotopes).
So I strongly suspect that the same technology that would
allow cryonics reanimation would allow radioactive decontamination.
Which of these technologies would come first could be open
to discussion.

I suspect that in Ukraine or Russia (or many FSU states) one
is going to be in a swamp with regard to title over property.
The "rule of law" is a very "flexible" concept there.
So property you might own (before you are "dead") could
easily end up in someone elses hands if effective decontamination
procedures are developed in advance of effective reanimation
procedures.

Robert




From sjvans at ameritech.net  Fri Apr 23 01:24:03 2004
From: sjvans at ameritech.net (Stephen J. Van Sickle)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 20:24:03 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] CRYO: A smart cryonaut investment?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404221720490.17370-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404221720490.17370-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <1082683443.1040.63.camel@Renfield>

On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 19:38, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

> So I strongly suspect that the same technology that would
> allow cryonics reanimation would allow radioactive decontamination.

Why bother?  The contamination even now is so low that there seems to be
little or no effect on the natural environment, and any long term
effects on humans (or posthumans) should be trivial to handle.



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Fri Apr 23 02:01:47 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] CRYO: A smart cryonaut investment?
In-Reply-To: <1082683443.1040.63.camel@Renfield>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404221851450.20272-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Stephen J. Van Sickle commenting on my comments
regarding radioactive decontamination wrote:

> Why bother?  The contamination even now is so low that there seems to be
> little or no effect on the natural environment, and any long term
> effects on humans (or posthumans) should be trivial to handle.

Well, I was commenting on Mike's suggestion that purchasing land
in the "dead" zone might be a reasonable investment.  The current
contamination is high enough that it does keep people out of the zone.
Yes, you are right -- the long term effects can probably be dealt
with.  But it is the time between now and when we can deal with them
that is open to discussion.

This is a singularity issue -- What problems can we deal with today
(perhaps if we really wanted to)?  What problems can we only deal
with in 15-20 years?  And what problems will probably require 50
years of technological development to solve?

Understanding and having estimates for the answers to those questions
is something I think most people looking at cryonics do not currently
have.  Thus it makes their plans for the future a highly inexact
situation.

Robert




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Apr 23 02:18:51 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:18:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] FREE STATE: Career Opportunities Opening in New
	Hampshire
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404221851450.20272-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040423021851.88973.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>

I'm posting this here because I know there are a number of extropes who
are FSP members or interested in the possibility, who are not members
of any FSP email lists. I've been acquainted with the owner of
Corbadex, Robert Gibson, since the LPNH Convention in November and I've
been doing the remodeling on our new office space at the Manchester
International Airport, which will be the domestic services hub for
Serve-Em.com. The LPNH will also have its new HQ in subletted offices
at the Corbadex space, helping Free Staters orient and fit in as they
arrive in-state.

Career Opportunities Available for Free Staters and Libertarians!

Corbadex Corporation is one of the first companies
expanding into New Hampshire as a result of the Free
State Project. Corbadex (the product) consists of
application server platform technology designed to
support ?Killer Apps? for certain service industries.

1-800-SERVE-EM, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary
based on a Corbadex application, formed to service  a
$1.2B segment of the $3.6B market known as ?Civil
Service of Legal Process?.

We are now hiring and training process expeditors for
employment in our new Manchester, New Hampshire
Airport Processing Center starting in May. This is an
interesting and rewarding position, requiring problem
solving abilities along with strong computer skills.
Any experience in legal services, process serving or
investigation is a plus.

Initial qualified applicants will receive training on
our systems and processes at our Airport Processing
Center in West Palm Beach, Florida. Trainees will
receive fully paid individual studio efficiency
housing along with transportation to and from the
processing center each day during the two-week
training period. Alternatively, trainees may elect to
receive a $600 learning stipend over the initial 2
week period. Additionally, lunch is provided each
workday.

Base salary for process expeditors graduates to
$31,200 over the first 90 days. Thereafter employees
are eligible for merit raises and group health
coverage by Aetna, along with supplemental coverage by
AFLAC.

An employee qualified stock option plan is also being
developed, as the company expects to be publicly
traded by year-end.  More than employees, we are
looking for partners that share our quest for Liberty
and the financial rewards possible when smart,
dedicated entrepreneurs are free to pursue their
dreams.

Additional information is available at
www.1-800-SERVE-EM.com

Interested parties should call 800.737.8336 and speak
to Robert Gibson.


=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25?
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Fri Apr 23 02:39:49 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:39:49 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics without comprehensive brain
	disassembly?-No
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404221031110.7494-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <008d01c428dc$3f812180$1a2d2dcb@homepc>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Brett Paatsch wrote:
>
> > Threads do get long if obfuscations and diversions get thrown in
> > all over the place.
>
> I'm not intentionally trying to obfuscate.  Sometimes my mind
> will pick up in the middle of a discussion and perhaps
> misinterpret points or wander around things.

Please leave what is between these = line's in subsequent posts Robert
I want us and any readers to remember the background context.
=============================================
> [Background:]
> > >> >... what separates cryonics (that posits that the self can survive
> > >> > the disassembly of  the brain in which one currently experiences
> > >> > it) from religious systems that believe the same thing?  Isn't it a
> > > > > case of pick your belief-poison?
>
> > [Robert]
> > >  I would like to correct a misperception -- cryonics does *not*
> > > strictly require the disassembly of the brain.
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > Therefore:
> >
> > Your asserted that:  "cryonics does *not* strictly require the
dissassembly
> > of the brain".
> >
> > I asserted that it does.  That's binary. You've taken one position
> > with your "perception".  I have taken the other with mine.
> >
> > Do we agree on this much?
>
> Yep, we agree that there are (at least) two positions.

Robert's chosen online dictionary:
-

================================================
>  [One could get into complicated hair-splitting with regard to what
> "disassembly" means that might produce more positions.]

Quite so. This is true of many words so I want you to find and provide
the link to an online english dictionary of your choice in your next post
to this thread. Then put it above the = line. We can use the definitions
in that as a common base and improve or coin words between us as
we need to.

> I would assert from my reading of Ralph's paper and other knowledge
> with regard to what nanorobots (*or* even biorobots) can do that
> "disassembly" is not necessary (it might be useful but not necessary).

> > I'd like you to be able to communicate the truth of your perception
> > to me like I have an IQ of 100, and a whole lot of other things to do
> > with my time. Which I do. But I don't have to rush. Although I am
> > in a different time zone to you.
>
> I'm not sure that this can be done.

The average voter might have time to look at an online dictionary if
your talking to them and they ask you to provide it help keep you on
track. The average voter won't let you redefine ever word you and
they use while they put their life on hold indefinately.

> If one reads Ralph's paper,
> then one reads all of the work by Freitas on what Nanorobots can do,
> then if one reads the Robiobotics business plan on what bionanorobots
> can do (which I haven't seriously applied to the question of cryonics),
> then we might be able to have a head-to-head conversation on the subject.

Then one would have one's own view of those things. And if many did
and agreed with you your problems might be substantially over - but
that ain't happening.

> But to present it to the level of someone with an average IQ you are
> presenting a requirement that, at least from my perspective, I have
> to spend years educating such a person such that they understand
> all of the concepts involved.

> The scenario you suggest probably isn't about to happen.  I'll tell
> you a sad story (getting off track again).  One of the most beautiful
> women I have ever known, who I thought was quite intelligent, told me
> that she could never fall in love with me because she was intimidated
> by how smart I was.  That was quite revealing with respect to the
> fact there are some knowledge bases that are extremely difficult to
> communicate across intelligence boundaries.

The story is sad to you. Plenty of intelligent people lead lives with
some loneliness.

> > In short I want you to think of me as if I was an average voter. If you
> > can't convince the average voter without calling in assistance from
> > Eugene or Anders or anyone then *you* don't perceive the truth of
> > your position well enough to be polically effective with it on your own.
>
> Sorry, while I would like the average voter to believe in cryonics
> (or at least not be opposed to it) I don't much care if he/she does.
> I don't want to live in a world of reanimated individuals where most
> people are at the level of what we now consider to be average.  I want
> to live in a world where people have the time, interest, energy,
resources,
> etc. that it is much more extropic than ours currently is.
>
> You can accuse me of being "extropically prejudiced" and I will
> not object.
>
> > If you can then you can teach others to do it. And you will be
> > effective.  Politicians are not a lot brighter on scientific matters
> > than the average voter.
>
> I understand this.  But I would hope that we might develop a system
> where both the "average voter" and the "politicians" become much
> more educated and perhaps intelligent.

Don't hope. Look for an online dictionary.

> > Be warned the average voter feels perfectly capable of rejecting
> > you and everything you care about as irrelevent because the average
> > voter has other things on his/her mind. To the average voter the
> > most valuable time in the world is not yours its theirs.
>
> Reasonable point.  But as the recent discussion by Chris Phoenix
> shows "fact", "belief" and "faith" are mixed up in very complex
> ways by the human mind.  How one deals with them is complex as well.
>
> > The average voter does not think they are an idiot. The average
> > voter thinks their vote is as good as yours.
>
> Understood.  And this is perhaps a shortcoming of our system
> of one-person = one vote or "all persons are created equal".
> These are fantasies.  The reason you put a CEO in charge of
> a company or appoint a committee at NIH to schedule genome
> sequencing priorities (etc.) is because one recognizes
> that there are people who are going to do a better job at
> certain tasks because their experience or knowledge bases
> are greater than the average voter off of the street.
>
> The votes of informed or educated people are clearly worth
> more than uninformed and/or uneducated people.  Would you want
> group of a dozen people plucked from rural communities in
> India to be sitting on the Federal Reserve Board of the United
> States setting interest rates (which tend to influence
> interest rates around the world)?  Hell no!
>
> If ExI were to adopt a political position I might lobby for it
> to be -- "you have the right to vote -- but you must be qualified
> to do so".
>
> Robert
>
> P.S. Also -- I have not seen where you point out that Ralph's paper
> strictly requires the disassembly of the brain.  If my memory serves
> me correctly I do not think that it does.

First things first.

Regards,
Brett Paatsch




From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Fri Apr 23 02:54:00 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:54:00 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] FREE STATE: Career Opportunities Opening in
	NewHampshire
References: <20040423021851.88973.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <009b01c428de$3b1ccb10$1a2d2dcb@homepc>

This is a post with one sexy heading ;-) 

Mike wrote:
> I'm posting this here because I know there are a number of 
> extropes who are FSP members or interested in the possibility,
> who are not members of any FSP email lists. I've been 
> acquainted with the owner of Corbadex, Robert Gibson, since
> the LPNH Convention in November and I've been doing the 
> remodeling on our new office space at the Manchester
> International Airport, which will be the domestic services hub
> for Serve-Em.com. The LPNH will also have its new HQ in 
> subletted offices at the Corbadex space, helping Free Staters
> orient and fit in as they arrive in-state.

Good stuff Mike. 

Regards,
Brett Paatsch




From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Apr 23 03:49:24 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 20:49:24 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] damien's birthday
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404221031110.7494-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <004801c428e5$f8967bd0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>



HBDB!  {8-] 

sj






From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Fri Apr 23 03:50:34 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:50:34 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: NANOTECH: Lasers can help
In-Reply-To: <200404222012.i3MKCX932721@tick.javien.com>
References: <200404222012.i3MKCX932721@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <4088928A.6010405@CRNano.org>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> The Univ. of Michigan has announced [1] the ability to do nanoscale milling
> (down to 20nm) using ultra-short laser pulses.  

I knew that intense light could interact non-linearly with materials, 
and had previously speculated (privately, alas) that this could be used 
to deposit energy in sub-wavelength regions.  But this still made my jaw 
drop; it even took me a while to connect this with my predictions.

We're just starting to learn that light and electrons can be made to 
dance in very small spaces.  Michal Lipson has done some amazing work 
with 50-nm light guides, including coupling them to normal fiber optics 
at high efficiency and low alignment sensitivity. 
http://nanophotonics.ece.cornell.edu/

> So a top-down milling machine methodology might allow
> the production of a scaled-up nanomanipulator arm which in turn could
> be used to produce increasingly smaller versions of itself.

I have speculated along these lines for a while.  Note that EBID 
(electron beam induced deposition) can be used to make 3D structures 
with 20 nm feature sizes.  (And there's a group in Denmark(?) that has 
already integrated EBID with piezo manipulators in an SEM.)  But I think 
this laser method allows you to use better materials; EBID can use lots 
of precursor gases, but as far as I've heard, the results are all 
amorphous or metallic-with-slag.  Hm... diamond is a dielectric; can 
this laser milling produce diamond shapes?  Can it leave features 
smaller than 20 nm between 20-nm holes?

I don't think you want "increasingly smaller" versions.  Just take 
whatever arm you have, and go straight to mechanosynthesis.

A possibly interesting exercise, inspired by a comment from Eric Drexler 
when I suggested something like this to him:  Imagine you can make 
arbitrary shapes with a technology like this.  Design your 
proto-assembler that can do mechanosynthesis.  Then ask: What 
functionality do you need that macro-scale piezos don't have?

One further note, before our brains recover their normal certainty about 
the limits of physics:

Google still doesn't contain the phrase "plasmon logic."  I predict that 
within five years, plasmon logic will be a very exciting field of study. 
  Now that we know that photons can be converted to plasmons and back, 
we can make the plasmons jump through all sorts of hoops.  We can affect 
them with electric fields and with nanoscale arrangements of matter.  We 
can pause them, shunting them to and from holding cells (this has been 
demonstrated--another way of "freezing light."

And my intuition says we should be able to make plasmons interact with 
each other one-on-one, just as though they were fermions--or change 
conditions a bit, and let them pass through each other like bosons. 
(Prof. Lipson has built a 10 micron ring resonator out of her 50-nm 
waveguides, sensitive to the difference between 1583 and 1584 nm light.) 
  Essentially, this would be the basis for an optical computer, but 
implemented at the nanoscale, reconfigurable using nearby electrodes, 
and running on single photons that (my intuition further claims) can 
probably be coupled directly to electronics.

Chris

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri Apr 23 04:43:31 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 21:43:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Spam:[extropy-chat] PRIVACY: GPS darts
In-Reply-To: <20040422224003.5885.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040423044331.23790.qmail@web80407.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> There are possibilities beyond typical broadcasting.
> A unit could, for
> example, draw power from ambient radio signals then
> use that energy to
> burst inverse waves

Or just use piezoelectrics.  Draw power from the
body's movement; pulse off a transmission that can be
detected by satellites whenever enough energy has
been stored.  Which means someone seriously on the
move would be tracked more often than someone just
sitting still, waiting for the world to come by.
Possible issues with storing that much energy, but it
seems potentially doable, especially if the signal is
on a frequency normally kept empty.

> --- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:
> > Thus, a stealthy injectable system based on GPS
> location and radio 
> > transmission is not possible.
> 
> I always laugh when people say those two naughty
> words. History is
> littered by the reputations of great men forever
> besmirched by being
> proven wrong about something they said was
> impossible.

Having been on both sides of that particular
situation, I always qualify those words, for instance
with "not possible using today's technology" or "I do
not see a way this could be done".


From samantha at objectent.com  Fri Apr 23 07:22:56 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:22:56 -0700
Subject: Spam:[extropy-chat] PRIVACY: GPS darts
In-Reply-To: <44E6F998-9496-11D8-BA4A-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
References: <56BC65EB2F3963489057F7D978B5E7B701AB85DA@amazemail2.amazeent.com>
	<44E6F998-9496-11D8-BA4A-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <0B0A159C-94F7-11D8-BA4A-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>

OOPS!   I will read all the replies before replying to a thread.  
<repeat 50 times>

Sorry about that.



From samantha at objectent.com  Fri Apr 23 07:26:39 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:26:39 -0700
Subject: Spam:[extropy-chat] PRIVACY: GPS darts
In-Reply-To: <4088313B.6060809@cox.net>
References: <56BC65EB2F3963489057F7D978B5E7B701AB85DA@amazemail2.amazeent.com>
	<44E6F998-9496-11D8-BA4A-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
	<4088313B.6060809@cox.net>
Message-ID: <8FE1B3C0-94F7-11D8-BA4A-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>

RFIDs and cellular equipped readers sprinkled throughout the urban 
environment could go some ways toward such tracking.  RFIDs could be 
small enough surreptitious application but not from long range snipers.

- s



From natashavita at earthlink.net  Fri Apr 23 13:31:04 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:31:04 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] damien's birthday
Message-ID: <170350-22004452313314752@M2W069.mail2web.com>


From: Spike 
HBDB!  {8-] 

Salute'!  And a hell of a lot more!

Natasha



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

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




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Apr 23 16:43:19 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:43:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Spam:[extropy-chat] PRIVACY: GPS darts
In-Reply-To: <8FE1B3C0-94F7-11D8-BA4A-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <20040423164319.88601.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>

I wouldn't say that one needs any kind of long range to this weapon.
The purpose is ostensibly to tag demonstrators during marches, etc. for
later peaceful pickup, interrogation, and possible 'dissapearance' by a
tyrannical government. One could sit in a 2nd floor office building
window tagging likely leaders from no more than 20-40 yards range.

I could nail anyone in the butt with one of these projectiles with an
air pistol from that range.

--- Samantha Atkins <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
> RFIDs and cellular equipped readers sprinkled throughout the urban 
> environment could go some ways toward such tracking.  RFIDs could be 
> small enough surreptitious application but not from long range
> snipers.
> 
> - s
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat


=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25?
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash


From amara at amara.com  Fri Apr 23 19:30:07 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 20:30:07 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dawn news
Message-ID: <p05100300bcaf1a847ea0@[150.146.134.133]>


Hi.. some news from the Dawn mission. Some of you know that one of the
projects I work on at my INAF job is activities relating to the
infrared spectrometer ('VIR'), to be flown to the asteroid belt on
Dawn. There are three instruments on Dawn, so it is odd be 1/3 of a
NASA space mission. It is also very exciting for me, since is the
first time I've been involved in a  space mission from almost the
beginning.  I spent the last days in Florence in meetings with 40
engineers, scientists, etc, from NASA, from other companies in the US
and our Italian teams, and the news is that VIR passed (we are the
first out of the three)  the Critical Design Review, a meeting where
an independent board  evaluates every aspect of your design for two
days, and then says 'yes' or 'no' you can build the instrument (and
they give a detailed review of what to focus on so that it gets built,
and on time. 'Design' is a general word for 500 pages (at the top
level, 10 times that number underneath) of documents related  to
parts, modules, components, procurement lists, models, testing, etc.
Gruelling, but we passed. We have a tight schedule though, since we
must deliver the instrument for spacecraft integration in one year.
Launch is in 2006.

In the future, I'll say more about why one might want to visit some
asteroids in the asteroid belt.

Ciao for now.

Amara

-- 

Amara Graps, PhD
Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI)
Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF),
Adjunct Assistant Professor Astronomy, AUR,
Roma, ITALIA     Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it


From amara at amara.com  Fri Apr 23 19:42:17 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 20:42:17 +0100
Subject: SI morality  (was: [extropy-chat] Re: extropy-chat Digest, Vol
	7, Issue 18)
Message-ID: <p05100300bcaf210407bc@[150.146.134.133]>


>Mike Lorrey wrote:

>>deimtee <deimtee at optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>>>  Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>>>  I would argue even further that since these activities are the
>  > opposite of the scientific method, those people who behave this way
>>  > are not behaving like scientists.

>>  No, they are behaving like science teachers.  This is not meant to be
>>  funny, many science teachers do behave like this, at all levels.

>Experimental evidence supporting the proverb that those who can't do,
>teach? ;)


Hummph. In another one of my jobs, I'm a science teacher.

-- 

Amara Graps, PhD
Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI)
Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF),
Adjunct Assistant Professor Astronomy, AUR,
Roma, ITALIA     Amara.Graps at ifsi.rm.cnr.it


From natasha at natasha.cc  Fri Apr 23 18:51:41 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:51:41 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Email a friend
Message-ID: <ROSIEzbwaV7VoAxRYG6000023c6@Rosie.spacely.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040423/23b2f6d7/attachment.html>

From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sat Apr 24 01:59:19 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 11:59:19 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Email a friend 
References: <ROSIEzbwaV7VoAxRYG6000023c6@Rosie.spacely.net>
Message-ID: <019401c4299f$c1c6b2e0$1a2d2dcb@homepc>

  I thought you'd like to get involved with the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation. It's free, it's easy, and it's important. You can sign up for their online newsletter, Bridging the Gap, or their advocacy group, the Christopher Reeve Action Network and receive Action Alerts on upcoming legislation. 
  This is an urgent issue and we would appreciate your signatures! 

  Thank you, 

  Natasha Vita-More

Here's a link the the Action Network

http://www.christopherreeve.org/hopenetwork/hopenetworkList.cfm?c=52

About the Action Network

"I never imagined politics would get in the way of hope." - Christopher Reeve 

--------

Politics has gotten in the way of hope and of health. The desire for 

a better political system (when we can get it) should not constrain

us from working within the existing political systems when there is

an opportunity to add our shoulders to the wheel when that wheel

happens to be poised to roll in a direction that is in the interests of

our health and of the health of our families and friends as well.



If California can get itself a good stem cell and therapeutic cloning 

legislative regime, the rest of American may follow suit. But in either

case, basic research gets done faster when the legislative and political

climate are more conducive to putting more post docs (the discovery

work horses) behind the lab benches. More is learnt and what is learnt

is better able to be commercialised and turned into health products

and services which is good for the local economies where these things

are produced. 



I am not a Californian or an American, but I want lots of competitor

countries pushing for better health products and services, and

more educated voters and politicians, because these things up the

rate of positive change around the globe (if not quite as fast as they

do locally).  The countries or states with the most biotech savvy

voters and politicians will have a competitive advantage (all else

being equal).  



Adding your signature to a petition oriented towards better health

outcomes (a better legislative regime) is something concrete. It need

not be all you do today or ever.  Talking (even talking intelligently

may feel good) but its worth doing something too. Or instead if you

have to choose.



Regards,

Brett Paatsch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040424/f37de844/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Sat Apr 24 07:40:12 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 00:40:12 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Email a friend 
In-Reply-To: <019401c4299f$c1c6b2e0$1a2d2dcb@homepc>
References: <ROSIEzbwaV7VoAxRYG6000023c6@Rosie.spacely.net>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040424003935.02be4b30@mail.earthlink.net>

At 11:59 AM 4/24/04 +1000, Brett wrote:
>I thought you'd like to get involved with the Christopher Reeve Paralysis 
>Foundation. It's free, it's easy, and it's important. You can sign up for 
>their online newsletter, Bridging the Gap, or their advocacy group, the 
>Christopher Reeve Action Network and receive Action Alerts on upcoming 
>legislation.
>
>This is an urgent issue and we would appreciate your signatures!
>
>Thank you,
>
>Natasha Vita-More
>
>Here's a link the the Action Network
>
><http://www.christopherreeve.org/hopenetwork/hopenetworkList.cfm?c=52>http://www.christopherreeve.org/hopenetwork/hopenetworkList.cfm?c=52 
>

Thanks Brett :-)

Natasha


Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc
----------
President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz
http://www.transhuman.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040424/e3a27e64/attachment.html>

From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Sat Apr 24 05:48:36 2004
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 22:48:36 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Nanogirl News~
References: <ROSIEzbwaV7VoAxRYG6000023c6@Rosie.spacely.net>
	<019401c4299f$c1c6b2e0$1a2d2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <004001c429bf$c9452220$b7be1218@Nano>

The Nanogirl News
April 23, 2004

Eric Drexler (author of Engines of Creation and Nanosystems) has provided us with a website full of crucial nanotechnology information and images. http://www.e-drexler.com

Harnessing Nanotechnology. As field develops, scientists gather to take stock and look to the future. The field of nanotechnology is getting a lot of attention these days. Many scientists and policymakers are excited over the potential impact of this field on areas such as energy, public health, and the environment. But despite this bright future, it's the potentially harmful implications of the science as detailed by some media outlets and science-fiction literature that is garnering the interest of the general public. Creating an environment that recognizes and addresses public concern, while encouraging continued research and development, is a key challenge facing the nascent field. That challenge was a major topic of discussion at a recent nanotechnology conference. Held in Washington, D.C., in early April, the meeting, called National Nanotechnology Initiative: From Vision to Commercialization, brought together approximately 400 scientists from academia, industry, and the government to assess the state of the field and discuss its future direction.  (C&E 4/21/04) http://pubs.acs.org/cen/nlw/8216gov1.html

Are Nanobots Fiction or Reality? (By Chris Phoenix of CNR). As far as we know, nanoscale machinery is possible, and we could see molecular manufacturing within a decade. Nanotechnology is a diverse collection of fields. It promises many things that haven't been built yet, such as molecular electronic computers, new kinds of medicine, and nanobots. As far as we know, nanobots are quite possible-no more "fictional" than the others. However, nanobots are special for three reasons: They were the first kind of nanotech to be called "nanotechnology"; they can be used for general-purpose manufacturing, including building more manufacturing capability; and they're associated with scary ideas, so a lot of nano bureaucrats like to claim they're impossible. (Betterhumans 4/21/04)
http://www.betterhumans.com/Features/Ask_an_Expert/answer.aspx?articleID=2004-04-19-1

Nanoscale beads sniff tough-to-find toxins. A biosensor that uses nanoshells - nanoscale hollow beads - may provide the long-sought technology U.S. homeland security officials have sought to sense arbitrary biotoxins. Researchers at the University of Arizona have continued the pioneering work of a colleague to create the biosensors. Made from cell membrane material with embedded ion channels, the biosensors transduce fluorescence in the presence of nearly any agent, from biotoxins to proteins to other difficult-to-sense organics, even those inside a living cell. (EETimes 4/9/04)
http://www.eetimes.com/at/n/news/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=ERA5G5GJJNLIYQSNDBCSKHY?articleId=18900840

Ultra-fast laser allows efficient, accessible nanoscale machining. Think of a microscopic milling machine, capable of cutting just about any material with better-than-laser precision, in 3-D---and at the nanometer scale. In a paper published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, University of Michigan researchers explain how and why using a femtosecond pulsed laser enables extraordinarily precise nanomachining. The capabilities of the ultra-fast or ultra-short pulsed laser have significant implications for basic scientific research, and for practical applications in the nanotechnology industry. (Eurekalert 4/20/04) http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-04/uom-ula042004.php

Carbon nanotubes break small record. Researchers from Meijo University in Japan and Research Centre J?lich in Germany have made what they say is the smallest stable carbon nanotube. The tube, just 3 Angstroms in diameter, grew inside a multiwalled carbon nanotube during a hydrogen arc discharge process. (nanotechweb 4/20/04) http://nanotechweb.org/articles/news/3/4/10/1

Will nanotech save the world or is it mostly hype? While its benefits are still years away from reaching the public, scientists hope nanotechnology -- the manipulation of atoms as raw materials -- will eventually live up to the hype it's received for its potential to advance medicine, electronics and manufacturing. From helping diagnose diseases more accurately to keeping computers running more smoothly, the manipulation of atoms is a challenge with a whole new set of rules. The scientists who work with these tiniest of raw materials see a world just as mesmerizing as those who study the farthest reaches of outer space. (CNN 4/21/04)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/04/15/nanotech.ideas/index.html

Carbon Nanofoam is the First Pure-Carbon Magnet. Discovered a few years ago, carbon nanofoam is the fifth known allotrope of carbon, the others being graphite, diamond, fullerene (e.g., C-60 molecules), and carbon nanotubes. The foam is, along with aerogel, one of the lightest known solid substances (with a density of ~2 mg/cm3). But at this week's APS March Meeting in Montreal, physicists announced an even more interesting property: though made entirely from carbon atoms that are normally considered nonmagnetic, the foam nevertheless can act like a ferromagnet. 
(Physics News Update 3/26/04) http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2004/split/678-1.html

A buckyball toxicity study that spawned considerable debate inside and outside the nanotech industry last week has been published in an environmental journal. The journal Environmental Health Perspectives this week published Manufactured Nanomaterials Induce Oxidative Stress in Brain of Juvenile Largemouth Bass, written by Southern Methodist University environmental toxicology lecturer Eva Oberdorster. The peer-reviewed study, conducted by Oberdorster and her students, is believed to be the first to show that uncoated fullerenes can cause brain damage in aquatic species. (SmallTimes 4/8/04) http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?document_id=7695

Friday Forward: A chat with futurist John Smart. Every Friday, I post a new E-mail chat with a forward-looking thinker about the road ahead. Today, our prescient Friday Forward prognosticator is John Smart, president of the Institute for Accelerating Change a nonprofit futurist community based in San Pedro, Calif., that conducts research and holds conferences on the future of technology and the accelerating pace of technological change. IAC's major conference in September, for instance, will explore the increasing connectivity of physical space, the increasing accuracy of simulation space, and the increasing intelligence of our physical-virtual and human-machine interfaces. Next News: What tech trends do you see developing over the next 10 to 25 years that the average person today has little awareness of? Smart: A surprising number of today's technologies, like most nanotechnology and biotechnology, will be much less powerful in the next several decades than many futurists presently realize. (USANews 4/23/04) http://www.usnews.com/usnews/tech/nextnews/nexthome.htm

Enzyme "Ink" Shows Potential For Nanomanufacturing. Experiment uses biomolecules to write on a gold substrate. Duke University engineers have demonstrated that enzymes can be used to create nanoscale patterns on a gold surface. Since many enzymes are already commercially available and well characterized, the potential for writing with enzyme "ink" represents an important advance in nanomanufacturing. This research was funded by the National Science Foundation through a Nanotechnology Interdisciplinary Research Initiative (NIRT) grant. (Innovations-report 4/23/04)
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/process_engineering/report-28392.html

Nanosys, the reigning celebrity of the nanotechnology market, filed preliminary documents Thursday for an initial public offering with the Security and Exchange Commission, in what will likely be a closely watched saga. Nanosys specializes in designing molecules that could conceivably lead to better solar panels, flexible screens or dense computer memory. (Cnet 4/23/04) http://news.com.com/2100-7337-5198913.html

Research and Markets: Nanotechnology and Government Strategies Worldwide. The Worldwide Nanotechnology Research and Development Investment has increased five times in the last five years and worldwide annual industrial production in the nanotech sectors is estimated to exceed $1 trillion in 10 - 15 years from now. Research and Markets (http://www.researchandmarkets.com) has announced the addition of Nanotechnology and Government Strategies Worldwide to their offering. Link to the contents provided at the bottom. (tmcnet 4/23/04) http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2004/Apr/1034683.htm

Meet the Public Face of U.S. Nano; You'll be Seeing More of Him. When nano meets the general public, it isn't always pretty. That's why Clayton Teague has both a tough and rewarding job ahead of him. As director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, it's his job to handle "public outreach" for the U.S. government's nanotechnology program. As the public becomes more aware of nanotechnology, Teague's job turns even more challenging. One day the general-interest media are hyping the wonders of nanotech, the next day it's denigrated as a polluter that preys on lab rats and fish. I spoke to Teague recently at the National Nanotechnology Initiative's annual conference in Washington, where nanotech's public image was very much on everybody's mind. Here's an edited excerpt from our discussion. (Smalltimes 4/23/04)
http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?section_id=45&document_id=7750

Getting Molecules To Do The Work. The era of nano-manufacturing is being born in hundreds of labs that are racing to perfect a technique called self-assembly. If you just listen casually to a description of what Sandia National Laboratories has been working on, you would think it had wasted its time reinventing the wheel: It has developed a robot that can walk and pick up and deliver loads of cargo. In an age of advanced assembly and landings on Mars, that hardly sounds impressive -- except that Sandia's robot is a molecule. Called a motor protein, it has two little feet on one end and a tail that can grab things on the other. Once a special chemical is added to the solution in which it resides, the protein begins moving along strands of fiber that are one-fifth the width of a human hair, says Bruce Bunker, a Sandia researcher who's in charge of the project. (Business Week Online special report 4/22/04) http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_18/b3881609.htm
 
First book on Nanophotonics. Like any emerging technology, nanophotonics -- the science behind light and matter interacting on the nanoscale -- is ripe for all kinds of claims ranging from the sublime to the far-fetched. So it is an opportune time for the publication of Nanophotonics (John Wiley & Sons, March 2004), the first book to comprehensively cover nanophotonics, both as a fundamental phenomenon and as the origin of technologies and devices that will impact fields ranging from information technology to drug delivery. Authored by Paras N. Prasad, Ph.D., SUNY Distinguished Professor in the Department of Chemistry in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University at Buffalo and executive director of UB's Institute for Lasers, Photonics and Biophotonics, Nanophotonics is written so that it can be understood by established scientists and advanced undergraduates alike. (Azonano 4/22/04) http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=125

(Comics & Nano) "Magnus, Robot Fighter" Fights his Way back into Comics. In the early 1960s, comic fans became enamored with the superheroic offerings made by DC Comics and Marvel Comics...The 1990s saw the return of Magnus when Valiant Comics, and later Acclaim Comics, offered up all news tale based on the character, but since then no new material has been published and those classic Russ Manning issues have remained out of print. Things are looking up for the hero, though. New robot-fighting tales are planned for Magnus as well as collections of the original Russ Manning issues...We intend to honor the Russ Manning vision of man and robot," said Preiss, "but to add layers of complexity that evolve from nanotechnology, Asimovian thought and the world of personal computing and artificial intelligence which did not exist when the character was invented. Personally, I would like to get rid of the red shorts and the 'M' on the belt, but that is not decided. We certainly will update the costume. (Comicbookresources 4/20/04) http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=3556

Nano-refrigeration firm takes a Cool look at wafers. Cool Chips is starting to manufacture prototypes of a heat-removal system based on wafer-shaped electrodes. Cool Chips, a company that wants to bring refrigeration into the nanotechnology era, has opened a prototype manufacturing facility, a crucial step in the long road to commercial deployment. The Gibraltar-based company is promoting one of the more novel approaches to cooling industrial equipment and computer parts. Cool Chips takes two wafer-shaped electrodes and spaces them about 10 nanometres apart in a very thin sandwich. (ZDnet 4/23/04) http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39152409,00.htm

A Rose By Any Other Name? Nanotechnology may be the next big thing, but the sweet smell of success is being used to promote nearly worthless stocks, charges Asensio & Co. The New York City-based investment banking firm has asked New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to investigate misuse of the nano label. Asensio charges that nanotechnology "has become a favorite, and successful, term among America's most fraudulent stock promoters." The firm has reason to want to stop such hype: It makes money by publishing critical reports on stocks that it believes are overvalued and "short selling" them-betting that they will drop in price. (C&Enews 4/19/04)
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/8216/8216notw5.html
 
Pentagon official says nanotechnology a high priority. The U.S. military expects advances in nanotechnology to impact every major weapons system and is spending hundreds of millions of dollars annually on various research programs, a senior military science adviser said Thursday at a meeting of nanotechnology specialists. "Nanotechnology is one of the highest priority science and technology programs in the Defense Department," said Clifford Lau, the senior science adviser in the Pentagon's office of basic research. Lau, who also serves as president of the nanotechnology council at the engineering group IEEE, said research is being coordinated across the military branches, and plans are in place to transition the technology from basic research to deployment. (GovExec 4/19/04) http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0404/041904td1.htm

China Sunday successfully sent into space Nano-satellite I, the first nanotechnology-based satellite ever developed by the country, Xinhua reports. The successful launch made China the world's fourth country capable of launching nano-satellites after Russia, the US and Britain, Chinese space experts said. (India Kerala News 4/18/04) http://www.newkerala.com/news-daily/news/features.php?action=fullnews&id=12524

Spray-on electronics move closer to reality. If recent research projects bear fruit, it won't be too many years before magazines play videos and semiconductors roll out of inkjet printers. Workers at Xerox and TDA Research independently unveiled methods this week for making transistors out of plastic rather than silicon, in ways that could be commercially viable. Such a shift in materials could drastically reduce the cost of computer displays because chipmakers would not have to build multibillion dollar factories to make semiconductors to power these devices. Just as important, it could greatly expand the range of objects that connect to the Internet, because electronic connections would be handled by a thin film or moldable material, rather than rigid chips. A thin screen could be bound into a magazine, for instance, and connect wirelessly to a Web site, or plastic soda bottles could transmit signals to inventory devices. (Cnet 4/19/04)
http://asia.cnet.com/newstech/industry/0,39001143,39176047,00.htm

Nanotech's Chemotherapy Cure (Josh Wolfe). In the world of modern medicine there are few more imprecise and drastic measures than chemotherapy as a treatment for cancer. In most cases the process involves poisoning a patient's system with toxic chemicals in an effort to kill malignant cancer cells. Anyone who has personally suffered through chemo or seen a loved one suffer can attest to its destructive and debilitating side effects. Unfortunately, one of the causes of these severe side effects comes not from the anti-cancer drugs themselves, but from the solutions used to dissolve them. When a drug won't dissolve in water, another solvent is often used in its place; occasionally the side effects of the solvent cause more discomfort than the cancer-killing agent. Scientific researchers working with nanoparticles, 1/100th the size of a red blood cell, may have discovered a solution to chemo's "solution" problem. (Forbes 4/15/04)
http://www.forbes.com/investmentnewsletters/2004/04/15/cz_jw_0415soapbox.html

Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
Nanotechnology Industries
http://www.nanoindustries.com
Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com
Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org
Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Tech-Aid Advisor http://www.tech-aid.info/t/all-about.html
Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com
"Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040423/73a22e09/attachment.html>

From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Sat Apr 24 15:07:56 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 11:07:56 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat]  SI morality
In-Reply-To: <200404200034.i3K0Yq915601@tick.javien.com>
References: <200404200034.i3K0Yq915601@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <408A82CC.3060309@CRNano.org>

Jef Allbright wrote:
> I would like to nominate this for Post of the Month, if we're still 
> doing anything of that sort.
> 
> Thank you, Chris, for your insightful and practical comments on the 
> importance of context and *effective* communication with others of 
> different mind set.

Thanks!

I've gone through a crisis of faith with regard to scientists recently. 
  In many areas, I've come to realize, scientists are far too 
self-assured.  They think they're practicing science, when in fact they 
are merely contributing to science.  A lone scientist can run 
experiments, observe, make hypotheses, form opinions... but cannot fully 
practice science, because science can only emerge from interactive 
criticism.  We are all too fallible to trust ourselves to generate good 
science without lots of help.

I'm realizing that this is an interesting mirror of the problem of 
believing that one's mental context extends farther than it does.  A 
practitioner of a discipline from which value emerges may come to feel 
that they embody that discipline, and thus are personally infused with 
that value or quality.  A voter may come to believe that he represents 
the American people.  A scientist may come to believe that she has the 
ability to sort fact from fiction.  Both are wrong.

In many areas of science, we don't yet know which of several 
incompatible alternatives is more accurate.  Sometimes, we don't even 
know what questions to ask!  In such a case, any particular opinion 
cannot be the product of science.  Yet scientists express opinions in 
those areas all the time.  When practicing science, this is necessary 
and appropriate.  But when reporting on science, it borders on fraud.

So how can science be reported to the real world?  If one scientist's 
opinion isn't trustworthy, what about lots of opinions together? 
Michael Crichton has called this "consensus science," and correctly 
attacked it.  It's no more than a popularity contest for ideas, and the 
popularity of an idea has little to do with its truth.  In fact, in 
scientific terms, an idea can have nothing to do with truth, since no 
scientific theory is true, merely not-yet-false.  Science is a very 
effective way to extract ideas from the real world.  But we need some 
other way to send those ideas back to the world--to test the 
non-scientific validity of scientific ideas--to tell what will continue 
to work outside the lab.

A person can be a great scientist, making great contributions, even if 
their work is based on a theory that later turns out to be incomplete or 
even wrong.  When a great theory collapses, another great theory 
emerges.  But an engineer cannot build things that are prone to 
collapse.  Engineering, then, is where ideas are applied to the real 
world.  Engineering is the selection and subsequent use of those ideas 
that work reliably in certain real-world contexts.

One might think that a scientist practices engineering--they design 
experiments, they build lab apparatus, and so on.  But much of this is 
either tinkering, in which they don't know what will happen, or 
construction, in which they are going through predesigned motions.  Any 
scientist who is using only ideas that work reliably to get predictable 
results is not being much of a scientist.  And any engineer who uses 
untried ideas to see what will happen is not a very reliable engineer.

I'd have to say that in many areas, including some areas of great 
practical importance, trusting science today is about as wise as 
trusting medical doctors in the 19th century.  In fact, the analogy is 
pretty close: a 19th century doctor could identify quite a lot of 
conditions--they could convert observation into theory.  But when they 
tried to convert theory back into practice, the results were often 
tragic.  The trouble was that they thought that their ability to develop 
an understanding was sufficient.  They had no process in place for 
testing their understanding: no standard of quality for their work.

I don't have an answer for this dilemma.  In order to extract value from 
science, a theory must be tested against the real world--not just a 
lab's myopic slice of the world, but the whole complex thing.  It's 
nice, of course, if this can wait until there's enough depth of 
understanding and richness of data-gathering to immediately spot 
problems with the theory.  But this usually isn't the case.  I think 
it's safe to say that ecology is more complicated than weather.  It'll 
be a while before we understand, for example, the earth's ecology well 
enough to be able to engage in engineering rather than tinkering.  We 
may not even have the required math yet, and we almost certainly don't 
have sufficient computer power.  But scientists who would scoff at the 
idea of ever controlling the weather will make confident pronouncements 
about what we need to do to avoid ecological collapse.

For now, we must simply recognize that science by itself is unreliable 
with respect to most real-world problems, and that scientists will 
generally be unwilling to believe this.

In the forseeable future, we will have the power to coerce even massivly 
complex systems into simple molds.  This will enable us to apply 
tractable theories.  I have suggested this "heterostasis" in the context 
of medicine ("Nanotechnology and Life Extension," in _Dr. Tandy's First 
Guide To Life Extension And Transhumanity_) and I think it can also 
apply to the global environment.  We will be able to win the game--but 
only by changing the rules.  And while this will be seen as a triumph of 
science, it will in fact be a triumph of engineering.

Chris

Ps. I should cite a source: the mundane interpretation of the "loaves 
and fishes miracle" in my previous post is from a historical novel 
called "The Robe" that I read many years ago.

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From rafal at smigrodzki.org  Sat Apr 24 15:30:20 2004
From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal)
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 11:30:20 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Visiting San Francisco
Message-ID: <HCEOJFGGOJCGFFNIFOAJAEDOCAAA.rafal@smigrodzki.org>

I am visiting SF for the American Academy of Neurology meeting, until next
Thursday, and I would be happy to meet Bay Area Extropes. Please email me
off-list.

Rafal


From astapp at fizzfactorgames.com  Sat Apr 24 22:23:02 2004
From: astapp at fizzfactorgames.com (astapp at fizzfactorgames.com)
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 00:23:02 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Your document
Message-ID: <E1BHTjG-0002Pm-EH@dime9.dizinc.com>

Please read the attached file.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: document04.zip
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 29840 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040425/93dde07d/attachment.obj>

From jcorb at irishbroadband.net  Sat Apr 24 20:30:25 2004
From: jcorb at irishbroadband.net (J Corbally)
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 21:30:25 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] damien's birthday
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20040424212909.01fd1e10@pop3.irishbroadband.ie>

A very Happy Birthday to you, good sir!



James...





From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Apr 24 20:39:16 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 15:39:16 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] damien's birthday
In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.1.20040424212909.01fd1e10@pop3.irishbroadband.ie>
References: <5.0.2.1.1.20040424212909.01fd1e10@pop3.irishbroadband.ie>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040424153641.01ceebb8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 09:30 PM 4/24/2004 +0100, James wrote [following messages from some 
other Kindly Folks]:

>A very Happy Birthday to you, good sir!

Why, thank you, one & all! But the terrible truth is, this wasn't just a 
birthday, it was a decadeday. Some bastard better get cracking on that 
emortality serum or I'm for the scrap heap...

Damien Broderick 




From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Sat Apr 24 20:50:27 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 16:50:27 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: (my rationalism screed,
	Amara's answer) plus Drexler
In-Reply-To: <200404210149.i3L1nH920260@tick.javien.com>
References: <200404210149.i3L1nH920260@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <408AD313.1080008@CRNano.org>

Amara Graps wrote:
 >Chris Phoenix <cphoenix at CRNano.org>:
>>They
>>attack the credentials of the observer.  They change the subject.  They
>>build strawman attacks, and frequently even appear to convince
>>themselves.  They form cliques.  They tell their students not to even
>>read the claims, and certainly not to investigate them. 
> 
> to be fair, I don't think that this is the norm. Yes, it happens,
> but it is not the common way that scientists (that I know, anyway)
> think about and solve problems.

I don't think it's the way scientists solve problems.  I think it's the 
way scientists treat problems that they wish would go away.  Sometimes, 
when dealing with "creation scientists" and similar trolls, it's the 
only thing you can do.  But scientists do it to other scientists with 
equal facility.  Every tactic I listed is being used against molecular 
manufacturing.  Most if not all of them were used against Semmelweis, 
the futile discoverer of the cause of childbed fever.

Now, I must admit to some uncertainty.  Earlier today, I wrote that 
scientists should not make pronouncements about the real world unless 
engineering has been done to verify the theory.  I realized as I was 
writing it that this is an accusation often leveled against Drexler: 
that he declares that nanorobots will work without ever having built 
one.  The obvious response is that Drexler is doing engineering, not 
science.  But then, how can we expect scientists to give scientific 
answers to a non-scientific process?

<...and then I open Nanosystems, searching for a dimly-remembered 
phrase, and find that Drexler wrote about this in detail twelve years 
ago...>

Ahem.  In Appendix A of Nanosystems, Drexler describes an activity 
called "theoretical applied science" or "exploratory engineering."  This 
is exactly what I was trying to get at as a bridge between science and 
engineering.  In theoretical applied science, one takes the best 
available results of science, and applies them to real-world problems, 
and makes plans that should hopefully work as desired.  Section A.3.1, 
"Science and engineering," describes how "Science and engineering differ 
in their goals.  Science strives to understand how things work; 
engineering strives to make things work.  Science takes an object as 
given and studies its behavior; engineering takes a behavior as given 
and studies how to make an object that will exhibit that behavior."

The bulk of Appendix A discusses ways that theoretical applied science 
can be practiced so as to give useful and reliable results, despite the 
inability to confirm its results by experiment.  "For example, all 
classes of device that would violate the second law of thermodynamics 
can immediately be rejected.  A more stringent rule, adopted in the 
present work, rejects propositions if they are inadequately 
substantiated, for example, rejecting all devices that would require 
materials stronger than those known or described by accepted physical 
models.  By adopting these rules for falsification and rejection, work 
in theoretical applied science can be grounded in our best scientific 
understanding of the physical world."

Drexler presents theoretical applied science as a way of studying things 
we can't build yet.  In A.7 Conclusions, he ascribes to it a very 
limited aim: "to describe lower bounds to the performance achievable 
with physically possible classes of devices."  And a limited role: "In 
an ideal world, theoretical applied science would consume only a tiny 
fraction of the effort devoted to pure theoretical science, to 
experimentation, or to engineering."  But here, I think, he's being too 
modest.  Theoretical applied science is really the only rigorous way for 
the products of science to escape back to the real world.  In my 
previous post, I asked how this could take place; well, this is how.

We might draw a useful analogy: scientists are to exploratory engineers 
as writers are to editors.  Scientists and writers are creative. 
Whatever they produce is interesting, even when it's wrong.  They live 
in their own world, which touches the real world exactly where and when 
they choose.  And then along come the editors and the exploratory 
engineers.  "This doesn't work.  You need to rephrase that.  This part 
isn't useful.  And wouldn't it be better to explain it this way?"  It's 
no wonder Drexler is hated and feared by the scientists.

Since exploratory engineering is rigorously grounded in science, 
scientists can evaluate it.  But only in the sense of checking its 
calculations.  MNT workers have spent the last two decades asking 
scientists to either criticize or accept their work.  This was half an 
error: scientists can show a mistake in an engineering calculation, but 
they can't (within the boundaries of science) accept its results.  To 
the extent that the results of theoretical applied science are correct 
and useful, they are meant for engineers, not for scientists.  An editor 
should check her work with the author.  But she should not ask the 
author whether he thinks she has improved it; she should judge how well 
she did her job by the reader's response, not the writer's.  Likewise, 
if scientists cannot show that Drexler has misinterpreted (misapplied) 
their work or added something that science didn't say, then the 
scientists should shut up and let the engineers decide whether the 
theoretical applied work is useful.

Chris

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Sun Apr 25 00:48:37 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 20:48:37 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Self replication again (was MARS:  ...
In-Reply-To: <200404210149.i3L1nH920260@tick.javien.com>
References: <200404210149.i3L1nH920260@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <408B0AE5.7000008@CRNano.org>

Mike Lorrey wrote:
 > Sorry, you were talking about making monolithic diamond and comparing
 > that to making nanites, implying that one started with a hunk of
 > diamond and chipped away at it. So we are a back to my original
 > argument about building parts and assemblies an atom or molecule at a
 > time.

I was saying that if we can make monolithic diamond by deposition 
reactions, then we can, by controlling the position and sequence of 
those reactions, make more complex parts.

 > It is entirely different to have a machine that is tied to a computer
 > database to not just tell it how to make one part, but every part that
 > the machine itself is made of, the computer itself, and the end product
 > the controller wants built is made of.

The complexity of such a machine is in the computer's software.  Not in 
the deposition machinery, or the actuators, or even the computer's 
hardware.  The assumption that a general-purpose manufacturing machine 
must be physically complex is common, but it's simply wrong.  The 
physical part doesn't necessarily have to be more complex than, say, an 
inkjet printer.

If you want to talk about the complexity of the software, that's fine. 
But start by addressing the relevant sections of my nanofactory paper: 
"8.1. File size and data distribution"
http://www.jetpress.org/volume13/Nanofactory.htm#s8.1 which builds on
"6 Control of the nanofactory"
http://www.jetpress.org/volume13/Nanofactory.htm#s6 and
"5 Product design"
http://www.jetpress.org/volume13/Nanofactory.htm#s5

 > I have serious questions about how easy it is to just assemble diamond
 > molecules at normal pressures. Admittedly I don't know much about this,
 > but it seems to me that something that requires a humongous press to
 > produce even artificial diamond at massive pressures and temps (and
 > can't actually replicate natural diamond) would cause significant
 > difficulties for you if your machine is trying to put diamond molecules
 > together at normal pressures and temps.

Your "serious questions" about mechanosynthesis do not reflect any 
actual problems with the proposal; they are easy to answer and have 
already been answered if you study the mechanochemistry literature.

A single bond, or two bonds, don't require much force.  The pressure in 
bulk diamond synthesis isn't to make reactions happen--it's to shift the 
equilibrium from graphite to diamond.

http://www.foresight.org/stage2/mechsynthbib.html
See especially the section "Diamond Mechanosynthesis Tools (Theory)"

Chris

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Sun Apr 25 07:18:22 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 08:18:22 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Your document
Message-ID: <408B663E.4020906@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

In case anyone was wondering, the attachment to the original message 
contains the Netsky.Q worm. DO NOT OPEN THE ATTACHMENT.
This virus message should be deleted from the list.

BillK


From extropy at unreasonable.com  Sun Apr 25 17:49:16 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (extropy at unreasonable.com)
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 19:49:16 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: application
Message-ID: <200404251552.i3PFqg929448@tick.javien.com>

Please confirm the document.

++++ Attachment: No Virus found
++++ Norman AntiVirus - www.norman.com


From neptune at superlink.net  Sun Apr 25 16:07:18 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 12:07:18 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] damien's birthday
References: <5.0.2.1.1.20040424212909.01fd1e10@pop3.irishbroadband.ie>
	<6.0.3.0.0.20040424153641.01ceebb8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <00e101c42adf$63165ca0$4dcd5cd1@neptune>

On Saturday, April 24, 2004 4:39 PM "Damien Broderick"
thespike at satx.rr.com wrote:
> At 09:30 PM 4/24/2004 +0100, James wrote [following messages from some
> other Kindly Folks]:
>
> >A very Happy Birthday to you, good sir!
>
> Why, thank you, one & all! But the terrible truth
> is, this wasn't just a birthday, it was a decadeday.
> Some bastard better get cracking on that
> emortality serum or I'm for the scrap heap...

Happy Birthday from me to you.  We're all heading for the scrap heap if
that doesn't happen soon.:)

Dan



From david at lucifer.com  Sun Apr 25 16:35:00 2004
From: david at lucifer.com (David McFadzean)
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 12:35:00 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: messages with attachments will be
	automatically rejected
References: <200404251356.i3PDuhQ18703@tick.javien.com>
	<001601c42ae1$ce567fc0$19827244@oemcomputer>
Message-ID: <0de001c42ae3$40d10740$6301a8c0@sauron>

I've changed the list configuration to reject (return to sender) all
messages with attachments.

David



From support at imminst.org  Sun Apr 25 17:49:55 2004
From: support at imminst.org (support at imminst.org)
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 10:49:55 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] ImmInst Update - Brain-Computer Interfacing
Message-ID: <408bfa43c18ef@imminst.org>

Dear Fellow ImmInst Member,

Sorry about the recent ImmInst website outage (Apr 23-25). 

I managed to create a file with an infinite feedback loop. 
Maggy, our wonderful host from http://www.kia.net, put 
in a number of productivity draining hours to fix my silly error. 

Thank you Maggy,  
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=1&t=3530

Bruce Klein
Chair, ImmInst.org 
http://www.imminst.org/bjklein


ImmInst Chat:  Brain-Computer Interfacing 
*********************
Shawn Mikula, creator of Mind-Brain.com, joins ImmInst 
to discuss his current work, the future of brain-computer 
interfacing and immortalism. 
Chat Time: Sunday Apr 25 @ 8 PM Eastern 
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=63&t=3479


Facing Cryonics 
********************* 
Total: 31 - http://www.imminst.org/facing_cryonics 


Support ImmInst 
********************* 
http://www.imminst.org/become_imminst_fullmember






To be removed from all of our mailing lists, click here:
http://www.imminst.org/archive/mailinglists/mailinglists.php?p=mlist&rem=extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org


From david at lucifer.com  Mon Apr 26 00:24:47 2004
From: david at lucifer.com (David McFadzean)
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 20:24:47 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: messages with attachments will
	beautomatically rejected
References: <200404251356.i3PDuhQ18703@tick.javien.com><001601c42ae1$ce567fc0$19827244@oemcomputer>
	<0de001c42ae3$40d10740$6301a8c0@sauron>
Message-ID: <107901c42b24$e1bec750$6301a8c0@sauron>

I've rolled back this change since the list was strangely devoid of traffic
today.



From hal at finney.org  Mon Apr 26 01:22:49 2004
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 18:22:49 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat]  SI morality
Message-ID: <200404260122.i3Q1Mno25448@finney.org>

Chris Phoenix writes:
> I've gone through a crisis of faith with regard to scientists recently. 
> In many areas, I've come to realize, scientists are far too 
> self-assured.  They think they're practicing science, when in fact they 
> are merely contributing to science.  A lone scientist can run 
> experiments, observe, make hypotheses, form opinions... but cannot fully 
> practice science, because science can only emerge from interactive 
> criticism.  We are all too fallible to trust ourselves to generate good 
> science without lots of help.
> ...
> So how can science be reported to the real world?  If one scientist's 
> opinion isn't trustworthy, what about lots of opinions together? 
> Michael Crichton has called this "consensus science," and correctly 
> attacked it.  It's no more than a popularity contest for ideas, and the 
> popularity of an idea has little to do with its truth.

This is a dangerous road to take.  I'd be concerned that if I started
off doubting the practice of science as a guide to truth, I might as
well send in for my membership card in the Flat Earth Society, because
that's where I'd end up.

You complain above that individually, scientists can't practice science
because that requires interactive criticism.  But in fact, most individual
scientists do work in a framework of interaction.  Most scientists
that I've known are actually very cautious about criticism, and do
their utmost to make their presentations and publications bulletproof.
They'll go out of their way to mention any weaknesses or ambiguities
in their theories specifically in order to pre-empt their critics from
raising those points.  Science is a sport where defense counts more than
offense, from my observations.

And then you go on and criticize consensus science as being no more
than a popularity contest.  But this again overlooks the tremendous
importance of criticism in the scientific process.  A scientifically
unsound theory, even if popular, cannot withstand criticism for long.
There is too much temptation to jump onto the critical side once people
see that it is going to win.  Science rewards successful critics,
and this self correcting mechanism is part of what has made science so
successful as an institution.

The real problem with abandoning science is that you will have no guide
to truth in our complex world.  No one can become familiar with all of
the technical details relevant to the issues we face.  By abandoning
science you are explicitly turning away from the people who have spent
their entire lives acquiring expertise in these areas.

Do you really think you are better able to weigh the many complexities
around, say, global warming than those who have devoted their careers to
studying the atmosphere and climate?  Or similarly with other questions
like the safety of genetically engineered plants?  Or even, yes, the
feasibility of nanotech?

I have an extreme belief in the importance of being open minded.
I've written at length about the dangers I see in ideologies, the way
they blind us and control our thoughts.  I've been strongly influenced by
the results that Robin Hanson has reported and extended about the ways
we fool ourselves, how we don't really seek the truth even though we
think we do.  I believe in seeking the truth.  To the extent that I have
an ideology, that's it.  I try to look for those mechanisms in my mind
that are operating to push me off the path to truth, and to compensate
for them as well as I can.

One of the principles I follow is that if I believe something that
mainstream science disagrees with, I am probably wrong.  It's for the
reasons given above.  I'm not smarter than those guys, at least not
the smartest ones of them.  And their expertise in these areas is far
deeper than my own.  Plus they have this incredibly complex and elaborate
process of modelling and testing and subjecting each others results to
intense criticism, while my uninformed notions on those topics undergo
no such rigorous trials.

The lesson I learned from Robin is that if I disagree with someone
else, it's an accident of history which position I ended up with.
I could have just as easily been in his shoes.  Hence I should have
no presumption that I am probably right, when there is a disagreement.
Given this perspective, when I am going up against a scientific consensus,
the odds are overwhelming that the scientists are right and I am wrong.

It looks to me like these attitudes are the only appropriate ones to adopt
for someone who sincerely seeks the truth.  We have to try to discard
or at least overcome our prejudices and egotistical belief in personal
correctness and superiority.  We have to be willing to change our minds
when we come up against a situation where the experts disagree with us.

Without the guidance of the best advice and analysis available on a
subject, I would be concerned about being vulnerable to all kinds of
quackery and fraud.  We have many crazy beliefs right on this list.
Some here refuse to accept the reality of global warming.  Some believe in
psychic powers.  Some reject the link between HIV and AIDS.  Some believe
the universe is packed full of intelligent life.  Some believe that Israel
caused the 9/11 attacks.  Some believe in cold fusion.  And that's not
even mentioning the whole complex of beliefs about the Singularity.

Rejecting science means rejecting the best and most successful institution
mankind has ever developed for finding out the truth about the world.
It puts you onto a dangerous path fraught with tempting falsehoods that
can lead you astray.  As I suggested above, you better set aside money
for your membership in the Crackpot League, because that's where this
road ends.

Hal Finney


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Mon Apr 26 03:19:43 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 13:19:43 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] New site www.e-drexler.com
References: <200404221808.i3MI8rc04396@finney.org>
Message-ID: <012501c42b3d$51be6c50$1a2d2dcb@homepc>

Hal Finney wrote:

> According to an announcement I saw today, Eric Drexler has somewhat
> belatedly set up a personal web site, http://www.e-drexler.com/.
> 
> Those who know Drexler for his work on nanotechnology may be surprised
> that the site is not exclusively about nanotech, but in general about
> "emerging technologies of broad importance".  Initially the two he is
> focusing on include nano (of course), but also secure, distributed
> computing.  Indeed, the title of the site is "nanotechnology -
> e-drexler.com - secure computing".
> 
> The flavor of secure computing Drexler advocates is what is known
> as object based capabilities.  This is an unconventional approach to
> distributed software which achieves security by putting strict limits
> on the abilities of any piece of code to communicate or interact with
> other objects in the system.  A good example is the E program language
> by Mark Miller, http://www.erights.org/.

I think its good that the site contains a glossary. Its always helpful to 
know what on earth people think they are talking about. 

And interesting that the chapters that make up part III (alledged)
Implementation strategies (that would *really* expose the jugular) are
NOT available online. 

If the Implementation strategies (chapters 15 and 16) are useless then 
one could throw all the rest into the trash.  

I wonder if even what is available now will stay available on the open
internet for long or if we will instead see the nervousness of the naked
when children learning science and critical thinking can say "hey that
argument has absolutely no clothes on it". 


Brett Paatsch






From scerir at libero.it  Mon Apr 26 06:32:22 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 08:32:22 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Dyson on Green
References: <200404251356.i3PDuhQ18703@tick.javien.com><001601c42ae1$ce567fc0$19827244@oemcomputer><0de001c42ae3$40d10740$6301a8c0@sauron>
	<107901c42b24$e1bec750$6301a8c0@sauron>
Message-ID: <001f01c42b58$47959bc0$8dbd1b97@administxl09yj>

Freeman Dyson on Brian Green
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17094

Are 'strings' a dead horse? For a fresh
(category-theoretic) approach see, i.e.
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0404040






From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Mon Apr 26 06:43:54 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 07:43:54 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: application
Message-ID: <408CAFAA.7070508@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

On Sun Apr 25 11:49:16 MDT 2004 extropy at unreasonable.com wrote:

> Please confirm the document.
>
> ++++ Attachment: No Virus found
> ++++ Norman AntiVirus - www.norman.com
>

I saved the attachment document04.obj size 29,840 bytes to disk then
scanned it.

My resident AVG anti-virus found the Netsky.Q worm.

So I then ran the PC Pitstop on-line AV scan (which uses the Panda AV
engine) and it found the Netsky.P worm.

I then ran the Trend Micro Housecall online AV scanner which also found
the Netsky.P worm.

I think there must be something wrong with either your AV software or
the way you have it configured.

BillK




From twodeel at jornada.org  Mon Apr 26 07:10:07 2004
From: twodeel at jornada.org (Don Dartfield)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 00:10:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: application
In-Reply-To: <408CAFAA.7070508@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404260008290.729-100000@hplx.net>

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, BillK wrote:

> I think there must be something wrong with either your AV software or
> the way you have it configured.

Nobody actually typed "Please confirm the document" or said "No virus
found."  That's just the message the virus sends out.  There never was any
antivirus software that scanned it in the first place.





From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Mon Apr 26 08:20:39 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 09:20:39 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: application
Message-ID: <408CC657.6040304@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

On Mon Apr 26 01:10:07 MDT 2004 Don Dartfield wrote:
> Nobody actually typed "Please confirm the document" or said "No virus
> found."  That's just the message the virus sends out.  There never 
> was any antivirus software that scanned it in the first place.

Correct. But I responded because it appeared that extropy at
unreasonable.com was claiming that the document was not infected with a
virus.

If anyone actually opened the document and saw that phrase at the foot
of the message, then their pc has been infected with the worm. They
should disconnect from the internet immediately (because their pc is now
spewing out virus infected emails) and get their pc cleaned.

BillK






From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Mon Apr 26 15:31:54 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 08:31:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Virus Detection 101 [was: application]
In-Reply-To: <408CAFAA.7070508@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404260815240.3880-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, BillK wrote:

> On Sun Apr 25 11:49:16 MDT 2004 extropy at unreasonable.com wrote:
>
> > Please confirm the document.
> >
> > ++++ Attachment: No Virus found
> > ++++ Norman AntiVirus - www.norman.com
> >
>
> I saved the attachment document04.obj size 29,840 bytes to disk then
> scanned it [snip].

Ok folks VIRUS DETECTION 101:
a) Look at the size of the message -- if its between 30-45K bytes
it *probably* got a virus in it (you don't even have to run the
anti-virus software).

b) Ignore the "From:" line.  They can easily be forged.

c) Look at the message transmission log in the actual message source.
If your mail program can't display this go to the Javien Forum and
look at the actual messge "source" (bottom right hand corner of
the screen).

Look at the last "Received:" line in the message source.
It was received from what looks like a DSL or dial-up line at ...pooles.rima-tde.net
which translates to 81.33.36.216.

Then on a unix/linix system run a traceroute to 81.33.36.216.
(Under DOS shells you can usually use TRACERT).

It ends up getting routed to Virginia then the response times jump
and it looks like it is going overseas.  From the U.S. it gets
routed through ...red.telefonica-wholesale.net and then to
...pooles.rima-tde.net.  Given the jump in the response times
and the names involved my suspicion would be a user in perhaps
Spain or Italy (though Mexico isn't out of the question) [1].

My guess would be that its a corrupted PC.  There was an announcement
today I think by one of the SPAM black lists has completely
cut off blocks of IP addresses in Spain because they were
distributing so much SPAM.  That would be my guess at this time.

Robert

1. We need a utility that links IP addresses to countries -- I've
seen suggestions that there are Perl libraries and/or web sites
that provide this capability but I don't know what/where they are.




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Mon Apr 26 15:33:34 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 08:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] HEALTH: Heart and Stem Cells
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404260832010.3880-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Looks like your own stem cells can be used to help
repair heart damage.

See for example:
  http://www.ajc.com/health/content/shared-auto/healthnews/cora/518557.html

Robert




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Apr 26 16:40:33 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 09:40:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Virus Detection 101 [was: application]
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404260815240.3880-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040426164033.39213.qmail@web80404.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:
> Look at the last "Received:" line in the message
> source.
> It was received from what looks like a DSL or
> dial-up line at ...pooles.rima-tde.net
> which translates to 81.33.36.216.
> 
> Then on a unix/linix system run a traceroute to
> 81.33.36.216.
> (Under DOS shells you can usually use TRACERT).
> 
> It ends up getting routed to Virginia then the
> response times jump
> and it looks like it is going overseas.  From the
> U.S. it gets
> routed through ...red.telefonica-wholesale.net and
> then to
> ...pooles.rima-tde.net.  Given the jump in the
> response times
> and the names involved my suspicion would be a user
> in perhaps
> Spain or Italy (though Mexico isn't out of the
> question) [1].

> 1. We need a utility that links IP addresses to
> countries -- I've
> seen suggestions that there are Perl libraries
> and/or web sites
> that provide this capability but I don't know
> what/where they are.

It's not always possible to link IP address to
geographical location, but there are applications that
will succeed most of the time.  I googled on
"geographical IP", and while some of the first links
either were irrelevant or couldn't find 81.33.36.216,
http://www.ip2location.com/free.asp traced it to
Spain.

There are several operations* that, essentially,
provide a database lookup of IP address to country.
They vary mainly on quality and extensiveness.  Almost
all of 'em will get any address in the US, especially
ones that have been around for years.  The real test
is not-well-known IP addresses elsewhere; spammers'
IPs can be a good test.  (Not to mention non-US AOL;
there is the perception that a sizeable fraction of
all users worldwide go through AOL.  This might have
been true some years ago, but I'm not sure how true it
remains today.)

* Some of them offer free trials, but don't even try
abusing them.  A few queries to test their quality (or
do one-off lookups on a given spammer every now and
then, as in this case) is one thing, but it's trivial
to detect someone submitting a lot of queries (say,
20+ queries a day).  For those kinds of loads, they
sell commercial packages.


From astapp at fizzfactorgames.com  Mon Apr 26 17:09:05 2004
From: astapp at fizzfactorgames.com (Acy James Stapp)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 10:09:05 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] HEALTH: Heart and Stem Cells
Message-ID: <56BC65EB2F3963489057F7D978B5E7B701AB898B@amazemail2.amazeent.com>

I saw a show on this on our local PBS station (KLRU) and the results
were pretty good (well, twice as good according to the linked article).
The doctors were saying that they expected it to become a standard
treatment once regulatory approval happened.

Acy

[ -----Original Message-----
[ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org 
[ [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of 
[ Robert J. Bradbury
[ Sent: Monday, 26 April, 2004 10:34
[ To: Extropy Chat
[ Subject: [extropy-chat] HEALTH: Heart and Stem Cells
[ 
[ 
[ 
[ Looks like your own stem cells can be used to help
[ repair heart damage.
[ 
[ See for example:
[   
[ http://www.ajc.com/health/content/shared-auto/healthnews/cora/
518557.html

Robert


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


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Apr 26 18:21:51 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 11:21:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity estimates vs. research funding
In-Reply-To: <407EEBCF.5070007@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20040426182151.70258.qmail@web80410.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:
> Adrian Tymes wrote:
> >--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:
> >>Projects to kill:
> >>    manned spaceflight
> >>
> >>Projects to fund:
> >>     Singularity research
> >
> >You know, of course, some of us are looking to
> manned
> >spaceflight in case the Singularity turns out
> >undesirably (to us as we are at the time).  Similar
> >arguments can be made about the other projects on
> your
> >kill list (with the possible exception of fusion,
> at
> >least anything involving fusion reactors larger
> than a
> >standard workbench).
> >
> Unless someone can develop and implement a way to
> actively stop it, the 
> Singularity will occur some time between now and
> 2020 with very high 
> probability. Do you think you will get manned
> spaceflight at a level 
> that can usefully avoid a "bad" Singularity in that
> timeframe? 

No, but I think it might start to have enough of an
impact by 2050.

> Alternatively, do you believe my estimate of the
> timeframe is wrong?

Yes.  Given the state of the art today, I place a very
low probability of software that we, today, would call
"sentient" in operation by 2020 - to say nothing of
said software specifically being put to the task of
optimizing itself*, which event seems to either be or
be a prerequisite for the Singularity by most
definitions.  By 2050 has higher odds, of course.

* This requires having the software, and having its
controller sufficiently foresighted to allow or
direct it to do so.  This could happen practically
instantaneously, of course, but it could also take
years or decades to happen.  Not all sentient entities
always make the most optimal decisions.  Proper
planning takes the case that they do as a corner case,
of course, but it also recognizes what happens in
other situations.  Sometimes, a solution that works
for all the extreme cases fails miserably if one
assumes more average outcomes...and in practice, one
faces the average and mundane more often than one
faces the extreme.

> The 
> Singularity research is listed as a desperate and
> probably futile effort 
> to increase the probability of a "good" outcome. Low
> cost, low 
> probability, extremely high payback.

And it may have some other, more immediate paybacks
too.  But I believe the cost is low enough that one
need not cut all that you listed to properly fund it.


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Mon Apr 26 19:04:10 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 12:04:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Virus Detection 101 [was: application]
In-Reply-To: <20040426164033.39213.qmail@web80404.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404261201510.9843-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Yep, it definitely looks like SPAM from Spain.

New Scientist is documenting how the Abusive Hosts Blocking
List has blocked the Spain's goverment ISP (aka Telefonica
De Espana (TDE)).

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994924

Robert





From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Mon Apr 26 19:59:32 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 15:59:32 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] No rejection of science! Re: SI morality
In-Reply-To: <200404261533.i3QFXu900638@tick.javien.com>
References: <200404261533.i3QFXu900638@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <408D6A24.2020200@CRNano.org>

"Hal Finney" wrote:
 > Chris Phoenix writes:
 >> I've gone through a crisis of faith with regard to scientists recently.
 >> In many areas, I've come to realize, scientists are far too
 >> self-assured.  They think they're practicing science, when in fact
 >> they are merely contributing to science.

Note what I said: a crisis of faith with regard to *scientists*, not 
science.  Much of your post makes it sound like I've rejected science. 
I have not rejected science.  I never said anything about abandoning 
science, as you implied a few paragraphs down.

Since your posts are usually high-quality, I'm especially concerned that 
your misinterpretation of me will affect my reputation.  So I'll have to 
go over that in detail.

 >>> Michael Crichton has called this "consensus science," and correctly
 >>> attacked it.  It's no more than a popularity contest for ideas, and 
the
 >>> popularity of an idea has little to do with its truth.
 >
 > This is a dangerous road to take.  I'd be concerned that if I started
 > off doubting the practice of science as a guide to truth, I might as
 > well send in for my membership card in the Flat Earth Society, because
 > that's where I'd end up.

I did not say that science is not a guide to truth.  I said that 
"consensus science" is not a reliable guide to truth.

There's an asymmetry here.  If an engineer or other applier of science 
surveys the scientific results in an area, and finds agreement from many 
different scientists, then it's likely that what they agree on is 
reliable.  But if many different scientists get together and announce 
something, then it's likely that what they agree on is political.  Note 
that in the second case, but not the first, scientists are 
self-selecting.  And they are probably talking outside their field.  And 
so the consensus emerges from a political process, not a scientific process.

 > You complain above that individually, scientists can't practice science
 > because that requires interactive criticism.

Yep.  And I'm aware that most scientists don't try to go it alone.

 > And then you go on and criticize consensus science as being no more
 > than a popularity contest.  But this again overlooks the tremendous
 > importance of criticism in the scientific process.  A scientifically
 > unsound theory, even if popular, cannot withstand criticism for long.

What about scientifically unsound criticism of a sound theory?  That 
unsound criticism can withstand criticism for a very long time.  Note 
that there's an asymmetry here too, because even the soundest theory is 
only provisionally accepted, whereas a weak theory can be conclusively 
rejected.  This is as it should be.  But it means that scientists who 
don't like a sound theory can squelch it.

There's another facet of the way science is practiced today.  There is 
not much space for observations without theory.  We are happy to 
categorize, but mere cataloging is not interesting.  So an observation 
like "When I set up my apparatus a certain way, these meters read 
differently than I expect, and I can't figure out why" will get ignored 
unless they can say what it means.  But the minute they propose a 
theory, that theory is open for criticism--and once it's been well 
criticized, everyone forgets or discounts the original observations.  In 
some fields, it's hard to see how any new phenomenon could be discovered 
anymore.  "Our theories don't predict that, so it must be wrong" is an 
acceptable argument not just in thermodynamics but in high-energy 
physics, condensed-matter physics, and many other fields where we ought 
not to assume we know all there is to be known.

 > There is too much temptation to jump onto the critical side once people
 > see that it is going to win.  Science rewards successful critics,
 > and this self correcting mechanism is part of what has made science so
 > successful as an institution.

What determines the success of a critic?  Would you say it's the ability 
to turn scientists away from a certain course of inquiry?  I think this 
reinforces my point that solid scientific work is frequently 
discredited, lines of investigation cut off, and worthwhile questions 
dismissed.  Too many babies are thrown out with the bathwater.  Yes, 
there's a lot of bathwater to throw.  But when you say "science rewards 
successful critics," I realize how dangerous that policy is: critics can 
be successful whether they are constructive or destructive.

 > The real problem with abandoning science is that you will have no guide
 > to truth in our complex world.  No one can become familiar with all of
 > the technical details relevant to the issues we face.  By abandoning
 > science you are explicitly turning away from the people who have spent
 > their entire lives acquiring expertise in these areas.

I object vigorously to this paragraph.  I never said anything about 
abandoning science, nor was it implied in anything I wrote.

 > Do you really think you are better able to weigh the many complexities
 > around, say, global warming than those who have devoted their careers to
 > studying the atmosphere and climate?  Or similarly with other questions
 > like the safety of genetically engineered plants?  Or even, yes, the
 > feasibility of nanotech?

Let me take these one at a time.  Global warming: No, I don't think I'm 
in a position to weigh those complexities.

Genetically engineered plants: I know less than the scientists, but more 
than most of the people who are discussing it.  So I think I could 
contribute usefully to most non-scientific discussions of that topic.

Feasibility of nanotech: I have studied that for over a decade.  I have 
had many discussions with many different scientists, where both I and 
the scientists have felt the discussion was high-quality and worthwhile. 
  And I have seen more than a few scientists in nanotech fields make the 
most simplistic mistakes when talking about the feasibility of molecular 
manufacturing.  So I'm not completely sure that I'm right that it's 
feasible, and I'm always looking for evidence that I'm wrong.  But I 
have ample evidence of my depth and breadth of knowledge in the area, 
even compared to experts in the field.  And I have ample evidence of the 
strength of my arguments.  So yes, I do think I am better able to weigh 
the complexities in that area than almost any scientist.  If any 
scientist wants to contest this, I'll be happy to test my understanding 
in public discussion.

And seeing how scientists have been in this area have been careless, 
political, and just plain abjectly wrong on even straightforward points, 
I have come to wonder what other areas they might be wrong about.  Why 
has no one come forward to criticize Ratner's mischaracterization of 
Drexler's work?  Could it be because Ratner was himself being critical 
of an unpopular theory, and science rewards critics?

 > One of the principles I follow is that if I believe something that
 > mainstream science disagrees with, I am probably wrong.  It's for the
 > reasons given above.  I'm not smarter than those guys, at least not
 > the smartest ones of them.  And their expertise in these areas is far
 > deeper than my own.  Plus they have this incredibly complex and elaborate
 > process of modelling and testing and subjecting each others results to
 > intense criticism, while my uninformed notions on those topics undergo
 > no such rigorous trials.

That's not a bad principle, in areas you haven't studied much and don't 
care much about.  But there are several areas of great practical 
importance in which mainstream science is likely to be wrong and also 
likely to be overly confident.  I have seen a leading dyslexia 
researcher quoted repeatedly as saying that dyslexia has nothing to do 
with vision.  I know from personal experience that this is wrong. 
Vision is not the only component of dyslexia, but dyslexia frequently 
involves visual effects.  Given the number of dyslexics and the damage 
done by illiteracy, it's quite important to understand dyslexia clearly. 
  This person does good and valuable work.  But she also goes too far in 
debunking other good and valuable theories.

 > The lesson I learned from Robin is that if I disagree with someone
 > else, it's an accident of history which position I ended up with.
 > I could have just as easily been in his shoes.  Hence I should have
 > no presumption that I am probably right, when there is a disagreement.

I agree there.

 > Given this perspective, when I am going up against a scientific 
consensus,
 > the odds are overwhelming that the scientists are right and I am wrong.

I don't see how this follows.  My beliefs are formed by many mechanisms. 
  The assertions of scientists are formed by many mechanisms.  On each 
side, some of these mechanisms are more reliable than others.  If I can 
look at the number "35", and know that it's 35, and see 53; or if I can 
read through a whole book and at the end be surprised to realize that a 
character's name is spelled differently than I had thought; then I know 
that I have a visual-mediated problem related to perceiving symbols, and 
anyone who says that such things don't happen is wrong.

If a scientist says that enzymes require water to work, and there's a 
whole field of study involving the industrial use of enzymes in 
non-aqueous solvents, then I know that that scientist is wrong.  I don't 
care if he has a Nobel prize in chemistry; he's simply wrong.  And I 
look at what led him to make such a glaring error, and I find that he 
was talking about something that he desperately wants to debunk.  Should 
I trust his other statements in that area?

 > It looks to me like these attitudes are the only appropriate ones to 
adopt
 > for someone who sincerely seeks the truth.  We have to try to discard
 > or at least overcome our prejudices and egotistical belief in personal
 > correctness and superiority.  We have to be willing to change our minds
 > when we come up against a situation where the experts disagree with us.

If I'm capable of understanding the expert's thought processes and 
evidence, then I will be even closer to the truth if I work out for 
myself the reason why the expert believes as they do.  And if I find an 
error in their work, should I continue to take their opinion as truth?  No.

 > Without the guidance of the best advice and analysis available on a
 > subject, I would be concerned about being vulnerable to all kinds of
 > quackery and fraud.  We have many crazy beliefs right on this list.
 > Some here refuse to accept the reality of global warming.

Which global warming: the raw temperature data?  The calculation of a 
warming trend?  The attribution of that warming trend to changing 
atmospheric gas composition?  The projection of future climate and 
change in climate?  Or the prescriptions that we should follow to avoid 
disastrous climate change?

Seems to me I read an analysis of gross statistical misconduct in one of 
the foundational historical-temperature-analysis papers: numbers 
cut-and-pasted from one section to another, stuff like that.

Now don't get me wrong: From what I've heard of the fragility of its 
mechanism, I'm personally quite concerned about the possibility of the 
Gulf Stream shutting down in the next decade or two.  But I would find 
it hard to call someone "crazy" who thought that it was too early to 
pursue trillion-dollar climate remediation programs based on today's 
understanding.

 > Some believe in psychic powers.

Conversely, some believe that anything attributed to psychic powers must 
be fraudulent, and thereby miss an opportunity to learn about mundane 
but interesting psychology.

 > Some reject the link between HIV and AIDS.

Conversely, some (most!) follow the party line of "HIV is the exact and 
only cause of AIDS" so closely that they refuse to look at the 
possibility of other factors exacerbating HIV.  Those who blame it on 
drugs are obviously out to lunch.  But there's some interesting 
immunological work that hints that the immune system can start attacking 
itself if it tries to deal with two simultaneous diseases with 
complementary antigens.

In other words, if disease A presents a chemical -< then the immune 
system will make an antibody <-
But now when disease B presents a chemical <= then antibodies =< will be 
made against it.  But anti-B antibody =< will attack anti-A antibody <- 
and so the immune system starts fighting itself.  It seems that HIV and 
CMV have such complementary molecules, and their antibodies are also 
complementary.  Robert Root-Bernstein has written on this theory; I 
think he's the one who developed it.  But what's the chance of it 
getting a hearing in the scientific community today?

 > Some believe the universe is packed full of intelligent life.

So far, this isn't a scientific belief.  Why are you mentioning it?

 > Some believe that Israel caused the 9/11 attacks.

Likewise, why mention this in a discussion of science?

 > Some believe in cold fusion.

Funny thing: the DOE is now re-opening studies of cold fusion.

 > Rejecting science means rejecting the best and most successful 
institution
 > mankind has ever developed for finding out the truth about the world.
 > It puts you onto a dangerous path fraught with tempting falsehoods that
 > can lead you astray.  As I suggested above, you better set aside money
 > for your membership in the Crackpot League, because that's where this
 > road ends.

And once again I say: I have not rejected science.  And I will caution 
you again to be more careful with other people's reputations.

I have complained at the way some scientists misuse science.  I agree 
that science is incredibly successful at finding out information about 
how parts of the world work.  But if a bunch of scientists band together 
to debunk something, I will not consider it disproved until I've 
considered their evidence and reasoning.

Chris

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Apr 26 20:14:25 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 13:14:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] MARS: Because it is hard
In-Reply-To: <000001c421e6$3de4b550$6501a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20040426201425.15500.qmail@web80403.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> Emlyn, Gene, Adrian, Robert, the rest of you space
> guys,
> what we need to do is put together or look for an
> existing 
> spreadsheet to aid Mars mission design, one that
> includes 
> necessary delta-vees and required fuel load and tank
> 
> size requirements.  Zubrin has already made some
> pretty
> competent looking weight estimates in The Case For
> Mars.
> Perhaps I need to take that on for my next project,
> or
> look around at what has already been done.

I know this is a bit late, but...

http://www.msss.com/mars/mars9x/mission.html
lists 4815 m/s total delta-v from LEO to (highly
eccentric) Mars orbit, taking about 10 months (not an
optimal trip for people by any means; this was for a
robotic probe).  A more extensive set of delta-V vs.
time, including the much more dominant delta-V to
orbit, can be found at
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3o.html .

Quoting from other sources:
> mass fraction = e^(dV / Ve)
> where
> mass fraction = Mi / Mf
> Mi = mass of rocket including fuel
> Mf = Mass of rocket after burning the fuel
> dV = deltaV
> Ve = exhaust gas velocity 

At a good (for chemical rockets) exhaust velocity of
4000 m/s, I get a mass fraction of about 3.33, or
Mf/Mi of just under 30%.  Adjust for other propulsion
methods as desired (like the much higher exhaust
velocity of nuclear propulsion), then calculate for
desired Mf (rocket structure, including empty tanks,
plus payload, including life support).


From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Mon Apr 26 22:44:14 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 18:44:14 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat]  SI morality
In-Reply-To: <200404260122.i3Q1Mno25448@finney.org>
Message-ID: <3E361084-97D3-11D8-AF26-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>

Chris Phoenix writes:
> I've gone through a crisis of faith with regard to scientists recently.
> In many areas, I've come to realize, scientists are far too
> self-assured.  They think they're practicing science, when in fact they
> are merely contributing to science.

This means that you shouldn't dismiss all scientists.  You need to 
distinguish between the ones actually practicing science and the ones 
merely contributing to science.  That is why I harp on the scientific 
method from time to time.  Because I try to distinguish the difference.

>   A lone scientist can run
> experiments, observe, make hypotheses, form opinions... but cannot 
> fully
> practice science, because science can only emerge from interactive
> criticism.  We are all too fallible to trust ourselves to generate good
> science without lots of help.

Exactly.  This is why science requires peer review, repeatability of 
experiments, and the like.  We must always regard lone scientists with 
suspicion because their work is not science, or at least has not been 
verified by science yet.

> So how can science be reported to the real world?  If one scientist's
> opinion isn't trustworthy, what about lots of opinions together?
> Michael Crichton has called this "consensus science," and correctly
> attacked it.  It's no more than a popularity contest for ideas, and the
> popularity of an idea has little to do with its truth.

This is where publishing is required by true science.  it is not enough 
to have scientists claim something, even in a group.  They must 
demonstrate it clearly, and give instructions so that other people can 
demonstrate the same thing for themselves.  Then other scientists can 
either repeat the experiment to prove it, repeat the experiment to 
disprove it, or critique the methodology to explain why the proof is 
faulty.

It is only when scientists give opinion rather than experimental 
evidence that the process falls apart.  So again, I would suggest that 
true scientists don't fall into this untrustworthy group, but only 
those who don't follow the scientific method.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com>



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Mon Apr 26 22:52:40 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 18:52:40 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] No rejection of science! Re: SI morality
In-Reply-To: <408D6A24.2020200@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <6BFA0392-97D4-11D8-AF26-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Monday, April 26, 2004, at 03:59 pm, Chris Phoenix wrote:

> Note what I said: a crisis of faith with regard to *scientists*, not 
> science.

Agreed.  But are people who deviate from the scientific method actually 
scientists?  Are theories that are not developed and tested with the 
scientific methods really scientific?  I would argue that they are not.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com>



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Apr 26 23:30:07 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 16:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Self-labelling
In-Reply-To: <6BFA0392-97D4-11D8-AF26-0030654881D2@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <20040426233007.74585.qmail@web80403.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Harvey Newstrom <mail at HarveyNewstrom.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 26, 2004, at 03:59 pm, Chris
> Phoenix wrote:
> > Note what I said: a crisis of faith with regard to
> *scientists*, not 
> > science.
> 
> Agreed.  But are people who deviate from the
> scientific method actually 
> scientists?  Are theories that are not developed and
> tested with the 
> scientific methods really scientific?  I would argue
> that they are not.

In practice, one has the ideal of X, and then the
people who label themselves as practicing X, or Xists.
(Insert "science", "Christianity", or whatever for X.)
The ideal may be a useful thing, but when one talks
about Xists, one necessarily has to recognize that
those who label themselves Xists will interpret your
words as referring to them since, if you're not, then
by "Xists" you're not referring to anybody, which only
makes sense in a comment like "there are no true
Xists".  This interpretation is also likely to happen
in others who try to apply these comments to the real
world.

Note who does the interpretation: everyone *except*
you, the speaker.  (I'm using "you" generically, not
referring specifically to Harvey, although the above
statement of his is a good example.)  You communicate
in order to be understood.  What is understood by
others is therefore the point of communication.

Therefore, I would conclude that there is little
practical difference in this context between talking
about Xists and people who call themselves Xists,
unless one is explicitly talking about hypothetical or
otherwise purely theoretical situations.


From extropy at unreasonable.com  Tue Apr 27 01:35:13 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 21:35:13 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:Virus Detection 101 [was: application]
In-Reply-To: <408CAFAA.7070508@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040426210557.03f33d78@mail.comcast.net>

I'm a little annoyed that the email address I post to the list with was 
used for the attack. (I do not use it for any other purpose; presumably one 
of you has it in their address book.)

What I don't understand is why I did not see the message at all in my inbox.


-- David Lubkin.




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 27 04:11:52 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 21:11:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:Virus Detection 101 [was: application]
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040426210557.03f33d78@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <20040427041152.49181.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>


--- David Lubkin <extropy at unreasonable.com> wrote:
> I'm a little annoyed that the email address I post to the list with
> was 
> used for the attack. (I do not use it for any other purpose;
> presumably one 
> of you has it in their address book.)
> 
> What I don't understand is why I did not see the message at all in my
> inbox.

The system has a setting in your user profile that allows you to not
receive messages posted to the list by yourself.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs  
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover 


From extropy at unreasonable.com  Tue Apr 27 04:54:47 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:54:47 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:Virus Detection 101 [was: application]
In-Reply-To: <20040427041152.49181.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040426210557.03f33d78@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040427005152.0358c618@mail.comcast.net>

Mike wrote:

> > What I don't understand is why I did not see the message at all in my
> > inbox.
>
>The system has a setting in your user profile that allows you to not
>receive messages posted to the list by yourself.

I know. It's set to send me them. I've always gotten them fine. The virus 
message AFAIK is the only one supposedly from me that was not sent to me.


-- David Lubkin.




From amara at amara.com  Tue Apr 27 13:20:51 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:20:51 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] No rejection of science! Re: SI morality
Message-ID: <p05100302bcb40d665d55@[150.146.134.133]>

Chris Phoenix:
>There's another facet of the way science is practiced today.  There is
>not much space for observations without theory.  We are happy to
>categorize, but mere cataloging is not interesting.  So an observation
>like "When I set up my apparatus a certain way, these meters read
>differently than I expect, and I can't figure out why" will get
>ignored unless they can say what it means.  But the minute they
>propose a theory, that theory is open for criticism--and once it's
>been well criticized, everyone forgets or discounts the original
>observations.  In some fields, it's hard to see how any new phenomenon
>could be discovered anymore.  "Our theories don't predict that, so it
>must be wrong" is an acceptable argument not just in thermodynamics
>but in high-energy physics, condensed-matter physics, and many other
>fields where we ought not to assume we know all there is to be known.


I think that there IS room for observations with little theory, but
perhaps you are not aware about it. Astrophysics is primarily an
observational science. You cannot perform interactive experiments on
objects that are located thousands or millions of light years away.
You can still test an idea though, get observing time, and try your
best to see if that idea works. Observing time is expensive on the
major telescopes, so your idea should be a good one to pass the
referees.

[Planetary science is alot more interactive because the turn-around
time for many objects (out to Saturn, say), are measured in hours.]

Observation without theory is very important when building
instruments, and every scientist and engineer that I know that
performs such a task has notebooks with notes about every aspect of
the instrument design, construction, testing, calibration,
performance. They *must* do this, it is not even something that they
consider 'maybe' doing. So they do. I cannot stress this enough,
keeping good notes on every observational parameter is never an
optional task.

Another area where there is room for observation without theory is
what is now referred to as "knowledge management". ESA (probably NASA
too, but I'll be able to say more in about a year) is very concerned
that the knowledge that went into the designing and building and
launching of instruments on space missions be preserved, so they
require all of the scientists involved to be 'recorded' (video, audio,
written) with respect to their thoughts about their instrument, the
mission, etc. At times it doesn't look very scientific at all, but the
goal is that some fuzzy information recorded in this way might have
relevance to unexpected instrument performance and therefore prove
valuable, especially when spacecraft arrival on an object is ten years
in the future.

Chris, I've seen a number of observational papers, where the theory
was not an important part of the paper. I have two of them, in fact, from
twenty years ago on the Voyager 2 Photopolarimeter project. I was just
a kid, and certainly no Saturn rings expert, yet our instrument
presented to the scientific community the world's highest resolution
Saturn rings data until the mid-1990s. I/we had to say *something*
about what we saw, so we did, in the best way that we knew. I thought
that the referees were very fair, then and now, on that particular
aspect of the observations.  Spend some time reading the arXiv
archive in astrophysics, and you'll find other observational papers
too. [ http://xxx.lanl.gov/list/astro-ph/new ]

Amara


-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"We haven't the money, so we've got to think." -- Ernest Rutherford



From amara at amara.com  Tue Apr 27 14:58:07 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:58:07 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Watching the comets, Part II
Message-ID: <p05100303bcb424cf9426@[150.146.134.133]>

Hal Finney:
>One thing to keep in mind with comet magnitudes is that those reflect
>total light emission from the entire comet (or at least the coma).
>In other words, to compare it with a star of the same magnitude, you'd
>have to imagine squeezing down the extended visible area of the comet
>into a point, and then it would look as bright as the star.

Yes, that's true, I wasn't thinking about that aspect and it would
have been misleading to think it was as bright as point-like stars.

The northern comet (C/2002 T7 (LINEAR)) is visible, naked-eye, now,
nonetheless. It spans about 4 degrees from coma to tail(s). My comet
friends tell me it is at fourth magnitude. To find it, go to the
border of the constellations Andromeda and Pisces, find the star
delta And and follow it a few degrees and you'll see the comet. When I
learned this a couple nights ago, I was on travel in Nice, France (for
a follow-up scientific meeting for the Dawn asteroid mission I wrote
about last last Friday night), I ran my astronomy programs on my Mac
to see the sky view and set my alarm clock for 3am. I was more or less
prepared, I thought the horizon view from the promenade along the Nice
sea coast would be a perfect view. Alas, I was too tired, the last
weeks' travel and activities put me beyond exhaustion, and I slept
through my alarm. Missed my chance. I will try from the Rome mountains
next.

Amara
-- 

***********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD             email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics        vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers            URL:   http://www.amara.com/
***********************************************************************
"The man who doesn't know what the universe is doesn't know where he
lives."      -- Marcus Aurelius


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Apr 27 18:04:38 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 13:04:38 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Humans are so wonderful!
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040427130421.01bfc9d8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

http://www.rtoddking.com/chinawin2003_hb_if.htm




From hal at finney.org  Tue Apr 27 20:09:43 2004
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 13:09:43 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] No rejection of science! Re: SI morality
Message-ID: <200404272009.i3RK9hO29528@finney.org>

Chris Phoenix writes:
> Note what I said: a crisis of faith with regard to *scientists*, not 
> science.  Much of your post makes it sound like I've rejected science. 
> I have not rejected science.  I never said anything about abandoning 
> science, as you implied a few paragraphs down.
>
> Since your posts are usually high-quality, I'm especially concerned that 
> your misinterpretation of me will affect my reputation.  So I'll have to 
> go over that in detail.

What I meant by following "science" is the principle that the scientific
consensus in a given field is the best guide we have to the truth in that
field.  Is it fair to say that you disagree with that principle?

> "Hal Finney" wrote:
>  > This is a dangerous road to take.  I'd be concerned that if I started
>  > off doubting the practice of science as a guide to truth, I might as
>  > well send in for my membership card in the Flat Earth Society, because
>  > that's where I'd end up.
>
> I did not say that science is not a guide to truth.  I said that 
> "consensus science" is not a reliable guide to truth.

Look how we are parsing our words here.  I speak of "the practice of
science" as the guide to truth.  You deny saying that "science" is a
bad guide to truth, but you instead say that "consensus science" is not
a reliable guide to truth.

I don't know what you mean by "science" vs "consensus science" vs my
"practice of science".  But hopefully you will agree with my clarified
characterization above, since it essentially restates your comment about
consensus science.  That is, you will agree that you disagree with the
principle as I defined it.  And that should not damage your reputation.

I think my entire post can go through unchanged if you simply substitute
"the practice of science" or "the scientific consensus" for the shorthand
"science" everywhere.

> There's an asymmetry here.  If an engineer or other applier of science 
> surveys the scientific results in an area, and finds agreement from many 
> different scientists, then it's likely that what they agree on is 
> reliable.  But if many different scientists get together and announce 
> something, then it's likely that what they agree on is political.  Note 
> that in the second case, but not the first, scientists are 
> self-selecting.  And they are probably talking outside their field.  And 
> so the consensus emerges from a political process, not a scientific process.

I don't follow this distinction.  You seem to be saying that if scientists
simply publish their results and there is widespread consensus, that is
probably correct.  But if they announce their consensus, it is no longer
probably correct?  Why?  It seems to me that the reason scientists would
make such an announcement is because there is widespread public error or
confusion about some scientific matter.  The public, for some reason,
disagrees with the scientific consensus.  For example, scientists have
gotten together and made announcements to support the theory of evolution,
or to denounce pseudoscience like Velikovsky or ancient astronauts.

It doesn't seem to me that public announcements are as much of a red flag
as you see them.  But that doesn't affect my basic point about scientific
consensus.  I say that scientific consensus should be taken as true.
If a public announcement does not reflect the scientific consensus,
then I would agree with you that it should not be treated as if it does.

This points out a difficulty with my proposal, which is that it is not
always easy for an outsider to know what the scientific consensus is.
I don't have a perfect solution for that, other than to try to read
from a variety of published reports, or ideally to actually talk to
some of the people working in the field.  The main point is that once
you do get some understanding of the consensus, you don't reject it
just because it disagrees with your preconceptions or your preferences.
You accept it as probably true.

> What determines the success of a critic?  Would you say it's the ability 
> to turn scientists away from a certain course of inquiry?  I think this 
> reinforces my point that solid scientific work is frequently 
> discredited, lines of investigation cut off, and worthwhile questions 
> dismissed.  Too many babies are thrown out with the bathwater.  Yes, 
> there's a lot of bathwater to throw.  But when you say "science rewards 
> successful critics," I realize how dangerous that policy is: critics can 
> be successful whether they are constructive or destructive.

All these things are true; science is imperfect.  No surprise there,
for all human institutions are imperfect.  The reason why I still
maintain that we should trust the consensus of science is that we are
each imperfect as well in our judgement.  There is no reason to believe
that our individual imperfections are less than those of an institution
which is designed to iron out and correct the imperfections of those
who participate, and which history has shown to be very successful at
this process.

>  > Do you really think you are better able to weigh the many complexities
>  > around, say, global warming than those who have devoted their careers to
>  > studying the atmosphere and climate?  Or similarly with other questions
>  > like the safety of genetically engineered plants?  Or even, yes, the
>  > feasibility of nanotech?
>
> Let me take these one at a time.  Global warming: No, I don't think I'm 
> in a position to weigh those complexities.

It is this approach, of taking scientific things one at a time, which
I think is dangerous.  You are setting your judgement above that
of the scientific community.  It is dangerous to try to cherry-pick
among scientific issues to decide for which ones we will agree with
the consensus and for which ones we will decide that the scientific
consensus is wrong.  This makes it too easy for our individual lapses
in rationality to find an excuse to enter and influence our thinking.

Let me cut to the chase here so that this doesn't get too long.  I claim
that the scientific consensus is the best guide we have to truth.
This doesn't mean that everything any scientist says on any matter is
true, of course.  Nor do group proclamations by scientists necessarily
reflect the consensus.  But I think in most cases they probably do,
because otherwise there would be a counter-proclamation by those who
felt that the original group was misrepresenting the consensus, and the
whole public show would fall apart, undercutting the public education
goal of the original proclamation.

Essentially I am advocating the idea of following the scientific consensus
faithfully; you might even say, blindly.  The reason is because our
errors of rationality are so pervasive and seductive that we are more
likely to be wrong than is the scientific consensus.

This is not an easy principle to follow!  It feels like an abdication of
responsibility, like an abandonment of critical thinking.  But when I look
within, these feelings do not come from the part of me that loves truth,
they come from the part of me that loves myself.  They are a manifestation
of ego.  They come from an emotional desire to be the master of my fate,
which means making my own decisions about what to believe and what not
to believe.  Delegating these matters to any outside social institution,
even one whose track record in approaching the truth is greater than
anything mankind has ever developed, goes against powerful mental
instincts.  Nevertheless I claim that this is what we have to try to do.

>  > Rejecting science means rejecting the best and most successful institution
>  > mankind has ever developed for finding out the truth about the world.
>  > It puts you onto a dangerous path fraught with tempting falsehoods that
>  > can lead you astray.  As I suggested above, you better set aside money
>  > for your membership in the Crackpot League, because that's where this
>  > road ends.
>
> And once again I say: I have not rejected science.  And I will caution 
> you again to be more careful with other people's reputations.
>
> I have complained at the way some scientists misuse science.  I agree 
> that science is incredibly successful at finding out information about 
> how parts of the world work.  But if a bunch of scientists band together 
> to debunk something, I will not consider it disproved until I've 
> considered their evidence and reasoning.

It is this final attitude which is dangerous, that you will rely
ultimately on your own judgement of the scientists' evidence and
reasoning.  I would instead say that you should only try to determine
the true consensus of the scientific experts, and take that as the best
available approximation to the truth.  Going beyond this and measuring
their results against your own knowledge and preconceptions presumes
that you are less likely to make a mistake than those experts who are
working within the scientific framework.

Let me ask you one question: what do you think the scientific consensus
is on whether Drexlerian nanotech can work?  I don't really know the
answer, but I presume that you talk to people in the relevant fields
from time to time, so you would have a better idea than most of us.
Based on your observations, and ignoring any personal feelings you
might have on the matter, how would you most accurately characterize
the present day scientific consensus?

I ask this for two reasons.  One is that I am genuinely interested in
the answer, for I will find it very helpful in informing my own beliefs
on the matter, as I have explained.  The other is that it might turn
out that the most accurate description of the scientific consensus is
not actually anything you would disagree with.  I hesitate to mention
this, because my whole point is that you should accept the scientific
consensus even if you don't agree with it.  This point is better tested
by considering an issue where you have such a disagreement.  But maybe
nanotech is not a good example.

Hal


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Apr 28 04:57:11 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 23:57:11 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD:  Roy Walford, M.D. (1924-2004)
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040427235446.01bda1e0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>


Steve Harris reports on another list:

Dr. Roy Walford, pioneer in techniques of calorie
restriction for extension of life span, has died in
UCLA-Santa Monica Hospital today of complications of ALS, a
rare muscle wasting disease with no well-established
modifiable risk factors. Dr. Walford was two months short of
his 80th birthday. Present were Dr. Walford's daughter Lisa
and son Peter, as well as friends of the family. Dr. John
Braun of UCLA plans to raise funds for a endowed chair at
UCLA in Dr. Walford's honor. Funeral arrangements have not
been announced, but cremation is planned for the body, with
scattering of ashes at sea.

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

So much, alas, for starvation. But I'm surprised that Dr. Walford did not 
take the cryonic path. Anyone here know why? (Sorry if this is an 
indelicate question, and an emotionally bad time to be asking it.)

Damien Broderick










_______________________________________________
GRG mailing list
GRG at lists.ucla.edu
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grg 




From bjk at imminst.org  Wed Apr 28 08:00:45 2004
From: bjk at imminst.org (Bruce J. Klein)
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:00:45 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD:  Roy Walford, M.D. (1924-2004)
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040427235446.01bda1e0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040427235446.01bda1e0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <408F64AD.4040709@imminst.org>


> So much, alas, for starvation. But I'm surprised that Dr. Walford did 
> not take the cryonic path. Anyone here know why?


Not sure, but he did have ideas about staying here for a while, as 
quoted from Closer To Truth:

*Question:* A hundred years from now, what is the average life 
expectancy in America?

*Roy Walford:* I'll still be here?. Many people alive today--at least, 
the children--will live through the next century and on into the 
following one. The average life expectancy will be a hundred and fifty 
years.

More: http://www.closertotruth.com/topics/healthsex/108/108transcript.html

Bruce Klein
Chair, ImmInst.org
http://www.imminst.org/bjklein




From natashavita at earthlink.net  Wed Apr 28 09:19:05 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 05:19:05 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD:  Roy Walford, M.D. (1924-2004)
Message-ID: <63340-2200443289195816@M2W044.mail2web.com>


Friends,

I only have a few moments to write, as I am just online from Spain to write
this, and I am deeply saddened today about my dearest friend Roy Walford.

If Roy had made cryonic suspension plans, it would be confidential and I am
in no poisition to reveal any confidentiality. In deference to Roy, let us
accept the decisions that he provided to the public and allow these
decisions to be held a the level of privacy he wished. 

Let us think the most admireable thoughts about Roy Walford, forever
respect his enormous contributions to life extension, credit him as a
marvelous Artist, and remember him in our thoughts.

my best to all on this terrible, terrible event,

Natasha


Original Message:
-----------------
From: Bruce J. Klein bjk at imminst.org
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:00:45 -0500
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] FWD:  Roy Walford, M.D. (1924-2004)



> So much, alas, for starvation. But I'm surprised that Dr. Walford did 
> not take the cryonic path. Anyone here know why?


Not sure, but he did have ideas about staying here for a while, as 
quoted from Closer To Truth:

*Question:* A hundred years from now, what is the average life 
expectancy in America?

*Roy Walford:* I'll still be here
. Many people alive today--at least, 
the children--will live through the next century and on into the 
following one. The average life expectancy will be a hundred and fifty 
years.

More: http://www.closertotruth.com/topics/healthsex/108/108transcript.html

Bruce Klein
Chair, ImmInst.org
http://www.imminst.org/bjklein


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

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




From jpnitya at sapo.pt  Wed Apr 28 16:49:32 2004
From: jpnitya at sapo.pt (Joao Magalhaes)
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:49:32 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Premature aging gene found
Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20040428174108.01cc0768@mail.senescence.info>

Hi,

You may be interested in the latest gene linked to premature aging: HELLS 
or PASG. Apparently, disruption of HELLS decreases methylation throughout 
the genome delaying growth and accelerating aging.

For the press release:
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2004/04_27_04.html

Also, my novel database of genes related to human ageing may also be of 
interest:

http://genomics.senescence.info/genes/

A paper describing the database is currently submitted for publication.

For instance, to learn more about HELLS, just go to:

http://genomics.senescence.info/genes/entry.php?id=216

All the best,

Joao


Joao Magalhaes, Ph.D.

Website on Ageing: http://www.senescence.info
Reason's Triumph: http://www.jpreason.com 



From fauxever at sprynet.com  Thu Apr 29 06:34:06 2004
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 23:34:06 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Interplanetary Interplay
Message-ID: <04c901c42db3$f9814110$6600a8c0@brainiac>

(a/k/a Losing It In Space)

(a/k/a Astro-Nots)

... a nation where the showing of a nipple on national TV provokes a
religious outcry, to discuss the rather delicate subject of sex in space.

and

Other scientists have suggested that the best way to ensure that there is no
interplanetary interplay is to crew the mission with astronauts over 50:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?reportID=1162626&storyID=3563465

Olga




From extropy at unreasonable.com  Thu Apr 29 14:57:12 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 10:57:12 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Interplanetary Interplay
In-Reply-To: <04c901c42db3$f9814110$6600a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040429103712.02634d38@mail.comcast.net>

Olga wrote:

>Other scientists have suggested that the best way to ensure that there is no
>interplanetary interplay is to crew the mission with astronauts over 50:

These would, presumably, be young scientists. I have an uncle, 98 this 
year, who still has an eye for the ladies.

>"Nasa is talking about the chemical sterilisation of astronauts on longer 
>journeys,"

What about going the other direction -- encouraging polyamory between all 
the crew?

Parenthetically, the person the article names as an "other scientist[s]," 
Peter Bond, is a teacher and writer, not a scientist, with a degree in 
geography.


-- David Lubkin.




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Thu Apr 29 15:09:57 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 08:09:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] HEALTH: Obesity and triglycerides
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404290803590.7567-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Well, it looks like their may be a breakthrough in the
understanding of obesity.  When one has a lot of fat
cells or the fat cells are "full" they release leptin
to tell your brain to stop eating.  However(!) it
looks like if you have high triglycerides they
prevent the leptin from reaching the brain where
they can do their job.  Interestingly, there are
supposed to be drugs that can lower triglycerides
(though I don't know what they are).

See:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/print.php?url=/releases/2004/04/040428062149.htm
or
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/04/040428062149.htm

I don't know if anyone would want to start taking these drugs
before they work things out a bit more but it may be worth
taking the above page to your physician and seeing if they
would be willing to try it.

Robert




From brian at posthuman.com  Thu Apr 29 17:28:05 2004
From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins)
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 12:28:05 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] HEALTH: Obesity and triglycerides
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404290803590.7567-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404290803590.7567-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <40913B25.2060403@posthuman.com>

Low(er) carb diets tend to cut triglycerides massively. No need for drugs.
-- 
Brian Atkins
Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
http://www.singinst.org/


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Apr 29 18:02:57 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:02:57 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] with god on our side
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040429130212.01b8eec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

Yikes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/29/arts/television/29STAN.html?th

Once the younger Mr. Bush's faith took hold, it spread to his political 
ambitions. "I believe that God wants me to be president," is what Richard 
Land, a leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, recalls hearing Mr. Bush 
say in a meeting with close associates on the day of his second inaugural 
as governor of Texas. Once elected president, Mr. Bush went to work. "We 
need common-sense judges who understand our rights were derived from God," 
he says in a 2002 clip. "And those are the kind of judges I intend to put 
on the bench."

The documentary revisits a 1993 interview Mr. Bush had with a reporter for 
The Houston Post, Ken Herman, on the day he announced his intention to run 
for governor. Mr. Herman recalls that Mr. Bush said he believed that a 
person had to accept Christ to go to heaven, a view that Mr. Herman published.

"The political ramifications of that were huge," Mr. Wead explains. "And so 
he doesn't talk about that anymore." (During the 2000 campaign Mr. Bush 
said he thought schools should teach both creationism and evolution, but he 
has not been as forthcoming about which theory he personally prefers.)




From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Thu Apr 29 18:15:12 2004
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:15:12 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] HEALTH: Obesity and triglycerides
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404290803590.7567-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404290803590.7567-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0404291408460.-40319531@pentium.mb.main.nc.us>


That is quite interesting and would be of help to several people I
know. Friends who've gone Low-Carb have often had major reductions in
triglycerides.

What I find most delightful, however, is the "what's related" links
they offer :)))

| What's Related
| Very Small Galactic Bulge Could Change Ideas Of Galaxy Formation
|
| Skinny Galaxy Has Supermassive Black Hole At Core, Just Like
| Bulging Galaxies
|
| Battle Of The DNA Bulge May Help Thwart Cancer

Regards,
MB

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>
> Well, it looks like their may be a breakthrough in the
> understanding of obesity.  [...]

> See:
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/04/040428062149.htm


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Thu Apr 29 19:45:14 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 12:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Query re: S.F. lodging
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404291231170.13401-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


I may be coming into the S.F. Bay area May 14-17 (or some fraction
thereof) to attend the Foresight Senior Associates conference.
I would normally stay with Spike but he is planning on being out
of town that weekend.  Is there anyone else, esp. in the South
Bay area that would not mind providing sleeping space for a few
days?

For someone who wants to attend as a guest of a senior associate
you can get yourself into the entire conference for $195.
URLs:
http://www.foresight.org/SrAssoc/spring2004/index.html
http://www.foresight.org/SrAssoc/spring2004/program.html
http://www.foresight.org/SrAssoc/spring2004/reginfo.html

If interested please send me an offlist email with your location so I
can study what the transportation options might be.  The conference
is on El Camino at the southern end of Palo Alto.

Thanks,
Robert




From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Thu Apr 29 23:57:00 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:57:00 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Animal fasting in the wild
Message-ID: <4091964C.A81D293F@mindspring.com>

Forwarding permission was given by William R. Corliss.

Science Frontiers, No. 152, May-Jun, 2004, p. 2
< http://www.science-frontiers.com >


BIOLOGY

Animal fasting in the wild

Zoo animals, farm animals, and pets are fed daily by their human captors.
Wild animals often go without food because there isn't any or they can't
catch it.  Or, perhaps they are hibernating, or maybe one big meal is
sufficient for a month or two.  Beyond all these reasons for the erratic
consumption of food there is the surprising claim that animals in the
wild also fast naturally even when food is available---"they choose not
to eat one day out of seven."

This claim is made in the book referenced below without any scientific
substantiation.

(Sandow, Stuart A., et al; *Durations*, New York, 1977, p. 108.
Cr. P. Gunkel.)

Comment.  Obviously, we would like more information backing this claim.

Some lab experiments with mice suggest that meager diets promote longevity.
Also, many religions post fasting periods on their calendars.  The reasons
given are mystical but could have a biological basis.

In eating regularly are humans overriding some natural, biologically valuable
habit?


[Science Frontiers is a bimonthly collection of digests of scientific
anomalies in the current literature.  Published by the Sourcebook Project,
P.O. Box 107, Glen Arm, MD 21057.  Annual subscription: $8.00.]


-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia
veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Apr 30 01:46:19 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 18:46:19 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] with god on our side
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040429130212.01b8eec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <00c301c42e54$eefc01c0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

 
> Once the younger Mr. Bush's faith took hold, it spread to his 
> political ambitions. "I believe that God wants me to be president," is

> what Richard Land, a leader of the Southern Baptist Convention,
recalls 
> hearing Mr. Bush say...


I don't know how he got that idea; I never told him
I wanted him to run.

god







From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Fri Apr 30 03:26:20 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 23:26:20 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: No rejection of science! Re: SI morality
In-Reply-To: <200404261533.i3QFXu900638@tick.javien.com>
References: <200404261533.i3QFXu900638@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <4091C75C.5070301@CRNano.org>


Hal Finney wrote:
 > Chris Phoenix writes:
 >> I never said anything about abandoning
 >> science, as you implied a few paragraphs down.
 >
 > What I meant by following "science" is the principle that the scientific
 > consensus in a given field is the best guide we have to the truth in that
 > field.  Is it fair to say that you disagree with that principle?

It is a good rule of thumb.  It is not a good absolute principle. 
Certainly a scientist should not always follow it, since it would make 
criticism impossible.

I follow it it many cases, but not all.

 >> I did not say that science is not a guide to truth.  I said that
 >> "consensus science" is not a reliable guide to truth.
 >
 > Look how we are parsing our words here.  I speak of "the practice of
 > science" as the guide to truth.  You deny saying that "science" is a
 > bad guide to truth, but you instead say that "consensus science" is not
 > a reliable guide to truth.
 >
 > I don't know what you mean by "science" vs "consensus science" vs my
 > "practice of science".

"Consensus science" is not word-chopping.  It is a name given to a 
specific practice by an author I cited.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030422165035/http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html
= http://tinyurl.com/3a6xz

 >> There's an asymmetry here.  If an engineer or other applier of science
 >> surveys the scientific results in an area, and finds agreement from 
many
 >> different scientists, then it's likely that what they agree on is
 >> reliable.  But if many different scientists get together and announce
 >> something, then it's likely that what they agree on is political.  Note
 >> that in the second case, but not the first, scientists are
 >> self-selecting.  And they are probably talking outside their field. 
  And
 >> so the consensus emerges from a political process, not a scientific 
process.
 >
 > I don't follow this distinction.  You seem to be saying that if 
scientists
 > simply publish their results and there is widespread consensus, that is
 > probably correct.

Yep.

 >  But if they announce their consensus, it is no longer
 > probably correct?  Why?  It seems to me that the reason scientists would
 > make such an announcement is because there is widespread public error or
 > confusion about some scientific matter.

There are several possible reasons.  As I said, the announcement is 
almost always affected (tainted) by politics.  Sometimes, the 
announcement is simply to instruct the public.  But sometimes its 
purpose is to jump on a bandwagon and suppress dissent.

Again, we have to distinguish between "the consensus of science" and 
"consensus science."  The former, in areas where it exists, is a very 
good guide to the way the world works.  But let one scientist come along 
with a contrary observation, and the consensus vanishes.  At that point, 
consensus science often appears to silence the dissenter.  Learning to 
tell the difference between the two consensuses is very important.  I 
think we can agree on that.  And it's questionable whether a 
non-scientific observation, even if it's a personal observation, should 
be sufficient grounds for declaring the consensus broken.  But a lot of 
advances are made on the fringes and backwaters of science.

 >>  > Do you really think you are better able to weigh the many 
complexities
 >>  > around, say, global warming .... Or even, yes, the
 >>  > feasibility of nanotech?
 >>
 >> Let me take these one at a time.  ....
 >
 > It is this approach, of taking scientific things one at a time, which
 > I think is dangerous.  You are setting your judgement above that
 > of the scientific community.

Yes, I am.  I don't do it lightly.  But I have enough knowledge and 
thinking skill that, at least in molecular manufacturing, I do set my 
judgement above that of the fraction of the scientific community that 
says it can't work.  They say stupid and shallow things.  I should 
believe them simply because they're scientists and I'm not?  When I know 
that they have not even read the most relevant literature?

 > Nor do group proclamations by scientists necessarily
 > reflect the consensus.  But I think in most cases they probably do,
 > because otherwise there would be a counter-proclamation by those who
 > felt that the original group was misrepresenting the consensus, and the
 > whole public show would fall apart, undercutting the public education
 > goal of the original proclamation.

If the original proclamation were motivated by education, I'd maybe 
agree.  But if it's motivated by a desire to save the world from 
environmental destruction?  Or to save their funding from being 
redirected to another project?  Or to save their reputation by defending 
a theory they've built their career on?  Then the counter-proclamation 
is simply the second round in a political battle.

 > Essentially I am advocating the idea of following the scientific 
consensus
 > faithfully; you might even say, blindly.  The reason is because our
 > errors of rationality are so pervasive and seductive that we are more
 > likely to be wrong than is the scientific consensus.

I'll be the first to admit the seductiveness of rationalization and 
misapplied rationality.  But there's more than rationality involved in, 
for example, my assertion that molecular manufacturing probably works as 
claimed.  I've studied it for a decade and a half.  Whether or not I am 
a scientist, I am certainly capable of meeting scientists on equal 
footing.  I have argued skeptical physicists and biochemists alike into 
a position of "Hm, I guess we don't know yet."  If I disagree with the 
scientists, there is no consensus.  Sounds arrogant, perhaps, but I 
think I've earned it.

And by the way, you mentioned global warming and GMO plants.  Surely you 
wouldn't claim that there's anything like a scientific consensus on 
those topics?  Regardless of whether it's possible to judge which side 
is right--there are scientists on both sides.  Heck, a few scientists 
even support creationism, including The Guy Who Didn't Get a Nobel for 
MRI.  But the minute you start deciding for yourself which scientists 
should be counted in the consensus and which shouldn't, you're making 
your own judgements.  Either consensus is too brittle to be used, or it 
still requires you to think for yourself.

 > Delegating these matters to any outside social institution,
 > even one whose track record in approaching the truth is greater than
 > anything mankind has ever developed, goes against powerful mental
 > instincts.  Nevertheless I claim that this is what we have to try to do.

I think the track record depends on the field.  Medicine has had some 
stunning successes--but also some stunning failures.  It used to be the 
consensus that pellagra was contagious and childbed fever was not.

 >> But if a bunch of scientists band together
 >> to debunk something, I will not consider it disproved until I've
 >> considered their evidence and reasoning.
 >
 > It is this final attitude which is dangerous, that you will rely
 > ultimately on your own judgement of the scientists' evidence and
 > reasoning.  I would instead say that you should only try to determine
 > the true consensus of the scientific experts, and take that as the best
 > available approximation to the truth.  Going beyond this and measuring
 > their results against your own knowledge and preconceptions presumes
 > that you are less likely to make a mistake than those experts who are
 > working within the scientific framework.

I still don't see how you can avoid using your own judgement in picking 
which experts to listen to.  But more to the point, it *is* possible to 
become an expert yourself.  It takes a lot of work.  But by the time you 
can pick experts reliably, you're partway there.  Even before then, you 
can learn enough to spot flaws in scientific work.  If someone makes a 
blatant mistake, then don't listen to them on that subject, right?  And 
what if the mutually-acclaimed "experts" all make the same mistake?  And 
what if they have enough support from politicking that they can get away 
with it for a while?

 > Let me ask you one question: what do you think the scientific consensus
 > is on whether Drexlerian nanotech can work?  I don't really know the
 > answer, but I presume that you talk to people in the relevant fields
 > from time to time, so you would have a better idea than most of us.

I don't think there is a real consensus.  Some scientists and 
researchers, including Drexler, Merkle, Freitas, Feynman, and Phoenix, 
say it can almost certainly work.  Some, such as Smalley, Ratner, and 
Whitesides, say there's no way it can work--but their arguments are 
universally shallow and/or factually incorrect.  Many say they don't 
know, or it'll work but they don't know when, or they don't know what 
form will turn out to be best.

 > I ask this for two reasons.  One is that I am genuinely interested in
 > the answer, for I will find it very helpful in informing my own beliefs
 > on the matter, as I have explained.

Sorry, no help there.

 > The other is that it might turn
 > out that the most accurate description of the scientific consensus is
 > not actually anything you would disagree with.  I hesitate to mention
 > this, because my whole point is that you should accept the scientific
 > consensus even if you don't agree with it.  This point is better tested
 > by considering an issue where you have such a disagreement.  But maybe
 > nanotech is not a good example.

I'm not sure I disagree with the scientific consensus on anything 
important.  Of course, the mainstream view--the one that gets the press 
and the funding--is rather less reliable and more common than an actual 
consensus, and I disagree with the mainstream on several issues.  For 
example, nanotechnology and dyslexia.

Chris

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org




From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Apr 30 06:01:34 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 23:01:34 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] we are on the eve of construction
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404291231170.13401-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <00e201c42e78$9dfe04c0$6501a8c0@SHELLY>

fewest terrorist actions in 30 yrs.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/29/terror.report/index.html

spike



From amara at amara.com  Fri Apr 30 13:16:58 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:16:58 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom House
Message-ID: <p05100301bcb7ffee5f07@[150.146.134.133]>

World Press Freedom Day is coming up... The following web site
recommended by a colleague contains some interesting reports.


http://www.freedomhouse.org/
(quote)
"Freedom House, a non-profit, nonpartisan organization, is a clear
voice for democracy and freedom around the world. Through a vast array
of international programs and publications, Freedom House is working
to advance the remarkable worldwide expansion of political and
economic freedom."



The site has a new study available regarding press freedom. It is not
news for anyone living in Italy, but it might be news for those
outside. (The more that know the better, in my opinion).


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

http://www.freedomhouse.org/media/pressrel/042804.htm

quote from the page:

"The study, Freedom of the Press 2004: A Global Survey of Media
Independence, revealed that some of the most serious setbacks took
place in countries where democracy is backsliding, such as in Bolivia
and Russia, and in older, established democracies, most notably Italy.

The report was released in advance of World Press Freedom Day, which
takes place May 3.

Data from the report is available online at
http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/pressurvey.htm

The survey assesses the degree of print, broadcast, and Internet
freedom in every country in the world and assigns to each a category
rating of Free, Partly Free, or Not Free. It analyzes events during
the calendar year 2003. "

-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"The real malady is fear of life, not of death."   -- Naguib Mahfouz


From amara at amara.com  Fri Apr 30 13:37:22 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:37:22 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] May 1, 2004: EU expansion
Message-ID: <p05100300bcb805319d20@[150.146.134.133]>

Tomorrow, May 1, a holiday in Europe usually, something very special
happens: ten new countries officially enter the EU. This topic has been
in the newspapers here for many many months, but those of you
not following the story can find a series of  articles discussing
various  aspects of the expansion here:

http://iht.com/neweurope/index.html


Amara

-- 

********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara at amara.com
Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"Looking up gives light, although at first it makes you dizzy."
        --Mevlana Rumi



From astapp at fizzfactorgames.com  Fri Apr 30 15:41:12 2004
From: astapp at fizzfactorgames.com (Acy James Stapp)
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 08:41:12 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] May 1, 2004: EU expansion
Message-ID: <56BC65EB2F3963489057F7D978B5E7B701AB8D19@amazemail2.amazeent.com>

There's also a good article on this in the May 2004 National Geographic.
Excerpt available at 
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0405/feature3/index.html

I don't live in Europe and I have many issues with the EU's declaration
of human rights, but I imagine this must be a very exciting time.

[ -----Original Message-----
[ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org 
[ [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of 
[ Amara Graps
[ Sent: Friday, 30 April, 2004 08:37
[ To: wta-talk at transhumanism.org; extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
[ Subject: [extropy-chat] May 1, 2004: EU expansion
[ 
[ 
[ Tomorrow, May 1, a holiday in Europe usually, something very special
[ happens: ten new countries officially enter the EU. This 
[ topic has been
[ in the newspapers here for many many months, but those of you
[ not following the story can find a series of  articles discussing
[ various  aspects of the expansion here:
[ 
http://iht.com/neweurope/index.html


Amara


From sentience at pobox.com  Fri Apr 30 16:05:29 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 12:05:29 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] No rejection of science! Re: SI morality
In-Reply-To: <200404272009.i3RK9hO29528@finney.org>
References: <200404272009.i3RK9hO29528@finney.org>
Message-ID: <40927949.2030000@pobox.com>

Hal Finney wrote:
> 
> I think my entire post can go through unchanged if you simply substitute
> "the practice of science" or "the scientific consensus" for the shorthand
> "science" everywhere.

These are extraordinarily different things.

The practice of science is a social process.
The consensus of science is an opinion poll.

The actual working part of science is Bayesian probability theory, which 
individual scientists and their social dynamics partially and imperfectly 
mirror.

> It is this approach, of taking scientific things one at a time, which
> I think is dangerous.  You are setting your judgement above that
> of the scientific community.  It is dangerous to try to cherry-pick
> among scientific issues to decide for which ones we will agree with
> the consensus and for which ones we will decide that the scientific
> consensus is wrong.  This makes it too easy for our individual lapses
> in rationality to find an excuse to enter and influence our thinking.

Science intrinsically requires individual researchers setting their 
judgment above that of the scientific community.  The social process of 
science encourages people to do the work and recognizes when they have 
done the work.  The social process is not an actual human brain, has not 
the power of intelligence.  If individuals do not have novel opinions and, 
yes, disagreements, for the scientific process to recognize as correct, 
there is no science.

We might not know that Einstein was right about relativity if there were 
no scientific process to recognize him.  But Einstein would still be the 
one who thought through to the answer.  Yes, Einstein relied on a social 
process of science to recognize Maxwell, but it is still humans who power 
the engine.

The overall rationality of academia is simply not good enough to handle 
some necessary problems, as the case of Drexler illustrates.  Individual 
humans routinely do better than the academic consensus.

> Essentially I am advocating the idea of following the scientific consensus
> faithfully; you might even say, blindly.  The reason is because our
> errors of rationality are so pervasive and seductive that we are more
> likely to be wrong than is the scientific consensus.
> 
> This is not an easy principle to follow!  It feels like an abdication of
> responsibility, like an abandonment of critical thinking.  But when I look
> within, these feelings do not come from the part of me that loves truth,
> they come from the part of me that loves myself.  They are a manifestation
> of ego.  They come from an emotional desire to be the master of my fate,
> which means making my own decisions about what to believe and what not
> to believe.  Delegating these matters to any outside social institution,
> even one whose track record in approaching the truth is greater than
> anything mankind has ever developed, goes against powerful mental
> instincts.  Nevertheless I claim that this is what we have to try to do.

Yes, the Way of rationality is difficult to follow.  As illustrated by the 
difficulty that academia encounters in following.  The social process of 
science has too many known flaws for me to accept it as my upper bound.

Academia is simply not that impressive, and is routinely beaten by 
individual scientists who learn to examine the evidence supporting the 
consensus, apply simple filters to distinguish conclusive experimental 
support from herd behavior.  Robyn Dawes is among the scientists who have 
helped document the pervasiveness of plausible-sounding consensuses that 
directly contradict the available experimental evidence.  Richard Feynman 
correctly dismissed psychoanalysis, despite the consensus, because he 
looked and lo, there was no supporting evidence whatsoever.  Feynman tells 
of how embarassing lessons taught him to do this on individual issues of 
physics as well, look up the original experiments and make sure the 
consensus was well-supported.

Given the lessons of history, you should sit up and pay attention if Chris 
Phoenix says that distinguished but elderly scientists are making blanket 
pronunciations of impossibility *without doing any math*, and without 
paying any attention to the math, in a case where math has been done.  If 
you advocate a blanket acceptance of consensus so blind that I cannot even 
apply this simple filter - I'm sorry, I just can't see it.  It seems I 
must accept the sky is green, if Richard Smalley says so.

I can do better than that, and so can you.

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


From matus at matus1976.com  Fri Apr 30 16:34:39 2004
From: matus at matus1976.com (Matus)
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 12:34:39 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom House
In-Reply-To: <p05100301bcb7ffee5f07@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <000001c42ed1$084a0dd0$6401a8c0@GREYBOOK>

Amara said:

> World Press Freedom Day is coming up... The following web site
> recommended by a colleague contains some interesting reports.
> 
> 
> http://www.freedomhouse.org/
> (quote)

This is a great site I have recommended a few times on this list.  It
monitors and reports on not only press freedom but political and
economic freedoms as well, and produces annual reports on the status of
every country in the world. 

"Since 1978, Freedom House has published Freedom in the World, an annual
comparative assessment of the state of political rights and civil
liberties in 192 countries and 18 related and disputed territories.
Widely used by policy-makers, journalists, and scholars, the 700-page
survey is the definitive report on freedom around the globe"

See, for instance - 

"World's Worst Regimes Unveiled Before UN Commission on Human Rights"
http://www.freedomhouse.org/media/pressrel/040204.htm

- excerpt - 
UNITED NATIONS, GENEVA, SWITZERLAND, April 2, 2004 -- Freedom House
today released its annual list of the world's most repressive nations
before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Five of the
fifteen countries are members of the UN body, which is charged with
monitoring and condemning human rights violations. 

The report, titled "The Worst of the Worst: The World's Most Repressive
Societies, 2004," includes detailed summations of the dire human rights
situations Burma, China, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Laos, Libya,
North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. Chechnya, Tibet, and Western Sahara are
included as territories under Russian, Chinese, and Moroccan
jurisdiction respectively. 

The report is available online at:
www.freedomhouse.org/research/mrr2004.pdf 

The report is excerpted from Freedom House's annual global survey,
Freedom in the World 2004. The countries deemed the most repressive earn
some of the worst numerical ratings according to the survey's
methodology. 

Significantly, five of the fifteen most repressive governments -- those
of China, Cuba, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan -- are members of the
Human Rights Commission, representing nearly 10 percent of the 53-member
body.

-end excerpt-

I highly recommend this site and their annual report to anyone
interested in the state and progress of freedom in the world.

Michael Dickey




From iph1954 at msn.com  Fri Apr 30 16:54:16 2004
From: iph1954 at msn.com (MIKE TREDER)
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 12:54:16 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] C-R-Newsletter #18   April 29, 2004 
Message-ID: <BAY5-F291UmrJpIOLVh0000dc48@hotmail.com>

C-R-Newsletter #18    April 29, 2004

If you'd like to read the HTML version, with nicer formatting and
working hyperlinks, just go here: http://crnano.org/newsletter.htm#18

CONTENTS

Slashdot Does CRN
CRN Busy-ness
The new C-R-Network
Blog improvement suggestions?
Tell us about enabling tech!
Feature essay: Science vs. engineering vs. theoretical applied
nanotechnology

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

Slashdot Does CRN

Slashdot.org* is a large techie news blog. CRN was featured on their
front page today. Many of the 650 comments posted to the article* show
that readers are aware of the power and the problems created by
molecular manufacturing. Now we just have to get the news to nanotech
policymakers!

* http://slashdot.org/
* http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/29/1641226


CRN Busy-ness

Mike and Chris* are both very busy with CRN activities, as well as other
pesky aspects of real life that keep intruding. Chris, for example, is
in the process of moving this week to a new home in Miami. For his part,
Mike spent four days last week in England at a Board of Directors
retreat for another NGO that he works with. But no complaints; we both
love our lives and our work.

Speaking of work, we?re both laboring mightily to prepare for important
conference activities next month on behalf of CRN. As we?ve told you
before, Chris will be jetting to China in mid-May to give a talk at the
World High Technology Society's Life Spring Forum* in Dalian. Following
that conference, he will give talks in Nanjing on progress toward
molecular manufacturing, and in Shanghai on advanced nanotechnology and
human rights.

While Chris is in China, Mike will be in California for the Foresight
Institute's Senior Associates Gathering,* where he has been invited to
be a featured speaker. Perhaps some of you will be there to meet him and
hear his talk. Here is the abstract:

>The challenges brought by advanced nanotechnology will have to be
addressed by a diverse collection of people and organizations. No single
approach will solve all problems or address all needs. The only answer
is a collective answer, and that will demand an unprecedented
collaboration of leaders in science, technology, business, government,
and NGOs. It will require participation from people of many nations,
cultures, languages, and belief systems. Never before has the world
faced such a tremendous opportunity?and never before have the risks been
so great. We must begin now to develop common understanding, create
lines of communication, and build a stable structure that will enable
humankind to pass safely through the transition into the nano era.

By the way, the Foresight Institute has extended a nice offer to CRN
supporters. They will give C-R-Newsletter readers a discount of $200 off
the standard fee to join Foresight and register for the Senior
Associates conference. Visit this page* to register at the long-expired
"Super Early" rate and put "CRN" in the comments field.

* http://crnano.org/about_us.htm#Principals
* http://whts.org/lifespring/en-2004.htm
* http://www.foresight.org/SrAssoc/spring2004/index.html#Speakers
* http://www.foresight.org/SrAssoc/spring2004

The new C-R-Network

Since our founding in December 2002, CRN has experienced significant
growth. People often tell us how impressed they are by all that we?ve
accomplished in a short time. It?s nice to hear such things, of course,
because sometimes when one is so close to the actual work, it?s hard to
appreciate how much progress is being made.

Some members of our Board of Advisors* have told us that we should
prepare ourselves for even faster growth. Evidently these people, who
have more experience in startup organizations than we do, can sense that
CRN is nearing a ?tipping point?, and that things will start moving even
faster for us.

A piece of advice they have offered is that we need to be more proactive
about developing a strong working network of supporters, researchers,
and potential collaborators. As such, we?ve decided to form the
C-R-Network, and we want you to join! If you?re interested in being a
part of the solution, please click on the link above.

* http://crnano.org/about_us.htm#Advisors


Blog improvement suggestions?

As most of you know, we started a weblog in January 2004 called
Responsible Nanotechnology.* Response has been great. We?re averaging
well over 300 hits per day and we get three to four times as many posted
comments as we make blog entries. But everything can be improved, right?

If you are a regular reader of the blog, please tell us what we can do
to improve it. We think it?s an important way to stay in touch with our
constituency, and the feedback we get to our ideas is truly helpful. So
tell us how we can make it more useful or interesting to you. And if
you?re not a regular reader of the blog, maybe you should be!

* http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/


Tell us about enabling tech!

One of the things that indicates CRN was founded at the right time (not
a moment too soon, and we hope not too late!) is the rapid development
we?re seeing in enabling technologies. From nanoscale lasers to dip-pen
lithography, and from nanoscale fasteners to nucleic acid building
blocks, the molecular manufacturing toolbox is filling up rapidly.

It?s very important for us to keep abreast of these developments. We?ve
got our ears close to the ground, but if you come across something you
think we should know about, please tell us. Perhaps you work in a field
that is doing relevant work, or maybe you?ve just read something that we
didn?t catch. In any case, don?t hesitate to email Mike* or Chris* with
new information.

* mtreder at crnano.org
* cphoenix at crnano.org
(Suggested subject: "Enabling Tech")

Science vs. engineering vs. theoretical applied nanotechnology
by Chris Phoenix, CRN Director of Research

When scientists want an issue to go away, they are as political as
anyone else. They attack the credentials of the observer. They change
the subject. They build strawman attacks, and frequently even appear to
convince themselves. They form cliques. They tell their students not to
even read the claims, and certainly not to investigate them. Each of
these tactics is being used against molecular manufacturing.

When facing a scientific theory they disagree with, scientists are
supposed to try to disprove it by scientific methods. Molecular
manufacturing includes a substantial, well-grounded, carefully argued,
conservative body of work. So why do scientists treat it as though it
were pseudoscience, deserving only political attack? And how should they
be approaching it instead? To answer this, we have to consider the gap
between science and engineering.

Scientists do experiments and develop theories about how the world
works. Engineers apply the most reliable of those theories to get
predictable results. Scientists cannot make reliable pronouncements
about the complex "real world" unless their theory has been field-tested
by engineering. But once a theory is solid enough to use in engineering,
science has very little of interest to say about it. In fact, the two
practices are so different that it's not obvious how they can
communicate at all. How can ideas cross the gap from untested theory to
trustworthy formula?

In Appendix A of Nanosystems*, Eric Drexler describes an activity he
calls "theoretical applied science" or "exploratory engineering". This
is the bridge between science and engineering. In theoretical applied
science, one takes the best available results of science, applies them
to real-world problems, and makes plans that should hopefully work as
desired. If done with enough care, these plans may inspire engineers
(who must of course be cautious and conservative) to try them for the
first time.

The bulk of Appendix A discusses ways that theoretical applied science
can be practiced so as to give useful and reliable results, despite the
inability to confirm its results by experiment:

"""""
    For example, all classes of device that would violate the second
law of thermodynamics can immediately be rejected. A more stringent
rule, adopted in the present work, rejects propositions if they are
inadequately substantiated, for example, rejecting all devices that
would require materials stronger than those known or described by
accepted physical models. By adopting these rules for falsification and
rejection, work in theoretical applied science can be grounded in our
best scientific understanding of the physical world.
"""""

Drexler presents theoretical applied science as a way of studying things
we can't build yet. In the last section, he ascribes to it a very
limited aim: "to describe lower bounds to the performance achievable
with physically possible classes of devices." And a limited role: "In an
ideal world, theoretical applied science would consume only a tiny
fraction of the effort devoted to pure theoretical science, to
experimentation, or to engineering." But here I think he's being too
modest. Theoretical applied science is really the only rigorous way for
the products of science to escape back to the real world by inspiring
and instructing engineers.

We might draw a useful analogy: exploratory engineers are to scientists
as editors are to writers. Scientists and writers are creative. Whatever
they produce is interesting, even when it's wrong. They live in their
own world, which touches the real world exactly where and when they
choose. And then along come the editors and the exploratory engineers.
"This doesn't work. You need to rephrase that. This part isn't useful.
And wouldn't it be better to explain it this way?" Exploratory
engineering is very likely to annoy and anger scientists.

To the extent that exploratory engineering is rigorously grounded in
science, scientists can evaluate it -- but only in the sense of checking
its calculations. An editor should check her work with the author. But
she should not ask the author whether he thinks she has improved it; she
should judge how well she did her job by the reader's response, not the
writer's. Likewise, if scientists cannot show that an exploratory
engineer has misinterpreted (misapplied) their work or added something
that science cannot support, then the scientists should sit back and let
the applied engineers decide whether the theoretical engineering work is
useful.

Molecular manufacturing researchers practice exploratory engineering:
they design and analyze things that can't be built yet. These
researchers have spent the last two decades asking scientists to either
criticize or accept their work. This was half an error: scientists can
show a mistake in an engineering calculation, but the boundaries of
scientific practice do not allow scientists to accept applied but
unverified results. To the extent that the results of theoretical
applied science are correct and useful, they are meant for engineers,
not for scientists.

Drexler is often accused of declaring that nanorobots will work without
ever having built one. In science, one shouldn't talk about things not
yet demonstrated. And engineers shouldn't expect support from the
scientific community -- or even from the engineering community, until a
design is proved. But Drexler is doing neither engineering nor science,
but something in between; he's in the valuable but thankless position of
the cultural ambassador, applying scientific findings to generate
results that may someday be useful for engineering.

If as great a scientist as Lord Kelvin can be wrong about something as
mundane and technical as heavier-than-air flight, then lesser scientists
ought to be very cautious about declaring any technical proposal
unworkable or worthless. But scientists are used to being right. Many
scientists have come to think that they embody the scientific process,
and that they personally have the ability to sort fact from fiction. But
this is just as wrong as a single voter thinking he represents the
country's population. Science weeds out falsehood by a slow and emergent
process. An isolated scientist can no more practice science than a lone
voter can practice democracy.

The proper role of scientists with respect to molecular manufacturing is
to check the work for specific errors. If no specific errors can be
found, they should sit back and let the engineers try to use the ideas.
A scientist who declares that molecular manufacturing can't work without
identifying a specific error is being unscientific. But all the
arguments we've heard from scientists against molecular manufacturing
are either opinions (guesses) or vague and unsupported generalities
(hand-waving).

The lack of identifiable errors does not mean that scientists have to
accept molecular manufacturing. What they should do is say "I don't
know," and wait to see whether the engineering works as claimed. But
scientists hate to say "I don't know." So we at CRN must say it for
them:  No scientist has yet demonstrated a substantial problem with
molecular manufacturing; therefore, any scientist who says it can't work
probably is behaving improperly and should be challenged to produce
specifics.

*
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471575186/103-8159814-0469464?v=glance


-------------------------------------------
To donate to the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, go to
http://crnano.org/support.htm, click on "Donate Now", and
remember to specify CRN.  Thanks!

The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology(TM) (CRN) is an affiliate of
World Care(R), an international, non-profit, 501(c)3 organization. All
donations to CRN are handled through World Care. The opinions expressed
by CRN do not necessarily reflect those of World Care.

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee? 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Apr 30 21:36:45 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Animal fasting in the wild
In-Reply-To: <4091964C.A81D293F@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <20040430213645.73512.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>


--- "Terry W. Colvin" <fortean1 at mindspring.com> wrote:
> Forwarding permission was given by William R. Corliss.
> 
> Science Frontiers, No. 152, May-Jun, 2004, p. 2
> < http://www.science-frontiers.com >
> 
> 
> BIOLOGY
> 
> Animal fasting in the wild
> 
> there is the surprising claim that animals in the
> wild also fast naturally even when food is available---"they choose
> not to eat one day out of seven."
> 
> This claim is made in the book referenced below without any
> scientific substantiation.
> 
> (Sandow, Stuart A., et al; *Durations*, New York, 1977, p. 108.
> Cr. P. Gunkel.)
> 
> Comment.  Obviously, we would like more information backing this
> claim.

Animals who fast generally do so the day after they've made a big kill
and gorged all day, not because they are trying to increase their karma
for their next life...

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs  
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover