From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Mon Mar  1 01:09:40 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:09:40 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPAM: what is this?
References: <LAW10-OE63ZlpPs5Yfu00014f9a@hotmail.com>
	<Pine.WNT.4.55.0402291300490.-245827@pentium.mb.main.nc.us>
Message-ID: <Law10-OE458Al6m3HXu00028379@hotmail.com>

nope. no link. Nothing. That's what I couldn't figure out.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "MB" <mbb386 at main.nc.us>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] SPAM: what is this?


>
> Is there a link to click on? IIUC that kind of messed up message is a
> tool to get around filters - enough reasonable words, etc.
>
> Regards,
> MB
>
>
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Kevin Freels wrote:
>
> > Here is the text of a spam message I received today. I was just
wondering if anyone knows what the point it? There's no attachment either:
> >
> >
> >
> > "Are stale, There purple on money the hammering the need I quit, spring
are fragrant also missing also muddy there out?
> >
> > It w o, He stale are skater he fishing with sports a brother, is
trashcan school bus is coarse r m a people she uncomfortable i p on
keyboard="
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Mon Mar  1 01:15:10 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:15:10 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: not posting
Message-ID: <Law10-OE56PUJj1JjUy00011050@hotmail.com>

My messages are not getting to the server.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040229/a38476e7/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  1 07:42:15 2004
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 23:42:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat]  ex-tropical
In-Reply-To: <20040229214502.17057.qmail@web80403.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040301074215.46351.qmail@web60510.mail.yahoo.com>



Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:

Emigration, on the other hand, would probably not
cause a high birth rate to compensate. Net result:
depopulation.

That is what I was trying to communicate.


* That is still nonsense, Adrian. The vast majority of people in the world today don't even have access to automobiles or airplanes. I seriously doubt that even if space travel were to become as routine as booking a flight would a significantly sizable portion of the world be able to afford to leave it. So the world will not be depopulated by emigration. Chances are at best a lucky privilaged few will be able to leave and the rest will in remain in squalor to succumb to famine, disease, war, or perhaps even survive as they may. 

In general, I don't like criticizing what people say on this list because I feel it stifles interesting if not perfect ideas from being expressed. But in this case I figure I owe you one.

 



The Avantguardian 


"He stands like some sort of pagan god or deposed tyrant. Staring out over the city he's sworn to . . .to stare out over and it's evident just by looking at him that he's got some pretty heavy things on his mind."

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040229/8b7dc414/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  1 09:18:19 2004
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 01:18:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
In-Reply-To: <20040229210449.GK1493@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20040301091819.61413.qmail@web60503.mail.yahoo.com>



Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
Thanks for providing a reality check. The launch capacities might be there,
but there's nothing to travel to. To make it worse, no one is even doing
research on long-term stable closed-loop ecosystems for human life support.

We're not a space-travelling culture. Repeat after me: we're not a
space-travelling culture. 

We'd better learn to become one, quick.

* I heartily agree with you, Eugen. I feel that we are reaching the stationary phase of our growth curve as a species/population. For all intents and purposes we are at the carrying capacity of our environment. Yet economic growth is such a high priority with our leaders that we are willing to fight wars to expand our markets, just so that the wealthiest minority can buy yet another banal symbol of their wealth and prestige. Yet wealth and power is wasted on these people because they have no vision beyond keeping it and gaining more of it. 

I recently read an interesting book called "Them: adventures with extremists" by Jon Ronson. It is the account of a journalist that spent over 5 years searching for the elusive cabal of ultra powerful men that supposedly rule the world from smoke filled rooms that lie at the heart of many conspiracy theories. It is an interesting read but the gist of his findings is that he found them but they don't really rule anything. Their meetings are more like drunken frat parties than conspiracies and they claim that "market forces" are what really rule the world.

I think I would have preferred a conspiracy, since this is kind of like fighting your way to front of the bus only to find that the bus driver isn't really driving, instead he is just "along for the ride" and the bus is out of control. After all market forces don't have thought or conscience and are incapable of setting goals and achieving them. Market forces place no value on survival of species, human or otherwise. They can only, like a runaway bus, continue forward until something stops them forcibly with catastrophic results.

This being said, I feel that it is imperative for own survival that we do as Eugen suggests. We need to find a way to develop a closed loop ecological/economic model that can merge seamlessly with the world economy and the environment in such a way that radical changes to each are kept to a minimum. This can theoretically be done because nature has been doing such a thing for billions of years. Nature wastes nothing while man's modern consumer economy is based on waste. (e.g. disposable goods and programmed obselescence of machinery) This is partly a logistics problem. For example, many factories using fossil fuel combustion produce sulphur dioxide as a toxic waste. It goes into the atmosphere and causes acid rain that kills the fish. Now a different industry might have need of sulphuric acid so they synthesize it de novo by burning sulphur and pumping the sulphur dioxide through water. So what is the waste of one industry is often the manufactruing precursors of a different
 industry. 

Yet because we have the senseless economic models that we do, one industry vents sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere (and will move to china if it has to in order to do it legally) while another industry has to make it from scratch. Would it be so hard to arrange it so that industry two can harvest and purify the waste of industry one for its own use? Find an industry that needs the waste products of industry two and so on until you find an industry whose waste products are of value to industry one and voila, you have created a closed economic loop that models the closed ecological cycles of nature. Such an economic model may be costly in the short term but will be profitable in the long term because it would be indefinately sustainable and all the industries in the cycle would profit not to mention the fish and the people that eat the fish.   

Reengineering the global economy like this would buy us time to do other things that are important to the long-term survival of humanity. Things like finding habitable extra solar planets and developing a "space-faring culture" Moreover those of us who have been "perma-lifed" won't have to wear gas masks while fighting off toxic waste mutants from our clean water supplies.           

The prospects for humanity seem dim when one reflects that technological and societal innovation is currently fueled solely by economic interests. What is commonly called "human nature" is no more enlightened or transcendant than the nature of a common dog or other brute that lives more off instinct than thought or reason. We don't really have any cause to be optimistic about the future unless we are willing to do what needs to be done to effect a positive one. If you are all the way in the back of the driver-less bus than all the optimism in the world won't keep you from plummeting off of the cliff.  



The Avantguardian 


"He stands like some sort of pagan god or deposed tyrant. Staring out over the city he's sworn to . . .to stare out over and it's evident just by looking at him that he's got some pretty heavy things on his mind."

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040301/80eaa817/attachment.html>

From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Mon Mar  1 10:21:13 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 04:21:13 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
References: <20040301091819.61413.qmail@web60503.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Law10-OE15cvO49sKca00029464@hotmail.com>

Avantguardian said:
  We need to find a way to develop a closed loop ecological/economic model that can merge seamlessly with the world economy and the environment in such a way that radical changes to each are kept to a minimum. This can theoretically be done because nature has been doing such a thing for billions of years.

  Kevin says"This would be nice. There's only one problem. The people. In order to get any closed loop system together, it requires people that all work for the common good. It's not really in our nature. Nature has done no such thing. Radical changes are the norm on mother Earth. Life expands until it can't any longer. At that point, it stabilizes and then eventually collapses. 


  Nature wastes nothing while man's modern consumer economy is based on waste. 

  Much is wasted with nature. Look at all the deaths caused by "natural causes". Nature is not a person who can choose to waste or not. All the stuff on the planet is nature. Obviously it can't waste itself. But every part of nature doesn;t use or rely on every other part. I guess it is simply a matter of what you call a "waste". To me, Oxygen is terrific, but to organisms 500 million years ago, it was quite toxic. Many specis had to die off for that one. Would that be a waste? Granted, 500 million years later, we rely on it, so you could argue that the Oxygen "waste" was re-used, but then you would also have to wait 500 million years to see what becomes of our disposable razors....:-) 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040301/68f3c424/attachment.html>

From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Mon Mar  1 10:35:40 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 04:35:40 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat]  ex-tropical
References: <002101c3fefc$863b41f0$cc01a8c0@dellbert>
Message-ID: <Law10-OE33lhPgPZF4d0002868e@hotmail.com>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harvey Newstrom" <mail at harveynewstrom.com>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 1:45 PM
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] ex-tropical


> Adrian Tymes wrote,
> > Some of it is sci-fi, some of it is not unexpected.
> > E.g., Europe having to deal with a lot of immigrants:
> > that's happening today.  But planetary depopulation
> > primarily from famine?  Earth is more likely to be depopulated by mass
> > emigration to off-Earth living facilities than by famine.
>
> This is ludicrous.  The Hunger Project reports that 20,000 people die
every
> day from hunger.  Other statistics claim this is as high as 35,000 people
> per day.  You really expect thousands of people to be leaving earth *per
> day* in the foreseeable future?  I don't.

Harvey...Out of curiosity, do you have an idea of how we can cure this
problem? It has always been my understanding that most of this is caused by
evil governments, political instability, and/or stupid religious beliefs.
Even when we send money or food, it is taken by others. I am assuming that
the land that is occupied by these people is incapable of supporting human
populations.

Seriously, I am not messing with you here. Isn't this a problem that could
be cured? Maybe we could strike a deal with some African natin where we get
to make a huge area of green land and fresh water into a 51st state. Then we
offer transportation to all that would like to go there. We lay down the
laws, explain the laws before they come in, and enforce thos laws. No
bullshit coups, wars, etc. It's our state and we make and enforce the laws.
We start with a simple economy. Labor jobs for natural resources, and we
train people on the way.

I know it sounds oversimplified, but my point is that noone has seriously
tried to "solve" the problem. I'm sure a lot of people would not want to go
there because they wouldn't want to be subjected to our laws, or simply
because they don;t like us. But at least then it is their choice to die of
hunger.

This reminds me of a conversation a couple of weeks ago about terraforming
Earth. Big projects that are way out of the box of current political
thinking. But that doesn;t mean they can;t be done.

So have you put any thought to this?

>
> -- 
> 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 GIAC Certified GSEC
> <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  Mon Mar  1 12:17:17 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 07:17:17 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat]  ex-tropical
In-Reply-To: <Law10-OE33lhPgPZF4d0002868e@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <003301c3ff87$278b3c10$cc01a8c0@dellbert>

Kevin Freels wrote,
> Harvey...Out of curiosity, do you have an idea of how we can 
> cure this problem?

I have a lot of ideas, but no solutions that will satisfy everyone.

> It has always been my understanding that 
> most of this is caused by evil governments, political 
> instability, and/or stupid religious beliefs. Even when we 
> send money or food, it is taken by others. I am assuming that 
> the land that is occupied by these people is incapable of 
> supporting human populations.

I almost agree, except that most of these people aren't evil.  Some are, but
most really believe what they are doing is best.  This is not na?ve on my
part to believe this.  This explanation actually is more depressing and
bodes worse for the world than a more simplistic explanation that evil
people are doing this.  Stupidity and confusion cause more harm in the world
than evil.

> Seriously, I am not messing with you here. Isn't this a 
> problem that could be cured? Maybe we could strike a deal 
> with some African natin where we get to make a huge area of 
> green land and fresh water into a 51st state. Then we offer 
> transportation to all that would like to go there. We lay 
> down the laws, explain the laws before they come in, and 
> enforce thos laws. No bullshit coups, wars, etc. It's our 
> state and we make and enforce the laws. We start with a 
> simple economy. Labor jobs for natural resources, and we 
> train people on the way.

Unfortunately, this won't work.  People won't agree on what laws to create.
Luddites would try to ban technology, while transhumanists would want a
high-tech future.  Religious groups would want to ban other religions.
Conservatives would want to ban gays and drug users.  Liberals would want
sexual and drug freedoms.  NRA-types would want to bring their guns, while
others would want to ban all weapons.

There are a million utopian desires, many of which are mutually exclusive.

> I know it sounds oversimplified, but my point is that noone 
> has seriously tried to "solve" the problem. I'm sure a lot of 
> people would not want to go there because they wouldn't want 
> to be subjected to our laws, or simply because they don;t 
> like us. But at least then it is their choice to die of hunger.

This is oversimplified.  Worse, you are wrong.  Many people have tried to
solve the problem.  I think almost everybody has a perfect world or final
solution in their mind.  These solutions are all incompatible with each
other.  We need a solution that allows everyone else to pursue their dreams
as well.  Libertarians claim to have this with maximum freedoms for
everybody, but libertarianism doesn't work either.  People disagree on what
actions on the part of other people constitutes risk or harm.

Does someone's guns pose a risk to me?  What about their weapons of mass
destruction?  Do a bunch of naked people having orgies in the street harm me
or my children?  Do gays pose a threat to heterosexual marriage?  People
really disagree on these issues.  No freedom can be given to one group
without another group feeling harmed by it.  There may be no answer besides
colonizing the Kuiper Belt and having a million separate little utopias that
are separated by large distances.

> This reminds me of a conversation a couple of weeks ago about 
> terraforming Earth. Big projects that are way out of the box 
> of current political thinking. But that doesn;t mean they 
> can;t be done.

Here again, many people would object.  We can't find an ultimate goal for
terraforming Earth that would please everyone.  Luddites would want restful
parks everywhere.  Naturists would want the natural tundra, deserts, and
wetlands left alone.  Urbanites might want solid urban sprawl over the whole
planet.  Hunters would want shooting areas, while hikers don't want people
shooting around them.  Some transhumanists would want to preserve earth for
history, while some would want to totally transform it into a perfect
habitat, while still others want to disassemble it for resources.  Even with
the capability, we won't be able to reach a consensus.

> So have you put any thought to this?

I have put too much thought into this, and am about ready to give up on the
human race.

And to repeat myself again, I would say the problem is not deciding what to
do.  The problem is coming up with a plan that pleases everyone.  Even the
"obvious" perfect plan for one group totally ruins the "obvious" perfect
plans for another group.  Libertarians think their plans allow everyone to
do what is best, while other political groups disagree.  People who want to
upload everyone into simulations think that obviously would give everyone
what they want, except that many people don't want to be uploaded.

We have to not only come up with the ultimate solution, we have to allow
other people to also simultaneously have their ultimate solution as well.

-- 
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 GIAC Certified GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  1 12:47:59 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 04:47:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Live from the Free State
In-Reply-To: <40421880.904@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20040301124759.63708.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>


--- BillK <bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat Feb 28, 2004 06:28 am Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > FSP Winter Festival
> > Ongoing this weekend in Danbury, it has been an opportunity for
> > porcupines to visit the state, enjoy some NH recreational
> > activities, meet with leaders in the state movement, and be
> > involved in the
> > forming of the Free Town Project, which will concentrate 200-300
> > porcupines in the neighboring town of Grafton over the next year to
> > create a libertarian majority and serve as a test bed for
> > local-level libertarian policies.
> > We've been scouting properties for development, learning about the
> > town government from town residents, and getting to know this area
> > of the state much better.
> >
> 
> This seems a bit, - well, odd? to me.
> Would there be any objections to say, 300 Moonies, or 300 Muslims,
> doing exactly the same town invasion? And if so, why do these
> objections not apply to libertarians?

To start with, Grafton was selected because it already thinks much the
way we do. 
The LPNH chairman, John Babiarz lives there and typically gets at least
125 votes for libertarian ballot warrant articles in town elections on
a regular basis.
The town doesn't have zoning, one of the few towns left in the state
that doesn't, and does not want zoning. The people of Grafton are very
much a live and let live sort. So far they have all been very welcoming
and see this project as a good thing for the town. Their experience
with John Babiarz and his wife over the years (John is the chief of the
volunteer fire department, Rosalie is the Supervisor of the Checklist
(the list of registered voters)) have convinced the people of the town
that libertarians are good neighbors.

> 
> I'm sure I remember Mike complaining about rich townies who move to
> the countryside, then start trying to change their locality to be
more
> like where they came from.

Most FTP members won't be rich townies, they will be rurally located
people in southern and rocky mountain states (where real estate values
are much lower than other areas of the country) who are at an equity
disadvantage moving into high priced NH. The FSP and FTP members are
more interested in rolling back statist influences that have crept in,
making the town more like it once was, rather than importing big city
problems with big city 'solutions'.
In order to alleviate the typical sort of ignorance that is natural for
people moving to a new area, we are going to have a rather significant
orientation package for members to study that deals in detail with the
history and present situation of the town, how the town works, where
things are, etc.
We will also bring advantages to the town. Turns out the last doctor to
have his office in the town left a trust fund in his will to the town
of about $100,000 to be given to the next doctor that agrees to set up
shop in the town, for the purpose of building his/her office/clinic. It
appears we'll have a FSP doctor taking up that challenge. There are a
number of other little projects which need doing in the town, that the
people want done but don't have the time or resources to do them, and
we'll be working at getting involved in doing them. This will all help
integrate our people into the town.

=====
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!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  1 12:54:28 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 04:54:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] gay marriage
In-Reply-To: <20040229183527.77251.qmail@web80403.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040301125428.57889.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> --- Harvey Newstrom <mail at HarveyNewstrom.com> wrote:
> > Kevin Freels wrote,
> > > I am so angry I can't even type a decent letter!
> > This gay marriage thing
> > > is just as stupid as segregation!
> > 
> > It is interesting that you compare this debate with
> > the one on segregation.
> > I see the concept of civil unions as being "separate
> > but equal" for gays.
> 
> How about the followup: ...and then ban marriage
> entirely, converting already existing marriages into
> civil unions?  Thus, neither hetero nor homo get
> government-sanctioned religious institutions. 
> Anything currently going to marriages and not to civil unions
> would either have to be revised or become universally
> inapplicable.

Bush said recently that marriage has been in existence for 5000 years.
What this means is that marriage had been a fine institution for 4850
years. It took the US only 150 years to screw it up. Get the government
OUT of marriage. Private enterprise can do it better...

=====
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!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Mon Mar  1 12:55:58 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 04:55:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat]  ex-tropical
In-Reply-To: <Law10-OE33lhPgPZF4d0002868e@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403010437570.14937-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Kevin Freels wrote:

> Harvey...Out of curiosity, do you have an idea of how we can cure this
> problem? It has always been my understanding that most of this is caused by
> evil governments, political instability, and/or stupid religious beliefs.
> Even when we send money or food, it is taken by others. I am assuming that
[snip]

> So have you put any thought to this?

The Hunger Project has for the last ~25 years.  For the last 5 years or
so they have placed a very high emphasis on empowering women and they
have very active groups involved in connecting the haves with the
have nots.

Instead of the typical Western -- contribute to feed a child approach --
they have a more integrated approach that allows people to bootstrap
themselves.  This deals with:

a) Education  -- Lack of this prevents one from having the ability
   to manage a business, organize to fight religious support for
   inequality, etc.
b) Access to capital -- This is what the Grameen Bank and other similar
   efforts are all about.
c) Stupid religious beliefs -- one sees this now with the writing of
   the Iraqi constitution where the women will end up with fewer
   rights than they had under Sadaam.

It is a very slow battle -- I personally do not think it is
going to shift significantly until one has nanotechnology
that can rapidly construct oceanic cities allowing one to
empty a country of people who object to regimes (political
or religious) that are intolerant in one way or another.

One then needs something like the United Nations or the World
Court to engage in the intolerance issues.  Sadaam would not
have been a problem if he is sitting in Iraq with himself
and 50 henchmen (few wives or daughters because they all
would have left the country).  Life is much less fun when
due to sanctions you can't get the marble you need from Italy
to build the palaces you want to live in...

Robert




From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com  Mon Mar  1 13:11:27 2004
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 08:11:27 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
Message-ID: <Law9-F41Q7jPRfyHFOu00011660@hotmail.com>

The Avantguardian said:
"I think I would have preferred a conspiracy, since this is kind of like 
fighting your way to front of the bus only to find that the bus driver isn't 
really driving, instead he is just "along for the ride" and the bus is out 
of control. After all market forces don't have thought or conscience and are 
incapable of setting goals and achieving them. Market forces place no value 
on survival of species, human or otherwise. They can only, like a runaway 
bus, continue forward until something stops them forcibly with catastrophic 
results."

The beauty of markets is that they don't need goals or anyone trying to "do 
the right thing". The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Merkets 
are the most efficient means of establishing a goal. They decrease overall 
costs and provide more benefit than any benevolent guiding counsel could 
provide. Look at the economic planning committees of the old USSR and China 
to see how planning fails where an open market succeeds.

Markets contribute to the survival of the species by providing lowest cost 
resources. The goal of the market doesn't have to be "benefit humanity" for 
the market to provide benefit.

BAL

_________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee when you click here. 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963



From neptune at superlink.net  Mon Mar  1 13:46:50 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 08:46:50 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] gay marriage
References: <20040301125428.57889.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <002f01c3ff93$a7438000$cecd5cd1@neptune>

On Monday, March 01, 2004 7:54 AM Mike Lorrey mlorrey at yahoo.com wrote:
> Bush said recently that marriage has been
> in existence for 5000 years.

I usually don't want to comment on things like this, but I couldn't
resist, but...  He probably thinks Earth has only be in existence for a
little a longer than that.:)

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html

"There are philosophers who have given their mind to the phenomenon of
disregard of laws and have sought out its causes.  Much more surprising,
however, is the opposite phenomenon of respect for laws and deference to
authority.  History never lacks instances to show us of vast masses of
men submitting to a yoke which is hateful to them, and lending unanimous
and willing aid to keep in being a Power which they detest." -- Bertrand
de Jouvenel




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  1 13:51:29 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 05:51:29 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
In-Reply-To: <Law9-F41Q7jPRfyHFOu00011660@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20040301135129.69601.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Brian Lee <brian_a_lee at hotmail.com> wrote:
> The Avantguardian said:
> "I think I would have preferred a conspiracy, since this is kind of
> like fighting your way to front of the bus only to find that the bus
> driver isn't really driving, instead he is just "along for the ride"
> and the bus is out of control. After all market forces don't have
> thought or conscience and are incapable of setting goals and
> achieving them. Market forces place no value on survival of species,
> human or otherwise. They can only, like a runaway bus, continue
> forward until something stops them forcibly with catastrophic
> results."
> 
> The beauty of markets is that they don't need goals or anyone trying
> to "do the right thing". 

Better yet, everyone on the bus has a steering wheel, and the wheels
are steered by the input of all. This is how markets work. The driver
just monitors the inputs of each passenger so that the bus actually
stays on a road, instead of in a ditch, but there is a limit to what
the driver can do. If the majority of the passengers are convinced the
bus is going to crash, it will crash.

=====
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!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


From neptune at superlink.net  Mon Mar  1 14:15:17 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 09:15:17 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Clint Eastwood on gay marriage
Message-ID: <009e01c3ff97$a10f87c0$cecd5cd1@neptune>

This is not an attempt to argue for authority.  I thought it might be
interesting though, since a lot of people would call Eastwood a
conservative.

BTW, this is from Atlantis II at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/atlantis_II/

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html

From: Ross Barlow rbarlow at penn.com
To: atlantis_II at yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 7:06 AM
Subject: Re: [atlantis_II] Re: The Man With No Name, Few Words...


Re:  Clint Eastwood's libertarianism.  He was interviewed for "USA
Today Weekend" (January 23-25, 2004).  Here are a couple of questions
and answers from this interview.

 Q:  "So, socially, you're live-and-let-live.  How about politically?"

 Eastwood:  "I suppose.  I don't see myself as conservative, but I'm not
ultra-leftist.  You build a philosophy of your own.  I like the
libertarian view, which is to leave everyone alone.  Even as a kid, I
was annoyed by people who wanted to tell everyone how to live."

 Q:  "As an ex-politician, does that extend to your view of same-sex
marriages?  That could be *the* polarizing issue of the presidential
race."

 Eastwood:  "From a libertarian point of view, you would say, 'So what?'
You have to believe in total equality.  People should be able to be what
they want to be and do what the want - as long as they're not harming
people."

*
 Every so often, I pick one film director and try to view as much of
their work as possible.  I make a list of their films, wait for a spell
of bad weather, and visit the video store.  I will someday take on the
body of Eastwood's work in chronological order.

 My all-time Eastwood favorite is "The Eiger Sanction" (1975).  Yes, it
has some corny aspects and less-than-perfect artistry.  But it is a
mountain climbing classic, with Clint doing the vast majority of his own
climbing stunt work, including a scene in which he is dangling with
thousands of feet of void below him.  (I forgive him for the extra
safety ropes in that scene that make no sense in the plot:  people have
died in that very spot on the Eiger.)  The stunt and mountain safety/
photography team he used was a roll call of great alpinists of the day,
many who have since died practicing their mad craft on wild places like
Everest.

 I have always appreciated the movie reviews and recommendations by list
members here.  While not always agreeing, I always learn and often find
great movies that I had missed earlier.  Thanks to all.  (But count me
among those others who are really pissed at whoever it was here that
gave away the ending to Gibson's "Passion.")

-Ross Barlow.
http://free-market.net/members/s/Strato.html
Climbing Meditation, high on the West Face of Seneca Rocks.



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  1 14:23:33 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 06:23:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Clint Eastwood on gay marriage
In-Reply-To: <009e01c3ff97$a10f87c0$cecd5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <20040301142333.82571.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Technotranscendence <neptune at superlink.net> wrote: 
> From: Ross Barlow rbarlow at penn.com
>  (But count me
> among those others who are really pissed at whoever it was here that
> gave away the ending to Gibson's "Passion.")
> 
> -Ross Barlow.

What? You mean he doesn't get crucified? ;)

=====
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!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


From neptune at superlink.net  Mon Mar  1 14:35:34 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 09:35:34 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat]  ex-tropical
References: <20040301074215.46351.qmail@web60510.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00dc01c3ff9a$75f2d1c0$cecd5cd1@neptune>

On Monday, March 01, 2004 2:42 AM The Avantguardian
avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com wrote:
> * That is still nonsense, Adrian. The vast majority of
> people in the world today don't even have access to
> automobiles or airplanes. I seriously doubt that even
> if space travel were to become as routine as
> booking a flight would a significantly sizable portion
> of the world be able to afford to leave it. So the world
> will not be depopulated by emigration. Chances are
> at best a lucky privilaged few will be able to leave and
> the rest will in remain in squalor to succumb to famine,
> disease, war, or perhaps even survive as they may.

This depends a lot on other factors.  After all, a lot of the poor from
Europe did migrate to North America, but there was a huge draw and a
huge push for that.  (I do think the first settlers in space -- if there
are any -- will be a tiny minority and space migration will start out
small and slow unless there's a push or a pull of significant
magnitude.)

But if you want to get poor people off world -- and I do as well --
perhaps we can form some sort of sponsorship for them.  (Of course, I'm
not exactly a member of the aristocracy, so I'm not proposing that I'd
be able to fund more than getting my sorry butt off the world -- and
probably only with extensive help of a sponsor.:)

> In general, I don't like criticizing what people say on
> this list because I feel it stifles interesting if not perfect
> ideas from being expressed. But in this case I figure
> I owe you one.

On that note:  would it be possible for you to post in plain text as
opposed to HTML?

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html

"There are philosophers who have given their mind to the phenomenon of
disregard of laws and have sought out its causes.  Much more surprising,
however, is the opposite phenomenon of respect for laws and deference to
authority.  History never lacks instances to show us of vast masses of
men submitting to a yoke which is hateful to them, and lending unanimous
and willing aid to keep in being a Power which they detest." -- Bertrand
de Jouvenel



From neptune at superlink.net  Mon Mar  1 14:42:25 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 09:42:25 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Clint Eastwood on gay marriage
References: <20040301142333.82571.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <011801c3ff9b$6a67b0e0$cecd5cd1@neptune>

On Monday, March 01, 2004 9:23 AM Mike Lorrey mlorrey at yahoo.com wrote:
> > From: Ross Barlow rbarlow at penn.com
> >  (But count me
> > among those others who are really pissed at whoever it was here that
> > gave away the ending to Gibson's "Passion.")
> >
> > -Ross Barlow.
>
> What? You mean he doesn't get crucified? ;)

I knew I should have edited my forward of the Barlow post...:)

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html

"There are philosophers who have given their mind to the phenomenon of
disregard of laws and have sought out its causes.  Much more surprising,
however, is the opposite phenomenon of respect for laws and deference to
authority.  History never lacks instances to show us of vast masses of
men submitting to a yoke which is hateful to them, and lending unanimous
and willing aid to keep in being a Power which they detest." -- Bertrand
de Jouvenel, _On Power: The Natural History of its Growth_



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Mon Mar  1 14:46:54 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 09:46:54 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
In-Reply-To: <20040301135129.69601.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000b01c3ff9c$10c876e0$cc01a8c0@dellbert>

Mike Lorrey wrote,
> Better yet, everyone on the bus has a steering wheel, and the 
> wheels are steered by the input of all. This is how markets 
> work. The driver just monitors the inputs of each passenger 
> so that the bus actually stays on a road, instead of in a 
> ditch, but there is a limit to what the driver can do. If the 
> majority of the passengers are convinced the bus is going to 
> crash, it will crash.

This is a good analogy of how the market works.  It therefore bothers me
that I would never get on a bus such as you describe!

-- 
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 GIAC Certified GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 





From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Mon Mar  1 14:51:56 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 09:51:56 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
In-Reply-To: <Law9-F41Q7jPRfyHFOu00011660@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <000c01c3ff9c$bee36320$cc01a8c0@dellbert>

Brian Lee wrote,
> Merkets are the most efficient means of establishing a goal.

I must respectfully disagree with this.  Markets are the most efficient at
maximizing profits.  But the most profitable product is not necessarily the
best one.  Most people can't afford the most expensive, best PC.  So the
most profitable PCs are the cheapo ones that are "good enough" for "most"
purposes.  But as for the goal of what a PC should be, I do not find the
market acceptable.

Healthcare is another obvious example.  I pay big bucks for doctors to give
me all the available options.  HMOs are more profitable, but they are so by
withholding options from patients or limiting doctors.  I don't want that
for my personal healthcare.  I don't think many people would.  However, the
market wants this for maximum profitability.  In terms of health, as with
other items, profitability may not be the ultimate goal.
> Look at the economic planning committees of the old 
> USSR and China to see how planning fails where an
> open market succeeds.

Such as in space exploration, for example?

-- 
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 GIAC Certified GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  1 15:38:11 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 07:38:11 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
In-Reply-To: <000b01c3ff9c$10c876e0$cc01a8c0@dellbert>
Message-ID: <20040301153811.24012.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:
> Mike Lorrey wrote,
> > Better yet, everyone on the bus has a steering wheel, and the 
> > wheels are steered by the input of all. This is how markets 
> > work. The driver just monitors the inputs of each passenger 
> > so that the bus actually stays on a road, instead of in a 
> > ditch, but there is a limit to what the driver can do. If the 
> > majority of the passengers are convinced the bus is going to 
> > crash, it will crash.
> 
> This is a good analogy of how the market works.  It therefore bothers
> me that I would never get on a bus such as you describe!

A finer analogy may say that some passengers only have a brake pedal,
while some only have a gas pedal, some can only steer straight or left,
others straight or right, while some have all controls in front of
them. Everybody decides what controls each passenger has access to.

=====
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!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


From neptune at superlink.net  Mon Mar  1 16:04:33 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 11:04:33 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
References: <20040301153811.24012.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <016801c3ffa6$e3ff01a0$cecd5cd1@neptune>

On Monday, March 01, 2004 10:38 AM Mike Lorrey mlorrey at yahoo.com wrote:
>>> Better yet, everyone on the bus has a steering
>>> wheel, and the wheels are steered by the input
>>> of all. This is how markets work. The driver just
>>> monitors the inputs of each passenger so that
>>> the bus actually stays on a road, instead of in a
>>> ditch, but there is a limit to what the driver can
>>> do. If the majority of the passengers are
>>> convinced the bus is going to crash, it will crash.
>>
>> This is a good analogy of how the market works.
>> It therefore bothers me that I would never get on
>> a bus such as you describe!
>
> A finer analogy may say that some passengers
> only have a brake pedal, while some only have
> a gas pedal, some can only steer straight or left,
> others straight or right, while some have all
> controls in front of them. Everybody decides
> what controls each passenger has access to.

Actually, none of these are good analogies for free markets.  A better
one would be a road with many cars on it and no traffic cop.  The bus
analogy actually looks more like how welfare states work.

Also, markets generally work to coordinate plans between their
participants.  This is not because the market magically does this, but
because people generally pursue their plans and adjust their plans when
they experience the benefits and costs of doing so directly.  Market
substitutes, such as command economies and other government
interferences in the market (e.g., taxes, tariffs, corporate welfare,
regulations) interfere with this coordination usually by substituting
one person's or a small group's judgment and goals for those of the
myriad individuals and firms making up an actual market.

Finally, the real problem is not that markets aren't perfect -- nothing
is perfect -- but that the market substitutes rarely do better than
market outcomes and usually do much worse.

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html



From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Mar  1 16:02:12 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 08:02:12 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Clint Eastwood on gay marriage
In-Reply-To: <009e01c3ff97$a10f87c0$cecd5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <000001c3ffa6$8eed0d60$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


> Technotranscendence
>...  I will someday take on the
> body of Eastwood's work in chronological order...

Don't miss Bronco Billy, an oddball rare Eastwood 
comedy, very much a change of pace for the mayor.
He had played a string of mean cop and mean cowboy
movies and other bad-goodguys.  In Bronco Billy
he plays a good guy who is playing the bad guy of 
sorts.  Eastwood demonstrates he can do offbeat 
comedy as well as Dirty Harry.

This picture quietly came and went over 20 years 
ago, but is still my favorite of his.  I still laugh
when I think of some of the scenes, such as the
train robbery.  {8^D

spike



From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com  Mon Mar  1 16:25:50 2004
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 11:25:50 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
Message-ID: <Law9-F866xDDDOtpmbB00019579@hotmail.com>

>From: "Harvey Newstrom" <mail at harveynewstrom.com>
>To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
>Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 09:51:56 -0500
>
>I must respectfully disagree with this.  Markets are the most efficient at
>maximizing profits.  But the most profitable product is not necessarily the
>best one.  Most people can't afford the most expensive, best PC.  So the
>most profitable PCs are the cheapo ones that are "good enough" for "most"
>purposes.  But as for the goal of what a PC should be, I do not find the
>market acceptable.

The market here is affordable PCs. The market creates the best, lowest cost 
PC available to the public and is an excellent example of markets 
succeeding. So companies maximize profits and the consumer maximizes 
performance per dollar.

>Healthcare is another obvious example.  I pay big bucks for doctors to give
>me all the available options.  HMOs are more profitable, but they are so by
>withholding options from patients or limiting doctors.  I don't want that
>for my personal healthcare.  I don't think many people would.  However, the
>market wants this for maximum profitability.  In terms of health, as with
>other items, profitability may not be the ultimate goal.

An HMO is not a market. If healthcare was market driven we would have 
greater availability and lower prices. As it is there is heavy govt 
regulation. It would be pretty nice if we had full information on healthcare 
and heavy competition. Alas, we don't (yet) so the US has the bloated system 
that we have. It could be a lot more efficient.

Markets maximize profits for a system. Maximizing profits does not 
necessarily mean that a free market exist.

BAL

_________________________________________________________________
Get fast, reliable access with MSN 9 Dial-up. Click here for Special Offer! 
http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/



From extropy at unreasonable.com  Mon Mar  1 17:09:03 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 12:09:03 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Plan to allow transsexuals into Games on back burner
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040301115030.02b446c8@mail.comcast.net>


>http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-02/29/content_1337113.htm
>Plan to allow transsexuals into Games on back burner
>2004-02-29 11:27:33
>
>ATHENS, Feb. 28 (Xinhuanet) -- A decision to allow transsexuals to take 
>part in the Olympic Games was put off on Saturday as the IOC executive 
>board failed to reach consensus.
>
>The decision-making body of the International Olympic Committee had 
>discussed the emotive subject at a meeting in the Greek capital but had 
>failed to make much progress.
>
>"The discussion was a difficult discussion for (IOC medical director) 
>Patrick Schamasch and myself who tried to explain a very difficult medical 
>problem," said IOC president Jacques Rogge.
>
>The rule would cover both male-to-female and female-to-male cases.
>
>Some contend that transsexual athletes have a physical advantage against 
>other women, because men are believed to have higher levels of 
>testosterone and greater muscle-to-fat ratio and heart and lung capacity.
>
>However, doctors say, testosterone levels and muscle mass drop after 
>hormone therapy and sex-change surgery.
>
>"Even for me it is complicated," Rogge said, "It is much more complicated 
>for someone with no medical training."

Interesting question. The Olympics currently bans any alteration of body 
function through surgery or medication, and being a transsexual would seem 
to qualify.

The answer for now and the next few decades, I think, is to have two 
categories -- altered and unaltered. In the altered category, allow any 
changes of any kind to anyone. Eventually, there would be a follow-up 
debate over whether someone has been altered to the point that they are 
more robot than human, and must compete in the Robot Olympics.

One complicating issue is that there's probably an exemption for medically 
necessary surgery or medication, and then the debate becomes whether 
gender-alteration is medically necessary.

The question of "medically necessary" is a gaping hole in IOC rules.

If treatment for asthma, say, gives runners higher oxygen utilization, they 
will have a competitive advantage over healthy athletes. Also, this will 
encourage healthy runners to fake or induce medical conditions in order to 
obtain the treatment.

If there is no exclusion for medical necessity, athletes will be forced to 
choose between their health (or lives) and their life ambition of competing 
in the Olympics.

Also, look at the name of the IOC medical director. Those of you of Jewish 
legacy may be amused.


-- David Lubkin.




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  1 17:26:48 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 09:26:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Plan to allow transsexuals into Games on back
	burner
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040301115030.02b446c8@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <20040301172648.52828.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>

I think having separate classes for body modified individuals (of all
types, not just transsexuals) would be fine. After a few years, the
world records for the mods will exceed the 'organic' humans, and people
will start to realize the benefits, and so long as no government agency
is involved in ordering anyone to be altered (there should be some sort
of lie detector test to affirm that the athlete underwent the procedure
of their own free will) then the whole eugenics thing can be avoided.

--- David Lubkin <extropy at unreasonable.com> wrote:
> 
> >http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-02/29/content_1337113.htm
> >Plan to allow transsexuals into Games on back burner
> >2004-02-29 11:27:33
> >
> >ATHENS, Feb. 28 (Xinhuanet) -- A decision to allow transsexuals to
> take 
> >part in the Olympic Games was put off on Saturday as the IOC
> executive 
> >board failed to reach consensus.
> >
> >The decision-making body of the International Olympic Committee had 
> >discussed the emotive subject at a meeting in the Greek capital but
> had 
> >failed to make much progress.
> >
> >"The discussion was a difficult discussion for (IOC medical
> director) 
> >Patrick Schamasch and myself who tried to explain a very difficult
> medical 
> >problem," said IOC president Jacques Rogge.
> >
> >The rule would cover both male-to-female and female-to-male cases.
> >
> >Some contend that transsexual athletes have a physical advantage
> against 
> >other women, because men are believed to have higher levels of 
> >testosterone and greater muscle-to-fat ratio and heart and lung
> capacity.
> >
> >However, doctors say, testosterone levels and muscle mass drop after
> 
> >hormone therapy and sex-change surgery.
> >
> >"Even for me it is complicated," Rogge said, "It is much more
> complicated 
> >for someone with no medical training."
> 
> Interesting question. The Olympics currently bans any alteration of
> body 
> function through surgery or medication, and being a transsexual would
> seem 
> to qualify.
> 
> The answer for now and the next few decades, I think, is to have two 
> categories -- altered and unaltered. In the altered category, allow
> any 
> changes of any kind to anyone. Eventually, there would be a follow-up
> 
> debate over whether someone has been altered to the point that they
> are 
> more robot than human, and must compete in the Robot Olympics.
> 
> One complicating issue is that there's probably an exemption for
> medically 
> necessary surgery or medication, and then the debate becomes whether 
> gender-alteration is medically necessary.
> 
> The question of "medically necessary" is a gaping hole in IOC rules.
> 
> If treatment for asthma, say, gives runners higher oxygen
> utilization, they 
> will have a competitive advantage over healthy athletes. Also, this
> will 
> encourage healthy runners to fake or induce medical conditions in
> order to 
> obtain the treatment.
> 
> If there is no exclusion for medical necessity, athletes will be
> forced to 
> choose between their health (or lives) and their life ambition of
> competing 
> in the Olympics.
> 
> Also, look at the name of the IOC medical director. Those of you of
> Jewish 
> legacy may be amused.
> 
> 
> -- David Lubkin.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


From neptune at superlink.net  Mon Mar  1 17:53:26 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 12:53:26 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Clint Eastwood on gay marriage
References: <000001c3ffa6$8eed0d60$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <001a01c3ffb6$1a333480$1ccd5cd1@neptune>

On Monday, March 01, 2004 11:02 AM Spike spike66 at comcast.net wrote:
>> Technotranscendence
>>...  I will someday take on the
>> body of Eastwood's work in chronological order...
>
> Don't miss Bronco Billy, [snip]

Whoa!  Dude!  I forwarded that post.  That was Ross Barlow -- not me --
talking about a desire to see Eastwood's ouvre.

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Mar  1 17:43:54 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 09:43:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Plan to allow transsexuals into Games on back
	burner
In-Reply-To: <20040301172648.52828.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040301174354.50948.qmail@web80410.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> so long as
> no government agency
> is involved in ordering anyone to be altered (there
> should be some sort
> of lie detector test to affirm that the athlete
> underwent the procedure
> of their own free will) then the whole eugenics
> thing can be avoided.

Noble sentiment; easily bypassed in practice.

"No, honest, I did it of my own free will.  I freely
chose not to be relegated to a life of drudge labor
which I would be if I didn't do this.  But that was my
choice."  ...and you don't even have to have the
government enforcing it; such a situation could happen
in the USA despite the government not providing any
coercion, save insufficient outreach to the poor about
educational opportunities and their role in paths to
better lives.


From extropy at unreasonable.com  Mon Mar  1 18:09:48 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 13:09:48 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Plan to allow transsexuals into Games on
	back burner
In-Reply-To: <20040301174354.50948.qmail@web80410.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040301172648.52828.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040301125628.02e68900@mail.comcast.net>

Mike wrote:

>so long as no government agency is involved in ordering anyone to be 
>altered (there should be some sort of lie detector test to affirm that the 
>athlete underwent the procedure of their own free will) then the whole 
>eugenics thing can be avoided.

Adrian wrote:

>Noble sentiment; easily bypassed in practice.
>
>"No, honest, I did it of my own free will.  I freely chose not to be 
>relegated to a life of drudge labor which I would be if I didn't do 
>this.  But that was my choice."  ...and you don't even have to have the 
>government enforcing it; such a situation could happen
>in the USA despite the government not providing any coercion, save 
>insufficient outreach to the poor about educational opportunities and 
>their role in paths to better lives.

Consent has been an issue for decades. How much say in their participation 
or training had athletes in the Soviet Union, PRC, Nazi Germany, East 
Germany (those famous women swimmers), Fascist Italy, Saddam's Iraq, etc. had?

Also, there may have been honest, voluntary, informed consent that we, 
well-fed and comfortable, would be appalled by. Throughout history, people 
have sacrificed their lives, health, or happiness for the sake of their 
family. Or, as parents, sacrificed one child for the sake of the others.


-- David Lubkin.




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Mon Mar  1 18:18:19 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 10:18:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat]  ex-tropical
In-Reply-To: <20040301074215.46351.qmail@web60510.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040301181819.88700.qmail@web80403.mail.yahoo.com>

--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> Emigration, on the other hand, would probably not
> cause a high birth rate to compensate. Net result:
> depopulation.
> 
> That is what I was trying to communicate.
> 
> 
> * That is still nonsense, Adrian. The vast majority
> of people in the world today don't even have access
> to automobiles or airplanes. I seriously doubt that
> even if space travel were to become as routine as
> booking a flight would a significantly sizable
> portion of the world be able to afford to leave it.
> So the world will not be depopulated by emigration.
> Chances are at best a lucky privilaged few will be
> able to leave and the rest will in remain in squalor
> to succumb to famine, disease, war, or perhaps even
> survive as they may. 

I draw an analogy to Britain circa colonial times:
sending people to America was one way of relieving
overpopulation, and it wasn't just a priveleged few
who went - even those who wouldn't otherwise have
access to ships at all.  Also, people are working on
ways of making space flight much cheaper - less than
$100K, maybe eventually less than $1K, per person per
flight.  If there was somewhere up there to move to
today, I know quite a few people who might be willing
to spend $100K to move up there, depending on the
quality and cost of living in said hypothetical
destination.

Although, as has been pointed out, a more practical
way to handle overpopulation would be to increase the
Earth's carrying capacity for humans through better
medicine, better agrotech, and so forth - just like
the way humanity moved from millions to billions.

> In general, I don't like criticizing what people say
> on this list because I feel it stifles interesting
> if not perfect ideas from being expressed.

Honest criticism refines ideas.  Your points are good,
and place a limit on the rate of emigration: e.g.,
mass emigration to space *won't* happen overnight.

> But in
> this case I figure I owe you one.

Nothing is owed.  Criticism is given, criticism is
received, and we are all the better for it.  Just so
long as it doesn't become personal.


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Mon Mar  1 18:43:55 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 10:43:55 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat]  ex-tropical
In-Reply-To: <20040301181819.88700.qmail@web80403.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403011035280.23753-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> Although, as has been pointed out, a more practical
> way to handle overpopulation would be to increase the
> Earth's carrying capacity for humans through better
> medicine, better agrotech, and so forth - just like
> the way humanity moved from millions to billions.

I have a paper on my desk which follows exactly that approach [1].
While it is somewhat old, it is done by a scientist at
IIASA in Austria so I would expect the quality to be high.

It suggests that the carrying capacity for the Earth is
in excess of 10^12 (1 trillion people).  A lot depends
on how much capital is available to build the cities
and provide the energy resources required.  It doesn't
directly cite the use of nanotechnology or biotechnology
however some fairly advanced engineering technologies
are required to satisfy some of the parameters of the
discussion.

Robert

1. Marchetti, C., "10^12: A Check on the Earth-Carrying Capacity for Man",
   Energy Vol. 4 pp. 1107-1117 (1979).




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Mon Mar  1 19:16:38 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 14:16:38 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
In-Reply-To: <20040301153811.24012.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <002f01c3ffc1$be81e260$cc01a8c0@dellbert>

Mike Lorrey wrote,
> A finer analogy may say that some passengers only have a 
> brake pedal, while some only have a gas pedal, some can only 
> steer straight or left, others straight or right, while some 
> have all controls in front of them. Everybody decides what 
> controls each passenger has access to.

LOL!  I can see this in my mind, and it isn't pretty!  ;-)

There is a deafening screeching sound as the bus careens into view.  All
four of its wheels are turned outward in different directions.  The back
wheels are spinning at full acceleration, burning rubber into the asphalt
and churning up a cloud of carcinogenic rubber particles and smoke.  The
front wheels are locked solid by the brakes, and are being pushed forward
across the pavement without turning.  The back end of the bus swerves wildly
as it tries to proceed faster than the front end.  The front wheels
occasionally jerk left or right, trying to correct its steering, but it
doesn't help.  The bus knocks down signs, parking meters, and a few
pedestrians as it continues its frantically meandering path.  Showers of
sparks explode as it takes out street lamps with gut-wrenching regularity
along the way.  Electric cables become demon-possessed as they snap off and
start writhing in the churning smoke.  The bus finally slides sideways into
an embankment with a sickening crunch.  The sign proclaiming "Everybody
Drives!" is seen swinging back and forth on one corner from its single
remaining bolt....

-- 
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 GIAC Certified GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 






From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  1 19:56:48 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 11:56:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
In-Reply-To: <002f01c3ffc1$be81e260$cc01a8c0@dellbert>
Message-ID: <20040301195648.48917.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:
> Mike Lorrey wrote,
> > A finer analogy may say that some passengers only have a 
> > brake pedal, while some only have a gas pedal, some can only 
> > steer straight or left, others straight or right, while some 
> > have all controls in front of them. Everybody decides what 
> > controls each passenger has access to.
> 
> LOL!  I can see this in my mind, and it isn't pretty!  ;-)
> 
> There is a deafening screeching sound as the bus careens into view. 
> All
> four of its wheels are turned outward in different directions.  The
> back
> wheels are spinning at full acceleration, burning rubber into the
> asphalt
> and churning up a cloud of carcinogenic rubber particles and smoke. 
> The
> front wheels are locked solid by the brakes, and are being pushed
> forward
> across the pavement without turning.  The back end of the bus swerves
> wildly
> as it tries to proceed faster than the front end.  The front wheels
> occasionally jerk left or right, trying to correct its steering, but
> it
> doesn't help.  The bus knocks down signs, parking meters, and a few
> pedestrians as it continues its frantically meandering path.  Showers
> of
> sparks explode as it takes out street lamps with gut-wrenching
> regularity
> along the way.  Electric cables become demon-possessed as they snap
> off and
> start writhing in the churning smoke.  The bus finally slides
> sideways into
> an embankment with a sickening crunch.  The sign proclaiming
> "Everybody
> Drives!" is seen swinging back and forth on one corner from its
> single
> remaining bolt....

Don't forget voting bad passengers off the bus.

The funny thing is that this is the best way to get economically from
point A to points b-z. It all comes down to how much you trust people
to negotiate in their own long term rational self interest.

=====
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!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Tue Mar  2 02:55:28 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 19:55:28 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Books want to be free
Message-ID: <4043F7A0.F4991091@mindspring.com>

< http://bookcrossing.com/ >

"You've come to a friendly place, and we welcome you to our book-lovers'
community. What is BookCrossing, you ask? It's a global book club that
crosses time and space. It's a reading group that knows no geographical
boundaries. Do you like free books? How about free book clubs?. Well,
the books our members leave in the wild are free... but it's the act
of freeing books that points to the heart of BookCrossing. Book trading
has never been more exciting, more serendipitous, than with BookCrossing.
Our goal, simply, is to make the whole world a library. BookCrossing is
a book exchange of infinite proportion, the first and only of its kind."

"Here at BookCrossing.com you'll find tens of thousands of book reviews,
book ratings, and book recommendations, because each time a book changes
hands our members can leave journal entries telling the world of their
experiences." 

"But let's get right down to it. You know the feeling you get after reading
a book that speaks to you, that touches your life, a feeling that you want
to share it with someone else? BookCrossing.com gives you a simple way to
share books with the world, and follow their paths forevermore! "


-- 
"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  Tue Mar  2 03:08:34 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 22:08:34 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
In-Reply-To: <Law9-F866xDDDOtpmbB00019579@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <000201c40003$a7447580$cc01a8c0@dellbert>

Brian Lee wrote,
> >From: "Harvey Newstrom" <mail at harveynewstrom.com>
> >I must respectfully disagree with this.  Markets are the
> >most efficient at maximizing profits.  But the most
> >profitable product is not necessarily the best one.
> >Most people can't afford the most expensive, best PC. 
> >So the most profitable PCs are the cheapo ones that
> >are "good enough" for "most" purposes.  But as for the
> >goal of what a PC should be, I do not find the market
> >acceptable.
> 
> The market here is affordable PCs.

You redefined my goal from "best PC" to "affordable PC".  The market might
be the best at making your "affordable PCs".  But I am still not convinced
that the market produces the "best PC" using criteria other than price.

> An HMO is not a market. If healthcare was market driven we would have
> greater availability and lower prices. As it is there is heavy govt 
> regulation.

I thought HMO's were the market's answer to healthcare.  I thought they
provided the cheapest healthcare as per market desires.  That's why I
suggested them as an example where the market maximizes money over quality.
If you can point out any other examples of market-driven health-care, I will
try to consider that.  But I still am not convinced that the market produces
the "best" quality of health-care rather than the most "cost-effective"
health-care.  Health-care seems to be the obvious example where price is NOT
the most important criteria.

> It would be pretty nice if we had full information on healthcare and 
> heavy competition.  Alas, we don't (yet) so the US has the bloated 
> system that we have. It could be a lot more efficient.

More efficient at what?  Controlling costs?  Or extending lifespan?  I am
not convinced that these are the same goals.  What happens if we want
maximum availability, effectiveness and quality instead of best cost,
effectiveness, and quantity?

-- 
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 GIAC Certified GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 





From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Mar  2 03:19:02 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 19:19:02 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
In-Reply-To: <000201c40003$a7447580$cc01a8c0@dellbert>
Message-ID: <000201c40005$1cdb3120$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


> Brian Lee wrote,

> > 
> > The market here is affordable PCs.
> 
> You redefined my goal from "best PC" to "affordable PC"...
> <HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 


I see a bunch of these P4 motherboards advertised, 2 GHz
motherboards for only 150 bucks.  What if you have an
application that requires massive parallel processing
and requires little or no communication between the
processors.  Is anyone making a grandmother board or
some kind of power supply rack that one could plug a
bunch of cheap motherboards into?  Perhaps 100 of them,
and make a cheap massively parallel computer?  Seems I
recall the computer jockeys talking about that some
time ago.  

spike



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Tue Mar  2 03:46:30 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 19:46:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
In-Reply-To: <000201c40005$1cdb3120$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403011929400.1952-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Spike wrote:

> Is anyone making a grandmother board or
> some kind of power supply rack that one could plug a
> bunch of cheap motherboards into?  Perhaps 100 of them,
> and make a cheap massively parallel computer?  Seems I
> recall the computer jockeys talking about that some
> time ago.

Sure Spike -- IBM is working on it with their variations
of the Blue Gene Project.  Cray also recently won a large
contract from Sandia to build a SC ("Red Storm") which
would use more than 10,000 AMD Opteron processors putting
the SC at 40+ TeraOps.  The problem isn't so much the
task of building a rack and shoving a bunch of motherboards
into it -- its the problems of (a) power-in; (b) heat-out;
(c) minimal inter-CPU communications delays; (d) reliability.
IBM for example is slowing down the speed of the CPUs because
they can't get them close enough to each other if they run
them at maximum speeds and have to deal problems (b), (c)
and (d).  (You of all people should know this -- how long
can you run your motorcycles at 1000 RPM above red line?)

There was a recent /. item where a bunch of people were going
to bring in 1000+ PCs into the school gym and wire them together
to form a supercomputer -- the comment someone made who really
understood the problem was what about the problem of whether
or not the gym is wired to provide ~250,000W of power(!).

Robert




From Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au  Tue Mar  2 05:28:47 2004
From: Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au (Emlyn ORegan)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 15:58:47 +1030
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
Message-ID: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE707C3C3@mmdsvr01.mm.local>

-----Original Message-----
From: Harvey Newstrom [mailto:mail at HarveyNewstrom.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2004 1:39 PM
To: 'ExI chat list'
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical

Brian Lee wrote,
> >From: "Harvey Newstrom" <mail at harveynewstrom.com>
> >I must respectfully disagree with this.  Markets are the
> >most efficient at maximizing profits.  But the most
> >profitable product is not necessarily the best one.
> >Most people can't afford the most expensive, best PC. 
> >So the most profitable PCs are the cheapo ones that
> >are "good enough" for "most" purposes.  But as for the
> >goal of what a PC should be, I do not find the market
> >acceptable.
> 
> The market here is affordable PCs.

You redefined my goal from "best PC" to "affordable PC".  The market
might
be the best at making your "affordable PCs".  But I am still not
convinced
that the market produces the "best PC" using criteria other than price.

---
Markets should always find the most acceptable price/quality tradeoff
for the average customer, within environmental parameters such as
accepted architecture. If the most common PCs are high quality but too
expensive, there will be a pressure to lower the price at the expense of
quality. Probably, the market keeps driving downward until the minimally
functional PC is discovered (any worse and it becomes too annoying to
use - hey presto, the wintel PC!).

In theory, in the short term, you should also be able to get excellent
PCs, just for a higher price. But over time, the environmental aspects
seem to degrade (the prominent architecture is driven by the minimum
acceptable needs for the masses, rather than the best architecture
possible), so the best PC available tends toward the absolutely highest
quality piece of shit that can possibly be made. In a way, though, that
can still tend to be an excellent beastie. It's just not the maximally
excellent machine that you can imagine, given X units of time of market
development. It may in fact be the best machine you could possibly
develop while taking into account all competing demands (such as the
price sensitive mass market).
---

> An HMO is not a market. If healthcare was market driven we would have
> greater availability and lower prices. As it is there is heavy govt 
> regulation.

I thought HMO's were the market's answer to healthcare.  I thought they
provided the cheapest healthcare as per market desires.  That's why I
suggested them as an example where the market maximizes money over
quality.
If you can point out any other examples of market-driven health-care, I
will
try to consider that.  But I still am not convinced that the market
produces
the "best" quality of health-care rather than the most "cost-effective"
health-care.  Health-care seems to be the obvious example where price is
NOT
the most important criteria.

> It would be pretty nice if we had full information on healthcare and 
> heavy competition.  Alas, we don't (yet) so the US has the bloated 
> system that we have. It could be a lot more efficient.

More efficient at what?  Controlling costs?  Or extending lifespan?  I
am
not convinced that these are the same goals.  What happens if we want
maximum availability, effectiveness and quality instead of best cost,
effectiveness, and quantity?

---
-- 
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 GIAC Certified
GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 


---
What do you mean by this, Harvey? Cost will always be a variable in this
equation. You need to say "maximum availability, effectiveness and
quality at cost setting X". Does "Maximum availability" mean the
greatest possible solution set for the masses, or development of the
most options possible for Bill Gates, should he get sick? Does maximum
effectiveness mean the treatments should always work (minimizing the
number of treatments so that this is true) or does it mean the optimal
tradeoff between availability and effectiveness? Does maximum quality
again mean at an affordable price, or the absolute maximum quality
available, irrespective of price (ie the most expensive solution
available)? 

Emlyn
-- 



***************************************************************************
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 dgc at cox.net  Tue Mar  2 05:26:29 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 00:26:29 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Earthlink ?
In-Reply-To: <191690-22004252716143818@M2W097.mail2web.com>
References: <191690-22004252716143818@M2W097.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <40441B05.3010904@cox.net>

natashavita at earthlink.net wrote:

>Am I the only fool still using earthlink?
>
>  
>
Hi, Natasha

Sorry for the late response.

There is a vey important distinction between internet access and 
internet presence.

Unfortunately, most people have a profound confusion between the two.

Are you using dial-up? if so, earthlink may (or may not) be a good way 
to accesss
the internet for you. The metric for access is how often your get 
connected when you
dial in, and how often you get disconnected.

After you successfully acess the internet, you can worry about your 
internet presence.
This is independent of your access. Currently, many of us have a 
"presence" that is associated
with our access provider, but there is no necessay correlation. Your 
"presence" includes your
web site and your e-mail address.

Clearly, in your case earthlink is not a good place for your presence, 
since your e-mail is not
working properly,

Where possible, you should establish a presence that is separate from 
your access.
Many people use hotmail instead of the e-mail account provided by their ISP.

In your case, you might consider establishing an e-mail account on the 
server that
hosts the extropy site. I assume that you are in communication with the 
administrator of
the site, and I assume (from the existence of the mailing list) that the 
site admin has control of
an instance of sendmail.

If you do this, you can be
    natasha at extropy.org
which decouples your presence from earthlink completely.

Depending on the conditions of the web site that hosts extropy.org,  
Extropy could offer
presence (i.e webhosting and e-mail) to other extropians.

In general de-coupling of access and presence fosters competition. If 
you know that your
e-mail address will not be affected, if is much easier to cancel your 
access account and move to
a  different provider.

I did not figure this out soon enough, so when I moved ISPs, I stupidly 
moved to a new e-mail address
with my new provider. My next move will move my presence to a domain 
that I control, regardless of my
access.









From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  2 05:34:38 2004
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 21:34:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
In-Reply-To: <Law9-F41Q7jPRfyHFOu00011660@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20040302053438.2424.qmail@web60505.mail.yahoo.com>


Brian Lee <brian_a_lee at hotmail.com> wrote:

The beauty of markets is that they don't need goals or
anyone trying to "do 
the right thing". 

*So what? I am not saying that markets need goals or
altruistic people in order to function. I am asking if
people need free unregulated markets. The beauty of
fish is that they don't need mascara does not qualify
fish as the best of all possible life forms.?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

* Ok, let's asume that this is true. What then is the
road to heaven paved with? Evil intentions??What if
you don't believe in either heaven or hell??I would
say that the road to oblivion is paved with
negligence.

They decrease overall costs and provide more benefit
than any benevolent guiding counsel could provide.
Look at the economic planning committees of the old
USSR and China to see how planning fails where an open
market succeeds.


You speak of the USSR and China as failures. Perhaps
the Soviet Union was?a failure but was it due solely
to their economic model? Or was it because it had the
most powerful country in the world as it's chief rival
undermining its efforts for 50 years? I?cannot analyze
the USSR because it no longer exists. But I?can
solidly conclude from analysis of the following data
that China is definately?NOT a failure.

   Population: US = 290 million,?China = 1.29 billion,
Winner = China
   GDP: US = $10.45 trillion, China = $5.99 trillion,
Winner = US
   GDP per capita: US = $36,300, China = $4,700,
Winner = US
   GDP real growth rate: US = 2.4%, China = 8.0%,
Winner = China
   %?below poverty: US = 12.7%, China = 10.0%, Winner
= China
   %GDP?held by poorest 10%:?US = 1.8%, China = 2.4%,
Winner =?China
   %GDP held by richest 10%: US =30.5%, China = 30.4%,
Winner = US?
   Inflation rate: US = 1.6%, China = -0.8%, Winner =
China
   Unemployment: US = 5.8%, China =?10.0%, Winner?= US

data source:

?http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html?

>From these 9 economic indicators, I have to conclude
that China is beating us 5 to 4. I therefore would not
by any means call China a failure. I find some of the
more interesting results of my analysis to be that
despite a higher percentage of unemployment in China,
a smaller fraction of their population is
impoverished.?There seems to be less of a discrepancy
between richest rich and the poorest poor in China.
Moreover by my calculations, assuming that?growth
rates remain unchanged, China's GDP will exceed ours
in 10.4 years.

Brian Lee <brian_a_lee at hotmail.com> wrote:

Markets contribute to the survival of the species by
providing lowest cost resources.

* In a perfect hypothetical free market (a
mathematical abstraction that no longer even
approximates reality) this would be the case. In
reality markets contribute to the wealth of
distributors by providing them with the lowest cost
resources in order to manufacture goods of
questionable value to be sold to the consumer at the
highest price that he can be convinced to pay.   

The goal of the market doesn't have to be "benefit
humanity" for the market to provide benefit.

* True but the goal of the market most certainly
should not be to make the wealthy wealthier at the
expense of the middle and lower classes. Price fixing,
insider trading, false advertising, corporate fraud,
mergers and aquistions, and other unsavory business
practices completely abrogate any benefit the market
has to offer the species. 
     Under the unethical way that so called "free
enterprise" is allowed to flourish in this day and
age, Adam Smith's proverbial invisible hand has become
a sinister tool of the ruling class that
surreptitously picks the pockets of the middle class,
squeezes the life blood from the poor and pummels its
dissenters.

_________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee when
you click here. 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

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



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From neptune at superlink.net  Tue Mar  2 05:46:23 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 00:46:23 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
References: <000201c40003$a7447580$cc01a8c0@dellbert>
Message-ID: <01f701c40019$b2cd5500$2acd5cd1@neptune>

On Monday, March 01, 2004 10:08 PM Harvey Newstrom
mail at HarveyNewstrom.com wrote:
>>> I must respectfully disagree with this.
>>> Markets are the most efficient at
>>> maximizing profits.  But the most
>>> profitable product is not necessarily
>>> the best one.  Most people can't afford
>>> the most expensive, best PC.  So the
>>> most profitable PCs are the cheapo
>>> ones that are "good enough" for
>>> "most" purposes.  But as for the goal
>>> of what a PC should be, I do not find
>>> the market acceptable.
> >
> > The market here is affordable PCs.
>
> You redefined my goal from "best PC" to
> "affordable PC".  The market might be
> the best at making your "affordable PCs".
> But I am still not convinced that the market
> produces the "best PC" using criteria other
> than price.

You want the best PC?  If you can afford it, you can get a lot.
However, most people set limits on how much they will pay for a PC.
They are willing to settle for less options or whatever if the price is
lower.  This is because they don't have infinite resources and costs
matter.

This is also an illustration of the paradox of freedom.  If you allow
people to be free to make their decisions -- decisions like buying a
PC -- they will make choices you disagree with -- even choices you feel
are stupid, wrong, suboptimal, unhealthy, etc.

>> An HMO is not a market. If healthcare was
>> market driven we would have greater
>> availability and lower prices. As it is there
>> is heavy govt regulation.
>
> I thought HMO's were the market's answer
> to healthcare.  I thought they provided the
> cheapest healthcare as per market desires.
> That's why I suggested them as an example
> where the market maximizes money over quality.
> If you can point out any other examples of
> market-driven health-care, I will try to consider
> that.  But I still am not convinced that the
> market produces the "best" quality of health-
> care rather than the most "cost-effective"
> health-care.  Health-care seems to be the
> obvious example where price is NOT
> the most important criteria.

HMOs are really a response to government intervention in the market.
Before the 1960s in the US, the government's subsidies in healthcare was
much smaller, amounting mostly to VA hospitals.  After that, though,
Medicare, Medicaid, etc.  This subsidized healthcare had the unintended
(but predictable to anyone who knows the law of supply and demand)
consequence of raising healthcare costs.  Since then, heathlcare costs
have continuously exceeded inflation.  (Even before the 1960s, there was
still a lot of government intervention in healthcare -- the FDA, the AMA
monopoly, doctor licensing, nurse licensing, etc.)

In 1973, the Congress passed the HMO Act.  This law subsidized HMOs and
mandated that any company providing employee health insurance had offer
an HMO option. Though this requirement was repealed in the mid-1990s,
the privileged status had alreadt made HMOs dominant in employer health
plans.  That's not the free market in action, but government
intervention distorting the market.

Also, in the US, employer health plans are fully tax deductible to the
employer, while the self-employed and others who seek to pay for
individual plans are not allowed the same deductibility.  This biases
the market toward employer plans, which again biases it in favor of
HMOs.

>> It would be pretty nice if we had full
>> information on healthcare and heavy
>> competition.  Alas, we don't (yet) so the
>> US has the bloated system that we
>> have. It could be a lot more efficient.
>
> More efficient at what?  Controlling costs?
> Or extending lifespan?  I am not convinced
> that these are the same goals.  What
> happens if we want maximum availability,
> effectiveness and quality instead of best cost,
> effectiveness, and quantity?

Therein lies the rub.  You look at these as all or nothing choices.
Either there is one monolithic system that is cost efficient or there's
one monolithic system that extends lifespan.  A true free market
approach would just be for people as individuals (or even collectively)
to bargain for healthcare services, drugs, approaches, etc.  The outcome
would probably vary a lot.  Some people would prefer low cost health
care.  E.g., a 20 year old college student in good health probably
wouldn't require more than just regular checkups and the rare emergency
care.  A 45 year old bread winner with three kids, a spouse, etc. might
be more risk averse in this area.  So she or he might want more
extensive coverage.  A religious person who doesn't want to live past
the time God has ordained might choose no healthcare.

Also, people will balance costs regardless.  Price competition merely
makes it easier for people to figure out the costs than through barter
or other means.  Yes, some people will choose to spend money on things
other than lifespan increase.  Look at how people live now.  Not
everyone who can afford it is on a life extension plan.  Heck, I know
many individuals who are quite well off -- certainly rich by my
standards -- who don't spend anything on life extension, eat crappy
food, don't exercise, etc.

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html



From amara at amara.com  Tue Mar  2 08:33:19 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 09:33:19 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Rosetta launch is so far successful
Message-ID: <p05100300bc69f60bdc51@[150.146.134.133]>


9:30 2 March, Central Europe time
The Rosetta launch from ESA's Kourou station is so far successful.
The initial lift off was incredibly smooth and fast. (So few
'flames'! Just straight up and fast and then away! Like a dream.)
The first stage released, then the protective fairing separated.
 From an initial speed of 2 km/s, Rosetta was accelerated to 8 km/s,
and now it is in a coasting (ballistic) phase, in earth orbit, for
about 30 minutes more (2 hours total in the coasting phase). At about
10am, Europe time, the second stage must kick in and accelerate
Rosetta to at least Earth's escape velocity at that altitude (about
11 km/s or perhaps slightly less). Then off to the comet, with the
following detour to pick up the necessary energy from the
gravitational fields of Earth and Mars until 2014.


First Earth fly-by: November 2005
Mars fly-by: February 2007
Second Earth fly-by: November 2007
Third Earth fly-by: November 2009
(It will travel through the asteroid belt twice)

Deep-space hibernation: May 2011 - January 2014

Comet approach: January-May 2014
Comet mapping / Characterization: August 2014
Landing on the comet: November 2014
Escorting comet around the Sun: November 2014 to December 2015

When it meets Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, it will be near the
comet's aphelion distance from the Sun ~5.2 AU (this is orbital
position of Jupiter). The reason for meeting it at that part of its
orbit is that the comet's orbit is highly eccentric (0.6), and since
Rosetta has to match speeds, it needs to do it at the part of the
orbit when the comet is traveling slowest (remember Kepler's Second
Law). I think the comet is traveling roughly 15 km/s at that time.

Now holding the breathe for the last part of the launch.

Amara

(about Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko)
http://www.esa.int/export/SPECIALS/Rosetta/ESAGJF7708D_0.html
-- 

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  Tue Mar  2 10:24:18 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 11:24:18 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Rosetta is on its way!
Message-ID: <p05100300bc6a0f6c701c@[150.146.134.133]>


About 45 minutes ago, after Rosetta completed one Earth orbit (in
'barbeque' mode, they call it, as it rotates slowly as if on a spit)
with the second stage of the launcher, the spacecraft was accelerated
to Earth escape velocity (about 10.2 km/s). Then the spacecraft
separated from the second stage rocket, and started its 'liberation'
orbit.

Ten years of development, now ten years to the comet!

(Strawberry wine and many smiles and choked emotions here....)

-- 

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 brian_a_lee at hotmail.com  Tue Mar  2 14:34:35 2004
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 09:34:35 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
Message-ID: <Law9-F62BN9CZ9WEdgM0001d9f7@hotmail.com>




>From: "Harvey Newstrom" <mail at harveynewstrom.com>
>To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
>Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 22:08:34 -0500
>
>Brian Lee wrote,
> > >From: "Harvey Newstrom" <mail at harveynewstrom.com>
> > >I must respectfully disagree with this.  Markets are the
> > >most efficient at maximizing profits.  But the most
> > >profitable product is not necessarily the best one.
> > >Most people can't afford the most expensive, best PC.
> > >So the most profitable PCs are the cheapo ones that
> > >are "good enough" for "most" purposes.  But as for the
> > >goal of what a PC should be, I do not find the market
> > >acceptable.
> >
> > The market here is affordable PCs.
>
>You redefined my goal from "best PC" to "affordable PC".  The market might
>be the best at making your "affordable PCs".  But I am still not convinced
>that the market produces the "best PC" using criteria other than price.

Ahh, but isn't the "best" PC one that is only $500? The market gets you the 
most processing power for the lowest dollar. It also makes the highest 
performing PCs as cheap as possible. A good example of a market is going to 
pricewatch.com or ibuyer.net. Low barriers to entry, full information.

A bunch of these cheap pcs are clustered together to beat out the huge super 
computers at a fraction of the price. How would you propose creating the 
"best PC"? What is "best" anyway?

>I thought HMO's were the market's answer to healthcare.  I thought they
>provided the cheapest healthcare as per market desires.  That's why I
>suggested them as an example where the market maximizes money over quality.
>If you can point out any other examples of market-driven health-care, I 
>will
>try to consider that.  But I still am not convinced that the market 
>produces
>the "best" quality of health-care rather than the most "cost-effective"
>health-care.  Health-care seems to be the obvious example where price is 
>NOT
>the most important criteria.

I understand your point, but an HMO is an example of how not having a market 
fails. The problem is that drugs and care are heavily regulated and 
legislation has more of an effect on prices/quality than any market forces.

>More efficient at what?  Controlling costs?  Or extending lifespan?  I am
>not convinced that these are the same goals.  What happens if we want
>maximum availability, effectiveness and quality instead of best cost,
>effectiveness, and quantity?

If someone really wants to pay to extend their lifespan then the market is 
better to provide these services than govt/hmo/healthcare companies. Look at 
the prices/services created by medical procedures that aren't covered by 
healthcare: cosmetic surgery, massage. These fields have increased services 
while maintaining, lowering price.

BAL

_________________________________________________________________
Fast. Reliable. Get MSN 9 Dial-up - 1 month FREE! (Limited-time Offer) 
http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/



From rafal at smigrodzki.org  Tue Mar  2 17:42:38 2004
From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 09:42:38 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
In-Reply-To: <20040302053438.2424.qmail@web60505.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <OJEHKDIANIFPAJPDBDGLMEICDAAA.rafal@smigrodzki.org>

The Avantguardian wrote:
 But I can
> solidly conclude from analysis of the following data
> that China is definately NOT a failure.
>
>    Population: US = 290 million, China = 1.29 billion,
> Winner = China
>    GDP: US = $10.45 trillion, China = $5.99 trillion,
> Winner = US
>    GDP per capita: US = $36,300, China = $4,700,
> Winner = US
>    GDP real growth rate: US = 2.4%, China = 8.0%,
> Winner = China
>    % below poverty: US = 12.7%, China = 10.0%, Winner
> = China
>    %GDP held by poorest 10%: US = 1.8%, China = 2.4%,
> Winner = China
>    %GDP held by richest 10%: US =30.5%, China = 30.4%,
> Winner = US?
>    Inflation rate: US = 1.6%, China = -0.8%, Winner =
> China
>    Unemployment: US = 5.8%, China = 10.0%, Winner = US
>
> data source:
>
>  http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html
>
>> From these 9 economic indicators, I have to conclude
> that China is beating us 5 to 4. I therefore would not
> by any means call China a failure. I find some of the
> more interesting results of my analysis to be that
> despite a higher percentage of unemployment in China,
> a smaller fraction of their population is
> impoverished. There seems to be less of a discrepancy
> between richest rich and the poorest poor in China.
> Moreover by my calculations, assuming that growth
> rates remain unchanged, China's GDP will exceed ours
> in 10.4 years.

### Tellingly, all these numbers came *after* the end of communist economic
policies in China. If anything, China is a poster boy for the free market,
not central planning.

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

>      Under the unethical way that so called "free
> enterprise" is allowed to flourish in this day and
> age, Adam Smith's proverbial invisible hand has become
> a sinister tool of the ruling class that
> surreptitously picks the pockets of the middle class,
> squeezes the life blood from the poor and pummels its
> dissenters.

### Yeah, yeah, we heard it before, silly commie rhetoric.

Rafal



From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com  Tue Mar  2 14:44:20 2004
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 09:44:20 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
Message-ID: <Law9-F32pj53XaDFuXC000116b5@hotmail.com>

>From: The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
>Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 21:34:38 -0800 (PST)
>
>The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
>
>* Ok, let's asume that this is true. What then is the
>road to heaven paved with? Evil intentions??What if
>you don't believe in either heaven or hell??I would
>say that the road to oblivion is paved with
>negligence.

Are you serious? Are you analyzing the cliche "Road to hell..." by arguing 
whether hell and heaven exist? Are familiar with the concepts of heaven and 
hell? When someone tells you to "Go to hell" do you then try to determine if 
their concept of hell is negative or do you just feel like they are pissed 
with you? If you eat a nice piece of pie and say "I'm in heaven" I think 
I'll get your intentions.

>You speak of the USSR and China as failures. Perhaps
>the Soviet Union was?a failure but was it due solely
>to their economic model? Or was it because it had the
>most powerful country in the world as it's chief rival
>undermining its efforts for 50 years? I?cannot analyze
>the USSR because it no longer exists. But I?can
>solidly conclude from analysis of the following data
>that China is definately?NOT a failure.
>
>    Population: US = 290 million,?China = 1.29 billion,
>Winner = China
>    GDP: US = $10.45 trillion, China = $5.99 trillion,
>Winner = US
>    GDP per capita: US = $36,300, China = $4,700,
>Winner = US
>    GDP real growth rate: US = 2.4%, China = 8.0%,
>Winner = China
>    %?below poverty: US = 12.7%, China = 10.0%, Winner
>= China
>    %GDP?held by poorest 10%:?US = 1.8%, China = 2.4%,
>Winner =?China
>    %GDP held by richest 10%: US =30.5%, China = 30.4%,
>Winner = US?
>    Inflation rate: US = 1.6%, China = -0.8%, Winner =
>China
>    Unemployment: US = 5.8%, China =?10.0%, Winner?= US
>
>data source:
>
>?http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html?
>
> >From these 9 economic indicators, I have to conclude
>that China is beating us 5 to 4. I therefore would not
>by any means call China a failure. I find some of the
>more interesting results of my analysis to be that
>despite a higher percentage of unemployment in China,
>a smaller fraction of their population is
>impoverished.?There seems to be less of a discrepancy
>between richest rich and the poorest poor in China.
>Moreover by my calculations, assuming that?growth
>rates remain unchanged, China's GDP will exceed ours
>in 10.4 years.

Note that China is growing at such a click because of market forces. China 
is going to be an economic powerhouse (should surpass the US GDP by 2030) 
not because of planned economies but because of markets.

BAL

_________________________________________________________________
Fast. Reliable. Get MSN 9 Dial-up - 1 month FREE! (Limited-time Offer) 
http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/



From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Mar  2 15:18:40 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 16:18:40 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
In-Reply-To: <Law9-F62BN9CZ9WEdgM0001d9f7@hotmail.com>
References: <Law9-F62BN9CZ9WEdgM0001d9f7@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20040302151840.GP17144@leitl.org>

On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 09:34:35AM -0500, Brian Lee wrote:

> Ahh, but isn't the "best" PC one that is only $500? The market gets you the 

"Best" is useless without attaching a metric. By adding a Microsoft tax
(something like $100) to hardware and removing my ability to purchase a
system without an OS license I as a consumer can no longer vote with my feet;
that is, wallet. This is monopoly ramming things down our collective throats
to maximize revenue, nothing else.

Markets don't have mechanisms to nuke monopolies, other than by the
relatively weak mechanism of disruptive technologies introduced by small
players (when the monopoly's become sluggish enough to not be able to
identify and hostile-takeover these new players). There are some weak 
attempts by the state trying to regulate the monopolies, but I'm not 
very impressed with their firepower, so far. More $$$s buys more legal
firepower, neither are people behind the scene nyms so they can be bribed or
threatened.

> most processing power for the lowest dollar. It also makes the highest 

Computing is a holistic experience. "Most processing power" depends on a
benchmark. 

> performing PCs as cheap as possible. A good example of a market is going to 

I prefer total cost of ownership.

> pricewatch.com or ibuyer.net. Low barriers to entry, full information.

Allright, there is a "NO OS" as option on pricewatch. Interesting, you won't
get that in 99% of shops, and you'll get stonewalled when attemting to return
the shrinkwrap package for reimbursement.
 
> A bunch of these cheap pcs are clustered together to beat out the huge 
> super computers at a fraction of the price. How would you propose creating 

The architecture of the computer has to fit the problem. Commodity components
with custom signalling fabric have usually an edge by low price through high
volume and support from computational physics (maintaining illusion of shared
memory is expensive, and is just a glossy finish over message passing
underneath -- send message "read/write location" to object "core").

> the "best PC"? What is "best" anyway?

Without defining that first, the question is meaningless.
 
Ditto applies for blanket statements about markets: they're not "always best"
for everything. They optimize locally, very locally in fact. They favor
emergence of monopolies, which does lower the optimization performance.
There's a wild card of altruistic long-term-loss planners, but that's a
human, not market-intrinsic property.

The state is not your friend, neither is the corporation. If you're a smart,
rational consumer, and not mindless cattle sliding down the slaughterhouse
chute, that is.

-- 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/20040302/0016b33b/attachment.bin>

From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com  Tue Mar  2 16:11:17 2004
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 11:11:17 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
Message-ID: <Law9-F263LmoxhuuflQ0001e317@hotmail.com>

Avoid the "Microsoft tax" by not buying from shops that force windows down 
your throat. There are enough vendors who will sell a naked PC to 
accommodate the small portion of users who prefer this. Even dell offers red 
hat on some workstations (even though they "recommend Microsoft Windows XP 
Professional".

The PC market is an excellent example of a successful market. Linux shows 
what happens when MS starts flexing its monopoly to keep prices high and 
force uneeded software purchases.

Of cource markets are not always perfect. But they are usually best. I tend 
to favor self-regulating systems where it's in the individual nodes' selfish 
interests to be efficient.

I purposely left out metrics for "processing power", "best" etc as I don't 
think defining those is necessary for the spirit of this conversation.

BAL

>From: Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org>
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
>Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 16:18:40 +0100
>
>On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 09:34:35AM -0500, Brian Lee wrote:
>
> > Ahh, but isn't the "best" PC one that is only $500? The market gets you 
>the
>
>"Best" is useless without attaching a metric. By adding a Microsoft tax
>(something like $100) to hardware and removing my ability to purchase a
>system without an OS license I as a consumer can no longer vote with my 
>feet;
>that is, wallet. This is monopoly ramming things down our collective 
>throats
>to maximize revenue, nothing else.
>
>Markets don't have mechanisms to nuke monopolies, other than by the
>relatively weak mechanism of disruptive technologies introduced by small
>players (when the monopoly's become sluggish enough to not be able to
>identify and hostile-takeover these new players). There are some weak
>attempts by the state trying to regulate the monopolies, but I'm not
>very impressed with their firepower, so far. More $$$s buys more legal
>firepower, neither are people behind the scene nyms so they can be bribed 
>or
>threatened.
>
> > most processing power for the lowest dollar. It also makes the highest
>
>Computing is a holistic experience. "Most processing power" depends on a
>benchmark.
>
> > performing PCs as cheap as possible. A good example of a market is going 
>to
>
>I prefer total cost of ownership.
>
> > pricewatch.com or ibuyer.net. Low barriers to entry, full information.
>
>Allright, there is a "NO OS" as option on pricewatch. Interesting, you 
>won't
>get that in 99% of shops, and you'll get stonewalled when attemting to 
>return
>the shrinkwrap package for reimbursement.
>
> > A bunch of these cheap pcs are clustered together to beat out the huge
> > super computers at a fraction of the price. How would you propose 
>creating
>
>The architecture of the computer has to fit the problem. Commodity 
>components
>with custom signalling fabric have usually an edge by low price through 
>high
>volume and support from computational physics (maintaining illusion of 
>shared
>memory is expensive, and is just a glossy finish over message passing
>underneath -- send message "read/write location" to object "core").
>
> > the "best PC"? What is "best" anyway?
>
>Without defining that first, the question is meaningless.
>
>Ditto applies for blanket statements about markets: they're not "always 
>best"
>for everything. They optimize locally, very locally in fact. They favor
>emergence of monopolies, which does lower the optimization performance.
>There's a wild card of altruistic long-term-loss planners, but that's a
>human, not market-intrinsic property.
>
>The state is not your friend, neither is the corporation. If you're a 
>smart,
>rational consumer, and not mindless cattle sliding down the slaughterhouse
>chute, that is.
>
>-- 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
><< attach4 >>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

_________________________________________________________________
Frustrated with dial-up? Lightning-fast Internet access for as low as 
$29.95/month. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200360ave/direct/01/



From natashavita at earthlink.net  Tue Mar  2 16:40:09 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 11:40:09 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] TRAVEL:  Spain (Cyber@rt Conferece - Bilbao)
Message-ID: <54470-2200432216409543@M2W063.mail2web.com>

International travelers!

Does anyone have experience traveling to Spain?  If so, what airlines do
you use?

I'll be attending and speaking at the Cyber at rts conference in Bilbao, Spain
the end of April.  http://www.ciberart-bilbao.net/  

If anyone can suggest a place to stay that is muy inexpensive or a friend
to stay with, please let me know.

Thank you,

Natasha



Natasha Vita-More
http://www.natasha.cc



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




From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Tue Mar  2 16:43:55 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 16:43:55 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
Message-ID: <4044B9CB.3050304@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

On Tue Mar 02, 2004 08:18 am Eugen Leitl wrote:
> By adding a Microsoft tax (something like $100) to hardware and
> removing my ability to purchase a system without an OS license I as a 
> consumer can no longer vote with my feet; that is, wallet. This is
> monopoly ramming things down our collective throats to maximize
> revenue, nothing else.

Heh! How very generous of you Eugen.
You getting soft in your old age? ;)

Dana Blankenhorn wrote an article recently, entitled 'A Tipping Point'
<http://www.corante.com/mooreslore/archives/001932.html>
He is a business/computer journalist about to buy a new computer for his
business, so it needs to be a Windows machine.
He found a nice cheap 'white box', then discovered he needs $146.75 for
Windows XP Pro, and Office Depot sells Office 2003 for about $400.
If you need more M$ software, it gets even worse.

M$ will be giving computers away free soon, if you buy their software!

BillK




From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Mar  2 17:08:00 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 18:08:00 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Earthlink ?
In-Reply-To: <40441B05.3010904@cox.net>
References: <191690-22004252716143818@M2W097.mail2web.com>
	<40441B05.3010904@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20040302170759.GG18046@leitl.org>

On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 12:26:29AM -0500, Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> I did not figure this out soon enough, so when I moved ISPs, I stupidly 
> moved to a new e-mail address
> with my new provider. My next move will move my presence to a domain 
> that I control, regardless of my
> access.

I recommend GeekMail http://geekmail.com/ for your email needs. There are
eap domain registrars aplenty, and also free DNS services (I currently use
http://www.everydns.net/ ), but one could run a DNS server on one's own co-lo
machine -- these are down to 30 EUR/month, 100 GByte/month traffic included.
Virtual hosting is of course but a fraction of that.

There are several solutions for several user profiles. It depends on your
budget and your needs (and the amount of worst-case hassle you want to deal
with).

I'm curious how you're dealing with your online needs. Any name-dropping
welcome.

-- 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/20040302/b903f47e/attachment.bin>

From eliasen at mindspring.com  Tue Mar  2 17:50:59 2004
From: eliasen at mindspring.com (Alan Eliasen)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 10:50:59 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
In-Reply-To: <20040302053438.2424.qmail@web60505.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040302053438.2424.qmail@web60505.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4044C983.9010209@mindspring.com>


The Avantguardian wrote:
>    GDP: US = $10.45 trillion, China = $5.99 trillion,
> Winner = US
>    GDP per capita: US = $36,300, China = $4,700,
> Winner = China
>    % below poverty: US = 12.7%, China = 10.0%, Winner
> = China

   Huh?  So the U.S.'s GDP per capita is almost 8 times that of China, and
their entire massed nation's GDP per capita is less than half of the U.S.'s
definition of poverty ($9,573/person for a single person in the U.S. in 2003),
and somehow they're "winning" the poverty battle?

   I know statistics can be made to lie, but this is ridiculous.  One could
argue that the cost of living is ridiculously lower in China, and that all of
the GDP goes directly to the working man, leaving everyone earning at least
half of the U.S. poverty line, but somehow I'm skeptical.  I'm leaving for
China in a few hours.  I'll let you know when I get back.

-- 
  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 mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Tue Mar  2 18:27:00 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 13:27:00 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
In-Reply-To: <01f701c40019$b2cd5500$2acd5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <005b01c40083$f450d370$cc01a8c0@dellbert>

Technotranscendence wrote,
> You want the best PC?  If you can afford it, you can get a lot. 
> However, most people set limits on how much they will pay for a PC. 
> They are willing to settle for less options or whatever if the price 
> is lower.  This is because they don't have infinite resources and 
> costs matter.

Exactly my point.  Most people want cheap PCs and that is what the market
focuses on providing.  If you want some fringe attribute besides price that
most people don't want, the market is not geared toward serving you.

> This is also an illustration of the paradox of freedom.  If you allow 
> people to be free to make their decisions -- decisions like buying a 
> PC -- they will make choices you disagree with -- even choices you 
> feel are stupid, wrong, suboptimal, unhealthy, etc.

Exactly my point.  Most people choose suboptimal goals, and the market fills
these suboptimal goals.  Thus, the market choices are often suboptimal.

> Therein lies the rub.  You look at these as all or nothing choices. 
> Either there is one monolithic system that is cost efficient or 
> there's one monolithic system that extends lifespan.

I do see cheap healthcare and life-extension at opposite ends of the
spectrum.  Cheap healthcare plans don't offer life-extension.
Life-extension plans don't come cheap.  You cannot get both cheapness and
life-extension in the same plan today.  The market can optimize toward one
end of the spectrum or the other.  It currently seems to be choosing price
over life-extension.  Therefore, the market/majority goals are not my goals
(right now).

-- 
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 GIAC Certified GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Tue Mar  2 18:26:46 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 13:26:46 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Earthlink ?
In-Reply-To: <40441B05.3010904@cox.net>
Message-ID: <005a01c40083$ecd7add0$cc01a8c0@dellbert>

Dan Clemmensen wrote,
> In general de-coupling of access and presence fosters competition. If
> you know that you e-mail address will not be affected, if is much
> easier to cancel your access account and move to a different provider.
> 
> I did not figure this out soon enough, so when I moved ISPs,
> I stupidly moved to a new e-mail address with my new provider.
> My next move will move my presence to a domain that I control,
> regardless of my access.

You can do this with your website and domain name too.  This is how I have
my website and e-mail at <HarveyNewstrom.com>:

1.  Register your domain name yourself (mine is at NameSecure.com) instead
of letting your ISP register and own your domain name.  That way you own it
instead of them.

2.  Then you can point your domain name to any website and e-mail server you
want.  It takes a day or so to propagate the update to all the nameservers
on the internet.

3.  The Internet will see you at your website url or your e-mail all the
time.  It doesn't matter what local ISP you use, or what your local URL or
e-mail looks like.  Your domain name will forward to your local web and
e-mail.  You can switch the pointers yourself (with NameSecure at least) and
do not need the ISPs to cooperate.  As long as your web or e-mail works,
your domain forwarding can redirect everybody to it.

-- 
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 GIAC Certified GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Tue Mar  2 18:27:52 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 13:27:52 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
In-Reply-To: <Law9-F62BN9CZ9WEdgM0001d9f7@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <005c01c40084$16def4d0$cc01a8c0@dellbert>

Brian Lee wrote,
> >You redefined my goal from "best PC" to "affordable PC".

> Ahh, but isn't the "best" PC one that is only $500?

Maybe for most people, but not necessarily for everyone.

> How would you propose creating the "best PC"? What is "best" anyway?

You cannot define "best" without specifying "best for this specific
purpose."  You choose price as your goal, and the market provides this.
Other people may choose different goals, and the market may not provide
this.

Spike's best prime number crunching machine might be a giant array of
arithmetic chips.  Natasha's best artwork machine may be a wall-sized
graphical display with laserpointer cursors.  Anders' brain best
neurosimulation machine might be a neural net with evolving nodes.
Eliezer's best friendly AI machine might have Flare firmware in flash proms
for self-editing hardware.  Nanogirl's best nanotech machine might be a
holographic display with a 3-D object printer.  Steve Mann's best computer
might be clothes made of flexible circuitry with wearable/detachable
peripherals.  My best machine might be an integrated control structured
database with security levels, tempest dampening, continuous biometric
authentication and DNA encryption.  A blind person's computer might not even
have a visible screen.

There is no single "best" PC for everybody.  Whatever the market converges
toward will be the best market-price machine.  But it might not be best for
any of our individual needs.  It is just too simplistic to assume that
whatever the market chooses is the best answer for everybody.

> If someone really wants to pay to extend their lifespan then the 
> market is better to provide these services than govt/hmo/healthcare 
> companies. Look at the prices/services created by medical procedures 
> that aren't covered by healthcare: cosmetic surgery, massage. These 
> fields have increased services while maintaining, lowering price.

I disagree.  Markets may work better than focused efforts by companies or
governments, but I don't see this as automatically true.  Cosmetic surgery
and massage are optimized in the market because many people want to pay for
them.  Orphan drugs and life-extension drugs are not as popular, and are not
as optimized by the market.  The market is a popularity contest where the
majority rules.  I don't see how currently unpopular goals such as
life-extension or self-modification will be supported as efficiently as the
popular choices.

-- 
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 GIAC Certified GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com  Tue Mar  2 18:41:18 2004
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 13:41:18 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
Message-ID: <Law9-F102lWIVBqWZD20001e972@hotmail.com>

>From: "Harvey Newstrom" <mail at harveynewstrom.com>
>To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
>Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 13:27:52 -0500
>
>Brian Lee wrote,
> > >You redefined my goal from "best PC" to "affordable PC".
>
> > Ahh, but isn't the "best" PC one that is only $500?
>
>Maybe for most people, but not necessarily for everyone.
>
> > How would you propose creating the "best PC"? What is "best" anyway?
>
>You cannot define "best" without specifying "best for this specific
>purpose."  You choose price as your goal, and the market provides this.
>Other people may choose different goals, and the market may not provide
>this.
>
>Spike's best prime number crunching machine might be a giant array of
>arithmetic chips.  Natasha's best artwork machine may be a wall-sized
>graphical display with laserpointer cursors.  Anders' brain best
>neurosimulation machine might be a neural net with evolving nodes.
>Eliezer's best friendly AI machine might have Flare firmware in flash proms
>for self-editing hardware.  Nanogirl's best nanotech machine might be a
>holographic display with a 3-D object printer.  Steve Mann's best computer
>might be clothes made of flexible circuitry with wearable/detachable
>peripherals.  My best machine might be an integrated control structured
>database with security levels, tempest dampening, continuous biometric
>authentication and DNA encryption.  A blind person's computer might not 
>even
>have a visible screen.
>
>There is no single "best" PC for everybody.  Whatever the market converges
>toward will be the best market-price machine.  But it might not be best for
>any of our individual needs.  It is just too simplistic to assume that
>whatever the market chooses is the best answer for everybody.

The market doesn't "choose" anything. It reduces prices. It is 
understandable that there are many "best" computer systems. It's not like 
the market creates only 1 PC and everyone must use it. The market creates 
cheap grandma PCs ($400 and a printer guys), cheap graphics workstations, 
cheap supercomputers, etc etc. It lowers the prices of all the components so 
people can build their own (without windows if they so desire).

So there is nothing stopping you from buying your "best" PC, but you can 
thank the market system for it being as cheap as it is (or expensive 
depending on your perspective).

>I disagree.  Markets may work better than focused efforts by companies or
>governments, but I don't see this as automatically true.  Cosmetic surgery
>and massage are optimized in the market because many people want to pay for
>them.  Orphan drugs and life-extension drugs are not as popular, and are 
>not
>as optimized by the market.  The market is a popularity contest where the
>majority rules.  I don't see how currently unpopular goals such as
>life-extension or self-modification will be supported as efficiently as the
>popular choices.
>

Again, it's not like the market is some monolithic system that cranks out 
only aspirin for $.10. There are markets for life-extension processes. As 
this becomes more popular then more treatments will become available and 
then become less expensive.

I don't think HMOs will pay for these kind of elective procedures (is life 
extension elective? no one wants to die) because it would be highly 
unprofitable for them. HMOs are not a market. My exposure with HMOs was 
terrible that's why I switched to other healthcare plans (PPO/POS).

BAL

_________________________________________________________________
Learn how to help protect your privacy and prevent fraud online at Tech 
Hacks & Scams. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/techsafety.armx



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  2 21:39:16 2004
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 13:39:16 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
In-Reply-To: <OJEHKDIANIFPAJPDBDGLMEICDAAA.rafal@smigrodzki.org>
Message-ID: <20040302213916.17987.qmail@web60505.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal at smigrodzki.org> wrote:
> 
> ### Tellingly, all these numbers came *after* the
> end of communist economic
> policies in China. If anything, China is a poster
> boy for the free market,
> not central planning.

     Actually China is a poster boy of pragmatism and
the willingness to change for the better. It is not a
free market economy in the sense that we are. They are
only gradually relaxing state control but they have
nowhere near done away with it completely. My point is
not that centralized economic planning is better than
laissez-faire capitalism, but that there is an optimum
combination of the two.
     Some industries should be be more tightly
regulated than others. I am willing to bet the ideal
state is economically somewhere Right of China and
Left of the USA, in that grey area between capitalism
and communism. 
     The real problem facing our country is that we
give companies (not individuals) way too much freedom.
Special interest controlled politicians are taking
away individual liberties and yet giving corporations
rights that put them above the law. We see this with
the export of manufacturing jobs out of the country to
take advantage of looser pollution laws and cheaper
labor. Because of this, America is becoming a service
economy- a country composed of servants- a nation of
burger-flippers and waitresses. 
     In my opinion, an American company that fires
Americans and hires Malaysians to do the same job for
cheaper is comitting treason and should be punished by
the American government by tariffs. If an American
company moves overseas in order to circumvent
anti-pollution laws, then the companies shopuld be
extradited back to America and penalized just like any
other fugitive from justice. It would not be so bad,
if the companies passed those savings on to the
consumers and lowered the cost of living in the US.
But that sure didn't happen. I don't remember Nike's
getting any cheaper when they moved their factories to
the SE Asian sweatshops to make their shoes for
pennies instead of minimum wage. Nike gets all the
benefits of an American company, yet it doesn't give
anything back to America. Also I think if an American
company moves overseas in order to circumvent
anti-pollution laws, then the company should be
extradited back to America and penalized just like any
other fugitive from justice. Either that or we face
government of the people, by the companies, for the
companies, and I don't think that's what Lincoln had
in mind.  


> ### Yeah, yeah, we heard it before, silly commie
> rhetoric.

well ok, I realized after the fact that the rhetoric
sounds communist, but my ideas are not. It's funny how
if you aren't all for the wanton rape of the world by
greedy businessmen, you are labeled a communist. 

=====
The Avantguardian 


"He stands like some sort of pagan god or deposed tyrant. Staring out over the city he's sworn to . . .to stare out over and it's evident just by looking at him that he's got some pretty heavy things on his mind."

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Tue Mar  2 22:51:33 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 14:51:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bubble fusion--strong evidence for it.
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403021451100.26323-100000@server.aeiveos.com>



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 14:50:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Robert J. Bradbury <bradbury at aeiveos.com>
To: Transhumantech mailing list <transhumantech at egroups.com>
Subject: Bubble fusion--strong evidence for it.


> Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 17:58:17 +0000
> From: Tatiana Covington <tatianacovington at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Bubble fusion--strong evidence for it.

Theresa Bourgeois
bourgt at rpi.edu
http://www.rpi.edu/web/News/press_releases/2004/lahey.htm

Researchers Report Bubble Fusion Results Replicated. Physical Review E
publishes paper on fusion experiment conducted with upgraded measurement
system.

TROY, N.Y. ? Physical Review E has announced the publication of an article
by a team of researchers from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), Purdue
University, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), and the Russian Academy of
Science (RAS) stating that they have replicated and extended previous
experimental results that indicated the occurrence of nuclear fusion using a
novel approach for plasma confinement. This approach, called bubble fusion,
and the new experimental results are being published in an extensively
peer-reviewed article titled ?Additional Evidence of Nuclear Emissions
During Acoustic Cavitation,? which is scheduled to be posted on Physical
Review E?s Web site and published in its journal this month.

The research team used a standing ultrasonic wave to help form and then
implode the cavitation bubbles of deuterated acetone vapor. The oscillating
sound waves caused the bubbles to expand and then violently collapse,
creating strong compression shock waves around and inside the bubbles.
Moving at about the speed of sound, the internal shock waves impacted at the
center of the bubbles causing very high compression and accompanying
temperatures of about 100 million K.

These new data were taken with an upgraded instrumentation system that
allowed data acquisition over a much longer time than was possible in the
team?s previous bubble fusion experiments. According to the new data, the
observed neutron emission was several orders of magnitude greater than
background and had extremely high statistical accuracy. Tritium, which also
is produced during the fusion reactions, was measured and the amount
produced was found to be consistent with the observed neutron production
rate. Earlier test data, which were reported in Science (Vol. 295, March
2002), indicated that nuclear fusion had occurred, but these data were
questioned because they were taken with less precise instrumentation.

?These extensive new experiments have replicated and extended our earlier
results and hopefully answer all of the previous questions surrounding our
discovery,? said Richard T. Lahey Jr., the Edward E. Hood Professor of
Engineering at Rensselaer and the director of the analytical part of the
joint research project. Other fusion techniques, such as those that use
strong magnetic fields or lasers to contain the plasma, cannot easily
achieve the necessary compression, Lahey said. In the approach to be
published in Physical Review E, spherical compression of the plasma was
achieved due to the inertia of the liquid surrounding the imploding bubbles.
Professor Lahey also explained that, unlike fission reactors, fusion does
not produce a significant amount of radioactive waste products or decay
heat. Tritium gas, a radioactive by-product of deuterium-deuterium bubble
fusion, is actually a part of the fuel, which can be consumed in
deuterium-tritium fusion reactions.

Researchers Rusi Taleyarkhan, Colin West, and Jae-Seon Cho conducted the
bubble fusion experiments at ORNL. At Rensselaer and in Russia, Professors
Lahey and Robert I. Nigmatulin performed the theoretical analysis of the
bubble dynamics and predicted the shock-induced pressures, temperatures, and
densities in the imploding vapor bubbles. Robert Block, professor emeritus
of nuclear engineering at Rensselaer, helped to design, set up, and
calibrate a state-of-the-art neutron and gamma ray detection system for the
new experiments. Special hydrodynamic shock codes have been developed in
both Russia and at Rensselaer to support and interpret the ORNL experiments.
These computer codes indicated that the peak gas temperatures and densities
in the ORNL experiments were sufficiently high to create fusion reactions.
Indeed, the theoretical shock code predictions of deuterium-deuterium (D-D)
fusion were consistent with the ORNL data.

The research team leaders are all well known authorities in the fields of
multiphase flow and heat transfer technology and nuclear engineering.
Taleyarkhan, a fellow of the American Nuclear Society (ANS) and the
program?s director, held the position of Distinguished Scientist at ORNL,
and is currently the Ardent Bement Jr. Professor of Nuclear Engineering at
Purdue University. Lahey is a fellow of both the ANS and the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), and is a member of the National
Academy of Engineering (NAE). Nigmatulin is a visiting scholar at
Rensselaer, a member of the Russian Duma, and the president of the
Bashkortonstan branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS). Block is a
fellow of the ANS and is the longtime director of the Gaerttner Linear
Accelerator (LINAC) Laboratory at Rensselaer. The bubble fusion research
program was supported by a grant from the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA).
*************
Purdue News
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/2004/0400302.Taleyarkhan.fusion.html
March 2, 2004

Evidence bubbles over to support tabletop nuclear fusion device
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. ? Researchers are reporting new evidence supporting
their earlier discovery of an inexpensive "tabletop" device that uses sound
waves to produce nuclear fusion reactions. The researchers believe the new
evidence shows that "sonofusion" generates nuclear reactions by creating
tiny bubbles that implode with tremendous force. Nuclear fusion reactors
have historically required large, multibillion-dollar machines, but
sonofusion devices might be built for a fraction of that cost. "What we are
doing, in effect, is producing nuclear emissions in a simple desktop
apparatus," said Rusi Taleyarkhan, the principal investigator and a
professor of nuclear engineer at Purdue University. "That really is the
magnitude of the discovery ? the ability to use simple mechanical force for
the first time in history to initiate conditions comparable to the interior
of stars."

The technology might one day result in a new class of low-cost, compact
detectors for security applications that use neutrons to probe the contents
of suitcases; devices for research that use neutrons to analyze the
molecular structures of materials; machines that cheaply manufacture new
synthetic materials and efficiently produce tritium, which is used for
numerous applications ranging from medical imaging to watch dials; and a new
technique to study various phenomena in cosmology, including the workings of
neutron stars and black holes. Taleyarkhan led the research team while he
was a full-time scientist at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and he is
now the Arden L. Bement Jr. Professor of Nuclear Engineering at Purdue.

The new findings are being reported in a paper that will appear this month
in the journal Physical Review E, published by the American Physical
Society. The paper was written by Taleyarkhan; postdoctoral fellow J.S Cho
at Oak Ridge Associated Universities; Colin West, a retired scientist from
Oak Ridge; Richard T. Lahey Jr., the Edward E. Hood Professor of Engineering
at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI); R.C. Nigmatulin, a visiting
scholar at RPI and president of the Russian Academy of Sciences'
Bashkortonstan branch; and Robert C. Block, active professor emeritus in the
School of Engineering at RPI and director of RPI's Gaerttner Linear
Accelerator Laboratory. The discovery was first reported in March 2002 in
Science.

Since then the researchers have acquired additional funding from the U.S.
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, purchased more precise
instruments and equipment to collect more accurate data, and successfully
reproduced and improved upon the original experiment, Taleyarkhan said. "A
fair amount of very substantial new work was conducted, " Taleyarkhan said.
"And also, this time around I made a conscious decision to involve as many
individuals as possible ? top scientists and physicists from around the
world and experts in neutron science ? to come to the lab and review our
procedures and findings before we even submitted the manuscript to a journal
for its own independent peer review."

The device is a clear glass canister about the height of two coffee mugs
stacked on top of one another. Inside the canister is a liquid called
deuterated acetone. The acetone contains a form of hydrogen called
deuterium, or heavy hydrogen, which contains one proton and one neutron in
its nucleus. Normal hydrogen contains only one proton in its nucleus. The
researchers expose the clear canister of liquid to pulses of neutrons every
five milliseconds, or thousandths of a second, causing tiny cavities to
form. At the same time, the liquid is bombarded with a specific frequency of
ultrasound, which causes the cavities to form into bubbles that are about 60
nm in diameter. The bubbles then expand to a much larger size, about 6,000
microns, large enough to be seen with the unaided eye.

"The process is analogous to stretching a slingshot from Earth to the
nearest star, our sun, thereby building up a huge amount of energy when
released," Taleyarkhan said. Within nanoseconds these large bubbles contract
with tremendous force, returning to roughly their original size, and release
flashes of light in a well-known phenomenon known as sonoluminescence.
Because the bubbles grow to such a relatively large size before they
implode, their contraction causes extreme temperatures and pressures
comparable to those found in the interiors of stars. Researches estimate
that temperatures inside the imploding bubbles reach 10 million C and
pressures comparable to 10E14 Pa.

At that point, deuterium atoms fuse together, the same way hydrogen atoms
fuse in stars, releasing neutrons and energy in the process. The process
also releases a type of radiation called gamma rays and a radioactive
material called tritium, all of which have been recorded and measured by the
team. In future versions of the experiment, the tritium produced might then
be used as a fuel to drive energy-producing reactions in which it fuses with
deuterium. Whereas conventional nuclear fission reactors produce waste
products that take thousands of years to decay, the waste products from
fusion plants are short-lived, decaying to non-dangerous levels in a decade
or two. The desktop experiment is safe because, although the reactions
generate extremely high pressures and temperatures, those extreme conditions
exist only in small regions of the liquid in the container ? within the
collapsing bubbles.

One key to the process is the large difference between the original size of
the bubbles and their expanded size. Going from 60 nm to 6,000 microns is
about 100,000 times larger, compared to the bubbles usually formed in
sonoluminescence, which grow only about 10 times larger before they implode.
"This means you've got about a trillion times more energy potentially
available for compression of the bubbles than you do with conventional
sonoluminescence," Taleyarkhan said. "When the light flashes are emitted,
it's getting extremely hot, and if your liquid has deuterium atoms compared
to ordinary hydrogen atoms, the conditions are hot enough to produce nuclear
fusion." The ultrasound switches on and off about 20,000 times a second as
the liquid is being bombarded by neutrons. The researchers compared their
results using normal acetone and deuterated acetone, showing no evidence of
fusion in the former.

Each five-millisecond pulse of neutrons is followed by a five-millisecond
gap, during which time the bubbles implode, release light and emit a surge
of about 1 million neutrons per second. In the first experiments, with the
less sophisticated equipment, the team was only able to collect data during
a small portion of the five-millisecond intervals between neutron pulses.
The new equipment enabled the researchers to see what was happening over the
entire course of the experiment. The data clearly show surges in neutrons
emitted in precise timing with the light flashes, meaning the neutron
emissions are produced by the collapsing bubbles responsible for the flashes
of light, Taleyarkhan said. "We see neutrons being emitted each time the
bubble is imploding with sufficient violence," Taleyarkhan said.

Fusion of deuterium atoms emits neutrons that fall within a specific energy
range of 2.5 mega-electron volts or below, which was the level of energy
seen in neutrons produced in the experiment. The production of tritium also
can only be attributed to fusion, and it was never observed in any of the
control experiments in which normal acetone was used, he said. Whereas data
from the previous experiment had roughly a one in 100 chance of being
attributed to some phenomena other than nuclear fusion, the new, more
precise results represent more like a one in a trillion chance of being
wrong, Taleyarkhan said. "There is only one way to produce tritium ? through
nuclear processes," he said. The results also agree with mathematical theory
and modeling.

Future work will focus on studying ways to scale up the device, which is
needed before it could be used in practical applications, and creating
portable devices that operate without the need for the expensive equipment
now used to bombard the canister with pulses of neutrons. "That takes it to
the next level because then it's a standalone generator," Taleyarkhan said.
"These will be little nuclear reactors by themselves that are producing
neutrons and energy." Such an advance could lead to the development of
extremely accurate portable detectors that use neutrons for a wide variety
of applications. "If you have a neutron source you can detect virtually
anything because neutrons interact with atomic nuclei in such a way that
each material shows a clear-cut signature," Taleyarkhan said.

The technique also might be used to synthesize materials inexpensively. "For
example, carbon is turned into diamond using extreme heat and temperature
over many years," Taleyarkhan said. "You wouldn't have to wait years to
convert carbon to diamond. In chemistry, most reactions grow exponentially
with temperature. Now we might have a way to synthesize certain chemicals
that were otherwise difficult to do economically. Several applications in
the field of medicine also appear feasible, such as tumor treatment."

Before such a system could be used as a new energy source, however,
researchers must reach beyond the "break-even" point, in which more energy
is released from the reaction than the amount of energy it takes to drive
the reaction. "We are not yet at break-even," Taleyarkhan said. "That would
be the ultimate. I don't know if it will ever happen, but we are hopeful
that it will and don't see any clear reason why not. In the future we will
attempt to scale up this system and see how far we can go."

Writer: Emil Venere, (765) 494-4709, venere at purdue.edu
Source: Rusi P. Taleyarkhan, (765) 494-0198, rusi at purdue.edu
Purdue News Service: (765) 494-2096; purduenews at purdue.edu
ABSTRACT

Additional Evidence of nuclear emissions during acoustic cavitation

R.P. Taleyarkhan1, J.S. Cho2, C.D. West3, R. T. Lahey3, Jr., R.I.
Nigmatulin4, and R.C. Block3

1Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907, 2Oak Ridge Associated
Universities, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830, 3Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute,
Troy, New York 12180,
4Russian Academy of Sciences,
6 Karl Marx Street, Ufa 450000, Russia

Time spectra of neutron and sonoluminescence emissions were measured in
cavitation experiments with chilled deuterated acetone. Statistically
significant neutron and gamma ray emissions were measured with a calibrated
liquid-scintillation detector, and sonoluminescence emissions were measured
with a photomultiplier tube. The neutron emission energy corresponded to
<2.5 MeV and had an emission rate of up to ~4X10E5 n/s. Measurements of
tritium production were also performed and these data implied a neutron
emission rate due to D-D fusion which agreed with what was measured. In
contrast, control experiments using normal acetone did not result in
statistically significant tritium activity, or neutron or gamma ray
emissions.

[Ho hum, deuterium at room temperature again!! T]

_________________________________________________________________
Learn how to help protect your privacy and prevent fraud online at Tech
Hacks & Scams. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/techsafety.armx




From rafal at smigrodzki.org  Wed Mar  3 02:05:26 2004
From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 18:05:26 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
In-Reply-To: <005b01c40083$f450d370$cc01a8c0@dellbert>
Message-ID: <OJEHKDIANIFPAJPDBDGLKEIIDAAA.rafal@smigrodzki.org>

Harvey wrote:
> Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
>
>
> Technotranscendence wrote,
>> You want the best PC?  If you can afford it, you can get a lot.
>> However, most people set limits on how much they will pay for a PC.
>> They are willing to settle for less options or whatever if the price
>> is lower.  This is because they don't have infinite resources and
>> costs matter.
>
> Exactly my point.  Most people want cheap PCs and that is what the
> market focuses on providing.  If you want some fringe attribute
> besides price that most people don't want, the market is not geared
> toward serving you.

### It is not true - a robust, many-supplier market, like the one in
computers, will serve even narrow slices of the population, persons
interested in the "fringe" attributes, as long as they are willing to pay
the premium due to the small aggregate size of the demand they generate, and
its attendant inefficiencies of small scale.

Indeed, the market vastly outperforms all other methods of resource
allocation in the ability to serve niche users. Look at the supply of parts
for exotic and ancient cars, and your doubts should vanish.

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



>
>> This is also an illustration of the paradox of freedom.  If you allow
>> people to be free to make their decisions -- decisions like buying a
>> PC -- they will make choices you disagree with -- even choices you
>> feel are stupid, wrong, suboptimal, unhealthy, etc.
>
> Exactly my point.  Most people choose suboptimal goals, and the
> market fills these suboptimal goals.  Thus, the market choices are
> often suboptimal.

### It might feel good to believe in one's intellectual superiority, which
is the condition for being able to legitimately call most of other people's
wishes "suboptimal", frequently however, this feeling will not be well
grounded.

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


>
>> Therein lies the rub.  You look at these as all or nothing choices.
>> Either there is one monolithic system that is cost efficient or
>> there's one monolithic system that extends lifespan.
>
> I do see cheap healthcare and life-extension at opposite ends of the
> spectrum.  Cheap healthcare plans don't offer life-extension.
> Life-extension plans don't come cheap.  You cannot get both cheapness
> and life-extension in the same plan today.  The market can optimize
> toward one end of the spectrum or the other.  It currently seems to
> be choosing price over life-extension.  Therefore, the
> market/majority goals are not my goals (right now).

### Again, the market has superb ability to serve niche consumers (at least,
much better than e.g. central planning), therefore, whatever you can get in
a free-market healthcare system is likely to be the best (for you) you can
get. There are lots of plans making an infinity of fine tradeoffs between
cost and scope, even now under the 60% control of the state, despite courts
which disregard contracts in the name of "consumer protection". You won't
have these choices once there is only one plan, the state plan.

Rafal



From rafal at smigrodzki.org  Wed Mar  3 02:13:17 2004
From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 18:13:17 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
In-Reply-To: <20040302213916.17987.qmail@web60505.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <OJEHKDIANIFPAJPDBDGLAEIJDAAA.rafal@smigrodzki.org>

The Avantguardian wrote:

I am willing to bet the ideal
> state is economically somewhere Right of China and
> Left of the USA, in that grey area between capitalism
> and communism.

### Ah, something like Germany? France? :-)

-----------------------------------
>      The real problem facing our country is that we
> give companies (not individuals) way too much freedom.
> Special interest controlled politicians are taking
> away individual liberties and yet giving corporations
> rights that put them above the law.

### You sound like somebody who never ran a business.

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

 We see this with
> the export of manufacturing jobs out of the country to
> take advantage of looser pollution laws and cheaper
> labor. Because of this, America is becoming a service
> economy- a country composed of servants- a nation of
> burger-flippers and waitresses.

### Ah, so you are a protectionist, too.

---------------------------------------
>
> well ok, I realized after the fact that the rhetoric
> sounds communist, but my ideas are not. It's funny how
> if you aren't all for the wanton rape of the world by
> greedy businessmen, you are labeled a communist.
>

### Yes, your ideas are taken straight out of a communist manifesto. Greedy
businessmen wantonly raping the world....

Rafal



From rafal at smigrodzki.org  Wed Mar  3 02:21:27 2004
From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 18:21:27 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
In-Reply-To: <005c01c40084$16def4d0$cc01a8c0@dellbert>
Message-ID: <OJEHKDIANIFPAJPDBDGLEEIJDAAA.rafal@smigrodzki.org>

Harvey wrote:

Orphan drugs and life-extension drugs
> are not as popular, and are not as optimized by the market.  The
> market is a popularity contest where the majority rules.

### Most definitely not! The market is a popularity contest with no single
winner, where every minority has a chance of a win, proportionate to the
size of the demand they generate. Orphan drugs are not supplied as widely as
wide-market drugs - and of course it should be so, since the limited
resources of our society should not be spread to cover all diseases of even
the smallest importance, which would leave the mega-killers inadequately
treated.

Rafal



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Tue Mar  2 23:21:11 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 18:21:11 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
In-Reply-To: <Law9-F102lWIVBqWZD20001e972@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <000801c400ad$10ac8360$cc01a8c0@dellbert>

Brian Lee wrote,
> The market doesn't "choose" anything. It reduces prices. It is
> understandable that there are many "best" computer systems.

Then we are agreed.  This was my point all along.  Markets don't choose the
best product.  They choose the best price.

-- 
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 GIAC Certified GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Tue Mar  2 23:20:59 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 18:20:59 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
In-Reply-To: <OJEHKDIANIFPAJPDBDGLAEIJDAAA.rafal@smigrodzki.org>
Message-ID: <000701c400ad$09d54310$cc01a8c0@dellbert>

Rafal Smigrodzki wrote,
> The Avantguardian wrote:
> >      The real problem facing our country is that we
> > give companies (not individuals) way too much freedom. Special 
> > interest controlled politicians are taking away individual 
> > liberties and yet giving corporations rights that put them
> > above the law.
> 
> ### You sound like somebody who never ran a business.

As someone who does run my own business, I agree with The Avantguardian.  I
run a small S-corp.  It basically does nothing beside my personal consulting
work.  Its primary representative is me.  All the hours billed to the client
are mine.  So why do I do business as an S-corp instead of as an individual?
Because corporations have many more rights and protections than individuals.
I would make less money, pay more taxes, and have more liabilities as an
individual than as an S-corp.  I run the S-corp because it increases my
profits and lowers my limitations.  It is a simple business decision.  My
S-corp has more rights and freedoms than I do in many cases.

-- 
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 GIAC Certified GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From neptune at superlink.net  Tue Mar  2 23:56:20 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 18:56:20 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
References: <OJEHKDIANIFPAJPDBDGLAEIJDAAA.rafal@smigrodzki.org>
Message-ID: <018e01c400b1$f6cda460$3bce5cd1@neptune>

On Tuesday, March 02, 2004 9:13 PM Rafal Smigrodzki rafal at smigrodzki.org
wrote:
> The Avantguardian wrote:
>
> I am willing to bet the ideal
>> state is economically somewhere
>> Right of China and Left of the USA,
>> in that grey area between capitalism
>> and communism.
>
> ### Ah, something like Germany? France? :-)

Two points:

1.  The US is in the _gray_ area "between capitalism and communism.":)
(By the same token, so is just about any society.:)

2.  Avantguardian's ideal society is a compromise!?!  To me, this is
like saying, "My ideal society is a gray area between freedom and
enslavement," or "My ideal life extension program is the gray area
between youth and aging as well as between life and death.":)

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html



From neptune at superlink.net  Wed Mar  3 00:11:43 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 19:11:43 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
References: <000801c400ad$10ac8360$cc01a8c0@dellbert>
Message-ID: <01ab01c400b4$1c9a3d00$3bce5cd1@neptune>

On Tuesday, March 02, 2004 6:21 PM Harvey Newstrom
mail at HarveyNewstrom.com wrote:
>> The market doesn't "choose" anything. It
>> reduces prices. It is understandable that
>> there are many "best" computer systems.
>
> Then we are agreed.  This was my point all
> along.  Markets don't choose the best
> product.  They choose the best price.

Try again.:)  Markets don't choose.  People make choices.  They're
choices and interactions make up markets.  That people don't make the
choices you like doesn't damn markets per se.  And what is your
alternative?  If people make the choices you don't like, there are
really only two choices open to you to change their choices.  One is to
persuade them to make other choices.  E.g., you can proselytize or even
build a better mousetrap.  The other is to force them to make other
choices.  E.g., you can pass laws prohibiting certain transactions, such
as passing laws requiring certain standards for products.

Now, metaphorically, you might say, "The market chose X over Y" --
meaning that people via the market chose X over Y.  (Usually, actual
markets are more likely to segment too.  E.g., someone might prefer the
ultra-cheap PC because that's within his budget and he's not a
supergeek.  Another person might decide that's not for her and wants to
buy something better or even build something better.  Markets allow for
this.  The alternatives to markets are either no social interaction
(meaning autarky) or socialism (meaning someone else or a group of
someone else's decides for everyone).  The second of these
alternatives -- the only one worth talking about if we assume social
interaction -- since autarky means no interaction -- usually means that
the monopoly computer combine will make its products based on its own
plans and not on consumers and entrepreneurs trying to coordinate their
plans and resources.)

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html



From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Wed Mar  3 00:16:13 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 18:16:13 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
References: <000801c400ad$10ac8360$cc01a8c0@dellbert>
Message-ID: <Law10-OE22oY99EXxt500033caa@hotmail.com>

I don;t think markets choose the best product or price. . There's plenty of
cheap products that don;t sell very well simply because they are crap. It's
not about value either since many times, the value is in a more expensive
product that lasts longer, yet it is the cheaper one that wins. I think it
can be said that the market will choose the cheapest product that
accomplishes the same goal.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harvey Newstrom" <mail at harveynewstrom.com>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 5:21 PM
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical


> Brian Lee wrote,
> > The market doesn't "choose" anything. It reduces prices. It is
> > understandable that there are many "best" computer systems.
>
> Then we are agreed.  This was my point all along.  Markets don't choose
the
> best product.  They choose the best price.
>
> -- 
> 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 GIAC Certified GSEC
> <HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  3 00:35:34 2004
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 16:35:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
In-Reply-To: <OJEHKDIANIFPAJPDBDGLAEIJDAAA.rafal@smigrodzki.org>
Message-ID: <20040303003534.27322.qmail@web60507.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal at smigrodzki.org> wrote:
> 
> ### Ah, something like Germany? France? :-)

      Yeah... kind of like a cross between the two
countries without the stigma of either having lost two
world wars or having to be rescued from the loser of
two world wars. Only the men would have to bathe and
the women shave their armpits. Actually the closest
European approximation to the ideal state is something
of a cross between France and Germany. Switzerland-
their per capita GDP is just slightly less than the US
at $32,000. They have no appreciable poverty and
unemployment is very low. 
    As an added bonus, every household in Switzerland
is issued an assault rifle by the government and
trained how to use it. Needless to say crime is very
low in Switzerland. I am pretty sure their health care
is better. It's too bad they are so very stringent
about their citizenship. 

> 
> -----------------------------------
> >      The real problem facing our country is that
> we
> > give companies (not individuals) way too much
> freedom.
> > Special interest controlled politicians are taking
> > away individual liberties and yet giving
> corporations
> > rights that put them above the law.
> 
> ### You sound like somebody who never ran a
> business.


> ---------------------------
> 
> > 
> ### Ah, so you are a protectionist, too.
> 
      If it keeps food on the table of my fellow
Americans and educates their children then yes.

> ---------------------------------------
> ### Yes, your ideas are taken straight out of a
> communist manifesto. Greedy
> businessmen wantonly raping the world....

      How do you know that? I haven't told you any of
my ideas yet. All I have done is bitch about the way
things are done now. If being disillusioned with
corporate America is sufficient to be called a
communist no wonder they called the McCarthy hearings
a witchhunt. 
     I was just curious, since you seem to know a
thing or two about biology. If you had to define the
economic relationship between the cells in the human
body, the distribution of resources such as oxygen,
glucose 


=====
The Avantguardian 


"He stands like some sort of pagan god or deposed tyrant. Staring out over the city he's sworn to . . .to stare out over and it's evident just by looking at him that he's got some pretty heavy things on his mind."

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  3 00:35:33 2004
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 16:35:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
In-Reply-To: <OJEHKDIANIFPAJPDBDGLAEIJDAAA.rafal@smigrodzki.org>
Message-ID: <20040303003533.40607.qmail@web60504.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal at smigrodzki.org> wrote:
> 
> ### Ah, something like Germany? France? :-)

      Yeah... kind of like a cross between the two
countries without the stigma of either having lost two
world wars or having to be rescued from the loser of
two world wars. Only the men would have to bathe and
the women shave their armpits. Actually the closest
European approximation to the ideal state is something
of a cross between France and Germany. Switzerland-
their per capita GDP is just slightly less than the US
at $32,000. They have no appreciable poverty and
unemployment is very low. 
    As an added bonus, every household in Switzerland
is issued an assault rifle by the government and
trained how to use it. Needless to say crime is very
low in Switzerland. I am pretty sure their health care
is better. It's too bad they are so very stringent
about their citizenship. 

> 
> -----------------------------------
> >      The real problem facing our country is that
> we
> > give companies (not individuals) way too much
> freedom.
> > Special interest controlled politicians are taking
> > away individual liberties and yet giving
> corporations
> > rights that put them above the law.
> 
> ### You sound like somebody who never ran a
> business.


> ---------------------------
> 
> > 
> ### Ah, so you are a protectionist, too.
> 
      If it keeps food on the table of my fellow
Americans and educates their children then yes.

> ---------------------------------------
> ### Yes, your ideas are taken straight out of a
> communist manifesto. Greedy
> businessmen wantonly raping the world....

      How do you know that? I haven't told you any of
my ideas yet. All I have done is bitch about the way
things are done now. If being disillusioned with
corporate America is sufficient to be called a
communist no wonder they called the McCarthy hearings
a witchhunt. 
     I was just curious, since you seem to know a
thing or two about biology. If you had to define the
economic relationship between the cells in the human
body, the distribution of resources such as oxygen,
glucose 


=====
The Avantguardian 


"He stands like some sort of pagan god or deposed tyrant. Staring out over the city he's sworn to . . .to stare out over and it's evident just by looking at him that he's got some pretty heavy things on his mind."

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From neptune at superlink.net  Wed Mar  3 00:53:49 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 19:53:49 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
References: <OJEHKDIANIFPAJPDBDGLEEIJDAAA.rafal@smigrodzki.org>
Message-ID: <01d901c400b9$fe32ac20$3bce5cd1@neptune>

On Tuesday, March 02, 2004 9:21 PM Rafal Smigrodzki rafal at smigrodzki.org
wrote:
>> Orphan drugs and life-extension drugs are
>> not as popular, and are not as optimized
>> by the market.  The market is a popularity
>> contest where the majority rules.
>
> ### Most definitely not! The market is a
> popularity contest with no single winner,
> where every minority has a chance of a
> win, proportionate to the size of the
> demand they generate.

True, and things can change.  Notably, life extension drugs are widely
available.  There's a big industry for longevity in the US... and it
ranges from people who just buy herbs to those who go to life extension
clinics to get injections and the like.

> Orphan drugs are not supplied as widely as
> wide-market drugs - and of course it should
> be so, since the limited resources of our
> society should not be spread to cover all
> diseases of even the smallest importance,
> which would leave the mega-killers
> inadequately treated.

While it's true that the larger the demand for something, the more
effort will be deployed in its provision on a free market, the current
state of the drug market is distorted by heavy government interventions.
Specifically, in the US, the FDA and drug regulations have driven up the
cost of research and development of drugs and actually forbidden some
forms of marketing as well as kept certain drugs illegal (so called
narcotics).  (On the marketing, you can't always state what a substance
is good for -- only what the FDA has approved of.  The slows down the
spread of information to consumers.)

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  3 00:49:21 2004
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 16:49:21 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
In-Reply-To: <OJEHKDIANIFPAJPDBDGLAEIJDAAA.rafal@smigrodzki.org>
Message-ID: <20040303004921.81771.qmail@web60502.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal at smigrodzki.org> wrote:
> 
> ### Ah, something like Germany? France? :-)

      Yeah... kind of like a cross between the two
countries without the stigma of either having lost two
world wars or having to be rescued from the loser of
two world wars. Only the men would have to bathe and
the women shave their armpits. Actually the closest
European approximation to the ideal state is something
of a cross between France and Germany. Switzerland-
their per capita GDP is just slightly less than the US
at $32,000. They have no appreciable poverty and
unemployment is very low. 
    As an added bonus, every household in Switzerland
is issued an assault rifle by the government and
trained how to use it. Needless to say crime is very
low in Switzerland. I am pretty sure their health care
is better. It's too bad they are so very stringent
about their citizenship. 

> 
> -----------------------------------
> >      The real problem facing our country is that
> we
> > give companies (not individuals) way too much
> freedom.
> > Special interest controlled politicians are taking
> > away individual liberties and yet giving
> corporations
> > rights that put them above the law.
> 
> ### You sound like somebody who never ran a
> business.
     I have never owned my own business true. But I
don't think the kind of business that some guy like me
would start up is really the problem. Small business
is great. It's big monopolistic businesses with which
I have a problem. After all, I don't think that the
U.S. has ever challenged the sovereignity of another
nation state over the economic interests of Antonio's
Bistro. 


> ---------------------------
> 
> > 
> ### Ah, so you are a protectionist, too.
> 
      If it keeps food on the table of my fellow
Americans and educates their children then yes.

> ---------------------------------------
> ### Yes, your ideas are taken straight out of a
> communist manifesto. Greedy
> businessmen wantonly raping the world....

      How do you know that? I haven't told you any of
my ideas yet. All I have done is bitch about the way
things are done now. If being disillusioned with
corporate America is sufficient to be called a
communist no wonder they called the McCarthy hearings
a witchhunt. 
     I was just curious, since you seem to know a
thing or two about biology, Rafal. If you had to
define the economic relationship between the cells in
the human body, the distribution of resources such as
oxygen, glucose, etc. how would you?  

P.S. Sorry about the double post but Yahoo seems to
delight in sending my mail before I am done typing it.


=====
The Avantguardian 


"He stands like some sort of pagan god or deposed tyrant. Staring out over the city he's sworn to . . .to stare out over and it's evident just by looking at him that he's got some pretty heavy things on his mind."

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  3 01:06:43 2004
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 17:06:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Please excuse my redundant posts- Yahoo went
	crazy
Message-ID: <20040303010643.50448.qmail@web60504.mail.yahoo.com>

Hey everyone,
I was just typing away in Yahoo! Mail and I might have
in advertantly hit the tab key but then next thing I
know Yahoo is telling me it has sent my mail. I hadn't
finished it yet so I sent the third one on purpose.
*slaps his tab key* bad key!

=====
The Avantguardian 


"He stands like some sort of pagan god or deposed tyrant. Staring out over the city he's sworn to . . .to stare out over and it's evident just by looking at him that he's got some pretty heavy things on his mind."

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com  Wed Mar  3 02:03:53 2004
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Alexander Lee)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 21:03:53 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
References: <20040302213916.17987.qmail@web60505.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Law9-OE40db7mPuZocw0000eeed@hotmail.com>

> well ok, I realized after the fact that the rhetoric
> sounds communist, but my ideas are not. It's funny how
> if you aren't all for the wanton rape of the world by
> greedy businessmen, you are labeled a communist.

I wouldn't lable you communist, naive perhaps. Look at the ecological damage
that goes on in china and vietnam and the massive damage caused to the
environment in eastern europe and the USSR.

You'll either get raped by corporations or governments, at least the
corporations give you cheap shoes.

Seriously though, the only way to compete with globalization is by becoming
cheaper and better than the pennies per hour programmer in the phillipines.
All you will do is instead of Nike being an american company, they become an
indonesian company.


From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com  Wed Mar  3 02:11:53 2004
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Alexander Lee)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 21:11:53 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
References: <000701c400ad$09d54310$cc01a8c0@dellbert>
Message-ID: <Law9-OE15Q1Kmlj1E330000efba@hotmail.com>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harvey Newstrom" <mail at harveynewstrom.com>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 6:20 PM
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical


> Rafal Smigrodzki wrote,
> > The Avantguardian wrote:
> > >      The real problem facing our country is that we
> > > give companies (not individuals) way too much freedom. Special
> > > interest controlled politicians are taking away individual
> > > liberties and yet giving corporations rights that put them
> > > above the law.
> >
> > ### You sound like somebody who never ran a business.
>
> As someone who does run my own business, I agree with The Avantguardian.
I
> run a small S-corp.  It basically does nothing beside my personal
consulting
> work.  Its primary representative is me.  All the hours billed to the
client
> are mine.  So why do I do business as an S-corp instead of as an
individual?
> Because corporations have many more rights and protections than
individuals.
> I would make less money, pay more taxes, and have more liabilities as an
> individual than as an S-corp.  I run the S-corp because it increases my
> profits and lowers my limitations.  It is a simple business decision.  My
> S-corp has more rights and freedoms than I do in many cases.

Note that this only applies to individuals doing consulting work. If you
were an employee of a large corporation you would pay less taxes (no 8% SSN,
Medicare), get more benefits (401k, healthcare, etc) than a single employee
S-Corp.

The only main benefit to an S-Corp over a sole proprietorship is that you
get to deduct your healthcare expenses (assuming you claim all your profits
as income as a good little single employee s-corp should). As for limiting
liability, if you go into a client site as Harvey Newstrom and fuck up their
system then they will sue you and your s-corp. The s-corp only protects you
from stuff like someone slipping and falling on Newstrom Inc's office floor
(which you probably don't have anyway).

So you don't have any great rights or privileges as an s-corp that everybody
else out there doesn't have.


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Wed Mar  3 02:13:06 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 18:13:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nature article request...
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403021811470.31177-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Does anyone have a subscription to Nature who can send
me this article?

Hueso L, Mathur N.
Nanotechnology: dreams of a hollow future.
Nature. 2004 Jan 22;427(6972):301-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14737151&dopt=Abstract

I would like to see if its more of the usual dribble by
uninformed writers/scientists.

Thanks,
Robert





From jcorb at iol.ie  Wed Mar  3 02:29:19 2004
From: jcorb at iol.ie (J Corbally)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 02:29:19 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Clint Eastwood on gay marriage
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20040303022231.022958b0@pop.iol.ie>

You didn't know that?  It's like in the old Flash Gordon shows.  You see 
how he got out of each particular pickle at the start of next weeks 
episode.  To bring you up to speed, he spent the night boozing and telling 
ghost stories with  Hoerkenhiemer and the lads in the crypt that 
night.  The sitdown orgy for 14 started at about 11pm.

After all, he had to survive for the "Left Behind" series....




James...


>Message: 8
>Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 06:23:33 -0800 (PST)
> >From: Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Clint Eastwood on gay marriage
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Message-ID: <20040301142333.82571.qmail at web12902.mail.yahoo.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>--- Technotranscendence <neptune at superlink.net> wrote:
> > From: Ross Barlow rbarlow at penn.com
> > (But count me
> > among those others who are really pissed at whoever it was here that
> > gave away the ending to Gibson's "Passion.")
> >
> > -Ross Barlow.
>What? You mean he doesn't get crucified? ;)
>=====
>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!?
>Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
>http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools





From extropy at unreasonable.com  Wed Mar  3 03:44:03 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 22:44:03 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
In-Reply-To: <000801c400ad$10ac8360$cc01a8c0@dellbert>
References: <Law9-F102lWIVBqWZD20001e972@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040302215845.02739800@mail.comcast.net>

Harvey wrote:

>Then we are agreed.  This was my point all along.  Markets don't choose the
>best product.  They choose the best price.

This has been a surreal thread.

Free markets optimize whatever qualities consumers want, who vote with 
their wallets or their feet.

Cost to consumer is occasionally the primary quality optimized but usually 
it's something else, or a balance between several qualities -- cost, 
safety, reliability, ease of use, age, weight, anticipated resale value, 
prestige, size, supplier's reputation, options for later upgrade or 
trade-in, quality of vendor maintenance or support, capacity, required 
customer maintenance, availability, compatibility with existing constraints 
on the consumer (such as earlier purchases or regulatory requirements), 
product's useful lifetime, temperament, location, noise level, air quality, 
etc.

And since priorities will likely differ from consumer to consumer, any free 
market will subdivide into niche submarkets for substantial clusters of 
quality rankings.

Given a product that appeals to a large enough group of consumers, a vendor 
will usually attempt to minimize the cost to provide that product. But even 
here, there are other considerations.

In software, a vendor might want to be successful but not enough so as to 
attract Microsoft's attention. A studio might be more concerned about the 
long-term value of retaining Big Star than about cost over-runs on her 
latest flick. In dating, electoral politics, child custody disputes, or 
warfare, the cost to a vendor might be a negligible consideration compared 
to the overriding goal of being selected by the consumer.


-- David Lubkin.




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  3 04:40:39 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 20:40:39 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] FSP: Killington Votes to Secede
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040302215845.02739800@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <20040303044039.58924.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>

7:45 am: Arrived at the West Lebanon McDonald's to meet others at the
declared rallying point. Howard Wilson pulled in a minute behind me. We
grabbed a quick bite and waited for others to arrive. Apparently Rich
Tomasso and company had their car break down in Grantham on the way, as
we left for Killington at 8:20am without anyone else showing up.

9:15: after one false turn (thank you mapquest) we made it to Sherburne
Elementary School. Walked in and met John Babiarz. Found the school
principle to get permission to set up our table in the hall outside the
gym. Got set up. Hardy Machia showed up a short time later. Met Town
Manager Dave Lewis, the selectboard, including Mike Miller, Norm
Holcomb, and Dave Feindesen, and arranged to set up the photo op after
the vote.

10am: Town Meeting Starts. A moderator is quickly voted in, a fellow in
his 80's who has been doing it for years, wielding an unpeeled pine
gavel that looks like it was made by Ethan Allen himself. They quickly
get on to Article 3, the vote to approve secession. 

The moderator read the Article:
"WHEREAS, Chapter 1, Article 4th of the Vermont Constitution provides
that "every person within this state ought to find a certain remedy, by
having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs which one may
receive", and

WHEREAS, Chapter 1, Article 9th of the Vermont Constitution provides
that "preveious to any law being made to raise a tax, the purpose of
for which it is to be raised ought to appear evident to the Legislature
to be of more service to the community than the money would be if not
collected", and

WHEREAS, the Vermont Legislature, in 1997, adopted Act 60, so called,
under which the Town as been required to raise more money than has been
necessary for the good of the community, using a state taxing scheme
which the Rutland Superior Court found to be arbitrary and capricious,
and abuse of the state's discretion, and results in the
disproportionate and inequitable taxation, and

WHEREAS, on an appeal of that decision, the Vermont Supreme Court
provided, in effect, that neither the Town nor its inhabitants would
ever have any meaningful recourse to the laws in order to remedy the
injustices visited upon them by the state, acting through its tax
department, in the administration of Act 60, and

WHEREAS this same Supreme Court decision employed a standard which
renders it virtually impossible for either the Town or its inhabitants,
in seeking review of the actions of state officials, ever to have
meaningful recourse to the laws for any injuries or wrongs visited upon
them by the state, and

WHEREAS, Chapter 1, Article 7th of the Vermont Constitution provides
that the community has "an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible
right, to reform or alter government, in such manner as shall be, but
that community, judged most conducive to the public weal", and

WHEREAS, the Town having no recourse under the laws of this state for
the injustices visited upon it, believes  it must avail itself of its
rights under Chapter 1, Article 7th of the Vermont Constitution to
alter its form of government, and

WHEREAS, the Town was originally chartered in 1761 as a township of
what was then known as the Province of New Hampshire, and

WHEREAS, the Town believes that, in light of the injustices visited up
on it, the public good of the Town and its inhabitants would best be
served if the Town were again to become a part of the State of New
Hampshire.

NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved as follows:

RESOLVED, that the Killington Selectboard is authorized to petition the
proper officials of the State of New Hampshire that the Town of
Killington become a municipality of the State of New Hampshire, and

RESOLVED, that in the event such petition receives favorable
consideration, the Killington Selectboard is authorized to file such
further petitions with governmental authorities, including, but not
limited to, the Vermont Legislature and the Congress of the United
States and to take such further actions as may be necessary, so that
the Town of Killington may become a municipality of the State of New
Hampshire."

The selectmen and the town manager all stood and spoke at length at all
the things they've done to date, all the avenues within the state
system they have exhausted.

Discussion starts. About 40 people spoke in favor to varying degrees,
from avid proponents citing the founding fathers, to a few liberal
Democrats who supported the issue but worry about losing the fine
socialist state programs they have if they actually joined NH.
Even one 5th grade boy spoke, noting the parallels to the Boston Tea
Party, which he just learned about in school. One fellow talked about
how his property taxes had risen in just 5 years from $2200.00 up to
$11,000.00

A few people asked questions like "is my daughter going to lose her
resident tuition rate at UVM?". (Town Manager suggested she transfer to
UNH, to laughter)

The question was called, seconded, and a voice vote was overwhelmingly
in favor. Of the approximately 350 people in the hall (according to
town counters), about 5-10 voice voted against it (some in the media
are reporting a 2-1 preference. This is false).

Discussion went to Article 4, to move next years town meeting to 6 pm
instead of 10 am as it is now. After discussion, a voice vote went to a
paper ballot, and so the moderator got everyone's attention for me to
present the State of NH flag and the Gadsen Flag (Don't Tread on Me) to
the town manager, saying "On behalf of the citizens of the State of NH
and the members of the Free State Project, I present these two flags
and welcome you to NH", to tremendous applause and much media filming
and flashing. Town Manager Dave Lewis and I held them up one at a time.

There were eight tv crews there, and I was interviewed by three (WCAX
Channel 3, Channel 5, and Fox News Channel), as well as 6-7 newspaper
reporters. I also talked to a lot of townspeople who had questions
about how the town would transition to NH if it succeeded in secession.
The most pleasant surprise of the day was meeting so many teachers who
were against taxes... ;) I met one fellow who was doubtful about
secession, but who homeschools his kids.

Rich, Andy, and Chuck showed up about 20 minutes after I finished with
the reporters. We did outreach and discussions in the hall, then drove
down the street for lunch to discuss various FSP stuff. I am still
running on adrenaline from this morning, 12 hours later, and expecting
to sleep in tomorrow....

Tomorrow we get our pet legislators in the NH House to sponsor a bill
to accept Killington's petition to it. Henry McElroy (R-Nashua) chatted
with me tonight, and is going to base the bill on the petition
Killington is sending me in the morning. Henry wanted to be in
Killington, but was busy shepherding a resolution to pull out of the
UN.

I've got to work on the business plan for the Free Town Land
Development Group, and continue lobbying for a seat on the Board of the
Free State Project which just opened up.




=====
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! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au  Wed Mar  3 08:38:58 2004
From: Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au (Emlyn ORegan)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 19:08:58 +1030
Subject: [extropy-chat] email strife
Message-ID: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE707C3D9@mmdsvr01.mm.local>

Hi all,

 

I have a sneaking suspicion that I'm not seeing some of the list at the
moment; apologies if you've replied to me and I haven't seen it. I'm
started a new job (yay), and my incoming email has been triggering spam
blockers, virus checkers, etc etc. Apparently this has all been turned
off for me now, so I'm getting nothing but the raw bits (ignoring 7+
layers of protocol, yada yada). So possibly things will improve.

 

Hopefully I'll be getting a lot more spam, so I can start a new
collection (I left my Nigerian email collection at my last job).
Currently, I'm collecting V1agra, pseudo V1agra, P3nis enlargement, etc
along those lines. Please feel free to forward it to me!

 

Emlyn

(um, it's for a friend... actually it's for a very cool project which
I'm kinda excited about)

 

 


***************************************************************************
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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040303/37c73b17/attachment.html>

From nagero at chariot.net.au  Wed Mar  3 11:48:25 2004
From: nagero at chariot.net.au (emlyn on nagero)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 21:18:25 +0930
Subject: [extropy-chat] Software exposure: was Re: Eugen Leitl, you
	got Klez
In-Reply-To: <20040212103600.GZ28489@leitl.org>
References: <4028A3A7.4010303@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
	<20040210102544.GT15132@leitl.org>
	<6.0.3.0.0.20040210211444.0248dde8@mail.chariot.net.au>
	<20040210110746.GW15132@leitl.org>
	<6.0.3.0.0.20040210214954.0248d1c0@mail.chariot.net.au>
	<Pine.LNX.4.55L.0402112122240.9373@imladris.surriel.com>
	<6.0.3.0.0.20040212131005.02444028@mail.chariot.net.au>
	<Pine.LNX.4.55L.0402112200560.9373@imladris.surriel.com>
	<6.0.3.0.0.20040212142054.024ed820@mail.chariot.net.au>
	<20040212103600.GZ28489@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040303211708.02490890@mail.chariot.net.au>

At 08:06 PM 12/02/2004, you wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 02:22:15PM +0930, emlyn on nagero wrote:
>
> > True enough. OTOH, can you convince me that 90+% of machines which were
> > single user machines wouldn't have been always used with administrator
> > permissions, circumventing all security?
>
>Are you saying everyone running *nix is cruising as root? I've seen very,
>very few people posting as root, and usually everybody would come down their
>asses. Single buffer overrun, instant root. No need for privilege elevation,
>which makes writing exploits more difficult.

Most users might be doing it if it was the mass market single user 
(standalone) OS. The people who use it now probably wouldn't in either 
scenario.


>Of course, you can do almost everything as non-admin in *nix. You can't do 
>much as
>non-Administrator on Windows. It's because the "developers" are used to
>assume everyone's allowed God mode. Prompting user for sysadmin
>access, or suid root/sudo are completely alien concepts to those people.

Guilty :-)

Emlyn



From neptune at superlink.net  Wed Mar  3 12:48:04 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 07:48:04 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] FSP: Killington Votes to Secede
References: <20040303044039.58924.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <004901c4011d$c5b6fe00$39cd5cd1@neptune>

I know this is in Vermont, but I wonder about similar legal processes in
other states of the US.  It might be yet another way to alter the
system...

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html




From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Mar  3 14:23:36 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 15:23:36 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nature article request...
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403021811470.31177-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403021811470.31177-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040303142336.GV18046@leitl.org>

On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 06:13:06PM -0800, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> 
> Does anyone have a subscription to Nature who can send
> me this article?
> 
> Hueso L, Mathur N.
> Nanotechnology: dreams of a hollow future.
> Nature. 2004 Jan 22;427(6972):301-4.
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14737151&dopt=Abstract
> 
> I would like to see if its more of the usual dribble by
> uninformed writers/scientists.

Nature 427, 301 - 304 (22 January 2004); doi:10.1038/427301a

Nanotechnology: Dreams of a hollow future

LUIS?HUESO AND NEIL?MATHUR

Luis Hueso and Neil Mathur are in the Department of Materials Science and
Metallurgy, University of Cambridge, New Museums Site, Pembroke Street,
Cambridge CB2 3QZ, UK.

e-mail: ndm12 at cus.cam.ac.uk

Carbon nanotubes have become familiar components in nanotechnology. Nanotubes
made from inorganic materials are now on the rise, the latest creation being
nanoscale tubes of a complex manganese oxide.

Fabricating small structures has long been fashionable in physics. The
rationale is that reducing one or more dimensions of a system below some key
length scale can change the system's behaviour ? carbon nanotubes are a good
example. But nanotubes made from other materials are also proving useful for
technological applications. In Applied Physics Letters, Levy et al.1 add to
the catalogue with their report of the growth of nanotubes made of a
manganese oxide, namely a manganite.

Carbon nanotubes, discovered by Ijima2 in 1991, can be thought of as
rolled-up sheets of carbon atoms. The tubes have diameters as small as one
nanometre, and are typically several micrometres long. Thus they are,
effectively, one-dimensional. This reduced dimensionality creates a new
playground for physicists, where the conventional description of the
electronic structure of three-dimensional materials breaks down3. But
interesting effects are not restricted to only the smallest nanotubes. Crude
carbon-nanotube structures, consisting of imperfectly concentric cylinders
with diameters as large as a few hundred nanometres, also have technological
uses. The high aspect ratio of these structures means that electrons can be
emitted easily from their tips. If these electrons then traverse a vacuum and
excite a phosphor on a screen, this forms the basis of a display pixel.
Indeed, proof-of-principle displays using such multi-wall nanotube structures
have been fabricated and promise to be ten times more energy efficient than
competing plasma technology4.

The techniques of modern materials science also allow the fabrication of
inorganic tubular nanostructures. As with the multiwall carbon nanotubes, no
key length scales are probed, but there is, again, the promise of
technological applications. Good examples are the piezoelectric nanotubes
made from complex oxides such as barium titanate5, 6 and strontium?bismuth
tantalate7. 'Piezoelectric' means that these polycrystalline tubes can be
strained when an electrical voltage is applied, and vice versa. Each tube
could be triggered individually to release a small quantity of ink for
ink-jet printing, or to deliver drugs into a patient. Sensor, actuator and
data-storage applications are also possible.

The excitement generated by piezoelectric nanotubes has now inspired Levy et
al.1 to emulate the same growth technique using a different and resurgent
class of oxides. Manganites are complex oxides that adopt a pseudo-cubic
perovskite crystal structure. Half a century ago, it was found that an
applied magnetic field could significantly change the electrical resistance
of these materials8, but it is only in the past decade that these
'magnetoresistance' effects have been studied in detail. The catalyst for
this activity was the discovery of colossal magnetoresistance in a thin
film9, just as thin-film magnetoresistance effects were making the transition
from the laboratory to application in read heads for computer disk drives.

To fabricate their nanotubes of lanthanum?praseodymium?calcium manganite,
Levy et al. first made a porous template by chemically etching films of mylar
and polycarbonate that had been bombarded with heavy ions. They then
introduced a precursor solution into the (wetted) pores, and achieved
crystallization by heating the template. Microstructures comprising long,
thin-walled nanotubes formed spontaneously (Fig. 1). Through various
structural characterization techniques, Levy et al. confirmed that each tube
is composed of manganite nanocrystals. Moreover, rough estimates of the
magnetic properties match those expected for bulk samples of this manganite.

Figure 1 Going inorganic. ??Full?legend
?
High resolution image and legend (56k)

How might manganite nanotubes impact on technology? One possible application
is in solid-oxide fuel cells. A fuel cell differs from a battery in that
reactants may be continuously fed into it and exhausted. The microstructure
demonstrated by Levy et al. immediately suggests a means by which gases may
be efficiently distributed in such a cell. And as manganites conduct both
electrons and oxygen ions, and are resistant to high-temperature oxidizing
environments, they make good cathodes.

More speculatively, nanotubes made from metallic manganites could act as
highly localized sources of electrons possessing spins of a particular
orientation. This is possible because the spins of the conduction electrons
in manganites can be aligned perfectly, whereas in ordinary magnetic metals
such as cobalt the alignment is only partial. It is possible to imagine the
nanoscale engineering of electronic circuits in which the spin of electrons,
as well as their charge, could be manipulated with precision ? a valuable
capability for spin-sensitive scanning probe microscopy, and perhaps,
ultimately, quantum computing.

Nanotube structures may also offer a means of tuning the strong interactions
that exist between the magnetic, electronic and crystal structures of a
manganite. These interactions generate rich phase-coexistence phenomena over
a wide range of length scales, as has been revealed by imaging methods10. For
example, a ferromagnetic metallic phase may coexist with an antiferromagnetic
insulating phase. In a nanotube, the delicate balance between the diverse
phases could be tuned readily through the stresses associated with the
unconventional geometry. Exploring the parameter space of chemical
composition, grain size, tube dimensions and tube distribution should reveal
more exciting possibilities ahead. The future of nanotubes looks anything but
hollow.

References

1.
Levy, P., Leyva, A. G., Troiani, H. E. & S?nchez, R. D. Appl. Phys. Lett. 83,
5247?5249 (2003).?|?Article?|?ISI?|?ChemPort?|

2.
Ijima, S. Nature 354, 56?58 (1991).?|?Article?|?ISI?|?ChemPort?|

3.
Ishii, H. et al. Nature 426, 540?544
(2003).?|?Article?|?PubMed?|?ISI?|?ChemPort?|

4.
Amaratunga, G. IEEE Spectrum 40, 28?32 (2003).?|?Article?|?ISI?|

5.
Hernandez, B. A. et al. Chem. Mater. 14, 480?482
(2002).?|?Article?|?ISI?|?ChemPort?|

6.
Luo, Y. et al. Appl. Phys. Lett. 83, 440?442
(2003).?|?Article?|?ISI?|?ChemPort?|

7.
Morrison, F. D., Ramsay, L. & Scott, J. F. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 15,
L527?L532 (2003).?|?Article?|?ISI?|?ChemPort?|

8.
Volger, J. Physica 20, 49?54 (1954).?|?ISI?|?ChemPort?|

9.
Jin, S. et al. Science 264, 413?415 (1994).?|?ISI?|?ChemPort?|

10.
Mathur, N. & Littlewood, P. Physics Today 56, 25?30
(2003).?|?ISI?|?ChemPort?|

-- 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/20040303/4b73f30b/attachment.bin>

From neptune at superlink.net  Wed Mar  3 14:58:54 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 09:58:54 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Thinking in Darwinian Lockstep
Message-ID: <015c01c40130$0d55c7c0$39cd5cd1@neptune>

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed27.html

No time to refute this right now, but I hope others will write him about
this.

Dan



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Wed Mar  3 15:58:18 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 07:58:18 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] email strife
In-Reply-To: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE707C3D9@mmdsvr01.mm.local>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403030723450.15135-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Emlyn ORegan wrote:

> I have a sneaking suspicion that I'm not seeing some of the list at the
> moment; apologies if you've replied to me and I haven't seen it.

There is a new virus going around though apparently it isn't quite as
bad as the 2 or 3 we had a couple of weeks ago.  But I think it is
slowing down the net -- accessing Google is taking me much longer.

The "Friends" episode that was on had Chandler working on Ross's
laptop.  Conversation was something along the lines of:
  Chandler: "I think I erased the hard drive."
  Ross sits down at the laptop: "Its gone there's nothing here.  What were you doing?"
  Chandler: "I was cleaning out my email."
  Ross (hysterically): "My speech was on this computer."
  Chandler: "Well don't you have a printout?"
  Ross (more hysterically): "No!   What exactly did you do?"
  Chandler: "I got a message that said 'pictures of Anna K' so I opened it."
  Ross: "You did *WHAT*!"

Had me ROTFL.  As Forrest Gump says -- "stupid is as stupid does".

> Hopefully I'll be getting a lot more spam, so I can start a new
> collection (I left my Nigerian email collection at my last job).
> Currently, I'm collecting V1agra, pseudo V1agra, P3nis enlargement, etc
> along those lines. Please feel free to forward it to me!

I've got *tons* of it -- about 256MB that I know where it is
but I can dig around probably get you more...  But I don't think
you *really* want me to start sending it to you.  :-)  Its all
gzipped so it might get past your filters and end up in your
inbox.

I'd bet we could recruit everyone on the ExI list to send you
all of their archived junk mail...  But I suspect whomever
you work for would *not* be very happy.  :-)

Robert




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  3 17:11:26 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 09:11:26 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] FSP: Killington Votes to Secede
In-Reply-To: <004901c4011d$c5b6fe00$39cd5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <20040303171126.4189.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Technotranscendence <neptune at superlink.net> wrote:
> I know this is in Vermont, but I wonder about similar legal processes
> in other states of the US.  It might be yet another way to alter the
> system...

Yes, the idea had been bandied about. While a town in any other state
is going to have a bigger legal hurdle to get over (VT towns were
founded by NH), there are similar situations. For example, West
Virginia was once part of Virginia, as was Kentucky. Tennesee was once
part of North Carolina. Many states were once part of Louisiana, etc...
and in all these cases, towns were chartered by the original government
in those areas that later became their own states.

The question, though, is "are any of the original states havens of
liberty compared to the states they spawned"???

We have been discussing, though, the idea of establishing NH towns in
states all over the country, much like Neal Stephenson's "franchulates"
in his novel "Snow Crash". We are currently searching for small
population towns that are very economically productive in other states
which are especially abused by state governments through taxation
and/or regulation, to the point that the citizens of the town are of a
mood to secede entirely.

=====
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! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From natashavita at earthlink.net  Wed Mar  3 17:57:28 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 12:57:28 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Same Sex Marriage - Another City Joins In
Message-ID: <191690-2200433317572833@M2W086.mail2web.com>

Another city backs same-sex marriage 

[WorldNetDaily] 

"On the heels of 25 same-sex weddings in a college town near New York City, 
the mayor of Ithaca, N.Y., announced today she will accept marriage license 
applications from homosexual couples." (03/01/04) 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37368 

Natasha

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




From natashavita at earthlink.net  Wed Mar  3 18:01:17 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 13:01:17 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem Cells To Grow at Harvard
Message-ID: <410-2200433318117971@M2W087.mail2web.com>

Harvard to create stem-cell institute 

[Washington Times] 

"Harvard University plans to launch a multimillion-dollar center to grow 
and study human embryonic stem cells, the school announced yesterday. The 
center is expected to be the largest privately funded American stem-cell 
research project to date." (03/01/04) 

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040301-124438-3363r.htm 

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




From natashavita at earthlink.net  Wed Mar  3 18:01:18 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 13:01:18 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem Cells To Grow at Harvard
Message-ID: <114780-220043331811899@M2W077.mail2web.com>

Harvard to create stem-cell institute 

[Washington Times] 

"Harvard University plans to launch a multimillion-dollar center to grow 
and study human embryonic stem cells, the school announced yesterday. The 
center is expected to be the largest privately funded American stem-cell 
research project to date." (03/01/04) 

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040301-124438-3363r.htm 

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




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Mar  3 18:42:02 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 10:42:02 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] FSP: Killington Votes to Secede
In-Reply-To: <004901c4011d$c5b6fe00$39cd5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <20040303184202.9261.qmail@web80401.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Technotranscendence <neptune at superlink.net> wrote:
> I know this is in Vermont, but I wonder about
> similar legal processes in
> other states of the US.  It might be yet another way
> to alter the
> system...

I can tell you flat out it couldn't succeed in
California.  True, some of the cities were founded
before California (some of them were founded when this
was still Mexico), but the state has explicit legal
soverignity over all cities, counties, and other such
governments within its geographic boundaries.  I
suspect the same applies to, at least, most states on
or near the Pacific, if not all states in the US
period.


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  3 19:04:46 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 11:04:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] FSP: Killington Votes to Secede
In-Reply-To: <20040303184202.9261.qmail@web80401.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040303190446.83811.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> --- Technotranscendence <neptune at superlink.net> wrote:
> > I know this is in Vermont, but I wonder about
> > similar legal processes in
> > other states of the US.  It might be yet another way
> > to alter the
> > system...
> 
> I can tell you flat out it couldn't succeed in
> California.  True, some of the cities were founded
> before California (some of them were founded when this
> was still Mexico), but the state has explicit legal
> soverignity over all cities, counties, and other such
> governments within its geographic boundaries.  I
> suspect the same applies to, at least, most states on
> or near the Pacific, if not all states in the US
> period.

Not really. Any state which has a "home rule" clause in law or its
constitution gives power to local governments that reaches the power of
secession, potentially. Any which empowers local governments to reform
their form of governance and which proclaims that all grievances can be
redressed under the law, leaves open the potential for secession if
their greivances are legitimate, but the state legal system denies
redression.

Any state which was formed out of the territory of another by an act of
secession must implicitly recognise that secession is a legitimate act
of self-determination, else its own legitimacy is debatable. These
states include ALL states in what was once the Louisiana Territory, the
Oregon Territory. This also includes many eastern states.

There have been many acts of secession throughout our history, many of
which have been successful. The Civil War was the only incident in
which force was used to prevent secession (though the Conch Republic is
another possible instance).

There is also a precedent of a former territory of NH rejoining it. The
Republic of Indian Stream was once a sovereign government between the
US and Canada in what is now the northern tip of NH, and arose from
overlapping border disputes between the US and Britain in the area.

For the record, I would support SF or Bay Area secession.

=====
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! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From neptune at superlink.net  Wed Mar  3 19:40:27 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 14:40:27 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] FSP: Killington Votes to Secede
References: <20040303184202.9261.qmail@web80401.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <006601c40157$61c1f460$66cd5cd1@neptune>

On Wednesday, March 03, 2004 1:42 PM Adrian Tymes wingcat at pacbell.net
wrote:
>> I know this is in Vermont, but I wonder about
>> similar legal processes in
>> other states of the US.  It might be yet another way
>> to alter the system...
>
> I can tell you flat out it couldn't succeed in
> California.

There is a name for this legal impossibility in California.  I believe
it's called the San Fernando Valley, which is trying to seceded
legally.:)

> True, some of the cities were founded
> before California (some of them were founded when this
> was still Mexico), but the state has explicit legal
> soverignity over all cities, counties, and other such
> governments within its geographic boundaries.  I
> suspect the same applies to, at least, most states on
> or near the Pacific, if not all states in the US
> period.

I suspect even when the State government has "soverignity" over all
smaller governmental units, there are ways to secede within the
jurisdiction of the State government.  This is how many municipalities
break away from others, no?  It's probably a matter of doing lots of
legal research and having the case presented in such a way that it
convinces those who decide such matters.  I.e., I probably wouldn't go
before the board and say, "It's my freaking right to secede you
thrice-damned bastard black-robed jackal!"  Instead, I would use that
tactica -- er, finesse.:)

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html



From neptune at superlink.net  Wed Mar  3 19:46:13 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 14:46:13 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem Cells To Grow at Harvard
References: <410-2200433318117971@M2W087.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <008701c40158$305d7ec0$66cd5cd1@neptune>

On Wednesday, March 03, 2004 1:01 PM natashavita at earthlink.net wrote:
> Harvard to create stem-cell institute
>
> [Washington Times]
>
> "Harvard University plans to launch a multimillion-dollar center to
grow
> and study human embryonic stem cells, the school announced yesterday.
The
> center is expected to be the largest privately funded American
stem-cell
> research project to date." (03/01/04)
>
> http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040301-124438-3363r.htm

Great news!  The libertarian in me likes the fact that it's private and
the mad scientist in me likes the fact that I have secret passages into
their lab.:)

Dan



From neptune at superlink.net  Wed Mar  3 19:47:01 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 14:47:01 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem Cells To Grow at Harvard
References: <410-2200433318117971@M2W087.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <009301c40158$4cb819e0$66cd5cd1@neptune>

On Wednesday, March 03, 2004 1:01 PM natashavita at earthlink.net wrote:
> Harvard to create stem-cell institute
>
> [Washington Times]
>
> "Harvard University plans to launch a multimillion-dollar
> center to grow and study human embryonic stem cells,
> the school announced yesterday. The center is expected
> to be the largest privately funded American
> stem-cell research project to date." (03/01/04)
>
> http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040301-124438-3363r.htm

Great news!  The libertarian in me likes the fact that it's private and
the mad scientist in me likes the fact that I have secret passages into
their lab.:)

Dan



From neptune at superlink.net  Wed Mar  3 19:47:59 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 14:47:59 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem Cells To Grow at Harvard
Message-ID: <00a801c40158$6f396a00$66cd5cd1@neptune>

Oops!  Sorry about the double post of my response.

Dan



From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Wed Mar  3 19:53:27 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 13:53:27 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Thinking in Darwinian Lockstep
References: <015c01c40130$0d55c7c0$39cd5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <Law10-OE33AMfKQu1bC0002f2c2@hotmail.com>

Thanks for the tip. I think I'll go ahead and take him on while everyone is
bantering about market forces...:-)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Technotranscendence" <neptune at superlink.net>
To: <atlantis_II at yahoogroups.com>; "'ExI chat list'"
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 8:58 AM
Subject: [extropy-chat] Thinking in Darwinian Lockstep


> http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed27.html
>
> No time to refute this right now, but I hope others will write him about
> this.
>
> Dan
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From reason at longevitymeme.org  Wed Mar  3 19:53:30 2004
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 11:53:30 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Thinking in Darwinian Lockstep
In-Reply-To: <015c01c40130$0d55c7c0$39cd5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNCEKNEFAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>


> http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed27.html
>
> No time to refute this right now, but I hope others will write him about
> this.

I've always found it somewhat annoying that a large number of influential
libertarians find that their live and let live attitude stops where their
religion starts. Lew Rockwell would be a good resource to introduce people
to libertarianism if not for the rabid christianity and veiled racism.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Wed Mar  3 20:14:02 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 15:14:02 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Thinking in Darwinian Lockstep
In-Reply-To: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNCEKNEFAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
Message-ID: <000201c4015c$13b4ede0$cc01a8c0@dellbert>

Reason wrote,
> I've always found it somewhat annoying that a large number of 
> influential libertarians find that their live and let live 
> attitude stops where their religion starts. Lew Rockwell 
> would be a good resource to introduce people to 
> libertarianism if not for the rabid christianity and veiled racism.

Actually, I would consider such groups to be poor resources because of their
rabid christianity, poor science, and veiled racism.  If they aren't
objectively trustworthy on these topics, why should I trust their research
in other areas?  It is this very reason that I discount that "large number
of influential libertarians" that you mention.

-- 
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 GIAC Certified GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 




From neptune at superlink.net  Wed Mar  3 20:26:33 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 15:26:33 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Thinking in Darwinian Lockstep
References: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNCEKNEFAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
Message-ID: <00e201c4015d$d26a88c0$66cd5cd1@neptune>

On Wednesday, March 03, 2004 2:53 PM Reason reason at longevitymeme.org
wrote:
>> http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed27.html
>>
>> No time to refute this right now, but I hope
>> others will write him about this.
>
> I've always found it somewhat annoying that a
> large number of influential libertarians find that
> their live and let live attitude stops where their
> religion starts.

I would say it's the other way around: These are religious people who
just happen to hold some libertarian tenets, especially when it comes to
things they hold near and dear.  But that's typical.  Any individual or
group that is being oppressed usually takes almost libertarian stances
against oppression.  However, when it comes time to be the oppressor,
then it's another story.

> Lew Rockwell would be a good resource to
> introduce people to libertarianism if not for the
> rabid christianity and veiled racism.

I'm not sure it's racism.  I think it's more saying things that shock
people in today's PC-climate.  ("Today's" because just all ages and
circles have their PC lingo.)  But what, in particular, do you think is
racist there?

However, I agree about the rabid Christianity of quite a few in that
crowd.  It's surprising given their veneration of that fellow atheist
Murray Rothbard.:)

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html



From neptune at superlink.net  Wed Mar  3 20:42:18 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 15:42:18 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Thinking in Darwinian Lockstep
References: <015c01c40130$0d55c7c0$39cd5cd1@neptune>
	<Law10-OE33AMfKQu1bC0002f2c2@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <011c01c40160$061145e0$66cd5cd1@neptune>

On Wednesday, March 03, 2004 2:53 PM Kevin Freels
kevinfreels at hotmail.com
> Thanks for the tip. I think I'll go ahead and
> take him on while everyone is bantering
> about market forces...:-)

Thanks.  I hope you report back the results.

I'll probably get up the nerve to write him shortly too.  I should just
put out a FAQ -- if someone hasn't already done it -- since these
paleocon Christian types tend to all use the same arguments.  (That's
what made me develop my as yet unfinished Free Banking FAQ at
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/BankFAQ.html  Well, it wasn't for the
paleocon Christian types, but for the person who comes to the table with
the idea that either central banking is great or the only alternative to
central banking is a 100% gold reserve standard (the Rothbard view).
The latter is, sadly, a position I run into time and again in
libertarian, Objectivist, and free market circles.:)

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html



From reason at longevitymeme.org  Wed Mar  3 20:40:30 2004
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 12:40:30 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Thinking in Darwinian Lockstep
In-Reply-To: <000201c4015c$13b4ede0$cc01a8c0@dellbert>
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNKEKPEFAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harvey Newstrom [mailto:mail at HarveyNewstrom.com]

> Reason wrote,
> > I've always found it somewhat annoying that a large number of
> > influential libertarians find that their live and let live
> > attitude stops where their religion starts. Lew Rockwell
> > would be a good resource to introduce people to
> > libertarianism if not for the rabid christianity and veiled racism.
>
> Actually, I would consider such groups to be poor resources
> because of their
> rabid christianity, poor science, and veiled racism.  If they aren't
> objectively trustworthy on these topics, why should I trust their research
> in other areas?  It is this very reason that I discount that "large number
> of influential libertarians" that you mention.

Sadly, these people are actually very influential. Their relationship to the
libertarian community is similar to the relationship of Betterhumans to the
transhumanist community - i.e. they get way more eyeballs than the rest of
the community put together, but are by no means representative of diversity
or majority viewpoints.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Technotranscendence [mailto:neptune at superlink.net]

> > Lew Rockwell would be a good resource to
> > introduce people to libertarianism if not for the
> > rabid christianity and veiled racism.
>
> I'm not sure it's racism.  I think it's more saying things that shock
> people in today's PC-climate.  ("Today's" because just all ages and
> circles have their PC lingo.)  But what, in particular, do you think is
> racist there?

Positions and statements on immigration from a few of the writers. As for
religion, they veer off into protectionism and racism, ignoring the obvious,
well discussed libertarian solutions of property ownership, small government
and strong rule of law. If you have those two, you don't need borders.
Immigration "problems" are all commons-like problems relating to public
services and commonly-held resources that can be got rid of by privatizing
the problem areas.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme



From natashavita at earthlink.net  Wed Mar  3 20:42:41 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 15:42:41 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem Cells To Grow at Harvard
Message-ID: <48270-22004333204241809@M2W045.mail2web.com>

From: Technotranscendence 

> [Washington Times]
>
> "Harvard University plans to launch a multimillion-dollar center to
grow
> and study human embryonic stem cells, the school announced yesterday.
The
> center is expected to be the largest privately funded American
stem-cell
> research project to date." (03/01/04)
>
> http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040301-124438-3363r.htm

"Great news!  The libertarian in me likes the fact that it's private and
the mad scientist in me likes the fact that I have secret passages into
their lab.:)"

Yes, it is a great thing for all political persuasions and non-party
independent voting enthusiasts who are all supportive of stem cell cloning.


Natasha

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




From neptune at superlink.net  Wed Mar  3 20:57:44 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 15:57:44 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Disturbing Story of the Government's Secret Plum
	Island Germ Laboratory
Message-ID: <014a01c40162$2e21b400$66cd5cd1@neptune>

When I went out for lunch earlier today, I listened to NY & Co. -- AKA
the Leonard Lopate Show.  Lopate interviewed Michael Christopher
Carroll, author of the book _Lab 257: The Disturbing Story of the
Government's Secret Plum Island Germ Laboratory_.  Though I only caught
part of the interview, it was fairly interesting...  I guess there's a
silver lining to me not having enough money to buy that thirty-room
mansion in the Hamptons.:)

For more on the book, see:

http://www.harpercollins.com/hc/features/special/lab/

I've also seen the book in bookstores, but haven't overcome the sticker
shock yet.:)

Cheers!

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/BankFAQ.html



From neptune at superlink.net  Wed Mar  3 21:08:39 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 16:08:39 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem Cells To Grow at Harvard
References: <48270-22004333204241809@M2W045.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <016401c40163$b3f22f00$66cd5cd1@neptune>

On Wednesday, March 03, 2004 3:42 PM natashavita at earthlink.net wrote:
> "Great news!  The libertarian in me likes the fact that it's private
and
> the mad scientist in me likes the fact that I have secret passages
into
> their lab.:)"
>
> Yes, it is a great thing for all political persuasions
> and non-party independent voting enthusiasts who
> are all supportive of stem cell cloning.

Agreed.  BTW, I'm non-party too.  I'm a small-l libertarian...

Dan



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Mar  3 21:02:06 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 13:02:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] FSP: Killington Votes to Secede
In-Reply-To: <006601c40157$61c1f460$66cd5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <20040303210206.38210.qmail@web80409.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Technotranscendence <neptune at superlink.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 03, 2004 1:42 PM Adrian Tymes
> wingcat at pacbell.net
> wrote:
> >> I know this is in Vermont, but I wonder about
> >> similar legal processes in
> >> other states of the US.  It might be yet another
> way
> >> to alter the system...
> >
> > I can tell you flat out it couldn't succeed in
> > California.
> 
> There is a name for this legal impossibility in
> California.  I believe
> it's called the San Fernando Valley, which is trying
> to seceded
> legally.:)

I never said some couldn't try.  Nor even that they
might end up with a semi-autonomous arrangement that
might prove good enough.  Just that they won't fully
succeed in secession.  ^_-

> I suspect even when the State government has
> "soverignity" over all
> smaller governmental units, there are ways to secede
> within the
> jurisdiction of the State government.  This is how
> many municipalities
> break away from others, no?

In those cases, the higher power (California state, in
the case) gives its approval.  The federal government
of the United States has stated that it would not
support the breakup of a state.  (Exceptions in cases
like Texas, which had in the contract that brought it
into the US a clause that let it break up at a later
date if it chooses to do so.  There might possibly be
arguments for something like this in the original 13
colonies, or maybe some states added soon thereafter,
but not by the time of California's incorporation.)


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Mar  3 21:11:42 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 13:11:42 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] FSP: Killington Votes to Secede
In-Reply-To: <20040303190446.83811.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040303211142.17499.qmail@web80407.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Any state which was formed out of the territory of
> another by an act of
> secession must implicitly recognise that secession
> is a legitimate act
> of self-determination, else its own legitimacy is
> debatable.

Easy counter, which many states can claim to have done
if seriously pressed:

"Well, yes, we could arguably be claimed to have
seceeded at one time.  But we've since decided that
further secession is not legitimate.  There are not
now alive any residents from when this claimed
secession that founded this state occurred, so we are
free to erase this mistake of our ancestors if it ever
did occur."

> These
> states include ALL states in what was once the
> Louisiana Territory, the
> Oregon Territory. This also includes many eastern
> states.

Territory != state, and there was an explicit
recognition of that in their governments: the
territorial governments were around only until such
time as their residents organized into states.  But
you may well be right about the eastern states.

> For the record, I would support SF or Bay Area
> secession.

There are quite a lot of residents who would support
splitting Northern California from Southern
California.  The topic has been seriously proposed
before; IIRC, there was a movement pressing for a vote
on it within the past 20 years.  Among the main things
stopping it is that Southern California, which has a
lot more political strength, would have its supply of
water imported from the north threatened, and they're
not about to let that happen.


From neptune at superlink.net  Wed Mar  3 21:34:16 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 16:34:16 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Thinking in Darwinian Lockstep
References: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNKEKPEFAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
Message-ID: <017801c40167$48a5c820$66cd5cd1@neptune>

On Wednesday, March 03, 2004 3:40 PM Reason reason at longevitymeme.org
wrote:
[from his discussion with Harvey]
>> Actually, I would consider such groups to be
>> poor resources because of their rabid
>> christianity, poor science, and veiled racism.
>> If they aren't objectively trustworthy on these
>> topics, why should I trust their research in
>> other areas?

The simple answer to this, Harvey, is you should always be critical of
all research.  You should always ask, especially about stuff you either
strongly agree with or strongly disagree with:  What does that person
mean?  How does what she or he means stack up against the facts and
logic?

BTW, I am sad to report that even hardcore atheists lie.  Even
scientists make mistakes.  (Heck some scientists are theists and some
atheists appear more irrational than some religious people I've met.)

>> It is this very reason that I
>> discount that "large number of influential
>> libertarians" that you mention.
>
> Sadly, these people are actually very influential.

I'm not so sure about their influence and this seems to me to be a
mostly American phenomena because religion is much more influential here
than in many other countries.  My experience is that there are far more
atheists -- or agnostics, which is just a euphemism for "atheist" in my
book:) -- among libertarians and more open ones than in other groups.
Well, the exceptions that come first to my mind are Objectivists and
Marxists who tend to all be atheists.:)  (Okay, a trivial exception is
secular humanists, but that's like saying atheist groups are full of
atheists.)

Nevertheless, the religious ones are vocal and vocal about tying
religion to politics.

> Their relationship to the libertarian community
> is similar to the relationship of Betterhumans
> to the transhumanist community - i.e. they get
> way more eyeballs than the rest of the
> community put together, but are by no means
> representative of diversity or majority viewpoints.

This is true.  However, I mostly see this coming from FEE, LvMI, and
Rockwell.  Most of the other libertarian organizations and circles are
non-religious, such as Cato, the Independent Institute, and the like.
My personal experience, again, has been that there's a small but vocal
religious minority in the libertarian movement.  I'm not sure of its
numbers, but by the same token, there's also a small but vocal
Objectivist (read: rabid atheist) contingent in ditto too.

[from his discussion with me]
>>> Lew Rockwell would be a good resource to
>>> introduce people to libertarianism if not for the
>>> rabid christianity and veiled racism.
>>
>> I'm not sure it's racism.  I think it's more saying
>> things that shock people in today's PC-climate.
>> ("Today's" because just all ages and circles
>> have their PC lingo.)  But what, in particular, do
>> you think is racist there?
>
> Positions and statements on immigration from
> a few of the writers.

Actually, I don't think those statements are essentially racist.  The
locus classicus for those views are Hoppe's papers on free immigration
wherein he defends restricted immigration on the grounds of property
rights.  I think when the Rockwell writers are talking about
immigration, they have that in mind.  (Hoppe is probably the most
outspoken member of that clique on immigration.)

> As for religion, they veer off into protectionism
> and racism, ignoring the obvious, well discussed
> libertarian solutions of property ownership, small
> government and strong rule of law. If you have
> those two, you don't need borders.  Immigration
> "problems" are all commons-like problems relating
> to public services and commonly-held resources
> that can be got rid of by privatizing the problem
> areas.

I agree with you.  Hoppe's view, since his is that which I'm most
familiar with and the one informing the other Rockwellians, is that
public property really is private property -- private property owned by
the tax payers.  Until it's returned to them -- which he endorses:
returning the property -- the government as caretaking should do the
least amount of abuse to it.  He goes on to argue that free immigration
actually results in an abuse of the property and restricted immigration
would do less abuse.  (There's a little more to it than this, but I
believe this gives you his argument in a nutshell.)  It's kind of like
if X steals Y's car, it's better for Y if X tries to retain some of its
value in hopes of future return than if X just goes about setting it on
fire.

Now, you might be right that some of these anti-free immigrant types are
closet racists.  After all, they should maybe present the Hoppe view and
then say, "This is how it has to be if we still have public property,
but it would be best to privatize the public property so that the
rightful owners would then decide who can move about on it."  But I
would give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.
(However, to be sure, next time I read any anti-immigration stuff there,
I'll email the source and see if she or he agrees with you or is just
using the Hoppe view as a cover for racism.  Assuming the writer is
honest, would you agree this would give us definite answers on this
matter?  Also, don't me stop anyone else who feels strongly enough from
doing likewise.)

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html



From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Wed Mar  3 21:27:38 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 14:27:38 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) the most dangerous country
Message-ID: <40464DCA.13586E96@mindspring.com>

Lengthy but interesting---gives some insight into the deep game going 
on right now.

< http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040308fa_fact >

BLW

Includes information on upcoming spring offensive in Pakistan to capture/kill
Osama bin Laden.

Terry


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


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


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  3 21:35:03 2004
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 13:35:03 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] FSP: Killington Votes to Secede
In-Reply-To: <20040303211142.17499.qmail@web80407.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040303213503.95650.qmail@web60501.mail.yahoo.com>

Actually there is talk amongst certain circles of the
entire State of California seceeding and taking
Oregon, Washington, and possibly Hawaii and Alaska
with us. It has a lot to do the Federal government
continously interfering with our rights of self
determination in such matters as marijuana
legalization, gay marriage, embarrassed to the whole
world by Bush. etc. I think sophisticated California
urbanites are sick of being pushed around in the
electoral college by the huge swath of red states in
the middle of the country that really have less in
common in California than Mexico, Japan or other
modern Pacific Rim culture does. At least our current
governor owns up to smoking marijuana to "relax his
muscles". He can't become president of the United
States of America... but the United States of
Pacifica? Who knows. *wg*
  





> There are quite a lot of residents who would support
> splitting Northern California from Southern
> California.  The topic has been seriously proposed
> before; IIRC, there was a movement pressing for a
> vote
> on it within the past 20 years.  Among the main
> things
> stopping it is that Southern California, which has a
> lot more political strength, would have its supply
> of
> water imported from the north threatened, and
> they're
> not about to let that happen.
> _______________________________________________


=====
The Avantguardian 


"He stands like some sort of pagan god or deposed tyrant. Staring out over the city he's sworn to . . .to stare out over and it's evident just by looking at him that he's got some pretty heavy things on his mind."

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Wed Mar  3 21:55:56 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 08:55:56 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem Cells To Grow at Harvard
References: <410-2200433318117971@M2W087.mail2web.com>
	<008701c40158$305d7ec0$66cd5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <003e01c4016a$4e5e98c0$f9292dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>

> natashavita at earthlink.net wrote:
> > Harvard to create stem-cell institute
>>
> > http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040301-124438-3363r.htm
> 

Technotranscendance:

> Great news!  The libertarian in me likes the fact that it's private and
> the mad scientist in me likes the fact that I have secret passages into
> their lab.:)

Good stuff !  17 new cell lines could make a big difference. Its looking
like a good year for progress on the stem cell front (at last). 

BTW: I found the pdfs can be downloaded (no charge) from the
New England Journal of Medicine.

Brett Paatsch 

 












  







From neptune at superlink.net  Wed Mar  3 22:09:00 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 17:09:00 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] FSP: Killington Votes to Secede
References: <20040303213503.95650.qmail@web60501.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <019401c4016c$22aa5320$66cd5cd1@neptune>

On Wednesday, March 03, 2004 4:35 PM The Avantguardian
avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com wrote:
> Actually there is talk amongst certain
> circles of the entire State of California
> seceeding and taking Oregon,
> Washington, and possibly Hawaii and
> Alaska with us. It has a lot to do the
> Federal government continously
> interfering with our rights of self
> determination in such matters as
> marijuana legalization, gay marriage,
> embarrassed to the whole world by Bush.
> etc. I think sophisticated California
> urbanites are sick of being pushed
> around in the electoral college by the
> huge swath of red states in the middle
> of the country that really have less in
> common in California than Mexico,
> Japan or other modern Pacific Rim
> culture does. At least our current
> governor owns up to smoking marijuana
> to "relax his muscles". He can't become
> president of the United States of America...
> but the United States of
> Pacifica? Who knows. *wg*

It wouldn't be the first time secession was discussed in the US.  Well,
the origin of the US was a secession from the British Empire, but, IIRC,
in the early 1800s, some of the New England States wanted to secede.
Even up to the US Civil War, there was talk about many Northern States
seceding.

The actual result, though, of a strong secession movement would probably
just be the Federal government handing out some favors to certain
individuals and groups to stifle it.  Doesn't mean it shouldn't be
tried.  And who knows?  Maybe the secession itself won't happen, but the
Feds might back off on marijuana laws, etc.

BTW, if you're interested in this topic, you might want to read
_Secession, State & Liberty_, a collection of essays edited by David
Gordon.  I haven't read the book, but I've listened to the taped
lectures the book is based on.  The lectures actually had a healthy
diversity of viewpoints on the issue, including speakers on Eastern
Europe and Canada.  See:

http://www.mises.org/store/product1.asp?SID=2&Product_ID=88

Actually, the Amazon price is 5 cents cheaper and the reviews there give
me the idea that the the book probably contains much the same material
as the lectures.

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html



From natashavita at earthlink.net  Wed Mar  3 22:41:40 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 17:41:40 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Stem Cells To Grow at Harvard
Message-ID: <63340-22004333224140328@M2W074.mail2web.com>


TechnoTrans writes:

>Agreed.  BTW, I'm non-party too.  I'm a small-l libertarian...

The smaller the party affiliation, the bigger the brain :-)

After this past week?s name-calling, and ill-will (with the exception of
Edwards)...

But the more I hear politicians beat each other to a pulp, the more I
understand some transhumanist political-mongers (socialists/Marxists vs.
libertarians).  I never before put it into the context of the "language,
style, and manner" (Greg Burch really understands this quite well,
philosophically) and it is not the same as real hate wars, but a specific
"style" and protocol that is accepted -- like Parliament when the speakers
yell and shout at one another in a heated uproar.  But I don't notice this
style amongst liberals vs. republicans, liberals vs. libertarian, or
democrat vs. republican transhumanists.

Regardless of the rationalization of the style, I'd like someone, sometime
to show me how it is healthy, beneficial and an evolved method of
communication and achieving results.

Natasha

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




From Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au  Wed Mar  3 23:35:04 2004
From: Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au (Emlyn ORegan)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 10:05:04 +1030
Subject: [extropy-chat] email strife
Message-ID: <34C3A25B1989094E9A50E5E4837D8AE707C3DB@mmdsvr01.mm.local>

I've got *tons* of it -- about 256MB that I know where it is
but I can dig around probably get you more...  But I don't think
you *really* want me to start sending it to you.  :-)  Its all
gzipped so it might get past your filters and end up in your
inbox.

I'd bet we could recruit everyone on the ExI list to send you
all of their archived junk mail...  But I suspect whomever
you work for would *not* be very happy.  :-)

Robert

---

True, true. If I published a mailing address, maybe CDs full of junk
might work? I couldn't reimburse you for it, but the warm inner glow of
knowing junk mails were being used for good (hmm, ok maybe just for
weird) might be reimbursement enough?

Emlyn
(will he get away with such a transparently self serving
rationalization??)


***************************************************************************
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 jcorb at iol.ie  Wed Mar  3 23:35:42 2004
From: jcorb at iol.ie (J Corbally)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 23:35:42 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical 
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20040303231100.02b54ab0@pop.iol.ie>

I recently bought a copy of XP Home retail for about 135 Euro  ($163!) I 
then got an additional license for $84 (approx 70 Euro).  Cheap, but only 
with an initial outlay.

It appears the days of the 70 Euro Operating System are gone.  I don't see 
Linux replacing all my apps anytime soon, either.



James...

>Message: 11
>Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 16:43:55 +0000
> >From: BillK <bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
>To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>Message-ID: <4044B9CB.3050304 at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>On Tue Mar 02, 2004 08:18 am Eugen Leitl wrote:
> > By adding a Microsoft tax (something like $100) to hardware and
> > removing my ability to purchase a system without an OS license I as a
> > consumer can no longer vote with my feet; that is, wallet. This is
> > monopoly ramming things down our collective throats to maximize
> > revenue, nothing else.
>Heh! How very generous of you Eugen.
>You getting soft in your old age? ;)
>Dana Blankenhorn wrote an article recently, entitled 'A Tipping Point'
><http://www.corante.com/mooreslore/archives/001932.html>
>He is a business/computer journalist about to buy a new computer for his
>business, so it needs to be a Windows machine.
>He found a nice cheap 'white box', then discovered he needs $146.75 for
>Windows XP Pro, and Office Depot sells Office 2003 for about $400.
>If you need more M$ software, it gets even worse.
>M$ will be giving computers away free soon, if you buy their software!
>BillK





From eugen at leitl.org  Thu Mar  4 09:31:43 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 10:31:43 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.1.20040303231100.02b54ab0@pop.iol.ie>
References: <5.0.2.1.1.20040303231100.02b54ab0@pop.iol.ie>
Message-ID: <20040304093143.GE18046@leitl.org>

On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 11:35:42PM +0000, J Corbally wrote:

> I recently bought a copy of XP Home retail for about 135 Euro  ($163!) I 
> then got an additional license for $84 (approx 70 Euro).  Cheap, but only 
> with an initial outlay.

You could have bought a used Windows 2000 Professional license on eBay, or
something. 
 
> It appears the days of the 70 Euro Operating System are gone.  I don't see 
> Linux replacing all my apps anytime soon, either.

What are your apps? Thought about VirtualPC or VMware?

-- 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/20040304/6604815e/attachment.bin>

From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Thu Mar  4 14:57:37 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 08:57:37 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical
References: <5.0.2.1.1.20040303231100.02b54ab0@pop.iol.ie>
	<20040304093143.GE18046@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <LAW10-OE55DWpmy20h0000193d8@hotmail.com>

I have been quite happy since replacing Win9x with Windows 2000. I'm still
learning the differences, but with everything I have done, I have yet to
crash it!

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eugen Leitl" <eugen at leitl.org>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 3:31 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical


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


From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Thu Mar  4 15:08:02 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 09:08:02 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] BIO: Interesting HIV research
Message-ID: <Law10-OE478hbiX3vb100036090@hotmail.com>

Genetically-modified vaginal bacteria may be able to serve as a "living condom", secreting proteins that protect women against HIV, suggests a new report.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994141

Mysterious virus may thwart HIV 

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994742

The first case of two strains of sexually-transmitted HIV combining to form a new hybrid virus in a human has been revealed by researchers.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993941


Wouldn;t it be great if we find a naturally occurring virus that recombines with HIV to make a harmless hybrid thgat takes over?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040304/ad2d80c9/attachment.html>

From brian at posthuman.com  Thu Mar  4 15:36:22 2004
From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 09:36:22 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyler Emerson - SIAI Executive Director
Message-ID: <40474CF6.3040705@posthuman.com>

The Singularity Institute is pleased to announce Tyler Emerson as our 
Executive Director. Some may know Tyler from his involvement in IAC's 
Accelerating Change Conference and WTA's Transvision. In the coming 
years, he will be devoted to our supporters, to expanding SI as an 
organization, and to the continual elevation of singularity advocacy and 
responsible transhumanism toward an adequately organized and resourceful 
movement.

Tyler will always be available to anyone at emerson(at)singinst.org.
-- 
Brian Atkins
Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
http://www.singinst.org/


From megao at sasktel.net  Thu Mar  4 15:36:46 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 09:36:46 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:BIO: Interesting HIV research- "A Clear and
	Present Danger"
References: <Law10-OE478hbiX3vb100036090@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <40474D0D.6E034986@sasktel.net>

Have not clicked to read the info but this could be both good and very
very bad news.  For years I have said that given time AIDS may  evolve
to be able to hybridize.

The part that may be very very deadly is if the other component by
itself or the combination as a result of hybridization becomes
VIRULENT.  Given the strong ability of AIDS to mutate and the fact that
millions of hosts containing billions of particles have provided the
cauldron for this event for the last 20 years this is a particularly
possible event.

I think we can forget all the chicken, cat and cow diseases.  If AIDS
ever  becomes virulent we might only have 15  years to stop it in its
tracks or suffer massive scale  global depopulation.

There will be lots of resources to go around if the world population
declines by 99%.

Those who better understand the precise  nucleic structure will be
better to give odds on this event but for those who only understand the
broader aspects it is truly understood to be taken as
"A  Clear and Present Danger"

"Pharmer Mo"


Kevin Freels wrote:

> Genetically-modified vaginal bacteria may be able to serve as a
> "living condom", secreting proteins that protect women against HIV,
> suggests a new report.
> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994141 Mysterious
> virus may thwart HIV
> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994742 The first case
> of two strains of sexually-transmitted HIV combining to form a new
> hybrid virus in a human has been revealed by researchers.
> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993941  Wouldn;t it
> be great if we find a naturally occurring virus that recombines with
> HIV to make a harmless hybrid thgat takes over?
>
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20040304/363d2681/attachment.html>

From natashavita at earthlink.net  Thu Mar  4 16:26:21 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 11:26:21 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] EXTRA!  Bailey on Kass Recent Firings!
Message-ID: <62340-22004344162621427@M2W074.mail2web.com>

Extra! Extra!  Read all about it!

URL: http://www.reason.com/links/links030304.shtml 

"Leon Kass Learns to Spin 
Sage of bioethics wants you to think he knows nothing"

            by:  Ronald Bailey

"In today's Washington Post, Leon Kass, chairman of the President's Council
on Bioethics, pens an op/ed entitled "We Don't Play Politics With Science,"
wherein he tries to explain the appointment of three new members to the
council and justify the sacking of two members who disagreed with him and
the President."


Natasha

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




From Karen at Smigrodzki.org  Thu Mar  4 17:36:58 2004
From: Karen at Smigrodzki.org (Karen Rand Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 12:36:58 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] FSP: Killington Votes to Secede
References: <20040303210206.38210.qmail@web80409.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00a201c4020f$4b2075c0$6501a8c0@dimension>


The USSCT has held that there is no right to secession for states. See posts
on this list by me on the topic of secession from about a year ago. In those
I include the reference to the case, and to a leading legal scholar who
wrote on the topic (Cass Sunstein).

Karen


"Now, now my good man, this is no time for making enemies."
- Voltaire (1694-1778) on his deathbed in response to a priest asking that
he renounce Satan.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adrian Tymes" <wingcat at pacbell.net>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] FSP: Killington Votes to Secede


> --- Technotranscendence <neptune at superlink.net> wrote:
> > I know this is in Vermont, but I wonder about
> > similar legal processes in
> > other states of the US.  It might be yet another way
> > to alter the
> > system...
>
> I can tell you flat out it couldn't succeed in
> California.  True, some of the cities were founded
> before California (some of them were founded when this
> was still Mexico), but the state has explicit legal
> soverignity over all cities, counties, and other such
> governments within its geographic boundaries.  I
> suspect the same applies to, at least, most states on
> or near the Pacific, if not all states in the US
> period.
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>

"Now, now my good man, this is no time for making enemies."
- Voltaire (1694-1778) on his deathbed in response to a priest asking that
he renounce Satan.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adrian Tymes" <wingcat at pacbell.net>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] FSP: Killington Votes to Secede


> --- Technotranscendence <neptune at superlink.net> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 03, 2004 1:42 PM Adrian Tymes
> > wingcat at pacbell.net
> > wrote:
> > >> I know this is in Vermont, but I wonder about
> > >> similar legal processes in
> > >> other states of the US.  It might be yet another
> > way
> > >> to alter the system...
> > >
> > > I can tell you flat out it couldn't succeed in
> > > California.
> >
> > There is a name for this legal impossibility in
> > California.  I believe
> > it's called the San Fernando Valley, which is trying
> > to seceded
> > legally.:)
>
> I never said some couldn't try.  Nor even that they
> might end up with a semi-autonomous arrangement that
> might prove good enough.  Just that they won't fully
> succeed in secession.  ^_-
>
> > I suspect even when the State government has
> > "soverignity" over all
> > smaller governmental units, there are ways to secede
> > within the
> > jurisdiction of the State government.  This is how
> > many municipalities
> > break away from others, no?
>
> In those cases, the higher power (California state, in
> the case) gives its approval.  The federal government
> of the United States has stated that it would not
> support the breakup of a state.  (Exceptions in cases
> like Texas, which had in the contract that brought it
> into the US a clause that let it break up at a later
> date if it chooses to do so.  There might possibly be
> arguments for something like this in the original 13
> colonies, or maybe some states added soon thereafter,
> but not by the time of California's incorporation.)
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  4 17:56:29 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 09:56:29 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] FSP: Killington Votes to Secede
In-Reply-To: <00a201c4020f$4b2075c0$6501a8c0@dimension>
Message-ID: <20040304175629.61210.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>

This may be the case for states to secede from the union. This is not
the issue at hand. The issue is whether one town can secede from its
state as a result of the injustice of the state government, and rejoin
a state it had once belonged to. In the case of Killington, it joined
Vermont under the original VT Constitution, which stated in its
preamble that all VT towns belonged to NH by right and had been
unjustly taken by New York by an act of King George.

The NH Constitution recognises the legal right of both revolt and
secession, a necessary precursor to Vermont's act in seceding from it,
and being recognised as a natural right here in NH, it did not become
alienated from the towns and people of Vermont, whether or not they
continue to recognise them. The very act of Vermonts towns seceding to
form their own republic in 1777 is the precedent at stake here. For if
secession is not a right, then Vermont's secession was illegitimate,
and rightly belongs to NH anyways. If Vermont's secession is
legitimate, then secession is a right, and Killington can rejoin NH if
it so chooses.

Both sides of the argument can be used to support Killington's
assertion.

That being said, Killington is NOT acting as though it has the right to
secede. It is petitioning the legislature of Vermont, the legislature
of NH (I have house reps who've already agreed to sponsor their
petition) and the US Congress. This is not a new process, it is one we
in the Upper Valley have pioneered on two previous occasions. This area
is home to the only two interstate school districts in the world, which
required a degree of secession by towns on both sides in order to
effect, as well as the approvals of the legislatures of both states as
well as congress.

--- Karen Rand Smigrodzki <Karen at Smigrodzki.org> wrote:
> 
> The USSCT has held that there is no right to secession for states.
> See posts
> on this list by me on the topic of secession from about a year ago.
> In those
> I include the reference to the case, and to a leading legal scholar
> who
> wrote on the topic (Cass Sunstein).
> 
> Karen
> 
> 
> "Now, now my good man, this is no time for making enemies."
> - Voltaire (1694-1778) on his deathbed in response to a priest asking
> that
> he renounce Satan.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Adrian Tymes" <wingcat at pacbell.net>
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 1:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] FSP: Killington Votes to Secede
> 
> 
> > --- Technotranscendence <neptune at superlink.net> wrote:
> > > I know this is in Vermont, but I wonder about
> > > similar legal processes in
> > > other states of the US.  It might be yet another way
> > > to alter the
> > > system...
> >
> > I can tell you flat out it couldn't succeed in
> > California.  True, some of the cities were founded
> > before California (some of them were founded when this
> > was still Mexico), but the state has explicit legal
> > soverignity over all cities, counties, and other such
> > governments within its geographic boundaries.  I
> > suspect the same applies to, at least, most states on
> > or near the Pacific, if not all states in the US
> > period.
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> >
> 
> "Now, now my good man, this is no time for making enemies."
> - Voltaire (1694-1778) on his deathbed in response to a priest asking
> that
> he renounce Satan.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Adrian Tymes" <wingcat at pacbell.net>
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 4:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] FSP: Killington Votes to Secede
> 
> 
> > --- Technotranscendence <neptune at superlink.net> wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 03, 2004 1:42 PM Adrian Tymes
> > > wingcat at pacbell.net
> > > wrote:
> > > >> I know this is in Vermont, but I wonder about
> > > >> similar legal processes in
> > > >> other states of the US.  It might be yet another
> > > way
> > > >> to alter the system...
> > > >
> > > > I can tell you flat out it couldn't succeed in
> > > > California.
> > >
> > > There is a name for this legal impossibility in
> > > California.  I believe
> > > it's called the San Fernando Valley, which is trying
> > > to seceded
> > > legally.:)
> >
> > I never said some couldn't try.  Nor even that they
> > might end up with a semi-autonomous arrangement that
> > might prove good enough.  Just that they won't fully
> > succeed in secession.  ^_-
> >
> > > I suspect even when the State government has
> > > "soverignity" over all
> > > smaller governmental units, there are ways to secede
> > > within the
> > > jurisdiction of the State government.  This is how
> > > many municipalities
> > > break away from others, no?
> >
> > In those cases, the higher power (California state, in
> > the case) gives its approval.  The federal government
> > of the United States has stated that it would not
> > support the breakup of a state.  (Exceptions in cases
> > like Texas, which had in the contract that brought it
> > into the US a clause that let it break up at a later
> > date if it chooses to do so.  There might possibly be
> > arguments for something like this in the original 13
> > colonies, or maybe some states added soon thereafter,
> > but not by the time of California's incorporation.)
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From es at popido.com  Thu Mar  4 19:12:01 2004
From: es at popido.com (Erik Starck)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 20:12:01 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] TECH: The future of cash?
In-Reply-To: <002c01c3fa12$a9b14bf0$cc01a8c0@dellbert>
References: <002c01c3fa12$a9b14bf0$cc01a8c0@dellbert>
Message-ID: <40477F81.8060505@popido.com>

Harvey Newstrom wrote:

>I am well aware of the privacy concerns.  I never said the government should
>do it, I was answering the question of whether they could do it.  
>  
>

Woops:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904rfidtagsexplode.html
Looks like they already did.


--
Erik S.



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Thu Mar  4 19:30:16 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 11:30:16 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re:BIO: Interesting HIV research- "A Clear and
	Present Danger"
In-Reply-To: <40474D0D.6E034986@sasktel.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403041102250.19396-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc. wrote:

> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994141

Ok, this is pretty simple.  HIV uses two receptors to get into
cells CD4 and CCR4 (I think).  Some people are defective in
CCR4 and can either not get HIV or its very very difficult.
Bacteria secrete lots of proteins for various reasons --
defense, to gather food, perhaps to attract other bacteria
with which they might exchange genomic material (though I've
never seen this proven -- I've never really checked).
What they have done is created an artificial gene which
they put into a natural bacteria that produces a secreted
soluble form of CD4.  This acts as as a "decoy" for any HIV
when it tries to enter the cells.  HIV binds instead to the
synthetic CD4 rather than the natural CD4 that is on the human
cells they would infect.  Because off normal vaginal secretions
the HIV viruses will eventually get flushed out either preventing
or significantly decreasing the infection rate.  The only flaw
that I can easily see in this one would not want to have sex
when a woman was having her period as HIV might be able
to get from the vagina into the bloodstream due to reduced
barriers.  But I'm not an expert in this -- it would probably
take an ObGyn to comment on it.

In a way this strategy is almost like putting an insulin
or antibiotic factory within your body -- though not
actually in your bloodstream where it is more likely
to make your immune system rather annoyed.  One could
legitimately call this the first real application of
bionanobots for in vivo medical therapy I think.  It
is going to take a lot of work to remove sufficient
molecules from the surface of bacteria to get them to
the point where your internal immune system would
tolerate them -- though they might be workable bound
within non-immunogenic membranes that only allow small
molecules in or out (this will work for most hormones).

> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994742

Ok, they don't have a good explanation for this yet.
What it indicates is that patients who have the GBV virus
and remain infected with it seem to live significantly
longer than patients that don't.  The last paragraph
suggests that there may be GBV coat molecules that either
compete with HIV for access to the CD4 or CCR4 receptors
(as the case discussed above) or perhaps the GBV virus in
some way binds to proteins on the HIV virus and blocks
infection (or may even manufacture proteins that destroy
the HIV virus once inside the cell).

Good enough?
Robert




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  4 19:40:13 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 11:40:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] TECH: The future of cash?
In-Reply-To: <40477F81.8060505@popido.com>
Message-ID: <20040304194013.97391.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>

I'd like to know just which 'new' twenties have the RFID chips in them.
I've stuck bills from 1999 up through 2003 in the microwave without any
effect. Are they JUST 2004 bills?

Based on the claims of this article, it should be rather easy to deal
with these tags in the newest bills, simply cut out the eye of Andy
Jackson with scissors or a nail clipper and your bills are untrackable
yet fully fungible.

--- Erik Starck <es at popido.com> wrote:
> Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> 
> >I am well aware of the privacy concerns.  I never said the
> government should
> >do it, I was answering the question of whether they could do it.  
> >  
> >
> 
> Woops:
> http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904rfidtagsexplode.html
> Looks like they already did.
> 
> 
> --
> Erik 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! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From joe at barrera.org  Thu Mar  4 19:51:15 2004
From: joe at barrera.org (Joseph S. Barrera III)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 11:51:15 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] $20 RFID story is horseshit...
Message-ID: <404788B3.2070108@barrera.org>

... just in case you had any doubts.

- Joe

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[IP] last on : More on Exploding RFID
Date: 	Wed, 3 Mar 2004 20:13:59 -0400
From: 	Dave Farber <dave at farber.net>
Reply-To: 	dave at farber.net
To: 	Ip <ip at v2.listbox.com>



-----Original Message-----
From: "Cyrus J. Farivar" <cfarivar at OCF.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 16:12:34
To:dave at farber.net
Subject: More on Exploding RFID

http://boingboing.net/2004_03_01_archive.html#107824694185791461

These guys microwaved a bunch of $20 bills and because the bills became
scorched, they have concluded that they contain RFID tags. Wouldn't
there be an easier way to determine whether or not currency has RFIDs
in it? Link (Thanks, Sean!)

JC sez: The same thing happens if you take a stack of copy paper and
microwave it. A central point in the stack heats and eventually ignites
and burns up and down the stack from that point.

Alex Q sez:Also of interest (besides JC's comment) is that they say
they are messing with the NEW twenties, but in fact those are the old
ones. you can tell because the portrait of Jackson has the circle
around it, which is absent in the new twenties.

-----------------------------------------------------
Cyrus J. Farivar
http://www.cfarivar.org

"Being a good writer is 3% talent, 97% not being distracted by the
Internet."

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as joe at barrera.org
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/





From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Thu Mar  4 20:26:51 2004
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 15:26:51 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Subject: [extropy-chat] TECH: The future of cash?
In-Reply-To: <40477F81.8060505@popido.com>
References: <002c01c3fa12$a9b14bf0$cc01a8c0@dellbert>
	<40477F81.8060505@popido.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0403041503280.-221363@pentium.mb.main.nc.us>


I microwaved a $20 bill (from the 2004 series) last evening in
response to this article and *nothing* happened. The paper barely got
warm. I nuked it 20 seconds on High. Enough to explode butter!

Kinda expected the metallic ink on the seal to do something. Nope.

Or should I have cooked it for 20 *minutes* like a d*mn turkey,
instead????

Regards,
MB


On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Erik Starck wrote:


> http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904rfidtagsexplode.html


From es at popido.com  Thu Mar  4 21:32:50 2004
From: es at popido.com (Erik Starck)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 22:32:50 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] TECH: The future of cash?
In-Reply-To: <20040304194013.97391.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040304194013.97391.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4047A082.6060502@popido.com>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>Based on the claims of this article, it should be rather easy to deal
>with these tags in the newest bills, simply cut out the eye of Andy
>Jackson with scissors or a nail clipper and your bills are untrackable
>yet fully fungible.
>  
>

That's a valid point, speaking against the actual and real introduction 
of tagged money. Seems as if people don't like the idea of having their 
money traced.

Two things come to mind.

First of all, this is the kind of technology that makes a product easier 
to handle for the producer of the product, not the consumer, while at 
the same time adding a cost (privacy) for the consumer. (Or is there any 
benefit for regular persons, who's not banks or states, with RFID:ed money?)

Second of all, it also has a kind of "horseless carriage" kling to it. 
Wouldn't it be better to just replace bills altogether with cards, even 
though that would be a perhaps bigger behavioral step?


--
Erik S.



From Karen at Smigrodzki.org  Thu Mar  4 22:59:11 2004
From: Karen at Smigrodzki.org (Karen Rand Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 17:59:11 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] FSP: Killington Votes to Secede
References: <20040304175629.61210.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <023401c4023c$4ec5b690$6501a8c0@dimension>

apparently i misunderstood the statement " I
suspect the same applies to, at least, most states on
 or near the Pacific, if not all states in the US
period." I took that to mean something other than what it meant. I read too
quickly.

excuse me.

k




From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] FSP: Killington Votes to Secede


This may be the case for states to secede from the union. This is not
the issue at hand. The issue is whether one town can secede from its
state as a result of the injustice of the state government, and rejoin
a state it had once belonged to.





From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  4 23:07:10 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 15:07:10 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] FSP: Killington Votes to Secede
In-Reply-To: <023401c4023c$4ec5b690$6501a8c0@dimension>
Message-ID: <20040304230710.67242.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>

Ah, that was a statement by Adrian, I think.

I had said that essentially any state that was created by an act of
secession out of the territory of another state (Vermont, West
Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas,
Washington, etc...) must implicitly recognise the right of its people
to secede, since the basis for all government here in the US is that no
government can have a right that is not delegated to it by the people
as individuals. If they do not recognise such a right, then their own
legitimacy is at stake, else they claim some other source of their
authority than the people, i.e. obvious tyranny.

--- Karen Rand Smigrodzki <Karen at Smigrodzki.org> wrote:
> apparently i misunderstood the statement " I
> suspect the same applies to, at least, most states on
>  or near the Pacific, if not all states in the US
> period." I took that to mean something other than what it meant. I
> read too
> quickly.
> 
> excuse me.
> 
> k
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 12:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] FSP: Killington Votes to Secede
> 
> 
> This may be the case for states to secede from the union. This is not
> the issue at hand. The issue is whether one town can secede from its
> state as a result of the injustice of the state government, and
> rejoin
> a state it had once belonged to.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From deimtee at optusnet.com.au  Thu Mar  4 23:39:06 2004
From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (David)
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 10:39:06 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] BIO: Interesting HIV research
In-Reply-To: <Law10-OE478hbiX3vb100036090@hotmail.com>
References: <Law10-OE478hbiX3vb100036090@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <4047BE1A.4060107@optusnet.com.au>

Kevin Freels wrote:

>The first case of two strains of sexually-transmitted HIV combining to form a new hybrid virus in a human has been revealed by researchers.
>
>http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993941
>
>
>Wouldn;t it be great if we find a naturally occurring virus that recombines with HIV to make a harmless hybrid thgat takes over?
>
>  
>
>  
>
It would be even better if we created a virus that would do this.

-deimtee



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri Mar  5 00:03:13 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 16:03:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] FSP: Killington Votes to Secede
In-Reply-To: <20040304230710.67242.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040305000313.10623.qmail@web80403.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ah, that was a statement by Adrian, I think.

That it was.

> I had said that essentially any state that was
> created by an act of
> secession out of the territory of another state
> (Vermont, West
> Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Missouri,
> Arkansas, Kansas,
> Washington, etc...) must implicitly recognise the
> right of its people
> to secede, since the basis for all government here
> in the US is that no
> government can have a right that is not delegated to
> it by the people
> as individuals. If they do not recognise such a
> right, then their own
> legitimacy is at stake, else they claim some other
> source of their
> authority than the people, i.e. obvious tyranny.

...and this is what I was responding to.  While they
do recognize the right of the people to secede,
California and most of the other states near the
Pacific (I'm not certain about other states) require
geographic relocation as part of this.  I.e., the only
way that most people (exempting foreign dignitaries,
et al) are allowed to not be subject to California's
laws is to not be in California.  (With varying
definitions for acts which can affect people or
property in California without the actor being
physically within the borders.)

Seceding in the normal sense, i.e. without emigration,
is prohibited even though this is the sense in which
the states seceded from their original territories.
This is prohibited without any perceived threat to
the states' own legitimacy, in part because of the
nature of the non-state territory from which they
seceded, and in part due to the sheer length of time
that has passed since that act.


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Fri Mar  5 02:37:20 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 18:37:20 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] BIO: Interesting HIV research
In-Reply-To: <4047BE1A.4060107@optusnet.com.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403041649010.26459-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, David wrote:

> It would be even better if we created a virus that would do this.

Probably not -- if you can guarantee that the white blood cells
that leak into the vagina for one reason or another (which I believe
they can do under several conditions) and stay there you might be
able to do this but if doubly infected blood cells get back into
the blood stream you are going to have an unhappy immune system.
But it takes several weeks for the immune system to respond --
in the meantime the infected cell(s) may have multiplied
making the problem worse.

I think using bacteria which your immune system already knows
how to deal with is a perfectly reasonable strategy.  Most bacteria
that have evolved to be skin flora tend to stay skin flora -- those
that get into your blood stream (think a cut that becomes infected)
the immune system is in general already trained to respond to.

If I'm missing something you will need to explain in more detail
where you think the new virus would act (inside the mouth or vagina),
inside the bloodstream, inside the cell, or inside the nucleus.
Once inside any of the last 3 places you are probably setting
yourself up for problems.

Robert




From deimtee at optusnet.com.au  Fri Mar  5 02:55:31 2004
From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (deimtee)
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 13:55:31 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] BIO: Interesting HIV research
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403041649010.26459-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403041649010.26459-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <4047EC23.9030507@optusnet.com.au>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, David wrote:
>
>  
>
>>It would be even better if we created a virus that would do this.
>>    
>>
>
>Probably not -- if you can guarantee that the white blood cells
>that leak into the vagina for one reason or another (which I believe
>they can do under several conditions) and stay there you might be
>able to do this but if doubly infected blood cells get back into
>the blood stream you are going to have an unhappy immune system.
>But it takes several weeks for the immune system to respond --
>in the meantime the infected cell(s) may have multiplied
>making the problem worse.
>
>I think using bacteria which your immune system already knows
>how to deal with is a perfectly reasonable strategy.  Most bacteria
>that have evolved to be skin flora tend to stay skin flora -- those
>that get into your blood stream (think a cut that becomes infected)
>the immune system is in general already trained to respond to.
>
>If I'm missing something you will need to explain in more detail
>where you think the new virus would act (inside the mouth or vagina),
>inside the bloodstream, inside the cell, or inside the nucleus.
>Once inside any of the last 3 places you are probably setting
>yourself up for problems.
>
>Robert
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>  
>
Actually  I was referring to Kevins suggestion that finding a naturally 
occurring virus
would be great.  From a pro-technology meme point of view it would be 
better to
have science create a cure/preventative than to find a 'natural' one.  
As to the actual
mechanics of it, I am definitely not an expert.

-deimtee



From twodeel at jornada.org  Fri Mar  5 04:02:39 2004
From: twodeel at jornada.org (Don Dartfield)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 20:02:39 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] TECH: The future of cash?
In-Reply-To: <20040304194013.97391.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403042002140.11210-100000@hplx.net>

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> I'd like to know just which 'new' twenties have the RFID chips in them.
> I've stuck bills from 1999 up through 2003 in the microwave without any
> effect. Are they JUST 2004 bills?

Of course, the real answer is "none of them."



From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  5 05:25:17 2004
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 21:25:17 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bubble fusion--strong evidence for it.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403021451100.26323-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040305052517.76155.qmail@web41206.mail.yahoo.com>

Extropes:

Just a small comment.

So we have here a confirmation of the feasibility of
"cold" fusion, ie kitchen table-top low tech fusion. 
(We all note how this fusion method is called "bubble"
fusion.  Nary a whisper about c*** f*****.  Thou shalt
not go there.)

Anyway,...

Fleischman and Pons used an electrolysis setup.  Ran
DC current through palladium electrodes, remember? 
Now there may be no connection whatsoever, but...

The DC current was probably rectified 110 VAC line
current.  Could it possibly be that the alternating
current was not completely filtered out.  Say some
higher harmonics?  Say, something in the ultrasonic
range?  With the right geometry one might get a
resonance in the equipment at an ultrasonic frequency.
 With such a resonance the unfiltered
ultrasonic-frequency artifact could build up to
generate a bubble-cavitation fusion event.  And if F &
P weren't aware of and couldn't discern the mechanism
of the reaction, well then,...possible explanation of
the cold-fusion phenomena.

Just something to think about.    

If you're having a deja vu moment, it could be because
I mentioned this same notion a long time ago in a
prior cold-fusion thread.

Best, Jeff Davis

   "Everything's hard till you know how to do it."
                           Ray Charles
 
--- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 14:50:50 -0800 (PST)
> From: Robert J. Bradbury <bradbury at aeiveos.com>
> To: Transhumantech mailing list
> <transhumantech at egroups.com>
> Subject: Bubble fusion--strong evidence for it.
> 
> 
> > Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 17:58:17 +0000
> > From: Tatiana Covington
> <tatianacovington at hotmail.com>
> > Subject: Bubble fusion--strong evidence for it.
> 
> Theresa Bourgeois
> bourgt at rpi.edu
>
http://www.rpi.edu/web/News/press_releases/2004/lahey.htm
> 
> Researchers Report Bubble Fusion Results Replicated.
> Physical Review E
> publishes paper on fusion experiment conducted with
> upgraded measurement
> system.
> 
> TROY, N.Y. ? Physical Review E has announced the
> publication of an article
> by a team of researchers from Rensselaer Polytechnic
> Institute (RPI), Purdue
> University, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL),
> and the Russian Academy of
> Science (RAS) stating that they have replicated and
> extended previous
> experimental results that indicated the occurrence
> of nuclear fusion using a
> novel approach for plasma confinement. This
> approach, called bubble fusion,
> and the new experimental results are being published
> in an extensively
> peer-reviewed article titled ?Additional Evidence of
> Nuclear Emissions
> During Acoustic Cavitation,? which is scheduled to
> be posted on Physical
> Review E?s Web site and published in its journal
> this month.
> 
> The research team used a standing ultrasonic wave to
> help form and then
> implode the cavitation bubbles of deuterated acetone
> vapor. The oscillating
> sound waves caused the bubbles to expand and then
> violently collapse,
> creating strong compression shock waves around and
> inside the bubbles.
> Moving at about the speed of sound, the internal
> shock waves impacted at the
> center of the bubbles causing very high compression
> and accompanying
> temperatures of about 100 million K.
> 
> These new data were taken with an upgraded
> instrumentation system that
> allowed data acquisition over a much longer time
> than was possible in the
> team?s previous bubble fusion experiments. According
> to the new data, the
> observed neutron emission was several orders of
> magnitude greater than
> background and had extremely high statistical
> accuracy. Tritium, which also
> is produced during the fusion reactions, was
> measured and the amount
> produced was found to be consistent with the
> observed neutron production
> rate. Earlier test data, which were reported in
> Science (Vol. 295, March
> 2002), indicated that nuclear fusion had occurred,
> but these data were
> questioned because they were taken with less precise
> instrumentation.
> 
> ?These extensive new experiments have replicated and
> extended our earlier
> results and hopefully answer all of the previous
> questions surrounding our
> discovery,? said Richard T. Lahey Jr., the Edward E.
> Hood Professor of
> Engineering at Rensselaer and the director of the
> analytical part of the
> joint research project. Other fusion techniques,
> such as those that use
> strong magnetic fields or lasers to contain the
> plasma, cannot easily
> achieve the necessary compression, Lahey said. In
> the approach to be
> published in Physical Review E, spherical
> compression of the plasma was
> achieved due to the inertia of the liquid
> surrounding the imploding bubbles.
> Professor Lahey also explained that, unlike fission
> reactors, fusion does
> not produce a significant amount of radioactive
> waste products or decay
> heat. Tritium gas, a radioactive by-product of
> deuterium-deuterium bubble
> fusion, is actually a part of the fuel, which can be
> consumed in
> deuterium-tritium fusion reactions.
> 
> Researchers Rusi Taleyarkhan, Colin West, and
> Jae-Seon Cho conducted the
> bubble fusion experiments at ORNL. At Rensselaer and
> in Russia, Professors
> Lahey and Robert I. Nigmatulin performed the
> theoretical analysis of the
> bubble dynamics and predicted the shock-induced
> pressures, temperatures, and
> densities in the imploding vapor bubbles. Robert
> Block, professor emeritus
> of nuclear engineering at Rensselaer, helped to
> design, set up, and
> calibrate a state-of-the-art neutron and gamma ray
> detection system for the
> new experiments. Special hydrodynamic shock codes
> have been developed in
> both Russia and at Rensselaer to support and
> interpret the ORNL experiments.
> These computer codes indicated that the peak gas
> temperatures and densities
> in the ORNL experiments were sufficiently high to
> create fusion reactions.
> Indeed, the theoretical shock code predictions of
> deuterium-deuterium (D-D)
> fusion were consistent with the ORNL data.
> 
> The research team leaders are all well known
> authorities in the fields of
> multiphase flow and heat transfer technology and
> nuclear engineering.
> Taleyarkhan, a fellow of the American Nuclear
> Society (ANS) and the
> program?s director, held the position of
> Distinguished Scientist at ORNL,
> and is currently the Ardent Bement Jr. Professor of
> Nuclear Engineering at
> Purdue University. Lahey is a fellow of both the ANS
> and the American
> Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), and is a
> member of the National
> Academy of Engineering (NAE). Nigmatulin is a
> visiting scholar at
> Rensselaer, a member of the Russian Duma, and the
> president of the
> Bashkortonstan branch of the Russian Academy of
> Sciences (RAS). Block is a
> fellow of the ANS and is the longtime director of
> the Gaerttner Linear
> Accelerator (LINAC) Laboratory at Rensselaer. The
> bubble fusion research
> program was supported by a grant from the Defense
> Advanced Research Projects
> Agency (DARPA).
> *************
> Purdue News
>
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/2004/0400302.Taleyarkhan.fusion.html
> March 2, 2004
> 
> Evidence bubbles over to support tabletop nuclear
> fusion device
> WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. ? Researchers are reporting new
> evidence supporting
> their earlier discovery of an inexpensive "tabletop"
> device that uses sound
> waves to produce nuclear fusion reactions. The
> researchers believe the new
> evidence shows that "sonofusion" generates nuclear
> reactions by creating
> tiny bubbles that implode with tremendous force.
> Nuclear fusion reactors
> have historically required large,
> multibillion-dollar machines, but
> sonofusion devices might be built for a fraction of
> that cost. "What we are
> doing, in effect, is producing nuclear emissions in
> a simple desktop
> apparatus," said Rusi Taleyarkhan, the principal
> investigator and a
> professor of nuclear engineer at Purdue University.
> "That really is the
> magnitude of the discovery ? the ability to use
> simple mechanical force for
> the first time in history to initiate conditions
> comparable to the interior
> of stars."
> 
> The technology might one day result in a new class
> of low-cost, compact
> detectors for security applications that use
> neutrons to probe the contents
> of suitcases; devices for research that use neutrons
> to analyze the
> 
=== message truncated ===





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From trans_humanism at msn.com  Fri Mar  5 08:54:09 2004
From: trans_humanism at msn.com (Tyler Emerson)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 02:54:09 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] SIAI Executive Director Planning
Message-ID: <BAY4-DAV50GuF7yo3iy0000a078@hotmail.com>

A summary of my immediate plans for the Singularity Institute (SI):

 * Develop main points for discussion of SI's mission, goals and activism.
 * Increase understanding of SI's mission; increase credibility and trust.
 * Stay in regular contact with volunteers; increase activity and 
   organization; continually increase volunteer support.
 * Improve SI's site (much is planned - wait and see).
 * Increase SI's site traffic but don't compromise credibility or trust.
 * Find and cultivate potential candidates for the Institute's AI team.
 * Help establish "Friends of SI" site section, benefits and directory.
 * Donor raise by receiving support from current and new SI donors.
 * Develop and improve SI's databases e.g. contacts and donor records.
 * Seek additional designers for design of SI material.
 * Help designers maintain consistent look for SI material; find donors
   for large quantity printing of SI material (100+ copies). 
 * Create free mailing list for news of SI and the singularity only.
 * Develop personal network (weak, moderate and strong ties).

SI realizes the potential for our community's growth in 2004. The pursuit 
of considerate advocacy gives considerable meaning to each of our days. 
I ask sincerely that you do now what's needed to become involved. 

Feel encouraged to reach me so that we may discuss what can be done. I'd
like to know everyone who seeks involvement. We have immediate tasks that 
would take years of work for one person, but collaboration works miracles. 

Email: emerson(at)singinst.org

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


From trans_humanism at msn.com  Fri Mar  5 08:55:16 2004
From: trans_humanism at msn.com (Tyler Emerson)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 02:55:16 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] SIAI Volunteering and Association - Contact ED
Message-ID: <BAY4-DAV86pkg2w8oIw0000a301@hotmail.com>

Hi everyone:

If you're available for volunteering or association, or discussion 
of SI's mission and goals, please send your name, email and phone # 
to emerson(at)singinst.org. I'll then be in touch by email.

If you want to discuss SI for other reasons, please reach me. I
want to listen, always, to varied opinons and wants; and would 
especially welcome views on valuable pursuits in '04 and '05.

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


From trans_humanism at msn.com  Fri Mar  5 08:55:53 2004
From: trans_humanism at msn.com (Tyler Emerson)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 02:55:53 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] A growing presence on Orkut
Message-ID: <BAY4-DAV154kE5LbpNq00009c52@hotmail.com>

Online networking sites, used with consideration, may be quite 
helpful to the transhumanist community. Already, there are over 200 
subscribed to Orkut's transhumanist group. If you consider networking 
valuable and are not on Orkut, please feel welcomed to receive an 
invitation by emailing emerson(at)singinst.org.

http://www.orkut.com/

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


From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Mar  5 09:16:23 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 10:16:23 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bubble fusion--strong evidence for it.
In-Reply-To: <20040305052517.76155.qmail@web41206.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403021451100.26323-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<20040305052517.76155.qmail@web41206.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040305091623.GO18046@leitl.org>

On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 09:25:17PM -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:

> So we have here a confirmation of the feasibility of
> "cold" fusion, ie kitchen table-top low tech fusion. 

It is not more a cold fusion than the inertial confinement fusion people are
doing. If it's for real; interesting if you could scale up the setup with 
high-precision spherical assembly collapse, something not invoving acres of
high-power lasers.

> (We all note how this fusion method is called "bubble"
> fusion.  Nary a whisper about c*** f*****.  Thou shalt
> not go there.)

That's because it (if it at all happens) involveds hot 
(claimed ~100 MK), dense deuterium plasma. Remember, there's a reason why it
glows.
 
> Anyway,...
> 
> Fleischman and Pons used an electrolysis setup.  Ran
> DC current through palladium electrodes, remember? 
> Now there may be no connection whatsoever, but...
> 
> The DC current was probably rectified 110 VAC line

You have no basis for this assumption. Absolutely none.

> current.  Could it possibly be that the alternating
> current was not completely filtered out.  Say some
> higher harmonics?  Say, something in the ultrasonic

If it's rectified, there are no higher harmonics. It's not a switching power
supply (I think they did use a switching power supply, but I don't remember
the setup).

> range?  With the right geometry one might get a
> resonance in the equipment at an ultrasonic frequency.

No. If you want cavitation, you need piezo or magnetostriction actuators, and
maybe even an acoustic lens.

>  With such a resonance the unfiltered
> ultrasonic-frequency artifact could build up to
> generate a bubble-cavitation fusion event.  And if F &
> P weren't aware of and couldn't discern the mechanism
> of the reaction, well then,...possible explanation of
> the cold-fusion phenomena.

Palladium cathodes get loaded with up to 1000x their volume in hydrogen when
electrolyzed. This loading increases the lattice volume and introduces
fractures, though which atmospheric oxygen can enter. Palladium catalyzes
oxygen/hydrogen reactions.

The whole process is nonlinear, but now and then you'll get massive
exothermic reactions supposedly from nowhere, if you're a lousy experimenter.
 
> Just something to think about.    
> 
> If you're having a deja vu moment, it could be because
> I mentioned this same notion a long time ago in a
> prior cold-fusion thread.
> 
> Best, Jeff Davis
> 
>    "Everything's hard till you know how to do it."
>                            Ray Charles
-------------- 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/20040305/2249cf92/attachment.bin>

From bmc at section9.net  Fri Mar  5 11:15:46 2004
From: bmc at section9.net (Brendan Coffey)
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 03:15:46 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] UC Berkeley researchers developing robotic
 exoskeleton that can enhance human strength and endurance
Message-ID: <40486162.4010906@section9.net>

This is cooler than words can possibly express.  I guess I won't add 
comment.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/03_exo.shtml



From naddy at mips.inka.de  Fri Mar  5 14:02:36 2004
From: naddy at mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:02:36 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Bubble fusion--strong evidence for it.
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403021451100.26323-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<20040305052517.76155.qmail@web41206.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c2a19s$1sig$1@kemoauc.mips.inka.de>

Jeff Davis <jrd1415 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> So we have here a confirmation of the feasibility of
> "cold" fusion, ie kitchen table-top low tech fusion. 

What we have here is a lack of independent confirmation on a new
inertial confinement fusion apparatus that comes in a similarly
compact package as the 1950s-vintage Farnsworth fusor.  This is
interesting, but less exciting than people make it out to be.

(See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farnsworth-Hirsch_Fusor
if table-top fusion is news to you.)

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          naddy at mips.inka.de


From neptune at superlink.net  Fri Mar  5 14:22:32 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 09:22:32 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Vikings' Barbaric Bad Rap Beginning to Fade
Message-ID: <003401c402bd$4def0100$a7cd5cd1@neptune>

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/02/0217_040217_vikings.html



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  5 14:44:30 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 06:44:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bubble fusion--strong evidence for it.
In-Reply-To: <20040305091623.GO18046@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20040305144430.74705.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 09:25:17PM -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:

> > Anyway,...
> > 
> > Fleischman and Pons used an electrolysis setup.  Ran
> > DC current through palladium electrodes, remember? 
> > Now there may be no connection whatsoever, but...
> > 
> > The DC current was probably rectified 110 VAC line
> 
> You have no basis for this assumption. Absolutely none.
> 
> > current.  Could it possibly be that the alternating
> > current was not completely filtered out.  Say some
> > higher harmonics?  Say, something in the ultrasonic
> 
> If it's rectified, there are no higher harmonics. It's not a
> switching power
> supply (I think they did use a switching power supply, but I don't
> remember the setup).

Not entirely, Gene. Common consumer AC/DC power supplies are
notoriously unfiltered, leaving significant degrees of alternating
signal on a DC carrier voltage. 

There have been claims that the electrodes used by Pons and Fleishmann
were properly baked to drive out common hydrogen from gaps in the
crystal structure, allowing deuterium to take it's place and fuse more
readily. This baking process was not used by other researchers. I can't
say one way or the other.

Saying the sonofusion isn't 'cold' because it achieves 100k K temps at
the point of collapse is a bit disengenuous. Even CF proponents claim
high temps at the micro level where allegedly fusion occurs. The 'cold'
moniker applies to whether the entire reactor operates at temperatures
above sea level boiling points and pressures or not.

> 
> > range?  With the right geometry one might get a
> > resonance in the equipment at an ultrasonic frequency.
> 
> No. If you want cavitation, you need piezo or magnetostriction
> actuators, and maybe even an acoustic lens.

On the contrary, heating water, or any fluid, to the edge of the
boiling point creates a phenomenon where the hot surface creates
bubbles in a boundary layer at the boiling point. As soon as the
bubbles rise out of the boundary layer, they are cooled and collapse.
Whether they collapse fast enough for fusion is a different question
entirely, and I don't think anyone has done an experiment with trying
to boil deuterated acetylene yet.

=====
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! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From fauxever at sprynet.com  Fri Mar  5 15:13:34 2004
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 07:13:34 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Vikings' Barbaric Bad Rap Beginning to Fade
References: <003401c402bd$4def0100$a7cd5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <007701c402c4$6d856200$6600a8c0@brainiac>

From: "Technotranscendence" <neptune at superlink.net>

 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/02/0217_040217_vikings.html

Whew, what a relief!  I tell you, I've never been a fan of any sort of rap
... but *bad* rap is almost criminal ... an outright assault on the senses.
;))

Olga




From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Mar  5 15:40:47 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 16:40:47 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bubble fusion--strong evidence for it.
In-Reply-To: <20040305144430.74705.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040305091623.GO18046@leitl.org>
	<20040305144430.74705.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040305154047.GY18046@leitl.org>

On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 06:44:30AM -0800, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> Not entirely, Gene. Common consumer AC/DC power supplies are
> notoriously unfiltered, leaving significant degrees of alternating
> signal on a DC carrier voltage. 

Yes, but the claim wasn't 50 or 60 Hz. The claim was higher harmonics,
and enough sound field power to create cavitation strong enough for sonoluminescence via
*electrolysis*, using palladium electrodes.

Which is equivalent to, say, vigorous steel structure erosion 
through fecal precipitation from porcine aviation.
 
> There have been claims that the electrodes used by Pons and Fleishmann
> were properly baked to drive out common hydrogen from gaps in the
> crystal structure, allowing deuterium to take it's place and fuse more

The point is that palladium deuteride and palladium hydride (protide) behave
almost identically, chemically (with those lightest elements one actually
sees the isotope effect, while for the heavier elements the differences are
hardly measurable). If you have oxygen in the cell, sooner or
later you'll get a massive exothermic reaction.

> readily. This baking process was not used by other researchers. I can't
> say one way or the other.

I'm not feeling like digging out the original publication, but I remember
they were extremely sloppy experimenters.
 
> Saying the sonofusion isn't 'cold' because it achieves 100k K temps at

The new claims are 100 MK. 100 kK is way too could, unless the pressure is
truly monstrous.

> the point of collapse is a bit disengenuous. Even CF proponents claim
> high temps at the micro level where allegedly fusion occurs. The 'cold'

The CF proponents claimed they didn't knew how it happened, because the
effect wasn't classical. Since then the easier explanation has turned out the
effect wasn't an effect at all.

> moniker applies to whether the entire reactor operates at temperatures
> above sea level boiling points and pressures or not.

The same applies for the inertial confinement apparatus. It's cold but for
the fusion fuel pellet.
 
> On the contrary, heating water, or any fluid, to the edge of the
> boiling point creates a phenomenon where the hot surface creates
> bubbles in a boundary layer at the boiling point. As soon as the

Cavitations strong enough for luminescence is not boiling.

> bubbles rise out of the boundary layer, they are cooled and collapse.
> Whether they collapse fast enough for fusion is a different question
> entirely, and I don't think anyone has done an experiment with trying
> to boil deuterated acetylene yet.

I did. (Deuteroaceton is a common NMR solvent). It behaves exactly like
boiling aceton.

You will observe that Talleryakan et al. did something very different:

"During typical sonoluminescence experiments, spectral emission temperatures
range up to tens of thousands of kelvins, and the rapidly imploding bubble
walls can generate internal shock waves under certain conditions. The
temperatures and pressures inside the bubble are not known. For fusion to
occur, the interior would have to reach millions of kelvins, with pressures
of hundreds of megabars.

To promote fusion, Taleyarkhan and company tried to achieve more extreme
bubble conditions than in previous sonoluminescence experiments. First, they
used deuterated acetone (C3D6O) so that fusionable fuel was present. To get a
very high compression ratio, they used a beam of energetic (14 MeV) neutrons
to generate tiny bubbles in their beaker-sized container of superheated
deuterated acetone, estimating that the resulting bubbles will have a minimum
radius of 10-100 nm. That's five orders of magnitude smaller than the maximum
radius the expanded bubble is expected to reach.

To avoid the resistance to collapse that's frequently produced by residual
vapors, the experimenters degassed the acetone. Finally, they drove the
liquid with a very intense sound field. Team members performed
one-dimensional hydrodynamic shock-code calculations for the conditions of
their experiment to determine if fusion was possible. "

-- 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/20040305/dd159d95/attachment.bin>

From natashavita at earthlink.net  Fri Mar  5 16:14:41 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 11:14:41 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyler Emerson - SIAI Executive Director
Message-ID: <57050-22004355161441125@M2W040.mail2web.com>


From: Brian Atkins 

"The Singularity Institute is pleased to announce Tyler Emerson as our 
Executive Director."

I'm glad to hear this Brian.  Tyler also worked with Extropy Institute's
resources some years ago and we are very fond of him.

I am a steadfast supporter of Brian Atkins, Sabien Atkins, and Eli
Yudkowsky's hard work and many accomplishments with this organization.  

Congratulations to Tyler for coming onboard such a great group of people.

Cheers!

Natasha

Natasha Vita-More

President, Extropy Institute
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture

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




From dgc at cox.net  Fri Mar  5 16:12:03 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 11:12:03 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bubble fusion--strong evidence for it.
In-Reply-To: <20040305052517.76155.qmail@web41206.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040305052517.76155.qmail@web41206.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4048A6D3.8010602@cox.net>

Jeff Davis wrote:

>Extropes:
>
>Just a small comment.
>
>So we have here a confirmation of the feasibility of
>"cold" fusion, ie kitchen table-top low tech fusion. 
>(We all note how this fusion method is called "bubble"
>fusion.  Nary a whisper about c*** f*****.  Thou shalt
>not go there.)
>
>Anyway,...
>
>Fleischman and Pons used an electrolysis setup.  Ran
>DC current through palladium electrodes, remember? 
>Now there may be no connection whatsoever, but...
>
>The DC current was probably rectified 110 VAC line
>current.  Could it possibly be that the alternating
>current was not completely filtered out.  Say some
>higher harmonics?  Say, something in the ultrasonic
>range?  With the right geometry one might get a
>resonance in the equipment at an ultrasonic frequency.
> With such a resonance the unfiltered
>ultrasonic-frequency artifact could build up to
>generate a bubble-cavitation fusion event.  And if F &
>P weren't aware of and couldn't discern the mechanism
>of the reaction, well then,...possible explanation of
>the cold-fusion phenomena.
>
>Just something to think about.    
>
>If you're having a deja vu moment, it could be because
>I mentioned this same notion a long time ago in a
>prior cold-fusion thread.
>
>Best, Jeff Davis
>
>  
>
I actually tried to put an SBSL system together in about 1996.
An SBSL chamber must be big enough to act as a resonator for
the frequency in question: 25Khz works well, so the chamber
has a diameter of about 4cm in water.

to get a smaller chamber, you need higher frequencies. for the
micrscopic accidental chambers you propose, you need
frequencies in the megahertz range.

But SBSL works by concentrating energy. During the espansion,
the bubble forms and absorbs heat from the liquid. Then during
compression the bubble heats adiabatically. This is an absolute
effect based on bubble volume, so the thermal energy goes with
the cube of the maximum bubble volume.

In the megahertz range you propose, the bubbles do not have
enough time to absorb heat, or to achieve the needed size.

In addition the amount of power needed to create the ultrasonic
standing wave is quite large. You must work at it.  My rig used
a 100W audio amplifier: brute-force approaches use 1000W amplifiers.
A perfectly tuned system (perfect acoustic resonance, perfect electrical
resonance,  and nearly lossless acoustically and electrically) might get
away with 10W: I have not seen anything like this is the literature.

The amount of energy available in the AC component of a poorly-filtered
DC power sullpy you speak of is tiny. The amount of this energy that is
avaialble in higher harmonics drops extremely rapidly as frequency rises.

Conclusion: Your theory is completely wrong. Its wrong by approximately
15 orders of magnitude.



From dgc at cox.net  Fri Mar  5 16:39:49 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 11:39:49 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bubble fusion--strong evidence for it.
In-Reply-To: <20040305144430.74705.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040305144430.74705.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4048AD55.1040208@cox.net>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
>  
>
>>No. If you want cavitation, you need piezo or magnetostriction
>>actuators, and maybe even an acoustic lens.
>>    
>>
>
>On the contrary, heating water, or any fluid, to the edge of the
>boiling point creates a phenomenon where the hot surface creates
>bubbles in a boundary layer at the boiling point. As soon as the
>bubbles rise out of the boundary layer, they are cooled and collapse.
>Whether they collapse fast enough for fusion is a different question
>entirely, and I don't think anyone has done an experiment with trying
>to boil deuterated acetylene yet.
>
>
>  
>
'Gene said "cavitation", not "bubbles."  Sonoluminesence is called that 
for a
reason. The bubbles glow. You can see them withthe naked eye.

When you boil water, does it glow? No (at least mine doesn't.)

Why should I bother to boil deuterated acetone? I have no reason to 
believe it
will glow. I would start with ordinary acetone if I were to bother. The 
experimenters
have in fact observed SBSL in ordinary acetone: they use it as a control 
for the
experiments with deuterated acetone.

Please do not confuse SBSL fusion with "cold fusion." "Cold fusion" was and
experimental observation without a theory, with ever more exotic 
theories propounded
to explain it.

By contrast SBSL fusion derives directly from a very simple theory. The 
theory is
that the bubble glows because of adiabatic compression. This was 
observed prior to
any fusion was even being looked for. scientists did the math and 
decided that the
temperatures couild be raised into the fusion range if certain 
conditions cold be met,
and they set out ot meet them. In particular, the amount of energy in 
the expanded
bubble can be raised by increasing its size, so they looked for a liquid 
in which the
bubble would be bigger, and they found one. Then they looked for 
neutrons and found them.
This is a clessical example of the scientific method and is in marked 
contrast with the
cargo-cult "science" that surrounded "cold fusoin."





From scerir at libero.it  Fri Mar  5 17:00:01 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 18:00:01 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bubble fusion--strong evidence for it.
References: <20040305144430.74705.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000901c402d3$4d117040$34ba1b97@administxl09yj>

From: "Mike Lorrey"
> [...] and I don't think anyone has done an experiment with trying
> to boil deuterated acetylene yet.

Hey, the smart Oakridger
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bltaleyarkhan.htm
also invented a smart b***** !
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bltaleyarkhan1.htm

Professor Rusi Taleyarkhan:
I've always been a huge fan of Star Trek and wanted to see if the knowledge
I have of energy systems could make a gun that a police officer could set to
stun, just like Captain Kirk does.



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri Mar  5 17:29:37 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 09:29:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] UC Berkeley researchers developing robotic
	exoskeleton that can enhance human strength and endurance
In-Reply-To: <40486162.4010906@section9.net>
Message-ID: <20040305172937.58920.qmail@web80404.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Brendan Coffey <bmc at section9.net> wrote:
> This is cooler than words can possibly express.  I
> guess I won't add 
> comment.
> 
>
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/03_exo.shtml

There's been much research.  But it's very cool that
someone's actually showing off a working version, at
last.


From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Fri Mar  5 17:40:58 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 11:40:58 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Vikings' Barbaric Bad Rap Beginning to Fade
References: <003401c402bd$4def0100$a7cd5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <Law10-OE65Eb0Si06ny0003840d@hotmail.com>

I still didn;t see any mention about the horned helmets. The Vikings never
wore them, yet mosty people think they did! Still lots of work to do
here....

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Technotranscendence" <neptune at superlink.net>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>;
<atlantis_II at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 8:22 AM
Subject: [extropy-chat] Vikings' Barbaric Bad Rap Beginning to Fade


> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/02/0217_040217_vikings.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Mar  5 20:00:45 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 21:00:45 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Vikings' Barbaric Bad Rap Beginning to Fade
In-Reply-To: <Law10-OE65Eb0Si06ny0003840d@hotmail.com>
References: <003401c402bd$4def0100$a7cd5cd1@neptune>
	<Law10-OE65Eb0Si06ny0003840d@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20040305200045.GI18046@leitl.org>

On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 11:40:58AM -0600, Kevin Freels wrote:
> I still didn;t see any mention about the horned helmets. The Vikings never
> wore them, yet mosty people think they did! Still lots of work to do
> here....

Beware of vikings.... http://www.rathergood.com/gaybar/ ...especially, if
they're kittens.

-- 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/20040305/cc7c3eb3/attachment.bin>

From neptune at superlink.net  Fri Mar  5 21:09:21 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 16:09:21 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] UC Berkeley researchers developing
	roboticexoskeleton that can enhance human strength and endurance
References: <20040305172937.58920.qmail@web80404.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <01b501c402f6$220b6900$61cd5cd1@neptune>

On Friday, March 05, 2004 12:29 PM Adrian Tymes wingcat at pacbell.net
wrote:
>> This is cooler than words can possibly express.  I
>> guess I won't add comment.
>>
> http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/03_exo.shtml
>
> There's been much research.  But it's very cool that
> someone's actually showing off a working version, at
> last.

It's cool, but when do they show up on sale at Walmart?:)

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html



From neptune at superlink.net  Fri Mar  5 21:18:07 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 16:18:07 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Vikings' Barbaric Bad Rap Beginning to Fade
References: <003401c402bd$4def0100$a7cd5cd1@neptune>
	<Law10-OE65Eb0Si06ny0003840d@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <01fa01c402f7$5bc60be0$61cd5cd1@neptune>

On Friday, March 05, 2004 12:40 PM Kevin Freels kevinfreels at hotmail.com
wrote:
>>
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/02/0217_040217_vikings.html
>
> I still didn;t see any mention about the horned
> helmets. The Vikings never wore them, yet
> mosty people think they did! Still lots of work
> to do here....

Of course, there's lots of work to be done, especially since Iceland
during Viking times is also an interesting long-lasting example of a
polycentric legal order in operation.  That's one of my main interests
in them.  (I'm not as much into the ethnic heritage angle as some.)

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html



From neptune at superlink.net  Fri Mar  5 21:21:09 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 16:21:09 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Vikings' Barbaric Bad Rap Beginning to Fade
References: <003401c402bd$4def0100$a7cd5cd1@neptune>
	<007701c402c4$6d856200$6600a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <023201c402f7$d4bdc240$61cd5cd1@neptune>

On Friday, March 05, 2004 10:13 AM Olga Bourlin fauxever at sprynet.com
wrote:
>>
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/02/0217_040217_vikings.html
>
> Whew, what a relief!  I tell you, I've never
> been a fan of any sort of rap ... but *bad*
> rap is almost criminal ... an outright assault
> on the senses. ;))

Bad Rap?  I didn't know there was any other kind.:)

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html

"... by opening the prospect of Power to all the ambitious talents, this
arrangement [viz., democracy] makes the extension of Power much easier.
Under the _ancien regime_, society's moving spirits, who had, as they
knew, no change of a share of Power, were quick to denounce its smallest
encroachment.  Now, on the other hand, when everyone is potentially a
minister, no one is concerned to cut down an office to which he aspires
one day himself, or to put sand in the machine which he means to use
himself when his turn comes.  Hence it is that there is in the political
circles of a modern society a wide complicity in the extension of
Power."  -- Bertrand de Jouvenel



From neptune at superlink.net  Fri Mar  5 21:21:27 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 16:21:27 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Vikings' Barbaric Bad Rap Beginning to Fade
References: <003401c402bd$4def0100$a7cd5cd1@neptune>
	<007701c402c4$6d856200$6600a8c0@brainiac>
Message-ID: <023301c402f7$e7781200$61cd5cd1@neptune>

On Friday, March 05, 2004 10:13 AM Olga Bourlin fauxever at sprynet.com
wrote:
>>
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/02/0217_040217_vikings.html
>
> Whew, what a relief!  I tell you, I've never
> been a fan of any sort of rap ... but *bad*
> rap is almost criminal ... an outright assault
> on the senses. ;))

Bad Rap?  I didn't know there was any other kind.:)

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html

"... by opening the prospect of Power to all the ambitious talents, this
arrangement [viz., democracy] makes the extension of Power much easier.
Under the _ancien regime_, society's moving spirits, who had, as they
knew, no change of a share of Power, were quick to denounce its smallest
encroachment.  Now, on the other hand, when everyone is potentially a
minister, no one is concerned to cut down an office to which he aspires
one day himself, or to put sand in the machine which he means to use
himself when his turn comes.  Hence it is that there is in the political
circles of a modern society a wide complicity in the extension of
Power."  -- Bertrand de Jouvenel




From natashavita at earthlink.net  Fri Mar  5 22:16:40 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 17:16:40 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Gay Marriage: Letter from Bette Midler
Message-ID: <198950-2200435522164030@M2W065.mail2web.com>

A dear friend just sent this to me:

____________________

Dear President Bush,   

Today you called upon Congress to move quickly to amend the US
Constitution, and set in Federal stone a legal definition of marriage. I
would like to know why. 

In your speech, you stated that this Amendment would serve to protect
marriage in America, which I must confess confuses me. Like you, I believe
in the importance of marriage and I feel that we as a society take the
institution far too lightly. In my circle of family, friends and
acquaintances, the vast majority have married and divorced - some more than
once. Still, I believe in marriage. I believe that there is something
fundamental about finding another person on this planet with whom you want
to build a life and family, and make a positive contribution to society. I
believe that we need more positive role models for successful marriage in
this country - something to counteract the images we get bombarded with in
popular culture. 

When we are assaulted with images of celebrities of varying genres, be it
actors, sports figures, socialites, or even politicians who shrug marriage
on and off like the latest fashion, it is vitally important to the face of
our nation, for our children and our future, that we have a balance of
commitment and fidelity with which to stave off the negativity. I search
for these examples to show my own daughter, so that she can see that
marriage is more than a disposable whim, despite overwhelming evidence to
the contrary.   As a father, I'm sure you have faced these same concerns
and difficulties in raising your own daughters. Therefore I can also
imagine that you must understand how thrilled I have been over the past few
weeks to come home and turn on the news with my family. To finally have
concrete examples of true commitment, honest love, and steadfast fidelity
was such a relief and a joy. Instead of speaking in the hypothetical, I was
finally able to point to these men and women, standing together for hours
in the pouring rain, and tell my child that this is what its all about. 

Forget Britney. Forget Kobe. Forget Strom. Forget about all the people that
we know who have taken so frivolously the pure and simple beauty of love
and tarnished it so consistently. Look instead at the joy in the beautiful
faces of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon ? EUR " 51 years together! I mean,
honestly Mr. President - how many couples do you know who are together for
51 years? I'm sure you agree that this love story provides a wonderful
opportunity to teach our children about the true meaning and value of
marriage. 

On the steps of San Francisco City Hall, rose petals and champagne, suits
and veils, horns honking and elation in the streets; a celebration of love
the likes of which this society has never seen.   

This morning, however, my joy turned to sadness, my relief transformed into
outrage, and my peace became anger. This morning, I watched you stand
before this nation and belittle these women, the thousands who stood with
them, and the countless millions who wish to follow them. 

How could you do that, Mr. President? How could you take something so
beautiful - a clear and defining example of the true nature of commitment -
and declare it to be anything less? What is it that validates your marriage
which somehow doesn't apply to Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon? By what power,
what authority are you so divinely imbued that you can stand before me and
this nation and hold their love to a higher standard?   Don't speak to me
about homosexuality, Mr. President. Don't tell me that the difference lies
in the bedroom. I would never presume to ask you or your wife how it is you
choose to physically express your love for one another, and I defy you to
stand before Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon and ask them to do the same. It is
none of my business, as it is none of yours, and it has nothing to do with
the "sanctity of marriage". 

I'm sure you would agree that marriage is far more than sexual expression,
and its high time we all started focusing on all the other aspects of a
relationship which hold it together over the course of a lifetime.
Therefore, with the mechanics of sex set aside, I ask you again - what
makes a marriage? I firmly believe that whatever definition you derive,
there are thousands upon thousands of shining examples for you to embrace. 
You want to protect marriage. I admire and support that, Mr. President.
Together, as a nation, let us find and celebrate examples of what a
marriage should be. Together, let us take couples who embody the principles
of commitment, fidelity, sacrifice and love, and hold them up before our
children as role models for their own futures. Together, let us reinforce
the concept that love is about far more than sex, despite what popular
culture would like them to believe.   

Please, for the sake of our children, for the sake of our society, for the
sake of our future, do not take us down this road. Under the guise of
protection, do not support divisiveness. Under the guise of unity, do not
endorse discrimination. Under the guise of sanctity, do not devalue
commitment. Under the guise of democracy, do not encourage this amendment. 


Bette Midler 


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




From naddy at mips.inka.de  Fri Mar  5 22:24:00 2004
From: naddy at mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 22:24:00 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Vikings' Barbaric Bad Rap Beginning to Fade
References: <003401c402bd$4def0100$a7cd5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <c2aum0$28t1$1@kemoauc.mips.inka.de>

Technotranscendence <neptune at superlink.net> wrote:

> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/02/0217_040217_vikings.html

So what's new?
You could have read as much some 25 years ago in a children's book
on the Vikings.  I did.

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          naddy at mips.inka.de


From Johnius at Genius.UCSD.edu  Fri Mar  5 22:47:31 2004
From: Johnius at Genius.UCSD.edu (Johnius)
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 14:47:31 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] 
	IQ test on TV, Friday, FOX network (8pm in San Diego)
Message-ID: <40490383.4B22B750@Genius.UCSD.edu>

  To all interested in IQ tests...

  Tonight on FOX TV, "Test the Nation 2" will be on from
8:00-10:00pm (at least in San Diego ... check your local
guide for details).  It is listed here as "(Special) A 
studio audience and viewers take an IQ test. TVG CC Stereo
(Taped) Hosts Leeza Gibbons and Mark L. Walberg present
an IQ test to a studio audience, celebrity panelists
and home viewers, who may take the test online;
with Ben Stein, Judge Mablean Ephraim, Fred
Willard, Kim Coles and Vincent Pastore."

  If it's like the previous broadcast test, it will be
timed and is professionally normed (i.e., this should be
much better than most online tests).  So, you can take 
it in real time and get a fairly good estimate of your
IQ (at least up to the test ceiling).  Or, you can tape 
it and use it for self-analysis and learning.  Or...?

  Have fun!
  Johnius


From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Fri Mar  5 22:54:56 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 16:54:56 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Vikings' Barbaric Bad Rap Beginning to Fade
References: <003401c402bd$4def0100$a7cd5cd1@neptune><Law10-OE65Eb0Si06ny0003840d@hotmail.com>
	<20040305200045.GI18046@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <Law10-OE17n2HRyotp800033f43@hotmail.com>

lol! rathergood is rather...good! lol

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eugen Leitl" <eugen at leitl.org>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Vikings' Barbaric Bad Rap Beginning to Fade


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


From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  5 23:30:45 2004
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 15:30:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bubble fusion--strong evidence for it.
In-Reply-To: <20040305091623.GO18046@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20040305233045.62764.qmail@web41206.mail.yahoo.com>

Friends,

Dan and Gene responded to my lightweight musings with
crushing objections.  (Dan was genteel, Gene was
bruteel.) Ouch! That smarts. ;-}

By way of a reply, consider Julian Schwinger's
comments on the subject.  In contrast to my
insignificant self, who developed a nostalgic
enthusiasm for the virtues of retirement immediately
post-partum, Mssr. Schwinger diligently applied
himself, and eventually shared the 1965 nobel prize in
physics with Richard Feynman and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga
"for their fundamental work in quantum
electrodynamics, with deep-ploughing consequences for
the physics of elementary particles". 

Cold Fusion Theory: A Brief History of Mine
by Julian Schwinger 

can be found at: 

http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue1/colfusthe.html

Best, Jeff Davis

               "You are what you think."
                              Jeff Davis




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  5 23:59:34 2004
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 15:59:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bubble fusion--strong evidence for it.
In-Reply-To: <20040305154047.GY18046@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20040305235934.50291.qmail@web41208.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

> Yes, but the claim wasn't 50 or 60 Hz. The claim was
> higher harmonics, and enough sound field power to
create cavitation strong enough for sonoluminescence
via *electrolysis*, using palladium electrodes.

> Which is equivalent to, say, vigorous steel
> structure erosion through fecal precipitation from
porcine aviation.

Hey!  Lighten up.  I didn't "claim" squat.  I mused.

And regarding sound field power, I tried--however
feebly--to get past that problem by proposing that
unplanned geometric factors might have created a 
fortuitous/accidental resonance matched to the
high-frequency/ultrasonic voltage harmonic.  If you
can avoid damping, even a small signal can "pump up"
the energy to a level sufficient to trigger a
reaction, particulary if that energy can then be
further amplified by something like--as in this
case--bubble collapse.

As to porcine aviation, I just googled up 847 hits on
the subject, so I'll have to get back to you on that
after studying up a bit.

Best, Jeff Davis

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



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From megao at sasktel.net  Sat Mar  6 01:05:42 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:05:42 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Buckyballs to the rescue- novel drug discovery
Message-ID: <404923E6.D72C769F@sasktel.net>

Buckyballs (the 60 carbon variety ), formerly a curiosity of alchemy
may be Merk's new source of
a vast multitude of bio-actives and drugs.  Pg 19, 20 of Dec 2003
Pharmaceutical Tchnology reports:

C sixty and Merk have developed a very powerful and though  the full
nature of the molecules being presented for future commericalization are
undisclosed  , they are being pictured as targetable, re-usable
antioxidants.   C-60  buckyballs are quite stable. As well because of
their structure may be tagged with a considerable number of secondary
functional groups.  As well, like the 1/2 a chlorphyll  type of
manganese chelates family of SOD mimetics they may be seeded with one or
more metal/alloy  cores.  Buckyballs  are exotic, difficult to produce
in quantity  and without a natural
counterpart.

Merk was lagging behind in releasing new blockbuster drugs so as many
times happens, adversity leads to innovation.

Don't know if this is old news?

"Pharmer Mo"



From dgc at cox.net  Sat Mar  6 02:44:51 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 21:44:51 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bubble fusion--strong evidence for it.
In-Reply-To: <20040305233045.62764.qmail@web41206.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040305233045.62764.qmail@web41206.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <40493B23.6070301@cox.net>

Jeff Davis wrote:

>Friends,
>
>Dan and Gene responded to my lightweight musings with
>crushing objections.  (Dan was genteel, Gene was
>bruteel.) Ouch! That smarts. ;-}
>
Hey, Jeff. If you don't make your ideas known, we cannot
comment on them. It's generally worthwhile to at least raise
your points, since it's likely that others are thinking the same thing.
On the other hand I was a lot more brutal than you give me credit for.
I offered an extreme put-down when I said you were off by
15 orders of magnitude.  The US GNP is currently about 10 trillion
dollars. If you had claimed that the US GNP was one cent, you would
be off by 15 orders of magnitude. I considered apologizing, but decided 
not to,
so I am being at least as brutal as 'Gene.

>
>By way of a reply, consider Julian Schwinger's
>comments on the subject.  In contrast to my
>insignificant self, who developed a nostalgic
>enthusiasm for the virtues of retirement immediately
>post-partum, Mssr. Schwinger diligently applied
>himself, and eventually shared the 1965 nobel prize in
>physics with Richard Feynman and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga
>"for their fundamental work in quantum
>electrodynamics, with deep-ploughing consequences for
>the physics of elementary particles". 
>
>Cold Fusion Theory: A Brief History of Mine
>by Julian Schwinger 
>
>can be found at: 
>
>http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue1/colfusthe.html
>
>  
>
I read thie reference. Interesting. It looks to me like the author is 
very fond
of exotic explanations when simple explanations have not been ruled out.
He invokes the Casmir effect to explain SBSL, when classical adiabatic
compression suffices. He invokes a complex set of sophisitcated effects to
explain missing neutrons and gamma rays in cold fusion, when the much 
simpler
explanation is that there is no fusion.

Please note: the current SBSL "fusion" is still problematical. The 
experiment
uses neutron bombardment to stimulate bubble formation. This adds a 
complication
that must then be rigorously accounted for. I wil not be convinced until 
there
is an experiment that does not use a neutron source, but that still 
generates
tritium and gamma radiation.

On the other hand, the implications are huge. If this works, it may 
result in
practical fusion energy in increments suitable for individuals. This would
completely disrupt the existing economy. Consider: If you had a 100KW
heat generator you could heat and cool your home and drive a steam engine
to run a generator. Another steam engine drives the car. No Gasoline. No
Electric company or Gas company. The curent SBSL "fusion" is D-D, but
this is less than an order of magnitude from H-H. Power to the People.



From neptune at superlink.net  Sat Mar  6 05:29:33 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 00:29:33 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Buckyballs to the rescue- novel drug discovery
References: <404923E6.D72C769F@sasktel.net>
Message-ID: <014d01c4033c$02a97e80$91cd5cd1@neptune>

On Friday, March 05, 2004 8:05 PM Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.
megao at sasktel.net wrote:
> Merk was lagging behind in releasing
> new blockbuster drugs so as many
> times happens, adversity leads to
> innovation.

It's Merck...  It's not so much adversity that leads to innovation as it
is desperation leads people to try new things.  Creative destruction in
action: the fact that a company can lose value or even go under means
people in it will try new things.

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html



From reason at longevitymeme.org  Sat Mar  6 05:56:29 2004
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 21:56:29 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] we should all be lining up to congratulate Dr.
	Douglas Melton and the HHMI staff
In-Reply-To: <014d01c4033c$02a97e80$91cd5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNOENGEFAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>

We should be lining up to congratulate Dr. Douglas Melton and the HHMI staff
for their efforts:

http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000039.php
http://www.longevitymeme.org/projects/congratulate_douglas_melton_and_hhmi.c
fm

A letter of thanks to people who are making an enormous contribution, given
the present climate, to the future of health and longevity is a very good
thing. Have at it.

(Yes, I know there are many other deserving folks who merit this sort of
treatment, but conquering the world one web page at a time is a slow
process).

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme



From the_spoon_maker at hotmail.com  Sat Mar  6 07:56:25 2004
From: the_spoon_maker at hotmail.com (Tom's name Here)
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 07:56:25 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Vikings' Barbaric Bad Rap Beginning to Fade
Message-ID: <BAY2-F49TSoJDgIqpor00027fa0@hotmail.com>

>Bad Rap?  I didn't know there was any other kind.:)
>
>Dan

Of course opinion cannot be wrong, but here is something you might want to 
consider: in 2003 Harvard held a symposium purely on Tupac Shakur;
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/04.24/11-hiphop.html

and now offers a class in "Modern Protest Literature" featuring the slain 
rapper's lyrics;
http://newshound.de.siu.edu/online/stories/storyReader$5061

Of course I may be confusing hip-hop with modern rap, but the point is 
brilliance (or lack thereof) comes from the artist, regardless of the genre 
he or she is in. Rap did not give us the Thong Song; Sisqo did.

_________________________________________________________________
Create a Job Alert on MSN Careers and enter for a chance to win $1000! 
http://msn.careerbuilder.com/promo/kaday.htm?siteid=CBMSN_1K&sc_extcmp=JS_JASweep_MSNHotm2



From patrick at bung.demon.co.uk  Sat Mar  6 14:51:48 2004
From: patrick at bung.demon.co.uk (Patrick M Young)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 14:51:48 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] UC Berkeley researchers
	developingroboticexoskeleton that can enhance human strength
	and endurance
References: <20040305172937.58920.qmail@web80404.mail.yahoo.com>
	<01b501c402f6$220b6900$61cd5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <03df01c4038a$8df17bc0$0f01a8c0@home>

Dear Santa,

I REALLY WANT ONE ......!

Does anyone know if this is controlled mechanically at the dynamics level
(force sensors), or does it use EMG signals as a control mechanism?

Rgds,


Patrick





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Technotranscendence" <neptune at superlink.net>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] UC Berkeley researchers
developingroboticexoskeleton that can enhance human strength and endurance


> On Friday, March 05, 2004 12:29 PM Adrian Tymes wingcat at pacbell.net
> wrote:
> >> This is cooler than words can possibly express.  I
> >> guess I won't add comment.
> >>
> > http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/03_exo.shtml
> >
> > There's been much research.  But it's very cool that
> > someone's actually showing off a working version, at
> > last.
>
> It's cool, but when do they show up on sale at Walmart?:)
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
> http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From neptune at superlink.net  Sat Mar  6 15:19:23 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 10:19:23 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Vikings' Barbaric Bad Rap Beginning to Fade
References: <BAY2-F49TSoJDgIqpor00027fa0@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <007401c4038e$68ab1b60$30cd5cd1@neptune>

On Saturday, March 06, 2004 2:56 AM Tom's name Here
the_spoon_maker at hotmail.com
>> Bad Rap?  I didn't know there was any other kind.:)
>
> Of course opinion cannot be wrong, but here is
> something you might want to consider: in 2003
> Harvard held a symposium purely on Tupac Shakur;
> http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/04.24/11-hiphop.html
>
> and now offers a class in "Modern Protest
> Literature" featuring the slain rapper's lyrics;
> http://newshound.de.siu.edu/online/stories/storyReader$5061
>
> Of course I may be confusing hip-hop with
> modern rap, but the point is brilliance (or
> lack thereof) comes from the artist,
> regardless of the genre he or she is in.
> Rap did not give us the Thong Song; Sisqo did.

I've heard all this before and I actually agree with some of the points,
but that doesn't mean I like the music.  This is the same for opera and
musicals.  I can't much stand either, but I can understand a lot of the
stuff behind them -- from the esthetic to the ideological.

Also, the point you make about brilliance is important, but you've got
to like the genre too.  I don't, for whatever reason.  It's kind of like
a gourmet dinner of brussel sprouts.  You might love it and I mgiht
agree that it's brilliantly made and served, but I can't stand brussel
sprouts.:)  No lecture on how well they're made, no symposium on their
grandness, no class at Harvard in the benefits of eating them will make
me like them.:)

I.e., don't read too much into my tastes.

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html



From patrick at bung.demon.co.uk  Sat Mar  6 15:54:48 2004
From: patrick at bung.demon.co.uk (Patrick M Young)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 15:54:48 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] UC Berkeley
	researchersdevelopingroboticexoskeleton that can enhance human
	strengthand endurance
References: <20040305172937.58920.qmail@web80404.mail.yahoo.com><01b501c402f6$220b6900$61cd5cd1@neptune>
	<03df01c4038a$8df17bc0$0f01a8c0@home>
Message-ID: <03f301c40393$5a83a7f0$0f01a8c0@home>

Silly me, for posting before reading all. The answer is hinted at in
summary.pdf, of course.

"The controller, based on measurements from the exoskeleton only, estimates
(i.e., computes very quickly)"

"This novel control scheme is quite elaborate, but it is an effective way to
create locomotion when the area of contact between the wearer and the
machine is unpredictable."

I wonder if this is something really new?

Rgds,

Patrick




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Patrick M Young" <patrick at bung.demon.co.uk>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] UC Berkeley
researchersdevelopingroboticexoskeleton that can enhance human strengthand
endurance


> Dear Santa,
>
> I REALLY WANT ONE ......!
>
> Does anyone know if this is controlled mechanically at the dynamics level
> (force sensors), or does it use EMG signals as a control mechanism?
>
> Rgds,
>
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Technotranscendence" <neptune at superlink.net>
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 9:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] UC Berkeley researchers
> developingroboticexoskeleton that can enhance human strength and endurance
>
>
> > On Friday, March 05, 2004 12:29 PM Adrian Tymes wingcat at pacbell.net
> > wrote:
> > >> This is cooler than words can possibly express.  I
> > >> guess I won't add comment.
> > >>
> > > http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/03_exo.shtml
> > >
> > > There's been much research.  But it's very cool that
> > > someone's actually showing off a working version, at
> > > last.
> >
> > It's cool, but when do they show up on sale at Walmart?:)
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Dan
> > http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From joe at barrera.org  Sat Mar  6 16:34:52 2004
From: joe at barrera.org (Joseph S. Barrera III)
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 08:34:52 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bubble fusion--strong evidence for it.
In-Reply-To: <000901c402d3$4d117040$34ba1b97@administxl09yj>
References: <20040305144430.74705.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
	<000901c402d3$4d117040$34ba1b97@administxl09yj>
Message-ID: <4049FDAC.7020909@barrera.org>

scerir wrote:

>  http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bltaleyarkhan.htm

I find it hard to take seriously a science page that misspells "beaker".

- Joe




From joe at barrera.org  Sat Mar  6 16:37:02 2004
From: joe at barrera.org (Joseph S. Barrera III)
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 08:37:02 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Buckyballs to the rescue- novel drug discovery
In-Reply-To: <404923E6.D72C769F@sasktel.net>
References: <404923E6.D72C769F@sasktel.net>
Message-ID: <4049FE2E.2000306@barrera.org>

Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc. wrote:

>  Buckyballs (the 60 carbon variety ), formerly a curiosity of alchemy

Alchemy??? I thought C60 was a bit beyond the alchemists.

- Joe






From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sat Mar  6 16:52:21 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 08:52:21 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Buckyballs to the rescue- novel drug discovery
In-Reply-To: <4049FE2E.2000306@barrera.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403060849480.2657-100000@server.aeiveos.com>



On Sat, 6 Mar 2004, Joseph S. Barrera III wrote:

> Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc. wrote:
>
> >  Buckyballs (the 60 carbon variety ), formerly a curiosity of alchemy
>
> Alchemy??? I thought C60 was a bit beyond the alchemists.

Actually, I'm reasonably certain you can find C60 in soot
from a fire that is hot enough (though others may want to
check this...).  So if the alchemists had had electron
microscopes they might have discovered it.  Given that
they didn't C60 may have simply been an unknown component
of carbon black.

Robert




From megao at sasktel.net  Sat Mar  6 18:02:24 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 12:02:24 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Buckyballs to the rescue- novel drug discovery
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403060849480.2657-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <404A1230.3879817A@sasktel.net>

Yes , that is where the critter was first isolated from.  So the "Alchemy"
was a bit of a Ha Ha, relating to the Sotty Origins of this new "wonder of
nature".
Someimes you have to bring the lab/tech guys back to the farm so to speak.
eh?

"Pharmer Mo"
Morris Johnson

"Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Mar 2004, Joseph S. Barrera III wrote:
>
> > Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc. wrote:
> >
> > >  Buckyballs (the 60 carbon variety ), formerly a curiosity of alchemy
> >
> > Alchemy??? I thought C60 was a bit beyond the alchemists.
>
> Actually, I'm reasonably certain you can find C60 in soot
> from a fire that is hot enough (though others may want to
> check this...).  So if the alchemists had had electron
> microscopes they might have discovered it.  Given that
> they didn't C60 may have simply been an unknown component
> of carbon black.
>
> Robert
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  6 22:39:43 2004
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 14:39:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Virus problem inquiry
In-Reply-To: <20040305091623.GO18046@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20040306223943.77412.qmail@web41203.mail.yahoo.com>

Friends,

As you can see I use yahoo mail for my email.  This
morning, in my bulk email folder there appeared an
email "from" eleitl at leitl.org, entitled, "Is this your
work?".  The email came with an attachment, and the
body of the email said only, "The attachment is
self-decrypting."

Now if I get a junk email, with or without attachment,
I send it straight to the trash, of course. 
Occasionally I'll open the mail, but never the
attachment.  In this case however, there was a
problem: it looked like it might--though I doubted it,
since "eleitl at leitl.org" isn't Gene's usual email
address as I'm familiar with it--come from Gene Leitl.
 I was suspicious, so I scanned the attachment using
yahoo's virus scan function.  Bingo, red flag, it was
a virus.

How did this happen?  How did I get an email
configured to look like something from Gene?  Is my
machine infected with something that helped to make
this possible?  (My Norton anti-virus is up to date,
and reports as of yesterday that I'm clean.) Is it an
infection associated with the list, or one or more
members of the list?  Gene's IT savvy is so advanced
that I can rarely make heads or tales of the
discussion when Gene goes there, so I think it least
likely that his machine is infected, but who knows.

I submit this in detail because it may be of concern
to others with more serious security concerns.

  Best, Jeff Davis

"We're a band of higher primates stuck on the surface
of an atmosphere-hazed dirtball. I can associate with
that. I certainly can't identify with which patch of
the dirtball I currently happen to be on, and which
monkey tribe happens to reside therein.

Only by taking the big view we can make it a common
dream, and then a reality. It's worth it."
                               Eugen Leitl

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From joe at barrera.org  Sat Mar  6 23:21:13 2004
From: joe at barrera.org (Joseph S. Barrera III)
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 15:21:13 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Virus problem inquiry
In-Reply-To: <20040306223943.77412.qmail@web41203.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040306223943.77412.qmail@web41203.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <404A5CE9.7090604@barrera.org>

Jeff Davis wrote:

>How did this happen?  How did I get an email
>configured to look like something from Gene?
>
The protocol for sending email (SMTP) just asks you who you
are when you are sending email, and it trusts you. That's the
quick version.

Some third party, who has Eugene and you in their email address
book, has a virus that sends copies by picking one of the addresses
as the to and the other as the (faked) from.

- Joe



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sun Mar  7 07:24:22 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 23:24:22 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Virus problem inquiry
In-Reply-To: <20040306223943.77412.qmail@web41203.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403062308250.16653-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Sat, 6 Mar 2004, Jeff Davis wrote:

> I was suspicious, so I scanned the attachment using
> yahoo's virus scan function.  Bingo, red flag, it was
> a virus.
>
> How did this happen?  How did I get an email
> configured to look like something from Gene?

Joe's explanation is most probably correct.  Emails
"from" someone in an address book to someone else in
the address book (assuming that people in the same
address book may communicate from time to time.

One way to check this is to get access to the email
source and to look at the path trace (i.e. the
machines the message came from and went through.
If the machine that the message started from does
not match the numeric IP address of the claimed
"From:" address its good reason to raise an eyebrow.

(Perhaps Harvey could post an example of a complete
header and point out the subelements to pay attention to.)

You don't have to run a virus scan program you can
almost tell from the size.  I get a couple of messages
a day with a size between 36-49K.  They almost
all are 1-line messages with the rest in the attachment.
Such qualities are almost certainly the current
set of viruses that are running around.

One can generally assume that as the viruses & worms become
more sophisticated that they will tend to become larger.
Before you look at any unexpected attachment -- confirm
with whoever sent it that they did indeed do so.

One may also want to take a look at the recent article on /.
(yesterday or today) about spyware.  The Univ. of Washington
found that 1 in 20 computers on their internal net were
infected with spyware.  I'm not up-to-date on how effective
the normal virus/worm scanners are with spyware but you
should be aware of this problem as well.  Spyware is
often hidden in "free" programs (games, cool utilities,
etc.) that one would find on the net and then install
on your PC.  It is very difficult to remove spyware
without special utilities.

Robert




From eugen at leitl.org  Sun Mar  7 13:15:18 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 14:15:18 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Virus problem inquiry
In-Reply-To: <20040306223943.77412.qmail@web41203.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040305091623.GO18046@leitl.org>
	<20040306223943.77412.qmail@web41203.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040307131518.GZ18046@leitl.org>

On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 02:39:43PM -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:

> Now if I get a junk email, with or without attachment,
> I send it straight to the trash, of course. 

It is interesting that by now we can tell it's spam, because the fitness
function has changed through advent of spam filters. By now the bulk of spam
has become almost unintelligible.

> Occasionally I'll open the mail, but never the
> attachment.  In this case however, there was a

I open all attachements. I don't execute them, though.

I might execute an attachement, provided it's provably from a trusted person,
and executing it actually fulfills a useful purpose (right now I can't think of
any such purpose, though).

> problem: it looked like it might--though I doubted it,
> since "eleitl at leitl.org" isn't Gene's usual email
> address as I'm familiar with it--come from Gene Leitl.

I sign almost all my outgoing mail with a digital signature. The only way to
prove the message's from me (or from somebody who cracked my machine, and
snarfed the passphrase) is to check the digital signature. You can completely
disregard most of what's in the headers; it's perfectly forgeable, and
frequently forged.

>  I was suspicious, so I scanned the attachment using
> yahoo's virus scan function.  Bingo, red flag, it was
> a virus.

Notice that this variant uses social engineering to get the user to execute
it. They zip the payload, and use a password protected zipfile, so the virus
scanners can't look inside.
 
> How did this happen?  How did I get an email
> configured to look like something from Gene?  Is my

Easy as pi: http://www.opus1.com/www/presentations/emailproto/sld012.htm

The issues of trust and authentication are not that obvious, btw. It's clear
enough by biological properties and my government-issued ID never issued the
picture -- you built a model from a history of post, and linked it to
whatever appeared on the To: headers.

If that information is forgeable (and it is), it's clearly one has to turn to
something else to authenticate. Public key cryptography allows us to use the
laws of mathematics to verify that this email came somebody in the possession
of a secret (the private part of the public/private key pair). I have an
incentive to not circulate that secret widely, so just download a PGP/GPG
plugin for your MUA. 

> machine infected with something that helped to make
> this possible?  (My Norton anti-virus is up to date,
> and reports as of yesterday that I'm clean.) Is it an

This is not an absolute security, btw. You can get hit by a new virus before
your virus scanner updated his knowledge base.

> infection associated with the list, or one or more
> members of the list?  Gene's IT savvy is so advanced
> that I can rarely make heads or tales of the

Uh, sorry about that. Does this email make more sense than the previous ones?

> discussion when Gene goes there, so I think it least
> likely that his machine is infected, but who knows.

It is possible, but unlikely.
 
> I submit this in detail because it may be of concern
> to others with more serious security concerns.

-- 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/20040307/22bc0379/attachment.bin>

From naddy at mips.inka.de  Sun Mar  7 15:29:43 2004
From: naddy at mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber)
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 15:29:43 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Virus problem inquiry
References: <20040306223943.77412.qmail@web41203.mail.yahoo.com>
	<404A5CE9.7090604@barrera.org>
Message-ID: <c2ff57$rah$1@kemoauc.mips.inka.de>

Joseph S. Barrera III <joe at barrera.org> wrote:

> Some third party, who has Eugene and you in their email address
> book, has a virus that sends copies by picking one of the addresses
> as the to and the other as the (faked) from.

One interesting observation is that fake From addresses, whether
spam or worms, are always limited to a bare email address without
accompanying full name.  E.g., when Eugene sends me mail it is

From: Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org>

(which shows up as from "Eugen Leitl" in my MUA), but fakes are just

From: eugen at leitl.org

Since all people I associate with use full names in their email
addresses, any messages with bare addresses purporting to come from
them are obviously fake.

Just why the worms don't pick up the full names I don't understand.
For the time being, it speeds up sorting out the junk.

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          naddy at mips.inka.de


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  7 17:45:02 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 09:45:02 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Contacts needed
Message-ID: <20040307174502.59818.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>

Fellow Extropes,

With the recent nationwide publicity regarding the FSP and Killington
Secession, we are gearing up for a full court press publicity campaign
to stretch throughout tax season. One aspect is to recruit more
endorsements from publicly known personalities who are libertarians or
are libertarian leaning, of the FSP and its mission. Endorsements from
liberty-oriented groups are also sought.

The following celebrities are specifically being sought out and we wish
to establish contact via people who know them. So, if you have a
personal acquaintance with these, or any other celebrities, and would
like to help the FSP in its mission, we'd appreciate hearing from you.

[/i]Notable Libertarians[i]

Dave Barry                        P.J. O'Rourke
Milton Friedman                  Virginia Postrel
Penn Gillette                      Kurt Russell
Edward Herrman                Tom Selleck 
John Laroquette                  Howard Stern 
Russell Means                    Teller
Sean Morely                      Barry Williams
Michael Moriarty

[/i]Authors and Musicians[i]

James Hogan                    John Popper
Victor Korman                    Neil Peart
Mojo Nixon                        L. Neil Smith  
Ted Nugent                        J. Neil Schulman

[/i]Other Sympathizers[i]

Sandra Bernhardt              David Letterman    
John Carpenter                  Dennis Miller
Hugh Downs                      Camille Paglia
Clint Eastwood                  Michael Savage
Laura Ingraham                John Stossel 

=====
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! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Mar  8 07:09:34 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 01:09:34 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] memory enhancer drug on the way
In-Reply-To: <c2ff57$rah$1@kemoauc.mips.inka.de>
References: <20040306223943.77412.qmail@web41203.mail.yahoo.com>
	<404A5CE9.7090604@barrera.org> <c2ff57$rah$1@kemoauc.mips.inka.de>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040308010801.01b8cec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

Maybe this is old news, I've forgotten:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/07/1078594235091.html


A drug ... that enables people to improve their memory is to be tested on 
humans and could be on sale within five years.

Tim Tully, a professor of genetics at Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory in New 
York, who developed the drug, said: "If it proves safe and effective it 
could ultimately be used by people who want to learn a language or a 
musical instrument or even in schools." The most important market, however, 
could be healthy people in their 40s and 50s whose memory was deteriorating.

The drug, code-named HT-0712, helps to retain information in the short-term 
memory. It works by activating a gene contained in every human cell. Once 
activated, it allows brain cells to make the connections vital for memory 
formation.

In many people, these memory-forming processes slow with age, leading to 
forgetfulness.

This summer, 100 people in the United States with mild memory loss will 
receive the drug to test its safety and efficacy. Professor Tully hopes it 
will help patients to develop improved memories and will compensate for 
damage done by the early stages of dementia. If the study is successful, 
larger trials will be carried out with the aim of producing the drug 
commercially within five to seven years. [etc]




From trans_humanism at msn.com  Mon Mar  8 09:15:55 2004
From: trans_humanism at msn.com (Tyler Emerson)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 03:15:55 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Success of 1st SIAI volunteer meeting;
	announcing weekly get-together
Message-ID: <BAY4-DAV41IooAskRQr0000dcd7@hotmail.com>

Sincere thanks to everyone at the volunteer meeting on Sunday. I 
believe we had ~20 there with seven new people offering support.

It is clear that one meeting per month is too little given the 
amount of focused discussion that must happen before progress does. 

Beginning next Sunday, SIAI will have a weekly meeting at 7 PM EST 
in #siaiv - the same channel of our monthly *official* meeting, 
which will continue to be the first Sunday of each month.

The weekly meeting will focus on SIAI planning, action, brainstorming 
and reporting. I suspect it will provide regular encouragement - 
with accountability - for those who seek advancement of this cause
and commmunity. Have a good week everyone. Best wishes.

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


From amara at amara.com  Mon Mar  8 10:43:17 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 11:43:17 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Pair of Naked-eye Comets in May
Message-ID: <p05100303bc71fd978672@[150.146.134.133]>

It's quite rare to have two naked eye comets visible in the
sky at the same time. Which is what you will possibly have,
if you look at the sky, from south of the equator this coming
May.

http://www.space.com/spacewatch/comets_visible_040225.html

(I plan to be in Chile)

One of them should be visible from the Northern Hemisphere.

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  Mon Mar  8 11:04:42 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 12:04:42 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Buckyballs to the rescue
Message-ID: <p05100304bc71ffd80ee8@[150.146.134.133]>


Robert Bradbury:
>Actually, I'm reasonably certain you can find C60 in soot from a
>fire that is hot enough (though others may want to check this...).
>So if the alchemists had had electron microscopes they might have
>discovered it.  Given that they didn't C60 may have simply been an
>unknown component of carbon black.

Reminder: probably in space too, see the note below, that I sent to
the extropians list last October.

As a follow-up to the note below, Rotundi and coauthors have
the following paper in press to the journal:

Fullerenes, Nanotubes and Carbon Nanostructures.

Here is that new paper:

C60 AND GIANT FULLERENES IN SOOT CONDENSED IN VAPORS WITH
VARIABLE C/H2 RATIO
by
Frans J.M. Rietmeijer,
Alessandra Rotundi,
Dieter Heymann,

Abstract: A transmission electron microscope study of individual
soot grains forming fluffy carbon particles produced using the
arc-discharge technique revealed close-packed arrangements of single
-wall ring structures with average diameters of 0.7, 1.1, 3.0, 5.5
and 8.2 nanometers. These structures were hypothesized to be C60 and
giant, C540, C960 and C1500, fullerenes that could form by
coalescence during condensation and soot agglomeration although in
situ solid-state growth cannot be excluded. Mass spectroscopy and
HPLC chromatography of the samples confirmed the presence of C60
fullerene in all samples giving confidence to the giant fullerene
growth scenario. Our results suggest that fullerenes could be common
in soot grains produced by this technique as well as being an
important carbon phase among in C-rich accretion disks around young
stellar objects and among the dust in the interstellar medium.

======= sent 21 October 2003 to extropians (couldn't find it in 
archives though)

To:  Extropy-chat at extropy.org
From: Amara Graps <amara at amara.com>
Subject: Buckyballs in space

Last Spring, the extropians list (I think) had a discussion
regarding organized carbon materials in space. Along that vein, I
present something I read at a recent planetary science conference.
Alessandra Rotundi had a poster there about buckyballs formed in
interplanetary dust particles.

V Convegno di Scienze Planetarie, Gallipoli, Italy
September 15-19, 2003
http://www.fisica.unile.it/astro/planetologia/

Soot Analogs: It Should be a Metastable Carbon

by A. Rotundi, F.J.M. Rietmeyer, D. Heymann, V. Mennella, L. Colangeli

 From the poster:

{begin quote}
The search for C60 among IS and circumstellar dust, including the
solar nebula as enclosed in meteorites and IP dust particles (IDPs)
has not yet produced unambiguous results. Yet He and Ne associated
with carbon materials require efficiet trapping sites, e.g.
nanotubes or fullerenes (1). A carbon X-ray Absorption Near Edge
Spectroscopy (C-XNES) study of the carbon-rich IDP L2008F4 showed a
peak at 286.3 eV possibly due to C60 (2). As part of the long-term
program to identify carbon spectral signatures in astrophysical
settings, a detailed study of condensed carbon showed nanotubes,
carbon onions and soot grains froming fluffy claim-like aggregates
(CLA) (3). High-resolution Transmission Electron Microscope (HRTEM)
observations showed that CLA grains consist of densely packed
single-wall spheres. The smallest ones are identified as C60, whose
presence is confirmed by mass spectroscopy and High Performance
Liquid Chromatography (HPLC). The larger ones we submit are giant
fullerenes forming protofringes, in individual soot grains, suggest
post-condensation adjustment, i.e. incipient fullerene
crystallization.

(1) Palma R.L. et all (2001) LPS XXXII, CDROM #2074,
(2) Bajt, S. et al (1996( LPS XXVII, #5758
(3) Rotundi, A. et al (1998) A & A 329, 1087-1096.
{end quote}


-- 

********************************************************************
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 gregburch at gregburch.net  Mon Mar  8 13:40:43 2004
From: gregburch at gregburch.net (Greg Burch)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 07:40:43 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Layman's Eschatological Cosmology
In-Reply-To: <p05100304bc71ffd80ee8@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <PMEELDEBLOLPFEFPEIBDMENICDAA.gregburch@gregburch.net>

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096491/entry/2096506

... includes a nice character sketch of our old friend Tipler ...

GB, http://www.gregburch.net


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  8 14:56:19 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 06:56:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Pair of Naked-eye Comets in May
In-Reply-To: <p05100303bc71fd978672@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <20040308145619.38802.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:
> It's quite rare to have two naked eye comets visible in the
> sky at the same time. Which is what you will possibly have,
> if you look at the sky, from south of the equator this coming
> May.
> 
> http://www.space.com/spacewatch/comets_visible_040225.html
> 
> (I plan to be in Chile)
> 
> One of them should be visible from the Northern Hemisphere.

Excellent. Thank you for the heads up, so to speak. ;) Look forward to
hearing of your observations.

=====
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! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From natashavita at earthlink.net  Mon Mar  8 15:34:43 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 10:34:43 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] VP Summit: Washington Post Article on Bioethics
	Council
Message-ID: <410-2200431815344384@M2W045.mail2web.com>

Greg Burch sent the Summit a link to a March 6th aticle in the Washington
Post written by Elizabeth Blackburn who was "fired" from Kass's Bioethics
Council.

It is very pertinent and I hope Prof. Blackburn will be able to discuss
this at the an "after Summit" virtual event.

>  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35471-2004Mar6.html
>One of Kass' fired committee members fires back!

If you have an opportunity, please read it.

Natasha


President, Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture  http://www.transhumanist.biz
http://www.transhuman.org


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




From eugen at leitl.org  Mon Mar  8 15:51:16 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 16:51:16 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] VP Summit: Washington Post Article on Bioethics
	Council
In-Reply-To: <410-2200431815344384@M2W045.mail2web.com>
References: <410-2200431815344384@M2W045.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <20040308155116.GW18046@leitl.org>

On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:34:43AM -0500, natashavita at earthlink.net wrote:
> Greg Burch sent the Summit a link to a March 6th aticle in the Washington
> Post written by Elizabeth Blackburn who was "fired" from Kass's Bioethics
> Council.
> 
> It is very pertinent and I hope Prof. Blackburn will be able to discuss
> this at the an "after Summit" virtual event.
> 
> >  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35471-2004Mar6.html
> >One of Kass' fired committee members fires back!
> 
> If you have an opportunity, please read it.

It seems to require sacrificing your firstborn to the Dark Gods, can someone
please post the full text?

-- 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/20040308/d001e618/attachment.bin>

From natashavita at earthlink.net  Mon Mar  8 15:58:17 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 10:58:17 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] VP Summit: Washington Post Article on Bioethics
	Council
Message-ID: <269620-22004318155817394@M2W069.mail2web.com>

'gene, here it is.  (Psst ... List Moderators, am I going to get in trouble
with the list for doing this? - Natasha)

"A 'Full Range' of Bioethical Views Just Got Narrower 

By Elizabeth H. Blackburn
Sunday, March 7, 2004; Page B02 

The phone rang a few days after Sept. 11, 2001. It was Leon Kass, chairman
of the brand-new President's Council on Bioethics, calling to ask: Would I
join this White House-appointed federal commission charged with advising
the president on ethical issues arising from advances in biomedical science
and technology? 
 
As a cell biologist who had spent years investigating causes of cancer and
human aging, I had already begun thinking about the ramifications of such
research. Like many people at that tumultuous time, I also felt eager to do
something -- anything -- to serve a cause larger than myself. I understood
that the council would include not just biomedical scientists but medical
doctors, philosophers and legal and policy experts, and Kass assured me it
would consider diverse views and avoid foregone conclusions. I agreed then
and there to serve. Little did I guess that a scant two and half years
later a White House phone call would notify me that my services were no
longer needed. 

In the weeks it took to finalize the appointment, I reflected on my
decision. I knew that council discussions were likely to present
challenges; for years Kass, a professor of social thought, had expressed
views I believed to be unfriendly to many aspects of biomedical research
and contemporary medicine. But I felt that as a seasoned scientist whose
own work touched on these areas, I could help the council distinguish
between real, experimentally validated science and what amounted to sheer
flimflam on issues muddled by competing voices and agendas, and little
data. 

In January 2002, the entire 18-member council met with President Bush at
the White House. His initial directive was for us to report on the ethics
of therapeutic cloning (also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer) and
reproductive cloning. Therapeutic cloning involves making early-stage
pre-implantation embryos for use as sources of stem cells -- for research
and to be used in cures -- while reproductive cloning refers to the
creation of cloned babies by transferring cloned embryos to a womb for
gestation and birth. I was encouraged when Bush stressed that he wanted to
hear the full range of views on those and other questions. 

When I read the council's first discussion documents, my heart sank. The
language was not what I was used to seeing in scientific discourse -- it
seemed to me to present pre-judged views and to use rhetoric to make
points. Still, the debates we had in the ensuing months proved far-ranging,
and all comments were politely received. And, despite the betting of
outsiders, 10 of the council's 17 members (one had retired) initially voted
against recommending a ban on therapeutic cloning. A late change to the
question being voted on turned the minority who were in favor of a ban into
a majority of 10 favoring a four-year moratorium, an option the council had
not discussed in meetings. But the report issued in July 2002 contained a
breadth of views. It also contained a series of personal statements by
council members, many of them dissenting from the report's official
recommendations. 

In the year and a half following that report, I began to sense much less
tolerance from the chairman for dissenting views. I will focus only on
embryonic stem cell research. 

Work with animal models had been indicating the potential benefits of such
research for more than two decades. More recently, breakthrough research
had suggested for the first time that those avenues of investigation would
be possible in humans, with revolutionary implications for health care. Yet
at council meetings, I consistently sensed resistance to presenting human
embryonic stem cell research in a way that would acknowledge the
scientific, experimentally verified realities. The capabilities of
embryonic versus adult stem cells, and their relative promise for medicine,
were obfuscated. Although I was not able to attend every meeting, I engaged
fully in preparations for the report: I read and assessed the published
science, attended presentations on new research at national and
international scientific conferences, and consulted with cell biologists,
including stem cell biologists, across the country. The information I
submitted was not reflected in the report drafts. 

Clearly, the council's reports concerned politically charged topics. I knew
that my views on cloning and stem cell research did not match those of
either Kass or Bush, as I understood them: In his public statements, the
president had supported banning therapeutic as well as reproductive
cloning. Still, I was not prepared for the phone call I received at home
from the White House on Wednesday, Feb. 25. The caller requested that on
Friday afternoon I call the White House Personnel Office. No hint was given
as to the reason. When I called, the director said that the White House had
decided to "make changes" in the council and that it was adding new people
to replace some individual members. I asked him whether this meant that my
term on the council had terminated, and the reply was yes. 

And what "changes" they were. I was one of just three full-time biomedical
scientists on the council. William May, a deeply thoughtful, erudite
theologian and medical ethicist, was also leaving. He, too, had often
differed with Kass on issues such as the moral worth of biomedical research
and the ramifications of trying to legislate such research. And he, too,
had voted against both a ban and a moratorium on therapeutic cloning. 

When I read the published views of the three new members (bringing the
council up to its original total of 18 members), it seemed to me they
represented a loss of balance in the council, both professionally and
philosophically. None was a biomedical scientist, and the views of all
three were much closer to the views espoused by Kass than mine or May's
were. One, a surgeon who was not a scientist, had championed a larger place
for religious values in public life. Another was a political philosopher
who had publicly praised Kass's work; the third, a political scientist, had
described research in which embryos are destroyed as "evil." 

Why do I find the concept of banning embryonic stem cell research so
troubling? Leon Kass has suggested that society should make decisions based
on what he calls the "wisdom of repugnance." I think this is an unreliable
kind of wisdom. Repugnance should serve not as a basis for any decision,
but rather as a signal for honest, critical examination of what inspired
it. In some instances, repugnance may indeed hint at moral qualms that will
withstand the rigors of analytical questioning. But it may also simply
reflect habit or custom. 

I am convinced that enlightened societies can only make good policy when
that policy is based on the broadest possible information and on reasoned,
open discussion. Narrowness of views on a federal commission is not
conducive to the nation getting the best possible advice. My experience
with the debate on embryonic stem cell research, however, suggests to me
that a hardening and narrowing of views is exactly what is happening on the
President's Council on Bioethics. 

On Super Tuesday, four days after the White House call, I stopped by the
garage at a local house that served as my neighborhood's polling station.
In the soft, early-evening light, it felt far removed from the brightly lit
pomp and splendor of the White House I had visited two years earlier as a
member of the Bioethics Council. Here in this garage, men and women also
were volunteering their efforts, contributing to the civic good. They
beamed and congratulated me when I mentioned that I, a native-born
Australian, had recently become a U.S. citizen. A surge of appreciation
swept through me as they went about their tasks, watchfully protecting due
process. In this down-home setting, that charge suddenly felt so precious,
and so fragile."

Elizabeth Blackburn is a professor of biochemistry at the University of
California at San Francisco and a member of the National Academy of
Sciences and the Institute of Medicine.






On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:34:43AM -0500, natashavita at earthlink.net wrote:
> Greg Burch sent the Summit a link to a March 6th aticle in the Washington
> Post written by Elizabeth Blackburn who was "fired" from Kass's Bioethics
> Council.
> 
> It is very pertinent and I hope Prof. Blackburn will be able to discuss
> this at the an "after Summit" virtual event.
> 
> >  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35471-2004Mar6.html
> >One of Kass' fired committee members fires back!
> 
> If you have an opportunity, please read it.

It seems to require sacrificing your firstborn to the Dark Gods, can someone
please post the full text?

-- 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


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




From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Mon Mar  8 18:54:37 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 12:54:37 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] POL: A tough election year
References: <003401c402bd$4def0100$a7cd5cd1@neptune>
	<Law10-OE65Eb0Si06ny0003840d@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <Law10-OE15FnwpGR88100000415@hotmail.com>

Gee. It's going to be another tough election year.

On one side, an anti-gay christian that doesn't like stem-cell research,
cloning, and/or much else to do with technology unless it is a weapon. We're
in a war which may or may not be right, but since we're there, I'd prefer to
have him there rather than the other guy.....I just wish he would quit
stating that "God" is on our side!

Opposing him, a luddite that hates guns, thinks we should give Osama a fair
trial although he admitted to 911, and wants to raise my taxes after I just
got a tax cut. (No, I'm not wealthy!). He'll take that money and do what
with it? Use it for research? Use it on the space program? No. It just
depends on who he is speaking with. Either way, it is obvious he thinks
research and the space program are a waste compared to redistribution of
wealth. He's just about as full of shit as Clinton was. I can;t believe
anytrhing he says..unlike Bush who I may disagree withm but I can at least
believe half of what he says......


They are both enemies of freedom and progress. It is the same every election
year!

I looked at the list of Libertarian candidates and didn't see anyone that
looks like a winner. They need more balls, and need to focus on winning
instead of just saying whatever comes to mind. Mayne they should lie a bit
more often since that's what the public seems to respond to.

I sure wish someone here were running for President. Every single one of you
would probably be better than the available candidates!!!!

Kevin Freels


From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  8 21:25:14 2004
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 13:25:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Ted Williams' son dead of leukemia
In-Reply-To: <20040308100001.67292.qmail@rho.pair.com>
Message-ID: <20040308212514.14438.qmail@web41208.mail.yahoo.com>

You've probably heard by now. 

http://www.clarionledger.com/news/0403/08/sbriefs.html

Now the real question:

Is he at Alcor undergoing suspension?

Best, Jeff Davis

"Our father was not a religious man. The faith that
many people place in God, we place in science and
other human endeavors."
                 John Henry and Claudia Williams




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From natashavita at earthlink.net  Mon Mar  8 22:41:58 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 17:41:58 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Ted Williams' son dead of leukemia
Message-ID: <187160-22004318224158412@M2W093.mail2web.com>


From: Jeff Davis jrd1415 at yahoo.com


>You've probably heard by now. 

>http://www.clarionledger.com/news/0403/08/sbriefs.html

>Now the real question:

>Is he at Alcor undergoing suspension?

Very funny :-)  Actually, I hope he is not still batting around his demons.

Natasha

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




From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Mon Mar  8 22:55:47 2004
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 14:55:47 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Ted Williams' son dead of leukemia
References: <20040308212514.14438.qmail@web41208.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <008301c40560$7f9113b0$b7be1218@Nano>

At the time of his fathers controversy it was stated that he and his younger sister (not the half sister obviously) were intending to sign up for cryonic suspension themselves. Since he was diagnosed only as recently as October, that's only a five month battle before it took his life. However since his fathers situation was in July of 2002, he had a considerable amount of time to plan for his own suspension. We may not know for a while since Alcor has a confidentiality regulation. 
Gina


  You've probably heard by now. 

  http://www.clarionledger.com/news/0403/08/sbriefs.html

  Now the real question:

  Is he at Alcor undergoing suspension?

  Best, Jeff Davis

  "Our father was not a religious man. The faith that
  many people place in God, we place in science and
  other human endeavors."
                   John Henry and Claudia Williams




  __________________________________
  Do you Yahoo!?
  Yahoo! Search - Find what you're looking for faster
  http://search.yahoo.com
  _______________________________________________
  extropy-chat mailing list
  extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
  http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040308/84a461ec/attachment.html>

From dan at 3-e.net  Tue Mar  9 00:08:08 2004
From: dan at 3-e.net (Daniel Matthews)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 11:08:08 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] memory enhancer drug on the way
In-Reply-To: <200403081601.i28G19c05115@tick.javien.com>
References: <200403081601.i28G19c05115@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <200403091108.18806.dan@3-e.net>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 03:01 am, extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org wrote:
> Message: 25
> Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 01:09:34 -0600
> From: Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>
> Subject: [extropy-chat] memory enhancer drug on the way
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040308010801.01b8cec0 at pop-server.satx.rr.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> Maybe this is old news, I've forgotten:
>
> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/07/1078594235091.html
>
>
> A drug ... that enables people to improve their memory is to be tested on
> humans and could be on sale within five years.

As Steven Rose points out, this type of drug could be very dangerous.
Being able to forget is as an important part of learning, as being able to 
remember is. 

You could forcibly program a person with such a drug, or traumatise them so 
intensely that it was very hard for them to recover.

Are not most neurosis the result of learning inappropriate responses to 
stimuli?

Such is the nature of any powerful tool, it must be used wisely.

<dan at 3-e.net>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFATQroPY2Ltzc2YLMRAtB+AKCGmvmGWn8qNhuY9398vHM1gclmewCgiliG
OKKFcdlsNWzkQv5ZLERfhmY=
=fIZ5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Tue Mar  9 01:14:11 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 18:14:11 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Noam Chomsky on Capitalism's Invisible Hand
Message-ID: <404D1A63.9D57A2A7@mindspring.com>

With all the accusations of "supernatural Marxism" flying about, we would be
remiss to neglect that tired and hackneyed "invisible hand" the capitalists
love to invoke so frequently.  Now, *that* is a non-humanistic outlook on the
world!
 
Ed Tyler


----------------------original message-----------------------
[historiansagainstwar] Noam Chomsky on Capitalism's Invisible Hand
Reply-To: historiansagainstwar at yahoogroups.com


Response from Noam Chomsky to a question about the
invisible hand in capitalistic market forces.
Recorded by Roger Leisner on February 15, 2004.
To order this recording, see below:
*******************************************************
First of all, you know what we have today does not
remotely resemble what's supposed to be capitalism.
Capitalism is supposed to be what Jagdish Bhagwati
was discussing in this abstract model he had in mind
in the op-ed this morning.  And what you study in
neo-classical economics with free markets and
entrepreneurial initiative and consumer choice, what
Greenspan is talking about, but we don't have anything
resembling that.

I should say that even that one quote I gave about
oligarchic competition, strategic integration, etc.,
etc.  It said that's what we have, not the "invisible
hand" of the market.

Well, I don't know how many of you have ever read
"Wealth of Nations", the famous, what you're supposed
to worship at.  The phrase "invisible hand" does
appear in "Wealth of Nations", exactly once.  And it's
an argument against what's now called "globalization".
 It's an argument against free movement of capital. 
Smith argues that argument that although it would be
very harmful to England, what he cared about, it will
be stopped by an "invisible hand" because merchants
and manufacturers will have a home bias.  They'll
prefer to invest at home.  So, don't worry about it,
even though it's dangerous.  That's the one use of the
term in "Wealth of Nations".

You know, so what we have is nothing like capitalism. 
But can we have a system in which the poor benefit and
the rich don't have to be made happy.  Why not?!?

There's not a law of nature that the economy, hence
most of the society and the political system, are in
the hands of high concentrations of capital which are
granted by the state.  They're granted by state power,
enormous rights.  You know rights that are granted to
corporations are an incredible blow against classical
liberalism and classical economics.  Adam Smith would
turn over in his grave to see what's been granted to
these basically totalitarian systems.  And they have
basically been granted the rights, not only of
persons, which is outlandish, but of pathological
persons.  They're required by law to be utterly
pathological.  It's a legal requirement, deeply
embedded in anglo-american corporate law.  That the
managers of corporations must be brutal.  They must be
the kind of persons who we would lock up if they were
flesh and blood.  They got to, they're only, they are
legally required to maximize profit and market share
and not to do anything decent.  The only exception,
and it's a long history of corporate law, is they're
allowed to do something decent if it's hypocritical. 
So, if a pharmaceutical corporation wants to improve
its image by giving free drugs to people in Africa or
something, it's allowed to do it as long as it's pure
hypocrisy.  That is, it is a way to improve your image
to increase profit.  Otherwise, it's legally culpable.
You're much more likely to get thrown in jail for that
than, you know, ENRON style corruption.  And I think
that's really the core of the system.  

Well, you know, that's just, it's not even
legislation, these are just decisions by courts. 
Which have become the core.  Do we have to accept
that?!?  Almost like saying that people had to accept
bolshevism or fascism or other kinds of
totalitarianism.  Of course not!!!
*******************************************************
Radio Free Maine
presents
Noam Chomsky
speaking on
The Militarization of Science and Space

Sponsored by
Technology and Culture Forum
http://web.mit.edu/tac/www/
M.I.T. Social Justice Cooperative
http://web.mit.edu/justice/
 

[[R&R (rant and rave) bit at end on militarization of space deleted. twc]]


-- 
"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  Tue Mar  9 01:52:20 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 18:52:20 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) U.S. to offer a bounty on NEAs
Message-ID: <404D2354.58A306FD@mindspring.com>

Here's a chance for anyone with a backyard telescope to possibly make some 
quick cash.

<http://www.space.com/spacewatch/conrad_bill_040304.html>

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Amateur astronomers could receive awards of $3,000 for 
discovering and tracking near-Earth asteroids under legislation approved by 
the House Wednesday.

"Given the vast number of asteroids and comets that inhabits Earth's 
neighborhood, greater efforts for tracking and monitoring these objects are 
critical," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., sponsor of the legislation 
that passed 404-1.

<snip />

The bill is named after Pete Conrad, the third man to walk on the moon. The 
lone dissenting vote was Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas.

---
Dean A. Batha


-- 
"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 dgc at cox.net  Tue Mar  9 01:50:28 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 20:50:28 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] e-mail problems: more general?
In-Reply-To: <BAY4-DAV41IooAskRQr0000dcd7@hotmail.com>
References: <BAY4-DAV41IooAskRQr0000dcd7@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <404D22E4.9080705@cox.net>

Earlier, Natasha mentioned the she was having problems
with Earthlink. The problems appearedto be related to
the Earthlink E-mail server.

I responded that it is generaly agood idea to
separate your "presence" from your "access."

Natasha was not having any apparent problems
with "access" via Earthlink, but her "presense"
was lousy. Specifically, Earthlink's e-mail was
not working for her.

My "access" is via cox.net, and it is quite good.
My "presence" is also currently via cox.net. during the
couse of the last week or so, I am alos having e-mail
problems. In particular, my POP server at cox.net
is frequently failing to respond. I assume that this is
becasue it is overloiaded with SPAM.

I need to take my own advice and move my e-mail
address.

Three questions:
   1)is anyone else having problems with their e-mial server?
   2)can extropians get e-mail at extropy.org?
   3) If I decide to take my ownadvice and move to a web host,
       can someone reccommend a good one?




From megao at sasktel.net  Tue Mar  9 01:57:18 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 19:57:18 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryogenics Economics- Estate Tax deferral?
Message-ID: <404D247E.33B1124@sasktel.net>

I am from Canada where there are no taxes on estates except for a 3%
probate fee for those who die intestate.

If someone is cryopreserved in a state where regeneration is possible
does one have to probate and dissolve  an estate.  If the cryonaut
places all their assets into a pre-designed living-will managed trust
(instructions put into place with various time and event determined
contingencies pre-planned) which is not to be dissoved until a
reanimation is done and the person is finally irreversible dead or else
back to life,  can the government extract estate taxes?

Is there sufficient tax deferral at stake that the government might seek
to disallow
cryogenic storage because it stands to defer today's taxes for perhaps
100 years into the future?

Morris Johnson







From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Tue Mar  9 02:43:59 2004
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 18:43:59 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Nanogirl News~
References: <404D247E.33B1124@sasktel.net>
Message-ID: <005301c40580$5fcbefd0$b7be1218@Nano>

The Nanogirl News
March 8, 2004

Ribbons Into Rings. Unique crystal growth process leads to seamless ZnO nanoring structure. Zhong L. Wang is, in a way, a lord of the nanorings. By coaxing a zinc oxide nanobelt--a long, thin ribbon composed of alternating layers of Zn2+ and O22--to coil up Slinky-style, he and his coworkers at Georgia Institute of Technology have prepared the first freestanding, seamless, single-crystal nanorings out of ZnO [Science, 303, 1348 (2004)]. Wang, a professor of materials science and engineering, says the structures could be used to make semiconducting and piezoelectric-based nanoscale components that are biocompatible. (C&E 3/1/04) http://pubs.acs.org/cen/topstory/8209/8209notw3.html

Carbon nanotubes go magnetic. Physicists have shown that carbon nanotubes can become magnetized when they are placed in contact with a magnetic material. Michael Coey of Trinity College in Dublin and colleagues believe the mechanism relies on the transfer of spin - carried by electrons - from the magnetic substrate to the nanotube (O C?spedes et al. 2004 J. Phys.: CM 16 L155). (physicsweb 3/8/04) http://physicsweb.org/article/news/8/3/4

Device detects, traps and deactivates airborne viruses and bacteria using 'smart' catalysts. An environmental engineer at Washington University in St. Louis with his doctoral student has patented a device for trapping and deactivating microbial particles. The work is promising in the war on terrorism for deactivating airborne bioagents and bioweapons such as the smallpox virus, anthrax and ricin, and also in routine indoor air ventilation applications such as in buildings and aircraft cabins..."When the aerosol particles come into the device they are charged and trapped in an electrical field," Biswas explained. "Any organic material is oxidized, so it completely deactivates the organism."...Anthrax is nasty stuff. An environmental engineer at WUSTL uses smart catalysts in his device that can detect the airborne presence of anthrax and other bioweapons and disable it. On the walls of the device, Biswas has coated nanoparticles that catalyze the oxidation. These nanoparticles are "smart" objects that are turned "on" and "off" by irradiation. 
(Washington University in St.Louis 3/3/04) http://news-info.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/726.html

Nano Patterning. IBM brings closer to reality chips that put themselves together. Self-assembly has become a critical implement in the toolbox of nanotechnologists. Scientists and engineers who explore the nano realm posit that the same types of forces that construct a snowflake--the natural attractions and repulsions that prompt molecules to form intricate patterns--can build useful structures--say, medical implants or components in electronic chips. So far much of the work related to self-assembling nanostructures has been nothing more than demonstrations in university laboratories. To go beyond being a scientific curiosity, these nanotech materials and techniques will have to get from benchtop to a $2-billion semiconductor fabrication facility. (Scientific American March issue 04) 
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa001&colID=6&articleID=000170D6-C99F-101E-861F83414B7F0000

Penn Researchers Introduce A New Nanotube-laced Gel, Create New Means Of Aligning Nanotubes. Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania have devised a new method for aligning isolated single wall carbon nanotubes and, in the process, have created a new kind of material with liquid crystal-like properties, which they call nematic nanotube gels. The gels could potentially serve as sensors in complex fluids, where changes in local chemical environment, such as acidity or solvent quality, can lead to visible changes in the gel's shape. The researchers describe their findings in the current issue of Physical Review Letters. (ScienceDaily 3/2/04)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040302080343.htm

A novel method of simulating protein behavior to achieve new, desirable nanostructures has been achieved in prototype by two researchers from Sandia National Laboratories. The method treats proteins like little construction crews, sequencing and controlling their molecular behaviors to build structures of interest. "A bird builds a nest differently each time, but you end up with a nest that works," says Sandia Fellow Gordon Osbourn, who developed the method with his colleague and wife, Sandia physicist Ann Bouchard. "We build simulated nanostructures the same way." "There are many paths to a useful outcome in our method," says Bouchard. "Many details in how the assembly happens don't matter. As long as the conditions are met [for protein interactions], we get a result we care about." (NanoApex 3/6/04)
http://news.nanoapex.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4348

Nanoimprint litho progress reported at SPIE. Steady progress in nanoimprint lithography reported Tuesday (Feb.24) at the SPIE conference here definitely caught the attention of attendees. In six papers, researchers from Hewlett-Packard Labs and from three nanoimprint equipment makers all reported the fabrication of structures or devices with existing equipment. In addition, progress in the materials field was described. EETimes 2/25/04)
http://www.eet.com/at/n/news/OEG20040224S0024

Think Nano Has Ethical Problems? Just Wrap Your Brain Around Neuro. What new tools to improve human performance will emerge from the convergence of nanotech, biotech, infotech and cognitive science? This was topic of discussion at the recent NBIC conference in New York, where several hundred scientists, ethicists, government officials and business executives gathered. Like nanotechnology 10 years ago, speculating about potential NBIC applications is easy. Developing novel tools that solve real world problems remains hard. Always keeping this in mind, Mike Roco, conference co-chair and architect of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, performs the difficult task of distinguishing practical applications from mere conjecture, while cultivating an environment that encourages exploratory discussions. My goal was to explore the political and economic issues that might arise as these converging technologies make possible neurotechnology -- tools that can influence the brain. (SmallTimes 3/5/04)
http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?section_id=45&document_id=7522

Three university scientists are developing a prototype device that they say will allow patients on blood thinning medication to take their own blood-clotting readings at home. The cell phone-sized device would work like the machines that diabetics use to check their blood glucose levels, according to the Drexel University researchers, who recently founded a firm called BioSensus to develop and market the NanoAcoustic Blood Analyzer."Patients become more confident and in control of their own fate by taking their own readings," said J. Yasha Kresh, a professor at Drexel's College of Medicine. The researchers said that their device is different from other blood analyzers on the market because it can be targeted to read the amounts of specific kinds of proteins in the blood that are involved in clotting and bleeding. Other blood-testing machines on the market use a system of capillary-sized tubes to determine blood's thickness by measuring how quickly it works its way through the tiny mazelike structure. The Drexel scientists say their nearly submicroscopic technology _ analyzing particles 1/75th the width of a human hair _ would more easily adapt to a wide variety of uses other than blood thickness and to adjust for as-yet undiscovered medicines. (NEPA3/5/04)
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11079252&BRD=2212&PAG=461&dept_id=465812&rfi=6

Mercedes coating comes up to scratch. The new Mercedes CLS Coup?, launched this week at the Geneva Motor Show, will come with scratch-resistant, nanotechnology-based paint as standard. The new clear lacquer top coat, which provides gloss and weatherproofing properties, is the result of a four-year collaboration between Mercedes and US-based automotive coatings supplier PPG Industries. Dennis Taljan, PPG's global director for decorative projects, said existing scratch-resistant coatings 'have no elasticity and would crack in the temperature extremes cars must withstand'. (e4engineering 3/5/04) http://www.e4engineering.com/item.asp?id=51409&type=news

Nanotubes Boost Shape Recovery. Researchers from the University of Dayton, Miami University and the Air Force Research Laboratory have mixed carbon nanotubes with polymer to make a plastic that is good at springing back into shape when heated. (Technology Review 2/27/04)
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/rnb_022704.asp?trk=nl

(NanoGame-Review) Game Daze: '007 -- Everything or Nothing' and 'Sonic Heroes'3 stars. We've come to expect a certain level of panache, plot and playability from Electronic Arts' growing pantheon of James Bond games, and its fifth offering, "007 ? Everything or Nothing" (Electronic Arts; Xbox, PS2, GC; $49.99; Rated Teen), thoroughly delivers. This time around, our stalwart hero is hot on the trail of a rogue political faction that has stolen nanotechnology and kidnapped the project's overseer. The jaw-dropping action, which takes place from a third-person perspective, starts immediately as Bond sets down in a hostile drop zone to retrieve a heavily guarded briefcase.
(postgazette 5/7/04) http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04065/281333.stm

California Firm PearLife's Products Offer Skin Care Based on Nanotechnology. Mention nanotechnology and some might envision the B2 Stealth Bomber. After all, it is nanotechnology that allows the plane's protective shielding to deflect enemy radar so the craft can fly undetected, even at low altitudes. But an Industry-based company is using that same technology in the production of its skin care line. The PearLife Co.'s products -- including the firm's signature Fantastic O's Skin Care facial cream -- are designed not only for cosmetic purposes, but also for protection from radiation generated by computers, televisions and microwave ovens. (KRT Wire 3/4/04)
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/national/8107391.htm

Negative normal stress, first observed in liquid crystalline polymer melts, has now been reported in two other very different systems. The first is in a semi-dilute suspension of carbon nanotubes dispersed in a Newtonian polymer melt. The second is in a concentrated suspension of soft water droplets in a Newtonian oil emulsion. (Physics News Update 2/23/04)
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2004/split/674-2.html

In the early sixties, investors stumbled on a neat trick: if a company had "tron" or "tronics" in its name, its stock was a hit. This was the dawn of the computer age, and a host of businesses straight out of "The Jetsons"-Astron, Transitron, Videotronics-became the darlings of Wall Street...Now investors have found a new crush: nanotechnology. Nanotech involves designing, manipulating, and building things at atomic and molecular levels-tinkering with the building blocks of matter. (The New York Times 3/8/04) http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?040315ta_talk_surowiecki

Nanotechnology is covered on the entire back of a German division of Kellogg's cereal box. Read the article and see the box here: -PDF format- (FMI 3/5/04) http://www.fmi.org/advantage/issues/022004/pdfs/pub/nowyouseeit.pdf

Holograms to sort, steer nanotubes, cells. Scientists have found a simple way to use light to manipulate one of the most important building blocks of future technologies: carbon nanotubes. Experts said the technique could lead to the mass manufacture of a new generation of novel devices."It's like having hands in the microscopic world," said researcher David Grier, a physicist at New York University, one of the participating institutions. "It's a new platform for doing things on small materials on a large scale." (The Washington Times 3/3/04)
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040302-031523-8819r.htm

It's Going To Be A Giant Business. After years of promise, nanotubes can deliver. Three years ago, carbon nanotubes made gold look like dirt. A pound of gold at the time cost just $3,500, a pittance compared with the going rate of half a million dollars per pound of nanotubes. With 100 times the strength of steel at a fraction the weight, electrical conductivity and high heat resistance, a carbon-based nanotube is certainly the Superman of the polymer world. But its prohibitive cost precluded any practical use. One Houston company is now beginning, however, to deliver on the vast promise of nanotechnology. When Carbon Nanotechnologies Inc. built its first pilot plant three years ago, it could make 1 pound of nanotubes a year. Six pilot plants later, the company is in final testing of a unit capable of making 20 pounds a day. Routine operation is expected within weeks. (Houston Chronicle 3/4/04) http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/tech/news/2432521

Standford Engineering & Institute offers Nanoscience and Nanotechnology online program. Explore the universe of nanotubes and bucky balls. Expand your vision of a changed world, from the quality of our goods to the quality of our lives. Presenting the latest nanoscience and nanotechnology concepts, the Stanford Engineering and Science Institute will explore the promise of a wide range of exciting new products and applications capable of transforming and redefining many industries. Learn from Stanford faculty and industry experts the potentially broad impacts of nanotechnology for your business. (Standford University 3/3/04)
http://scpd.stanford.edu/scpd/courses/proed/nano_online/default.asp

Keithley Releases Free Measurement Software Toolkit for Nanotech Researchers. Keithley Instruments, Inc. (NYSE:KEI), a leader in solutions for emerging measurement needs, has developed a Nanotech Toolkit, a set of measurement software tools designed specifically for a variety of tests common to nanotechnology researchers to assist them in making the very precise, often complex electrical measurements associated with nanotechnology. The Nanotech Toolkit and its software routines are available at no charge and are compatible with Keithley's Model 4200-SCS Semiconductor Characterization System. (BusinessWire 3/3/04)
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/index.jsp?epi-content=GENERIC&newsId=20040303005064&newsLang=en&beanID=202776713&viewID=news_view
 
Quantum Dots Capture First Movies of Cells ``Talking''; Nanotechnology Aids Researchers in Revealing Mechanisms Vital to Drug Development. Researchers at Max Planck Institute in Germany have used a new nano-sized imaging tool to capture the first-ever movies of cells transmitting the messages that control genes. The breakthrough is expected to help pharmaceutical companies speed and enhance the process of screening candidate cancer drugs. In a study published in the February issue of the respected science journal Nature Biotechnology, the researchers reported they used quantum dots developed and manufactured by Hayward-based Quantum Dot Corporation (QDC) to provide prolonged, real-time visualizations in living cells of the signaling mechanisms of the erbB family of receptors, the targets of many cancer drugs. Quantum dots are nano-scale crystals of semiconductor material -- up to ten-billionths of a meter in size -- that glow in several different colors, depending on their size, when excited by a light source such as a laser. The dramatic video-clip images mark the first time researchers have been able to see moving images of a cell's basic means of communication with its environment. (Businesswire 3/1/04)
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/index.jsp?epi-content=GENERIC&newsId=20040301005297&newsLang=en&beanID=202776713&viewID=news_view

Nanotechnology is already a billion-dollar industry, and it's barely out of the lab. The U.S. government plans to plow nearly $1 billion into nanotech research during fiscal 2004, and it'll add $3.7 billion more between fiscal 2005 and 2008, said Clayton Teague, director of the National Nanotechnology Coordinator Office, a government department that facilitates cooperation between academic researchers, corporations and other government offices. "Our federal government is committed to the promise of nanotechnology...without compromises to the public health," Teague said during a speech Monday at the Nano Science and Technology Institute's Nanotech 2004 trade show here. "With all that support, (the government and lawmakers) are really looking to this field to be a major contributor to our economy over the coming years." (ZDNet 3/8/04)
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5171602.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/20040308/50e76063/attachment.html>

From gregburch at gregburch.net  Tue Mar  9 03:31:03 2004
From: gregburch at gregburch.net (Greg Burch)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 21:31:03 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryogenics Economics- Estate Tax deferral?
In-Reply-To: <404D247E.33B1124@sasktel.net>
Message-ID: <PMEELDEBLOLPFEFPEIBDCENOCDAA.gregburch@gregburch.net>

I'm a lawyer, I don't specialize in estate/tax law (as we call it, "gifts and stiffs"), but I can safely say to the question of tax deferral -- not a chance.  First, in the United States most people (or I should say, most dead people) don't pay estate tax: The vast majority of government revenue from the estate tax comes from a tiny fraction of wealthy individuals.  (The one unusual exception to this is the few relatively large "family farmers" who aren't really wealthy in monetary terms, but are "land rich").  Second, the law is conservative by nature.  LAWS about cryonics (I presume this is what you mean, although you write "cryogenics") will be the LAST thing to change: Commercial and social practices will change first.  For now, the people who are in suspension are legally dead, and whatever needs to be done to deal with that legally should be done.  (Note this is a key element of most funding for cryonics, which is by life -- or rather death -- insurance; something I DO know quite a bit about professionally.  I can say with rather chilling certainty (pun intended) that my life insurance clients only pay upon the death of the insured person.  A successful reanimation would throw the life insurance industry into a death spiral (arrrrggghhh!)  Finally, the idea of entrusting one's wealth until one is reanimated is EXTREMELY problematic, as the few people who have looked into it at any length can attest: There's an old and pesky thing called "the Rule Against Perpetuities" which prohibits perpetual private trusts.  As far as I know, no one's ever satisfactorily solved this problem.  Of course, if people in suspension were ever to be considered legally NOT dead, this wouldn't be a problem, since the infamous Rule Against Perpetuities only applies to the bequests of dead people.

GB -- http://www.gregburch.net

P.S. the rather obscure Rule Against Perpetuities actually appeared in popular culture about 20 years ago; as a plot element in the film "Body Heat."

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Extropian
> Agroforestry Ventures Inc.
> Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 7:57 PM
> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryogenics Economics- Estate Tax deferral?
> 
> 
> I am from Canada where there are no taxes on estates except for a 3%
> probate fee for those who die intestate.
> 
> If someone is cryopreserved in a state where regeneration is possible
> does one have to probate and dissolve  an estate.  If the cryonaut
> places all their assets into a pre-designed living-will managed trust
> (instructions put into place with various time and event determined
> contingencies pre-planned) which is not to be dissoved until a
> reanimation is done and the person is finally irreversible dead or else
> back to life,  can the government extract estate taxes?
> 
> Is there sufficient tax deferral at stake that the government might seek
> to disallow
> cryogenic storage because it stands to defer today's taxes for perhaps
> 100 years into the future?
> 
> Morris Johnson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Tue Mar  9 02:41:59 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 19:41:59 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) 'Resurrection' and nanotech [was Re: Not
 the shroud of Turin again...]
Message-ID: <404D2EF7.722142AE@mindspring.com>

"Scott D. White"
>I think it would be accurrate to say that "resurrection" would almost surely
>violate a lot that is known about information storage/processing.

Well, no, in that we really don't know very much at all about information 
is stored in organisms.

What's more, we really don't have a clue what the "right" information is in 
an organism. As a silly example, suppose there really was a soul that 
contained the actual, essential "being-hood." yank that out and all you've 
got left is a pile of meat, no matter how healthy it is otherwise. More 
realistically, what is it about the existence and interconnection of cells 
that makes a living organism different from a dead one? The fact is, we 
just really don't know yet.

>For sure, we can create a new
>living organism from DNA and living host cells. But this isn't resurrection,
>since we haven't given life to a dead organism, but instead used some of its
>parts to remake an already living one.

There are, of course, many philosophical fine points that can be endlessly 
quibbled over, and much of it comes down to definitions. If you find a way 
to put the consciousness of a dead person into a fresh living body, is that 
resurrection? If you bring the body back to life, but with a wiped brain, 
is that resurrection?

> > OTOH, we know for a stone cold fact that
> > life CAN arise from non-living matter.
>
>It happened at least once,

Er, no. It happens several million times a day.

>Not at all. Procreation is the process by which living things begat more
>living things.

And they begat those living things out of mostly non-living molecules that 
they've shoved down their pie holes.

>Have I misunderstood your point here? Because if you think that non-living
>things become living "all the time," then you vastly misunderstand a very
>basic concept in biology. Not trying to be snippy about this, but it's
>really tempting . . . Must retain respectful tone . . . . Must fight urge to
>spiral into name-calling snit fit . . .

Well, so will I if you can explain to me what part of the hydrogen, carbon, 
oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus and a few other chemicals that we take in that 
the cells in our bodies convert to new living cells are alive. Otherwise, I 
just MAY have to resort to calling you "Skeezix." So be warned...

>Similarly, maybe there would be some way via microsurgery

My guess would be nanotech. Same thing nature does a zillion times a day, 
but purposefully engineered.

>to put molecules
>of a dead organism back in the right places and nudge them into just the
>right motion so that everything picks up right where it left off. Again, I
>don't have the background in information theory,

Well then, I'd suggest you might be a tad premature in concluding that 
resurrection is "every bit as impossible as perpetual motion," hmmm?

To be sure, reanimating a dead protozoa might be an engineering challenge 
we might not conquer for another 100,000 years, but that is most definitely 
NOT the same thing as "a physical impossibility." Perpetual motion is not 
HARD, it's IMPOSSIBLE.

>but it seems like a
>ridiculous proposition right up front, for several reasons. Like, even if
>the "instruments" for molecular scale "surgery" ever are invented, there
>couldn't possibly be enough space around the body for all the instruments
>needed to examine, diagnose, and then surgically restore enough molecules in
>even a single nerve cell, much less a whole animal.

Maybe you need to read up on nanotechnology. Like any other emerging 
technology, there are a lot of wild-ass claims made about it, but it's 
already starting to take shape in several labs. To a useful-sized 
nanomachine, a cell is the size of a house.


> > The only "biological law" that ressurection violates is "nature doesn't do
> > it that way."
>
>Is there some other kind of biological law?

Gosh, I hope so. Otherwise, a whacking great chunk of our practical uses 
for biology--like medicine--violate biological law.

>I guess there is no law of physics that makes it impossible for today's
>array of living organisms to have sprung up fully formed in their present
>states. Physics makes this so unlikely as to be negligable, I guess, but
>doesn't prevent it outright?

Right. Not actually impossible, just very very very unlikely (which of 
course is one of the dead horses creationists keep trying to ride).

>If you're after a law that says "biology couldn't do that, no matter what,"
>then I think we would have move over into physics instead.

Ultimately, EVERY science is physics, because physics describes how the 
basic gears and wires of the universe work.

>There are a lot of states of nature that resemble "death" e.g.,

Sure, but I think we're agreed that's not at issue here.

>Hibernation occurs among quite a few animals and is probably more relevant
>here. So I wouldn't doubt that an animal could be artificially placed into a
>state of very deep hibernation and later revived. While this state of
>hibernation may look to an observer like "death," I don't think that revival
>would reasonably be called "resurrection." So, in this case, I disagree that
>it would be a silly semantic argument to say, after the fact, "well then, it
>wasn't really dead."

Sure it would, because for somebody to have claimed it was "dead" in the 
first place would denote a serious lack of understanding of science. A 
person 500 years ago might have concluded that a hibernating animal was 
dead, but we have fancy shit like EEGs and such today that can easily 
confirm that there are still life processes going on.

As I say, I think we're in agreement that this kind of thing is NOT what's 
at issue here. We're talking about stone dead, zero vital signs, zero EEG, 
zero chemical fires burning in the cells, a funny smell starting to 
permeate the air...

>I'm trying to picture a scenario where a cell could be considered
>indisputably dead (i.e., cell function stopped throughout its simple little
>body) and then be "resurrected" so that this same dead cell becomes alive
>again.

Well, it WAS living once, no? And before that, it WAS a pile of lifeless 
chemicals at some point, no? So what part of this do you see as 
*impossibly* irreversible?

Yeah, once we start talking about complex organisms and sentience, the 
problem becomes MUCH harder. But a single cell? Feh. A chemical switch has 
been thrown somewhere, it's dead, it's alive. Maybe you have to send in 
some nanomachines to weld the mitochondria back together. Feed that dead 
cell into the body's internal wood chipper, and the body will happily make 
a new living cell out of the non-living debris. So what's impossible about 
simply switching the same cell back on (OK, maybe not "simply")?

And again, one can argue definitions. If we have the standard SF plot of a 
dead person's consciousness transferred to either a machine or a fresh 
body, isn't that a kind of resurrection?

>Well, I could be wrong, but I'd say that the certainity of death (in the
>commonly understood meaning) is as certain as anything there is in biology.

Fine, if you like. But that STILL isn't "as impossible as perpetual 
motion." There is a very definite and profound meaning to "physical 
impossibility," and the hard engineering problems of resurrection aren't 
even on the same planet.

Dave Palmer


-- 
"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 sjvans at ameritech.net  Tue Mar  9 04:35:24 2004
From: sjvans at ameritech.net (Stephen J. Van Sickle)
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 22:35:24 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryogenics Economics- Estate Tax deferral?
In-Reply-To: <PMEELDEBLOLPFEFPEIBDCENOCDAA.gregburch@gregburch.net>
References: <PMEELDEBLOLPFEFPEIBDCENOCDAA.gregburch@gregburch.net>
Message-ID: <1078806923.1054.85.camel@Renfield>

On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 21:31, Greg Burch wrote:

> A successful reanimation would throw the life insurance industry 
> into a death spiral (arrrrggghhh!)  

Would it really?  Certainly there have been cases of people missing and
presumed dead, declared dead by the court, and insurance collected, who
then were found to be alive.  Of course, the majority of these cases
probably involved actual fraud, but there must have been at least some
case law on it...perhaps in the early days of life insurance, when the
world was bigger and it was easier to get lost.

steve vs



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Tue Mar  9 04:09:13 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 15:09:13 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Nanogirl News~
References: <404D247E.33B1124@sasktel.net>
	<005301c40580$5fcbefd0$b7be1218@Nano>
Message-ID: <00bf01c4058c$485c8600$f62b2dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>

Thanks Gina, nice summary/digest - again!

I noticed Richard Smalley is still Chairman of Carbon Nanotechnologies Inc.
I knew he was involved in a commercial co but had forgotten the name of it.

Regards,
Brett Paatsch




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040309/7af8e9bb/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  9 04:23:49 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 20:23:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryogenics Economics- Estate Tax deferral?
In-Reply-To: <404D247E.33B1124@sasktel.net>
Message-ID: <20040309042349.4588.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>


--- "Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc." <megao at sasktel.net> wrote:
> I am from Canada where there are no taxes on estates except for a 3%
> probate fee for those who die intestate.
> 
> If someone is cryopreserved in a state where regeneration is possible
> does one have to probate and dissolve  an estate.  If the cryonaut
> places all their assets into a pre-designed living-will managed trust
> (instructions put into place with various time and event determined
> contingencies pre-planned) which is not to be dissoved until a
> reanimation is done and the person is finally irreversible dead or
> else back to life,  can the government extract estate taxes?

WHen you place assets in a trust, those assets are not yours anymore,
so the government can't probate them.

> 
> Is there sufficient tax deferral at stake that the government might
> seek to disallow
> cryogenic storage because it stands to defer today's taxes for
> perhaps 100 years into the future?

I doubt the government would even think of doing this unless a rather
large percent of the population started doing this.

=====
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! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Tue Mar  9 04:34:50 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 15:34:50 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] POL: A tough election year
References: <003401c402bd$4def0100$a7cd5cd1@neptune>
	<Law10-OE65Eb0Si06ny0003840d@hotmail.com>
	<Law10-OE15FnwpGR88100000415@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <00ce01c4058f$dc684660$f62b2dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>

From: "Kevin Freels" <kevinfreels at hotmail.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 5:54 AM
Subject: [extropy-chat] POL: A tough election year


> Gee. It's going to be another tough election year.
> 
> On one side, an anti-gay christian that doesn't like stem-cell research,
> cloning, and/or much else to do with technology unless it is a weapon. 

I wonder to what extent Leon Kass owes his profile to the current 
President and to his position on the Presidents Council of Bioethics?

I don't recall hearing of Kass prior to his appointment to the Council but
perhaps from Australia prior to 2001 I just wasn't listening.

If Bush goes, to what extent does Kass go too?

Are Kass and the precautionary principle symptoms of a deeper
discomfort with rates-of-change in the US population (and perhaps 
other western populations) or are they mainly secondary to and 
piggy-backing off a very conservative President?  

- Brett Paatsch







From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Tue Mar  9 05:28:17 2004
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 21:28:17 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Nanogirl News~
References: <404D247E.33B1124@sasktel.net><005301c40580$5fcbefd0$b7be1218@Nano>
	<00bf01c4058c$485c8600$f62b2dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
Message-ID: <00dd01c40597$539104f0$b7be1218@Nano>

Right, that's the one! And thank you for your support. Gina



  Thanks Gina, nice summary/digest - again!

  I noticed Richard Smalley is still Chairman of Carbon Nanotechnologies Inc.
  I knew he was involved in a commercial co but had forgotten the name of it.

  Regards,
  Brett Paatsch






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


  _______________________________________________
  extropy-chat mailing list
  extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
  http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040308/78eea633/attachment.html>

From scerir at libero.it  Tue Mar  9 08:38:10 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 09:38:10 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bubble fusion--strong evidence for it.
References: <20040305144430.74705.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com><000901c402d3$4d117040$34ba1b97@administxl09yj>
	<4049FDAC.7020909@barrera.org>
Message-ID: <002e01c405b1$dafe36a0$47b81b97@administxl09yj>

> I find it hard to take seriously a science page that misspells "beaker".
> - Joe

There are better pages too :-)

<< The researchers expose the clear canister of liquid to pulses of neutrons
every five milliseconds, or thousandths of a second, causing tiny cavities
to form. At the same time, the liquid is bombarded with a specific frequency
of ultrasound, which causes the cavities to form into bubbles that are about
60 nanometers - or billionths of a meter - in diameter. The bubbles then
expand to a much larger size, about 6,000 microns, or millionths of a
meter - large enough to be seen with the unaided eye.
"The process is analogous to stretching a slingshot from Earth to the
nearest star, our sun, thereby building up a huge amount of energy when
released," Taleyarkhan said.
Within nanoseconds these large bubbles contract with tremendous force,
returning to roughly their original size, and release flashes of light in a
well-known phenomenon known as sonoluminescence. Because the bubbles grow to
such a relatively large size before they implode, their contraction causes
extreme temperatures and pressures comparable to those found in the
interiors of stars. Researches estimate that temperatures inside the
imploding bubbles reach 10 million degrees Celsius and pressures comparable
to 1,000 million earth atmospheres at sea level.
At that point, deuterium atoms fuse together, the same way hydrogen atoms
fuse in stars, releasing neutrons and energy in the process. The process
also releases a type of radiation called gamma rays and a radioactive
material called tritium, all of which have been recorded and measured by the
team. In future versions of the experiment, the tritium produced might then
be used as a fuel to drive energy-producing reactions in which it fuses with
deuterium. >>

Wondering whether there is an anti-bubble sonofusion effect,
or an anti-bubble/bubble sonofusion effect, but do not take
it too seriously!

s.

About anti-bubble

pics of -
http://hot-streamer.com/antibubbles/
physics of -
http://ej.iop.org/links/q73/kuwPP6U4SbWeR34d+aB2ug/njp3_1_161.pdf



From gregburch at gregburch.net  Tue Mar  9 12:24:23 2004
From: gregburch at gregburch.net (Greg Burch)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 06:24:23 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryogenics Economics- Estate Tax deferral?
In-Reply-To: <1078806923.1054.85.camel@Renfield>
Message-ID: <PMEELDEBLOLPFEFPEIBDCEOACDAA.gregburch@gregburch.net>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen J. Van Sickle
> Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 10:35 PM
> 
> On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 21:31, Greg Burch wrote:
> 
> > A successful reanimation would throw the life insurance industry 
> > into a death spiral (arrrrggghhh!)  
> 
> Would it really?  Certainly there have been cases of people missing and
> presumed dead, declared dead by the court, and insurance collected, who
> then were found to be alive.  Of course, the majority of these cases
> probably involved actual fraud, but there must have been at least some
> case law on it...perhaps in the early days of life insurance, when the
> world was bigger and it was easier to get lost.

Oh sure, such things have happened and (as you suspected) still infrequently happen. But my point was about life insurance in general:  Life insurance is the ultimate business based on the qualities of people's behavior in large numbers, and a successful reanimation would, I hope, change that.  The problem is this: life insurance is NEVER a good bet for the "life insured": if you win, you lose (i.e. die).  If you live longer than the insurer expects, you pay the insurer MORE.  Even people of modest intelligence will figure out that life insurance isn't a good deal in more and more circumstances -- at least at the scale and for the reasons most people buy life insurance -- if they think they have a chance at vastly extended lifespans.

This isn't to say that some kind of actuarily-based insurance product connected to both death-chances and cryonic suspension couldn't be crafted (life actuaries are fiendishly clever folks), but it would have to look quite a bit different -- legally and financially -- from current life insurance products.

GB -- http://www.gregburch.net


From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Tue Mar  9 12:49:16 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 12:49:16 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryogenics Economics- Estate Tax deferral?
Message-ID: <404DBD4C.1050202@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

On Tue, 2004-03-09 at 05:24, Greg Burch wrote:
> The problem is this: life insurance is NEVER a good bet for the "life 
> insured": if you win, you lose (i.e. die).  If you live longer than
> the insurer expects, you pay the insurer MORE.  Even people of modest 
> intelligence will figure out that life insurance isn't a good deal in 
> more and more circumstances -- at least at the scale and for the
> reasons most people buy life insurance -- if they think they have a
> chance at vastly extended lifespans.

Yes, we should already be thinking about the costs of long-term medical
care rather than life insurance. Longevity treatments may well at first
require hiring a permanent medical nurse to look after your frail body
and all the attendant life-maintaining devices. Or moving to a medical
care home for old folk at, say, $1,000 per week.

A cryonics life insurance policy becomes questionable if advancing
medical care can keep you alive for an extra fifty years.

Morris Johnson has pointed out one of the problems with cryonics. i.e.
you lose all your possessions when you die and will be penniless and
assetless when/if you are revived in the future.

BillK







From natashavita at earthlink.net  Tue Mar  9 18:09:24 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 13:09:24 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Nanogirl News~
Message-ID: <265000-2200432918924880@M2W086.mail2web.com>


From: Gina Miller 

>Mercedes coating comes up to scratch. The new Mercedes CLS Coup?, launched
this week at the Geneva Motor Show, will come with scratch-resistant,
nanotechnology-based paint as standard. 

Great! When I trade mine in, this is what I want. :-)

Natasha

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




From jcorb at iol.ie  Sat Mar  6 12:23:08 2004
From: jcorb at iol.ie (J Corbally)
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 12:23:08 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Vikings' Barbaric Bad Rap Beginning to Fade 
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20040306122014.022c5640@pop.iol.ie>


>Message: 19
>Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 09:22:32 -0500
> >From: "Technotranscendence" <neptune at superlink.net>
>Subject: [extropy-chat] Vikings' Barbaric Bad Rap Beginning to Fade
>To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>,
><atlantis_II at yahoogroups.com>
>Message-ID: <003401c402bd$4def0100$a7cd5cd1 at neptune>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/02/0217_040217_vikings.html
>
This country is dotted with buildings built strong enough to survive Viking 
assaults.

Next they'll be telling us the Vikings brought the Carlsberg and bricks to 
help the natives build them.




From natashavita at earthlink.net  Tue Mar  9 22:53:39 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 17:53:39 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryogenics Economics- Estate Tax deferral?
Message-ID: <232810-22004329225339425@M2W035.mail2web.com>

From: Greg Burch 

>Finally, the idea of entrusting one's wealth until one is reanimated is
EXTREMELY problematic, as the few people who have looked into it at any
length can attest: There's an old and pesky thing called "the Rule Against
Perpetuities" which prohibits perpetual private trusts.  As far as I know,
no one's ever satisfactorily solved this problem.  Of course, if people in
suspension were ever to be considered legally NOT dead, this wouldn't be a
problem, since the infamous Rule Against Perpetuities only applies to the
bequests of dead people.

Great points, Greg.  

Some cryonicists have considered, and I believe some have ,or at least had
intended to, invested some of their money in bank(s) in a small country
(can't remember which one) near Switzerland.  The bank(s) would allow money
to remain in the "property" of the owner of the money while that same owner
was legally pronounced dead.

Natasha

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




From naddy at mips.inka.de  Wed Mar 10 02:14:54 2004
From: naddy at mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 02:14:54 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Cryogenics Economics- Estate Tax deferral?
References: <232810-22004329225339425@M2W035.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <c2ltmu$i6o$1@kemoauc.mips.inka.de>

natashavita at earthlink.net <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> Some cryonicists have considered, and I believe some have ,or at least had
> intended to, invested some of their money in bank(s) in a small country
> (can't remember which one) near Switzerland.

That sounds like the Principality of Liechtenstein, although I have
no idea whether the local banking law ...

> The bank(s) would allow money to remain in the "property" of the
> owner of the money while that same owner was legally pronounced
> dead.

... permits this--or rather enforces this, since the accounts of dead
people without claimants tend to disappear into the bank's own
assets otherwise.

(Liechtenstein, along with the other microstates of Andorra, Monaco,
San Marino, and the Vatican, is a holdover from before Europe was
consolidated into the modern nation states and thus is a curiosity
of sorts nowadays.  See Wikipedia for details on the country.)

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          naddy at mips.inka.de


From extropy at unreasonable.com  Wed Mar 10 02:45:28 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 21:45:28 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryogenics Economics- Estate Tax deferral?
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040309214440.03465be8@mail.comcast.net>

Natasha wrote:

>Some cryonicists have considered, and I believe some have ,or at least had
>intended to, invested some of their money in bank(s) in a small country
>(can't remember which one) near Switzerland.  The bank(s) would allow money
>to remain in the "property" of the owner of the money while that same owner
>was legally pronounced dead.

Saul Kent had a business facilitating this. The trust was in Liechtenstein 
but invested its money in Switzerland.

 From http://www.arcomm.li/trending/inh_tre_bib_trending_trust_e.asp --

>In contrast to the Anglo-american trust, Liechtenstein law adopted neither 
>the rule against accumulations nor the rule against perpetuities so that 
>it is possible to establish a trust having a perpetual existence.

The Rule against Perpetuities limits trusts to life plus 21 years. Note 
that it's not just *your* life; it could be the life of your descendants 
that are living at the time of your deanimation. Which, even without life 
extension, lets you put money aside for about a century.

"no [contingent] interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later 
than twenty-one years after some life in being at the creation of the 
interest."

But several states have changed their laws over the last few years and now 
allow perpetual trusts.

No limit -- Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, 
New Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Virginia, Wisconsin.

150 years -- Florida
360 years -- Washington
1000 years [unconfirmed] -- Utah, Wyoming

thinking about it -- Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Nebraska, Nevada, New 
Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Texas.

See "Providing for the Year 3000," Forbes Magazine, 6/11/01. 
http://tinyurl.com/2p6hx
And http://www.kenharrislaw.com/dynasty.html .

I'd suggest dividing one's assets between a domestic perpetual trust and 
ones located in economically and politically stable countries without a 
Rule against Perpetuities. (Besides Liechtenstein, other jurisdictions 
apparently include Turks and Caicos, Cook Islands, Panama, and Nauru. Of 
these, Liechtenstein seems by far the safest.)


-- David Lubkin.




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 10 04:00:37 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 20:00:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryogenics Economics- Estate Tax deferral?
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040309214440.03465be8@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <20040310040037.8228.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>


--- David Lubkin <extropy at unreasonable.com> wrote:
> Natasha wrote:

> >In contrast to the Anglo-american trust, Liechtenstein law adopted
> neither 
> >the rule against accumulations nor the rule against perpetuities so
> that 
> >it is possible to establish a trust having a perpetual existence.
> 
> The Rule against Perpetuities limits trusts to life plus 21 years.
> Note that it's not just *your* life; it could be the life of your
> descendants 
> that are living at the time of your deanimation. Which, even without
> life extension, lets you put money aside for about a century.

However, in my research into using trusts for real estate purposes, I
have found that you can roll the assets of one trust into another
without penalties or taxes. So what if the first expires 21 years after
you are dead? You roll it into another trust, and new trusts every 21
years.

If you think the sigularity is 30 years away, you only need to roll
your trust assets into one new trust 21 years down the road before you
will be reanimated.

> 
> "no [contingent] interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, not
> later than twenty-one years after some life in being at the creation
of the interest."
> 
> But several states have changed their laws over the last few years
> and now allow perpetual trusts.
> 
> No limit -- Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Maine,
> Maryland, 
> New Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Virginia, Wisconsin.
> 
> 150 years -- Florida
> 360 years -- Washington
> 1000 years [unconfirmed] -- Utah, Wyoming
> 
> thinking about it -- Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Nebraska, Nevada,
> New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Texas.

Yes, there are quite a number of trusts in NH that have served quite a
number of purposes for more than 100 years after their benefactors
deaths. I received a partial scholarship when I graduated high school
from one such trust, which was instituted in 1910.

=====
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! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From extropy at unreasonable.com  Wed Mar 10 06:18:53 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 01:18:53 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryogenics Economics- Estate Tax deferral?
In-Reply-To: <20040310040037.8228.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040309214440.03465be8@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040309235635.02a95008@mail.comcast.net>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>However, in my research into using trusts for real estate purposes, I
>have found that you can roll the assets of one trust into another
>without penalties or taxes. So what if the first expires 21 years after
>you are dead? You roll it into another trust, and new trusts every 21
>years.

I don't believe this will work. You can privately ask the trustees to roll 
it forward in perpetuity but I'm not sure there's a legal mechanism that 
would hold them to it. If you try to put it into the trust document itself, 
my guess is either that clause would be stricken or the entire trust would 
be dissolved as unlawful.

>Yes, there are quite a number of trusts in NH that have served quite a
>number of purposes for more than 100 years after their benefactors
>deaths. I received a partial scholarship when I graduated high school
>from one such trust, which was instituted in 1910.

That's different. Charitable trusts are exempt from the Rule of Perpetuities.

Parliament established in 1601 the Statute of Charitable Uses, which is 
still referred to for its list of basic legitimate charitable goals (*) in 
every country that derives from English Common Law.

You could, perhaps, create a charitable trust for the benefit of cryonauts 
*as a class*, to be spent on medical research leading to reanimation, 
medical treatment in the form of reanimation and restoration of corpsicles, 
and our financial relief as indigent newcomers.

But you can't use it to park your money and get it back later, because 
that's not a charity. You have to use a jurisdiction without the Rule of 
Perpetuities altogether.


-- David Lubkin.


(*)  From 
http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~.phall.hauser.ksg/statute_of_charitable_uses.html :

An Acte to redresse the Misemployment of Landes Goodes and Stockes of Money 
heretofore given to Charitable Uses

>some for Releife of aged impotent and poore people, some for Maintenance 
>of sicke and maymed Souldiers and Marriners, Schooles of Learninge, Free 
>Schooles and Schollers in Universities, some for Repaire of Bridges Portes 
>Havens Causwaies Churches Seabankes and Highwaies, some for Educacion and 
>prefermente of Orphans, some for or towardes Reliefe Stocke or Maintenance 
>of Howses of Correccion, some for Mariages of poore Maides, some for 
>Supportacion Ayde and Helpe of younge tradesmen Handicraftesmen and 
>persons decayed, and others for reliefe or redemption of Prisoners or 
>Captives, and for aide or ease of any poore Inhabitantes concerninge 
>paymente of Fifteenes, setting out of Souldiers and other Taxes;

I guess corpsicles would qualify as "persons decayed"....




From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Mar 10 09:25:49 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:25:49 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryogenics Economics- Estate Tax deferral?
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040309214440.03465be8@mail.comcast.net>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040309214440.03465be8@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <20040310092549.GU18046@leitl.org>

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 09:45:28PM -0500, David Lubkin wrote:

> I'd suggest dividing one's assets between a domestic perpetual trust and 
> ones located in economically and politically stable countries without a 
> Rule against Perpetuities. (Besides Liechtenstein, other jurisdictions 
> apparently include Turks and Caicos, Cook Islands, Panama, and Nauru. Of 
> these, Liechtenstein seems by far the safest.)

Long-term planning was always high-risk, but given the potential for
disruption the next half century to century will bring it appears to be quite useless to
plan centuries ahead.

Given the technology threshold required to resurrect cryonics patients, they
will find themselves in a place where their assets would be devoid of value
(and/or lost in the turmoil), and their only peers their resurrected contemporaries.

This isn't problematic per se (I'm quite cool with that), but not many
cryonicists seem to expect a future like this.

-- 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/20040310/ad470d41/attachment.bin>

From extropy at unreasonable.com  Wed Mar 10 16:05:08 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:05:08 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryogenics Economics- Estate Tax deferral?
In-Reply-To: <20040310092549.GU18046@leitl.org>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040309214440.03465be8@mail.comcast.net>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20040309214440.03465be8@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040310102527.02a2d008@mail.comcast.net>

I wrote:

 > I'd suggest dividing one's assets between a domestic perpetual trust and
 > ones located in economically and politically stable countries without a
 > Rule against Perpetuities. (Besides Liechtenstein, other jurisdictions
 > apparently include Turks and Caicos, Cook Islands, Panama, and Nauru. Of
 > these, Liechtenstein seems by far the safest.)

and Eugen replied:

>Long-term planning was always high-risk, but given the potential for
>disruption the next half century to century will bring it appears to be 
>quite useless to
>plan centuries ahead.
>
>Given the technology threshold required to resurrect cryonics patients, they
>will find themselves in a place where their assets would be devoid of value
>(and/or lost in the turmoil), and their only peers their resurrected 
>contemporaries.
>
>This isn't problematic per se (I'm quite cool with that), but not many
>cryonicists seem to expect a future like this.

I do, and nearly every cryonicist I've discussed the question with does as 
well, although a few admittedly still envision something from 1930's sf.

Asset preparations have much the same value proposition as being frozen -- 
no guarantees, likely failure, but still your best option under the 
circumstances.

I recall a thread once -- can't remember if it was here or Cryonet -- where 
we mulled over which assets would be worthwhile caching for use 
post-reanimation, and how to ensure they survive until then.

We cannot be certain what would be valued. The obvious choices are data and 
rare artifacts that would likely be unique in that future. I'd guess the 
data should be on microfilm or non-acidic paper, until we have a 
longer-duration archival medium.

Another thought is an assortment of elements that are rare in the solar 
system. One might prefer elements that have currently known useful 
properties. But elements that are today considered useless may well have 
uses tomorrow.

Perhaps construct multiple trusts with an incentive to reanimate you, 
dispersed geographically and jurisdictionally, with assets split between 
physical and financial, along with caches only you know of, in obscure, 
geologically stable locations.


-- David Lubkin.




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 10 16:07:42 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 08:07:42 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryogenics Economics- Estate Tax deferral?
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040309235635.02a95008@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <20040310160742.82805.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>


--- David Lubkin <extropy at unreasonable.com> wrote:
> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> >However, in my research into using trusts for real estate purposes,
> I
> >have found that you can roll the assets of one trust into another
> >without penalties or taxes. So what if the first expires 21 years
> after
> >you are dead? You roll it into another trust, and new trusts every
> 21
> >years.
> 
> I don't believe this will work. You can privately ask the trustees to
> roll it forward in perpetuity but I'm not sure there's a legal
> mechanism that would hold them to it. If you try to put it into
> the trust document itself, my guess is either that clause would
> be stricken or the entire trust would be dissolved as unlawful.

How is it that the Rockefellers, Kennedys, Vanderbilts, Carnegies, and
other assorted trust fund babies I run into occasionally up here live
off their family trusts, if they are not perpetual?

> 
> >Yes, there are quite a number of trusts in NH that have served quite
> a
> >number of purposes for more than 100 years after their benefactors
> >deaths. I received a partial scholarship when I graduated high
> >school from one such trust, which was instituted in 1910.
> 
> That's different. Charitable trusts are exempt from the Rule of
> Perpetuities.

At Cornish town meeting yesterday, a Rockefeller offered to buy the
town a new police station if it gave him an old church that was just
donated to it. He wrote a check there on his family trust (THE
Rockefeller Trust). Don't try to tell me this isn't possible. It
happens with these uber-rich all the time.

>  
> You could, perhaps, create a charitable trust for the benefit of
> cryonauts *as a class*, to be spent on medical research leading
> to reanimation, medical treatment in the form of reanimation and
> restoration of corpsicles, and our financial relief as indigent
> newcomers.

In these circumstances, you set up a trust to benefit members of your
family as a class.

> 
> But you can't use it to park your money and get it back later,
> because that's not a charity. You have to use a jurisdiction
> without the Rule of Perpetuities altogether.

I would say not. Keep in mind that the state at the current time
considers the time of your death to be the end of you as a legal person
(as opposed to a natural person, a distinctive difference), which is
why life insurance pays out even though you are being cryonically
suspended. When your body is reanimated, it becomes an entirely new
legal person. Especially if your brain is scanned and imposed in an
entirely new cloned body, the only consistency between you and that
person is that you are passing along some information to them, both in
DNA and in memories/brain patterns.

So in essence, legally speaking, you aren't 'getting it back later',
since the legal person DAVID LUBKIN is dead, officially, and the death
certificate says so. The guy who receives your memory, skills, etc. is
legally only your clone. You may believe that he is you (and he may be
believe that he is you), but the law does not.

Because of this, the legal claim could be that the future 'you' is your
present 'you's clone son/offspring, ergo this 'son' is to inherit your
trust. Since he is the beneficiary of the trust, that particular trust
cannot be dissolved until 21 years after HIS death. Another approach
would be to specify that the funds were to be used in 'cryonics
research', but specifically to use your body as its penultimate test
subject, and to provide for that subject's life should its reanimation
be successfull.

=====
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! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From sentience at pobox.com  Wed Mar 10 18:15:54 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:15:54 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryogenics Economics- Estate Tax deferral?
In-Reply-To: <PMEELDEBLOLPFEFPEIBDCENOCDAA.gregburch@gregburch.net>
References: <PMEELDEBLOLPFEFPEIBDCENOCDAA.gregburch@gregburch.net>
Message-ID: <404F5B5A.4090500@pobox.com>

Greg Burch wrote:

> Finally, the idea of entrusting one's wealth until one
> is reanimated is EXTREMELY problematic, as the few people who have
> looked into it at any length can attest: There's an old and pesky thing
> called "the Rule Against Perpetuities" which prohibits perpetual
> private trusts.  As far as I know, no one's ever satisfactorily solved
> this problem.  Of course, if people in suspension were ever to be
> considered legally NOT dead, this wouldn't be a problem, since the
> infamous Rule Against Perpetuities only applies to the bequests of dead
> people.

I really, really, really don't think that it'll take more than 100 years 
to resolve this little issue one way or the other.  So establish a 
1000-year trust for safety margin.  Would that be allowed?

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


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Mar 10 18:20:26 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:20:26 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] POL: A tough election year
In-Reply-To: <Law10-OE15FnwpGR88100000415@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20040310182026.18218.qmail@web80406.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Kevin Freels <kevinfreels at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I sure wish someone here were running for President.
> Every single one of you
> would probably be better than the available
> candidates!!!!

Some of us aren't old enough, or native US citizens.
(There's talk of an amendment to fix the latter, but
said amendment hasn't been ratified - hasn't even
been written up and formally submitted, IIRC - yet.)

Although...what major issues would an Extropian
candidate be able to entice the mainstream US public
on?  We're concerned about immortality; while people
might not be ready for that, they would be receptive
to proposals for increased federal funding for
reasearch into longevity and healthier old age.
(Hello, AARP?)  And probably expanded retraining/adult
education opportunities for the unemployed, focussing
on practical biotech & nanotech as well as small
business administration, in part to balance the lack
of engineers coming out of universities and in part to
better enable the US to dominate new technology
fields (and in part to accelerate the development of
those technologies that will enable the future we
envision), but mainly to try to shake off the
"jobless" part of the "jobless recovery".  (Hello,
anyone whose job has been shipped overseas or
otherwise lost?)

These aren't purely hypothetical questions.  Part of
the campaign strategy of successful Democratic and
Republican candidates, and the reason why third
parties have remained marginalized, is adopting any
significantly popular planks in issues they were
previously undecided on.  Specifically, I'm thinking
that the Extropian Institute could form a list of
positions it advocates on certain issues and submit
them to the major candidates (Kerry, at least; Bush
might have already made up his mind on the issues we
care about) for inclusion in their platform.  Bonus if
we can also get some of the minor candidates to openly
advocate them, as a means of encouraging the majors to
more strongly adopt them (or at least raise the issues
into public consciousness).


From natashavita at earthlink.net  Wed Mar 10 18:42:11 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:42:11 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] CULTURE:  Did Romans ruin Greek Culture?
Message-ID: <244640-220043310184211623@M2W093.mail2web.com>

I was just reading a couple of chapters from _The Decline of the West_ by 
Oswald Spengler.  (Special ed. New York: Knopf, 1939.)  These sepcific
ideas about culture and civilization are new to me.  Apparently, according
to Spengler, civilization is the death of culture.


Chapter 5:  THE PROBLEM OF "CIVILIZATION" [24-27]

"Looked at in this way, the "Decline of the West" comprises nothing less
than the problem of Civilization. We have before us one of the fundamental
questions of all higher history. What is civilization, understood as the
organic-logical sequel, fulfillment, and finale of a culture?" 

"So, for the first time, we are enabled to understand the Romans as the
successors of the Greeks, and light is projected into the deepest secrets
of the late-Classical period. What, but this, can be the meaning of the
fact--which can only be disputed by vain phrases--that the Romans were
barbarians who did not precede but closed a great development? Unspiritual,
unphilosophical, devoid of art, clannish to the point of brutality, aiming
relentlessly at tangible successes, they stand between the Hellenic Culture
and nothingness. An imagination directed purely to practical objects was
something which is not found a t all in Athens. In a word, Greek
soul--Roman intellect; and this antithesis is the differentia betwene
Culture and Civilization. Nor is it only to the Classical it applies. Again
and again there appears this type of strong-minded, completely
non-metaphysical man, and in the hands of this type lies the intellectual
and material destiny of each and every "late" period. Pure Civilization, as
a historical process, consists in a progressive exhaustion of forms that
have become inorganic or dead."

It seems that the Romans were interested in "realitiy."  And mostly
interested in portraiture and making statues that really looked like a
particular person, and usually a "famous" person.  The Greeks seemed to be
more interested in "ideals" and "beautiful man" or "athletic" man.

However, these chapters from _The Decline of the West_ make it look like
Romans were a "civilization" and Greeks were a "culture" and civilization
is the end, the death of culture.

Any thoughts?

Natasha

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




From scerir at libero.it  Wed Mar 10 19:54:56 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir at libero.it)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 20:54:56 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] CULTURE:  Did Romans ruin Greek Culture?
Message-ID: <HUDLZK$C5627F056524FB91A9C49ABB121B3592@libero.it>

> Any thoughts?
> Natasha

Yes. 

"Graecia capta ferum victorum cepit et artes 
intulit agresti Latio"

- Horace, Epist. II, 1, 156-7

http://tabula.rutgers.edu:8080/cocoon/latintexts/horace/epistulae/2epistula1.xml

"Upon being seized, Greece seized her savage victor 
and brought the arts into rustic Latium" 

Susan Alcock wrote the excellent book "Graecia Capta: 
The Landscapes of Roman Greece" (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993).

The great mystery (at least to me) is why the Etruscan culture and
civilization (and the Etruscan population too) was completely wiped out 
by Romans.  What was the danger ? What was the superiority?
Look it is very rare that a culture, a civilization is completely wiped out
by another!

s.

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

file below taken from the amazing YahooGroup:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nova-roma/

see also:  http://www.novaroma.org/forum/
and:  http://www.novaroma.org/main.html

The Impact of Hellenism On Rome
by Myrle Winn

The name Greek is no longer a mark of a race, but of an outlook, and 
is accorded to those who share our culture rather than our blood," 
said the Athenian orator Isokrates in 380 BCE.

By this time the Greek city-states no longer held political and 
military dominance in the Hellenic world of the eastern 
Mediterreanean. Greek culture however, continued to spread throughout 
the Mediterranean into Egypt and the vast Persian empire.

By the middle of the fourth centry, King Philip of Macedonia began to 
move toward an empire that united all of Greece. Upon his 
assasination in 336 BCE, his son Alexander (the Greek), became king. 
In one continuous campaign Alexander brought together the Greek and 
Eastern empires. The spread of Greek culture from the Himalayas to 
the Nile, blending the arts, cultures and institutions of Anatolia, 
Egypt, Syria and Iran producing multitude of ideals and behaviours 
that constituted what the heirs of the Athenians poleis and the 
remainder of the western world would come to know as Hellenism.

With the conquests of Alexander, the political horizon of these 
societies were extended over an immense area embracing diverse 
peoples and civilizations who knew little of each other, and far less 
of the ideals of Pericles, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Sophocles and 
Demosthenes until many years after their deaths.

Rome came under Greek influence very early in the eight century BCE, 
when Greek colonies were established in southern Italy and Sicily. 
For generations Roman people were surrounded by Hellenized Etruscans 
in the north, and in Naples and Sicily in the south. Though Hellenism 
was to leave its unmistakable mark on almost every aspect of Roman 
life and thought, they were originally very ambivalent about the 
Greeks. Though Hellenism was to leave its unmistakable mark on almost 
every aspect of Roman life and thought, they were originally very 
ambivalent about the Greeks. On one hand they were in awe of an 
obviously superior civilization, and yet there was hostility, for 
Greek culture amounted to a reversal of Roman values. The Greeks were 
literate, artistic, intellectual, sophisticated, delighting always in 
the pleasures of life, while the Romans were hard-working, boorish 
farmers with superstition ruling their lives and very often harsh 
words for the 'decadent' Greeks.

After the expulsion of the Roman kings(509 BCE) the influence of the 
Greeks on Italian convention began to increase. Just as Greece was 
reaching its climax of culture with regard to political, military, 
and artistic phases of development, the Roman farmers began to open 
their eyes and realize how very much the Greeks had to offer. The 
whole Italian peninsula came alive with a new civilization, similar 
to the Greek model, and fashioned after it. As time went on this new 
society began to gain more and more strength. Etruria began to abound 
with Greek works of art, and in Lucania and Campania Greek language 
and writing prevailed to a great extant.

The Greeks proved to be as gifted as a people as mankind has ever 
produced, achieving supreme heights in thought and letters. They 
absorbed the knowledge of the knowledge of the mysterious East, the 
lore of the ancient Caldeans, the arts and crafts they found in Asia 
Minor and the wonders of Egypt all to their liking. They added 
immediately to everything that they learned. It was the Greeks of the 
fifth and fourth centuries BCE who first became fully conscious of 
the power of the human wind, who formulated what the Western world 
long meant by the beautiful, and who first speculated on political 
freedom. Herodotus, 'the father of history,' travelled throughout the 
Greek world and far beyond, learning of the past. Thucydides, in his 
account of the wars between Athens and Sparta presented history as a 
guide to an enlightened citizenship and statecraft of the two great 
nations.

The most famous "Greeks" after the fourth century BCE usually did not 
come from Greece but from the Hellenized Near East, and especially 
from Alexandria in Egypt. In later years the cities of Alexandria and 
Antioch would play out a role possibly as large as Athens in the 
spread of Hellenism. These two cities in particular guaranteed the 
survival of the Hellenistic ideals and were the foundation of much of 
the brilliance and prosperity enjoyed by the Roman Empire at the 
height of its glory in the East.

Both, the Latin and the Greek branches of Hellenism came under the 
political domain of the Roman Empire, and thusly Hellenism was 
gradually transformed from the original Greek influence to the Roman 
state and finally to the society of Europe. But even before Hellenism 
came into contact with the budding Roman civilization, it had met and 
interacted with the rich and ancient societies of the Near East, and 
it was from this union rather than from an immediate contact with the 
fifth century Greece that Roman Hellenism was born. Rome herself 
became gradually Hellenized over the centuries of the Republic, 
absorbing the new culture at increasing speed as her power and wealth 
grew.

The greatest unifying effect of Hellenism; specifically between Rome 
and Greece; was communication. The spoken word, and the language of 
printing, sculpture, mosaics and architecture all of which they, and 
the various provinces shared. As the provinces absorbed the culture 
at a constant downhill rater, they also managed to keep their own 
unique local characteristics and incorporated them when exploring the 
arts themselves.

When the conquest of Magna Graecia and Sicily in the third century 
BCE, and the expansion of Roman power into the eastern Mediterranean 
in the second century, exposed the Romans to the cultural influences 
of the brilliant Hellenistic world, the ultra-conservatives among the 
Roman nobility recognized that Hellenism, with its emphasis on 
intellectualism and individual happiness, represented a threat to 
their traditional doctrine of subordination of self to family, class, 
state, and the gods, and was thus a threat to the stability of their 
rule. Accordingly, they launched a vigorous but futile campaign to 
eradicate these "dangerous new ideas" from Roman life. "For indeed it 
was not a little rivulet that flowed from Greece into our city, but a 
mightly river of culture and learning."(1)

The anti-Hellenic movement, of which Cato the Elder (234-149 BCE), 
was for a time the leader completely failed; eventually every branch 
of Roman learning; philosophy, oratory, science, art, religion, 
morals, manners, and dress surrenedered to Greek influence. By the 
end of the second century the ancestral Roman way of life had been 
transformed into a Greco-Roman culture that survived until the 
decline of the Roman empire.

As the cultural 'decadence' of Greece and the joining of the noble 
families took place, luxury in Rome was commented on through the 
Roman historian Livy(59 BCE- 17 CE). He spoke of how the army 
returned with military prizes of "bronze couches, costly 
coverlets...banquets were made more attractive by the presence of 
girls who played the lute and harp by other forms of 
entertainment..."(2), cooking became a fine art, and the cook who was 
once looked down as the lowest type of slave, was now considered to 
be the practitioner of a fine art.

As Rome grew and expanded, the wall of hypocrisy grew ever higher. 
Those who pointed their fingers of scorn at Greek "decadence," were 
themselves products of Hellenic education; Greek "decadence," were 
themselves products of Hellenic education; Greek was their second 
language and Athens or Rhodes the goal of their studies. No more 
perfect example could compete with Marcus Tullio Cicero (106-43 BCE) 
as a Roman intellectual schooled in Hellenism. The translator of 
Plato, Xenophon, Demosthemes, Homer and the tradgedians, he wrote a 
history of his own consulate in Greek, and tradgedians, and even his 
Latin writings, particularly the philosophical works, bear the stamp 
of their Greek models. And yet Cicero's speeches and letters are 
filled with unbelievably harsh judgments about the degeneracy of the 
contemporary Greek.

The affects of Greek life and its culture on Rome was to last 
forever. Commerce, war, and finally occupation and administration of 
new territories transported the Romans throughout the Mediterranean. 
Soldiers returning from eastern campaigns, and Greeks coming to Rome 
as hostages, envoys, traders, professional men and educated slaves 
familiarized the Romans with the Greek language and Greek ways. 
Doctors and philosophers brought Greek skills. The plunder of cities 
such as Syracuse and Corinth brought Greek works of art, great 
libraries and learned men to Rome and teased the appetites of Roman 
nobles for more. Few well-off Romans could resist the attractions of 
civilized Greek life. Roman children were now taught in both Greek 
and Latin, and it was now impossible to deny the benefits Rome was 
acquiring.

Roman philosophy was a part of Greek philosophy, Roman art was 
developed from Greek models. Roman gods were taken from the Greek 
world of religion, and in the second century the forerunner of the 
imperial cult began to take shape, paving the way for the divinity of 
Roman emperors. In the third century BCE came the first plays of the 
Greek model in Latin. The Romans even defined their early history to 
fit precisely into the Trojan cycle and Rome itself. As Rome grew so 
too did its magnetism for Greek artists and intellectuals, and she 
suddenly found herself equal to Alexandria.

In the third century the beginnings of Roman literature appeared, and 
a great deal of its form and content was modeled after the Greeks. 
However, though the words of Homer and Sophocles were within reach 
and would forever be considered golden, the writers of Rome such as 
Horace, Sallust, and Ovid all developed their own brilliant and 
unmistakable Latin flavor.

Actual works of Greek art came into Roman hands as booty from 
military campaigns. There are frequent references to the Roman 
borrowing of Greek forms and styles. The divisions between Greek and 
Roman art at times are difficult to determine. These difficulties 
arise because the Romans appropriated Greek forms but then frequently 
used them for different purposes, the result is superficially close 
but essentially different from the Greek. 

The 1st century BCE, witnessed a belated artistic impact of Greece 
upon the aristocratic and family traditions of Rome, and this 
influence caused remarkable developments in portraiture. The affluent 
of Rome were among the world's great art patrons. Surviving passages 
in Latin literature often refer to the decoration of their palaces 
and villas with Greek reliefs, decorated urns, sarcophagi, statues 
and portraits busts. Wealthy Romans commissioned copies of Greek 
works of all epochs ranging from sixth to the second century BCE.

Most Roman patrons knew very little of art, but they knew what they 
liked. Portraits were what they wanted above all. The mentality of 
upper-class Romans contained an ingrained sense of history and of 
facturalism and was deeply attracted by portraits which would record 
and analyze the features and expressions of the individual in his own 
social and historical setting and without sparing his physical 
oddities. They wanted a sculptural biography chronicling and summing 
up a man's achievement and experiences. They endowed the art not only 
with an incentive and with funds but with a Roman definiteness, 
purpose, and dignity and with an inspiring, challenging new range of 
subjects-namely their own resolute, tough, square faces, vigorously 
displaying every blend between northern endurance and southern 
exuberance.

At Rome there was an increasing demand for realistic portraits of the 
living as well as the dead, and in the final century of the Republic 
the Greek custom of erecting statues in honour of famous men was 
extended to Rome, where senior officials became entitled to set up 
portrait statues of themselves in public places.

The sculptors of the Roman portrait gallery that now began, and 
became one of the chief glories of Roman civilization, were only very 
infrequently Romans or Italians; They were very nearly all Greeks or 
Orientals of Greek culture and training. In common with artists, they 
had gained in esteem under the monarchies which followed Alexander. 
In this most Roman of all achievements it was Greek-speaking non-
Romans and easterners who were the experts. In particular, the 
employment of marble, used for sculpture and wall decoration in Roman 
homes from the first century BCE onward, involved techniques with 
which only those brought up in Near Eastern traditions were familar.

In the sculptural reliefs which decorate their monuments, the Romans, 
and their Greek or eastern artists, achieved undeniable originality. 
Scenic reliefs had many centuries earlier been a conspicuous feature 
of Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian art, and in the fifth and 
fourth centuries BCE the Greeks began experimenting with figures 
placed at different levels in battle scenes and other elaborate low-
relief compositions reminiscent of paintings. Then in the official 
sculpture; and painting of the monarchs who succeeded to Alexander's 
heritage, attention was increasingly devoted to narrating past and 
present events of national significance.

Many of the ingredients in this past history of the sculptural relief 
were utilized, in original fashion, by the Greek sculptors of the 
Altar of Peace(Ara Pacis) erected by Augustus at Rome. Consecrated in 
13 BCE the Ara Pacis is adorned with rich and luscious floral 
decoration; the designs engraved upon the Augustan Altar include set 
pieces of legendary patriotic scenes.

Architecture also was but another facet of Greek life that the Romans 
borrowed various aspects of. The simple but exquisitedly executed 
Hellenic style had captivated the Romans as much as other 
perspectives of Greece had. From the Greeks they took the three basic 
orders of architecture; Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian, based on 
different forms of column and foundation, and added to them a hybrid 
of their own, known as Composite.

Architecture became a common denominator in the religious lives of 
Rome and Greece. During the last century of the Republic the 
attachment of the old indigenous form of worship was more and more 
supplanted by the influence of modern Greek civilization. This 
admixture of Greek mythology and Greek scepticism soon tended to 
abolish the deep religious feeling characteristic of the old Romans. 
The religious indifference of the upper classes grew into a decided 
aversion to religion itslef, and many of the old temples fell into 
disarray. When finally repaired, the old Roman temples took on a 
decidedly Greek flavor.

With the influence of the Sibylline books, a great influx of Greek 
gods and Greek rites took place in the early centuries of the 
Republic. In the fifth century BCE the practice developed of 
consulting the Greek oracle of the Sibyl at Cumae. The first Greek 
gods had entered the Roman pantheon in the fifth century, but with 
the entry of Aesculapius, the Greek god of medicine in 293 BCE, many 
more were imported, until by the end of the third century the 
amalgamation of Greek and Roman religion was completed. 

Within the scope of religion, and as Rome became the dominant factor 
in Hellenistic politics, the Greek cities began to transfer to her 
the phenomenon of king-worship. With the expansion of the Empire, 
Rome came to rule eastern nations that were accustomed to worshipping 
their kings as gods and readily transferred their worship to Roman 
rulers.

Augustus and his successor, Tiberius, allowed the habit to continue 
in the eastern provinces during their reigns, however in the west it 
was discouraged. Rather than fostering the idea of divinity upon 
himself, Augustus encouraged the worship of Roma , the divine spirit 
of Rome. In the east teh emperor himself was a god, but his cult had 
less personal character than that of the Hellenistic monarchs. He was 
a god so long as he governed the State and because he governed the 
State. The sanctity of the State was embodied in the Emperor's person.

Religious belief once revered in Rome was shattered by the economic 
and social unrest of the second and first centuries BCE. The 
seemingly unlimited population of landless masses in Rome and the 
rapid individualization of Roman society under the impact of 
Hellenism, created an emptiness that the educated tried to fill 
through Greek philosophy, and the lower classes in Hellenic and 
Oriental mystery cults.

In 155 BCE the Athenian government send the heads of the three great 
philosophical schools; as a political embassy to the impressionable 
Romans: Carneades the Academic, Diogenes the Stocia and Critolaus the 
Peripatetic. In the course of their extended visit Carneades treated 
his Roman hosts to a spectacular display of "arguing both sides."

Carneades created a sensation at Rome, particularly among the young 
who came flocking to hear Hellenism's premier intellectual perform. 
Hellenism took Rome by storm once again, but this time it was not 
literature, art or myth that came garbed in Greek attire, but 
philosophy. It was Rome's first real encounter with that aspect of 
Hellenism, and it was to be a momentous one. Not all the Romans were 
happy with the learned ambassadors. Cato the Censor was determined to 
have all Greek philosophers banned from Rome. He publicly expressed 
his disgust at what he construed to be revolutionary notions, and 
exhorted the Senate to ride Rome of these troubles. His success was 
minimal and short-lived.

The Romans viewed Hellenistic intellectuals with suspicion, and the 
only Stoics; who believed in an uncomplaining performance of duty and 
paramount virtue; were really welcome in Rome.

A Greek Stoic, Panaetius, lived for many years in the home of P. 
Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus, the son of a noble Roman family. 
Panaetius taught Scipio and many others of nobility the principles of 
Stoicism. In a book "On Duties" Panaetius laid down the central ideas 
of Stoicism; that man is a part of a whole, that he is here not to 
enjoy the pleasures of the sense, but to do his duty without 
complaint. Educated Romans grasped at this philosophy as dignified 
and presentable. They found in its ethics a moral code completely 
congenial to their ancient traditions and ideals. Stoicism became the 
inspiration of Scipio, the consolation of Marcus Aurelius, and the 
conscience of Rome.

The period which followed the end of the third Macedonian War was one 
of great significant in the histyory of education in Rome. Thousands 
of prisoners were brought across the Adriatic, many of whom found 
employment as 'pedagogues' or tutors in Roman families. Greek slaves 
tutored Roman children in the Greek language and the classics: Homer, 
Hesiod, and the plays of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Cleander. In the 
third and second centuries BCE, education was gradually 
institutionalized and merged with Greek intellectualism. Despite 
conservative opposition schools were introduced; these were largely 
in the hands of Greek slaves and freedmen. Literature, both Greek and 
Latin, philosophy, rhetoric, and other aspects of the liberal arts 
became part of the formal curriculum. For increasing numbers, formal 
education culminated in a trip to the "university centers" of the 
Greek East. Rome learned from Greek humanism.

It is clear that the Imperium Romanum was founded on the polis. 
Cities provided Rome with a convenient channel for her commands and 
her demnads for resources through taxation. The Romans themselves had 
neither the manpower nor the funds to staff the lower levels of 
provincial administration.

The situation was nothing new in the ancient world. The empires of 
classical Greece, those of Sparta and Athens, subordinated other 
cities without necessarily subjecting them to direct rule by imperial 
power. Their principle was inherited by the Macedonian monarchs: 
Alexander the Great, who took over and used the old organization of 
the Persian empire in Asia, created new cities and his successors, 
especially the Seleucides, added more, either re-enforcing old 
communities or creating them from their demobilized soldiers.

In the Hellenized provinces, Rome based her arrangements on their own 
cities from the time she first organized Siciliy onwards. In 
provinces, where there was an existing network of villages, she used 
these as a basis, until the majority of them became municipia under 
the Principate.

No Roman magistrates were regularly installed in the Eastern 
Mediterranean until 148-7 BCE. Instead commanders were sent, when and 
where necessary, to fight wars and to organize peoples who had 
voluntarily became allies or succumbed to Roman power.

Such indirect control was possible because the Romans were dealing 
with monarchs or with well-established local institutions in the form 
of a city or a non-urban political community, which they could on the 
whole manipulate to achieve stability in their own interests.

Roman citizenship was a unifying factor but a distinct privelege. 
Although Roman law was entreched inside colonies and municipia, 
elsewhere it co-existed with local law. Laws varied from province to 
province and even from city to city. 

The term that the Romans came to use for the areas directly 
administered by their officials was provincia, (appointment, task). 
Provincia was first used with the creation of the province of 
Macedonia in 148-7, and its Greek annexes in 146-145.

Rome, however, was cautious about direct intervention in Greek 
affairs. The designation of "free city" was given to many cities now 
in Roman control. They were allowed to be free, in possession of 
their own laws, free from garrisons and from paying tribute.(4)

Rome had been learning from her Greek mentors. Such declarations had 
been formally made about individual cities by Antiochus II and III 
and by Philip V; even Ptolmy II and Alexander had made similar 
statements.(5)

The freedom was conditional on the Greeks' continued friendship with 
Rome, but the Greeks had little doubt that they were still subject to 
a dominant power.

The cities in Africa were again treated differently. After the 
destruction of Carthage, Rome acknowledged the freedom of those 
cities which had supported her in the war against Carthage, and 
granted them their own land.

In the Hellenized provinces of the Greek east the existing Greek 
cities there provided the Roman empire with ready-made urban centers, 
but some sort of compromise was required between the Roman 
expectations and the long tradition of Greek city politics.

>From the time the Romans began to exercise power in Greece, they had 
tended to favor oligarchic constitutions, without trying to eliminate 
entirely any of the three many elements, which were the foundation 
not only of the Greek constitution but of their own republican system.

During the late Republic some Romans became citizens of Athens and 
actually were elected to various governmental councils - something 
which Cicero showed strong disapproval in 65 BCE.(6) It is believed 
that these actions were taken in order to ensure that the wealthier 
and more aristocratic section of society dominated politics and the 
judiciary.

This example of Athens shows the impact that Roman power could have 
on a Greek city, but also how this was mediated by the use of Greek 
institutions.

In the provinces of Asia Minor Rome established colonies of veterans 
at Antioch and Seleucia and founded Cremna, Parlais and Olbasa. 
Baths, theatres, temples, basilicas, markets, and a system of roads 
was begun, all adorning the new towns and cities. Here Rome seriously 
undertook the task of spreading Hellenism. She did not acquire any 
new methods, but rather followed in the foosteps of previous 
conquerors. Like the Hellenistic soveriegns, they founded new cities 
by bringing together isolated groups under common ground, worked for 
the development of a better municipal system and encouraged inter-
provincial trade.

With the battle of Actium (31 BCE) Augustus ruled alone. "Magis alii 
homines alii mores."(7) There was peace after many years and Rome was 
grateful. Much of the land captured was filled with barbarians, but 
much of the realm of Hellenistic culture. It was the Greeks who made 
the Romans conscious of their own individual character and while Rome 
assimilated the culture of the Greeks, and all they had to offer they 
also shaped their history, traditions and what it meant to be a Roman.

Bibliography: 

Africa, Thomas W. The Immense Majesty: A History of Rome and the 
Roman Empire. Harlan Davidson. Inc. New York, NY. 1974.

Arrian. The Campaigns of Alexander. Penguin Classics. London, UK. 
1958.

Boardman, John & Griffin, Jasper & Murray, Oswyn. The Roman World. 
Oxford History of the Classical World. Oxford University Press. 
Oxford, UK. 1986.

Bonner, Stanley F. Education in Ancient Rome. University California 
Press. Berkeley, CA. 1977.

Chapot, Victor. The Roman World. Alfred A. Knopf. New York, NY. 1928.

Cicero. Res Publica. Bristol Classical Press. Devonshire, UK. 1990.

Durant, Will. Caesar and Christ. Simon & Schuster, Inc. New York, NY. 
1944.

Durant, Will. The Story of Greece: Story of Civilization. Simon & 
Schuster, Inc. New York, NY. 1939. 

Grant, Michael. The World of Rome. Penguin Books, USA. 1960.

Green, Peter. Alexander of Macedon: A Historical Biography. 
University of California Press. Berkeley, CA. 1991.

Guhl, E. & Koner, W. The Romans: Their Life and Customs. Gernsey 
Press Co. Ltd. London, UK. 1994. 

Kamm, Anthony. The Romans. Routledge Publications. New York, NY. 1995.

Lamm, Robert C. & Cross, Neal M. The Humanities in Western Culture. 
Wm. C. Brown Publishers. Dubuque, Iowa. 1988.

Lewis, Naphtali & Reihnold, Meyer. Roman Civilization. Columbia 
University Press. New York, NY. 1990. 

Lintott, Andrew. Imperium Romanun: Politics and Administration. 
Routledge Press. New York, NY. 1950.

Palmer, R.R. & Colton, Joel. History of the Modern World. McGraw-
Hill, Inc. New York, NY. 1933.

Peters, F.E. Harvest of Hellenism. Barnes & Noble Press. USA, 1970.

Plutarch. Makers of Rome. Penguin Classics. London, UK. 1965.

Tacitus. The Annals of Imperial Rome. Penguin Classics. London, UK. 
1956.

Tarn, W. W. Hellenitic Civilization. Edward Arnold Ltd. London, UK. 
1927.

Toynbee, Arnold. The Greeks and Their Heritages. Oxford University 
Press. Oxford, UK. 1981.





From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Mar 10 20:31:20 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 21:31:20 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] [>Htech] Empathy is a Hardwired Feeling (fwd from
	oxyryxo@yahoo.com)
Message-ID: <20040310203120.GC18046@leitl.org>

----- Forwarded message from oxyryxo <oxyryxo at yahoo.com> -----

From: "oxyryxo" <oxyryxo at yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 20:09:19 -0000
To: transhumantech at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [>Htech] Empathy is a Hardwired Feeling
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster
Reply-To: transhumantech at yahoogroups.com

February 22, 2004
Empathy is a Hardwired Feeling
As I mentioned in emotions in art and the brain "emotions and
feelings are mediated by distinct neural systems. Whereas emotions
are automatic responses to sensory stimuli, feelings are 'private,
sbjective experiences' that emerge from the cognitive processing of
an emotion eliciting state."

Providing hard evidence of this view is an excellent piece of
research reported in this week's Science by University College London
neuroscientists, Tania Singer and Ray Dolan (who showed videos of
this research at the neuroesthetics conference).

"Human survival depends on the ability to function effectively within
a social context. Central to successful social interaction is the
ability to understand others intentions and beliefs. This capacity to
represent mental states is referred to as "theory of mind" or the
ability to "mentalize". Empathy, by contrast, broadly refers to being
able to understand what others feel, be it an emotion or a sensory
state. Accordingly, empathic experience enables us to understand what
it feels like when someone else experiences sadness or happiness, and
also pain, touch, or tickling."

An Overview of the Empathy Experiment: (A real stinger)

...But when their partners were zapped, regions physically mapping the
pain were quiet while the AI and ACC and a few other regions lit up
in the women's brains. And the signals from those two areas were
stronger in women who reported a greater degree of empathy,
suggesting these regions mediate empathy.

Singer suspects that our brain's ability to intuit the emotional
response of others could have been strongly selected during
evolution. "If I do something, it tells me will it make you smash me,
will you kill me or will you like it? Being able to predict how
others feel might have been necessary for human survival," she says.

I couldn't agree more, empathy is critical to human survival. This
research is a great addition to the growing scientific literature on
empathy and provides further evidence that animal models of human
behavior are insufficient to undertand human behavior and to develop
effective neuroceuticals.

http://www.corante.com/brainwaves/
 




-----BEGIN TRANSHUMANTECH SIGNATURE-----
Post message: transhumantech at yahoogroups.com
Subscribe:    transhumantech-subscribe at yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe:  transhumantech-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
List owner:   transhumantech-owner at yahoogroups.com
List home:    http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/transhumantech/
-----END TRANSHUMANTECH SIGNATURE----- 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/transhumantech/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     transhumantech-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

----- 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/20040310/a166d0b5/attachment.bin>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 10 20:40:53 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 12:40:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] CULTURE:  Did Romans ruin Greek Culture?
In-Reply-To: <244640-220043310184211623@M2W093.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <20040310204053.60155.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>


--- "natashavita at earthlink.net" <natashavita at earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> It seems that the Romans were interested in "realitiy."  And mostly
> interested in portraiture and making statues that really looked like
> a particular person, and usually a "famous" person.  The Greeks
seemed
> to be more interested in "ideals" and "beautiful man" or "athletic"
> man.
> 
> However, these chapters from _The Decline of the West_ make it look
> like Romans were a "civilization" and Greeks were a "culture" and
> civilization is the end, the death of culture.
> 
> Any thoughts?

Culture is art, civilization is engineering. The author of The Decline
of the West sounds like one more arts snob decrying the fact that
rationalists always decry the emperor not wearing any clothes that the
artist charged vast sums to 'design'.

It is a rather typical charge, one which was disproven by Feynman, who,
in addition to being a Nobel physicist, was a painter and musician who
conducted the ultimate artist vs engineer experiment himself, being
taught to be an artist by an artist, while the artist proved incapable
of learning science.

This is why art always precedes engineering and not the reverse. The
artist creates beauty, which the engineer comes along and figures out
how to scientifically reproduce at will via engineering (and even
figure out a use for it). The artist cannot happen upon a work of
engineering and reproduce it such that it will function.

The artist sees what the engineer has done with his creation and hates
him for it, and plots the engineers downfall, and the ultimate downfall
of the engineered civilization, by the creation or introduction of
unscientific clods (barbarians, or public school graduates) for the
artist to be lauded by and worshipped and followed in tearing down the
civilization, in order to create a new flowering of art in the wilderness.

=====
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! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From natashavita at earthlink.net  Wed Mar 10 21:19:52 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 16:19:52 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] CULTURE:  Did Romans ruin Greek Culture?
Message-ID: <191690-220043310211952995@M2W084.mail2web.com>

Scerir writes:

Yes. 

"Graecia capta ferum victorum cepit et artes 
intulit agresti Latio"

- Horace, Epist. II, 1, 156-7


>"Upon being seized, Greece seized her savage victor 
>and brought the arts into rustic Latium" 

This is the anciennt region of Italy, along the Terranian Sen.

>Susan Alcock wrote the excellent book "Graecia Capta: 
>The Landscapes of Roman Greece" (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993).

>The great mystery (at least to me) is why the Etruscan culture and
>civilization (and the Etruscan population too) was completely wiped out 
>by Romans.  What was the danger ? What was the superiority?
>Look it is very rare that a culture, a civilization is completely wiped out
>by another!

Roman art is derived from Etruscan art, which is fundamentally different
from the Greecian art in style and philosophy. 

In the reference I mention, "culture" is quite different from
"civilization" the former being considered one of honorable human spirit,
and the latter being a degeneration or collapse of that spirit.
The spirit would be the Greek sense of beauty, and the death would be
realism.  The engineers would be the Romans, and the intellectual beauty
the Greeks.

History:  "According to some scholars, the Etruscans invaded and conquered
Rome early in the Sixth Century B. C. Others hold that they did not conquer
the Romans, but entered Latium peacefully and rose to a ruling position in
Roman society. According to this group of scholars, some of the Etruscan
families became established as influential families in Rome?s early
aristocracy."

So, the Etruscians either siezed Rome or when there peacefully. Either way,
they did rule Italy for a while.  I'm not sure what happened to reverse
this.

Natasha



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




From megao at sasktel.net  Wed Mar 10 21:40:37 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 15:40:37 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hardwired Feelings - what about antisocial feelings?
References: <20040310203120.GC18046@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <404F8B55.D62D51B3@sasktel.net>

 Is developmental, epigenetic and genetic as well as neurochemical environment
involved in modulating the aggressive antisocial behaviour of sociopaths and
psychopaths.  Is there a genetic component to pre-dispose, an epigenetic
component (like fetal alcohol syndrome), as well as a
nutritional/nutraceutical/pharmaceutical
component?  Is it possible to offset the predisposition created by the first 2
by the environmental aspects of the third?

Eugen Leitl wrote:

> ----- Forwarded message from oxyryxo <oxyryxo at yahoo.com> -----
>
> From: "oxyryxo" <oxyryxo at yahoo.com>
> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 20:09:19 -0000
> To: transhumantech at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [>Htech] Empathy is a Hardwired Feeling
> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
> X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster
> Reply-To: transhumantech at yahoogroups.com
>
> February 22, 2004
> Empathy is a Hardwired Feeling
> As I mentioned in emotions in art and the brain "emotions and
> feelings are mediated by distinct neural systems. Whereas emotions
> are automatic responses to sensory stimuli, feelings are 'private,
> sbjective experiences' that emerge from the cognitive processing of
> an emotion eliciting state."
>
> Providing hard evidence of this view is an excellent piece of
> research reported in this week's Science by University College London
> neuroscientists, Tania Singer and Ray Dolan (who showed videos of
> this research at the neuroesthetics conference).
>
> "Human survival depends on the ability to function effectively within
> a social context. Central to successful social interaction is the
> ability to understand others intentions and beliefs. This capacity to
> represent mental states is referred to as "theory of mind" or the
> ability to "mentalize". Empathy, by contrast, broadly refers to being
> able to understand what others feel, be it an emotion or a sensory
> state. Accordingly, empathic experience enables us to understand what
> it feels like when someone else experiences sadness or happiness, and
> also pain, touch, or tickling."
>
> An Overview of the Empathy Experiment: (A real stinger)
>
> ...But when their partners were zapped, regions physically mapping the
> pain were quiet while the AI and ACC and a few other regions lit up
> in the women's brains. And the signals from those two areas were
> stronger in women who reported a greater degree of empathy,
> suggesting these regions mediate empathy.
>
> Singer suspects that our brain's ability to intuit the emotional
> response of others could have been strongly selected during
> evolution. "If I do something, it tells me will it make you smash me,
> will you kill me or will you like it? Being able to predict how
> others feel might have been necessary for human survival," she says.
>
> I couldn't agree more, empathy is critical to human survival. This
> research is a great addition to the growing scientific literature on
> empathy and provides further evidence that animal models of human
> behavior are insufficient to undertand human behavior and to develop
> effective neuroceuticals.
>
> http://www.corante.com/brainwaves/
>
>
> -----BEGIN TRANSHUMANTECH SIGNATURE-----
> Post message: transhumantech at yahoogroups.com
> Subscribe:    transhumantech-subscribe at yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe:  transhumantech-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
> List owner:   transhumantech-owner at yahoogroups.com
> List home:    http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/transhumantech/
> -----END TRANSHUMANTECH SIGNATURE-----
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/transhumantech/
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>      transhumantech-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
> ----- 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
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    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 bradbury at blarg.net  Wed Mar 10 21:41:19 2004
From: bradbury at blarg.net (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:41:19 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] 'Resurrection' and nanotech
Message-ID: <404F8B7F.220A587D@blarg.net>

This is a comment on a recent post by Terry Colvin regarding a
conversation between "Scott D. White" and "Dave Palmer" on the topic of
resurrection.

I'm going to confine myself to the information theoretic aspects of
this.  There are two components of what we consider to be "beings"
(where you can stretch this from human "beings" to dolphin beings,
parrot beings, baby beings, etc. depending upon how you want to stretch
the definition).  The first component is a genetic background which
determines the physical substrate upon which the being operates as well
as a number of programs that involve built-in instincts that have proven
to be successful for survival over evolutionary time scales.  The second
component is "software" which is generally configured by experience that
involves learned successful survival strategies.

Now, it is very hard to completely destroy the genetic component.  It
requires very large doses of radiation or heat (e.g. cremation) or the
complete consumption of the genetic material by bacteria.  Under some
circumstances, such as dessication, DNA can survive hundreds, perhaps
even thousands of years sufficiently
well that a complete genome could be reconstructed.  You should keep in
mind that most large genomes now
are reconstructed from millions of small overlapping fragments.
Provided a sufficient number of such overlapping
fragments remains in a corpse, tissue fragment, bone marrow, etc. it is
possible to reconstruct the original genome sequence.

Now, with respect to the "experiential" part of an identity, this is
essentially locked up in the interconnection
network between the neurons in the brain (and perhaps in some of the
underlying biological machinery
that enables communication between specific neurons).  I have argued
previously (perhaps years ago) that
so long as one can preserve a reasonably accurate record of this 3-D
neural network you can preserve
the identity of an individual (this is the idea behind cryonics).  I
have also argued that this preservation
need not be perfect -- the complexity of the 3-D network in the brain is
so high and the foot-prints
left by various synaptic connections is sufficient that one ought to be
able to take a frozen brain
drop it on the floor of the room breaking it into thousands or millions
of pieces and still be able to
determine the linkages that were present in its original (whole) form.
In that case the information
can be recovered.  However, if the brain of an individual who has "died"
remains at body/room
temperature for an extended period of time it is highly likely that some
of the information content
will start being recycled by normal biological processes.  Unless
extreme chemical or physical steps
are taken to prevent normal biological processes the information content
will begin to degrade.
But the standards for judging someone as being "dead" were so primitive
2000 years ago were
so primitive I don't see how anyone can believe them for longer than 5
seconds.

Now, with respect to Jesus and the resurrection -- there is no doubt in
my mind that if Jesus were
nano-enabled (using a combination of some of the technologies suggested
by Freitas & Phoenix with
their vasculoid organ perhaps combined with a bunch of respirocytes --
with enough creative engineering
to allow Jesus to "bleed") there is no doubt in my mind that the
*entire* event (if it even took place)
was nothing more than an elaborate stage show.  No miracles involved, no
"son of god", etc. etc. etc.

Terry -- feel free to forward this back to those from whence the
discussion came.

Robert




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Mar 10 21:52:53 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 15:52:53 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hardwired Feelings - what about antisocial
	feelings?
In-Reply-To: <404F8B55.D62D51B3@sasktel.net>
References: <20040310203120.GC18046@leitl.org> <404F8B55.D62D51B3@sasktel.net>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040310155007.01b27dc8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>


>  Is developmental, epigenetic and genetic as well as neurochemical 
> environment
>involved in modulating the aggressive antisocial behaviour of sociopaths and
>psychopaths.  Is there a genetic component to pre-dispose, an epigenetic
>component (like fetal alcohol syndrome), as well as a
>nutritional/nutraceutical/pharmaceutical
>component?

Why, I'm glad you asked that question!

Melvin Konner, a smart guy, sez inter alia:

http://human-nature.com/ep/reviews/ep022831.html

Roger Masters, a political scientist ably practicing evolutionary 
psychology since long before it had that name, contributes the second 
chapter. Although it seems out of place in this book-it has little directly 
to do with evolution or its consequences-it is potentially very important. 
He summarizes evidence that when silicon fluoride is added to drinking 
water it enhances the body's uptake of lead, "a neurotoxin that lowers 
dopaminergic function in the inhibitory circuits of the basal ganglia," [p. 
43] and that this effect increases rates of violent crime where water is so 
treated. SiF also increases manganese content of water, and the two 
elements (lead and manganese) interact to produce a more than additive 
effect on crime. Masters reasonably concludes "that a moratorium on the use 
of SiF in public water supplies would be a relatively low-cost policy 
capable of lowering rates of substance abuse and violent crime." [p. 49] 
The epidemiological analyses are very challenging and no doubt subject to 
criticism, but at a minimum, this possibility deserves further study.

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

Damien Broderick




From megao at sasktel.net  Wed Mar 10 22:20:08 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 16:20:08 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Hardwired Feelings - what about antisocial-feelings?]
Message-ID: <404F9498.91A54503@sasktel.net>

       The concept of mind over matter or rather  the active conscious
control over physical induced mental processes sure points out the tiny
sliver of a thread by which human sanity hangs.

Is it any wonder that we have the chaotic world we see about us?

However, there are those who seek to understand if there are ways to
allow the conscious mind to overcome the impediments of the physical
body.   The eastern religions  have for hundreds of years sought to deal
with this problem.

To solve the terrorist problem we may have to introduce a special diet
which
over a decade or 2 induces  peace and serenity over violence and
savagery.

That might be a new project for the military.  To develop a new "miracle
food"  that is promoted to nourish  the body while surrepticiously
epigenetically re-setting the mind.   The ultimate form of warfare is
not from outside but from within.

"Pharmer Mo"

-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Hardwired Feelings - what about	antisocial	feelings?
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 15:52:53 -0600
Size: 4343
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040310/07f563b7/attachment.mht>

From cryofan at mylinuxisp.com  Wed Mar 10 22:39:47 2004
From: cryofan at mylinuxisp.com (randy)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 16:39:47 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] "Cults such as the extropians see technology as
	unstoppable escalator to future prosperity, but ...."
In-Reply-To: <200403102144.i2ALiOc31063@tick.javien.com>
References: <200403102144.i2ALiOc31063@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <bv5v409htu1749a08uuhrsnlpnlkh7e6jv@4ax.com>



>From theregister.com:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What do we do now? Cults such as the extropians see technology as the
unstoppable escalator to future prosperity, but the rest of us are
discovering that their utopian faith has caused graver problems than
anyone expected. 

A recent report identifies Silicon Valley as the most vulnerable
region in what it describes as "the largest out-migration of
non-manufacturing jobs in the history of the US economy". 

Ashok Bardhan and Cynthia Kroll at the University of California
Berkeley compiled the report last autumn (PDF from here) and provided
a more detailed regional analysis for the San Francisco Chronicle this
week. 

They reach their findings by examining the relative fortunes of "at
risk" industries, and conclude that California is particularly at risk
because of greater-than-average employment in electronics
manufacturing and business support services. In a two-year period
between 2001 and 2003, a million jobs were lost in these sectors,
200,000 in California. Outsourcing isn't new, the researchers contend,
but white collar services jobs can be sent offshore far quicker than
blue collar manufacturing jobs. They offer no prediction on how many
of the at-risk jobs will be sent offshore. 

In a short space of time, the offshore trend has become a US election
issue which looks like it'shere to stay. But even politicians don't
grasp the extent of the disappointment. Weren't things always supposed
to get better? 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

more here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/36136.html


[comment]
If the jobs situation, maybe extropian "cultists" and other
globalization supports had better keep an eye out for ad hoc "necktie
parties"....



-------------
Randy


From natashavita at earthlink.net  Wed Mar 10 22:58:55 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 17:58:55 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults such as the extropians see technology
	asunstoppable escalator to future prosperity, but ....
Message-ID: <2920-220043310225855140@M2W071.mail2web.com>

-----------------
From: randy 

>From theregister.com:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What do we do now? Cults such as the extropians see technology as the
unstoppable escalator to future prosperity, but the rest of us are
discovering that their utopian faith has caused graver problems than
anyone expected. 


We need to set Max More, Greg Burch and Harvey Newstrom on this journalist.
I believe that the journalist has done this before.  

Natasha

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




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Mar 10 22:59:36 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:59:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] "Cults such as the extropians see technology as
	unstoppable escalator to future prosperity, but ...."
In-Reply-To: <bv5v409htu1749a08uuhrsnlpnlkh7e6jv@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <20040310225936.77071.qmail@web80410.mail.yahoo.com>

--- randy <cryofan at mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
> >From theregister.com:

> >By Andrew Orlowski 

<rolls eyes>  Him again.

> [comment]
> If the jobs situation, maybe extropian "cultists"
> and other
> globalization supports had better keep an eye out
> for ad hoc "necktie
> parties"....

Or just propose solutions to the lack-of-jobs
situations.  Like, say, retraining into the new
industries beyond those so mature that they can
effectively be outsources (for instance electronics
and Internet software - like it or not, they've been
around for a while now).


From neptune at superlink.net  Wed Mar 10 23:12:32 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 18:12:32 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] CULTURE:  Did Romans ruin Greek Culture?
References: <191690-220043310211952995@M2W084.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <008001c406f5$2be07120$e8cd5cd1@neptune>

Not much to add here, but one point about culture and civilization.  The
dyad with "culture" would seem to be "nature" -- using the latter in the
restricted conventional sense that most people use it.  By this
reckoning, all human societies have a culture.  Civilization is
something different.  Human societies can have culture and yet be
uncivilized or more civilized vs. less civilized.  The dyad with
"civilized" is "savage" and the general thrust seems to be how is force
used in society.

Looked at in this way, I'm not sure I'd say the Ancient Greeks did not
have a civilization while the Romans did.  The Romans merely spread
theirs further -- mostly by conquest.  (Not that Ancient Greeks were to
a man all eager to use only friendly persuasion.:)

That said, it would appear that high culture and civilization go
together if only because the more civilized a society is usually more
productive and able to produce more culture, devote more time to its
consumption, and also is usually exposed to more cultures outside its
own in a beneficial way.  (I mean by the last that the savage who grows
up around a civilized culture but basically only learns the martial
techniques is not being civilized.  Notably, those types tend to grow
and come back years later to conquer the civilized society.)

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html



From iph1954 at msn.com  Wed Mar 10 23:03:55 2004
From: iph1954 at msn.com (MIKE TREDER)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 18:03:55 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Talking the Talk
Message-ID: <BAY5-F40B1rsrfkgU74000098e4@hotmail.com>

Last week, I attended the "Imaging and Imagining Nanoscience & Engineering" 
conference put on by the University of South Carolina. It was a gathering of 
over 100 researchers and analysts from around the world.

The keynote speech was given by Eric Drexler, who is sometimes described as 
the father of nanotechnology. Drexler's proposals and designs for molecular 
manufacturing inspired 'nanotechnology' as a unified field. However, Drexler 
appears to be frustrated with where the field is going. He accused several 
scientists by name of misrepresenting his work, and accused the NNI of 
stifling research toward molecular manufacturing. He even announced that his 
invitation to speak at the conference had been personally opposed by Mihail 
Roco, the head of the NNI. Drexler's talk was a mix of nanotech theory, 
political accusations, and exhortation to work harder on developing his 
designs.

By contrast, a talk by James Von Ehr, CEO of Zyvex, focused on specific 
future projects. Von Ehr reported that his company has a ten-year plan to 
build a molecular assembler, that is, a machine system capable of atomically 
precise manufacturing at the nanoscale. Of course, as he admitted, they had 
an earlier, even more ambitious plan that they've had to revise. But he said 
they learned a lot from that experience, and seems confident that this 
current effort has a good chance of success. The new Zyvex approach will 
combine top-down work in nanolithography with bottom-up designs in scanning 
probe depositional chemistry. My NGO, the Center for Responsible 
Nanotechnology (CRN) will be observing their R & D work with great interest.

Every time I meet with nanotech researchers, I come away amazed at how much 
real progress is being made. Of course, this only adds to CRN's sense of 
urgency for open and productive discussion about the ethical, legal, and 
social implications of nanotechnology, and appropriate policy initiatives.

You can read more about this and other CRN-related news on our blog at 
http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/.

See you in the future!

Mike Treder
Executive Director
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology
http://CRNano.org

_________________________________________________________________
One-click access to Hotmail from any Web page ? download MSN Toolbar now! 
http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/



From neptune at superlink.net  Wed Mar 10 23:21:09 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 18:21:09 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] "Cults such as the extropians see technology
	asunstoppable escalator to future prosperity, but ...."
References: <200403102144.i2ALiOc31063@tick.javien.com>
	<bv5v409htu1749a08uuhrsnlpnlkh7e6jv@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <008e01c406f6$5fae5ac0$e8cd5cd1@neptune>

On Wednesday, March 10, 2004 5:39 PM randy cryofan at mylinuxisp.com wrote:
[actually, not Randy, but a quote from theregister.com]
> Cults such as the extropians see
> technology as the unstoppable
> escalator to future prosperity, but
> the rest of us are discovering that
> their utopian faith has caused
> graver problems than anyone
> expected.

While I'd like to believe we have a great influence today, I simply
don't see Extropians (and transhumanists) as instigators of outsourcing
and all economic ills.  These people should actually blame previous
trade restrictions and the labor laws -- minimum wage laws -- and other
taxes and regulations that drive up the cost of doing business in the
US.

Also, I don't remember having to give all my worldly goods to Max, cut
off all contacts with my family and friends, and live in the Extropy
Commune spending my days making simple craft goods while quoting from
the Principles as a sort of prayer.  Maybe I missed out on that part of
the movement.:)

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Mar 10 23:21:09 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 17:21:09 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: CULTURE:  Did Romans ruin Greek Culture?
In-Reply-To: <008001c406f5$2be07120$e8cd5cd1@neptune>
References: <191690-220043310211952995@M2W084.mail2web.com>
	<008001c406f5$2be07120$e8cd5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040310171716.01bd3e78@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 06:12 PM 3/10/2004 -0500, Dan wrote:

>one point about culture and civilization.  The
>dyad with "culture" would seem to be "nature" -- using the latter in the
>restricted conventional sense that most people use it.  By this
>reckoning, all human societies have a culture.  Civilization is
>something different.  Human societies can have culture and yet be
>uncivilized or more civilized vs. less civilized.  The dyad with
>"civilized" is "savage" and the general thrust seems to be how is force
>used in society.

Yes; and the source of this is that `civilization' connotes city life (see 
the etymology, asfter all): settled aggregations with a specialized and 
diverse work force (and regulatory meta-structures alienated and formalized 
from their simpler clan templates).

Spengler, of course, wrote a very long time ago by the standards of current 
scholarship.

Damien Broderick 




From scerir at libero.it  Wed Mar 10 23:35:02 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 00:35:02 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] CULTURE:  Did Romans ruin Greek Culture?
References: <191690-220043310211952995@M2W084.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <006d01c406f8$502d7930$d0b21b97@administxl09yj>

Natasha:

> >"Upon being seized, Greece seized her savage victor
> >and brought the arts into rustic Latium"
>
> This is the anciennt region of Italy, along the Terranian Sen.

Yes, Latium (now Lazio) is the region of Rome, between Tuscany
(north) and Campania (south).

> In the reference I mention, "culture" is quite different from
> "civilization" the former being considered one of honorable human spirit,
> and the latter being a degeneration or collapse of that spirit.
> The spirit would be the Greek sense of beauty, and the death would be
> realism.  The engineers would be the Romans, and the intellectual beauty
> the Greeks.
>
> History:  "According to some scholars, the Etruscans invaded and conquered
> Rome early in the Sixth Century B. C. Others hold that they did not
> conquer the Romans, but entered Latium peacefully and rose to a
> ruling position in Roman society. According to this group of scholars,
> some of the Etruscan families became established as influential
> families in Rome's early aristocracy."
>
> So, the Etruscians either siezed Rome or when there peacefully. Either
> way, they did rule Italy for a while. I'm not sure what happened to
> reverse this.

This policy was abandoned, by Etruscans, at the beginning of the 3rd
century BC, when their cities rebelled against the interference of
Roman power. Defeated, they lost part of their territories, including
the coastal area and their harbors. The Etruscan civilization vanished
completely during the 1st century AD.

Prof. Cavalli-Sforza (?) has shown there are, these days, among people
living in Tuscany, peculiar genetic characters, much different from
the genetic characters of people living in other Italian regions,
and similar to the characters of people living in the far East (?).
So the Etruscans are hidden in Tuscany but, perhaps, still alive.

<<Tomb paintings and inscriptions have told us more of the Etruscans'
considerable role played by women. Accounts of Greek and Roman writers
give further evidence of these facts and, more importantly, they indicate
how the high status of women frightened them. Their writings express the
view that the relations between men and women and their differing
attitudes toward sex create a conflict, since strong women were seen
as a threat to the power of the state. Historian Larissa Bonfante
suggests that Rome's first "cultural shock" was that she was becoming too
much like the Etruscan city that confronted her across the Tiber and from
whom she took so much external culture - letters, the arts, and symbols of
royalty. For the Romans, the Etruscans would always represent "the others."
What we know best about the Etruscans is from their art and literature which
express the freedom and power of women in their society. Theopompus, the
Greek historian of the 4th century B.C., was startled by this. According to
his report, Etruscan women took great care of their bodies, often exercising
in the nude with men and with each other, which was not considered shameful.
They were very beautiful, and it was not uncommon for them to recline
publicly at dinner with men other than their husbands. These women liked to
drink, and they even took part in the toasting traditionally reserved for
men at Greek symposia.>>

For the Romans, the Etruscans would always represent "the others". That
is something.

s.






From gregburch at gregburch.net  Thu Mar 11 00:16:24 2004
From: gregburch at gregburch.net (Greg Burch)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 18:16:24 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults such as the extropians see
	technologyasunstoppable escalator to future prosperity, but ....
In-Reply-To: <2920-220043310225855140@M2W071.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <PMEELDEBLOLPFEFPEIBDEEOICDAA.gregburch@gregburch.net>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: natashavita at earthlink.net
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 4:59 PM
> 
> -----------------
> From: randy 
> 
> >From theregister.com:
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> What do we do now? Cults such as the extropians see technology as the
> unstoppable escalator to future prosperity, but the rest of us are
> discovering that their utopian faith has caused graver problems than
> anyone expected. 
> 
> 
> We need to set Max More, Greg Burch and Harvey Newstrom on this 
> journalist.
> I believe that the journalist has done this before.  

Natasha,

It hardly seems worthwhile.  The anti-market editorial bias of this publication is so clear that engaging the author would be little more than bear-bating.

GB, THHotA


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 11 00:19:55 2004
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 16:19:55 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] "Cults such as the extropians see technology as
	unstoppable escalator to future prosperity, but ...."
In-Reply-To: <bv5v409htu1749a08uuhrsnlpnlkh7e6jv@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <20040311001955.56424.qmail@web60505.mail.yahoo.com>


--- randy <cryofan at mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> >From theregister.com:
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> What do we do now? Cults such as the extropians see
> technology as the
> unstoppable escalator to future prosperity, but the
> rest of us are
> discovering that their utopian faith has caused
> graver problems than
> anyone expected. 


What the hell is this guy talking about? How does
extropian technophilia have anything to do with the
exportation of tech jobs offshore? That's about
corrupt corporations dictating economic policy and
nothing to do with extropianism or technology. Take a
deep breath and repeat after me:
There is no such thing as bad publicity.
There is no such thing as bad publicity.
There is no such thing as bad publicity.


=====
The Avantguardian 


"He stands like some sort of pagan god or deposed tyrant. Staring out over the city he's sworn to . . .to stare out over and it's evident just by looking at him that he's got some pretty heavy things on his mind."

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From sjvans at ameritech.net  Thu Mar 11 01:51:25 2004
From: sjvans at ameritech.net (Stephen J. Van Sickle)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 19:51:25 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Alcor Emergency
In-Reply-To: <20040311001955.56424.qmail@web60505.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040311001955.56424.qmail@web60505.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1078969885.1053.91.camel@Renfield>

http://alcor.org/legislativealert.html


March 10, 5:40 PM

To All Alcor Members and Supporters: 

Up to this point, Alcor has negotiated in good faith with Representative
Stump, attempting to draft legislation that would address his concerns
for the protection of the citizens of Arizona as well as protect the
rights of our members and patients. Mr. Stump has repeatedly delayed
negotiations while working the legislature to gather votes to bring the
bill to the house floor without our support. In open committee, Mr.
Stump pledged to work with us to create statutory definitions for
cryonics and to define the scope of oversight by the Funeral Board under
a separate entity.

In good faith, we came together with the Arizona Funeral Board and
reached agreement on the substance of the areas for which they oversight
is required. Both Rudy Thomas and Randy Bunker attended our board
meeting and confirmed that there were no substantial issues preventing
us from executing an agreement without delay. 

In spite of our conciliatory actions and assumption of good intentions
on the part of Representative Stump, he has decided to move forward with
a House vote on his bill TOMORROW (Thursday) without allowing the
affected parties to complete negotiations. Apparently, it doesn?t matter
to him that the primary parties impacted by this legislation agree that
passing new law is unnecessary when an administrative solution can
easily be achieved. Nor does it seem to matter to him that his bill is
also strongly opposed by other organ donation groups, including the
local Science Care, the Organ Donation Network, Life Legacy, and others.
Furthermore, the University of Arizona, Midwestern University, and other
academic organizations will be negatively impacted by this hasty
legislation.

I have instructed Barry Aarons to cease attempting to engage
Representative Stump and to implore every member of the House to vote
against this bill. At this time, we are asking all of our supporters to
contact each Representative in the House and urge them to vote against
this bill. Remember, it is not just members of the Health Committee who
need to be contacted, but EVERY REPRESENTATIVE IN THE HOUSE! Important:
please use the BCC: field for these mailings, so that each legislator
feels more of a sense of personal contact. 

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/MemberRoster.asp?Body=H&SortBy=1

Once again, I have attached our talking points and a letter format for
you to use. Please eMail, fax, and CALL each house member to urge them
to VOTE NO ON HB 2637 (embalmers; funeral establishments; storing
remains). Tell them your personal story and how this bill puts your life
in jeopardy. TELL THEM THAT NEITHER ALCOR, THE FUNERAL BOARD, OR THE
ORGAN DONATION NETWORK WANTS THIS BILL TO PASS!!! We believe the vote is
tomorrow, Thursday, March 11th. You must act immediately if you are to
have an impact.

Alcor tried to do the right thing. We accepted Representative Stump?s
word that he wished to work out a solution. It was he who did not act in
good faith, not Alcor. Your support is urgently needed to stop HB 2637
before it passes to the Senate and we have to begin negotiating anew.
It?s time to show him that we mean business!

Joseph Waynick
CEO/President 
Alcor Life Extension Foundation




From sjvans at ameritech.net  Thu Mar 11 02:06:56 2004
From: sjvans at ameritech.net (Stephen J. Van Sickle)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 20:06:56 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Alcor Emergency
In-Reply-To: <1078969885.1053.91.camel@Renfield>
References: <20040311001955.56424.qmail@web60505.mail.yahoo.com>
	<1078969885.1053.91.camel@Renfield>
Message-ID: <1078970816.1053.109.camel@Renfield>


This email list is easier to cut and paste.  

sjv



Here is an example of a sample letter Barry Aarons wants us to send to
the legislature. Please restrict your comments to these points to be
most effective. Thank you.

 

--jw

CEO/President

Alcor Life Extension Foundation

 

 


-----Original Message-----
From: Christen DuRoss[mailto:cduross at aaronsco.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 6:23 PM
To: lmason at azleg.state.az.us; tohaller at azleg.state.az.us;
jkjksnjr at azleg.state.az.us; jhart at azleg.state.az.us;
bwagner at azleg.state.az.us; tboone at azleg.state.az.us;
chubbs at azleg.state.az.us; jflake at azleg.state.az.us;
bkonopni at azleg.state.az.us; tcarpent at azleg.state.az.us;
cjayne at azleg.state.az.us; jallen at azleg.state.az.us;
rbarnes at azleg.state.az.us; mreagan at azleg.state.az.us;
crosati at azleg.state.az.us; phanson at azleg.state.az.us;
bstump at azleg.state.az.us; lgray at azleg.state.az.us;
dquellan at azleg.state.az.us; dgullett at azleg.state.az.us;
stully at azleg.state.az.us; barnold at azleg.state.az.us;
jnelson at azleg.state.az.us; sgallard at azleg.state.az.us;
jloredo at azleg.state.az.us; dmccune at azleg.state.az.us;
rmeza at azleg.state.az.us; kclark at azleg.state.az.us;
wstraugh at azleg.state.az.us; llandrum at azleg.state.az.us;
slaughte at azleg.state.az.us; bmiranda at azleg.state.az.us;
mbcahill at azleg.state.az.us; mthompso at azleg.state.az.us;
kjohnson at azleg.state.az.us; rpearce at azleg.state.az.us;
cdgray at azleg.state.az.us; gpierce at azleg.state.az.us;
jhuppent at azleg.state.az.us; brobson at azleg.state.az.us;
wnichols at azleg.state.az.us; syarbrou at azleg.state.az.us;
abiggs at azleg.state.az.us; efarnswo at azleg.state.az.us;
ebustama at azleg.state.az.us; cchase at azleg.state.az.us;
aaguirre at azleg.state.az.us; jcarruth at azleg.state.az.us;
malvarez at azleg.state.az.us; jburns at azleg.state.az.us;
phershbe at azleg.state.az.us; shuffman at azleg.state.az.us;
obedford at azleg.state.az.us; plopes at azleg.state.az.us;
dbradley at azleg.state.az.us; tdowning at azleg.state.az.us;
llopez at azleg.state.az.us; tprezels at azleg.state.az.us;
rgraf at azleg.state.az.us; mmcclure at azleg.state.az.us
Cc: Barry Aarons (E-mail);Jennifer Clark (E-mail);Christen DuRoss
(E-mail); joewaynick at alcor.org; tanya at alcor.org
Subject: ALCOR Urges You to Vote NO on HB2637

 

Dear Members of the House of Representatives,


Alcor Life Extension Foundation urges you to vote NO on HB2637.  This
                 bill is a solution without a problem.


While we had hoped that the sponsor would provide amendments including
appropriate definitions of cryonics and appropriate reference for
registration of a cryonics establishment with the Funeral Board, those
amendments were not forthcoming.


Even without any new legislation, even without the passage of HB2637,
the Funeral Board and Alcor Life Extension Foundation have a verbal
understanding that assures the Funeral Board will conduct oversight of
Alcor's records to ensure that Alcor maintains the dignity of its
patients.  In turn, the Funeral Board has agreed to sign a
non-disclosure statement which assures Alcor that it's patients
records will be kept confidential.  


The Funeral Board and Alcor have come to this decision amicably.  There
is no need for this legislation!  


We urge you to vote NO on HB2637.  This bill is a solution without a
problem.


Respectfully,

Barry M. Aarons




On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 19:51, Stephen J. Van Sickle wrote:
> http://alcor.org/legislativealert.html
> 
> 
> March 10, 5:40 PM
> 
> To All Alcor Members and Supporters: 
> 
> Up to this point, Alcor has negotiated in good faith with Representative
> Stump, attempting to draft legislation that would address his concerns
> for the protection of the citizens of Arizona as well as protect the
> rights of our members and patients. Mr. Stump has repeatedly delayed
> negotiations while working the legislature to gather votes to bring the
> bill to the house floor without our support. In open committee, Mr.
> Stump pledged to work with us to create statutory definitions for
> cryonics and to define the scope of oversight by the Funeral Board under
> a separate entity.
> 
> In good faith, we came together with the Arizona Funeral Board and
> reached agreement on the substance of the areas for which they oversight
> is required. Both Rudy Thomas and Randy Bunker attended our board
> meeting and confirmed that there were no substantial issues preventing
> us from executing an agreement without delay. 
> 
> In spite of our conciliatory actions and assumption of good intentions
> on the part of Representative Stump, he has decided to move forward with
> a House vote on his bill TOMORROW (Thursday) without allowing the
> affected parties to complete negotiations. Apparently, it doesn?t matter
> to him that the primary parties impacted by this legislation agree that
> passing new law is unnecessary when an administrative solution can
> easily be achieved. Nor does it seem to matter to him that his bill is
> also strongly opposed by other organ donation groups, including the
> local Science Care, the Organ Donation Network, Life Legacy, and others.
> Furthermore, the University of Arizona, Midwestern University, and other
> academic organizations will be negatively impacted by this hasty
> legislation.
> 
> I have instructed Barry Aarons to cease attempting to engage
> Representative Stump and to implore every member of the House to vote
> against this bill. At this time, we are asking all of our supporters to
> contact each Representative in the House and urge them to vote against
> this bill. Remember, it is not just members of the Health Committee who
> need to be contacted, but EVERY REPRESENTATIVE IN THE HOUSE! Important:
> please use the BCC: field for these mailings, so that each legislator
> feels more of a sense of personal contact. 
> 
> http://www.azleg.state.az.us/MemberRoster.asp?Body=H&SortBy=1
> 
> Once again, I have attached our talking points and a letter format for
> you to use. Please eMail, fax, and CALL each house member to urge them
> to VOTE NO ON HB 2637 (embalmers; funeral establishments; storing
> remains). Tell them your personal story and how this bill puts your life
> in jeopardy. TELL THEM THAT NEITHER ALCOR, THE FUNERAL BOARD, OR THE
> ORGAN DONATION NETWORK WANTS THIS BILL TO PASS!!! We believe the vote is
> tomorrow, Thursday, March 11th. You must act immediately if you are to
> have an impact.
> 
> Alcor tried to do the right thing. We accepted Representative Stump?s
> word that he wished to work out a solution. It was he who did not act in
> good faith, not Alcor. Your support is urgently needed to stop HB 2637
> before it passes to the Senate and we have to begin negotiating anew.
> It?s time to show him that we mean business!
> 
> Joseph Waynick
> CEO/President 
> Alcor Life Extension Foundation
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From support at imminst.org  Thu Mar 11 01:27:44 2004
From: support at imminst.org (support at imminst.org)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 19:27:44 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] ImmInst Action Alert - Alcor
Message-ID: <404fc090b1eaf@imminst.org>


Action Alert
***************************************
Rep. Stump has broken a promise to Alcor and has 
decided to put HB 2637 to a House vote Thur Mar 11. 

Alcor is asking members to contact ALL Representative in the 
AZ House and ask them to VOTE NO on HB 2637.  

http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=61&t=3244  



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 sjvans at ameritech.net  Thu Mar 11 02:24:44 2004
From: sjvans at ameritech.net (Stephen J. Van Sickle)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 20:24:44 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Alcor Emergency
In-Reply-To: <1078970816.1053.109.camel@Renfield>
References: <20040311001955.56424.qmail@web60505.mail.yahoo.com>
	<1078969885.1053.91.camel@Renfield>
	<1078970816.1053.109.camel@Renfield>
Message-ID: <1078971883.1053.122.camel@Renfield>

Forward:


We want to be firm, but respectful when contacting members of the
legislature. This is not the time to piss them off! We know we are
righteous; however, it?s not necessary to make enemies. We got the
funeral board on our side, we got the organ donation network to oppose
the bill. Let?s be smart. Mr. Stump?s actions have hurt him badly. We
don?t want to fall into the same trap!

 

Please pass this message on. Thank you for your support!

--jw

CEO/President
Alcor Life Extension Foundation


On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 20:06, Stephen J. Van Sickle wrote:
> This email list is easier to cut and paste.  
> 
> sjv
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an example of a sample letter Barry Aarons wants us to send to
> the legislature. Please restrict your comments to these points to be
> most effective. Thank you.
> 
>  
> 
> --jw
> 
> CEO/President
> 
> Alcor Life Extension Foundation
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christen DuRoss[mailto:cduross at aaronsco.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 6:23 PM
> To: lmason at azleg.state.az.us; tohaller at azleg.state.az.us;
> jkjksnjr at azleg.state.az.us; jhart at azleg.state.az.us;
> bwagner at azleg.state.az.us; tboone at azleg.state.az.us;
> chubbs at azleg.state.az.us; jflake at azleg.state.az.us;
> bkonopni at azleg.state.az.us; tcarpent at azleg.state.az.us;
> cjayne at azleg.state.az.us; jallen at azleg.state.az.us;
> rbarnes at azleg.state.az.us; mreagan at azleg.state.az.us;
> crosati at azleg.state.az.us; phanson at azleg.state.az.us;
> bstump at azleg.state.az.us; lgray at azleg.state.az.us;
> dquellan at azleg.state.az.us; dgullett at azleg.state.az.us;
> stully at azleg.state.az.us; barnold at azleg.state.az.us;
> jnelson at azleg.state.az.us; sgallard at azleg.state.az.us;
> jloredo at azleg.state.az.us; dmccune at azleg.state.az.us;
> rmeza at azleg.state.az.us; kclark at azleg.state.az.us;
> wstraugh at azleg.state.az.us; llandrum at azleg.state.az.us;
> slaughte at azleg.state.az.us; bmiranda at azleg.state.az.us;
> mbcahill at azleg.state.az.us; mthompso at azleg.state.az.us;
> kjohnson at azleg.state.az.us; rpearce at azleg.state.az.us;
> cdgray at azleg.state.az.us; gpierce at azleg.state.az.us;
> jhuppent at azleg.state.az.us; brobson at azleg.state.az.us;
> wnichols at azleg.state.az.us; syarbrou at azleg.state.az.us;
> abiggs at azleg.state.az.us; efarnswo at azleg.state.az.us;
> ebustama at azleg.state.az.us; cchase at azleg.state.az.us;
> aaguirre at azleg.state.az.us; jcarruth at azleg.state.az.us;
> malvarez at azleg.state.az.us; jburns at azleg.state.az.us;
> phershbe at azleg.state.az.us; shuffman at azleg.state.az.us;
> obedford at azleg.state.az.us; plopes at azleg.state.az.us;
> dbradley at azleg.state.az.us; tdowning at azleg.state.az.us;
> llopez at azleg.state.az.us; tprezels at azleg.state.az.us;
> rgraf at azleg.state.az.us; mmcclure at azleg.state.az.us
> Cc: Barry Aarons (E-mail);Jennifer Clark (E-mail);Christen DuRoss
> (E-mail); joewaynick at alcor.org; tanya at alcor.org
> Subject: ALCOR Urges You to Vote NO on HB2637
> 
>  
> 
> Dear Members of the House of Representatives,
> 
> 
> Alcor Life Extension Foundation urges you to vote NO on HB2637.  This
>                  bill is a solution without a problem.
> 
> 
> While we had hoped that the sponsor would provide amendments including
> appropriate definitions of cryonics and appropriate reference for
> registration of a cryonics establishment with the Funeral Board, those
> amendments were not forthcoming.
> 
> 
> Even without any new legislation, even without the passage of HB2637,
> the Funeral Board and Alcor Life Extension Foundation have a verbal
> understanding that assures the Funeral Board will conduct oversight of
> Alcor's records to ensure that Alcor maintains the dignity of its
> patients.  In turn, the Funeral Board has agreed to sign a
> non-disclosure statement which assures Alcor that it's patients
> records will be kept confidential.  
> 
> 
> The Funeral Board and Alcor have come to this decision amicably.  There
> is no need for this legislation!  
> 
> 
> We urge you to vote NO on HB2637.  This bill is a solution without a
> problem.
> 
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> Barry M. Aarons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 19:51, Stephen J. Van Sickle wrote:
> > http://alcor.org/legislativealert.html
> > 
> > 
> > March 10, 5:40 PM
> > 
> > To All Alcor Members and Supporters: 
> > 
> > Up to this point, Alcor has negotiated in good faith with Representative
> > Stump, attempting to draft legislation that would address his concerns
> > for the protection of the citizens of Arizona as well as protect the
> > rights of our members and patients. Mr. Stump has repeatedly delayed
> > negotiations while working the legislature to gather votes to bring the
> > bill to the house floor without our support. In open committee, Mr.
> > Stump pledged to work with us to create statutory definitions for
> > cryonics and to define the scope of oversight by the Funeral Board under
> > a separate entity.
> > 
> > In good faith, we came together with the Arizona Funeral Board and
> > reached agreement on the substance of the areas for which they oversight
> > is required. Both Rudy Thomas and Randy Bunker attended our board
> > meeting and confirmed that there were no substantial issues preventing
> > us from executing an agreement without delay. 
> > 
> > In spite of our conciliatory actions and assumption of good intentions
> > on the part of Representative Stump, he has decided to move forward with
> > a House vote on his bill TOMORROW (Thursday) without allowing the
> > affected parties to complete negotiations. Apparently, it doesn?t matter
> > to him that the primary parties impacted by this legislation agree that
> > passing new law is unnecessary when an administrative solution can
> > easily be achieved. Nor does it seem to matter to him that his bill is
> > also strongly opposed by other organ donation groups, including the
> > local Science Care, the Organ Donation Network, Life Legacy, and others.
> > Furthermore, the University of Arizona, Midwestern University, and other
> > academic organizations will be negatively impacted by this hasty
> > legislation.
> > 
> > I have instructed Barry Aarons to cease attempting to engage
> > Representative Stump and to implore every member of the House to vote
> > against this bill. At this time, we are asking all of our supporters to
> > contact each Representative in the House and urge them to vote against
> > this bill. Remember, it is not just members of the Health Committee who
> > need to be contacted, but EVERY REPRESENTATIVE IN THE HOUSE! Important:
> > please use the BCC: field for these mailings, so that each legislator
> > feels more of a sense of personal contact. 
> > 
> > http://www.azleg.state.az.us/MemberRoster.asp?Body=H&SortBy=1
> > 
> > Once again, I have attached our talking points and a letter format for
> > you to use. Please eMail, fax, and CALL each house member to urge them
> > to VOTE NO ON HB 2637 (embalmers; funeral establishments; storing
> > remains). Tell them your personal story and how this bill puts your life
> > in jeopardy. TELL THEM THAT NEITHER ALCOR, THE FUNERAL BOARD, OR THE
> > ORGAN DONATION NETWORK WANTS THIS BILL TO PASS!!! We believe the vote is
> > tomorrow, Thursday, March 11th. You must act immediately if you are to
> > have an impact.
> > 
> > Alcor tried to do the right thing. We accepted Representative Stump?s
> > word that he wished to work out a solution. It was he who did not act in
> > good faith, not Alcor. Your support is urgently needed to stop HB 2637
> > before it passes to the Senate and we have to begin negotiating anew.
> > It?s time to show him that we mean business!
> > 
> > Joseph Waynick
> > CEO/President 
> > Alcor Life Extension Foundation
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 Mar 11 03:09:12 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 19:09:12 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults such as the extropians see
	technologyasunstoppable escalator to future prosperity, but ....
In-Reply-To: <PMEELDEBLOLPFEFPEIBDEEOICDAA.gregburch@gregburch.net>
Message-ID: <20040311030912.37156.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Greg Burch <gregburch at gregburch.net> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: natashavita at earthlink.net
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 4:59 PM
> > 
> > -----------------
> > From: randy 
> > 
> > >From theregister.com:
> > 
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > What do we do now? Cults such as the extropians see technology as
> the
> > unstoppable escalator to future prosperity, but the rest of us are
> > discovering that their utopian faith has caused graver problems
> than
> > anyone expected. 
> > 
> > 
> > We need to set Max More, Greg Burch and Harvey Newstrom on this 
> > journalist.
> > I believe that the journalist has done this before.  
> 
> Natasha,
> 
> It hardly seems worthwhile.  The anti-market editorial bias of this
> publication is so clear that engaging the author would be little more
> than bear-bating.
> 
> GB, THHotA


Bear-baiting? Well, keep in mind that it is the bear that loses in the
end, for all his roaring and clawing.

The Register is also a British publication, and as such falls under
British libel and slander law. ExI may find that it could be
profitable, monetarily and publicity-wise, to sue the reporter and the
publication, especially if the reporter has done it before and been
informed of the mistake. They can't then claim they didn't know
otherwise. The article's tenor of blame also hints of malice....

=====
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! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From extropy at unreasonable.com  Thu Mar 11 03:42:57 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:42:57 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryogenics Economics- Estate Tax deferral?
In-Reply-To: <20040310160742.82805.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040309235635.02a95008@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040310221128.02990e20@mail.comcast.net>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>How is it that the Rockefellers, Kennedys, Vanderbilts, Carnegies, and
>other assorted trust fund babies I run into occasionally up here live
>off their family trusts, if they are not perpetual?

In some cases, there's one trust, and we're still within its lawful 
lifetime. In other families, a separate trust is set up for each child, or 
each person's children, at an optimal time for tax purposes, fed with money 
from another trust or from non-trust holdings.

Indefinite continuity requires an on-going commitment from the living.

I wrote:

 > That's different. Charitable trusts are exempt from the Rule of
 > Perpetuities.

Mike replied:

>At Cornish town meeting yesterday, a Rockefeller offered to buy the
>town a new police station if it gave him an old church that was just
>donated to it. He wrote a check there on his family trust (THE
>Rockefeller Trust). Don't try to tell me this isn't possible. It
>happens with these uber-rich all the time.

One of the dodges the rich get away with is creating a charitable trust and 
then influencing where the money goes. As in the story of the day, wherein 
Teresa Heinz Kerry has the Heinz Foundation give $1.5M a year to the Tides 
Center to fund anti-Bush initiatives, like the current effort to create a 
controversy over a 9/11 reference in a Bush campaign ad.

In your Rockefeller instance, the check might have been drawn on his 
personal trust or he may have drawing privileges "for charitable purposes" 
on the Rockefeller Brothers Fund or the Rockefeller Family Fund.

Yes, there are options available to the uber-rich that might be useful to a 
cryonaut. But I wouldn't count on being able to use any of them without 
uber-resources to back you up.

I wrote:

 > You could, perhaps, create a charitable trust for the benefit of
 > cryonauts *as a class*, to be spent on medical research leading
 > to reanimation, medical treatment in the form of reanimation and
 > restoration of corpsicles, and our financial relief as indigent
 > newcomers.

Mike replied:

>In these circumstances, you set up a trust to benefit members of your
>family as a class.

My guess is that if you tried, the courts would toss it out as fraudulent.

         :
>So in essence, legally speaking, you aren't 'getting it back later',
>since the legal person DAVID LUBKIN is dead, officially, and the death
>certificate says so. The guy who receives your memory, skills, etc. is
>legally only your clone. You may believe that he is you (and he may be
>believe that he is you), but the law does not.
         :

We don't have a clue as to what the legal framework will be under which 
corpsicles will be reanimated.
Perhaps, as some sf writers have speculated, we will be considered property 
or non-sentient animals, in someone's private collection.


-- David Lubkin.




From gpmap at runbox.com  Thu Mar 11 06:16:01 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 07:16:01 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cults such as the extropians
	seetechnologyasunstoppable escalator to future prosperity, but ....
In-Reply-To: <PMEELDEBLOLPFEFPEIBDEEOICDAA.gregburch@gregburch.net>
Message-ID: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGIELCCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

Well the article cites Extropians just once, hinting that Extropians are
"responsible" of the privileged status enjoyed by hightech in our society.
Here I would agree that there is no such a thing as a bad publicity as this
perception can do more good than harm.
Globalization and offshoring: both trends are unstoppable and GOOD in my
opinion. Why good? because while the negative consequences of offshoring in
the West can be repaired, the positive consequences in the developing world
are huge. Jobs will move there, and in the long run (decades) the cost of
work will level up and the competitive advantage that the developing world
has now will be lost. The net effect is good.
I think we should see ourselves and citizens of the world. If one job is
lost here and ten jobs are created there, the net effect is good. Of course,
we have to replace the job that has been lost with some other job and
develop social safety nets for the new temporary jobless.
Note that now the EU has a similar internal problem with the entry of ten
new countries where workers are equally well trained and work for much less.
There is an in teresting article on offshoring in the last issue of
Technology Review.
G.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.614 / Virus Database: 393 - Release Date: 05/03/2004



From gpmap at runbox.com  Thu Mar 11 07:22:13 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:22:13 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] CULTURE:  Did Romans ruin Greek Culture?
In-Reply-To: <244640-220043310184211623@M2W093.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGMELDCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

While I think we could find better terms than "civilization" and "culture"
for these distinctive features of the classical Roman and Greek mindsets, I
think we always had both Romans and Greeks in any society: people who
develop ideas, and people who turn ideas into reality. It is very unfrequent
that the same person can function equally well as a Roman and as a Greek. As
a Greek, I have a deep admiration for Romans: those who can choose a goal
and work monomaniacally at it until the goal has been accomplished, then
move to another goal. We Greeks often juggle with many, at time incompatible
goals, and too often do not accomplish any.
Clearly collaboration between Romans and Greeks is the way to go. But don't
underestimate the power of Greeks: I don't remember who said that men of
action are just a tool in the hands of men of thought.
G.

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of
natashavita at earthlink.net
Sent: mi?rcoles, 10 de marzo de 2004 19:42
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: [extropy-chat] CULTURE: Did Romans ruin Greek Culture?


I was just reading a couple of chapters from _The Decline of the West_ by
Oswald Spengler.  (Special ed. New York: Knopf, 1939.)  These sepcific
ideas about culture and civilization are new to me.  Apparently, according
to Spengler, civilization is the death of culture.


Chapter 5:  THE PROBLEM OF "CIVILIZATION" [24-27]

"Looked at in this way, the "Decline of the West" comprises nothing less
than the problem of Civilization. We have before us one of the fundamental
questions of all higher history. What is civilization, understood as the
organic-logical sequel, fulfillment, and finale of a culture?"

"So, for the first time, we are enabled to understand the Romans as the
successors of the Greeks, and light is projected into the deepest secrets
of the late-Classical period. What, but this, can be the meaning of the
fact--which can only be disputed by vain phrases--that the Romans were
barbarians who did not precede but closed a great development? Unspiritual,
unphilosophical, devoid of art, clannish to the point of brutality, aiming
relentlessly at tangible successes, they stand between the Hellenic Culture
and nothingness. An imagination directed purely to practical objects was
something which is not found a t all in Athens. In a word, Greek
soul--Roman intellect; and this antithesis is the differentia betwene
Culture and Civilization. Nor is it only to the Classical it applies. Again
and again there appears this type of strong-minded, completely
non-metaphysical man, and in the hands of this type lies the intellectual
and material destiny of each and every "late" period. Pure Civilization, as
a historical process, consists in a progressive exhaustion of forms that
have become inorganic or dead."

It seems that the Romans were interested in "realitiy."  And mostly
interested in portraiture and making statues that really looked like a
particular person, and usually a "famous" person.  The Greeks seemed to be
more interested in "ideals" and "beautiful man" or "athletic" man.

However, these chapters from _The Decline of the West_ make it look like
Romans were a "civilization" and Greeks were a "culture" and civilization
is the end, the death of culture.

Any thoughts?

Natasha
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.614 / Virus Database: 393 - Release Date: 05/03/2004



From eliasen at mindspring.com  Thu Mar 11 10:41:03 2004
From: eliasen at mindspring.com (Alan Eliasen)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 03:41:03 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bubble fusion--strong evidence for it.
In-Reply-To: <002e01c405b1$dafe36a0$47b81b97@administxl09yj>
References: <20040305144430.74705.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com><000901c402d3$4d117040$34ba1b97@administxl09yj>	<4049FDAC.7020909@barrera.org>
	<002e01c405b1$dafe36a0$47b81b97@administxl09yj>
Message-ID: <4050423F.6090701@mindspring.com>


   There has been evidence that this experiment has been attempted at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory and that,

   "In the review, D. Shapira and M.J. Saltmarsh report that they found "no
evidence for 2.5-MeV neutron emission"--one of the telltale products of fusion
reactions, and further research is needed.  In their response, Taleyarkhan and
colleagues report that Shapira and Saltmarsh did, in fact, detect neutron
emissions, but the reviewers had improperly calibrated their detector and
thus, misinterpreted the findings.  Taleyarkhan's group agrees that further
study is needed."

-- 
  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 eliasen at mindspring.com  Thu Mar 11 11:49:41 2004
From: eliasen at mindspring.com (Alan Eliasen)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 04:49:41 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bubble fusion--strong evidence for it.
In-Reply-To: <4050423F.6090701@mindspring.com>
References: <20040305144430.74705.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com><000901c402d3$4d117040$34ba1b97@administxl09yj>	<4049FDAC.7020909@barrera.org>	<002e01c405b1$dafe36a0$47b81b97@administxl09yj>
	<4050423F.6090701@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <40505255.1080104@mindspring.com>


Alan Eliasen wrote:

>    There has been evidence that this experiment has been attempted at Oak
> Ridge National Laboratory and that,
> 
>    "In the review, D. Shapira and M.J. Saltmarsh report that they found "no
> evidence for 2.5-MeV neutron emission"--one of the telltale products of fusion
> reactions, and further research is needed.  In their response, Taleyarkhan and
> colleagues report that Shapira and Saltmarsh did, in fact, detect neutron
> emissions, but the reviewers had improperly calibrated their detector and
> thus, misinterpreted the findings.  Taleyarkhan's group agrees that further
> study is needed."

   Sorry, I think I may have quoted a mis-dated article.  The latest results
actually have the imprimatur of the Oak Ridge researchers (at least
Saltmarsh,) and by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Purdue, and The Russian
Academy of Science, indicating that they believe to have replicated the
experiment.

   There are still many skeptics, due to the fact that neutron emissions and
gamma emissions are lumped together by the study.  The skeptics also have some
simple test variations that really should have been performed by the original
experimenters.

   http://www.rpi.edu/web/News/press_releases/2004/lahey.htm

   In any case, the latest researchers seem to be far more intellectually
honest than Pons and Fleischman, who may not have known that palladium could
absorb so much hydrogen, and that said absorption would almost exactly account
for their results, but who still make money off scamming investors for more
pointless cold fusion work.

-- 
  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 hemm at br.inter.net  Thu Mar 11 12:51:11 2004
From: hemm at br.inter.net (Henrique Moraes Machado - HeMM)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 09:51:11 -0300
Subject: [extropy-chat] CULTURE:  Did Romans ruin Greek Culture?
References: <244640-220043310184211623@M2W093.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <011601c40767$87f6f070$fe00a8c0@HEMM>

The romans used to absorb part of the culture of the people they invaded. Happened with the greeks and with the egyptians, for example.

-----Mensagem Original----- 
De: <natashavita at earthlink.net>
Para: <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Enviada em: quarta-feira, 10 de mar?o de 2004 15:42
Assunto: [extropy-chat] CULTURE: Did Romans ruin Greek Culture?


| I was just reading a couple of chapters from _The Decline of the West_ by 
| Oswald Spengler.  (Special ed. New York: Knopf, 1939.)  These sepcific
| ideas about culture and civilization are new to me.  Apparently, according
| to Spengler, civilization is the death of culture.
| 
| 
| Chapter 5:  THE PROBLEM OF "CIVILIZATION" [24-27]
| 
| "Looked at in this way, the "Decline of the West" comprises nothing less
| than the problem of Civilization. We have before us one of the fundamental
| questions of all higher history. What is civilization, understood as the
| organic-logical sequel, fulfillment, and finale of a culture?" 
| 
| "So, for the first time, we are enabled to understand the Romans as the
| successors of the Greeks, and light is projected into the deepest secrets
| of the late-Classical period. What, but this, can be the meaning of the
| fact--which can only be disputed by vain phrases--that the Romans were
| barbarians who did not precede but closed a great development? Unspiritual,
| unphilosophical, devoid of art, clannish to the point of brutality, aiming
| relentlessly at tangible successes, they stand between the Hellenic Culture
| and nothingness. An imagination directed purely to practical objects was
| something which is not found a t all in Athens. In a word, Greek
| soul--Roman intellect; and this antithesis is the differentia betwene
| Culture and Civilization. Nor is it only to the Classical it applies. Again
| and again there appears this type of strong-minded, completely
| non-metaphysical man, and in the hands of this type lies the intellectual
| and material destiny of each and every "late" period. Pure Civilization, as
| a historical process, consists in a progressive exhaustion of forms that
| have become inorganic or dead."
| 
| It seems that the Romans were interested in "realitiy."  And mostly
| interested in portraiture and making statues that really looked like a
| particular person, and usually a "famous" person.  The Greeks seemed to be
| more interested in "ideals" and "beautiful man" or "athletic" man.
| 
| However, these chapters from _The Decline of the West_ make it look like
| Romans were a "civilization" and Greeks were a "culture" and civilization
| is the end, the death of culture.



From sjvans at ameritech.net  Thu Mar 11 18:17:02 2004
From: sjvans at ameritech.net (Stephen J. Van Sickle)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:17:02 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Alcor Emergency
In-Reply-To: <1078969885.1053.91.camel@Renfield>
References: <20040311001955.56424.qmail@web60505.mail.yahoo.com>
	<1078969885.1053.91.camel@Renfield>
Message-ID: <1079029022.1054.12.camel@Renfield>


Just got word that the House floor meeting starts at 1pm MST. There is
still time to get out those emails, faxes, and phone calls.



On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 19:51, Stephen J. Van Sickle wrote:
> http://alcor.org/legislativealert.html
> 
> 
> March 10, 5:40 PM
> 
> To All Alcor Members and Supporters: 
> 
> Up to this point, Alcor has negotiated in good faith with Representative
> Stump, attempting to draft legislation that would address his concerns
> for the protection of the citizens of Arizona as well as protect the
> rights of our members and patients. Mr. Stump has repeatedly delayed
> negotiations while working the legislature to gather votes to bring the
> bill to the house floor without our support. In open committee, Mr.
> Stump pledged to work with us to create statutory definitions for
> cryonics and to define the scope of oversight by the Funeral Board under
> a separate entity.
> 
> In good faith, we came together with the Arizona Funeral Board and
> reached agreement on the substance of the areas for which they oversight
> is required. Both Rudy Thomas and Randy Bunker attended our board
> meeting and confirmed that there were no substantial issues preventing
> us from executing an agreement without delay. 
> 
> In spite of our conciliatory actions and assumption of good intentions
> on the part of Representative Stump, he has decided to move forward with
> a House vote on his bill TOMORROW (Thursday) without allowing the
> affected parties to complete negotiations. Apparently, it doesn?t matter
> to him that the primary parties impacted by this legislation agree that
> passing new law is unnecessary when an administrative solution can
> easily be achieved. Nor does it seem to matter to him that his bill is
> also strongly opposed by other organ donation groups, including the
> local Science Care, the Organ Donation Network, Life Legacy, and others.
> Furthermore, the University of Arizona, Midwestern University, and other
> academic organizations will be negatively impacted by this hasty
> legislation.
> 
> I have instructed Barry Aarons to cease attempting to engage
> Representative Stump and to implore every member of the House to vote
> against this bill. At this time, we are asking all of our supporters to
> contact each Representative in the House and urge them to vote against
> this bill. Remember, it is not just members of the Health Committee who
> need to be contacted, but EVERY REPRESENTATIVE IN THE HOUSE! Important:
> please use the BCC: field for these mailings, so that each legislator
> feels more of a sense of personal contact. 
> 
> http://www.azleg.state.az.us/MemberRoster.asp?Body=H&SortBy=1
> 
> Once again, I have attached our talking points and a letter format for
> you to use. Please eMail, fax, and CALL each house member to urge them
> to VOTE NO ON HB 2637 (embalmers; funeral establishments; storing
> remains). Tell them your personal story and how this bill puts your life
> in jeopardy. TELL THEM THAT NEITHER ALCOR, THE FUNERAL BOARD, OR THE
> ORGAN DONATION NETWORK WANTS THIS BILL TO PASS!!! We believe the vote is
> tomorrow, Thursday, March 11th. You must act immediately if you are to
> have an impact.
> 
> Alcor tried to do the right thing. We accepted Representative Stump?s
> word that he wished to work out a solution. It was he who did not act in
> good faith, not Alcor. Your support is urgently needed to stop HB 2637
> before it passes to the Senate and we have to begin negotiating anew.
> It?s time to show him that we mean business!
> 
> Joseph Waynick
> CEO/President 
> Alcor Life Extension Foundation
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From natashavita at earthlink.net  Thu Mar 11 17:48:57 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:48:57 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Alcor Emergency
Message-ID: <184670-220043411174857562@M2W064.mail2web.com>


From: Stephen J. Van Sickle 

>Just got word that the House floor meeting starts at 1pm MST. There is
>still time to get out those emails, faxes, and phone calls.

I really wish that someone had contacted Extropy Institute, and all our
email lists a week ago.

Anyway, can you simplify this by giving us *one main number to call or fax?*

Thanks,

Natasha



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




From natashavita at earthlink.net  Thu Mar 11 17:52:03 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:52:03 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Passion:  If Mel Gibson was really a Christian
Message-ID: <184670-22004341117523936@M2W048.mail2web.com>

"Gibson could make $200 mil off 'Passion'" - CNN Splash page 03/11/04

If Mel Gibson was really a Christian, wouldn't he give the $200 million to
help people who are suffering from disease, poverty, abuse, and lack of
freedom?  Would he not help people somewhere in the world?

:-(

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




From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Thu Mar 11 18:25:54 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:25:54 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Passion:  If Mel Gibson was really a Christian
References: <184670-22004341117523936@M2W048.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <LAW10-OE38JeLTVZy0H0003fa6a@hotmail.com>

Well, once you subtract the initial investment and taxes, he only would have
about $75 million  remaining. Before we go and say something like that, are
we so sure he isn;t planning on doing just that (less living expenses of
course)?

I am not a fan of Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, but
to me, Mel Gibson has at least always seemed sincere in his motives unlike
the Pat Robertsons, etc. He also has always seemed to be fairly intelligent.
Too bad someone can't build enough of a relationship with him to convert him
to atheism. :-)




----- Original Message ----- 
From: <natashavita at earthlink.net>
To: <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 11:52 AM
Subject: [extropy-chat] Passion: If Mel Gibson was really a Christian


> "Gibson could make $200 mil off 'Passion'" - CNN Splash page 03/11/04
>
> If Mel Gibson was really a Christian, wouldn't he give the $200 million to
> help people who are suffering from disease, poverty, abuse, and lack of
> freedom?  Would he not help people somewhere in the world?
>
> :-(
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 11 18:33:45 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:33:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Passion:  If Mel Gibson was really a Christian
In-Reply-To: <184670-22004341117523936@M2W048.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <20040311183345.29931.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>


--- "natashavita at earthlink.net" <natashavita at earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Gibson could make $200 mil off 'Passion'" - CNN Splash page 03/11/04
> 
> If Mel Gibson was really a Christian, wouldn't he give the $200
> million to
> help people who are suffering from disease, poverty, abuse, and lack
> of freedom?  Would he not help people somewhere in the world?

What makes you think he won't? Do you even know Mel's personal story,
about why he is as devout as he is and why he made the movie? Turns out
he was not always so handsome as he allegedly is. It's all plastic
surgery, as he was once beaten to an inch of death by a gang, had no
face left, and was nothing but a circus freak. He met a priest, who
helped him get the best plastic surgeon in Australia to help him for
free. The movie "The Man Without a Face" is based on his 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!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From sjvans at ameritech.net  Thu Mar 11 20:07:44 2004
From: sjvans at ameritech.net (Stephen J. Van Sickle)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:07:44 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Alcor Emergency
In-Reply-To: <184670-220043411174857562@M2W064.mail2web.com>
References: <184670-220043411174857562@M2W064.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <1079035664.1054.22.camel@Renfield>


We would have let everyone know last week, if we had known.  We only
found out in the early evening yesterday.  Everything was going well
until then.  They tried to slip one past us, hence the urgency of the
appeal.

See my other message about overwhelming the system.  There was no single
email or phone number.  We needed to convey our opinions to all the
representatives.  I think they got the message.  How they react to it we
will find out shortly.

-sjv


On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 11:48, natashavita at earthlink.net wrote:
> From: Stephen J. Van Sickle 
> 
> >Just got word that the House floor meeting starts at 1pm MST. There is
> >still time to get out those emails, faxes, and phone calls.
> 
> I really wish that someone had contacted Extropy Institute, and all our
> email lists a week ago.
> 
> Anyway, can you simplify this by giving us *one main number to call or fax?*
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Natasha
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From exi-info at extropy.org  Thu Mar 11 19:28:23 2004
From: exi-info at extropy.org (Extropy Institute)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:28:23 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy Institute Newsletter
Message-ID: <1011242984629.1011086851128.2058.261409@scheduler>

Extropy Institute Newsletter
Next steps for VP Summit I, Plans for II and III (03-11-04)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Greetings!

For launching a "first time" event, designing the 
infrastructure and bringing it all together, I'm pleased 
to say that Extropy Institute produced a successful 
Vital Progress Summit.

<p>  In the post-Summit wrap-up, we learned 
that there were supportive and 
encouraging comments for ExI continuing this format 
for the upcoming VP Summits II and III.  We also 
recevied a lot of pros and a few cons concerning a few 
glitches, but they were 
minor in light of the accessibility and 
workability of the infrastructure.

But before we announce the plans for the next stages 
of the VP Summits (II, and III), let's recap what 
actually occurred during ExI's February Vital Progress 
Summit I.
<p>
<b>How Many People Attended the online Summit?  
</b>164+
people attended the Summit.  This number does not 
include anyone who just stopped by to take a 
look.
<p>
<b>How long did the Summit last?</b>  We expected it 
to last 2 
weeks, giving participants enough time to come and go 
at their own leisure.  However, we did extend it one 
week, and I still am getting messages from people who 
want to get involved.
<p>
<b>What can we expect the Summit outcome or 
deliverables?</b>  That will be completed the month of 
April 
and we will have a new webpage at Extropy Institue's 
website for this.
<p>
What are the next steps?  <b><i>See below!</i></b>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
VP Summit I Recap on Principle Outcome; Plans for Summits II and III
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* Summit's Success <br>Leads to Summits<br> II and III
* What to call the Summit's Principle? <br>You decide!
* What about VP Summits <br>II and III?




Summit's Success <br>Leads to Summits<br> II and III
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ExI is taking its drafted plans for two more Summits to 
the drawing 
board.  Frankly, if the Summit had not gone well, we 
would not be 
considering more of the same.  Since it did, we are in 
the pre-planning stages for Summits II and III.



What to call the Summit's Principle? <br>You decide!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One outcome of the Summit I is to author a principle 
countering the misuse of the well-known "Precautionary 
Principle" as a rallying tool against positive uses of 
biotechnology.  So Max More asked Summit 
participants: <p> "As the VP Summit begins to formally 
reach its close (though activity will continue on the 
site and on sculpting outcomes from inputs), I think we 
need a place to gather candidates for an alternative to 
the Precautionary Principle.  Our Proactionary Principle 
should draw on all the smart 
thinking during the VP Summit to succinctly make a 
point about vigorous progress with reasonable/balanced 
caution. 
<p>
"My challenge to you: Offer a candidate version of the 
Proactionary Principle 
that manages to say essentially what needs to be said 
while remaining brief and easily digestible."

<b>Response from Reason, Reason Founder, Longevity 
Meme: </b>
<p>
"'Proactionary principle' - I do like that. A meme to keep 
working on - can't oppose the precautionary principle 
without offering something better in its place. Never 
criticise without proposing a solution, as they say. 
I always have good things to say about those who 
stand up and do what needs to be done. Proactive is 
good. A proactionary principle could say exactly the 
same thing on paper as the precautionary principle, but 
it would still be better - as the default behavior is "do" 
as opposed to 'not do.'"

<b>Response from Ben Hjink, ExI's Transhumansit 
Student 
Activist:</b>
<p>
"I had actually been ready to propose a 'Progress 
Principle' but '<b>Proactionary</b>' is MUCH less 
ambiguous.  First some concentrated content (to be 
flexibly employed): 
<br>
1. Cognitive Liberty (Center for Cog Lib and Ethics) 
<br>
2. Self-ownership (Max More) 
<br>
3. Morphological Freedom (Anders Sandburg) 
<br>
4. Basis in fallibilistic inquiry (scientific method and 
intersubjective dialog) 
<br>
5. Necessity of freedom of "Experiments in Living" for 
any progress + maintenance of "living truths" 
over "dead dogmas" (J.S. Mill) 
<br>
6. Personhood ethics from many angles (virtue, 
consequentialist, deontological) over particularly 
*inflexible* perspectives, be they sociobiological (Kass, 
E.O. Wilson), religious dogmatism (ensoulment at 
conception and command ethics), or "deep ecologist" 
fundamentalism (E.arth L.iberation F.ront). (Max More,  
others) 
<br>
7. Factoring of COSTS from delays, restrictions, and 
bans into decisions concerning any regulatory proposal. 
Mindfulness of urgent need by groups of individuals. 
Tolerance for augmentational experiments in living, be 
they ever so unpopular, that do not directly harm 
others. 
<br>
8. Pragmatic values of reason and empathy 
<br>
9. More active perspectives of "removing obstacles" to 
the cultivation and development of personal faculties 
may be woven into dialogue, but in questions of 
compulsion, J.S. Mill's values of free choice and 
personal liberty for those "in the fullness of their 
faculties" (or baseline adults) embodied in his "Harm 
Principle" generally outweighs well-intentioned but-
possibly-wrong efforts like TH Green's "positive 
freedom." 
<br>
These are merely preliminary suggestions I hope will be 
critiqued as the list is extended.

Max More responds to Ben:
<p>
You noted: 'pro- + reactive? : acting in anticipation of 
future problems, needs, or changes.' 
>From a strategic planning perspective, you can 
distinguish four approaches to the future (not counting 
the resisters): 
<br>
Reactive: planning by looking back at what already 
happened. 
Inactive: Going with the flow, swept along by events. 
Preactive: Preparing for the future. 
Proactive: Designing and creating the future. 
<br>
One reason I like 'Proactionary Principle' rather 
than 'Progress Principle' is that (apart from being more 
distinctive) the phrase distinguishes it from the more 
strenuous 'Perpetual Progress' found in the Principles of 
Extropy. Our PP should be acceptable to a wider range 
of individuals and orgs than the distinctively 
transhumanist principle in the Principles of Extropy."

Read about the Summit. >> http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=vfzomzn6.rmatvyn6.plr4mzn6.yb4rxun6.2058&p=http%3A%2F%2Fsummit.extropy.org

What about VP Summits <br>II and III?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<b>What is VP Summit II?</b>
<br>The next stage of the Summit Series while will 
focus on 
religions, featuring keynotes from a broad spectrum of 
religous beliefs.

<b>What is the Date of Summit II?</b>  
<br>It is scheduled for 
June/July, 2004.

<b>What about Summit III?</b>
<br>So far, it looks like VP Summit III will focus on 
world 
politics</b>

<b>What is the Date of Summit III?</b>  
<br>It is scheduled for October, 2004.











~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Quick Links...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Extropy Institute >> http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=vfzomzn6.rmatvyn6.nlr4mzn6.yb4rxun6.2058&p=http%3A%2F%2Fnew.extropy.org%2F
Membership >> http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=vfzomzn6.rmatvyn6.hozkwwn6.yb4rxun6.2058&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.extropy.org%2Fmembership.htm
Read Summit Material >> http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=vfzomzn6.rmatvyn6.olr4mzn6.yb4rxun6.2058&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.summit.extropy.org
How do I join ExI? >> http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=vfzomzn6.rmatvyn6.hozkwwn6.yb4rxun6.2058&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.extropy.org%2Fmembership.htm
What about email lists? >> http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=vfzomzn6.rmatvyn6.lozkwwn6.yb4rxun6.2058&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.extropy.org%2Femaillists.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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=1011242984629&m=1011086851128&ea=extropy-chat%40extropy.org 

Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe(TM)
http://ccprod.roving.com/roving/d.jsp?p=un&t=1011242984629&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/20040311/0343f44f/attachment.html>

From sjvans at ameritech.net  Thu Mar 11 20:02:28 2004
From: sjvans at ameritech.net (Stephen J. Van Sickle)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:02:28 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Alcor Emergency
In-Reply-To: <1078969885.1053.91.camel@Renfield>
References: <20040311001955.56424.qmail@web60505.mail.yahoo.com>
	<1078969885.1053.91.camel@Renfield>
Message-ID: <1079035347.1054.16.camel@Renfield>

Forward:


Alcor sincerely thanks its members for doing a great job contacting the 
Representatives of Arizona in opposition to HB2637.  Apparently, as a 
result of our collective deluge, we have overwhelmed the system.  Our 
numbers maybe low, but we have clearly made a statement to the 
Representative of Arizona.  At this point, we ask you to discontinue
making phone calls or sending email and faxes, unless you hear otherwise
from Alcor.

Thank you for you support,

Alcor Foundation









On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 19:51, Stephen J. Van Sickle wrote:
> http://alcor.org/legislativealert.html
> 
> 
> March 10, 5:40 PM
> 
> To All Alcor Members and Supporters: 
> 
> Up to this point, Alcor has negotiated in good faith with Representative
> Stump, attempting to draft legislation that would address his concerns
> for the protection of the citizens of Arizona as well as protect the
> rights of our members and patients. Mr. Stump has repeatedly delayed
> negotiations while working the legislature to gather votes to bring the
> bill to the house floor without our support. In open committee, Mr.
> Stump pledged to work with us to create statutory definitions for
> cryonics and to define the scope of oversight by the Funeral Board under
> a separate entity.
> 
> In good faith, we came together with the Arizona Funeral Board and
> reached agreement on the substance of the areas for which they oversight
> is required. Both Rudy Thomas and Randy Bunker attended our board
> meeting and confirmed that there were no substantial issues preventing
> us from executing an agreement without delay. 
> 
> In spite of our conciliatory actions and assumption of good intentions
> on the part of Representative Stump, he has decided to move forward with
> a House vote on his bill TOMORROW (Thursday) without allowing the
> affected parties to complete negotiations. Apparently, it doesn?t matter
> to him that the primary parties impacted by this legislation agree that
> passing new law is unnecessary when an administrative solution can
> easily be achieved. Nor does it seem to matter to him that his bill is
> also strongly opposed by other organ donation groups, including the
> local Science Care, the Organ Donation Network, Life Legacy, and others.
> Furthermore, the University of Arizona, Midwestern University, and other
> academic organizations will be negatively impacted by this hasty
> legislation.
> 
> I have instructed Barry Aarons to cease attempting to engage
> Representative Stump and to implore every member of the House to vote
> against this bill. At this time, we are asking all of our supporters to
> contact each Representative in the House and urge them to vote against
> this bill. Remember, it is not just members of the Health Committee who
> need to be contacted, but EVERY REPRESENTATIVE IN THE HOUSE! Important:
> please use the BCC: field for these mailings, so that each legislator
> feels more of a sense of personal contact. 
> 
> http://www.azleg.state.az.us/MemberRoster.asp?Body=H&SortBy=1
> 
> Once again, I have attached our talking points and a letter format for
> you to use. Please eMail, fax, and CALL each house member to urge them
> to VOTE NO ON HB 2637 (embalmers; funeral establishments; storing
> remains). Tell them your personal story and how this bill puts your life
> in jeopardy. TELL THEM THAT NEITHER ALCOR, THE FUNERAL BOARD, OR THE
> ORGAN DONATION NETWORK WANTS THIS BILL TO PASS!!! We believe the vote is
> tomorrow, Thursday, March 11th. You must act immediately if you are to
> have an impact.
> 
> Alcor tried to do the right thing. We accepted Representative Stump?s
> word that he wished to work out a solution. It was he who did not act in
> good faith, not Alcor. Your support is urgently needed to stop HB 2637
> before it passes to the Senate and we have to begin negotiating anew.
> It?s time to show him that we mean business!
> 
> Joseph Waynick
> CEO/President 
> Alcor Life Extension Foundation
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From astapp at fizzfactorgames.com  Thu Mar 11 19:37:52 2004
From: astapp at fizzfactorgames.com (Acy James Stapp)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 11:37:52 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Passion:  If Mel Gibson was really a Christian
Message-ID: <56BC65EB2F3963489057F7D978B5E7B7011E6841@amazemail2.amazeent.com>

A quick googling indicates this is untrue.

http://experts.about.com/q/33/976667.htm
http://www.snopes.com/glurge/noface.htm


[ -----Original Message-----
[ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org 
[ [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of 
[ Mike Lorrey
[ Sent: Thursday, 11 March, 2004 12:34
[ To: natashavita at earthlink.net; ExI chat list
[ Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Passion: If Mel Gibson was really 
[ a Christian
[ 
[ 
[ 
[ --- "natashavita at earthlink.net" <natashavita at earthlink.net> wrote:
[ > "Gibson could make $200 mil off 'Passion'" - CNN Splash 
[ page 03/11/04
[ > 
[ > If Mel Gibson was really a Christian, wouldn't he give the $200
[ > million to
[ > help people who are suffering from disease, poverty, abuse, and lack
[ > of freedom?  Would he not help people somewhere in the world?
[ 
[ What makes you think he won't? Do you even know Mel's personal story,
[ about why he is as devout as he is and why he made the movie? 
[ Turns out
[ he was not always so handsome as he allegedly is. It's all plastic
[ surgery, as he was once beaten to an inch of death by a gang, had no
[ face left, and was nothing but a circus freak. He met a priest, who
[ helped him get the best plastic surgeon in Australia to help him for
[ free. The movie "The Man Without a Face" is based on his 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!?
[ Yahoo! Search - Find what you're looking for faster
[ http://search.yahoo.com
[ _______________________________________________
[ extropy-chat mailing list
[ extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
[ http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
[ 


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Mar 11 19:44:36 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 13:44:36 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Passion:  If Mel Gibson were really a circus freak
In-Reply-To: <20040311183345.29931.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <184670-22004341117523936@M2W048.mail2web.com>
	<20040311183345.29931.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040311133950.01b7eeb0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 10:33 AM 3/11/2004 -0800, Mike wrote:

>Do you even know Mel's personal story,
>about why he is as devout as he is and why he made the movie? Turns out
>he was not always so handsome as he allegedly is. It's all plastic
>surgery, as he was once beaten to an inch of death by a gang, had no
>face left, and was nothing but a circus freak. He met a priest

I assume that Mike's pulling your leg and chuckling to himself, but of 
course this isn't true. Hasn't anyone in the USA seen the Peter Weir movie 
GALLIPOLI (1981), where the handsome young acting student Mel Gibson 
performed as a `larrikin' hero in the First World War?  See, eg, 
http://www.movieline.com/reviews/GibsonM_Gallipoli.shtml

Here's a comment from the net about that urban legend:

< Like many such forwarded stories, it has a little basis in fact, but the 
entirety of the story is fiction. The factual part is that Mel Gibson was 
beaten severely not long before auditioning for the role of Mad Max; he 
still had many of the bruises, etc. George Miller liked the look, told him 
to come back when the bruises healed, and when he did, hired him to play 
Mad Max. That's the story that both Mel Gibson and George Miller have told 
in the past. >

Damien Broderick




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Mar 11 19:57:44 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 13:57:44 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Passion:  If Mel Gibson were really a circus freak
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040311133950.01b7eeb0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <184670-22004341117523936@M2W048.mail2web.com>
	<20040311183345.29931.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
	<6.0.3.0.0.20040311133950.01b7eeb0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040311135314.01bbed90@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 01:44 PM 3/11/2004 -0600, I oops'd:

>I assume that Mike's pulling your leg and chuckling to himself, but of 
>course this isn't true. Hasn't anyone in the USA seen the Peter Weir movie 
>GALLIPOLI (1981)

Actually MAD MAX was made prior to that, in 1979. The movies I should have 
cited were SUMMER CITY (1977) and the dire TIM (1979), where Mel was cast 
as a handsome young halfwit. Hmmm. 




From neptune at superlink.net  Thu Mar 11 20:20:20 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 15:20:20 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Passion: If Mel Gibson were really a circus freak
References: <184670-22004341117523936@M2W048.mail2web.com><20040311183345.29931.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com><6.0.3.0.0.20040311133950.01b7eeb0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<6.0.3.0.0.20040311135314.01bbed90@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <00a401c407a6$476e6800$bccd5cd1@neptune>

On Thursday, March 11, 2004 2:57 PM Damien Broderick
thespike at satx.rr.com wrote:
> At 01:44 PM 3/11/2004 -0600, I oops'd:
>
>> I assume that Mike's pulling your leg and
>> chuckling to himself, but of course this
>> isn't true. Hasn't anyone in the USA seen
>> the Peter Weir movie GALLIPOLI (1981)

Of course, I have.  I was quite young when it came out -- I saw it on
DVD or VHS a few years ago -- but I seem to recall it got a good run in
the theaters here.  Okay, to be honest, I saw the trailers on TV.  I
wasn't all that aware of things at that time.  (Some of you might notice
a pattern here.:)  Decent film, but not Weir's best.  IMHO, that would
be "Picnic at Hanging Rock."  What say you?

> Actually MAD MAX was made prior to
> that, in 1979.

That too.  I liked it.  Interesting choice he gives to the villain at
the end.

> The movies I should have
> cited were SUMMER CITY (1977) and the
> dire TIM (1979), where Mel was cast
> as a handsome young halfwit. Hmmm.

I haven't seen those -- or don't remember if I did.  While handsome is
in the eye of the beholder, I can see why some would find the young and
perhaps even the mature Gibson fetching if not fanciable.

Later!

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 11 20:23:33 2004
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:23:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] CULTURE:  Did Romans ruin Greek Culture?
In-Reply-To: <244640-220043310184211623@M2W093.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <20040311202333.11907.qmail@web60510.mail.yahoo.com>


> Romans were a "civilization" and Greeks were a
> "culture" and civilization
> is the end, the death of culture.
> 
> Any thoughts?

      Natasha, I don't think that the author of your
book truly understands either culture or civilization.
Yes the Greeks had much in the way of art that Rome
was initially lacking in. But there is more to culture
than mere art. There are also customs, rituals, a
language, social institutions, and a shared history.
      The Greeks had all these things yes but they
were not the same for all Greeks everywhere until
after the rise of Greek civilization. Initially the
each Greek city state developed it's own unique
culture. For example you had the warlike and stoic
Spartans contrasted with the contemplative and
indulgent Athenians. Each of these city states
developed along a different paths until they were
forced to unite under the common banner of Alexander's
Macedonian empire. 
      Thus began the reign of Greater Greece and
within this new civilization over the years a new
common Greek meta-culture arose. It was a tasteful
melange of elements from the cultures of Athens,
Sparta, Thebes, and the rest of the city states thrown
into the stew pot of Macedonian rule with a touch of
Persian and Egyptian to spice things up a bit.
      Thus just as there is more to culture than just
art, there is more to civilization than just
engineering. Civilization is not simply the building
of bridges, roads, and walls. It is also the army and
the marketplace. The senate hall and the arena. It is
the whole set of destructive, synthetic, and
reconstructive forces that bind a disparate mix of
cultures together under a single roof.
      In this way Rome did not bring an end to Greek
culture so much as preserve and perpetuate it through
history intertwined with the other threads of the
tapestry of Roman culture. It did not "die" but
instead merged with cultures and traditions from the
far-flung corners of the Empire: Persia, Syria, Gaul,
and Punica. Culture is a color. Civilization is the
rainbow. 

=====
The Avantguardian 


"He stands like some sort of pagan god or deposed tyrant. Staring out over the city he's sworn to . . .to stare out over and it's evident just by looking at him that he's got some pretty heavy things on his mind."

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Mar 11 20:45:29 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:45:29 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] CULTURE:  Did Romans ruin Greek Culture?
In-Reply-To: <20040311202333.11907.qmail@web60510.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <244640-220043310184211623@M2W093.mail2web.com>
	<20040311202333.11907.qmail@web60510.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040311143427.01af8c40@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 12:23 PM 3/11/2004 -0800, The Avantguardian wrote:

>       Natasha, I don't think that the author of your
>book truly understands either culture or civilization.

This thread is hilarious. The apparently unrecognized name of `the author 
of [Natasha's] book' is Oswald Spengler. The book is THE DECLINE OF THE 
WEST. With Arnold Toynbee's subsequent vast A STUDY OF HISTORY, it was one 
of the two most celebrated and in some respects influential macroscale 
investigations of purported patterns in human history ever published. See, 
for some excerpts: http://www.duke.edu/~aparks/Spengler.html and on 
Toynbee: http://www.malaspina.com/site/person_1138.asp from which this grab 
is taken:

< Started in 1922 after Toynbee had absorbed Oswald Spengler's The Decline 
of the West (1918-22), when he observed Bulgarian peasants wearing fox-skin 
caps that may have resembled those worn by Xerxes' troops (as recounted in 
<http://www.malaspina.com/site/person_632.asp>Herodotus), A Study of 
History presents history as the rise and - with one exception - fall of 26 
societies, 21 of which are "civilizations", with the remaining 5 defined as 
"arrested civilizations".  He classified civilizations according to 
cultural, often religious, rather than national criteria, insisting that 
"An intelligible field of historical study is not be found within a 
national framework"[2]. Toynbee's civilizations include the "Egyptiac", 
"Hellenic" (including Roman), "Hindu", "Sinic", and "Western Christian" 
civilizations, while the "arrested civilizations" include the Spartan, 
Eskimo, and Polynesian societies. In Toynbee's view, civilization arises 
only in response to some extremely difficult set of challenges, when 
"creative minorities" inspire unprecedented effort to solve the problems 
faced by the society. These challenges may be physical, as when the Minoans 
conquered the sea; or social, as when Athens reacted to the Persian 
onslaught. The cycle of civilization comprises two major phases: a 
"universal state", such as the Roman Empire, that arises out of a time of 
troubles; and an "interregnum" dominated by a higher religion and a 
"Volkerwanderung" (migration) of barbarians in a heroic age. To Toynbee, 
only Western Christian civilization was in a thriving state, the others 
having gone through the three stages of breakdown: 1) a failure of creative 
power in the creative minority; 2) the withdrawal of allegiance to the 
ruling minority on the part of the majority; and 3) the consequent loss of 
social unity. The cycle of rise and decline was not inevitable in Toynbee's 
view: he allowed the possibility that a civilization could continue to 
respond creatively and successfully to recurring hardships. This was partly 
a reaction to Spengler's "dogmatic and deterministic" view of history as a 
series of inexorable cycles of "organic" growth and decay. >

Damien Broderick 




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Mar 11 20:52:19 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:52:19 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] more on Spengler
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040311144828.01b45558@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

amazon has some thoughts, many presumably uttered in the 1920s when the 
translation came out in English:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195066340/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/104-4124749-8598313

e.g.:

Review
"This grand panorama, this imaginative sweep, this staggering erudition, 
this Nietzschean prose, with its fine color and ringing force, mark a work 
that must endure."

-- Henry Hazlitt, New York Sun.

"Here is one of the mighty books of the century, which, sooner or later, 
will be read by all who ponder the riddle of existence... it is a truly 
monumental work, at once depressing in its pessimism and exhilarating in 
its compelling challenge to our accepted ideas."

-- Arthur D. Gayer, The Forum.

"As one reads Spengler the thought keeps recurring, ever more insistently, 
that here again is one of those universal minds which we had come to think 
were no longer possible."

-- Allen V. Peden,

St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

"Audacious, profound, crochety, absurd, exciting, and magnificent."

-- Lewis Mumford, The New Republic."With monumental learning, with an 
independence and coldness of judgment which defers nothing to great names 
or consecrated opinions, and in a style always forceful and in places 
eloquent, Spengler surveys man's cosmic march, analyzes social classes and 
the work of leaders, dissects the idea of the State... challenges the 
economic interpretation of history and appraises religion and religions, 
only to find them all, in the culture of the West, running fast to decay 
under the impetus of civilization doomed by destiny from which there is no 
escape."

-- William MacDonald, New York Times.

"Not since Nietzsche left his indelible mark upon European thought has a 
work of philosophy come out of Germany, or any other country in Europe, 
comparable in importance, brilliance and encyclopaedic knowledge with The 
Decline of the West."

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

Others might prefer Braudel or Mumford, or (like Popper, I think) find the 
whole enterprise quixotic at best and toxic at worst.

Damien Broderick 




From natashavita at earthlink.net  Thu Mar 11 21:02:14 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 16:02:14 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] CULTURE:  Did Romans ruin Greek Culture?
Message-ID: <147710-22004341121214164@M2W064.mail2web.com>


From: The Avantguardian:

 
> Any thoughts?

>>     In this way Rome did not bring an end to Greek
culture so much as preserve and perpetuate it through
history intertwined with the other threads of the
tapestry of Roman culture. It did not "die" but
instead merged with cultures and traditions from the
far-flung corners of the Empire: Persia, Syria, Gaul,
and Punica. Culture is a color. Civilization is the
rainbow. <<

I appreciated reading your summary.  I agree with you and think that
narrowing history down to "culture" vs. "civilization" in term and meaning
is a misnomer. 

Within a world where we borrow and loan ideas to and from others, how can
any one culture truly die.  Culture is a continuous merging.


Natasha

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




From scerir at libero.it  Thu Mar 11 21:23:20 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 22:23:20 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] March, 11 ?
References: <184670-220043411174857562@M2W064.mail2web.com>
	<1079035664.1054.22.camel@Renfield>
Message-ID: <000401c407af$148fb4d0$15b01b97@administxl09yj>

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/11/spain.blasts/index.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-1034019,00.html
http://news.ft.com/home/europe


From scerir at libero.it  Thu Mar 11 21:33:25 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 22:33:25 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bubble fusion--strong evidence for it.
References: <20040305144430.74705.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com><000901c402d3$4d117040$34ba1b97@administxl09yj>	<4049FDAC.7020909@barrera.org>	<002e01c405b1$dafe36a0$47b81b97@administxl09yj><4050423F.6090701@mindspring.com>
	<40505255.1080104@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <000f01c407b0$7d00a7d0$15b01b97@administxl09yj>

From: "Alan Eliasen" 

> There are still many skeptics, due to the fact that neutron emissions and
> gamma emissions are lumped together by the study.  

There is a good page here
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/503524/
 
> In any case, the latest researchers seem to be far more intellectually
> honest than Pons and Fleischman, [...]

There was a problem: Fleischmann was a famous scientist, member of the 
Royal Society. 


From natashavita at earthlink.net  Thu Mar 11 21:41:06 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 16:41:06 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] CULTURE:  
Message-ID: <410-2200434112141620@M2W090.mail2web.com>

Just in case anyone would like to read one of the chapters of the Werner
abridged edition of Spengler's _The Decline of the West_  (from the
translation by Charles Francis Atkinson. New York: oxford University Press
c199 [1926, 1928, 1932]. xxxx,415, xvix

here you go -

http://www.duke.edu/~aparks/SPENG7.html

Natasha

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




From natashavita at earthlink.net  Thu Mar 11 22:06:17 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 17:06:17 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] more on Spengler
Message-ID: <191690-22004341122617527@M2W044.mail2web.com>


From: Damien Broderick 

Excellent links. Thanks.

>Others might prefer Braudel or Mumford, or (like Popper, I think) find the 
>whole enterprise quixotic at best and toxic at worst.

Yup.

Natasha

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




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Mar 11 22:28:49 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 16:28:49 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Arabic newspaper says al-Qaeda claims responsibility
In-Reply-To: <40505255.1080104@mindspring.com>
References: <20040305144430.74705.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
	<000901c402d3$4d117040$34ba1b97@administxl09yj>
	<4049FDAC.7020909@barrera.org>
	<002e01c405b1$dafe36a0$47b81b97@administxl09yj>
	<4050423F.6090701@mindspring.com> <40505255.1080104@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040311162447.01b63ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

Actually it seems plausible:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/12/1078594534473.html


Arabic newspaper says al-Qaeda claims responsibility

By Maamoun Youssef
March 12, 2004 - 8:26AM

The Arabic newspaper Al-Quds al-Arabi said today it had received a claim of 
responsibility for the Madrid train bombings issued by The Brigade of Abu 
Hafs al-Masri in the name of al-Qaeda.

The claim received by email at the paper's London offices said the 
brigade's "death squad" had penetrated "one of the pillars of the crusade 
alliance, Spain."

"This is part of settling old accounts with Spain, the crusader, and 
America's ally in its war against Islam," the claim said.
====================

But is anyone else eagerly awaiting these headlines?


Arabic newspaper says al-Qaeda claims responsibility for crucifixion of Jesus

Arabic newspaper says al-Qaeda claims responsibility for Pompei lava deaths

Arabic newspaper says al-Qaeda claims responsibility for extinction of 
dinosaurs 




From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com  Thu Mar 11 22:33:18 2004
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 17:33:18 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Passion: If Mel Gibson was really a Christian
Message-ID: <Law9-F17cxXzLs1noUv00041b6b@hotmail.com>

I know he gives at least 10% so I'm sure some of the money will go to 
ridding the world of disease and suffering. I don't think being a good 
Christian involves giving away all worldly possessions (maybe strict 
buddhist or something).

BAL

>From: "natashavita at earthlink.net" <natashavita at earthlink.net>
>To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>Subject: [extropy-chat] Passion:  If Mel Gibson was really a Christian
>Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:52:03 -0500
>
>"Gibson could make $200 mil off 'Passion'" - CNN Splash page 03/11/04
>
>If Mel Gibson was really a Christian, wouldn't he give the $200 million to
>help people who are suffering from disease, poverty, abuse, and lack of
>freedom?  Would he not help people somewhere in the world?
>
>:-(
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>mail2web - Check your email from the web at
>http://mail2web.com/ .
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

_________________________________________________________________
One-click access to Hotmail from any Web page ? download MSN Toolbar now! 
http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/



From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com  Thu Mar 11 22:37:06 2004
From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 17:37:06 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Passion: If Mel Gibson was really a Christian
Message-ID: <Law9-F76LoU2gOHpM2y00005ca5@hotmail.com>

That is an untrue urban legend. You can read about it here: 
http://www.snopes.com/glurge/noface.htm

BAL

>From: Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
>To: natashavita at earthlink.net, ExI chat list 
><extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Passion:  If Mel Gibson was really a Christian
>Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:33:45 -0800 (PST)
>
>
>
>What makes you think he won't? Do you even know Mel's personal story,
>about why he is as devout as he is and why he made the movie? Turns out
>he was not always so handsome as he allegedly is. It's all plastic
>surgery, as he was once beaten to an inch of death by a gang, had no
>face left, and was nothing but a circus freak. He met a priest, who
>helped him get the best plastic surgeon in Australia to help him for
>free. The movie "The Man Without a Face" is based on his 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

_________________________________________________________________
Frustrated with dial-up? Lightning-fast Internet access for as low as 
$29.95/month. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200360ave/direct/01/



From natashavita at earthlink.net  Thu Mar 11 23:23:29 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 18:23:29 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Enough of Spengler, here's a joke
Message-ID: <410-220043411232329678@M2W054.mail2web.com>

Oh, what the hell.  Enough of Spengler :-)

Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film. 
For Sale: Parachute. Only used once, never opened, small stain. 
What happens if you get scared half to death twice? 
If you choke a smurf, what color does it turn? 
Energizer Bunny Arrested! Charged With Battery. 
I poured spot remover on my dog, now he's gone. 
I used to have an open mind but my brains kept falling out. 
I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder. 
How do you tell if you've run out of invisible ink? 
Join the Army, meet interesting people, kill them. 
Why do psychics have to ask for your name? 
Wear short sleeves!Support your right to bear arms. 
OK. So what's the speed of dark? 
All those who believe in psychokinesis raise my hand. 



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




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 12 01:04:23 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 17:04:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] PRECOG: I now charge for services...
In-Reply-To: <00a401c407a6$476e6800$bccd5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <20040312010423.60159.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040311/D818D0GO2.html

I stated about a year ago that it would come out that certain anti-war
liberals would be exposed as agents of anti-american groups or governments....

=====
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! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From naddy at mips.inka.de  Fri Mar 12 01:20:05 2004
From: naddy at mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 01:20:05 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Arabic newspaper says al-Qaeda claims
	responsibility
References: <20040305144430.74705.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
	<4050423F.6090701@mindspring.com> <40505255.1080104@mindspring.com>
	<6.0.3.0.0.20040311162447.01b63ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <c2r385$r15$1@kemoauc.mips.inka.de>

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

> Arabic newspaper says al-Qaeda claims responsibility

We simply don't know yet.  Any idiot can claim responsibility.

Since it hit Spain, ETA is a natural suspect and in fact everybody
there seems to naturally have assumed that in fact it was ETA.

Arguments pro ETA responsibility:
* We're in the final days of campaining before the parliamentary
  elections.  ETA likes to remind everybody of their existence at
  those times.
* Supposedly--this may be a rumor--the explosive used was just the
  same ETA uses.
* Supposedly the intelligence services had given warnings that an
  attack was to be expected.

Contra ETA responsibility:
* ETA prefers targeted assassination of representatives of the Spanish
  state (members of government, police, Guardia Civil, etc.) and
  political opponents.  This mass killing of civilians is very unlike
  ETA.
* When they occasionally target the public, ETA tends to give
  half an hour advance notice that they have planted a bomb.  Their
  goal is terror, not deaths.
* The number of individual attacks that had to be coordinated for
  this, the sheer scale of things is way beyond anything ETA has
  ever demonstrated.

The attack appears to have been carried out with time-triggered
bombs.  It was not a suicide attack.

I would imagine that there are some ETA-associated voices on the
net, but I'm only aware of Basque Red <URL:http://www.basque-red.net/>
and they are silent, "last update: March 10".

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          naddy at mips.inka.de


From naddy at mips.inka.de  Fri Mar 12 01:24:24 2004
From: naddy at mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 01:24:24 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: March, 11 ?
References: <184670-220043411174857562@M2W064.mail2web.com>
	<1079035664.1054.22.camel@Renfield>
	<000401c407af$148fb4d0$15b01b97@administxl09yj>
Message-ID: <c2r3g8$r15$2@kemoauc.mips.inka.de>

scerir <scerir at libero.it> wrote:

> http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/11/spain.blasts/index.html
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-1034019,00.html
> http://news.ft.com/home/europe

Far from complete, but to provide some perspective:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          naddy at mips.inka.de


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 12 01:25:50 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 17:25:50 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Arabic newspaper says al-Qaeda claims
	responsibility
In-Reply-To: <c2r385$r15$1@kemoauc.mips.inka.de>
Message-ID: <20040312012550.8227.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>

They found a vehicle with detonators, a Quran, and other arabic writing
in it.....

--- Christian Weisgerber <naddy at mips.inka.de> wrote:
> Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> > Arabic newspaper says al-Qaeda claims responsibility
> 
> We simply don't know yet.  Any idiot can claim responsibility.
> 
> Since it hit Spain, ETA is a natural suspect and in fact everybody
> there seems to naturally have assumed that in fact it was ETA.
> 
> Arguments pro ETA responsibility:
> * We're in the final days of campaining before the parliamentary
>   elections.  ETA likes to remind everybody of their existence at
>   those times.
> * Supposedly--this may be a rumor--the explosive used was just the
>   same ETA uses.
> * Supposedly the intelligence services had given warnings that an
>   attack was to be expected.
> 
> Contra ETA responsibility:
> * ETA prefers targeted assassination of representatives of the
> Spanish
>   state (members of government, police, Guardia Civil, etc.) and
>   political opponents.  This mass killing of civilians is very unlike
>   ETA.
> * When they occasionally target the public, ETA tends to give
>   half an hour advance notice that they have planted a bomb.  Their
>   goal is terror, not deaths.
> * The number of individual attacks that had to be coordinated for
>   this, the sheer scale of things is way beyond anything ETA has
>   ever demonstrated.
> 
> The attack appears to have been carried out with time-triggered
> bombs.  It was not a suicide attack.
> 
> I would imagine that there are some ETA-associated voices on the
> net, but I'm only aware of Basque Red
> <URL:http://www.basque-red.net/>
> and they are silent, "last update: March 10".
> 
> -- 
> Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                         
> naddy at mips.inka.de
> _______________________________________________
> 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! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Fri Mar 12 01:59:19 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:59:19 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Parenting: Are there any secular Summer Camps?
Message-ID: <Law10-OE22HUoU63AUD000450ea@hotmail.com>

As many of you know, I recently acquired custody of my two wonderful daughters. They are 9 and 7 years old. Lately they have been asking about the opportunity to go to summer camp. 

Personally, I would love to send them to a summer camp for a week or two. Some of my fondest memories are from summer camp. But I am having trouble locating a camp for them. Each one I find seems to have a goal of indoctrinating the children into the Christian faith. Some go as far as to have 2-3 hours of bible study per day! 

Was it like this when I was a kid? I don;t remember it so. Both  the salvation army and YMCA have programs, but...well, here's a copy of the YMCA Mission statement:
OUR MISSION:
The YMCA of Southwestern Indiana, Inc., following the example of Jesus Christ, responds to community needs by serving all people, especially youth, through programs that promote healthy spirit, mind, and body.

Isn;t there a camp where kids can just have fin and learn some things rather than having to worry about all that hellfire and brimstone?

I considered Space Camp, but they are too young to go alone so I would "have" to go. Unfortunately, it is $379 per person! I am in Southern Indiana, so the Gulf, East and west Coasts are all out of the question. It has to be in the midwest. 

I didn;t know if someone might have had this same problem in the past and might know of a decent place. Any ideas? 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040311/441477ab/attachment.html>

From dan at 3-e.net  Fri Mar 12 02:26:06 2004
From: dan at 3-e.net (Daniel Matthews)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 13:26:06 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Passion:  If Mel Gibson was really a Christian
In-Reply-To: <200403120128.i2C1Scc30013@tick.javien.com>
References: <200403120128.i2C1Scc30013@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <200403121326.06553.dan@3-e.net>

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:28 pm, extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org wrote:
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:33:45 -0800 (PST)
> From: Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
<SNIP>
> What makes you think he won't? Do you even know Mel's personal story,
> about why he is as devout as he is and why he made the movie? Turns out
> he was not always so handsome as he allegedly is. It's all plastic
> surgery, as he was once beaten to an inch of death by a gang, had no
> face left, and was nothing but a circus freak. He met a priest, who
> helped him get the best plastic surgeon in Australia to help him for
> free. The movie "The Man Without a Face" is based on his life.

That is not true at all!

He was mauled by a giant wombat that was owned by a bloke who was angry with 
Mel for not sharing a can of beer with him one Saturday, at a barbecue, after 
a football match.








From extropy at unreasonable.com  Fri Mar 12 02:44:11 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 21:44:11 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Parenting: Are there any secular Summer Camps?
In-Reply-To: <Law10-OE22HUoU63AUD000450ea@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040311211836.08afcac0@mail.comcast.net>

Kevin asked:

         :
>Isn;t there a camp where kids can just have fin and learn some things 
>rather than having to worry about all that hellfire and brimstone?
>
>I considered Space Camp, but they are too young to go alone so I would 
>"have" to go. Unfortunately, it is $379 per person! I am in Southern 
>Indiana, so the Gulf, East and west Coasts are all out of the question. It 
>has to be in the midwest.
>
>I didn;t know if someone might have had this same problem in the past and 
>might know of a decent place. Any ideas?

Get a copy of Peterson's Summer Opportunities for Kids & Teenagers 2004. 
$30 list, $21 from amazon. 1,500 large pages describing a few thousand 
summer options with reasonable topic and geographic indices.

I suggest doing what I did with my daughter, when she wanted to go to camp. 
I bought the book, then made it her responsibility to use the book and the 
web to find places she was interested in. Once she'd narrowed it down, she 
presented her preferences to me. I let her request camp brochures and 
videos and write in the Peterson book.

Of course, you might want to give them constraints (like cost and distance) 
so they don't fall in love with something they could have known up front 
you would say no to.

If you don't feel that either or both is up to this, you could do it with 
them. Either way, use the situation as an opportunity for them to take 
responsibility for a substantial project. You could coach them on planning, 
research, thinking things through, critically evaluating each place's 
marketing hype, etc.


-- David Lubkin.




From sentdev at hotmail.com  Fri Mar 12 03:54:08 2004
From: sentdev at hotmail.com (George Dvorsky)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 22:54:08 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] TransVision 2004 Call for Proposals
Message-ID: <BAY2-F141CORymxRy0c00034f38@hotmail.com>

This is a reminder to get going on your proposals if you hope to speak or 
present at TV04 in August. Check out the Website for more information:
http://www.transhumanism.org/tv/2004/

Confirmed keynote speakers to date: Howard Bloom & Steve Mann. We've also 
got Aubrey de Grey, Tsubasa, Natasha, Nick Bostrom, John Smart, James 
Hughes, and hopefully Stelarc (I'm currently in discussions with him, but it 
looks good).

*****

Call for Proposals
Timeline

    * Submission deadline: June 1, 2004.
    * Notification of acceptance: July 1, 2004.
    * Preregistration deadline: July 10, 2004.

What to include

Include all of the following information in a two-page proposal for your 
presentation:

    * Title of presentation.
    * Type of presentation (i.e. talk, performance, exhibit, video, etc.).
    * Program track to which topic relates:
          o Transhuman Art and Culture
          o Transhuman Science and Technology
          o Transhuman Ethics, Law, and Politics
          o Other (see list of suggested topics below)
    * Objective(s) of the presentation.
    * Description of the content and format (300 words or less).
    * Abstract (25 to 50 words) for inclusion in the conference program.
    * Presentation space requirements, media to be used and audiovisual 
equipment needed (if any).
    * Designated contact person (only one per proposal).
    * Complete name, title, organization, address, phone and fax numbers, 
and email address for each presenter.
    * Brief biographical sketch (50 to 100 words) of each presenter.

Submission

Please submit your proposals electronically to World Transhumanist 
Association Secretary James Hughes, PhD, at james.hughes at trincoll.edu. If 
necessary, you may submit your conference proposal to Dr. Hughes by mailing 
it to him at this address:

Trinity College
71 Vernon St.
Hartford CT
06106

You may also fax it to Dr. Hughes at 860-297-4079.

Please send the paper the presentation is based on if it is already written.
Notification

After notification of acceptance of your paper, all presenters (at least one 
per presentation) will be required to preregister for the conference. 
Presenters not registered by June 1, 2004 will not be included in the 
program.

For more information, contact the conference chair, George Dvorsky, at 
george at betterhumans.com.
Proposal selection criteria

Proposals will be selected based on the following criteria:

    * A clear and concise description of the proposed presentation.
    * Relevance to conference goals and objectives.
    * Evidence of presenter experience with topic.
    * Completion of all information requested.

Publication of proceedings

If your presentation is accepted, you are strongly encouraged to submit it 
as an electronic text by June 1, 2004. Electronic contributions will be 
considered for one of the following publication venues:

    * Academic papers will be considered for publication in the Journal of 
Evolution and Technology.
    * Non-academic essays and talks will be considered for publication in 
the online magazine Transhumanity.
    * Some of the audio, graphic and film material will appear in the WTA's 
online gallery of transhumanist art.
    * Session abstracts and information about the presenters also will be 
included on the site.

Taping of the proceedings

Conference panels and presentations will be audiotaped, and in some cases 
videotaped, and made available on the Web.
Suggested topics
Transhuman Art and Culture

    * Transhuman expressions: speculative fiction, film, music, performance 
art, body modification and enhancement, fashion and cosmetics, computer 
imaging and graphic art.
    * Defining transhuman and posthuman art.
    * Promoting transhuman art and culture.
    * Life extension in speculative fiction.
    * Transhumanist undercurrents in science fiction.
    * The future of sexuality, gender and the family under the impact of 
transhuman technologies.
    * Minding the generation gap: cultural implications for a deeply 
multi-generational society.
    * Exploring alternative institutions and societies.
    * Automation, income security and the future of capitalism.
    * The rise of virtual communities and the digital self.
    * The death of privacy: living in a transparent society.
    * Event horizon: looking beyond the Singularity.
    * The postmodern posthuman: Debating the limits to knowledge.
    * Biosemiotics and the future of communication.
    * Maintaining cultural health through memetic engineering.

Transhuman Science and Technology

    * I, cyborg: Enhancement technologies in the age of the cyborg.
    * To wear or not to wear: debating the use of implants and wearables.
    * The rise of the cyborg citizen..
    * Understanding and dealing with the anti-Borg bias.
    * Our sexy posthuman future: the possibilities of cyber, virtual and 
remote sex.
    * Nanobot: nanomedicine and the cyborg.
    * Imagining the cyborg in art and fiction.
    * From disabled to superman: The effects of transhuman technologies on 
the disabled.
    * Neural interfaces and the diminishing distinction between flesh and 
machine.
    * Defining AI: changing conceptions of intelligence, consciousness and 
the self.
    * Combating aging: The emergence of biogerontology.
    * Crossing species boundaries and the future of transgenics.
    * Working to prevent a runaway artificial superintelligence.

Transhuman Ethics, Law and Politics

    * The future of personhood ethics: what is a "human" and does it matter?
    * Can humans and posthumans coexist?
    * Ethical and policy issues in germline engineering.
    * The evolving struggle for reproductive rights.
    * Responding to Carl Elliot's American Medicine Meets the American 
Dream.
    * Rethinking the doctor-patient relationship in the age of robotics, AI 
and nanomedicine.
    * Managing societies and economies in the age of automation.
    * The privacy risks of biometric and bioinformatic technologies.
    * Regulating death: what will the cryonics industry be like in 25 years?
    * Possible futures: utopian or dystopian?

_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the MSN Premium and get 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 mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 12 04:09:52 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 20:09:52 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Parenting: Are there any secular Summer Camps?
In-Reply-To: <Law10-OE22HUoU63AUD000450ea@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20040312040952.66371.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>

I would try to find some alternatives through the Unitarian
Universalists. 
http://search.looksmart.com/p/browse/us1/us317836/us317912/us53720/us145534/us62482/us10031128/


--- Kevin Freels <kevinfreels at hotmail.com> wrote:
> As many of you know, I recently acquired custody of my two wonderful
> daughters. They are 9 and 7 years old. Lately they have been asking
> about the opportunity to go to summer camp. 
> 
> Personally, I would love to send them to a summer camp for a week or
> two. Some of my fondest memories are from summer camp. But I am
> having trouble locating a camp for them. Each one I find seems to
> have a goal of indoctrinating the children into the Christian faith.
> Some go as far as to have 2-3 hours of bible study per day! 
> 
> Was it like this when I was a kid? I don;t remember it so. Both  the
> salvation army and YMCA have programs, but...well, here's a copy of
> the YMCA Mission statement:
> OUR MISSION:
> The YMCA of Southwestern Indiana, Inc., following the example of
> Jesus Christ, responds to community needs by serving all people,
> especially youth, through programs that promote healthy spirit, mind,
> and body.
> 
> Isn;t there a camp where kids can just have fin and learn some things
> rather than having to worry about all that hellfire and brimstone?
> 
> I considered Space Camp, but they are too young to go alone so I
> would "have" to go. Unfortunately, it is $379 per person! I am in
> Southern Indiana, so the Gulf, East and west Coasts are all out of
> the question. It has to be in the midwest. 
> 
> I didn;t know if someone might have had this same problem in the past
> and might know of a decent place. Any ideas? >
_______________________________________________
> 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! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 12 04:11:19 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 20:11:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Parenting: Are there any secular Summer Camps?
In-Reply-To: <Law10-OE22HUoU63AUD000450ea@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20040312041119.75373.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>

alternatively, try any of the other categories:
http://search.looksmart.com/p/browse/us1/us317836/us317912/us53720/us145534/us62482/


--- Kevin Freels <kevinfreels at hotmail.com> wrote:
> As many of you know, I recently acquired custody of my two wonderful
> daughters. They are 9 and 7 years old. Lately they have been asking
> about the opportunity to go to summer camp. 
> 
> Personally, I would love to send them to a summer camp for a week or
> two. Some of my fondest memories are from summer camp. But I am
> having trouble locating a camp for them. Each one I find seems to
> have a goal of indoctrinating the children into the Christian faith.
> Some go as far as to have 2-3 hours of bible study per day! 
> 
> Was it like this when I was a kid? I don;t remember it so. Both  the
> salvation army and YMCA have programs, but...well, here's a copy of
> the YMCA Mission statement:
> OUR MISSION:
> The YMCA of Southwestern Indiana, Inc., following the example of
> Jesus Christ, responds to community needs by serving all people,
> especially youth, through programs that promote healthy spirit, mind,
> and body.
> 
> Isn;t there a camp where kids can just have fin and learn some things
> rather than having to worry about all that hellfire and brimstone?
> 
> I considered Space Camp, but they are too young to go alone so I
> would "have" to go. Unfortunately, it is $379 per person! I am in
> Southern Indiana, so the Gulf, East and west Coasts are all out of
> the question. It has to be in the midwest. 
> 
> I didn;t know if someone might have had this same problem in the past
> and might know of a decent place. Any ideas? >
_______________________________________________
> 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! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Mar 12 05:04:37 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 21:04:37 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] new sports again
In-Reply-To: <200403121326.06553.dan@3-e.net>
Message-ID: <000501c407ef$846de7f0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

> Daniel Matthews:
... 
> He was mauled by a giant wombat that was owned by a bloke who 
> was angry with Mel...

Must have been a combat wombat.

{8^D

I've been missing in action for the past few weeks, but
that means I have a bunch of new ideas to post that have
been storing up in my brain and fermenting.

Last Saturday I was at the Daytona 200 watching the
bikes scream past.  It started me thinking about a
topic I have posted before: our sports are so mature
that they have become boring, even the thrilling ones
like motorcycle racing.  We need new sports.  Tomorrow
morning I am heading out to Barstow Taxifornia to 
watch the robot races.  Wouldn't it be cool to rig
motorcycles to race themselves around a track like
they have at Daytona?  Would not thousands of yahoos
pay good money to watch robobikes race?  All racing
strategies that we know would need to be rethought.
That would be kewallllll!  {8^D

Check this out, videos of a robo-bike:

http://www.ghostriderrobot.com/videos.htm

That video of the bike balancing while standing still,
is this wicked cool or what?

We need new games.  Robofootball?  Robopolo?

spike




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Mar 12 05:36:02 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 23:36:02 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] new sports again
In-Reply-To: <000501c407ef$846de7f0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <200403121326.06553.dan@3-e.net>
	<000501c407ef$846de7f0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040311233216.01bf9b50@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 09:04 PM 3/11/2004 -0800, Spike kazoomed:

>We need new games.  Robofootball?  Robopolo?

For the robopoloi?

Governed by robopoloticians?

Such as Robopolonious?

Damien Brobopolorick 




From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Mar 12 05:38:42 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 21:38:42 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Parenting: Are there any secular Summer Camps?
In-Reply-To: <20040312040952.66371.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000001c407f4$47e01920$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

> Parenting: Are there any secular Summer Camps?
> 
> 
> I would try to find some alternatives through the Unitarian
> Universalists...

If a Muslim zealot gives his life as a martyr for his
faith, he gets 72 virgins in heaven.  What does a
Unitarian Universalist martyr get?

spike



From joe at barrera.org  Fri Mar 12 05:47:05 2004
From: joe at barrera.org (Joseph S. Barrera III)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 21:47:05 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Parenting: Are there any secular Summer Camps?
In-Reply-To: <000001c407f4$47e01920$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <000001c407f4$47e01920$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <40514ED9.7050507@barrera.org>

Spike wrote:

>  If a Muslim zealot gives his life as a martyr for his faith, he gets
>  72 virgins in heaven.

The bad news is, they have to *stay* virgins.

- Joe



From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Mar 12 05:55:26 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 21:55:26 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] new sports again
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040311233216.01bf9b50@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <000c01c407f6$9e283180$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

Just think of this: you know the geeks would
pay good money to watch robots play the tired
old sports, football, soccer, basketball, baseball,
motorcycle racing.  I would.  So why not polo?
The very idea of mechanical devices riding horses
has a wacky coolness about it, a kind of ironic
twist, right?  We have people riding machines,
so why not machines riding horses?  Im sure the
PETA people wouldnt care for the idea a damn
bit, but it would hafta be fun to watch.  To help
the mechanical riders see the ball (or puck?) they 
could make it of something radioactive such as...
polonium.  {8^D 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org 
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of 
> Damien Broderick
> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 9:36 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] new sports again
> 
> 
> At 09:04 PM 3/11/2004 -0800, Spike kazoomed:
> 
> >We need new games.  Robofootball?  Robopolo?
> 
> For the robopoloi?
> 
> Governed by robopoloticians?
> 
> Such as Robopolonious?
> 
> Damien Brobopolorick 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Mar 12 05:57:31 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 23:57:31 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Parenting: SU(5)
In-Reply-To: <000001c407f4$47e01920$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <20040312040952.66371.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
	<000001c407f4$47e01920$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040311235446.01b11cc0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 09:38 PM 3/11/2004 -0800, Soike wondered theorewardingly:
>
> > I would try to find some alternatives through the Unitarian
> > Universalists...
>
>If a Muslim zealot gives his life as a martyr for his
>faith, he gets 72 virgins in heaven.  What does a
>Unitarian Universalist martyr get?

It's rather more abstract, naturally: their desires are satisfied by the 
mathematical equivalence operations of Special Unitary symmetry Group(5).

Damien Broderick 




From gpmap at runbox.com  Fri Mar 12 06:00:24 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 07:00:24 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Arabic newspaper says al-Qaeda
	claimsresponsibility
In-Reply-To: <c2r385$r15$1@kemoauc.mips.inka.de>
Message-ID: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBAEDECBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

It does not look like ETA, for all the reasons you mention below. Of course,
they may have changed strategy. Or, perhaps they (whoever they were) did
give a warning that was not taken in to account.

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Christian
Weisgerber
Sent: 12 March 2004 02:20
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Arabic newspaper says al-Qaeda
claimsresponsibility


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

> Arabic newspaper says al-Qaeda claims responsibility

We simply don't know yet.  Any idiot can claim responsibility.

Since it hit Spain, ETA is a natural suspect and in fact everybody
there seems to naturally have assumed that in fact it was ETA.

Arguments pro ETA responsibility:
* We're in the final days of campaining before the parliamentary
  elections.  ETA likes to remind everybody of their existence at
  those times.
* Supposedly--this may be a rumor--the explosive used was just the
  same ETA uses.
* Supposedly the intelligence services had given warnings that an
  attack was to be expected.

Contra ETA responsibility:
* ETA prefers targeted assassination of representatives of the Spanish
  state (members of government, police, Guardia Civil, etc.) and
  political opponents.  This mass killing of civilians is very unlike
  ETA.
* When they occasionally target the public, ETA tends to give
  half an hour advance notice that they have planted a bomb.  Their
  goal is terror, not deaths.
* The number of individual attacks that had to be coordinated for
  this, the sheer scale of things is way beyond anything ETA has
  ever demonstrated.

The attack appears to have been carried out with time-triggered
bombs.  It was not a suicide attack.

I would imagine that there are some ETA-associated voices on the
net, but I'm only aware of Basque Red <URL:http://www.basque-red.net/>
and they are silent, "last update: March 10".

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          naddy at mips.inka.de
---
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



From gpmap at runbox.com  Fri Mar 12 06:20:44 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 07:20:44 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Human dignity, life and death
Message-ID: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBIEDECBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

A bit of common sense, and of calling things by their name:
They will talk of Human Nature and Human Dignity. But the most distinctive
feature of human nature is our trying to overcome limitations and achieve
previously unattainable goals. This is the source of our civilizationa.
And human dignity is to be found in the struggle. Who has more dignity: one
who meekly accepts things as they are, or one who tries to change them into
something better. Even if (s)he fails, (s)he has achieved dignity in the
process.
Death gives meaning to life: then please kill yourself now, it is the only
sensible things that you can do. This is a meaningless sentence, how can it
be taken seriously by anyone?
---
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



From gpmap at runbox.com  Fri Mar 12 06:33:51 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 07:33:51 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] PRECOG: I now charge for services...
In-Reply-To: <20040312010423.60159.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBGEDFCBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

Mike, you should always takw whatever you read with a a bit of healthy
skepticism. Even if this particular news item is true, so what? Statistics
tells you that in any group large enough there must be a couple of black
sheeps. Do you really believe that in the pro-war camp there have been no
collusions with Iraq?

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey
Sent: 12 March 2004 02:04
To: ExI chat list
Subject: [extropy-chat] PRECOG: I now charge for services...


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040311/D818D0GO2.html

I stated about a year ago that it would come out that certain anti-war
liberals would be exposed as agents of anti-american groups or
governments....

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
---
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



From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Mar 12 07:12:51 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 23:12:51 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Enough of Spengler, here's a joke
In-Reply-To: <410-220043411232329678@M2W054.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <000001c40801$6f20b320$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

> natashavita at earthlink.net
> Subject: [extropy-chat] Enough of Spengler, here's a joke
>  
> Oh, what the hell.  Enough of Spengler :-)
> 
> Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film.

I have a photographic memory.  Not only that, it creates
digital photographs.  Unfortunately it has only one pixel.
The resulting JPEGs compress very nicely.  But they are
kinda boring.
 
If a horse gets a severe muscular cramp, does he have a Charleyhuman?

If we get robo-bike racing at Daytona, what would they
spray all over the place instead of champaign on the
winner's podium?  WD-40?

Or what if there were robopolo matches and the horses
started bucking the robots off their backs, but the
programmers and coded their machines that when the
machine is bucked off the horse, they climb right back
on the horse.  This could go on for days.

This DARPA grand challenge robot race Saturday is sponsored
by the US military, and you know what they must have in
mind: to eventually replace most of the soldiers with
robots.  Even so, military tradition must be honored of 
course, so if most of the students at the academy are robots,
how will they haze each other?

If we have segway tug-of-war with bikinis tied together
in back and the sport is eventually dominated by robo-riders,
would it still have the same...  same what?  Would we put
Luddites in the gak pit?

Who is Spengler?  Does he ride horses?  

spike 



From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Mar 12 07:18:02 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 23:18:02 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] predictions for the robot races
In-Reply-To: <410-220043411232329678@M2W054.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <000301c40802$28419540$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

Im heading out in the morning to watch the
robot races.  Anyone wish to speculate on the
outcome?  I predict that the million dollar
prize will not be claimed this year, that no
team will cross the line in under 10 hours.
I further predict that no team will cross
the finish line at all this year: all the
bots will meet some untimely end somewhere
along the 200 mile course.

spike



From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Mar 12 10:04:57 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:04:57 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] predictions for the robot races
In-Reply-To: <000301c40802$28419540$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <410-220043411232329678@M2W054.mail2web.com>
	<000301c40802$28419540$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20040312100457.GK18046@leitl.org>

On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:18:02PM -0800, Spike wrote:

> Im heading out in the morning to watch the
> robot races.  Anyone wish to speculate on the
> outcome?  I predict that the million dollar
> prize will not be claimed this year, that no

I agree with that.

> team will cross the line in under 10 hours.
> I further predict that no team will cross
> the finish line at all this year: all the
> bots will meet some untimely end somewhere
> along the 200 mile course.

That also appears likely. It takes a good human driver to meet the
requirements, I assume designers will push for speed, which will result in a
high probability of accident.

In case the race becomes an institution, the objections *will* be met at the
next race, or the next after that.

-- 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/20040312/a8c0109a/attachment.bin>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 12 16:26:16 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:26:16 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] predictions for the robot races
In-Reply-To: <000301c40802$28419540$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20040312162616.20116.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>

I would bet that at least one makes it in under 15 hours.

--- Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> Im heading out in the morning to watch the
> robot races.  Anyone wish to speculate on the
> outcome?  I predict that the million dollar
> prize will not be claimed this year, that no
> team will cross the line in under 10 hours.
> I further predict that no team will cross
> the finish line at all this year: all the
> bots will meet some untimely end somewhere
> along the 200 mile course.
> 
> spike
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 12 16:34:15 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:34:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] new sports again
In-Reply-To: <000501c407ef$846de7f0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20040312163415.27486.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> Last Saturday I was at the Daytona 200 watching the
> bikes scream past.  It started me thinking about a
> topic I have posted before: our sports are so mature
> that they have become boring, even the thrilling ones
> like motorcycle racing.  We need new sports.  Tomorrow
> morning I am heading out to Barstow Taxifornia to 
> watch the robot races.  

Spike: Are you bringing a video camera? Since this is a government
sponsored race, are the broadcast rights open?

> Wouldn't it be cool to rig
> motorcycles to race themselves around a track like
> they have at Daytona?  Would not thousands of yahoos
> pay good money to watch robobikes race?  All racing
> strategies that we know would need to be rethought.
> That would be kewallllll!  {8^D

Nope. Geeks would watch, but that is only because we anthromorphize on
our toys. Part of sport is the risk of blood on the ground, and animal
blood on the ground is out of the question for anybody but southern
rednecks and Spaniards. So, unless you can build cyborgs, I doubt such
sports would get as much airplay.

Now, I'm wondering who watched "Tripping the Rift" last night on Sci-Fi
Channel? This episode featured a sport of chainsaw weilding athletes
playing a game that is a combination of basketball, Aztec hip-ball, and
Texas Chainsaw Massacre. This show is pretty funny, a combination of
Jetsons, Space Balls, Simpsons, and The Man Show. Not for kids.

=====
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! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Mar 12 16:35:53 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 17:35:53 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] predictions for the robot races
In-Reply-To: <20040312162616.20116.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <000301c40802$28419540$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
	<20040312162616.20116.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040312163553.GB18046@leitl.org>

On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 08:26:16AM -0800, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> I would bet that at least one makes it in under 15 hours.

The rules have now been watered down

	http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,62608,00.html

it's now pretty useless to predict what is a moving target.

-- 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/20040312/6ef6efe8/attachment.bin>

From spike66 at comcast.net  Fri Mar 12 17:15:46 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:15:46 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] new sports again
In-Reply-To: <20040312163415.27486.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <001c01c40855$a8fcaaf0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


> Spike: Are you bringing a video camera?

ja.

> Since this is a government
> sponsored race, are the broadcast rights open?

Check it.  See ya Sunday night.  spike


http://www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge/media/qid_results4.pdf



From hal at finney.org  Fri Mar 12 20:10:27 2004
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:10:27 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] predictions for the robot races
Message-ID: <200403122010.i2CKARf24257@finney.org>

The Foresight Exchange (Idea Futures) game is giving about 1 in 3 chances
that the prize will be awarded (i.e. a vehicle will finish in 10 hours).

http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=RbtCar

DARPA announced this morning that 15 teams will compete,

http://www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge/media/qid_results5.pdf

Only 7 managed to actually complete the qualifying course at the speedway
in Fontana but apparently the rules never actually said that they had
to finish it.  I think the other 8 did at least manage to get partway
around.

It's a sequential start, with the first vehicle, the one from CMU, going
out at 6:15 PST tomorrow morning.  I don't know what the intervals are
after that.

http://www.grandchallenge.org is supposed to have live updates from the
race tomorrow, including a map that will show where each vehicle is.

The Louisiana team has an amusing and colorful blog at
http://www.cajunbotjournal.com/site.php which describes the event
from the point of view of one of the underdogs.  CMU has a blog at
http://www.redteamracing.org/racelogs.htm which presents the view from
the opposite side of the standings.

Some observers describe the mood among the CMU entrants as being sheer
terror of the wrath of the team leader "Red" Whittaker if they don't win.
Among other things, I gather that the students' grades depend on the
outcome (or at least, they have been led to believe that).  Whittaker
writes the blog, and here is how he concludes today's entry:

   There is no more practice, just impeccable execution.

   Saturday will be a lot of dirt, speed, and brutality.

   We can win this. Spare nothing. Victory or demise.

That last was probably "victory or death" but he decided to tone it
down a little, it was too scary in print.  He sounds more like a general
ordering his troops into battle than a professor instructing his students.

So anyway, CMU is apparently determined to beat the odds, and if fear
can trump physics, maybe they'll do it.

Hal


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Mar 12 20:31:34 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 14:31:34 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics Legislation in Arizona?
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040311235446.01b11cc0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <20040312040952.66371.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
	<000001c407f4$47e01920$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
	<6.0.3.0.0.20040311235446.01b11cc0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040312143014.01bb6878@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

The latest I can find on the Alcor site says:

< March 11, 2004: HB 2637 passed the house floor vote after an additional 
amendment was offered by Mr. Stump which also passed. A copy of this 
amendment is not currently available but an announcement from Alcor is 
expected tomorrow. >

Anyone got an update?

Damien Broderick




From sjvans at mailhost.mil.ameritech.net  Fri Mar 12 20:53:38 2004
From: sjvans at mailhost.mil.ameritech.net (sjvans at mailhost.mil.ameritech.net)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:53:38 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics Legislation in Arizona?
Message-ID: <410-220043512205338784@M2W083.mail2web.com>




>Anyone got an update?

Real Soon Now

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




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Mar 12 21:02:02 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:02:02 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics Legislation in Arizona?
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040312143014.01bb6878@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <20040312040952.66371.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
	<000001c407f4$47e01920$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
	<6.0.3.0.0.20040311235446.01b11cc0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<6.0.3.0.0.20040312143014.01bb6878@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040312145825.01b1fc20@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 02:31 PM 3/12/2004 -0600, I quoted the Alcor site:

>< A copy of this amendment is not currently available

This seems to be it, but it doesn't seem especially comforting:

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/46leg/2r/adopted/h%2E2637%2Dhealth%2Edoc%2Ehtm&DocType=A

unless this is:


Strike lines 13 through 43

Page 2, strike lines 1 through 36





From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 12 22:49:10 2004
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 14:49:10 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Human dignity, life and death
In-Reply-To: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBIEDECBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>
Message-ID: <20040312224910.26260.qmail@web60001.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <gpmap at runbox.com> wrote:

"They will talk of Human Nature and Human Dignity.
But the most distinctive feature of human nature is
our trying to overcome limitations and achieve
previously unattainable goals. This is the source of
our civilization.

And human dignity is to be found in the struggle.
Who has more dignity: one who meekly accepts things as
they are, or one who tries to change them into
something better."

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

I was outside one night, walking beneath the stars,
reflecting on Luddite warnings about "losing our
humanity".  I looked out into the vastness of the
universe, and--marvelous notion that it is--back in
time as well, and asked myself a question: "This
humanity, what is it?  The essential human nature,
what is it?  What to be human?  What's at the core?"

Now, don't get me wrong, what I came up with is not to
be taken as a comprehensive answer, but rather a tidy
little truism?  Like a shiny pebble found on a remote
and nameless beach, gathered between thumb and
forefinger, rubbed affectionately, and
acknowledged--greeted really--one bit of stardust to
another.

We are creatures--patterns of awareness, actually--who
strive to forge our own destiny.

Patterns of awareness that strive to forge their own
destiny.  

YMMV.

Best, Jeff Davis

      "We don't see things as they are, 
             we see them as we are." 
                        Anais Nin




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 13 05:43:41 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 21:43:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] New Hampshire Trusts
Message-ID: <20040313054341.88981.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>

In regards to my prior comments about the perpetuity of New Hampshire
trusts as well as the ability to roll any and all trust assets, etc.
into a new trust, I present the following:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXVII/293-B/293-B-9.htm

" 293-B:9 Existence of New Hampshire Investment Trust. ? 
    I. A New Hampshire investment trust shall exist as a separate legal
entity. 
    II. Except to the extent otherwise provided in the governing
instrument of the New Hampshire investment trust, the New Hampshire
investment trust shall have perpetual existence. 
    III. Except to the extent otherwise provided in the governing
instrument of a New Hampshire investment trust, the death, incapacity,
dissolution, termination or bankruptcy of a beneficial owner shall not
result in the termination or dissolution of a New Hampshire investment
trust. "

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXVII/293-B/293-B-7.htm

"293-B:7 Management of a New Hampshire Investment Trust
II. A governing instrument may contain any provision relating to the
management of the business or investment affairs of the New Hampshire
investment trust, and the rights, duties and obligations of the
trustees, beneficial owners and other persons, which is not contrary to
any provision or requirement of this chapter and, without limitation: 
..
(h) May provide for the present or future creation of more than one New
Hampshire investment trust, including the creation of a future New
Hampshire investment trust to which all or any part of the assets,
liabilities, profits or losses of any existing New Hampshire investment
trust will be transferred, and for the conversion of beneficial
interests in an existing New Hampshire investment trust, or series
thereof, into beneficial interests in the separate New Hampshire
investment trust, or series thereof. "

It turns out that the comments about limitations on perpetuities based
on common law applies to common law trusts, and not statutory trusts
such as described here. This statute recognises the pre-existence of
common law trusts and does not seek to supplant them, but instead seeks
to provide some benefits (like perpetuity) that common law trusts do
not enjoy.

This being said, since a NHIT's existence owes itself to the existence
of the State of New Hampshire, the elimination of said government, or
this statute, could be expected to be a true terminating event on the
life of a NHIT. The NHIT organizing bylaws could require that in the
event that the NHIT authorizing statute ceases to exist, that the trust
is to be rolled into a common law trust.

It thus appears that NH Investment Trusts are a superior investment
instrument for cryonauts to preserve assets into the distant future.

Should Alcor find that Arizona becomes untenable for further cryonics
work without onerous regulation intended to eliminate the practice of
cryonics, I think that New Hampshire would be very welcoming to Alcor.
I have discussed this situation with a good friend who works for
Governor Craig Benson, and he has said that he is confident that Alcor
would be welcome here.

I also have a possible location that would be ideal for long term
storage of cryonauts which would provide security even against close
nuclear strikes.... as well as a location at Manchester International
Airport for processing of airlifted clients.

Feel free to pass this on to other cryonics lists and fora.


=====
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! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com


From support at imminst.org  Sat Mar 13 06:11:43 2004
From: support at imminst.org (support at imminst.org)
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 00:11:43 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] ImmInst Update - Alcor & HB 2637
Message-ID: <4052a61fd5092@imminst.org>

Immortality Institute ~ For Infinite Lifespans
*********************
Mission: End the Blight of Involuntary Death
Basic Members: 1308 - Full Members: 68


Alcor Chat - Sun Mar 14 @ 8 PM Eastern
*********************
ImmInst members discuss Alcor & HB 2637
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=63&t=3259


Audio - Cryonics Debate
*********************
House Session & Health Committee on Alcor & HB 2637
http://www.l5news.org/alcor/


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


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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 13 06:52:29 2004
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 22:52:29 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Enough of Spengler, here's a joke
In-Reply-To: <000001c40801$6f20b320$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20040313065229.54559.qmail@web60507.mail.yahoo.com>



advertising agency = insecurities broker

:)



=====
The Avantguardian 


"He stands like some sort of pagan god or deposed tyrant. Staring out over the city he's sworn to . . .to stare out over and it's evident just by looking at him that he's got some pretty heavy things on his mind."

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 13 08:23:11 2004
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 00:23:11 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Human dignity, life and death
In-Reply-To: <20040312224910.26260.qmail@web60001.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040313082311.66422.qmail@web60509.mail.yahoo.com>

> --- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <gpmap at runbox.com> wrote:
> 
> "They will talk of Human Nature and Human Dignity.
> But the most distinctive feature of human nature is
> our trying to overcome limitations and achieve
> previously unattainable goals. This is the source of
> our civilization.
> 
* I would posit since we are each, to greater or
lesser extent, capable of striving to overcome
limitations by ourselves, civilization can be more
precisely attributed to our love for one another and
our fear of being alone. Moreover all that lives
strives against limitations, otherwise zoos would not
need metal bars. It is not unique to the human
condition but perhaps it is noble in whatever species
it occurs.
      My thoughts on what truly distinguishes humanity
from the rest of creation is that we too can create.
In this we are each the universe in a microcosm. We
are the universe looking at itself in a telescope,
microscope, or mirror asking what is this all about
and the question we should be asking is what am I all
about? For if we don't answer this question then all
other questions are irrelevant.
   
> --- Jeff Davis <jrd1415 at yahoo.com> wrote

> We are creatures--patterns of awareness,
> actually--who
> strive to forge our own destiny.

Yes, this is closer to what we are. We are stardust
and rain kindled into fiery dance of love and fear by
sunlight: cosmic beings. We each have approximately 5
X 10^9 km of DNA in us and this is greater than the
radius of Neptune's orbit. If the DNA of every human
on earth were stretched end to end, the thread of
humanity would extend 3.1 million light years. In
order to forge our destiny, we must decide that we
have one and that only we can prevent ourselves from
fufilling it.

Fear not.
Love is.

 

=====
The Avantguardian 


"He stands like some sort of pagan god or deposed tyrant. Staring out over the city he's sworn to . . .to stare out over and it's evident just by looking at him that he's got some pretty heavy things on his mind."

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


From bradbury at blarg.net  Fri Mar 12 16:01:18 2004
From: bradbury at blarg.net (bradbury)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:01:18 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] SCI: Bio and nano progress
Message-ID: <e0b10581986f369ddf1fc1e095a9adbf@www.blargmail.com>

Science Daily has a number of interesting articles today.

1. Scientists have found that the regulatory region of the gene HNF4A
which regulates a number of other genes particularly in the liver
and pancreas contains a number of variants in various populations
that may predispose one to type 2 diabetes.  (So now we are
getting close to being able to test for predispositions for a
major source of premature death).  Previously gene variants
were known that caused small numbers of cases of diabetes but
this may be one of the first major players.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040312090024.htm

2. Scientists have identified a second gene involved in regulating
when wheat flowers.  These genes VRN1 and VRN2 are what make wheat
so adaptable to various climates (allowing both summer and winter
wheat).  They have manipulated VRN2 to allow transgenic winter wheat
to flower more than a month earlier than it normally would.  This
may have interesting impacts if global warming does develop in a
serious way and our ability to predict long term climate trends
continues to improve (e.g. farmers can plant wheat strains targeted
towards specific annual climate predictions).

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040312085923.htm

3. And last but not least a group at Berkeley is using STMs
to stick single potassium atoms onto buckyballs.  Molecular
nanoelectronics is getting a little bit closer and Smalley's
room (in which is sits saying "but, but, but...") is getting a
little bit smaller.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040312085324.htm

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040312/2a769af3/attachment.html>

From katy.pinto at wanadoo.fr  Wed Mar 10 21:50:15 2004
From: katy.pinto at wanadoo.fr (katy pinto)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 01:50:15 +0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] asking for informations
Message-ID: <E9F22024-72DC-11D8-8FC5-000A9579A2B4@wanadoo.fr>

I don't receive since a fewmonths the extropians digest about a very 
ineresting forum
Can you explain to me this problem
Am I yet on your e-mail list
Did this forum disapeared. There were some quarrels between persons but 
i was very fond about the global reflexion
Thank you to answer to me
In this forum, there was sometimes messages from Jacques Dupasquier , a 
french person like me.
Sorry for my bad english !
Have a good day
katy pinto



From james.mcgrath at earthlink.net  Sun Mar  7 18:00:23 2004
From: james.mcgrath at earthlink.net (James McGrath)
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 10:00:23 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy and schizophrenia
Message-ID: <410-2200430718023281@earthlink.net>

Extropic thinking and action (which principles I have arrived at independently) is the cure for schizophrenia.
More has done a fine job of expounding these principles and he pre-dates my discoveries. Some information about me is available at the following site:

http://home.earthlink.net/~james.mcgrath

I fully intend to become an active extropian, but first I am an American.

James McGrath
james.mcgrath at earthlink.net
Why Wait? Move to EarthLink.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040307/3f8e977d/attachment.html>

From megao at sasktel.net  Sat Mar 13 22:36:58 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:36:58 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] SCI: Bio and nano progress
References: <e0b10581986f369ddf1fc1e095a9adbf@www.blargmail.com>
Message-ID: <40538D09.804C969E@sasktel.net>

I find particularly interesting the broad range of buckyball structures
in development.
They may become  useful for both electonics as well as drugs or later as
complex bioactive molecules perhaps.
---active core/buckyball membrane/multifunctional simple to complex
attached groups.

"Pharmer Mo from LA North, Eh"
Morris Johnson



bradbury wrote:

> Science Daily has a number of interesting articles today.
>
> 1. Scientists have found that the regulatory region of the gene HNF4A
> which regulates a number of other genes particularly in the liver
> and pancreas contains a number of variants in various populations
> that may predispose one to type 2 diabetes.  (So now we are
> getting close to being able to test for predispositions for a
> major source of premature death).  Previously gene variants
> were known that caused small numbers of cases of diabetes but
> this may be one of the first major players.
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040312090024.htm
>
> 2. Scientists have identified a second gene involved in regulating
> when wheat flowers.  These genes VRN1 and VRN2 are what make wheat
> so adaptable to various climates (allowing both summer and winter
> wheat).  They have manipulated VRN2 to allow transgenic winter wheat
> to flower more th an a month earlier than it normally would.  This
> may have interesting impacts if global warming does develop in a
> serious way and our ability to predict long term climate trends
> continues to improve (e.g. farmers can plant wheat strains targeted
> towards specific annual climate predictions).
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040312085923.htm
>
> 3. And last but not least a group at Berkeley is using STMs
> to stick single potassium atoms onto buckyballs.  Molecular
> nanoelectronics is getting a little bit closer and Smalley's
> room (in which is sits saying "but, but, but...") is getting a
> little bit smaller.
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040312085324.htm
>
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20040313/f68d7a9e/attachment.html>

From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Sun Mar 14 00:07:46 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 17:07:46 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Re: geek [Asperger's Syndrome?]
Message-ID: <4053A252.573C3B52@mindspring.com>

on 12/3/04 09:52 pm, Jack Kolb at wrote:

Yeah: well, how many of you owned an IBM Displaywriter (with 8 inch 
diskettes)?  I did  (minus the printer that was attached to it: I used the
one at school).  Wrote my first book on it.  Paying for it nearly put me in 
a debtor's prison.  So there {grin}.

Jack Kolb
Dept. of English, UCLA
 
Was that in the late '70s?  The Army unit I was in while waiting for my
resignation to process had one of those that they used to fill out OERs
and such.  They got about 12 pages on one 8-inch disk.

Couldn't afford one, myself.  Rumor mill had it that they cost about 12
grand.

Ed Tyler

With the printer, it would have been about that amount, Ed.  If I remember, I
(ultimately) paid about about 7 grand.  I guess, looking back, I don't regret
it: I got a lot of use out of it.

Actually the first computer I ever used was an old DEC-10; we had an outlet in
our department.  It was left over from some social science research project. 

Jack Kolb
Dept. of English, UCLA

In response to 'geeks' and the definition, in part, given by their interests and
behaviors, I wonder how many 'geeks' have Asperger's Syndrome?


-- 
"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 neptune at superlink.net  Sun Mar 14 04:14:54 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 23:14:54 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pentagon-Sponsored Robot Race Ends As All Entries
	Break Down
Message-ID: <018601c4097a$e84c6f80$5fcd5cd1@neptune>

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/darpa_race_040313.htm
l

Coverup?  What if they succeeded and the Pentagon doesn't want us to
know?:)

BTW, looks like the Pentagon is either using a bigger meter or a smaller
mile.  1500 meters < 1 mile in my book.

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sun Mar 14 17:16:46 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 09:16:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] RISKS: hazard comparisons
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403140854410.10453-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


The NY Times Book Review has a good article on a couple of
good sources with respect to the risks we face with regard
to infectious diseases.  Presumably everyone with an extropic
perspective should always be balancing their external risks
(ranging from infectious diseases to asteroids).

'The Great Influenza' and 'Microbial Threats to Health': Virus Alert
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/14/books/review/14GEWENT.html?pagewanted=print

If you (personally) do not have a "Plan B" with regard to such
scenarios you are standing at the craps tables in Las Vegas
rolling the dice.

(As a side note, though I do not have the reference handy there seems
to have been a panel recommendation as to how to deal with asteroids
in the U.K. recently that the government has chosen to ignore.)

And worth noting, at least in the U.S., are recent editorials
that automobile accidents kill ~120 people per day followed
by the flu (Source: NY Times editorial 3/13/04 by N. Kristof [1]).
Of course ~50 people per year killed prematurely due terrorism
(based on U.S. Japanese/Al Queda attack rates over the last
century) are hard to compare with hundreds of people per day due
to a failure to enact good safety standards for transportation
methods and produce solutions for influenza.   (For example I've
never seen a comparison of research-funding per death from
automobile accidents, cancer, heart disease and influenza.)

Robert

1. 117 Deaths Each Day, Nicholas D. Kristof, 13 Mar 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/13/opinion/13KRIS.html





From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 14 19:12:58 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 11:12:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pentagon-Sponsored Robot Race Ends As All Entries
	Break Down
In-Reply-To: <018601c4097a$e84c6f80$5fcd5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <20040314191258.50254.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>

Actually, it is such a small amount less (40-50 feet) that it is used
in track competititon as a replacement for the mile sprint.

--- Technotranscendence <neptune at superlink.net> wrote:
>
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/darpa_race_040313.htm
> l
> 
> Coverup?  What if they succeeded and the Pentagon doesn't want us to
> know?:)
> 
> BTW, looks like the Pentagon is either using a bigger meter or a
> smaller
> mile.  1500 meters < 1 mile in my book.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dan
> http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat


=====
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! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com


From eliasen at mindspring.com  Sun Mar 14 20:22:21 2004
From: eliasen at mindspring.com (Alan Eliasen)
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:22:21 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pentagon-Sponsored Robot Race Ends As All Entries
	Break Down
In-Reply-To: <20040314191258.50254.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040314191258.50254.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4054BEFD.7060306@mindspring.com>


> --- Technotranscendence <neptune at superlink.net> wrote:
>>BTW, looks like the Pentagon is either using a bigger meter or a
>>smaller
>>mile.  1500 meters < 1 mile in my book.

Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Actually, it is such a small amount less (40-50 feet) that it is used
> in track competititon as a replacement for the mile sprint.


Actually, it's not even close... a mile is exactly 1609.344 meters.

   They need Frink:
http://futureboy.homeip.net/frinkdocs/

-- 
  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 mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 14 20:22:35 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 12:22:35 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] 10th Planet Discovered
Message-ID: <20040314202235.36247.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8968352%255E29098,00.html

Named Sudna, it is 2000 km dia and 3 billion miles past Pluto..

=====
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! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com


From joe at barrera.org  Sun Mar 14 20:42:49 2004
From: joe at barrera.org (Joseph S. Barrera III)
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 12:42:49 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] 10th Planet Discovered
In-Reply-To: <20040314202235.36247.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040314202235.36247.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4054C3C9.5070006@barrera.org>

By my count it's at least the 14th planet discovered...

- Joe :-)



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 14 20:52:04 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 12:52:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pentagon-Sponsored Robot Race Ends As All Entries
	Break Down
In-Reply-To: <4054BEFD.7060306@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <20040314205204.67415.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Alan Eliasen <eliasen at mindspring.com> wrote:
> 
> > --- Technotranscendence <neptune at superlink.net> wrote:
> >>BTW, looks like the Pentagon is either using a bigger meter or a
> >>smaller
> >>mile.  1500 meters < 1 mile in my book.
> 
> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > Actually, it is such a small amount less (40-50 feet) that it is
> used
> > in track competititon as a replacement for the mile sprint.
> 
> 
> Actually, it's not even close... a mile is exactly 1609.344 meters.
> 

See, for some reason, I keep thinking a meter is 3.49 feet.

=====
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! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Mon Mar 15 01:30:12 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 12:30:12 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] asking for informations
References: <E9F22024-72DC-11D8-8FC5-000A9579A2B4@wanadoo.fr>
Message-ID: <001b01c40a2d$0ff5f580$412b2dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>

From: "katy pinto" <katy.pinto at wanadoo.fr>

Hi Katy,

> Am I yet on your e-mail list

I saw your post to the list from Australia yesterday.

>..There were some quarrels between persons

Yeah sometimes. Folks do disagree on stuff.

> but i was very fond about the global reflexion

Me too.

> In this forum, there was sometimes messages from Jacques Dupasquier , a
> french person like me.

Yes.

> Sorry for my bad english !

Its not too bad. Mine's worse sometimes and its the only language I speak
;-)

> Have a good day

You too.

- Brett Paatsch




From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Mon Mar 15 02:04:48 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 13:04:48 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] RISKS: hazard comparisons
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403140854410.10453-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <003301c40a31$e4f8c380$412b2dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>

From: "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com>


> ...Presumably everyone with an extropic
> perspective should always be balancing their external risks
> (ranging from infectious diseases to asteroids).

"Always" seems a tad too much to me Robert, but I know where
your coming from I think.

> 'The Great Influenza' and 'Microbial Threats to Health': Virus Alert
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/14/books/review/14GEWENT.html?pagewanted=prin
t
>
> If you (personally) do not have a "Plan B" with regard to such
> scenarios you are standing at the craps tables in Las Vegas
> rolling the dice.

If I am in Las Vegas right now I'm more confused than I thought ;-)

With regards to risk assessment I'm still working on Plan A, its
real hard to spread risk optimally over a personal life span of
uncertain duration with so many variables and unknowns.

When one is doing risk assessment on a project or on someone else
one can list assumptions explicitly and review them periodically - I find
this harder to do with life span projections which seem to be necessary
for personal risk amortization.

> (As a side note, though I do not have the reference handy there
> seems to have been a panel recommendation as to how to deal
> with asteroids in the U.K. recently that the government has chosen
> to ignore.)

Asteroids are non-partisan and don't differentiate voter preferences
highly in any given electoral period. They aren't lonely phenomenon
in that respect unfortunately.

Regards,
Brett Paatsch



From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Mon Mar 15 03:22:28 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 21:22:28 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] ASTRO: Water on Mars
Message-ID: <LAW10-OE49Qdl3cadN70000d87a@hotmail.com>


I know there has been some debate about whether or not there ever was running water on Mars and recent evidence supports this. I have never heard any mention of actual water vapor. Then today I read an article where it mentions water vapor in terns of how much is there, not whether or not it exists. Has water vapor been proven to exist there, or did I miss something? Here are the quote and the article:
"None of Spirit's astronomy images are part of the rover's primary mission, but by taking more of them, scientists hope to learn something about the amount of dust and water vapor in the nighttime atmosphere of Mars."



http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/03/12/mars.earth/index.html


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040314/2b2a6e81/attachment.html>

From neptune at superlink.net  Mon Mar 15 04:47:19 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 23:47:19 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] ASTRO: Water on Mars
References: <LAW10-OE49Qdl3cadN70000d87a@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <00a901c40a48$9a08af40$3ccd5cd1@neptune>

Well, where do the water-ice clouds floating over Mars come from?:)
  From: Kevin Freels 
  To: ExI chat list 
  Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 10:22 PM
  Subject: [extropy-chat] ASTRO: Water on Mars



  I know there has been some debate about whether or not there ever was running water on Mars and recent evidence supports this. I have never heard any mention of actual water vapor. Then today I read an article where it mentions water vapor in terns of how much is there, not whether or not it exists. Has water vapor been proven to exist there, or did I miss something? Here are the quote and the article:
  "None of Spirit's astronomy images are part of the rover's primary mission, but by taking more of them, scientists hope to learn something about the amount of dust and water vapor in the nighttime atmosphere of Mars."

  http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/03/12/mars.earth/index.html


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


  _______________________________________________
  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/20040314/be88f364/attachment.html>

From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Mon Mar 15 05:07:59 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 21:07:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ASTRO: Water on Mars
In-Reply-To: <LAW10-OE49Qdl3cadN70000d87a@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403142057220.21904-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Kevin asked a question about water vapor on Mars.

I believe you should google on water/Mars/climate and look for an article
by Bruce Moomaw.  I think a month or two ago he went to an in depth
conference on the current understanding and wrote at length about it.

Apparently Mars may go through both orbital cycles (in terms of
distance from the sun) as well as shifts in its spin axis that
create rather different climates over long time scales (millions
of years?).  The result is that the "ice" caps tend to melt
and relocate their position on the planet.  During such events
there would tend to be a lot of water vapor in the atmosphere.
At this time however the atmospheric water vapor content is
very low (much lower than that over most deserts on Earth).

I'm not positive but I think the articles were on spacedaily.

Robert




From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Mar 15 05:33:10 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 21:33:10 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pentagon-Sponsored Robot Race Ends As All
	EntriesBreak Down
In-Reply-To: <20040314191258.50254.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000001c40a4f$010eae50$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


> 
> --- Technotranscendence <neptune at superlink.net> wrote:
> >
> http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/darpa_race_
040313.html
> 
> Coverup?  What if they succeeded and the Pentagon doesn't want us to
> know?:)


OK I just returned from the robot races in Nevada.  They
were a bust, but we all learned a great deal.  After the
less than impressive progress of the vehicles, we hung
around and talked to the teams as they came in on trucks
to the finish area in Primm Nevada.

When you are driving somewhere, what is your mind doing?
You may not be aware of the thoughts regarding your
driving, but clearly there is a great deal of processing
going on.  So what is your mind's driving related top
priority?  

I would argue that your mind's top driving-related
priority is not guiding the car to your destination.
That is priority number four.  Priority one is avoiding
the smiting pedestrians.  Priority two is avoiding smiting
solid objects.  Priority three is keeping one's Detroit 
upon the pavement, the black part, not the lighter colored
concrete that contains the afore-mentioned pedestrians
and solid objects.  Priority four is navigating
toward your destination.  I *hope* your brain's priority
is in that order.

In the next few weeks I hope to organize a team to enter
the (probably) 2006 DARPA challenge.  Your assignment,
if you wish to contribute ideas, is to think about
what your brain is doing when you drive.  I leave
you with this one observation:

The DARPA Grand Challenge course had many mechanically
sophisticated entries, none of which succeeded, yet the
course was run successfully by eight vehicles, all with
human drivers, all mass produced.  They were ordinary
unmodified Dodge pickup trucks, which were to be used
as chase vehicles carrying DoD officials holding kill 
switches to stop wayward robots.  

This is a huge clue: the winning vehicle need not be 
mechanically sophisticated.  The simplest quarter-ton 
pickup can easily go faster than state-of-the-art driving 
software can guide a vehicle.  We saw all sorts of sophisticated
desert racing gear, nearly all of it unnecessary and undesireable.

I will propose a pickup truck with a small sensor package
consisting of GPS, radar or lidar, sonar, compass and clock.
Sufficiently sophisticated software can figure out what
to do with inputs from those instruments only.

spike



From eugen at leitl.org  Mon Mar 15 09:58:43 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 10:58:43 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pentagon-Sponsored Robot Race Ends As All
	EntriesBreak Down
In-Reply-To: <000001c40a4f$010eae50$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <20040314191258.50254.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
	<000001c40a4f$010eae50$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20040315095843.GX18046@leitl.org>

On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 09:33:10PM -0800, Spike wrote:

> When you are driving somewhere, what is your mind doing?

You have no idea what your mind is doing, if all you 
use is introspection. 

> You may not be aware of the thoughts regarding your
> driving, but clearly there is a great deal of processing
> going on.  So what is your mind's driving related top
> priority?  

If you look at what retina's doing, it doesn't seem to prioritize a lot. It's
mostly hardwired. The later stages build models, but we don't know how. 
 
> I would argue that your mind's top driving-related
> priority is not guiding the car to your destination.
> That is priority number four.  Priority one is avoiding
> the smiting pedestrians.  Priority two is avoiding smiting
> solid objects.  Priority three is keeping one's Detroit 
> upon the pavement, the black part, not the lighter colored
> concrete that contains the afore-mentioned pedestrians
> and solid objects.  Priority four is navigating
> toward your destination.  I *hope* your brain's priority
> is in that order.

I can guarantee you that your visual system doesn't have priorities you can
write down cleanly. It does seem to latch upon moving objects, and edges, in
that priority. In locomotion navigation angle optical flows seem a good
source of information.
 
> In the next few weeks I hope to organize a team to enter
> the (probably) 2006 DARPA challenge.  Your assignment,
> if you wish to contribute ideas, is to think about
> what your brain is doing when you drive.  I leave

This would seem as a major sidetrack. I can guarantee you thinking about what
you do when you're driving will give you irrelevant if not actually
misleading information. If anything, stick a person driving a racing
simulator into an fMRI setup. That's way too coarse, but it will give you
lots more info.

> you with this one observation:
> 
> The DARPA Grand Challenge course had many mechanically
> sophisticated entries, none of which succeeded, yet the
> course was run successfully by eight vehicles, all with
> human drivers, all mass produced.  They were ordinary
> unmodified Dodge pickup trucks, which were to be used
> as chase vehicles carrying DoD officials holding kill 
> switches to stop wayward robots.  
> 
> This is a huge clue: the winning vehicle need not be 
> mechanically sophisticated.  The simplest quarter-ton 
> pickup can easily go faster than state-of-the-art driving 
> software can guide a vehicle.  We saw all sorts of sophisticated
> desert racing gear, nearly all of it unnecessary and undesireable.

No one knew that in advance. The original requirements asked for an
aggressive push for speed, in a rough terrain, possibly littered with traps. 
 
> I will propose a pickup truck with a small sensor package
> consisting of GPS, radar or lidar, sonar, compass and clock.
> Sufficiently sophisticated software can figure out what
> to do with inputs from those instruments only.

These requirements are a) entirely ad hoc b) unnecessary harsh. Some
signals contain more easily extractable information than the others. It is
not possible to tell that in advance, without having field experience.

I notice you're omitting visual input, while people drive almost entirely by
visual cues. You're also dropping inertial navigation, GPS by itself is
insufficiently precise. I would also use high-resolution maps of the area,
including custom maps.

That assumes we're sticking to commercially available sensorics, I'm sure a
lidar with wavefront timing could yield more easily extractable info than an
optical flow box.

-- 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/20040315/7bb81bd5/attachment.bin>

From amara at amara.com  Mon Mar 15 13:28:27 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 14:28:27 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] RISKS: hazard comparisons
Message-ID: <p05100300bc7b5b520e75@[150.146.134.133]>


Brett Paatsch:
>Asteroids are non-partisan and don't differentiate voter preferences
>highly in any given electoral period.

Fortunately...

>They aren't lonely phenomenon in that respect unfortunately.

It's better to see some evaluations and numbers to gauge the risks.

Planetary Defense Conference: Protecting the Earth from Asteroids
A summary of papers from a 4-day AIAA conference held February 23-26

http://128.102.38.40/impact/news_detail.cfm?ID=136#top

Be careful though, you know that occasionally astronomers
see opportunities to gain funding for their research, so
please don't think that science is politics-free. (I'm
sure you already know that.)


Amara

P.S. You know how much I hate these kind of discussions.
I would prefer much more to see people today  as pro-living,
rather than pro-risks or pro-deaths.

-- 

********************************************************************
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/
********************************************************************
"A million here, a million there, sooner or later it is real money."
    --  U.S. Senator Dirksen


From riel at surriel.com  Mon Mar 15 14:10:38 2004
From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 09:10:38 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] 10th Planet Discovered
In-Reply-To: <20040314202235.36247.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040314202235.36247.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.55L.0403150909300.29752@imladris.surriel.com>

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8968352%255E29098,00.html
>
> Named Sudna, it is 2000 km dia and 3 billion miles past Pluto..

So, does anybody have detailed plans yet on how to
colonise Kuiper Belt Objects ?

We know there should be far more of these than there
are planets, and they're full of precious ice...

Rik
-- 
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan


From eugen at leitl.org  Mon Mar 15 14:21:35 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:21:35 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] 10th Planet Discovered
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.55L.0403150909300.29752@imladris.surriel.com>
References: <20040314202235.36247.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.55L.0403150909300.29752@imladris.surriel.com>
Message-ID: <20040315142134.GE18046@leitl.org>

On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 09:10:38AM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:

> So, does anybody have detailed plans yet on how to
> colonise Kuiper Belt Objects ?

Sure!

1) develop self rep nanotechnology
2) nucleate Oort/Kuiper with habitat seeds
3) Profit! 
 
> We know there should be far more of these than there
> are planets, and they're full of precious ice...

Most of the solar system bulk is light elements (precious fusables, yesssss).
It's the inner solar system that's baked dry, rest of the system considers us
freaks. 

-- 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/20040315/dad64791/attachment.bin>

From brentn at freeshell.org  Mon Mar 15 14:26:48 2004
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 09:26:48 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] 10th Planet Discovered
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.55L.0403150909300.29752@imladris.surriel.com>
Message-ID: <r02010100-1032-CB8076D4768C11D885B3000393A47D36@[192.168.123.121]>

 (3/15/04 9:10) Rik van Riel <riel at surriel.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Mar 2004, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
>> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8968352%255E29098,00.html
>>
>> Named Sudna, it is 2000 km dia and 3 billion miles past Pluto..
>
>So, does anybody have detailed plans yet on how to
>colonise Kuiper Belt Objects ?
>
>We know there should be far more of these than there
>are planets, and they're full of precious ice...


Its seems to me that a necessary condition for any outer planet colonization is a manufacturing base outside of our gravity well.  I'm sure some will disagree, but unless we -vastly- improve the cost of putting a pound in orbit, even Mars remains a difficult colonization prospect.

I find the hype about Sudna to be an exceptionally amusing journalistic conceit, considering that many astronomers are proposing removing Pluto's 'planet' status. Categorically, it makes more sense to do that that to try to find some arbitrary size limit on KBOs that defines 'planet' or not.

B
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From eugen at leitl.org  Mon Mar 15 14:49:49 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:49:49 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] 10th Planet Discovered
In-Reply-To: <r02010100-1032-CB8076D4768C11D885B3000393A47D36@[192.168.123.121]>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.55L.0403150909300.29752@imladris.surriel.com>
	<r02010100-1032-CB8076D4768C11D885B3000393A47D36@[192.168.123.121]>
Message-ID: <20040315144949.GF18046@leitl.org>

On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 09:26:48AM -0500, Brent Neal wrote:

> Its seems to me that a necessary condition for any outer planet colonization is a manufacturing base outside of our gravity well.  I'm sure some will disagree, but unless we -vastly- improve the cost of putting a pound in orbit, even Mars remains a difficult colonization prospect.

Sustainable colonization is equivalent to local fabbing. The launch
capacities are only a bottleneck if your seed size is not small. Not a
problem with small scale technology, especially nanotechnology.

> 
> I find the hype about Sudna to be an exceptionally amusing journalistic conceit, considering that many astronomers are proposing removing Pluto's 'planet' status. Categorically, it makes more sense to do that that to try to find some arbitrary size limit on KBOs that defines 'planet' or not.

http://www.hvgb.net/~sedna/story.html

Sedna is a very significant figure in Inuit mythology. There are a number of
different versions of the myth of Sedna. I will share with you the one I
prefer.
As the legend goes, Sedna was a beautiful Inuit girl who lived with her
father. She was very vain and thought she was too beautiful to marry just
anyone. Time and time again she turned down hunters who came to her camp
wishing to marry her. Finally one day her father said to her "Sedna, we have
no food and we will go hungry soon. You need a husband to take care of you,
so the next hunter who comes to ask your hand in marriage, you must marry
him." Sedna ignored her father and kept brushing her hair as she looked at
her reflection in the water.
Soon her father saw another hunter approaching their camp. The man was
dressed elegantly in furs and appeared to be well-to-do even though his face
was hidden. Sedna's father spoke to the man. "If you wish to seek a wife I
have a beautiful daughter . She can cook and sew and I know she will make a
good wife." Under great protest, Sedna was placed aboard of the hunters kayak
and journeyed to her new home. Soon they arrived at an island. Sedna looked
around. She could see nothing. No sod hut, no tent, just bare rocks and a
cliff. The hunter stood before Sedna and as he pulled down his hood, he let
out and evil laugh. Sedna's husband was not a man as she had thought but a
raven in disguise. She screamed and tried to run, but the bird dragged her to
a clearing on the cliff. Sedna's new home was a few tufts of animal hair and
feathers strewn about on the hard, cold rock. The only food she had to eat
was fish. Her husband, the raven, brought raw fish to her after a day of
flying off in search of food.

Sedna was very unhappy and miserable. She cried and cried and called her
father's name. Through the howling arctic winds Sedna's father could hear his
daughter's cries. He felt guilty for what he had done as he knew she was sad.
Sedna's father decided it was time to rescue his daughter. He loaded up his
kayak and paddled for days through the frigid arctic waters to his Sedna's
home. When he arrived Sedna was standing on the shore. Sedna hugged her
father then quickly climbed into his kayak and paddled away. After many hours
of travel Sedna turned and saw a black speck far off into the distance. She
felt the fear well up inside of her for she knew the speck was her angry
husband flying in search of her.
The big black raven swooped down upon the kayak bobbing on the ocean. Sedna's
father took his paddle and struck at the raven but missed as the bird
continued to harass them. Finally the raven swooped down near the kayak and
flapped his wing upon the ocean. A vicious storm began to brew. The calm
arctic ocean soon became a raging torrent tossing the tiny kayak to and fro.
Sedna's father became very frightened. He grabbed Sedna and threw her over
the side of the kayak into the ocean. "Here, he screamed, here is your
precious wife, please do not hurt me, take her."

Sedna screamed and struggled as her body began go numb in the icy arctic
waters. She swam to the kayak and reached up, her fingers grasping the side
of the boat. Her father, terrified by the raging storm, thought only of
himself as he grabbed the paddle and began to pound against Sedna's fingers.
Sedna screamed for her father to stop but to no avail. Her frozen fingers
cracked and fell into the ocean. Affected by her ghastly husbands powers,
Sedna's fingers while sinking to the bottom, turned into seals. Sedna
attempted again to swim and cling to her father's kayak. Again he grabbed the
paddle and began beating at her hands. Again Sedna's hands, frozen by the
arctic sea again cracked off. The stumps began to drift to the bottom of the
sea, this time turned into the whales and other large mammals. Sedna could
fight no more and began to sink herself.

Sedna, tourmented and raging with anger for what had happened to her, did not
perish. She became, and still is today, the goddess of the sea. Sedna's
companions are the seals, and the whales that sit with her at the bottom on
the ocean. Her anger and fury against man is what drums up the violent seas
and storms . Hunters have a great respect for her. Legend has it that they
must treat her with respect. Shaman's from the world above must swim down to
her to comb her long black tangled hair. This calms Sedna down. Once this is
done, she releases her mammals to allow the Inuit to eat from the bounty of
the sea. It is for this reason in the north that after a hunter catches a
seal he drops water into the mouth of the mammal, a gesture to thank Sedna
for her kindness in allowing him to feed his family.

This is the legend of Sedna.

-- 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/20040315/3348677b/attachment.bin>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 15 15:39:25 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 07:39:25 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Pentagon-Sponsored Robot Race Ends As All
	EntriesBreak Down
In-Reply-To: <000001c40a4f$010eae50$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20040315153925.93137.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > 
> OK I just returned from the robot races in Nevada.  They
> were a bust, but we all learned a great deal.  After the
> less than impressive progress of the vehicles, we hung
> around and talked to the teams as they came in on trucks
> to the finish area in Primm Nevada.
> 
> When you are driving somewhere, what is your mind doing?
> You may not be aware of the thoughts regarding your
> driving, but clearly there is a great deal of processing
> going on.  So what is your mind's driving related top
> priority?  

Your destination is set ahead of time, and even your course is set:
i.e. how you get from point a to point b. It's why we have maps and why
one typically needs a second brain doing the navigating if travelling
to a strange destination (assuming you are not pre-navigating during
rest stops).

This is done in order to make actual navigation a low priority for the
driver, as you've said. What is more important is:

a) keeping it on the road/in the lane,
b) avoiding other motor vehicles
c) avoiding non-motor objects like pedestrians, animals, potholes,
inanimate objects, etc.

The pre-navigation thing is ultimately important. I've known people
who, driving to work, find a detour and, rather than get lost on the
detour, will just turn around and go home, like the veritable ant
losing the scent trail.

Having a singular focus on one task, though, is a very autistic thing,
which implies that any smart vehicle is going to have to operate a
neural network.

=====
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! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com


From brentn at freeshell.org  Mon Mar 15 15:47:56 2004
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 10:47:56 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] 10th Planet Discovered
In-Reply-To: <20040315144949.GF18046@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <r02010100-1032-213A1D21769811D885B3000393A47D36@[192.168.123.121]>

 (3/15/04 15:49) Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

>On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 09:26:48AM -0500, Brent Neal wrote:
>
>> Its seems to me that a necessary condition for any outer planet colonization is a manufacturing base outside of our gravity well.  
>I'm sure some will disagree, but unless we -vastly- improve the cost of putting a pound in orbit, even Mars remains a difficult 
>colonization prospect.
>
>Sustainable colonization is equivalent to local fabbing. The launch
>capacities are only a bottleneck if your seed size is not small. Not a
>problem with small scale technology, especially nanotechnology.

Your argument is almost circular. You assume colonization as a fait accompli, essentially. You also (apparently from your previous email on the subject) assume the inevitability of molecular replicators. I would certainly prefer that the possibility of colonizing the solar system not be dependent on the development of a technology that may or may not be possible, or if possible at all, be centuries away.  We have the technology -right now- to colonize the inner system, were we to bootstrap carefully, and to gain large returns from doing so. Why wait for self-replicating nanomachines?


>
>> 
>> I find the hype about Sudna to be an exceptionally amusing journalistic conceit, considering that many astronomers are proposing 
>removing Pluto's 'planet' status. Categorically, it makes more sense to do that that to try to find some arbitrary size limit on KBOs 
>that defines 'planet' or not.
>
>http://www.hvgb.net/~sedna/story.html
>
>Sedna is a very significant figure in Inuit mythology. There are a number of
>different versions of the myth of Sedna. I will share with you the one I
>prefer.


Yes, but what does this have to do with whether this body is considered a planet or not? 

B
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 15 16:42:28 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 08:42:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] 10th Planet Discovered
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.55L.0403150909300.29752@imladris.surriel.com>
Message-ID: <20040315164228.4030.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Rik van Riel <riel at surriel.com> wrote: 
> So, does anybody have detailed plans yet on how to
> colonise Kuiper Belt Objects ?
> 
> We know there should be far more of these than there
> are planets, and they're full of precious ice...

Actually, I'd prefer to crash a few smaller ones into Mars. Get a
little global warming going, add some water to the mix, see what happens.

=====
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! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 15 16:51:32 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 08:51:32 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPAM: Post-modernist filter avoidance
Message-ID: <20040315165133.74223.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>

In addition to a solicitation to meet my soulmate, got a message today
which contains the following text:

"Please enjoy your postmodern story of the day: 

I didn't have to say: can we change the meeting from 6 to 11?  My kids 
have a music recital and I dont want to miss it for the world.  Are you

getting pieces of this?  Sounds good to me, I said.  Just tell me your 
answer, even if it sucks.
The continuation of our species matters more than you can imagine.  It 
is the single most important thing we can do.  Just tell me your 
answer, even if it sucks.  Suddenly, he disappeared.  (I'd seen
something 
really weird. :) 
  How embarrassing.  He extended his hand by way of introduction.  The 
continuation of our species matters more than you can imagine.  It is 
the single most important thing we can do.  How embarrassing.And
someone 
was waiting for me, just around the corner.  But this was a long road, 
and should I walk down it, I might never come back.  The same thing we 
do every night, he replied.  And someone was waiting for me, just 
around the corner. How embarrassing.
bWxvcnJleUB5YWhvby5jb20="

Now, note the repetition of certain sentences. The creator is obviously
operating on a limited database of sentences, which are being randomly
strung together (as opposed to stringing random words together), in
order to avoid any grammar-scoring filter. Each sentence itself is
grammatically accurate. 

What is needed now is a filter for context within a paragraph, in order
to score each sentence in relation to each other for context.

The danger of emplacing such a context filter is that it may cause
legit messages by individuals, who do not understand the purpose of
paragraphs fully, to be filtered out.

A positive result of this, though, will be a selective pressure for
people to develop better grammar and better paragraph discipline. 1337
h4x0rz will have to grow up.

=====
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! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com


From eugen at leitl.org  Mon Mar 15 16:55:12 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 17:55:12 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] 10th Planet Discovered
In-Reply-To: <r02010100-1032-213A1D21769811D885B3000393A47D36@[192.168.123.121]>
References: <20040315144949.GF18046@leitl.org>
	<r02010100-1032-213A1D21769811D885B3000393A47D36@[192.168.123.121]>
Message-ID: <20040315165512.GH18046@leitl.org>

On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 10:47:56AM -0500, Brent Neal wrote:

> >Sustainable colonization is equivalent to local fabbing. The launch
> >capacities are only a bottleneck if your seed size is not small. Not a
> >problem with small scale technology, especially nanotechnology.
> 
> Your argument is almost circular. You assume colonization as a fait 

Self-replication/bootstrap *is* a feedback circle, so it's unsurprising if
its discussion appears superficially tautological. It ain't, this circle is
more like an upwards spiral. It's going somewhere, despite appearances of
being trapped on a circular track.

> accompli, essentially. You also (apparently from your previous email 
> on the subject) assume the inevitability of molecular replicators. 

Not necessarily molecular, self-replication works on all scales. But, yeah,
the smaller, the shorter the replication time, more generations/time unit, and
thus faster ramp-up rate. In terms of biomass, biofilms fatten up way faster
than whales. The replicators with the shortest replications times will win.

> I would certainly prefer that the possibility of colonizing the solar 
> system not be dependent on the development of a technology that may 
> or may not be possible, or if possible at all, be centuries away.  

Of course replicators, even molecular replicators are possible: look into the
mirror. You're an instance of natural nanotechnology. Unfortunately limited
to a specific habitat very unlike deep space. Transfer costs are
mass-limited, ditto restructuring the habitat, so any biota which can
directly dwell in deep space will obviously own the solar periphery, even if it's
last to appear on the scene.  

Your projected timeline of centuries appears highly unlikely. At current
level of technology human existance is not sustainable even on planetary
surfaces given the timeline you mentioned. We're currently having a race 
between the advent of AI and nanotechnology, which are both less than half 
a century away, and will completely rewrite the rules. I.e. they rule out
sustained existance of people of conventional bauplan.

> We have the technology -right now- to colonize the inner system, 

We don't have the technology. We don't have stable closed-loop ecosystems,
nor automatic means of fabrication -- not even teleoperated means of
fabrication on a rock a lightsecond away. Is that pathetic, or what?

Launch costs to LEO and chemical rockets limit the transfer mass and transfer
time to Mars, max (and that's pushing the envelope for monkeys in
microgravitation). Luna is doable, but there's shorter route.

> were we to bootstrap carefully, and to gain large returns from 
> doing so. Why wait for self-replicating nanomachines?

We don't have to wait, we can start with bootstrapping by
telepresence/teleoperation on the Moon. Even better, we can start down here
on Earth, in lunar simulators costing but a fraction of a single launch.

...
 
> Yes, but what does this have to do with whether this body is considered a planet or not? 

Nothing. The Inuit sea goddess (and the newly discovered 2 Mm body) is called Sedna, not
Sudna.

-- 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/20040315/8fa0dfcc/attachment.bin>

From brentn at freeshell.org  Mon Mar 15 18:12:14 2004
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 13:12:14 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] 10th Planet Discovered
In-Reply-To: <20040315165512.GH18046@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <r02010100-1032-49B8B62C76AC11D885B3000393A47D36@[192.168.123.121]>

 (3/15/04 17:55) Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

>On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 10:47:56AM -0500, Brent Neal wrote:
>> 
>> Your argument is almost circular. You assume colonization as a fait 
>
>Self-replication/bootstrap *is* a feedback circle, so it's unsurprising if
>its discussion appears superficially tautological. It ain't, this circle is
>more like an upwards spiral. It's going somewhere, despite appearances of
>being trapped on a circular track.

Except that you also assume that we've already colonized in your argument about further colonization. That -is- a tautology. And assuming that you are going to get a specific technological breakthrough that will make it all magically happen is not terribly convincing in an argument.  If anything, history should tell you that we're more likely to have a breakthrough that -isn't- expected that will make it possible.

>
>Your projected timeline of centuries appears highly unlikely. At current
>level of technology human existance is not sustainable even on planetary
>surfaces given the timeline you mentioned. We're currently having a race 
>between the advent of AI and nanotechnology, which are both less than half 
>a century away, and will completely rewrite the rules. I.e. they rule out
>sustained existance of people of conventional bauplan.

Read the Smalley-Drexler debate.  As I said before, I'd rather do it now than wait for "something new and better" to come along. All the usual aphorisms about those who dare, etc. etc.  

After spending 6 years in nanotechnology research, the most important things I learned were that (a) the nanotech advocates are overly optimistic and (b) there is a gaping chasm between what is thought to be possible and our current engineering prowess. Of course, I'm an engineer that became a theorist in grad school, so I'm likely to have very cynical views of both groups. :) 



>
>> We have the technology -right now- to colonize the inner system, 
>
>We don't have the technology. We don't have stable closed-loop ecosystems,
>nor automatic means of fabrication -- not even teleoperated means of
>fabrication on a rock a lightsecond away. Is that pathetic, or what?

Neither of which is necessary to begin the process of bootstrapping industry in the inner system.  You start with LEO and GEO first, which we most certainly have the technology to industrialize. And for fsck's sake, you don't put humans up there at first! There is no reason to do so.  If there is anything the Information Revolution has taught us, its that humans are expensive to maintain and so you save them for tasks for which they are needed. That's where your bootstrap starts. Making visionary statements about how much easier it will be to do this once we have this or that McGuffin  is fun, but it butters no parsnips.

The economics of a moon base are pretty marginal, from what I understand. Mars seems to be a much better choice, but until we do a better job industrializing Earth's orbit, even a moon base will remain out of reach.

B

-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Mon Mar 15 18:52:43 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 10:52:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] 10th Planet Discovered
In-Reply-To: <r02010100-1032-213A1D21769811D885B3000393A47D36@[192.168.123.121]>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403151038040.2311-100000@server.aeiveos.com>



On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Brent Neal (commenting on Eugen's comments) wrote:

> You assume colonization as a fait accompli, essentially. You also (apparently
> from your previous email on the subject) assume the inevitability of molecular
> replicators.

We already have molecular replicators.  They are called bacteria.  And they
would function quite well on any planet where one could land a power source
sufficient to produce and maintain liquid water for a period of time.  This
probably includes at least Mars and Europa.  Perhaps Triton (though it might
be a rather unusual liquid environment for which bacteria would need to be evolved
if they do not currently exist.)  Several other moons of Jupiter probably also
qualify as do most comets and the outer planets if one has a sufficiently powerful
power source to prevent the liquid from freezing.

> I would certainly prefer that the possibility of colonizing the solar system
> not be dependent on the development of a technology that may or may not be possible,

What is not possible about it?

> or if possible at all, be centuries away.

This mindset will shift significantly when one has the first man-made assembled
from scratch genome and organisms based on such.  That will happen within this
decade.

> We have the technology -right now- to colonize the inner system, were we to
> bootstrap carefully, and to gain large returns from doing so.

The "large returns" assertion is open to a *lot* of debate.  For example I've
never seen a comparison between spending $200B to go to Mars (and produce nothing
for Earth) and spending $200B on standardized solar cell factories that crank
out lots of low cost solar cells here on Earth every year.

> Why wait for self-replicating nanomachines?

Because if it is nanotech based its mass is low.  If it has low mass getting it into
space is cheap (even Egypt is launching a microsat into space).  As the recent Mars
missions have shown -- it doesn't have to have a perfect program so long as you
can evolve its program as it becomes determined what is necessary.

> Yes, but what does this have to do with whether this body is considered a planet or not?

I think we will need to evolve a new classification system.  One that
combines the "usefullness" of the material content with the difficulty
of getting it out of its normal gravity well.  For example small objects
high in CO/CO2 ice may be much more valuable than large objects composed
mostly of hydrogen or heavy elements.  The current perspective of planets
is historical -- based on whether they were large enough to be "seen"
(which we know is an evolving figure of merit depending on how good
the optics one has available are).  On the other hand a new scale would
be based on the engineering and economic value of an object.

Robert




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 15 19:31:39 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:31:39 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] RISKS: hazard comparisons
In-Reply-To: <p05100300bc7b5b520e75@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <20040315193140.82764.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:
> 
> Brett Paatsch:
> >Asteroids are non-partisan and don't differentiate voter preferences
> >highly in any given electoral period.
> 
> Fortunately...
> 
> >They aren't lonely phenomenon in that respect unfortunately.

No, like some unthinking masses here on earth, they change direction
significantly when struck violently. While some boldly advance toward
the origin of the strike, others flee from it.

> 
> It's better to see some evaluations and numbers to gauge the risks.
> 
> Planetary Defense Conference: Protecting the Earth from Asteroids
> A summary of papers from a 4-day AIAA conference held February 23-26
> 
> http://128.102.38.40/impact/news_detail.cfm?ID=136#top
> 
> Be careful though, you know that occasionally astronomers
> see opportunities to gain funding for their research, so
> please don't think that science is politics-free. (I'm
> sure you already know that.)

I didn't see anything about the 1000 year old strike south of New
Zealand in the report.

=====
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! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com


From eugen at leitl.org  Mon Mar 15 19:59:51 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:59:51 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] 10th Planet Discovered
In-Reply-To: <r02010100-1032-49B8B62C76AC11D885B3000393A47D36@[192.168.123.121]>
References: <20040315165512.GH18046@leitl.org>
	<r02010100-1032-49B8B62C76AC11D885B3000393A47D36@[192.168.123.121]>
Message-ID: <20040315195951.GK18046@leitl.org>

On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 01:12:14PM -0500, Brent Neal wrote:

> Except that you also assume that we've already colonized in 
> your argument about further colonization. That -is- a tautology. 

Colonization means different things to different people. First of all,
self-rep is a degree, denoted as closure. A closure over unity means the pink
bunny, which coppertops forever. A closure under unity means some degree of
local resources are being used which do not need to be hauled via rocketry.
A closure of zero means the status quo. Which sucks intensely, imo.

Colonization doesn't assume suited monkeys frolicking around in front of a romantic
barren landscape backdrop. It assumes a sustainable presence, which means a
local fabbing facility with a self-rep closure which is very close or over unity.

> And assuming that you are going to get a specific technological 
> breakthrough that will make it all magically happen is not 

It is not a specific technological breakthrough. It's an envelope of
technologies which result in self-replication. Humanity will not be able to
become a space-faring culture without utilizing respective local resouces. Earth is a
negligible presence even with an equatorial necklace of space elevators.
Volume beats surface. Exponential processes beat linear ones.

> terribly convincing in an argument.  If anything, history 
> should tell you that we're more likely to have a breakthrough 
> that -isn't- expected that will make it possible.

It is useless trying to make predictions based on things you cannot know.
I'm not including any magical new physics. No tabletop wormholes allowed,
sorry. If such technology is feasible, you can assume postbiology will find
it. Both AI and nanotechnology are causally corellated: we will soon have AI
once we have molecular circuitry, and vice versa (the AI will invent anything
which is within reach of designspace).
 
> Read the Smalley-Drexler debate.  As I said before, I'd rather do it

I do not care much about lowest common denominator level of discussion on
nanotechnology. It makes my brain bleed.
 
> now than wait for "something new and better" to come along. All the 
> usual aphorisms about those who dare, etc. etc.  

You're missing the obvious: I'm completely on your side, as long as you don't
assume space colonizations = canned/suited monkeys. The fastest route to
getting a sustained human presence (which is just a negligible footnote,
because the future with people in it is rapidly approaching an end) is a
teleoperated fabbing facility, including mining polar hydrate cryotraps, and
bootstrapping a closed-loop ecosystem (allright, a few tons of freeze-dried
food bring you a long way, if you've got just some 10 people to feed).
 
> After spending 6 years in nanotechnology research, the most important 
> things I learned were that (a) the nanotech advocates are overly 
> optimistic and (b) there is a gaping chasm between what is thought 

The Merkle/Drexler advocates? Absolutely. However, this doesn't have anything
to do with idea of machine-phase/autoassembly molecular self-replication. 

> to be possible and our current engineering prowess. Of course, I'm 

Of course. What has the current state of the art to do with anything? At some
point organic chemistry didn't exist. 

> an engineer that became a theorist in grad school, so I'm likely 
> to have very cynical views of both groups. :) 

Only fair, I guess.
 
> Neither of which is necessary to begin the process of bootstrapping 
> industry in the inner system.  You start with LEO and GEO first, 

noNoNONONO! You have to bring up anything you process up from LEO, and the
step to leap to microgravity vs. a more civil 1/6th is not to be
underestimated. You can prototype lunar hardware on Earth surface, and debug
them in parabolic flight rigs. You sure can't do this with outright
microgravity production. It's the natural next step after Luna (especially,
if you consider how many seeds you need to launch to seed all congealed
stardreck bits in this system).

I'm totally with you if we had a few 100 m rock up there already. But, no
suck luck. The closest one is Luna. And it has volatiles, to boot.

> which we most certainly have the technology to industrialize. And 
> for fsck's sake, you don't put humans up there at first! There is 

I'm totally with you on that one.

> no reason to do so.  If there is anything the Information Revolution 
> has taught us, its that humans are expensive to maintain and so 
> you save them for tasks for which they are needed. That's where 

Robots are one-way. Robots don't take life-support. You can shut them down
for two weeks, and resume them cleanly.

This alone completely kills people as bootstrap agents, as long as you have
resources within easy teleoperation radius, or automation at least as good as
social insects.

We're so lucky to have the Moon.

> your bootstrap starts. Making visionary statements about how 
> much easier it will be to do this once we have this or that 
> McGuffin  is fun, but it butters no parsnips.
> 
> The economics of a moon base are pretty marginal, from what I 
> understand. Mars seems to be a much better choice, but until 
> we do a better job industrializing Earth's orbit, even a moon 
> base will remain out of reach.

Have to completely disagree with you on that one. Mars is out of reach, so
ist LEO/GEO/Lagrange, Luna is just within easy reach with teleoperation.

-- 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/20040315/b499394d/attachment.bin>

From brentn at freeshell.org  Mon Mar 15 21:50:26 2004
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:50:26 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] 10th Planet Discovered
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403151038040.2311-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <r02010100-1032-C4F6B94A76CA11D885B3000393A47D36@[192.168.123.121]>

 (3/15/04 10:52) Robert J. Bradbury <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:

>
>
>This mindset will shift significantly when one has the first man-made assembled
>from scratch genome and organisms based on such.  That will happen within this
>decade.

I happen to disagree with your prognosticator on this, unless you are just talking about toy problems. I expect it to take at least 20-30 years before we see bacteria used as assemblers.  (And no, I don't count splicing in genes to create insulin or other moderately complex proteins. Its a different scale of problem.) 

Actually, you stole my thunder a little bit, because I was going to bring that up in the next round. I think that engineered organisms will be vastly more productive than inorganic nanotech in terms of fulfilling the promises that the nanotech advocates have made. Unless the biotech Luddites win, I expect that we'll be engineering custom organisms on a large scale to fill a wide variety of roles by the end of this century.


>
>> We have the technology -right now- to colonize the inner system, were we to
>> bootstrap carefully, and to gain large returns from doing so.
>
>The "large returns" assertion is open to a *lot* of debate.  For example I've
>never seen a comparison between spending $200B to go to Mars (and produce nothing
>for Earth) and spending $200B on standardized solar cell factories that crank
>out lots of low cost solar cells here on Earth every year.

Again, that makes the assumption that you start with something outside of Earth's orbit. A solar power infrastructure in orbit would easily fund the next round of development - whether that be metal refinement and fabrication facilities at L4/L5, a Mars colony, or something I'm not bright enough to foresee.  What is holding progress back is the exorbitant startup cost, but the figures I've seen for the returns range from astoundingly high (Admittedly, this was Gerry O'Neill's analysis, which contained several critical flaws) to well-worth it. As energy demand down here increases, and if energy shortages continue (I've read compelling arguments that the energy shortages here are artificial in origin and equally compelling ones that they are not), that return will begin to look good.  

The Japanese are already looking at SPS systems. And why not? They have a large, densely placed population on an island with no indigenous petroleum reserves. Beaming down megawatts to rectenna farms off the coast of Honshu would make a lot of sense for them.



>
>> Why wait for self-replicating nanomachines?
>
>Because if it is nanotech based its mass is low.  

I assume you you've heard the old story about the guy looking for his fishing net in his boat.



>> Yes, but what does this have to do with whether this body is considered a planet or not?
>
>I think we will need to evolve a new classification system.  One that

Determinine whether something is a planet doesn't make any judgement on whether its useful or not. No one is going to care whether or not our planet/not-planet classification takes into account economic value, because as technology increases, value will change. :) (ObHistoryLesson: Think about the shift in what was perceived as 'value' by the Europeans in N and S. America. The ultimate 'winners' were not the ones who went after spices or gold...)

The astronomers I've read tend to agree that one main distinction between small planet and Kuiper belt/Oort object is whether the core is uniformly solid rock, and not 'large rocky snowballs.'  Since NASA deepsixed the Pluto probe, so it may be a while before we know anything in that regard.  Pluto's orbit is certainly damning, as is Quaoar's and Sedna's. 


B
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Mon Mar 15 22:36:55 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 14:36:55 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] NETWKS: orkut
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403151342260.5532-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


I would like to urge all extropians to take some time to
browse "www.orkut.com".  It seems to be back up and operating
reasonably (I think it may have been down for a while due to
some bugs).  I found it interesting that there are quite large
nanotechnology, extropians and transhumanists communities.

It can take a fair amount of time to browse through all of
these, enter a proper balance of personal v. private information,
connect oneself via the acquaintance/friend/good friend connections.
So one may want to plan to spend a couple of hours working on this.

There are people in some of these communities or friend networks
who are people who may not be actively on the ExI list (a surprising
number IMO as I began to explore the networks).  There also seems
to be a wealth of connections via the extended networks that I would
not otherwise have known about.

So I would suggest that people take some time to explore this
medium/forum and see whether it would serve to expand their
goals/perspectives in various ways.

I don't think there are any hard-and-fast rules with regard
to how one "rates" people within ones network.  I'm using
"acquaitance" as someone with whom I've perhaps met once
or twice and had occasional email conversations, "friend"
as someone with whom I've had extended conversations and/or
multiple meetings and "good friend" as people where there
have been extended conversations or knowledge of extensive
common interests.  Obviously these assessments may vary.

But it seems to be a very interesting forum through which
personal networks may be expanded.

Robert




From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Mon Mar 15 23:31:33 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 10:31:33 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] RISKS: hazard comparisons
References: <p05100300bc7b5b520e75@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <009901c40ae5$a6b9cec0$412b2dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>

From: "Amara Graps" <amara at amara.com>

> Brett Paatsch:
> >Asteroids are non-partisan and don't differentiate voter preferences
> >highly in any given electoral period.
> 
> Fortunately...

Yes, I'm glad asteroids don't take sides.

I think I've confounded Robert's initial post by mixing in two things - 
two different sorts of risks -  the risks faced by all people (person-kind
if you like) versus the risks one faces as an individual in a world of 
other people and politics - sorry about that.  

I am glad that some folks (like Robert) do take a different (wider) view
of risks that the average politician or the punter that votes. But when 
one *personally* considers one's own overall risks to survival - I think
its not asteroids or even bacteria that are the greatest threat - its 
still other people - their actions and inactions - their beliefs acted on.

I think the biggest threats to Robert's survival are not asteroids or
viruses either. 

There need be no malice on their part for other people to be dangerous
too us (or indeed we to them). Poor judgement (or erroneous beliefs
acted on) are enough. 
  
> >They aren't lonely phenomenon in that respect unfortunately.

By this I meant that there are many things that are important to the
long term of both individuals and person-kind that don't get 
consideration in elections in the "free-world" because for a party
to get elected they only have to beat the other party at the ballot
box they don't have to offer real choice on a range of issues.

Many important issues (to particular people) don't constitute a
meaningful 'wedge' because they are of interest to too few voters.
- Like asteroids and viruses. 
 
> It's better to see some evaluations and numbers to gauge the risks.

Yes.
 
> Planetary Defense Conference: Protecting the Earth from 
> Asteroids A summary of papers from a 4-day AIAA conference
> held February 23-26
> 
> http://128.102.38.40/impact/news_detail.cfm?ID=136#top
> 
> Be careful though, you know that occasionally astronomers
> see opportunities to gain funding for their research, so please
> don't think that science is politics-free. (I'm sure you already
> know that.)

It's worth differentiating politics per se I think from party politics
as it is most commonly experienced in the established systems of
the west. 

To me politics per se arises naturally in all human interaction because
we are social and alive and because at any given time there is limited
actual resources. I can't imagine intelligent resource contingent life 
manifesting without politics. But this is not what most people mean
usually by the word. 
 
> Amara
> 
> P.S. You know how much I hate these kind of discussions.

I don't think you like discussions on politics, especially ones that
spiral downwards into emotive exchanges (as frequently happens)
- I don't see much point in those either.

> I would prefer much more to see people today  as pro-living,
> rather than pro-risks or pro-deaths.

I'd prefer it too - when it is true. Who'd want to live an excessively
pessimistic life?  But when it isn't true I don't want my wishful thinking
to get in the way of a correct diagnosis and to thereby live a shorter
lesser life.  

Optimism (or perhaps the avoidance of pessimism) is important to
extropes. But so is problem solving. Too much optimism and one doesn't
even see a problem to solve. A lot of the problems one faces (including
the problems of personal survival and increased longevity) are of an
intrinsically political nature. 

Brett Paatsch

PS: I almost didn't post this because I'm not saying all much - I'm just
clarifying - or chatting ;-)  




From megao at sasktel.net  Mon Mar 15 23:40:38 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 17:40:38 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Orkut.com
Message-ID: <40563EF5.CFE9D68E@sasktel.net>

The "join" function is still not functional.
Morris





From brentn at freeshell.org  Mon Mar 15 23:48:28 2004
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 18:48:28 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] 10th Planet Discovered
In-Reply-To: <20040315195951.GK18046@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <r02010100-1032-4238833F76DB11D885B3000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>

 (3/15/04 20:59) Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

>On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 01:12:14PM -0500, Brent Neal wrote:
>
>It is useless trying to make predictions based on things you cannot know.
>I'm not including any magical new physics. No tabletop wormholes allowed,
>sorry. If such technology is feasible, you can assume postbiology will find
>it. Both AI and nanotechnology are causally corellated: we will soon have AI
>once we have molecular circuitry, and vice versa (the AI will invent anything
>which is within reach of designspace).

I agree it is useless making such predictions, which is why I both strenuously object to your using self-replicating nanotech and in this message, the link between AI and nanotech as givens in the debate about colonization of the solar system.



> 
>> Read the Smalley-Drexler debate.  As I said before, I'd rather do it
>
>I do not care much about lowest common denominator level of discussion on
>nanotechnology. It makes my brain bleed.

I'm not quite sure how you meant that but either way, I find it amusing. Are you seriously suggesting that Smalley and Drexler are somehow ill-informed about the minutiae of the nanotech debate?


>> After spending 6 years in nanotechnology research, the most important 
>> things I learned were that (a) the nanotech advocates are overly 
>> optimistic and (b) there is a gaping chasm between what is thought 
>
>The Merkle/Drexler advocates? Absolutely. However, this doesn't have anything
>to do with idea of machine-phase/autoassembly molecular self-replication. 
>

Nanotech represents a locus of related, but not identical, fields.  The construction of molecular assemblers is but one aspect of the field. However, your previous statements indicated that you believe that molecular assemblers are necessary for the colonization of the solar system in earnest. I disagree with that, for the reasons I've stated previously.


>> to be possible and our current engineering prowess. Of course, I'm 
>
>Of course. What has the current state of the art to do with anything? 

The current state of the art has everything to do with my point!  We have the capability to industrialize space right now.  We should invest early, instead of waiting for our "state of the art" to give us some magical wonder-tech.



>
>noNoNONONO! You have to bring up anything you process up from LEO, and the
>step to leap to microgravity vs. a more civil 1/6th is not to be
>underestimated. 

Yeah, well duh. But you have to start somewhere, which means shipping the means to exploit the other rocks up from down here. Obviously, you only want to boost the minimum required to do so. But waving your hands at that simple truth won't make it go away.

>I'm totally with you if we had a few 100 m rock up there already. But, no
>suck luck. The closest one is Luna. And it has volatiles, to boot.
>

Hmm. I'd read that most of the useful chemicals on the Moon were bound up in the rocks, and not in a terribly useful state. The white papers published by Zubrin, among others, seem to indicate that Earth->LEO/GEO->Mars is a much more cost effective path.


>
>This alone completely kills people as bootstrap agents, as long as you have
>resources within easy teleoperation radius, or automation at least as good as
>social insects.

Absolutely. The next logical place to put humans is Mars, to cut down the communications delay  to industrialization efforts in the asteroid belt. Plus, we actually have a decent chance of terraforming Mars. Added bonus.


>
>We're so lucky to have the Moon.
>
>> your bootstrap starts. Making visionary statements about how 
>> much easier it will be to do this once we have this or that 
>> McGuffin  is fun, but it butters no parsnips.
>> 
>> The economics of a moon base are pretty marginal, from what I 
>> understand. Mars seems to be a much better choice, but until 
>> we do a better job industrializing Earth's orbit, even a moon 
>> base will remain out of reach.
>
>Have to completely disagree with you on that one. Mars is out of reach, so
>ist LEO/GEO/Lagrange, Luna is just within easy reach with teleoperation.


You know, we're not doing a bad job for remote operations on Mars. Especially not for our 3rd very tentative try. 

The problem that I'm seeing with most of your arguments is that you are looking 20-50 years out, and assuming the next 20 years goes your way. I've had too many encounters with the mad prophet Murphy to expect that. Talk to me about what we can do -now-. Don't hand-wave, and don't bullshit. One of my fondest wishes is for us to start looking at space as more than just a convenient setting for novels and as a money-sink for politicians. We've invested a fsckload of money and we should be considering a return on that investment.  Undoubtedly we've seen some of that - read Heinlein's testimony to Congress in the 80's for examples. But what have we gotten since then? We should expect more.

B


B
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Mon Mar 15 23:54:00 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:54:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] RISKS: hazard comparisons
In-Reply-To: <009901c40ae5$a6b9cec0$412b2dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403151536330.7403-100000@server.aeiveos.com>



On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> I think I've confounded Robert's initial post by mixing in two things -
> two different sorts of risks -  the risks faced by all people (person-kind
> if you like) versus the risks one faces as an individual in a world of
> other people and politics - sorry about that.

Obviously this question is complex.  We each have 6-10 genetic defects
that are going to affect our own longevity.  Obviously it makes sense
to be in favor of research on those specific defects.  But then we
have to start to consider the risks our families and communities may
be exposed to.  Life isn't a lot of fun if the people to whom one
is closest get wiped out by anything from an asteroid to a virus.

My father's reason for rejecting cryonics was something to the effect
of "why would you want to go on living if everyone you ever cared about
was dead?" (his only brother and several close friends have already
died from various causes).  A reasonable argument IMO.

In classic analysis this tends to get evaluated in terms of YPLL
(Years of Potential Life Lost).  The problem is that YPLL may be
about to make a significant jump -- if so then most historic methods
of creating valuations on life may shift significantly.

So the equation becomes much more complex.  How does one evaluate
the aggregate worth of lives of people who want to push the envelope
as far as possible (at least 2000-7000 years) vs. those who are
really unhappy and who wished they had died yesterday?

So one gets into a discussion of the rights of people who would
do anything to prevent an asteroid from impacting the Earth to
those who would welcome it as a natural process of life.

I'd like to see the libertarian perspective with respect to knowing
that one cannot raise sufficient funds to prevent ones own extinction
(by developing the technology to divert an asteroid) without taxing
people who view that self-extinction is a perfectly natural process
within the universe (and who view life extension with a great deal
of abhorrence).

Robert




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Mon Mar 15 23:58:18 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:58:18 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Orkut.com
In-Reply-To: <40563EF5.CFE9D68E@sasktel.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403151554190.7403-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


You will have to be more specific.  As far as I can tell, if I
find the right menu I can join communities or add friends to my
pending friends list.  There do appear to be cases where these
features do not appear to be available -- but if I take an alternate
path (push comes to shove I go to the "add friends" search menu
and lookup specific names).  I can usually find a way to make it
work though I would agree that there may be cases where the path
isn't obvious.

R.

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc. wrote:

> The "join" function is still not functional.
> Morris



From jcorb at irishbroadband.net  Tue Mar 16 01:01:47 2004
From: jcorb at irishbroadband.net (J Corbally)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 01:01:47 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] 10th Planet Discovered
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20040316004628.01b1b300@pop3.irishbroadband.ie>


>Message: 23
>Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:49:49 +0100
>From: Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] 10th Planet Discovered
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Message-ID: <20040315144949.GF18046 at leitl.org>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 09:26:48AM -0500, Brent Neal wrote:
> > Its seems to me that a necessary condition for any outer planet 
> colonization is a manufacturing base outside of our gravity well. I'm 
> sure some will disagree, but unless we -vastly- improve the cost of 
> putting a pound in orbit, even Mars remains a difficult colonization prospect.
>Sustainable colonization is equivalent to local fabbing. The launch
>capacities are only a bottleneck if your seed size is not small. Not a
>problem with small scale technology, especially nanotechnology.
> >
> > I find the hype about Sudna to be an exceptionally amusing journalistic 
> conceit, considering that many astronomers are proposing removing Pluto's 
> 'planet' status. Categorically, it makes more sense to do that that to 
> try to find some arbitrary size limit on KBOs that defines 'planet' or not.
>http://www.hvgb.net/~sedna/story.html
>Sedna is a very significant figure in Inuit mythology. There are a number of
>different versions of the myth of Sedna. I will share with you the one I
>prefer.

<snip>

Interesting story, especially regarding the creation of the seals.  Irish 
legends tell of the seal people, who could take human form.  When they fell 
in love, they could stay with their human partners for the rest of their 
lives, but if they returned to the sea, they would become seals again forever.

One such story I grew up with is "Kagan and the Wind" , written by an 
American I believe.  The Tommy Makem telling of it used to frighten me when 
I was young :)

http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/endeavor/wind.html

These creatures are often referred to as Silkies, selkies, selchies, 
kelpies, roane and seal people.

Wonder if there's some distant connection.




James...





From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 16 01:32:05 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 17:32:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Orkut.com
In-Reply-To: <40563EF5.CFE9D68E@sasktel.net>
Message-ID: <20040316013205.60480.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>


--- "Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc." <megao at sasktel.net> wrote:
> The "join" function is still not functional.

Orkut is an invitation only social network. Those that wish to join can
email me and I will invite you.

=====
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! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Tue Mar 16 02:16:54 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 19:16:54 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) The Afflictions of Affluence
Message-ID: <40566396.3836064D@mindspring.com>

The Afflictions of Affluence

What do obesity, the 'time crunch' and buyer's remorse all have in common? Well,
they're problems of wealthier societiesBy Robert J. Samuelson
NewsweekMarch 22 issue - It may seem a bit unnatural, but more and more of our
social problems and complaints stem from our affluence, not our poverty.
Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson made that point last
week?unintentionally, to be sure?when he announced that obesity now rivals
smoking as the largest cause of premature death. The Centers for Disease Control
reckons that obesity contributes to about 400,000 deaths annually, just behind
tobacco (435,000) and ahead of alcohol (85,000), car accidents (43,000) and guns
(29,000). Obesity and its complications?more diabetes and heart disease, for
instance?now account for an estimated 9 percent of U.S. health spending. When we
were poorer, obesity was not a big problem.


The supposed villains here are fast-food restaurants and food companies that
have supersized us to corpulence. There's some truth to this, but the larger and
more boring truth is that food's gotten cheaper, and as a result, we consume
more of it?and more away from home. In 1950, Americans devoted a fifth of their
disposable incomes to food (and less than a fifth of that to eating out). Now
food's share is a tenth (and almost half is out). We eat what pleases us, and so
why should anyone be surprised that the average American now consumes about 150
pounds of sugar and sweeteners annually, up roughly 20 percent since 1980? The
only saving grace is that some of the extra food "is thrown away?otherwise, all
Americans would weigh 300 pounds," says Roland Sturm, an obesity expert at the
Rand Corp.

It's misleading to ascribe all the resulting flab to American self-indulgence.
China shows signs of an obesity problem, says Sturm. So do some other countries
escaping poverty. "It's definitely one side effect of getting wealthier," he
says. Now the idea that people spend less on basics like food is usually
considered good, because it means they can spend more on other things. Their
living standards improve. But there's no guarantee that they'll spend wisely on
food or anything else.

Getting wealthier spawns other complaints. One is the "time squeeze"?the sense
that we're more harried than ever. We all know this is true; we're tugged by
jobs, family, PTA and soccer. Actually, it's not true. People go to work later
in life and retire earlier. Housework has declined. One survey found that in
1999 only 14 percent of wives did more than four hours of daily housework; the
figure was 43 percent in 1977 and 87 percent in 1924. Even when jobs and
housework are combined, total work hours for women and men have dropped.

Still, people gripe?and griping rises with income, report economists Daniel
Hamermesh of the University of Texas and Jungmin Lee of the University of
Arkansas. They studied the United States, Germany, Australia, Canada and South
Korea. People who were otherwise statistically similar (same age, working hours,
number of children) complained more about the "time squeeze" as their incomes
rose. Hamermesh and Lee's explanation: the more money people have, the more
things they can do with their time; time becomes more valuable, and people
increasingly resent that they can't create more of it.


Psychologist Barry Schwartz of Swarthmore College makes the broader point in his
new book, "The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less." Our individual culture
worships choice, but too much of it leads to choice congestion. Consumer Reports
now "offers comparisons among 220 new car models, 250 breakfast cereals, 400
VCRs, 40 household soaps, 500 health insurance policies, 350 mutual funds, and
even 35 showerheads," Schwartz writes. People feel overwhelmed by the time it
takes to make the "best" choice?and may later regret having made the wrong
choice. Purchasing blunders may irritate, but bigger mistakes of choice (in
careers, work vs. family) can be profoundly depressing, Schwartz argues.

As material wants are satisfied, psychological desires ascend. But these defy
easy economic balm. "Most of what people really want in life?love, friendship,
respect, family, standing, fun ... does not pass through the market," writes
Gregg Easterbrook in his book "The Progress Paradox: How Life Gets Better While
People Feel Worse." (Note how paradox pops up in these titles.) Indeed,
affluence may make matters worse. In 1957, 3 percent of Americans felt "lonely,"
according to a survey cited by Easterbrook; now 13 percent do. Although more
people can afford to exist apart, it may not be good for them.

None of this discredits the value of economic growth, which, as Easterbrook
shows, has made life better for countless millions and can continue to do so.
These problems are less serious than those of poverty and unemployment. Nor are
they always intractable. To check obesity, we can eat better and exercise more.
To control ordinary anxiety, we can recognize that some choices just don't
matter that much. Still, affluence's afflictions endure and remind us of an
eternal truth: it matters, as individuals and as a society, not just how much
wealth we have but how well we use it.

Correction: In my last column, I misspelled the name of economist Bart van Ark.
Apologies to him and readers.

? 2004 Newsweek, Inc.


-- 
"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 reason at longevitymeme.org  Sat Mar 27 07:15:43 2004
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 23:15:43 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Join The Three Hundred
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNAEHCEGAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>

The Methuselah Foundation have launched their latest initiative this week.
You can now show your support for serious efforts to extend the healthy
human life span by joining The Three Hundred:

http://www.longevitymeme.org/projects/join_the_three_hundred.cfm

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

For the price of a cup of coffee per day, would you like to join a select
group of humanitarians who will be remembered for their vision and saving
millions of lives?

Modern medical science continues to show us that the aging process may no
longer be the intractable problem it has been perceived to be for every
generation preceding ours. There is a present need to move faster towards a
previously unattainable goal: the control of aging. This need for more rapid
medical progess is only magnified by the current profound lack of funding
for aging research. Funding springs, at root, from widespread public
awareness of advances and possibilities in aging research. Educating the
public is an essential step in moving philanthropists and governments to
allocate more resources to the study of aging. The problems caused by aging
leave us poor in body, spirit, and finances. We must step forward to tackle
them!

The Methuselah Mouse Prize is working hard to build public interest and has
had some considerable success, raising almost $50,000 in cash since its
recent launch. Encouraged by these results and knowing that the size of the
fund is directly related to its effectiveness as a publicity tool, we have
decided to push forward with a new fundraising project that we feel will fit
the circumstance. You might be interested in this new initiative.

We call it "The Three Hundred" ... themed from history and limited to that
number of participants. These individuals (or organizations) see the
potential of the Prize and believe that aging can be defeated. Members of
The Three Hundred have made a commitment to creating a better future, one in
which the suffering caused by aging is greatly diminished or banished
entirely. The unique foresight shared by The Three Hundred at this early
stage in aging research will be remembered - they grasped the ring, heard
the call and took action when the opportunity first presented itself. The
efforts of the Three Hundred will be remembered, like those of their
historical counterparts, far into the future.

The existence of The Three Hundred resonates with those who feel the
injustice of the aging process, people who welcome the first serious
attempts in human history to fight aging and win. Nine enthusiastic
individuals have signed up before we could even make the announcement
public. Please visit the following website and read about The Three Hundred:

http://www.methuselahfoundation.org/threehundred.asp
http://www.methuselahfoundation.org/ThreeHundredDeclaration.asp

The control of aging is forseeable. Science provides the tools, researchers
provide the labour, The Mouse Prize will provide the funding. Please
consider joining our effort to create a better, longer, healthier future.

Dave Gobel
CEO

Aubrey de Grey
Chief Scientist

The Methuselah Foundation
http://www.methuselahfoundation.org

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

What's it worth to you to live 150 healthy years? What's it worth to you to
raise the average human lifespan to 150 years, just as a start? These are
not idle questions! Membership of The Three Hundred is a meaningful, but
affordable commitment: $1,000 a year, by the end of each year, for 25 years.
This amounts to $85 a month or $2.75 a day, the equivalent of a visit to
Starbucks.

The Three Hundred is a classical concept, based on a battle that saved the
future of Western Civilization: Thermopylae. In 480 B.C., 300 Spartan
warriors fought against incredible odds to gain time for the rest of Greece
to mobilize against the Persian hordes. Without the delaying action fought
at the narrow pass of Thermopylae, the achievements of Greece and our
culture as we know it would have been swept away.

The Methuselah Foundation is asking you to follow in the footsteps of this
noble Three Hundred, not to risk your lives, but to provide some of your
treasure so that we can all live ... and live ... and live. You will help to
win time for the human species to beat back an enemy far more dangerous than
the ancient Persians: the Grim Reaper himself.

The Three Hundred - a group strictly limited to 300 members - will live on
in history, as the Three Hundred of Thermopylae are remembered even to this
day. You can be one of them. The names of the 300 Spartans who fought at
Thermopylae were engraved on a stone tablet in Sparta that was still legible
seven centuries later. A momument stands to this day to pay homage to their
sacrifice. In lending your name to this enterprise, you will be remembered
for as long as the human race survives.

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

We have reached a potential tipping point in human history: a time in which
the quest to extend the healthy human life span can be taken seriously and
extensive resources devoted to understand and defeat the aging process. The
pledges of the Three Hundred will help further large sums to be raised for
Foundation projects such as the Methuselah Mouse Prize for anti-aging
research.

http://www.methuselahmouse.org

I am a member of the Three Hundred, and I have put my money where my mouth
is. To become one of the Three Hundred is to take the initiative, to
recognize that our contributions will make an ever-growing difference to the
future of medical research, health and longevity. We are the rainmakers; the
pebbles who trigger the avalanche; the first to heed the call. By our
actions, we lead the way and will long be remembered for it.

Think deeply, follow my lead, and join the Three Hundred. Take part in the
fight to cure aging!

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme





From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Tue Mar 16 10:09:03 2004
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 11:09:03 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [extropy-chat] RISKS: hazard comparisons
In-Reply-To: <20040315193140.82764.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040315193140.82764.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0403161104010.28391@hercules>

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
>--- Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:
>>
>> Brett Paatsch:
>> >Asteroids are non-partisan and don't differentiate voter preferences
>> >highly in any given electoral period.
>>
>> Fortunately...
>>
>> >They aren't lonely phenomenon in that respect unfortunately.
>
>No, like some unthinking masses here on earth, they change direction
>significantly when struck violently. While some boldly advance toward
>the origin of the strike, others flee from it.

I was in Spain when the bombs exloded, and during the elections. The media
spin about this "bombs moving votes" is big outside Spain.  For some
reason it is rarely mentioned that 90% of Spanish people were opposed to
their nation's intervention in the war from the start, that Aznar was
already (slightly) behind in the polls before the attacks, and that he
tried to use the two hundred victims to change the vote outcome. He
failed.

Alfio


From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Mar 16 13:14:07 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 14:14:07 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] 10th Planet Discovered
In-Reply-To: <r02010100-1032-4238833F76DB11D885B3000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
References: <20040315195951.GK18046@leitl.org>
	<r02010100-1032-4238833F76DB11D885B3000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
Message-ID: <20040316131407.GU28136@leitl.org>

On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 06:48:28PM -0500, Brent Neal wrote:

> I agree it is useless making such predictions, which is 
> why I both strenuously object to your using self-replicating 

This assumes we have no idea how to do AI/self-replicating 
nanotechnology. While I cannot give you a roadmap yet with milestones
which won't slip, they're "just" R&D. No unobtainium, no tooth fairy
involved.

In comparison to that, we have no idea how build traversible wormholes. Not
even whether the metalaws of the multiverse allow them.

> nanotech and in this message, the link between AI and nanotech 
> as givens in the debate about colonization of the solar system.

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying AI or nanotechnology are
"required". That we shouldn't e.g. start bootstrapping a lunar fabbing
facility via teleoperation. Quite the opposite: as long as it remains a
positive sum game, we should.

However, AI/nanotechnology will completely dominate posthuman future.
Suited/canned monkeys are an expiring model, though they haven't even
properly started yet.

> >I do not care much about lowest common denominator level of discussion on
> >nanotechnology. It makes my brain bleed.
> 
> I'm not quite sure how you meant that but either way, I find it 
> amusing. Are you seriously suggesting that Smalley and Drexler 
> are somehow ill-informed about the minutiae of the nanotech debate?

No. The level of the debate has been dumbed down to be understandable to the
general public so that it has become difficult to understand what they're
talking about.

Having this said, Smalley has said a few curious things which make me suspect
he's sketchy on understanding on machine-phase self-rep systems.

> Nanotech represents a locus of related, but not identical, fields.  

I've touched bio/org/phys/polymer/computational chemistry in my career, and
kept current on nanotechnology since early 1980s, so I'm more or less
familiar with the problem domain, yes. 

> The construction of molecular assemblers is but one aspect of the 
> field. However, your previous statements indicated that you believe 

I'm actually mostly a self-assembly nano person, if that's of any use. I'm
more interested in molecular circuitry, because this technology is about 15
years remote from our desktops, and it is very useful for a number of
computational problems. Nano bootstrap by means of autoassembly is a
computational problem, so is artificial cognition and automation in general.

In many aspects, this is the nexus technology.

> that molecular assemblers are necessary for the colonization of 
> the solar system in earnest. I disagree with that, for the reasons 

They're not necessary. They will just render any previous human presence in
this solar system insignicant. 

> I've stated previously.

I see we keep misunderstanding each other. The failure is largely mine, it's
difficult to write coherently while actually working. Sorry about that.
 
> >Of course. What has the current state of the art to do with anything? 
> 
> The current state of the art has everything to do with my point!  
> We have the capability to industrialize space right now.  

No, not without scaled-down teleoperators for lunar environment. They're not
that difficult to build, but it will take about a decade for a worthwhile
presence if we'd start an aggressive, seriously funded development program 
right now.

> We should invest early, instead of waiting for our "state 
> of the art" to give us some magical wonder-tech.

You misunderstood me completely. We clearly have a lot of loose cash, judging
by our frivolous activities. We could clearly fare better to have invested
the Iraq campaign funds into the lunar bootstrap (though I'd rather see that
used for polymer electronics, photovoltaics and direct alcohol/fuel reformer
fuel cells, and, yes, specific areas in nanotechnology).
 
> Yeah, well duh. But you have to start somewhere, which means shipping 
> the means to exploit the other rocks up from down here. Obviously, you 

Of course. But there are no rocks in LEO, or GEO. Hauling hardware into LEO
or Moon surface doesn't have much differing costs (machines don't mind long
transfer times, people do, people don't like high deccelerations, machines
don't mind impact shocks, if properly designed).

> only want to boost the minimum required to do so. But waving your 
> hands at that simple truth won't make it go away.

I'm pointing out that there are very large differences in bootstrap
complexity if you compare Luna and Mars (or asteroids, doesn't really
matter).
 
> Hmm. I'd read that most of the useful chemicals on the Moon were 
> bound up in the rocks, and not in a terribly useful state. The 

That's manifestly untrue. You can build a very effective solar still using
lunar shadow temperature gradients and a 100 g or so of clear and aluminizied 
mylar foil. Human understanding of ore is just an artifact of terrestrial
context. Lunar regolith contains any type of element I'd care to mine and to
process. People might lament lack of volatiles, but then, vacuum industrial
processes don't need volatiles in large quantities. And a closed-loop
ecosystem would do plenty with a ton of water/person, or less. 

> white papers published by Zubrin, among others, seem to indicate 
> that Earth->LEO/GEO->Mars is a much more cost effective path.

Then he's smoking crack. We don't have autonomous automation, and 2 sec lag
is barely sufficient for hand/eye coordination. Nevermind transfer times and
costs to Mars.
 
> Absolutely. The next logical place to put humans is Mars, to cut 
> down the communications delay  to industrialization efforts in the 
> asteroid belt. Plus, we actually have a decent chance of terraforming Mars. Added bonus.

You're describing a completely irrational programme. Why are you so bent on
pulling another Apollo with Mars? 
 
> You know, we're not doing a bad job for remote operations 
> on Mars. Especially not for our 3rd very tentative try. 

We're doing an awful job as far as industry automation on Mars is concerned.
We're doing a so-so job as far as exploration is concerned, given the lossage
rate. We're doing abysmally as compared to e.g. an insect's degree of
robustness and autonomy.

It only looks good if you compare it to other human artifacts.

> 
> The problem that I'm seeing with most of your arguments is 
> that you are looking 20-50 years out, and assuming the next 
> 20 years goes your way. I've had too many encounters with the 

I'm making no specific predictions. I'm just saying that people as we know
them won't conquer space, on the long run. How long it takes depends on a
number of factors which are not predictable.

> mad prophet Murphy to expect that. Talk to me about what we 
> can do -now-. Don't hand-wave, and don't bullshit. One of 

My degree of involvement in this debate is low. For once, it's completely
futile. It has no impact on policy. It takes away focus and precious minutes
of my life. If I was rational I would have gone offline for good many years
ago.

So, no, I will not spend significant resources even on superficial analysis
rehash. Sorry if this appears impolite, but I'm not owing this to anybody.

> my fondest wishes is for us to start looking at space as 
> more than just a convenient setting for novels and as a 
> money-sink for politicians. We've invested a fsckload of 
> money and we should be considering a return on that investment.  

Space has a very high ROI threshold, though that threshold depends very much
on which bootstrap trajectory we're choosing. So far, our space activities
have not been ROI-oriented.

> Undoubtedly we've seen some of that - read Heinlein's testimony 
> to Congress in the 80's for examples. But what have we gotten 
> since then? We should expect more.

I'm certainly not expecting a ROI-oriented space exploration strategy from a
national space program. It doesn't matter, as long as access to LEO for small
payloads can be purchased by sufficiently equipped private groups.

The threshold is sinking as we speak, as long as our automation research
advances. We should start worrying when our capabilities start degrading,
globally. 

-- 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/20040316/d4a76269/attachment.bin>

From riel at surriel.com  Tue Mar 16 15:06:24 2004
From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 10:06:24 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] 10th Planet Discovered
In-Reply-To: <r02010100-1032-4238833F76DB11D885B3000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
References: <r02010100-1032-4238833F76DB11D885B3000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.55L.0403161003370.29752@imladris.surriel.com>

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Brent Neal wrote:

> Absolutely. The next logical place to put humans is Mars, to cut down
> the communications delay to industrialization efforts in the asteroid
> belt.

Ironically Mars is further away from most of the asteroid
belt than the Earth is.  This because at any given time,
half of the asteroids will be "on the other side of the
sun" from Mars, or at least at another point in the orbit.

Transportation from Mars to the asteroid belt and back
may be faster than with Earth though, due to being further
out from the Sun's, not as deep inside the gravity well.

> Plus, we actually have a decent chance of terraforming Mars. Added
> bonus.

Good sunlight is definately an important factor, indeed...

Rik
-- 
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan


From amara at amara.com  Tue Mar 16 14:12:52 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 15:12:52 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] 10th Planet Discovered
Message-ID: <p05100300bc7cb9cde46e@[150.146.134.133]>

Rik van Riel:
>So, does anybody have detailed plans yet on how to
>colonise Kuiper Belt Objects ?

"Warm-Blooded Plants and Freeze-Dried Fish", by Freeman J. Dyson
November 1997,  Atlantic Monthly

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97nov/space.htm

This article is a focus on looking for life, however he wrote a few
paragraphs about living in the Kuiper Belt, that might interest you.

(given what we knew in 1997)

-- 

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 eugen at leitl.org  Tue Mar 16 15:24:28 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 16:24:28 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] 10th Planet Discovered
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.55L.0403161003370.29752@imladris.surriel.com>
References: <r02010100-1032-4238833F76DB11D885B3000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>
	<Pine.LNX.4.55L.0403161003370.29752@imladris.surriel.com>
Message-ID: <20040316152428.GZ28136@leitl.org>

On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 10:06:24AM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Brent Neal wrote:
> 
> > Absolutely. The next logical place to put humans is Mars, to cut down

The next logical place to put humans is the Moon, obviously. (Orbit is not a
place, it's absence of such).

> > the communications delay to industrialization efforts in the asteroid

Czech this out: http://www.martinreddy.net/pubs/pdf/ECS-CSG-36-97.pdf

As I said, the Moon is barely within reach of decent telepresence
processivity. It will need some adjustment on side of operators. Here's a
good place to introduce autonomy at reflex level, advancing to planning and
execution of tasks.

> > belt.
> 
> Ironically Mars is further away from most of the asteroid
> belt than the Earth is.  This because at any given time,

If you're talking manned spaceflight, you have to address safety, transfer
time in microgravity, reaction mass, life support. Distance per se means
very little, delta vee a lot more.

> half of the asteroids will be "on the other side of the
> sun" from Mars, or at least at another point in the orbit.

If 500 ms is degrading for hand-eye coordination, how degrading is 12 min? An
hour? A day?
 
> Transportation from Mars to the asteroid belt and back

There's no need for "back" with automation.

> may be faster than with Earth though, due to being further
> out from the Sun's, not as deep inside the gravity well.
> 
> > Plus, we actually have a decent chance of terraforming Mars. Added
> > bonus.
> 
> Good sunlight is definately an important factor, indeed...

Indeed. Look up solar constant in Earth orbit/Moon and Mars.

-- 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/20040316/006ff152/attachment.bin>

From brentn at freeshell.org  Tue Mar 16 15:48:55 2004
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 10:48:55 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] 10th Planet Discovered
In-Reply-To: <20040316131407.GU28136@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <r02010100-1032-6F929D9C776111D885B3000393A47D36@[192.168.123.121]>

 (3/16/04 14:14) Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

>
>However, AI/nanotechnology will completely dominate posthuman future.

Assuming the technologies play out the way the visionaries expect them to. I'm not willing to wager on that.  Mad Prophet Murphy, etc. etc. 

>Suited/canned monkeys are an expiring model, though they haven't even
>properly started yet.

Yes. Until we -need- a human presence in the outsystem, or we decide to terraform Mars, there is absolutely no reason for human presence in space. We continue to have a manned space program primarily due to penis-measurement issues.

>
>Having this said, Smalley has said a few curious things which make me suspect
>he's sketchy on understanding on machine-phase self-rep systems.

I don't think Smalley is sketchy so much as he is trying to play a preventative political game that will preserve his funding even if the Luddites manage to paint nanotech with the Brush of Evil. :)  The difference makes no difference though. He's made some, IMO, indefensible public statements. Yes, I realize that this is a terribly cynical thing to think, but too many years of watching the big budget science game be played has left me with a healthy dose of cynicism.


>
>You misunderstood me completely. We clearly have a lot of loose cash, judging
>by our frivolous activities. We could clearly fare better to have invested
>the Iraq campaign funds into the lunar bootstrap (though I'd rather see that
>used for polymer electronics, photovoltaics and direct alcohol/fuel reformer
>fuel cells, and, yes, specific areas in nanotechnology).

Agreed. Not to mention other technologies which are starting up the commercialization curve, such as TDP.


>Of course. But there are no rocks in LEO, or GEO. Hauling hardware into LEO
>or Moon surface doesn't have much differing costs (machines don't mind long
>transfer times, people do, people don't like high deccelerations, machines
>don't mind impact shocks, if properly designed).

Rocks aren't the most valuable thing in space. At our current technology levels and planetary needs, the uninterrupted solar flux is -vastly- more valuable. 

> 
>> Hmm. I'd read that most of the useful chemicals on the Moon were 
>> bound up in the rocks, and not in a terribly useful state. The 
>
>That's manifestly untrue. 

I wish I could find the article where I read this. But, the Moon has been baking for a long damn time. Anything volatile that -wasn't- bound up in rocks has long since boiled off.

>
>Then he's smoking crack. We don't have autonomous automation, and 2 sec lag
>is barely sufficient for hand/eye coordination. Nevermind transfer times and
>costs to Mars.

Read the Mars Direct book before passing judgement. Zubrin is a pretty clever engineer.

> 
>> Absolutely. The next logical place to put humans is Mars, to cut 
>> down the communications delay  to industrialization efforts in the 
>> asteroid belt. Plus, we actually have a decent chance of terraforming Mars. Added bonus.
>
>You're describing a completely irrational programme. Why are you so bent on
>pulling another Apollo with Mars? 

There is a difference, to which you seem to be completely oblivious,  between a "catch it and piss on it" Apollo program and a sensible bootstrap. From the research I've read, the moon seems a more irrational target than Mars due to its relative paucity of free resources. Once we're in orbit, which -must- be the first step no matter how you choose to play the game, the getting to Mars is not that much more expensive energy-wise than the Moon.

You're choosing to paint that with a tainted brush for reasons that I'm not sure of, be they simply prejudicial or more complicated.


> 
>> You know, we're not doing a bad job for remote operations 
>> on Mars. Especially not for our 3rd very tentative try. 
>
>It only looks good if you compare it to other human artifacts.

And it will continue to get better. That's the nature of technology. Considering that the technology that gets launched is -by design- 5-10 years out of date anyway, I'm cautiously optimistic about things such as Zubrin's proposed automated fuel reformer for the Martian surface.




>
>> 
>> The problem that I'm seeing with most of your arguments is 
>> that you are looking 20-50 years out, and assuming the next 
>> 20 years goes your way. I've had too many encounters with the 
>
>I'm making no specific predictions. 

Yes, you were.  You were doing so in your assumptions. 

>
>So far, our space activities
>have not been ROI-oriented.

Exactly my point. This needs to change. Immediately, if not sooner. 

Which has been my point all along. Investing -now-, not later, with an eye towards using the returns from the investment to fuel further investment is the only strategy that I see working in the long term. Undoubtedly there will be 'waste' that occurs from unforeseen factors. We could spend trillions of dollars tossing things into orbit with chemical rockets, only to discover the proper 'unobtainium' (whether it be nanotube ropes or something more exotic) that will allow us to build a space elevator.  There are literally thousands of other things that could happen along that same vein.  Even if they -all- come to pass, I don't think the investment will be wasted: its too easy to sink into a pit of decision paralysis and terminal specification creep. 


B


-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From amara at amara.com  Tue Mar 16 16:18:12 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 17:18:12 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] 10th Planet Discovered
Message-ID: <p05100301bc7cd71b6402@[150.146.134.133]>

Eugene:
>http://www.hvgb.net/~sedna/story.html

>Sedna is a very significant figure in Inuit mythology. There are a number of
>different versions of the myth of Sedna. There are a number of
>different versions of the myth of Sedna. I will share with you the
>one I prefer.

Here's mine: (this one is a Sedna reborn from the depths)

Story:       THE SKELETON WOMAN
from the Intuit Eskimos

Every good story begins with "Once upon a time...", because that
signals to the listener to relax and open to another world.


Once upon a time ---

She had done something of which her father disapproved, although no
one any longer remembered what it was. But her father had dragged
her to the cliffs and thrown her over and into the sea. There, the
fish ate her flesh away and plucked out her eyes. As she lay under
the sea, her skeleton turned over and over in the currents.

One day a fisherman came fishing, well in truth, many came to this
bay once. But this fisherman had drifted far from his home place,
and did not know that the local fisherman stayed away, saying this
inlet was haunted.

The fisherman's hook drifted down through the water and caught, of
all places, in the bones of Skeleton Woman's rib cage. The fisherman
thought, "Oh, now I've really got a big one! Now I really have one!"
In his mind, he was thinking of how many people this great fish
would feed, how long it would last, how long he might be free from
the chore of hunting. And as he struggled with this great weight on
the end of the hook, the sea was stirred to a thrashing froth, and
his kayak bucked and shook, for she who was beneath struggled to
disentangle herself. And the more she struggled, the more she
tangled in the line. No matter what she did, she was inexorably
dragged upward, tugged up by the bones of her own ribs.

The hunter had turned to scoop up his net, so he did not see her
bald head rise above the waves, he did not see the little coral
creatures glinting in the orbs of her skull, he did not see the
crustaceans on her old ivory teeth. When he turned back with his
net, her entire body, such as it was, had come to the surface and
was hanging from the tip of his kayak by her long front teeth.

"Agh!" cried the man, and his heart fell into his knees, his eyes
hid in terror on the back of his head, and his ears blazed bright
red. "Agh!" he screamed, and knocked her off the prow with his oar
and began paddling like a demon toward the shoreline. And not
realizing she was tangled in his line, he was frightened all the
more for she appeared to stand upon her toes while chasing him all
the way to to shore. No matter which way he zigged his kayak, she
stayed right behind, and her breath rolled over the water in clouds
of steam, and her arms flailed out as though to snatch him down into
the depths.

"Aggggggghhhh!" he wailed as he ran aground. In one leap he was out
of his kayak, clutching his fishing stick and running, and the
coral-white corpse of Skeleton Woman, still snagged in the fishing
line, bumpety-bumped behind right after him. Over the rocks he ran,
and she followed. Over the frozen tundra he ran and she kept right
up. Over the meat laid out to dry he ran, cracking it to pieces as
his mukluks bore down.

Throughout it all she kept right up, in fact grabbed some of the
frozen fish as she was dragged behind. This she began to eat, for
she had not eaten in a long, long time. Finally, the man reached his
snowhouse and dove right into the tunnel, and on hands and knees
scrambled his way into the interior. Panting and sobbing he lay
there in the dark, his heart, a drum, a mighty drum. Safe at last,
oh so safe, yes safe, thank the Gods, Raven, yes thank Raven, yes
and all-bountiful Sedna, safe ... at ... last.

Imagine when he lit his whale oil lamp, there she/it lay in a tumble
upon his snow floor, one heel over her shoulder, one knee inside her
rib cage, one foot over her elbow. He could not say later what it
was, perhaps the firelight softened her features, or the fact that
he was a lonely man. But a feeling of some kindness came into his
breathing, and slowly he reached out his grimy hands and using words
softly like mother to child, he began to untangle her from the
fishing line.

"Oh, na, na, na." First he untangled the toes, then the ankles. "Oh,
na, na, na." On and on he worked into the night, until dressing her
in furs to keep her warm, Skelton Woman's bones were all in the
proper order that a human's bones should be.

He felt into his leather cuffs for his flint, and used some of his
hair to light a little more fire. He gazed at her from time to time
as he oiled the precious wood of his fishing stick and rewound the
gut line. And she in the furs uttered not a word- she did not dare-
lest this hunter take her out and throw her down to the rocks and
break her bones to pieces completely.

The man became drowsy, slid under his sleeping skins, and soon was
dreaming. And sometimes as humans sleep, you know, a tear escapes
from the dreamer's eye; we never know what sort of dream causes
this, but we know it is either a dream of sadness or longing. And
this is what happened to the man.

The Skeleton Woman saw the tear glisten in the firelight, and she
became suddenly soooo thirsty. She tinkled and clanked and crawled
over to the sleeping man and put her mouth to his tear. The single
tear was like a river and she drank and drank and drank until her
many-years-long thirst was satisfied.

While lying beside him, she reached inside the sleeping man and took
out his heart, the mighty drum. She sat and banged on both sides of
it: *Bom, Bomm! ... Bom, Bomm!*

As she drummed, she began to sing out "Flesh, flesh, flesh! Flesh,
flesh, flesh!" And the more she sang, the more her body filled out
with flesh. She sang for hair and good eyes and nice hands. She sang
the divide between her legs, and breasts long enough to wrap for
warmth, and all the things a woman needs.

And when she was all done, she also sang the sleeping man's clothes
off and crept into his bed with him, skin against skin. She returned
the great drum, his heart, to his body, and that is how they
awakened, wrapped one around the other, tangled from their night, in
another way now, a good and lasting way.

The people who cannot remember how she came to her first ill-fortune
say she and the fisherman went away and were consistently well-fed
by the creatures she had known in her life under the water. The
people say that it is true and that is all they know.

[The story is from _Women Who Run With the Wolves_ by Clarissa Estes,
a most remarkable book and a most remarkable storyteller. ]

----More of my favorites
http://www.amara.com/astories/stories.html
and
http://www.amara.com/apoetry/poetry.html

-- 

********************************************************************
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 don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." --Anais Nin



From amara at amara.com  Tue Mar 16 18:26:51 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 19:26:51 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] 10th Planet Discovered
Message-ID: <p05100300bc7cee6de7b1@[150.146.134.133]>

Eugene:
>  The closest one is Luna. And it has volatiles, to boot.

I'm not sure water is there, but you are aware about the
following results, I suppose.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_moon.html

We know that the Moon's surface can't hold an atmosphere (do you know
the  calculation? It takes five minutes; ask and I can show it). Even
though the Moon's surface seems bone-dry, there are gases trapped
in lunar surface material, which provide the main evidence from
which the isotopic composition of H, He, and Ne in the protosolar
cloud is derived.

Neon is present for sure, the source for that being the solar wind.

 From "Isotopic Composition of H, He and Ne in the Protosolar Cloud"
by Johannes Geiss and George Gloeckler Space Science Reviews 106,
3-18, 2003.

"The solar wind is by far the best source of information for
determining the neon isotopic composition in the protosolar cloud.
Very precise results on 20Ne/22Ne in the solar wind were obtained
during the 1969-72 period with the Apollo SWC experiments. The SW
was sampled at five different locations on the Moon for differing
aspect angles. 20Ne/22Ne data were also obtained by the MTOF
detector of the SOHO/CELIAS experiment.

The neon contained in lunar surface material consists of three
major components: (1) Trapped solar wind neon, (2) neon produced by
spallation, and (3) "SEP" neon. The acronym "SEP" was originally
chosen because it was though that this component consisted of solar
energetic particles. An alternative explanation is that the "SEP"
component consists of solar wind particles that are isotopically
mass fractionated by diffusion or other processes."


Neon Isotopic Abundances in Solar System Material
--------------------------------------------------

Present-day In-ecliptic solar wind          20/22/Ne   21Ne/22Ne

Apollo SWC                              13.7 +/- 0.3    0.033 +/- 0.0003
SOHO/CELIAS  (Kallenbach)               13.8 +/- 0.7    0.031 +/- 0.008
Protosolar Cloud                        13.7 +/- 0.3    0.0328 +/- 
0.0005 (Benk)

Solar Wind in Lunar Soil (Benkert)         13.8 +/0 0.1    0.0328 +/- 0.0005
"SEP" in Lunar Soil (Benkert)              11.2 +/- 0.2    0.0295 +/- 0.0005


Benkert, J.-P, Baur, H., signer, P., and Wieler, R.: 1993,
'He, Ne, and Ar from the Solar Wind and Solar Energentic Particles
in Lunar Ilmenites and Pyroxenes', J. Geophys. Res. 98, 13147-13162.

Kallenbach, R., et al., 1997, 'isotopic Composition of Solar
Wind Neon Measured by CELIAS/MTOF on Board SOHO', J. Geophys. Res.
102, 26895-26904.
-- 

********************************************************************
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 eugen at leitl.org  Tue Mar 16 19:52:27 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:52:27 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] 10th Planet Discovered
In-Reply-To: <p05100300bc7cee6de7b1@[150.146.134.133]>
References: <p05100300bc7cee6de7b1@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <20040316195227.GU28136@leitl.org>

On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 07:26:51PM +0100, Amara Graps wrote:
> Eugene:
> > The closest one is Luna. And it has volatiles, to boot.
> 
> I'm not sure water is there, but you are aware about the
> following results, I suppose.
> 
> http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_moon.html

Yes, and http://lunar.lanl.gov/pubs/2000/Polar_H_Deposits_on_Moon.pdf

While it is premature to assume MT (if not GT) hydrate deposits in polar
cryotrap regions without sending an exploration mission (and not just a
single-shot penetration vehicle + mass spectrograph), the data do look good.

It's worthwhile to mention why the Moon is so important, and Mars is not,
because these points gets so often omitted.

* lunar polar cryotraps seem to contain enough minable silicate hydrates (or
  even ice, for what we know) to last throughout the human phase of
  exploration

* surface Mars atmospheric pressure is average 6 mbar, while Earth has 1013
  mbar. For all effective purposes this is a dirty vacuum. Enough pressure
  for airborne dust, including contamination of solar panels and wind drag on
  gossamer aluminized polymer film structures, not enough pressure to
  engineer suits and structures for anything but vacuum

* the only use for a CO2 atmosphere is as a carbon source. Silicates do at
  least as well, and there is enough carbon in regolith to be be more than
  sufficient carbon (and ammonia/dihydrogen sulfide) sources

* solar constant Earth orbit is 1400 W/m^2, Mars is 622 W/m^2. Did I mention
  why the Mars rovers are only good for 3 months? It's dust, mostly.

* escape velocity, blahblah, linear motors to launch, did I mention vacuum? I
  guess I did. No can do on Mars.

* 2 sec vs 20 min lightminutes pingpong latency. Nevermind picture setting up
  ~GBps data pipe to Luna vs. Mars. Killer argument. 


-- 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/20040316/24c83662/attachment.bin>

From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Tue Mar 16 23:06:37 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 16:06:37 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
Message-ID: <4057887D.397F832D@mindspring.com>

Can anyone here (especially someone with physics credentials) give me a 
good layman's explanation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?

When I do a web search, I get some sites saying that we simply don't 
have the tools required to view delicate sub-atomic structures without 
disturbing them. One page claimed that, for instance, observation 
requires light, and photons striking the subject disturbs it.

However, some other articles assert that it is the act of human 
observation, no matter what technology we use, which affects the 
outcome. This interpretation is favored by mystics, who claim it is 
proof that reality is subjective.

Any help on this would be very much appreciated.

-- 
Jonathan


-- 
"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  Wed Mar 17 05:30:49 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 21:30:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
In-Reply-To: <4057887D.397F832D@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <20040317053049.56082.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>

It is essentially that there are more than one characteristic of a
quantum particle. The uncertainty principle states that if you observe
the value of one characteristic, the act of observation disturbs the
particle, such that you can never know what the original values of the
other characteristics were.

For example, if you observe the position of a particle, you cannot know
what its spin was before you observed the position (and vice versa).

It is not physically possible to observe a particle without receiving
some amount of information from it. That information requires some type
of broadcast via energy or other particles. This causes the change in
characteristics. 

Nor is 'observation' dependent upon human beings to observe.
Chlorophyll observes the wavelength of photons all day long without a
human around, else trees would not live.

--- "Terry W. Colvin" <fortean1 at mindspring.com> wrote:
> Can anyone here (especially someone with physics credentials) give me
> a 
> good layman's explanation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?

It is essentially that there are more than 
> 
> When I do a web search, I get some sites saying that we simply don't 
> have the tools required to view delicate sub-atomic structures
> without 
> disturbing them. One page claimed that, for instance, observation 
> requires light, and photons striking the subject disturbs it.
> 
> However, some other articles assert that it is the act of human 
> observation, no matter what technology we use, which affects the 
> outcome. This interpretation is favored by mystics, who claim it is 
> proof that reality is subjective.
> 
> Any help on this would be very much appreciated.
> 
> -- 
> Jonathan
> 
> 
> -- 
> "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.]
> _______________________________________________
> 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! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com


From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Mar 17 06:08:40 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:08:40 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen lobsters thaw to lob another day
In-Reply-To: <p05100301bc7cd71b6402@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <003a01c40be6$4b0949a0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

Is this fer real?  spike

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/03/16/frozen.lobster.ap/index.html

Company: Frozen lobsters come back to life

Tuesday, March 16, 2004 Posted: 9:53 AM EST (1453 GMT)


BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- A company says its freezing technique
allows some lobsters to come back to life when thawed -- just in time to
become dinner.

Trufresh LLC, of Suffield, Connecticut, discovered that the method it
has used for years on salmon also revived some lobsters after their
subzero sojourns, potentially resulting in fresher-than-frozen
crustaceans.

The company is looking for partners to begin selling the lobsters
commercially.

Company chairman Barnet L. Liberman acknowledged only about 12 of
roughly 200 healthy lobsters survived the freezing, which involves
immersing the lobster in a brine 40 below zero.

In addition, the company hasn't researched how long a frozen lobster can
survive -- overnight is the longest period so far.

Liberman emphasized the company's goal isn't to provide customers with
lobsters that always come back to life. He just wants to supply tasty
lobsters.

Still, Trufresh hasn't hesitated to tout the lobsters' restorative
qualities, saying it plans to ship the lobsters with rubber bands on the
claws, as a consumer protection measure.

"I wouldn't remove the rubber bands," Liberman said. "It's not worth the
risk."

Robert Bayer of the University of Maine's Lobster Institute said he was
intrigued about the Trufresh process, but dubious. "I guess I am
skeptical about a lobster being brought back to life," Bayer said.



From gpmap at runbox.com  Wed Mar 17 06:22:42 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 07:22:42 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
In-Reply-To: <4057887D.397F832D@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGEELHCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

I would not use any of these two statements to "explain" HP. Rather, I would
start by recognizing that thinking that what we observe as an electron must
have definite position and velocity is an assumption, an assumption that
experiment proves wrong. In the quantum world at a fundamental level,
position and velocity should not be used as building blocks of our
description of the universe.
What should be used instead? Now, I hope someone can answer that.

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Terry W.
Colvin
Sent: mi?rcoles, 17 de marzo de 2004 0:07
To: Fort [No Personal Forwards]; Forteana /Alternate Orphan/;
uasr at topica.com; Extropy-chat at extropy.org
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle


Can anyone here (especially someone with physics credentials) give me a
good layman's explanation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?

When I do a web search, I get some sites saying that we simply don't
have the tools required to view delicate sub-atomic structures without
disturbing them. One page claimed that, for instance, observation
requires light, and photons striking the subject disturbs it.

However, some other articles assert that it is the act of human
observation, no matter what technology we use, which affects the
outcome. This interpretation is favored by mystics, who claim it is
proof that reality is subjective.

Any help on this would be very much appreciated.

--
Jonathan
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.614 / Virus Database: 393 - Release Date: 05/03/2004



From scerir at libero.it  Wed Mar 17 07:37:12 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 08:37:12 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
References: <4057887D.397F832D@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <00d201c40bf2$aa0b3970$92b11b97@administxl09yj>

> Can anyone here give me a 
> good layman's explanation 
> of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?
> Jonathan

If you write the word "uncertainty"
here http://www.arxiv.org/find/quant-ph
(in the "Title" field) you'll see
how this topic is controversial.

A well known somebody also writes that
uncertainty relations have little to
do with QM 
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0403038

Anyway the Uncertainty Principle states that given 
a pair of canonically conjugate variables (the associated 
operators do not commute) or, by extension, a pair of 
Hermitian operators, the product of the uncertainties 
of the conjugate variables must exceed a certain small 
number (in general Planck's constant divided by
4 pi), ie
-position and momentum
-energy and time
-a field and its rate of change
-x-component vs. y-component of angular momentum
-3-metric and extrinsic curvature K
-entropy and temperature
-pressure and volume
-chemical potential and moles

Deutsch, then Ghirardi, etc. developed a theory
of "entropic" uncertainty relations.
They are much better than usual uncertainty
relations, which are meaningless in certain
cases, ie with "bounded" observables 
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0310120
or "time-energy"relation unless you define 
a very special "time" (not a pure parameter) 
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9906030
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0110004
 
Kevin Brown writes good pages here
http://mathpages.com/home/kmath158.htm
http://mathpages.com/home/kmath488/kmath488.htm





From scerir at libero.it  Wed Mar 17 07:43:10 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 08:43:10 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
References: <4057887D.397F832D@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <000401c40bf3$7f9ab3e0$92b11b97@administxl09yj>

Look there is a good page here too
http://www.synaptic.bc.ca/ejournal/uncertin.htm


From gpmap at runbox.com  Wed Mar 17 09:13:35 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 09:13:35 GMT
Subject: [extropy-chat] Century City: The law show of the future
Message-ID: <E1B3X7H-0000gj-Hr@fetch-bak.runbox.com>

>From <a href="http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/16/2133224&mode=thread&tid=123&tid=129&tid=188&tid=99">Slashdot</a>: CBS aired a pilot of a new show called 'Century City' tonight, Tuesday, March 16th. CNN has the story. The executive producer, Ed Zuckerman, had this to say about the future state of the law in America: 'Our future is a positive future. We assume that things are basically going to get better, progress will continue,' Zuckerman says. 'There will be problems -- new inventions, new technologies will bring with them difficulties -- but it's a bright future.' He also makes it clear that 'This is not a 'Blade Runner''. 
>From the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/03/16/apontv.hector.elizondo.ap/index.html">CNN story</a>: The pilot of "Century City" premieres 9 p.m. EST Tuesday. Another episode airs 10 p.m. Saturday. Then five more weekly episodes are scheduled back in the Tuesday timeslot. Set in 2030, the sleek, pod-shaped offices of the "Century City" law firm Crane, Constable, McNeil and Montero are built on a sound stage in an industrial area near Los Angeles International Airport. "Century City" was originally set 50 years into the future, but Elizondo said it was decided to place it "just far enough away to make it more poignant, to bring it closer to home."
>From the show's <a href="http://kutv.cbsnow.com/primetime/century_city/index.shtml">home page</a> at CBS, the plot of the premiere: A young boy's father wants the right to use the boy's genetic embryo clone to develop a baby who could donate a portion of his liver to save him. The firm also takes on the case of a boy band that is suing its lead singer for not adhering to his contract to keep up his physical appearance.
<a href="http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2004/3/7/6473/67802">SciScoop</a> has a good description of the settings: "Genetic screening has made the population as a whole more content, well adjusted, personally fulfilled, and healthier; indeed, many of the syndromes and diseases that afflicted people in the twentieth century have been eliminated. However, many people voice concerns that humanity is in danger of losing something essential by this trend toward normative homogeneity. They worry that the richness of human experience will be compromised if we diminish our ability to experience boredom, suffering, alienation, and even despair", and much more.
I have not watched Century City (I look forward to watching it and will try to download all episodes), but from the reviews above I think it is a futuristic show produced with a positive attitude. We need more of that. Also, it is important to realize that getting from here to there is not a problem of science or technology, that will be developed anyway. The problem to explore is how society will cope with new options, and the work of a legal firm is a good setting to start exploring.


From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Wed Mar 17 13:58:40 2004
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 14:58:40 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
In-Reply-To: <20040317053049.56082.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040317053049.56082.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0403171452300.1804@hercules>

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>It is essentially that there are more than one characteristic of a
>quantum particle. The uncertainty principle states that if you observe
>the value of one characteristic, the act of observation disturbs the
>particle, such that you can never know what the original values of the
>other characteristics were.
>
>For example, if you observe the position of a particle, you cannot know
>what its spin was before you observed the position (and vice versa).
>
>It is not physically possible to observe a particle without receiving
>some amount of information from it. That information requires some type
>of broadcast via energy or other particles. This causes the change in
>characteristics.
>
>Nor is 'observation' dependent upon human beings to observe.
>Chlorophyll observes the wavelength of photons all day long without a
>human around, else trees would not live.

This last paragraph is the important one. If one takes the "observation
disturbs the particle" view, it's not just human observation
with lamps and particle accelerators. Each and every interaction with
other particles is an "observation", with the other particle observing
the first to judge how it should react, etc. The net result is that, if
the particle has any interaction whatsoever with the rest of the world,
its characteristics are subject to uncertainty. And, if it doesn't
interact, there's no way to know its characteristic, so they are totally
indeterminate :) you can't win.

Alfio


From megao at sasktel.net  Thu Mar 18 02:44:12 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 20:44:12 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
References: <20040317053049.56082.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>
	<Pine.GSO.4.58.0403171452300.1804@hercules>
Message-ID: <40590CFC.C6B08802@sasktel.net>


Like piecing dna strands and determining where they overlap and making the
joins on paper.

If the action is no viewed or effected, but the second or third action is
viewed and the start condition known it is possible to deduce the unseen
condition.
Starting at several points before the event in question and comparing the
results gives information to determine the sarting condition.

Outside of viewing "unviewable" particles interacting in unseeable  (other
dimensional) ways it would be tough to be absolutely certain.

hocus pocus is hard to decrypt......................

Alfio Puglisi wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
> >It is essentially that there are more than one characteristic of a
> >quantum particle. The uncertainty principle states that if you observe
> >the value of one characteristic, the act of observation disturbs the
> >particle, such that you can never know what the original values of the
> >other characteristics were.
> >
> >For example, if you observe the position of a particle, you cannot know
> >what its spin was before you observed the position (and vice versa).
> >
> >It is not physically possible to observe a particle without receiving
> >some amount of information from it. That information requires some type
> >of broadcast via energy or other particles. This causes the change in
> >characteristics.
> >
> >Nor is 'observation' dependent upon human beings to observe.
> >Chlorophyll observes the wavelength of photons all day long without a
> >human around, else trees would not live.
>
> This last paragraph is the important one. If one takes the "observation
> disturbs the particle" view, it's not just human observation
> with lamps and particle accelerators. Each and every interaction with
> other particles is an "observation", with the other particle observing
> the first to judge how it should react, etc. The net result is that, if
> the particle has any interaction whatsoever with the rest of the world,
> its characteristics are subject to uncertainty. And, if it doesn't
> interact, there's no way to know its characteristic, so they are totally
> indeterminate :) you can't win.
>
> Alfio
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From jonkc at att.net  Wed Mar 17 16:35:02 2004
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 11:35:02 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
References: <4057887D.397F832D@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <02ad01c40c3d$d1abeba0$08fe4d0c@hal2001>

"Terry W. Colvin" <fortean1 at mindspring.com> Wrote:

>some other articles assert that it is the act of human observation,
>no matter what technology we use, which affects the
>outcome.

Yes but it's much deeper than just a measurement problem. Take the
old 2 slit experiment for example, it's not that the photon goes through
one slit and we just don't know which one, it must go through the left
slit only, and the right slit only, and both slits, and no slit at all, and
it must do all these things at the same time.

Shine a light on 2 closely spaced slits and it will produce a complex
interference pattern on a film, even if the light beam is so weak the
photons (or any other particle) are sent out one at a time. If a particle
goes through one slit it wouldn't seem to matter if the other slit,
the one it didn't go though, was there or not, but it does.

Even stranger, place a polarizing filter set at 0 degrees over one slit, and
one set at  90 degrees over the other, the interference pattern disappears.
Now place a third filter set at 45 degrees one inch in front of the film and
10 light years from the slits. The interference pattern comes back, even
though you didn't decide to put the filter in front of the film until 10
years after the photons passed the slits! Heisenberg's Uncertainty
Principle does not enter into any of this. Quantum Mechanics may or
may not be a good idea but one thing is certain, it's the law.

   John K Clark      jonkc at att.net




From scerir at libero.it  Wed Mar 17 17:15:38 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:15:38 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
References: <20040317053049.56082.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>
	<Pine.GSO.4.58.0403171452300.1804@hercules>
Message-ID: <000c01c40c43$783be5b0$1eb31b97@administxl09yj>

From: "Alfio Puglisi"

> The net result is that, if the particle has any interaction 
> whatsoever with the rest of the world, its characteristics 
> are subject to uncertainty. And, if it doesn't interact, 
> there's no way to know its characteristic, so they are totally
> indeterminate :) you can't win.

The "weak measurement" technique, proposed by Aharonov (yes, that
Aharonov-Bohm effect) exploits quantum uncertainty. Aharonov's 
quantum detectors are so weakly linked to the experiment that any 
measurement moves the detector's "pointer" by less than the level 
of uncertainty. This also means "superpositions" are preserved.
There is a price to pay for these "delicate" readings: they are
inaccurate. But while this might appear to make the whole process 
pointless, Aharonov has calculated that when repeated many times, 
the average of these measurements approximates to the "true" value 
of the thing being measured.

A. Steinberg on weak measurements.
general paper
http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/~aephraim/Wheeler=0302003.pdf
lectures & presentations (many, long, and slow) here
http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/~aephraim/aephraim.html
experiments
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0310091

Needless to say the quantum measurement/quantum weak measurement 
issue has to do with the irreversibility/reversibility issue, 
the collapse/superposition issue, and even with the consciousness/
unconsciousness issue of quantum automata, that is to say with
the D.Z.Albert/A.Peres debate on the weird behaviour of quantum
automata.

--------------
A quantum joke
--------------

Let us start from the most general question, which says:
is it possible to assign *definite* values of observables
to individual events?

Our usual *assumption* is that the result of the measurement
of a certain operator A depends only on the state ("psi")
of the quantum system we are measuring, and nothing else.

Let us consider (for simplicity, but the conceptual argument
does not need entanglements, necessarily) two spin 1/2 particles,
particle a and particle b, entangled in a singlet state.

We can measure   s(a,x)       = +/- 1      
we can measure   s(a,x)s(b,x) = -1
we can measure   s(a,y)s(b,y) = -1
we can measure   s(a,z)s(b,z) = -1

For a singlet state it is true that
[ s(a,x)s(b,y) , s(a,y)s(b,x) ] = 0

Thus it is possible to measure s(a,x)s(b,y) and s(a,y)s(b,x)
with no reciprocal disturbance.

We can write then
s(a,x)s(b,y)s(a,y)s(b,x) =
= s(a,x)s(a,y)s(b,y)s(b,x) =
= s(a,z)s(b,z) = -1

Thus s(a,x)s(b,y)s(a,y)s(b,x) = -1

Now let us *assume* that in s(a,x)s(b,y)
s(a,x) does not depend on s(b,y) and viceversa,
and let us assume that in s(a,y)s(b,x)
s(a,y) does not depend on s(b,x) and viceversa.

("Does not depend" just means that we can measure
s(a,x) and s(b,y) *separately*, and also
we can measure s(a,y) and s(b,x) *separately*).

With the above *assumption* we have that
s(a,x)s(b,y)s(a,y)s(b,x) = -1
which is in contradiction with
s(a,x)s(b,x) = -1
s(a,y)s(b,y) = -1

The above *assumption* must be wrong.

It is wrong (in general, but not when the "psi" of the quantum
system is an eigenstate of the operator A) our usual assumption
that the result of the measurement of a certain operator A
depends only on the state ("psi") of the quantum system
we are measuring, and nothing else.



 



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Mar 17 17:30:00 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 09:30:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Join The Three Hundred
In-Reply-To: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNAEHCEGAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
Message-ID: <20040317173000.1310.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Reason <reason at longevitymeme.org> wrote:
> The Three Hundred is a classical concept, based on a
> battle that saved the
> future of Western Civilization: Thermopylae. In 480
> B.C., 300 Spartan
> warriors fought against incredible odds to gain time
> for the rest of Greece
> to mobilize against the Persian hordes. Without the
> delaying action fought
> at the narrow pass of Thermopylae, the achievements
> of Greece and our
> culture as we know it would have been swept away.

You might want to reconsider the presentation of this
initiative.  Contributing money hardly equates to
risking one's life in battle, and this cognitive
dissonance would detract from the image.  (A closer
corrolary would be for the longevity researchers
themselves to be the Three Hundred, with sponsors to
back them.)

Also, why limit yourself to only three hundred
sponsors?  More money is rarely a bad thing, and some
might think that if there will only ever be three
hundred sponsors, they might not be able to recruit
their friends into this, thus they might not try if
they do donate and might be dissuaded from donating in
the first place.  (OTOH, you might well limit the
researchers to three hundred or so for administrative
reasons.)


From amara at amara.com  Wed Mar 17 17:57:59 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:57:59 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] 10th Planet Discovered
Message-ID: <p05100305bc7e3ff68a5c@[150.146.134.133]>

Brent Neal:
>The astronomers I've read tend to agree that one main distinction
>between small planet and Kuiper belt/Oort object is whether the core
>is uniformly solid rock, and not 'large rocky snowballs.'  Since
>NASA deepsixed the Pluto probe, so it may be a while before we know
>anything in that regard.  Pluto's orbit is certainly damning, as is
>Quaoar's and Sedna's.

Your last sentence doesn't make sense to me. The only 'damning'
thing I can see regarding Sedna's orbit is that the object seems to
come from the Oort Cloud.

No, we haven't seen the Oort cloud either, but we've experienced
closely some samples (some recent comets: Hyakutake, Hale-Bopp,
Halley, for example).

So then, continuing on this topic, why is

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994780

saying :

"But orbital observations suggest it strays much further - more than
10 times its current distance - on an elliptical orbit that takes
more than 10,5000 years to complete."
[...]
"That extreme distance makes Sedna's discoverers believe it may be
the first ever sighting of an object orbiting in the remote Oort
Cloud"  ??

'First ever' sighting of an Oort Cloud object?

Hale-Bopp's orbital period is ~3000 years, Hyakutake's orbital
period is now about 14,000 years (it was ~8000 years before it
entered the inner solar system), and Halley's is a very predictable
76 years; plenty of historical observations for that one. Less
famous comets from the Oort cloud have been observed, as well.

Many (many!) years ago, Oort made his model of the Oort cloud based
on 19 comet observations ["A garden, gently raked by stellar
perturbations" he said], which had average periods of millions of
years. The comet data from the Oort Cloud has existed for a long
time.

If Sedna is an extinct comet, it can join the ranks of other extinct
comets already known in the transNeptunian region.  I don't think
astronomers would be surprised at the blurring of the comet-asteroid
distinction. And the Oort Cloud has *many* objects. It holds the most
abundant substantial bodies in the solar system: 2-5 *trillion*
comets are thought to be in the Oort Cloud.



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 bradbury at aeiveos.com  Wed Mar 17 18:29:38 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 10:29:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen lobsters thaw to lob another day
In-Reply-To: <003a01c40be6$4b0949a0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403171022580.23270-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Spike wrote:

> Is this fer real?  spike

It could very well be -- the maximal lifespan of lobsters
remains a matter of some debate.  It could be several hundred
years (though those long-lived big ones have mostly been
harvested now).

One can easily compare lobsters with tortises -- top of their
local food chain, protected from external harm, etc.  Allows
one to evolve a very robust genome -- which may include
being able to be frozen from time to time (the North Atlantic
*does* get very cold).

(I had several grand-uncles whose professions were in the
Maine lobster trade so this is something I'm reasonably
informed about.)

Robert




From brentn at freeshell.org  Wed Mar 17 18:31:18 2004
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:31:18 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] 10th Planet Discovered
In-Reply-To: <p05100305bc7e3ff68a5c@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <r02010100-1033-48558625784111D8A663000393A47D36@[192.168.123.121]>

 (3/17/04 18:57) Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:

>Your last sentence doesn't make sense to me. The only 'damning'
>thing I can see regarding Sedna's orbit is that the object seems to
>come from the Oort Cloud.


You pretty much answered your own question. The orbits of those objects, in the opinion of some astronomers seem to be more consistent with those of either Oort or Kuiper objects, hence the comment.


B
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 17 19:05:44 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 11:05:44 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen lobsters thaw to lob another day
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403171022580.23270-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040317190544.23783.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>


--- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Spike wrote:
> 
> > Is this fer real?  spike
> 
> It could very well be -- the maximal lifespan of lobsters
> remains a matter of some debate.  It could be several hundred
> years (though those long-lived big ones have mostly been
> harvested now).
> 
> One can easily compare lobsters with tortises -- top of their
> local food chain, protected from external harm, etc.  Allows
> one to evolve a very robust genome -- which may include
> being able to be frozen from time to time (the North Atlantic
> *does* get very cold).
> 
> (I had several grand-uncles whose professions were in the
> Maine lobster trade so this is something I'm reasonably
> informed about.)

Ya, lobsters just keep growing year in and year out. The world record
catch is something like 6 feet long (wouldn't want to meet that sucker
while diving).

The lobster, being a crustacean, is able to maintain a more freeze
resistant interior, such that it's key organs likely do not fully
freeze, even if its exoskeleton is trapped in ice. The survivors of the
published experiment likely had significantly higher saline levels in
their interior than the ice they became encased in.

Being descended from survivors of the Cambrian explosion, it likely
carries genes that evolved to survive through periods of earth's early
history where it was under truly Ice House conditions.

=====
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! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com


From amara at amara.com  Wed Mar 17 19:25:36 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 20:25:36 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] 10th Planet Discovered
Message-ID: <p05100306bc7e555799b9@[150.146.134.133]>

Brent Neal:
>You pretty much answered your own question. The orbits of those
>objects, in the opinion of some astronomers seem to be more
>consistent with those of either Oort or Kuiper objects, hence the
>comment.

However, the context was about rocky cores and whether Sedna is a
planet  (? I didn't read all of the thread), so I still don't follow
your 'damning' comment.  The source of Sedna perhaps being from the
Oort cloud doesn't fix its formation origin. While it is true that
the condensation sequence would favor cold icy bodies (argon-neon
ice condenses at 65K, Pluto's temperature, for example), the origin
of these bodies could be, well, almost anywhere.

The bodies in the Oort Cloud probably coalesced among the giant
planets. Jupiter has/had the most influence, but dynamical models by
Levison, Morbidelli and others show that the massive protoplanets
probably all contributed, ejecting bodies inwards and outwards.
Bodies could be 'tossed' (trapped in resonances, until perturbed to
new locations) from giant planet to giant planet like a billiard
game. Because of the diversity of formation locations (scattered
through the giant planets), the composition of the comets are also
diverse. The Oort cloud may even contain asteroids from the inner
planets' region.

People here might have missed another really interesting news item
related to this. In the November 27 Nature, Levison and Morbidelli
showed in their dynamical simulations that the Kuiper Belt objects
could be formed with Neptune, but with Neptune 10 AU closer to the
Sun than it is now (30 AU), and it could 'drag' via energy the
planetesimals, dust and gas with it as its orbit widened. Even more
interesting, is that the current edge of the Kuiper Belt is exactly
at the Neptune 1:2 resonance, which is a very stable place.

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 gpmap at runbox.com  Wed Mar 17 19:35:16 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 20:35:16 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Zapatero on embryonic stem cell research
Message-ID: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBMEDFCBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

Translated from El Mundo, February 13, 2004: Socialist Party leader Jose
Luis Rodriguez Zapatero stated today that beginning March 14, 2004, [note:
Zapatero was elected on March 14 as the next Spanish Prime Minister] "Spain
will be again on the leading edge" and warned that he "will not tolerate
that anyone impose their beliefs to push back our country", in relation to
the embryonic stem cell research results published yesterday on Science.
[from CNN, February 12, 2004: South Korean researchers reported Thursday
they have created human embryos through cloning and extracted embryonic stem
cells, the universal cells that scientists expect will result in
breakthroughs in medical research...].
Answering the government's criticism of the cloning of 30 human embryos
persormed by a team of South Korean scientists, Rodriguez Zapatero stated
that "the Right have turned their back to people and to scientific
progress".
On Zapatero:
>From the New Zealand Herald, on the new Spanish PM: Jose Luis Rodriguez
Zapatero brought the Socialists from the political wilderness to a
spectacular polls victory on Sunday and will now need his cool head and calm
temper to unite Spain after its worst bomb attack. Rodriguez Zapatero, who
until Thursday's bombing was considered an outsider for Spain's top job, had
angered many in his own party with his lack of aggression in the months
after he took the leadership in 2000 following a heavy electoral defeat. But
his tendency to compromise may prove a valuable asset as he looks to form a
government with left-wing allies or regional parties.
Zapatero has stuck to a policy of "calm change" instead of rupture with old
school socialism. Unlike many of his fiery countrymen, Zapatero is famed for
his coolness and colleagues say they have never seen him angry.
---
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/20040317/c6835768/attachment.html>

From brentn at freeshell.org  Wed Mar 17 20:01:57 2004
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 15:01:57 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] 10th Planet Discovered
In-Reply-To: <p05100306bc7e555799b9@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <r02010100-1033-F29BAD32784D11D8A663000393A47D36@[192.168.123.121]>

 (3/17/04 20:25) Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:

>However, the context was about rocky cores and whether Sedna is a
>planet  (? I didn't read all of the thread), so I still don't follow
>your 'damning' comment. 

They were separate and unrelated except for the fact that the literature I read seems to indicate that astronomers are considering both the eccentricity of orbit and the presence of a solid rocky core as key criteria for planethood.

B
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 17 20:25:12 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 12:25:12 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] 10th Planet Discovered
In-Reply-To: <r02010100-1033-F29BAD32784D11D8A663000393A47D36@[192.168.123.121]>
Message-ID: <20040317202512.99383.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Brent Neal <brentn at freeshell.org> wrote:
>  (3/17/04 20:25) Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:
> 
> >However, the context was about rocky cores and whether Sedna is a
> >planet  (? I didn't read all of the thread), so I still don't follow
> >your 'damning' comment. 
> 
> They were separate and unrelated except for the fact that the
> literature I read seems to indicate that astronomers are considering
> both the eccentricity of orbit and the presence of a solid rocky core
> as key criteria for planethood.
> 

If this is so, there quite a number of superjovians orbiting other
stars which wouldn't be 'planets' if obital eccentricity is a criteria.

Similarly, jovians may have rocks in their cores, but they are
primarily cores of light elements like hydrogen that have condensed to
metal under pressure. This would also preclude any jovian from being a
'planet'.

Sounds to me like some astronomers are inventing criteria like some
early 20th century scientists did to invent definitions of aryan superiority.

=====
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! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com


From brentn at freeshell.org  Wed Mar 17 20:32:46 2004
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 15:32:46 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] 10th Planet Discovered
In-Reply-To: <20040317202512.99383.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <r02010100-1033-4050AB3E785211D8A663000393A47D36@[192.168.123.121]>

 (3/17/04 12:25) Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:

>If this is so, there quite a number of superjovians orbiting other
>stars which wouldn't be 'planets' if obital eccentricity is a criteria.

As I understand it, its not the absolute values but rather the differences from median values.

>
>Similarly, jovians may have rocks in their cores, but they are
>primarily cores of light elements like hydrogen that have condensed to
>metal under pressure. This would also preclude any jovian from being a
>'planet'.

Jovian cores are still solid and homogeneous, which I imagine is why they 'count'


>
>Sounds to me like some astronomers are inventing criteria like some
>early 20th century scientists did to invent definitions of aryan superiority.

That sounds fairly accurate. People like to wave their hands a lot before settling down to the hard part of actually writing decent specifications/rules/laws, etc.


B
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From reason at longevitymeme.org  Wed Mar 17 20:36:58 2004
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 12:36:58 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Join The Three Hundred
In-Reply-To: <20040317173000.1310.qmail@web80402.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNIEJCEGAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes
>
> --- Reason <reason at longevitymeme.org> wrote:
> > The Three Hundred is a classical concept, based on a
> > battle that saved the
> > future of Western Civilization: Thermopylae. In 480
> > B.C., 300 Spartan
> > warriors fought against incredible odds to gain time
> > for the rest of Greece
> > to mobilize against the Persian hordes. Without the
> > delaying action fought
> > at the narrow pass of Thermopylae, the achievements
> > of Greece and our
> > culture as we know it would have been swept away.
>
> You might want to reconsider the presentation of this
> initiative.  Contributing money hardly equates to
> risking one's life in battle, and this cognitive
> dissonance would detract from the image.  (A closer
> corrolary would be for the longevity researchers
> themselves to be the Three Hundred, with sponsors to
> back them.)
>
> Also, why limit yourself to only three hundred
> sponsors?  More money is rarely a bad thing, and some
> might think that if there will only ever be three
> hundred sponsors, they might not be able to recruit
> their friends into this, thus they might not try if
> they do donate and might be dissuaded from donating in
> the first place.  (OTOH, you might well limit the
> researchers to three hundred or so for administrative
> reasons.)

It's a sauce for the goose thing. The Three Hundred appeals to some people
and is doing what it is designed to do - build a core of motivated
individuals to make large pledges. These can then be used to leverage large
donations from other sources. The next initiative after the Three Hundred
will be quite different, aiming at another demographic.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme



From reason at longevitymeme.org  Wed Mar 17 20:38:39 2004
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 12:38:39 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen lobsters thaw to lob another day
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403171022580.23270-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNOEJCEGAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Robert J.
> Bradbury

> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Spike wrote:
>
> > Is this fer real?  spike
>
> It could very well be -- the maximal lifespan of lobsters
> remains a matter of some debate.  It could be several hundred
> years (though those long-lived big ones have mostly been
> harvested now).
>
> One can easily compare lobsters with tortises -- top of their
> local food chain, protected from external harm, etc.  Allows
> one to evolve a very robust genome -- which may include
> being able to be frozen from time to time (the North Atlantic
> *does* get very cold).
>
> (I had several grand-uncles whose professions were in the
> Maine lobster trade so this is something I'm reasonably
> informed about.)

I'm thinking it may have something to do with the comparative
simplicity/structure of the lobster brain. Recall that lobsters were used
for that radio shack artificial neuron project a little while back because
of that simplicity and particular structure.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme



From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 17 20:58:06 2004
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 12:58:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen lobsters thaw to lob another day
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403171022580.23270-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040317205806.82248.qmail@web60001.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:

> One can easily compare lobsters with tortises -- top
of their local food chain, protected from external
harm, etc.  Allows one to evolve a very robust genome
-- which may include being able to be frozen from time
to time (the North Atlantic *does* get very cold).

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

On a cryonics related note, it would be interesting to
compare the genomes of the survivors and
non-survivors.  Are they the same, with survival the
result of some external factor, or are they different
with survival the result of genetic variation?

If the latter, then one could look for the genetic
basis of freeze resistance: a gene for a protein
perhaps useful in a cryoprotectant protocol, or on a
more mundane level, do a "freeze and breed" to develop
a variety of lobster which could be frozen and "fresh"
at the same time.

It's truly exciting to be living in a season of
low-hanging fruit. 

Best, Jeff Davis

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



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com


From hal at finney.org  Wed Mar 17 22:56:19 2004
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 14:56:19 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Century City: The law show of the future
Message-ID: <200403172256.i2HMuJe13915@finney.org>

I watched the initial episode of Century City last night and thought
it was an interesting look at the future with a number of issues of
importance to extropians.  The show is about a Los Angeles law firm in
the year 2030.  I'll include spoilers in this discussion, so be warned.

There were two main storylines.  In one, a man had a cloned embryo of his
10 year old son created overseas, but was arrested and had the embryo
impounded when he tried to bring it back into the U.S.  The man's son
is dying of a liver ailment, and the man wants to grow the clone and
extract a piece of its liver to save his son's life.  He says he's
willing to pay the fine for his smuggling, but wants the law firm to
sue to recover the embryo from the government so that he can proceed
with the medical procedure.

A number of interesting issues came up.  First, I thought it odd that
it would be legal to possess the embryo but not to import it.  One could
hardly sue today to recover illegal drugs that had been siezed by Customs.
However, it was explained that cloning was a highly controversial issue
and that the U.S. government had never been able to create a unified
policy about it.  The procedure itself is illegal in the U.S., and so
is the import; but there are no other limitations.  I thought that was
somewhat realistic, that with a politically controversial issue you can
end up with inconsistent and even contradictory policies.

There was also discussion of what would happen to the new child who would
give up half his liver.  The man says that "as a last resort" they can
"pinch off" some of the cells of the embryo and grow it as a liver donor
but not a human being.  What does this mean?  He further explains that
they would "pinch off" the cells that would become the head, and grow
a headless body.  (I had the impression that although he did not want
to admit it, this was in fact his intention, since he did not seem to
be giving much thought to the implications of raising another son.)

Shades of Robert Bradbury!  He has often suggested this method for
obtaining organs for transplant.  However the reaction on the part of
the lawyers was horror and disgust.  They suggested that he not tell
the jury about this part of his plan (although the man later slips up
and does talk about this on the witness stand, giving the prosecutor
ammunition to make him look bad).

Then, a twist in the story occurs.  It turns out that the man's current
son is secretly a clone as well!  The wife had died before they were able
to have a child, and the man did not want to use a female donor with all
the questions about parental rights and unknown genetic contribution.
The attorney reveals this to the judge, asking that it be suppressed
from the jury's hearing as prejudicial, but the prosecutor pounces
on it.  Biologically, he explains, the man is not the boy's father;
he is his twin brother!  The boy's biological father and mother are
the man's parents, the people the boy has known as his grandparents.
Therefore the man has no standing to sue to recover the embryo, and only
if his parents join the lawsuit can it go forward.  The judge agrees.

This doesn't seem quite right to me.  If the man has not legally adopted
the boy, he might not be the father, and possibly could not authorize the
liver transplant, but that is not the issue before the court.  The issue
is recovery of the seized embryo.  Just because the man has created an
earlier clone it should not mean that suddenly only his parents can sue to
recover the embryo.  Now, it's true that the reason for wanting the embryo
back so badly is for the medical procedure, and maybe the judge is right
that the grandparents would be the ones who would have to authorize it.
So there might be some justification, but it's a confusing issue.

In the end it all works out OK; the grandparents are persuaded eventually
to join the case; the prosecutor makes a foolishly nasty summation about
the evils of cloning, causing the boy to run crying out of the courtroom
and obviously making the jurors despise the prosecutor and everything
about him; the good guy lawyer tells the jurors that if they are going to
decide against the boy, they might as well plunge a knife into him, for
they are sentencing him to death either way and the knife would be kinder.
Obviously the defense will win, and so the prosecution cuts a deal at the
last minute where everyone goes to Singapore to have the baby.  They had
never explained why the man didn't just stay in Singapore in the first
place and avoid all the legal hassles, which was a little frustrating.

There was one element of the story where the timing didn't seem to work:
it came out that one of the young lawyers was supposedly the subject of a
human genetic enhancement experiment.  Before she was born she had been
given enhanced genes for intelligence, strength, even happiness.  Now,
the problem is that she looked about 25 to me, and the show is set in
2030, requiring her to be born in 2005.  But we have no technology for
making these kinds of changes today.  She could be a few years younger,
especially if the genius treatment worked and she graduated from law
school at 20 or something.  But that would still leave an uncomfortably
short time for the tremendous technological, ethical and social changes
which would be necessary for an enhanced baby to be born in the next
few years.

She did allude to some of the ethical questions in such an effort.
When she feels happy, she said, she wonders, is it because something
has happened to make her happy?  Or is it because some genetic engineer
tinkered with her genome to make her predisposed to be happy?  She finds
this quite troubling.  The wise old lawyer who runs the law firm gives
her some blunt advice: just be happy to be happy.


The second story line was about a 1980s "boy band" which is still active
in 2030, even though its members are pushing 70, thanks to cosmetic
surgery.  It turns out that they are also using telomerase inhibitors,
an experimental and illegal rejuvenation treatment which tends to cause
cancer.  One band member refuses to undergo the dangerous and radical
procedures, which is a breach of the band contract requirement to keep
up a good appearance, so he is being sued.

Of course we have often discussed telomerase inhibitors, and I think
the consensus today is that they are not likely to be that effective
at rejuvenation, but I'd say it's safely within the sci-fi envelope to
suggest that there could be some bodily functions which are helped by
the treatment.

This story line, too, has a twist, in that the lead singer of the band
suddenly drops dead.  "Was it cancer?  Was it the telomerase?"  No, he
died of a stroke.  He was 70, after all.  Without him, the tour can't
really work, so they are dropping the case.  They conclude with the band
members (including the one who looks 70) giving a short performance at the
funeral.  They're quite spry for 70, even the old guy doing handstands.

I took two contradictory implications from this.  When the singer died,
the suggestion was that although they look about 30, the rejuvenation
is only superficial and cosmetic, and they are still subject to the
infirmaties of age.  However, when the band performed at the funeral,
they showed physical vigor that would be quite unusual for 70 year olds.
I'm not sure what that was supposed to mean; maybe it was just meant to
be played for laughs.


Overall, I was pleased with the show's exploration of ideas.  The mere
fact of a non-dystopian future is a pretty radical concept today.
But they went beyond that and explored concepts that are the kinds of
things that we discuss all the time.  That's very brave for a mainstream
show.  They also seemed pretty sharp technically and I didn't see any
major errors.

On the down side, I didn't think much of it as a drama.  The acting
was wooden and the characters stereotypes.  The reliance on surprises
and twists which come out of nowhere does not suggest strong dramatic
skills on the part of the writers.  So I am afraid that the show may
not last long.

The next broadcast will be Saturday night, about whether a baseball
player with an artificial eye should be allowed to compete.

Hal


From extropy at unreasonable.com  Thu Mar 18 03:01:33 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 22:01:33 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Century City: The law show of the future
In-Reply-To: <200403172256.i2HMuJe13915@finney.org>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040317210709.0384a7b8@mail.comcast.net>

Hal Finney wrote:

>Overall, I was pleased with the show's exploration of ideas.  The mere
>fact of a non-dystopian future is a pretty radical concept today.
>But they went beyond that and explored concepts that are the kinds of
>things that we discuss all the time.  That's very brave for a mainstream
>show.  They also seemed pretty sharp technically and I didn't see any
>major errors.

My first reaction was the rant of a younger Harlan Ellison against the 
stupidity of television. This show was not 2030. It was 2003 with a couple 
of new capabilities. Hair, clothing, furniture, vehicles, behavior, 
language -- it was all a mundane now.

It fails miserably as sf. It *does* work as propaganda, however. I talked 
to Marc Stiegler about this once. He doesn't try to paint a plausible broad 
view of the future; he tries to influence it through his writing.

The reality is that most people don't read sf (or even read books), don't 
know much science, and aren't that smart. But they do watch tv.

The clone plotline cut through to a simple, human reality that viewers 
could relate to, better than any number of EXI/WTA talking points or 
talking heads.

The other story, I thought, came out stronger for remaining unmodified but 
it was also about respecting individual choice.

One of the executive producer is Paul Attanasio, who wrote the entertaining 
but flawed Sphere and The Sum of All Fears, along with Donnie Brasco and 
Quiz Show. He's also co-creator of the tv show Homicide. Another exec prod 
is Ed Zuckerman, who had a lead role in running JAG, The Agency, and Law 
and Order.

The writers all have solid backgrounds on shows that were both decent and 
successful, but none has written sf at all. Two of the directors have 
modest sf experience.

So it looks like they've got a crew that has a track record of creating tv 
that makes money and wins awards and knows nothing about sf or, presumably, 
what we anticipate for 2030.

The key questions for us are where will the writers come out each week on 
the tough issues and do they have decent technical advisors. I'd be 
delighted if they could get anywhere near Picket Fences. Each week, David 
E. Kelley tackled a tough question and gave a credible presentation of each 
side. "Fair and balanced," as it were.


-- David Lubkin.





From extropy at unreasonable.com  Thu Mar 18 05:51:36 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 00:51:36 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Century City: The law show of the future
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040318003813.0313ddd0@mail.comcast.net>

Attanasio seems to have good and useful intentions, although I'm still 
dismayed that no one with a real sf background is involved with the show.

 From http://tinyurl.com/34a7u --

>"Some things never change -- what people fight over, what they go to court 
>over, and what people want out of life," says Paul Attanasio, show creator 
>and an executive producer. "That hasn't changed since Hammurabi."
>
>Attanasio, who wrote "Quiz Show" and "Donnie Brasco," came up with the 
>idea for this near-future show based on science reports in the news. 
>"Genetic engineering, surveillance technologies, travel to Mars, 
>artificial intelligence, cures for cancer, artificial limbs, artificial 
>eyes," Attanasio rattles off. "It struck me that as a society we are 
>entering a period of unprecedented change that will really affect how we 
>think about ourselves and what we want our lives to look like. And the way 
>we decide, as a community, is through the law. So it occurred to me that 
>if you took a law show, which is a franchise that historically works on 
>television, you could access that emotion. You could basically peek around 
>the corner at stuff happening now."


-- David Lubkin.




From gpmap at runbox.com  Thu Mar 18 06:10:13 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 07:10:13 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Century City: The law show of the future
In-Reply-To: <200403172256.i2HMuJe13915@finney.org>
Message-ID: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGAELICAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

Does anyone know how I can download the episodes?
Hal, your criticism means that although the concept was good, the execution
was poor (e.g. wooden acting). I often think that producing a good soap
would be the most effective thing that extropians could do to propagate our
ideas.
G.

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Hal Finney
Sent: mi?rcoles, 17 de marzo de 2004 23:56
To: extropy-chat at extropy.org
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Century City: The law show of the future


I watched the initial episode of Century City last night and thought
it was an interesting look at the future with a number of issues of
importance to extropians...

Overall, I was pleased with the show's exploration of ideas.  The mere
fact of a non-dystopian future is a pretty radical concept today.
But they went beyond that and explored concepts that are the kinds of
things that we discuss all the time.  That's very brave for a mainstream
show.  They also seemed pretty sharp technically and I didn't see any
major errors.

On the down side, I didn't think much of it as a drama.  The acting
was wooden and the characters stereotypes.  The reliance on surprises
and twists which come out of nowhere does not suggest strong dramatic
skills on the part of the writers.  So I am afraid that the show may
not last long.

The next broadcast will be Saturday night, about whether a baseball
player with an artificial eye should be allowed to compete.

Hal
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.614 / Virus Database: 393 - Release Date: 05/03/2004



From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Thu Mar 18 06:26:35 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 23:26:35 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Saudi Aramco World on-line
Message-ID: <4059411B.5FA57A72@mindspring.com>

< http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/200401/ >
[You will find electronic editions of print issues beginning with
November/December 2003, an online "Events & Exhibitions" calendar
and a cumulative "Suggestions for Reading" with book reviews published
since 1993.  Three cumulative indexes link you to more than 1500 full-text
articles from Aramco World (1960-2000) and Saudi Aramco World (2000-present),
searchable by subject, title or contributor.  Many articles have links to
photographs in the Public Affairs Digital Image Archive,
< http://www.photoarchive.saudiaramcoworld.com >.

< http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/search/search.aspx?tbSearchCriteria=Greek+fire&SearchForm.x=18&SearchForm.y=22 >
Search for Greek fire:
For example -
"Constantinople's Volcanic Twilight"
"Who Were the Sea People?"
"The Oil Weapons"

Great source for on-line research...

Terry


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


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


From joe at barrera.org  Thu Mar 18 06:43:36 2004
From: joe at barrera.org (Joseph S. Barrera III)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 22:43:36 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Saudi Aramco World on-line
In-Reply-To: <4059411B.5FA57A72@mindspring.com>
References: <4059411B.5FA57A72@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <40594518.1040201@barrera.org>

Terry W. Colvin wrote:

>  "Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress."

You can't have a zit on a wart. The exterior is all dead tissue.

You could conceivably have a wart on a zit, although it's unlikely,
as a zit is usually short-lived and a wart takes weeks to develop.

- Joe



From hal at finney.org  Thu Mar 18 07:27:39 2004
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 23:27:39 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Century City: The law show of the future
Message-ID: <200403180727.i2I7RdR15990@finney.org>

Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:
> Does anyone know how I can download the episodes?

TV episodes are often available on P2P networks like Kazaa, or via
BitTorrent.  If you do a Google search for "Century City bittorrent"
(without the quotes) you will probably find some sites where you can
get a BitTorrent download started.

David Lubkin wrote:

> My first reaction was the rant of a younger Harlan Ellison against the 
> stupidity of television. This show was not 2030. It was 2003 with a couple 
> of new capabilities. Hair, clothing, furniture, vehicles, behavior, 
> language -- it was all a mundane now.

That's true, it was not a very whiz-bang future.  There are no robots or
flying cars, and styles are much like today.  The one noticeable future
technology was the holographic display, and that's not really technically
feasible as depicted.  You can't have a gadget project an image into space
without putting some kind of reflecting matter there to project onto.

But after all, it's not easy to extrapolate 25 years forward.  I don't
think that even among our small group we would find any consensus about
the world of 2030.  And for styles, the problem is that just as 25 year
old styles look corny to us, any realistic 25-year-forward styles would
probably look bizarre and/or stupid, and distract from the story.

The place the future technologies do show up is in the legal cases.
One of the other problems I had with the show was that it seemed that
the lawyers were too ignorant about the technologies of their own world.
They reacted with shock to the suggestion of creating an anencephalic
clone, and were amazed that the young-looking rock stars were actually 70.
Presumably these developments would be of great interest and be widely
known.

On the other hand it is often the case that technological controversies
do enter the public arena by the vehicle of legal cases.  A technology
may be running along without attracting much attention, until something
goes wrong and it gets into the courts, and then the whole thing blows
up, and society suddenly has to decide how to grapple with this new issue.
I think that's the idea of this show, that the courts are where many
of these questions are being dealt with for the first time.

Hal


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 18 14:46:39 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 06:46:39 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Century City: The law show of the future
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040318003813.0313ddd0@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <20040318144639.48787.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>

I too was impressed with the show. While it seems to be Gatacca meets
LA Law, this first episode, at least, was carried off very effectively,
did well to answer a lot of the pedestrian moral objections, introduced
a main character who is herself genetically engineered, portrayed the
'do it for the children' in favor of the transhumanist position, and
closed up with a transhumanist win.
I thought the side story about the 80's boy band was good too. The only
omission I think is that the member who died did not get cryonically
suspended.

--- David Lubkin <extropy at unreasonable.com> wrote:
> Attanasio seems to have good and useful intentions, although I'm
> still 
> dismayed that no one with a real sf background is involved with the
> show.
> 
>  From http://tinyurl.com/34a7u --
> 
> >"Some things never change -- what people fight over, what they go to
> court 
> >over, and what people want out of life," says Paul Attanasio, show
> creator 
> >and an executive producer. "That hasn't changed since Hammurabi."
> >
> >Attanasio, who wrote "Quiz Show" and "Donnie Brasco," came up with
> the 
> >idea for this near-future show based on science reports in the news.
> 
> >"Genetic engineering, surveillance technologies, travel to Mars, 
> >artificial intelligence, cures for cancer, artificial limbs,
> artificial 
> >eyes," Attanasio rattles off. "It struck me that as a society we are
> 
> >entering a period of unprecedented change that will really affect
> how we 
> >think about ourselves and what we want our lives to look like. And
> the way 
> >we decide, as a community, is through the law. So it occurred to me
> that 
> >if you took a law show, which is a franchise that historically works
> on 
> >television, you could access that emotion. You could basically peek
> around 
> >the corner at stuff happening now."
> 
> 
> -- David Lubkin.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 18 15:00:04 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 07:00:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Century City: The law show of the future
In-Reply-To: <200403180727.i2I7RdR15990@finney.org>
Message-ID: <20040318150004.5648.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Hal Finney <hal at finney.org> wrote:> 
> David Lubkin wrote:
> 
> > My first reaction was the rant of a younger Harlan Ellison against
> > the  stupidity of television. This show was not 2030. It was 2003
> > with a couple of new capabilities. Hair, clothing, furniture,
> > vehicles, behavior, language -- it was all a mundane now.
> 
> That's true, it was not a very whiz-bang future.  There are no robots
> or flying cars, and styles are much like today.  The one noticeable
> future technology was the holographic display, and that's not really
> technically feasible as depicted.  You can't have a gadget project
> an image into space
> without putting some kind of reflecting matter there to project onto.

We saw just a few months ago a 2d display that projects an image into
empty space, using only a sheet of prepped air to depict the image. No
reason to not expect a 3d version in 30 years. Talk about cynical 2003.

How do you KNOW that it is impossible? It could, for example, be simply
an electrostatic field holding a good amount of dust in suspension.

> 
> But after all, it's not easy to extrapolate 25 years forward.  I
> don't think that even among our small group we would find any
> consensus about the world of 2030.  And for styles, the problem
> is that just as 25 year old styles look corny to us, any realistic
> 25-year-forward styles would probably look bizarre and/or stupid,
> and distract from the story.

Styles 25 years ago look stupid because they were trying to look
cutting edge, even futuristic, in their own idea of what the future
would be (the whole New Wave thing, for example). That they were wrong
about the future in other ways is consistent with how wrong they were
about style.

> 
> The place the future technologies do show up is in the legal cases.
> One of the other problems I had with the show was that it seemed that
> the lawyers were too ignorant about the technologies of their own
> world.

This is fine. I know lots of lawyers who are ignorant of the
technologies of todays world. I take out my Handspring and start
swapping around the camera, the GPS, the occilloscope, etc and they are
all in "gee whiz" mode, even though this technology is a few years old
already.

> They reacted with shock to the suggestion of creating an anencephalic
> clone, and were amazed that the young-looking rock stars were
> actually 70.
> Presumably these developments would be of great interest and be
> widely known.

The point is to have some characters the audience can sympathize with
act as the avatars of the audience, exploring the new things of this
world for them. When the audience identifies with a character, they are
more likely to reach the conclusion the character reaches at the end of
the episode.

> 
> On the other hand it is often the case that technological
> controversies do enter the public arena by the vehicle of legal
> cases.  A technology may be running along without attracting much
> attention, until something goes wrong and it gets into the courts,
> and then the whole thing blows up, and society suddenly has to
> decide how to grapple with this new issue.
> I think that's the idea of this show, that the courts are where many
> of these questions are being dealt with for the first time.

I'd like to see a character question this, though. Perhaps a character
from the Free State being repressed in his technological expression by
the government???? ;)

=====
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! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com


From eugen at leitl.org  Thu Mar 18 15:19:08 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 16:19:08 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Century City: The law show of the future
In-Reply-To: <20040318150004.5648.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <200403180727.i2I7RdR15990@finney.org>
	<20040318150004.5648.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040318151908.GL28136@leitl.org>

On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 07:00:04AM -0800, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> We saw just a few months ago a 2d display that projects an image into
> empty space, using only a sheet of prepped air to depict the image. No
> reason to not expect a 3d version in 30 years. Talk about cynical 2003.

In three decades I expect anyone who care to run around in augmented reality.
3d displays in midair would be a side effect of that. You can see some Sony
prototypes on CeBit. Eye tracking, no head tracking yet, I think...

I don't think this will kill all visible displays outright, but then it just
might on the long run.
 
> How do you KNOW that it is impossible? It could, for example, be simply
> an electrostatic field holding a good amount of dust in suspension.

That'd be real nasty. Ditto if you use air plasma as projection screen.
 
I think the silliest assumption of far future is that you still see normal
people frolicking around. Then, incomprehensible stuff has about zero
audience, so we shouldn't complain too much.

-- 
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/20040318/d96d8871/attachment.bin>

From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Thu Mar 18 17:28:48 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:28:48 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] David Ray Griffin on "eliminative"
 vs. "constructive" [...]
Message-ID: <4059DC50.A05A55CD@mindspring.com>

FWD [forteana] David Ray Griffin on "eliminative" vs. "constructive"
postmodernism & as religious and cultural philosopher


         Claremont Graduate University Whiteheadian process philosopher
David Ray Griffin calls himself a "postmodernist" and his Whiteheadian
world-view a form of "postmodernism." In the "Introduction to SUNY
Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought" at the beginning of his _God
and Religion in the Postmodern World: Essays in Postmodern Theology_
(1989), Griffin distinguishes between "deconstructive" or "eliminative"
postmodernism, which he also calls "ultramodernism," versus
"constructive" or "revisionary" postmodernism. 

        Griffin begins by noting that "the rapid spread of the term
_postmodernism_ in recent years witnesses to a growing dissatisfaction
with modernity," to "an increasing sense that the modern age not only
had a beginning but can have an end as well,"and to a "growing sense"
that "we can and should leave modernity behind--in fact, that we must if
we are to avoid destroying ourselves and most of the life on our planet"
(David Ray Griffin, "Introduction to SUNY Series in Constructive
Postmodern Thought," in Griffin, _God and Religion in the Postmodern
World_, SUNY Press, 1989, p. ix). He observes that "a new respect for
the wisdom of traditional societies is growing as we realize that they
have endured for thousands of years" while "the existence of modern
society for even another century seems doubtful." Similarly, modernism
as a worldview is less and less seen as The Final Truth, in comparison
with which all divergent worldviews are automatically regarded as
?superstitious.'" The "modern worldview," Griffin observes, is now
"increasingly relativized to the status of one among many, useful
for some purposes, inadequate for others" (Griffin,"Introduction to SUNY
Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought,"p. ix).

         Griffin also observes that "there have been antimodern
movements before, beginning perhaps near the onset of the nineteenth
century with the Romantics and the Luddites"(Griffin,"Introduction to
SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought, "p. ix). However, "the
rapidity with which the term _postmodern_ has become widespread in our
time suggests that the antimodern sentiment is more extensive and
intense than before." It also "includes the sense that modernity can be
successfully overcome only by going beyond it, not by attempting to
return to a premodern form of existence." The term  _postmodernity_, he
feels, refers to "a diffuse sentiment rather than to any set of
doctrines," to the "sentiment that humanity can and must go beyond the
modern" (Griffin,"Introduction to SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern
Thought,"pp. ix-x). Beyond "connoting this sentiment," Griffin finds
that "the term _postmodern_ is used in a confusing variety of ways, some
of them contradictory to others." In "artistic and literary circles,"
for instance, "postmodernity" suggests this "general sentiment" but
"also involves a specific reaction against ?modernism' in the narrow
sense of a movement in artistic-literary circles in the late nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries"--in other words, to a reaction against
doing any more imitations and rehashes of Proust, Joyce, Eliot, Pound,
Yeats, Kafka, Pirandello, Beckett, Picasso, Braque, Dal?, Matisse,
Stravinsky, Sch?nberg, and Hindemith. "Postmodern architecture," again,
is "very different from postmodern literary criticism" (Griffin,
"Introduction to SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought,"p. x).

         In "some circles," Griffin continues, "the term _postmodern_ is
used in reference to that potpourri of ideas and systems sometimes
called _new age metaphysics_, although many of these ideas and systems
are more premodern than postmodern." Then, he adds, "even in
philosophical and theological circles" in academia, "the term
_postmodern_ refers to two quite different positions, one of which is
reflected in this series" (Griffin, "Introduction to SUNY Series in
Constructive Postmodern Thought," p. x). Both positions seek to
"transcend both _modernism_ in the sense of the worldview that has
developed out of the seventeenth century Galilean-Cartesian-Baconian-
Newtonian science, and _modernity_ in the sense of the world order that
both conditioned and was conditioned by this world-view." However, "the
two positions seek to transcend the modern in different ways." (Griffin,
"Introduction to SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought," p. x).

         "Closely related to literary-artistic postmodernism," Griffin
finds a "philosophical postmodernism inspired variously by pragmatism,
physicalism, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Martin Heidegger, and Jacques Derrida
and other recent French thinkers." This "can be  called _deconstructive_
or _eliminative postmodernism_. Griffin feels that it "overcomes the
modern worlview through an anti-worldview." It "deconstructs or
eliminates the ingredients necessary for a worldview, such as God, self,
purpose, meaning, a real world, and truth as correspondence." While it
is "motivated in some cases by the ethical concern to forestall
totalitarianism," Griffin feels that "this type of postmodern thought
issues in relativism, even nihilism." It indeed "could also be called
_ultramodernism_, in that its eliminations result from carrying modern
premises to their logical conclusions" (Griffin, "Introduction to SUNY
Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought," p. x). This
"ultramodernism," as Griffin calls it, is of course the "postmodernism"
associated with figures like Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Roland
Barthes, Jean Baudrillard, Jean-Francois Lyotard, and Richard Rorty. In
a somewhat revised version of this "Introduction" in his _Religion and
Scientific Naturalism: Overcoming the Conflicts_ (SUNY Press, 2000),
Griffin derives "deconstructive" or "eliminative" postmodernism from the
thought of Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and "a cluster of French
thinkers--including Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze,
and Julie Krist?va" (p. x).

        By contrast, the "postmodernism" of Griffin's "SUNY Series in
Constrictive Postmodern Thought" is a "_constructive_ or _revisionary_"
postmodernism. It "seeks to overcome the modern worldview not by
eliminating the possibility of worldviews as such," but rather by
"constructing a postmodern worldview through a revision of modern
premises and traditional concepts." It "involves a new unity of
scientific, ethical, aesthetic, and religious intuitions." It "rejects
not science as such but only that scientism in which the data of the
modern natural sciences are alone allowed to contribute to the
construction of our worldview" (Griffin, "Introduction to SUNY Series in
Constructive Postmodern Thought," p. x).

         Such "constructive activity" is "not limited to a revised
worldview," but is "equally concerned with a postmodern world that will
support and be supported by the new worldview" (Griffin, "Introduction
to SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought," pp. x-xi). A
"postmodern world,' Griffin feels, will "involve postmodern persons,
with a postmodern spirituality," and also a "postmodern society,
ultimately a postmodern global order." Going beyond the "modern world"
involves "transcending its individualism, anthropocentrism, patriarchy,
mechanization, economism, consumerism, nationalism, and militarism."
Griffin believes that the "constructive postmodern thought" he advocates
"provides support for the ecology, peace, feminist, and other
emancipatory movements of our time," but adds that "the inclusive
emancipation must be from modernity itself." Griffin adds that the "term
*postmodern*, however, by contrast with *premodern*, emphasizes that the
modern world has produced unparalleled advances that must not be lost in
a general revulsion against its negative features" (Griffin,
"Introduction to SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought," p.
xi). Thus, Griffin does not want to restore the "good old days" of the
feudal Catholic Middle Ages or the ante-bellum Southern plantation, to
drive women back to the kitchen, Blacks back to the cotton-fields, or
Jews back to the ghetto, to force women to wear ch?dors and Jews to wear
yellow Stars of David, or to bring back Jewish ghettoes, witch-burning
and the Holy Inquisition! Despite his critique of "modernity," Griffin
does not want to do away with democracy, religious tolerance,
penicillin, polio and smallpox vaccination, telephones, computers, birth
control, and women's liberation, or return the Bourbon, Habsburg, and
Romanov dynasties to their thrones! Griffin's world-view has no
similarity or affinity whatsoever to those of the "Religious Right,"
"Christian Coalition," Israeli "religious" parties, Taliban, or
al-Qa'eda.

         Griffin admits that from the viewpoint of the "deconstructive
postmodernists" like Derrida, Baudrillard, Lyotard, and Rorty, his
"constructive postmodernism" is "still hopelessly wedded to outdated
concepts" like God, soul, truth, meaning, and purpose, "because it
wishes to salvage a positive meaning not only for the notions of the
human self, historical meaning, and truth as correspondence, which were
central to modernity, but also for premodern notions of a divine
reality, cosmic meaning, and an enchanted nature." From the viewpoint of
its "advocates," however, Griffin sees his "revisionary postmodernism"
as "not only more adequate to our experience" than the deconstructive
postmodernism of Derrida, Baudrillard, and Rorty, "but also more
genuinely postmodern." Griffin's constructive postmodernism "does not
simply carry the premises of modernity through to their logical
conclusions" like the followers of Derrida, Baudrillard, Lyotard, and
Rorty, "but criticizes and revises those premises." Through its "return
to organicism" and its "acceptance of nonsensory perception," Griffin's
constructive postmodernism "opens itself to the recovery of truths and
values from various forms of premodern thought and practice that had
been dogmatically rejected by modernity." It "involves a creative
synthesis of modern and premodern truths and values"(Griffin,
"Introduction to SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought," p.
xi).

        Griffin has attempted a "constructive postmodernist" reconciliation of
science and religion, based on a Whiteheadian metaphysic and
incorporating data from parapsychology on phenomena like telepathy,
clairvoyance, and psychokinesis, in books like _Parapsychology,
Philosophy, and Spirituality: A Postmodern Exploration_ (SUNY Press,
1997), _Religion and Scientific Naturalism: Overcoming the Conflicts_
(SUNY Press, 2000), and _Unsnarling the World-Knot: Consciousness,
Freedom, and the Mind-Body Problem_ (University of California Press,
1998). In these and other books, Griffin has tried to defend and justify
belief in God, the soul, immortality, free will, prayer, seeming
"miracles," objective Divinely grounded moral and ethical values (of a
largely pacifist and humanitarian rather than "family values" kind), and
theistic evolution. In his latest book, _The New Pearl Harbor_, which I
haven't read yet but plan to get ahold of as soon as possible, I gather
he taises some serious questions about the Bush administration's
handling of the 9/11 attacks--though until I've actually read the book I
wouldn't have any grounds for judging whether he's made some serious
substantive criticisms and investigative reporting, or is just indulging
in a radical-liberal counterpart of paranoid right-wing conspiracy
theorizing as some charge.
 
                 Peace,
                 T. Peter <tpeterpark at erols.com>


-- 
"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  Thu Mar 18 17:52:40 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:52:40 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Re: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
Message-ID: <4059E1E8.B8B7A90D@mindspring.com>

On Mar 17, 2004, at 10:00 AM, Jonathan Hinek wrote:

> I meant to ask, is it possible that any act of measurement influences
> the outcome? Wouldn't any such claim be discounted because it is
> unfalsifiable?

Well, the whole point of this argument--for physicists, at least--is to 
find the best *interpretation* of quantum theory, not to revise it.  
The math works very well, but (some) physicists want to come up with a 
better conceptual/philosophical framework for it, with which we can 
retrain our intuition.  (Some other physicists don't seem to be 
particularly bothered by the intuitive problems, and just agree to 
accept that True Reality isn't necessarily going to be visualizable or 
intuitively graspable by us dumb monkeys.)

So unfalsifiability is kinda the point--any valid interpretation 
*should* lead to exactly the same empirical results as the mathematical 
formulism already does.  It should just provide a more intuitive way to 
understand them.

It's the same justification as for the "many worlds" hypothesis, which 
holds that all the possible outcomes of a random quantum event occur in 
different parallel realities.  It's not that we could ever go and *see* 
these other worlds, or detect their existence in any way 
whatsoever--it's just hoped that if we hold that concept in the back of 
our minds we can comprehend and qualitatively predict certain quantum 
phenomena more quickly and easily.  Whether the concept actually 
corresponds to reality or not is, I would say, not the point.  We don't 
know and we can't know...we can only decide whether or not it's 
*useful*.  Any truth we have (imperfect) access to resides in the 
equations and their description of observed phenomena.

But no, you can never argue that experiment X provides actual evidence 
for the idea that consciousness influences the outcome.  At most, you 
can argue that that idea is particularly helpful in interpreting the 
outcome of experiment X.  Which has never been the case for me, 
personally.


> Anton Mates wrote on 3/16/2004, 6:37 PM:
>
>>     However, some other articles assert that it is the act of human
>>     observation, no matter what technology we use, which affects the
>>     outcome. This interpretation is favored by mystics, who claim it is
>>     proof that reality is subjective.
>>
>>
>> This is certainly wrong. And very easily tested, after all--just feed
>> your measurement apparatus into a computer, then turn the monitor off!
>> Or print out the measurements but then burn them without looking at
>> them. If it's human observation that really matters, then in these
>> cases the outcome should be the same as if no attempt was made to
>> measure anything. Needless to say, this doesn't happen.
>>
>> What QM really says on the subject of measurement, is that we can't
>> measure an object's property without "poking" it, so to speak. Every
>> measurement requires an interaction. But it's the *interaction* which
>> affects the object, not measurement--and such interactions can occur
>> without human consciousness on the other end. Set up an apparatus
>> which *could* measure spin along one axis, and you'll randomize it
>> along the other axes--it doesn't matter whether you're actually
>> standing there reading off the measurements or not. Only the
>> interaction matters.
>>
>> As another example--there was a paper in Nature, Feb 20, on how
>> buckyballs transitioned from quantum to classical behavior as their
>> temperature increased. Why? Well, hotter molecules tend to radiate
>> photons, and that particular interaction--exchanging photons with
>> their environment--basically forces them to have well-defined,
>> classical positions. The same effect would be found if a scientist was
>> standing there constantly observing the molecules by bouncing photons
>> off them--but you don't NEED the scientist, you just need the photons.
>>
>> QM allows for a lot of interesting philosophical speculation, but it
>> doesn't give any ammo to people who want to believe that the universe
>> is alive, or that it only exists because we see it existing, or
>> anything like that.
>>
>>
>> Lemme know if I can make anything clearer. I wish I had a list of
>> layman's references to throw at you...but students in a given field
>> are never very good about reading popular science works in that field.
>> We're too busy trying to figure out the textbooks. :-)
>
>
> -- 
> Jonathan


-- 
"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 jonkc at att.net  Thu Mar 18 17:59:36 2004
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:59:36 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] David Ray Griffin on "eliminative"
	vs. "constructive" [...]
References: <4059DC50.A05A55CD@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <029f01c40d12$d430b1f0$bcfe4d0c@hal2001>

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      jonkc at att.net






From asa at nada.kth.se  Thu Mar 18 18:37:03 2004
From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 19:37:03 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] "Cults such as the extropians see technology
	asunstoppable escalator to future prosperity, but ...."
In-Reply-To: <008e01c406f6$5fae5ac0$e8cd5cd1@neptune>
References: <200403102144.i2ALiOc31063@tick.javien.com>
	<bv5v409htu1749a08uuhrsnlpnlkh7e6jv@4ax.com>
	<008e01c406f6$5fae5ac0$e8cd5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <200403181937.03207.asa@nada.kth.se>

torsdagen den 11 mars 2004 00.21 wrote Technotranscendence:
> On Wednesday, March 10, 2004 5:39 PM randy cryofan at mylinuxisp.com wrote:
> [actually, not Randy, but a quote from theregister.com]
>
> > Cults such as the extropians see
> > technology as the unstoppable
> > escalator to future prosperity, but
> > the rest of us are discovering that
> > their utopian faith has caused
> > graver problems than anyone
> > expected.

Just to weigh in, doesn't claims that the transhumanist/extropian ultra-rich 
conspiracy is behind globalization undermine the author quite nicely? No 
matter what people think about us, but that kind of reasoning makes the 
article sound just like a paranoid rant. Had it been a traditional and 
acceptable conspiracy like "the multinationals" it would have been far more 
convincing to people. 

> Also, I don't remember having to give all my worldly goods to Max, cut
> off all contacts with my family and friends, and live in the Extropy
> Commune spending my days making simple craft goods while quoting from
> the Principles as a sort of prayer.  Maybe I missed out on that part of
> the movement.:)

I have at least done the extropian handshake with him. But the key question is 
whether you have the animatronic goat idol? 

-- 
Anders Sandberg
http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa
http://www.aleph.se/andart/

The sum of human knowledge sounds nice. But I want more.


From asa at nada.kth.se  Thu Mar 18 18:47:30 2004
From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 19:47:30 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] CULTURE:  Did Romans ruin Greek Culture?
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040311143427.01af8c40@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <244640-220043310184211623@M2W093.mail2web.com>
	<20040311202333.11907.qmail@web60510.mail.yahoo.com>
	<6.0.3.0.0.20040311143427.01af8c40@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <200403181947.30817.asa@nada.kth.se>

Not that I have read Toynbee and Spengler...

torsdagen den 11 mars 2004 21.45 quoted Damien Broderick:
> To Toynbee,
> only Western Christian civilization was in a thriving state, the others
> having gone through the three stages of breakdown: 1) a failure of creative
> power in the creative minority; 2) the withdrawal of allegiance to the
> ruling minority on the part of the majority; and 3) the consequent loss of
> social unity. 

It is interesting to combine this reasoning with Richard Florida's criticism 
of the politics of creativity at http://www.alternet.org/
story.html?StoryID=17576

Could we be seeing a situation similar to 1) above due to this? The leading 
edge clusters of western culture are (perhaps) being blocked in the US, and 
as I comment at http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2004/01/
creative_sweden.html we may have equally bad problems in Europe. Whether 2) 
is going on or not is an interesting question, with probably no simple 
answer. A general distrust is clearly spreading, but that might actually be a 
good thing in open societies. And social unity might no longer be as 
essential as before, if systems of trust and negotiation can take its role. 

I tend to mistrust this kind of sweeping civilization models, but there is 
certainly plenty of emergent dynamics going on here, and it is not 
unreasonable to worry about demonstrated failure mechanisms.

Apropos cultures (not civilizations, which could be viewed as systems of 
cultures), there was a very nice paper in the latest Nature on culture and 
language: http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/
v428/n6980/full/428275a_fs.html
(cypherpunks, writecode)

Mark Pagel, Ruth Mace: The cultural wealth of nations
 
	Why, when the human race shows comparatively little genetic variation, are 		
cultural differences so widespread and enduring? Thinking about cultures in 
terms of biological species provides some provocative answers. 

A bit of memetics without the word meme. 




-- 
Anders Sandberg
http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa
http://www.aleph.se/andart/

The sum of human knowledge sounds nice. But I want more.


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 18 18:58:18 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:58:18 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] "Cults such as the extropians see technology
	asunstoppable escalator to future prosperity, but ...."
In-Reply-To: <200403181937.03207.asa@nada.kth.se>
Message-ID: <20040318185818.55798.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Anders Sandberg <asa at nada.kth.se> wrote:
> torsdagen den 11 mars 2004 00.21 wrote Technotranscendence:> >
> > > Cults such as the extropians see
> > > technology as the unstoppable
> > > escalator to future prosperity, but
> > > the rest of us are discovering that
> > > their utopian faith has caused
> > > graver problems than anyone
> > > expected.
> 
> Just to weigh in, doesn't claims that the transhumanist/extropian
> ultra-rich conspiracy is behind globalization undermine the author 
> quite nicely?
> No matter what people think about us, but that kind of reasoning
makes
> the article sound just like a paranoid rant. Had it been a
traditional
> and acceptable conspiracy like "the multinationals" it would have
been
> far more convincing to people. 

Now that you mention it, I've always wanted to be in on a worldwide
conspiracy. I'm still waiting for the check to arrive, though. Where's
my cut? ;)

=====
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! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com


From asa at nada.kth.se  Thu Mar 18 20:08:59 2004
From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 21:08:59 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] memory enhancer drug on the way
In-Reply-To: <200403091108.18806.dan@3-e.net>
References: <200403081601.i28G19c05115@tick.javien.com>
	<200403091108.18806.dan@3-e.net>
Message-ID: <200403182109.00054.asa@nada.kth.se>

tisdagen den 9 mars 2004 01.08 wrote Daniel Matthews:
> > A drug ... that enables people to improve their memory is to be tested on
> > humans and could be on sale within five years.
>
> As Steven Rose points out, this type of drug could be very dangerous.
> Being able to forget is as an important part of learning, as being able to
> remember is.
>
> You could forcibly program a person with such a drug, or traumatise them so
> intensely that it was very hard for them to recover.

I think you are a bit too alarmist here. My impression of the literature is 
that the best results still are a 10-20% improvement of memory on various 
tests.

There is likely downsides, but they will likely not be "loss of forgetting". 
There is a lot of competition going on for the values of synapses, and a 
CREB-inhibitor like this is only going to make it easier to lay down new 
information (sometimes overwriting old). My guess is that the problem will be 
that more "junk" will be consolidated into memory, producing a somewhat 
messier thoughtspace - the difference between highly relevant facts and less 
relevant vanishes. But this is when the drug is taken chronically. 

Programming people seems rather unlikely. I don't know if the drug would act 
on the strong synapses in the amygdala, but if it did it would likely make 
them more changeable - and hence make a wonderful *deprogramming* tool by 
enabling unlearning of strongly learned stimulus-emotion responses. I know of 
some experiments using another memory enhancer drug to help phobia therapy, 
where the drug is combined with virtual reality therapy to extinguish the 
phobia and prevent recurrence. It has shortened the therapy time by half, 
which is rather good. 

Drugs that control the amygdala could potentially do very nasty things. Just 
giving somebody panic attacks is nasty enough, but I think it is eminently 
possible to activate the aversion system to create intense fear/angst linked 
to conditioned objects. A Clockwork Orange got things quite right. However, 
that requires *different* drugs than the cortical memory enhancers we are 
talking about here. 


-- 
Anders Sandberg
http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa
http://www.aleph.se/andart/

The sum of human knowledge sounds nice. But I want more.


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Fri Mar 19 05:10:24 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 21:10:24 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Neural Engineering
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403182014010.1096-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Well an interesting note on nanodot points out that there is now
a Journal of Neural Engineering.
  (http://nanodot.org/articles/04/03/19/0141235.shtml)

Now, many of you may remember my rather infamous "lets nuke
Afghanistan" post of a couple of years ago.  This was based
on my utilitarian/extropic argument that it would simply
be more efficient to eliminate Al Queda (and secondary
non-involved individuals) than to be chasing them around
for who knows how long (allowing them to inflict more harm
at random as appears to be pointed out by recent events in
Madrid and Bagdhad)).  [Remember I'm not letting you off the
hook here -- if you want to spend $100B in slow methodical
minimal casualty cleanup of radicals (such as suicide bombers
in Afghanistan or Iraq then that is $100B you can't spend on the
treatment of AIDS or Malaria in Africa, starvation around the world,
etc.  I have yet to see anyone propose concrete return-on-investment
guidelines that would conform to the Extropian principles.]

But the above is an aside...

Now what I am interested in from the perspective of the
"Neural Engineering" perspective is the possibility of
extracting (non-destructively and non-painfully) information
that leads directly to the people who are responsible for
the direct (and most probably painful) termination of
innocent people.

I.e. if one has information that may relate to past or future
damage to society or individuals within the society is it
reasonable to "rape" such information from ones mind?
Particularly if this can be done in a non-harmful way
(i.e. no torture, no long term damage, no pain, etc.)?

Going back to my several year old strategy (which I will
admit was rather heavy handed) it seems that if one can
use such methods (i.e. Neural Engineering) to extract
the information required to identify people who are
oriented towards killing innocent non-combatants to
advance a non-universal position it would be a good thing.
Now, on the other hand one might view this as a bad thing
(PBS has been running some programs on the history of the
struggle of the Irish against the British the last several
weeks.)

It seems there may be a fundamental underlying principle
at work here -- "the freedom to choose".  And then whether
one can allow "the freedom to choose wrongly" (when you
know in your heart of hearts that a choice is completely
wrong).  And *then* one gets into the sticky question of
when, if a choice is wrong, it impacts just oneself, or
whether there are downstream secondary effects (Napoleon
and Hitler come to mind) that are very very significant.
I.e. -- Just how much negative scondary effects of
"freedom to choose" does one allow?

So, attempting to cross "neural engineering" with "freedom
to choose" -- when exactly is one entitled to "privacy
of ones thoughts?" (for example -- I could come up with
scenarios where Mike or Spike or Amara could represent
threats to my life -- leaving aside Arabs (or more
accurately radical Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq or Palestine).
The point being that almost anyone could present a threat
with various reasonably rational perspectives (from within
their framework).

Under what circumstances is it reasonable for me to "rape"
their minds to determine they are not a significant threat to me?
Mind you this is based on the assumption is that it is not
painful, does not damage their body in any way, etc.

There is a converse side of this perhaps -- i.e. those
individuals/companies who offer full disclosure ("go ahead
read my mind") so that it is completely obvious that they
are dealing from an up-front perspective.  Obviously the
last couple of years from Enron to WorldCom to Shell have
shown how messy things can get when one doesn't have all
the cards on the table.

Robert




From zero_powers at hotmail.com  Fri Mar 19 08:00:14 2004
From: zero_powers at hotmail.com (Zero Powers)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:00:14 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Century City: The law show of the future
References: <200403180727.i2I7RdR15990@finney.org><20040318150004.5648.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20040318151908.GL28136@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <BAY2-DAV516Ssuot0OU00033c15@hotmail.com>

Doh!  After looking forward to this friggin show for weeks, I forgot to
watch it!!!  If anyone taped it I'd greatly appreciate a copy.  Of course
I'm happy to reimburse for the tape and shipping/handling.

Any help would be greatly appreciated (and I promise never to miss the show
again :)

-Zero

P.S. Hi everybody!  It's been a while since I've poked my nose in this list.
Hope all is well with all my old pals.


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Fri Mar 19 06:28:05 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 23:28:05 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [SK] Re: Century City: The law show of the future
Message-ID: <405A92F5.721577F2@mindspring.com>

At 12:36 AM 3/18/2004, Terry W. Colvin wrote:
>Hal Finney wrote:
>
> >Overall, I was pleased with the show's exploration of ideas.  The mere
> >fact of a non-dystopian future is a pretty radical concept today.
> >But they went beyond that and explored concepts that are the kinds of
> >things that we discuss all the time.  That's very brave for a mainstream
> >show.  They also seemed pretty sharp technically and I didn't see any
> >major errors.
>
>My first reaction was the rant of a younger Harlan Ellison against the
>stupidity of television. This show was not 2030. It was 2003 with a couple
>of new capabilities. Hair, clothing, furniture, vehicles, behavior,
>language -- it was all a mundane now.

But the problem with setting sci-fi in the future is that, as Bohr is 
reputed to have said, prediction is extremely difficult, especially about 
the future. If you look at any sci-fi work (movie, tv show, novel, short 
story) what it seems you're getting is basically the present with a couple 
of new capabilities. Original Star Trek is basically 1966 with some wild 
assed guesses about what things would be like 200(?) years in the future 
(ditto the other iterations of the franchise). Or, for an even more jarring 
effect, take a look at a sci-fi work which attempts to stay "grounded" in 
reality by using contemporary corporate logos. I still almost do a double 
take watching "2001: A Space Odyssey" when Heywood Floyd makes his video 
phone call back to earth from the orbiting space station, and the screen 
shows a late '60's "Bell System" logo while the call is being placed and 
after it is disconnected (how many of us even *remember* the Bell System, 
eh? Another jarring moment: seeing the Pan-American labeling and logos on 
the Space Clipper, especially since (IIRC) Pan-Am went out of business a 
while before 2001 (the year, not the movie) actually arrived. Another 
disconnect is in one of my favorite movies, "Silent Running", where the 
cargo hold of Freeman Lowell's spaceship contains containers bearing the 
early '70s logos of companies like Coca-Cola, GE (at least GE still uses 
pretty much the same logo they were using back then; it's just that 
precious little of what they do involves electricity anymore), RCA, etc.

Come to think of it, I feel cheated already. Where the hell are the flying 
cars we all knew we'd be driving in the year 2000. Dammit, they're at least 
four years late!

Cheers,

Len Cleavelin


-- 
"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 humania at t-online.de  Fri Mar 19 09:29:21 2004
From: humania at t-online.de (Hubert Mania)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:29:21 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Neural Engineering
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403182014010.1096-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <000701c40d94$aa6bd110$5b91fea9@humaniaz2wf5fi>

Robert Bradbury said:

> Now, many of you may remember my rather infamous "lets nuke
> Afghanistan" post of a couple of years ago.  This was based
> on my utilitarian/extropic argument that it would simply
> be more efficient to eliminate Al Queda (and secondary
> non-involved individuals) than to be chasing them around
> for who knows how long (allowing them to inflict more harm
> at random as appears to be pointed out by recent events in
> Madrid and Bagdhad)).

If you think this is extropic, then extropy, according to your
interpretation, is a fascist movement. Killing and destroying in advance
what you cynically refer to as

"secondary non-involved individuals"

is actually already beyond any cynicism and unbearable. As long as people
who still think that the crusade on Iraq was "extropic" still are members of
the extropian board, this "movement" is dead. If its President does not have
the sensitivity to at least kick those people out of their representative
functions - not that I think that this organisation had the power to change
anything - you will cause further damage.

And R. B.'s bullshit thoughts about "raping" the mind of other people
because he has reasonable scenarios they might be a threat to his life  . .
. yes, I know, it's *only* a mind game . . . remember, you do *not* speak
here as
an individual, even if your extropy president might refer to this laughable
tactic . . . you *are* a representative of the club.

Robert Bradbury, you are the worst living fascist, who ever crossed my way.
This extropian movement is dead as long as persons of your calibre are not
thrown out. I do not have much power but I will tell anybody who asks me
about Extropy that they have an outright fascist as a represenative of
their philosophy of life.

Good night, Extropy

humania





From asa at nada.kth.se  Fri Mar 19 10:11:21 2004
From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:11:21 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Neural Engineering
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403182014010.1096-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403182014010.1096-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <200403191111.21847.asa@nada.kth.se>

fredagen den 19 mars 2004 06.10 wrote Robert J. Bradbury:
> Now what I am interested in from the perspective of the
> "Neural Engineering" perspective is the possibility of
> extracting (non-destructively and non-painfully) information
> that leads directly to the people who are responsible for
> the direct (and most probably painful) termination of
> innocent people.

It seems that the question here is how strong our right to our own mindstates 
is compared to other rights. This is actually a good question.

As I tend to think of it, we own the contents of our minds just as we own our 
bodies. We have the sole right to determine what to do with our internal 
information, whether to reveal it or remain silent. This right appears to be 
stronger than just the ordinary ownership rights just as the right to one's 
body is stronger than ordinary ownership of external objects. 

The freedom to choose is part of this; the ability to make one's own decisions 
is not just tightly linked to the mindstate but also to being a moral subject 
at all. If that is infringed it is even more serious than just 'stealing' 
someone's mental information. But the current scenario is not about limiting 
this freedom, just checking that the mind does not contain any plans for 
killing someone, or the memories of having done so.

My basic heuristics of what rights may be infringed on in the pursuit of 
justice is that only weaker rights may be violated when trying to deal with a 
rights violation (e.g. stealing (right to property violation) should not be 
punished by death (right to life violation)) and that coercion may not be 
initiated. Being a minarchist, I acknowledge that we can delegate a monopoly 
on coercion to the (local) state if we are careful. 

>From this standpoint it is entirely OK to make a social contract where the 
police is allowed to check the minds of people in the pursuit of a crime. It 
is not truly different from all the other investigatory powers we allow the 
police, powers which we accept since they produce a safer society (assuming 
the police to be competent, not corrupt etc). The integrity violation is 
lesser than the life violation done by the murderer. Such scanning is only 
moral if the crime is at least a crime against the right to one's body or 
mind - no scanning for thieves. But these investigations are after the fact: 
scanning brains for murderers is OK, but it is not clear it is moral to look 
for would-be murderers. 

In current legal practice it is often problematic even to look too broadly for 
suspects, there has to be a reasonable amount of evidence to allow invasions 
of privacy. One could of course assume a kind of transparent society 
contract, where random scanning for serious misdeeds (murder, rape, 
brainhacking) is accepted. But we are a long way from that, and building 
institutions that could handle that power without leaking or corruption is 
hard. 

It is the would-be murderers that are problematic. Innocent until proven 
guilty is an important heuristic for open societies - it embodies the trust/
niceness part of the reciprocal altruism we need to keep the society 
functioning, and it shows that we value freedom higher than punishment. This 
means that coercive scanning for potential crimes is not really acceptable, 
it violates both the non-initiation of force and produces violations of 
rights. Doing a voluntary scanning showing that one is "nice" is of course 
OK, and can be included into making voluntary contracts. It is the forcing of 
scanning that makes it problematic, and this is compounded by the idea of 
pre-emptive justice. Pre-emption places the burden of proof on the accused 
("Prove that you *won't do it!") and tends to lead to unstable situations 
where it is better to act before anybody else has a chance to act, producing 
rash decisions. 

Would the benefits of finding these dangerous persons outweigh the risks? I 
doubt it. Assume that one would-be murderer in 10 actually does murder 
someone (the exact numbers are of course uncertain, but 1:10 doesn't sound 
that strange - it could be 1:100) and one in a hundred is a would-be murderer 
(probably a bit too high :-), and that we use scanning on the entire 
population. That means that 99% of people get their mental privacy violated. 
Then we have the 0.9% potential murderers we now have to deal with. Most are 
simply in need of some help (psychological, economical, social, whatever). If 
they all can get it it isn't that bad, but this is very unlikely to happen in 
the near term. More likely they are treated in ways that limit the risk to 
the others, which in general is a limitation for them. So we end up with 0.1% 
stopped would-be murderers, and 0.9% people who actually would never have 
murdered anybody but now have their freedom circumscribed anyway. Plus the 
basic 99% of coerced citizens. Is the price of preventing 1 murder worth 
putting 9 innocents (possibly nasty people, but innocent) in custody or 
permanent monitoring? (plus 990 people who got privacy invasions). I think 
most people disagree. 

Maybe if that single murderer really was so dangerous that his damage was 
"worth" 9 innocents in jail, but that leaves only some of the nastier 
terrorists. While it is hard to compare rights (they are qualitative things), 
one could perhaps view them as orders of magnitude of utility. If a wrongful 
incraceration is worth 1/10 of wrongful death and privacy invasion 1/100, the 
total "cost" of the above scheme would be about 10 lives - and that is *real* 
lives, if we are looking for risks it must mean that the probability of the 
crime times the number of lives lost > 10 (assuming the above 1000 people 
scenario). Which means that we need to be pretty certain (more than 1 chance 
in 100 of the crime actually happening) even when dealing with a potential 
~1000 victim attack. 
[I think the reasoning in this paragraph is seriously flawed, but maybe one 
could make something better out of this mess. The assumptions of the "sizes" 
of the rights is downright random. ]

To sum up, I think looking for would-be murderers using neuroengineering is a 
dangerous step both morally and socially. Using it to find murderers is far 
more OK, we only need to set up proper safeguards about the information and 
instutions handling it. 

> There is a converse side of this perhaps -- i.e. those
> individuals/companies who offer full disclosure ("go ahead
> read my mind") so that it is completely obvious that they
> are dealing from an up-front perspective.  

I ran a rpg scenario where one culture (of course, it was a 
libertarian-transhumanist planet) had something like this. Everybody was 
wearing wearables that contained micro-fmri that allowed them to display 
their mental state in augmented reality. Not exactly truth machines, but 
enough to give a sense of the mind behind the poker face. Not showing a 
mindstate was a sign of untrustworthiness, and faking it was a serious social 
gaffe (making sudden, unexpected remarks and checking that the response was 
plausible had become a part of social interaction; offworlders found the 
atlanteans annoyingly rude). 

It is still mostly a symbolic sign, just like shaking hands to show there is 
no weapon there. But it helps a bit.

-- 
Anders Sandberg
http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa
http://www.aleph.se/andart/

The sum of human knowledge sounds nice. But I want more.


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Fri Mar 19 12:09:55 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 23:09:55 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bashing the brand (was Neural Engineering)
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403182014010.1096-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <00af01c40dab$17c0da60$412b2dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>

From: "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com>

> Now, many of you may remember my rather infamous
> "lets nuke Afghanistan" post of a couple of years ago.
> This was based on my utilitarian/extropic argument ...

I have to agree with Hubert that this sort of use of "extropic" is
likely to be harmful to the Extropian brand.

It won't matter how many disclaimers are placed on the web
site, people WILL still form their own views of what extropians
stand for based on what influential extropians - like board 
members say - especially if those board members explicitly
invoke the brand in support of their arguments.

- Brett Paatsch




From naddy at mips.inka.de  Fri Mar 19 12:22:19 2004
From: naddy at mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 12:22:19 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Century City: The law show of the future
References: <200403180727.i2I7RdR15990@finney.org>
	<20040318150004.5648.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20040318151908.GL28136@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <c3eolr$2sqf$1@kemoauc.mips.inka.de>

Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

> I think the silliest assumption of far future is that you still see normal
> people frolicking around.

So do I, so do I.  Alas, your average person thinks that it is
self-evident truth that people will remain unchanged until they are
killed off sometime in the future by manmade or natural disaster,
and anybody who suggests otherwise is obviously a nutcase.

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          naddy at mips.inka.de


From asa at nada.kth.se  Fri Mar 19 12:50:31 2004
From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 13:50:31 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Bashing the brand (was Neural Engineering)
In-Reply-To: <00af01c40dab$17c0da60$412b2dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403182014010.1096-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<00af01c40dab$17c0da60$412b2dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
Message-ID: <200403191350.31067.asa@nada.kth.se>

fredagen den 19 mars 2004 13.09 wrote Brett Paatsch:
> From: "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com>
>
> > Now, many of you may remember my rather infamous
> > "lets nuke Afghanistan" post of a couple of years ago.
> > This was based on my utilitarian/extropic argument ...
>
> I have to agree with Hubert that this sort of use of "extropic" is
> likely to be harmful to the Extropian brand.

In this case Robert made a mistake, since his reasoning was almost purely 
utilitarian (a brand that I think *rightly* has become harmed by its 
applications) and had very little to do with extropian thinking (other than a 
willingness to go outside the frame of the traditional human). 

However, I hope the neuroengineering discussion can produce a bit more light 
than the former discussion - the issue here is far closer and far more 
problematic. We already have crude tests for psychopathology that could be 
used to find if somebody is a potentially violent person. How should they be 
handled? It is not trivial, although the more radical applications implied by 
Robert in his post (perhaps accidentally) almost certainly are immoral and 
impractical. But cognitive liberty is a serious matter, and not well explored 
in the study of citizen-state or citizen-citizen interactions. 

-- 
Anders Sandberg
http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa
http://www.aleph.se/andart/

The sum of human knowledge sounds nice. But I want more.


From neptune at superlink.net  Fri Mar 19 13:33:28 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 08:33:28 -0500
Subject: Genocide to make the world a better place?/was Re: [extropy-chat]
	Neural Engineering
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403182014010.1096-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <006601c40db6$c3f8fbe0$71cd5cd1@neptune>

On Friday, March 19, 2004 12:10 AM Robert J. Bradbury
bradbury at aeiveos.com wrote:
> Now, many of you may remember my
> rather infamous "lets nuke Afghanistan"
> post of a couple of years ago.  This was
> based on my utilitarian/extropic argument
> that it would simply be more efficient to
> eliminate Al Queda (and secondary non-
> involved individuals) than to be chasing
> them around for who knows how long
> (allowing them to inflict more harm at
> random as appears to be pointed out by
> recent events in Madrid and Bagdhad)).
> [Remember I'm not letting you off the
> hook here -- if you want to spend $100B
> in slow methodical minimal casualty
> cleanup of radicals (such as suicide
> bombers in Afghanistan or Iraq then that
> is $100B you can't spend on the treatment
> of AIDS or Malaria in Africa, starvation
> around the world, etc.  I have yet to see
> anyone propose concrete return-on-
> investment guidelines that would conform
> to the Extropian principles.]

First, the number of people killed by Al Queda, etc. is much smaller by
several orders of magnitude than the number who would have died in your
war of extermination.  The overall damage caused by terrorists, too,
would be several orders of magnitude smaller than that caused by such a
war of extermination.  Your scenario is like getting rid of a criminal
gang in Seattle by obliterating the whole city.

Second, what if we applied the same logic all around?  What do you think
the reaction would be of potential "secondary non-involved individuals"?
Would they side with you or would they start to look for ways to destroy
their potential destroyer, plunging the whole planet -- which, btw, has
not lifeboats -- into a war that likely would wreck our civilization.

Third, such a war would also make the terrorists look like heroes and
actually would change the support much more in their direction.  For
religious nuts among them, this would not decrease their fervor.

Fourth, there're the moral arguments about individual human worth of
those innocents.  Your ROI argument would not work for them.  Would it
work for you?  What if someone were to claim that eliminating you were
more efficient than letting you live?  (I'm not making a threat here,
just trying to follow the logic of your view in a way that I hope gives
you pause.)  Efficient for whom?  Definitely not for you.

Regarding the monies spent, this is an entirely different issue.  It's
not like there were and are only two strategies available: very
expensive imperialist war and occupations vs. nuclear extermination.
There were and are other strategies that would be cheaper than both.
(The same applies to AIDS, malaria, and starvation.  There are more
alternatives than just the same old government programs.)

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html



From jef at jefallbright.net  Fri Mar 19 15:24:04 2004
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 07:24:04 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Being Human: Readings from the President's Council
	on Bioethics
Message-ID: <405B1094.5030402@jefallbright.net>

Interesting that this "government publication" by Leon Kass is being 
limited in its distribution in some unclear way, while it continues to 
be promoted on the bioethics website.  Could it be that the bioethics 
panel believe that the appearance of this work is more valuable than its 
content?

Does anyone here have any insight into this, or know how to obtain a copy?

- Jef

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Request for document:  Being Human: Readings from the 
President's Council on Bioethics
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:14:23 -0500
From: Info, Bioethics (Bioethics) <Info at bioethics.gov>
To: 'Jef Allbright' <jef at jefallbright.net>

Thank you for your interest in the works of the Council.

We regret to inform you that we have run out of copies of Being Human 
due to the unforeseen demand for this publication. Unfortunately, our 
copyright agreements prevent us from posting the book on our website or 
from printing further copies at this time.

We are looking at different options and will keep your name on a waiting
list. We thank you for your understanding.

The President's Council on Bioethics

-----Original Message-----
From: Jef Allbright [mailto:jef at jefallbright.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:32 AM
To: Info, Bioethics (Bioethics)
Subject: Request for document: Being Human: Readings from the
President's Council on Bioethics


Please send a copy of the document,  Being Human: Readings from the
President's Council on Bioethics, to me at the following address:

<snip>





From test at demedici.ssec.wisc.edu  Fri Mar 19 15:23:54 2004
From: test at demedici.ssec.wisc.edu (Bill Hibbard)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:23:54 -0600 (CST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Neural Engineering
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0403190922250.28269-100000@demedici.ssec.wisc.edu>

> Now what I am interested in from the perspective of the
> "Neural Engineering" perspective is the possibility of
> extracting (non-destructively and non-painfully) information
> that leads directly to the people who are responsible for
> the direct (and most probably painful) termination of
> innocent people.

The really interesting question is whether something like
this is happening already. I understand that there are
brain imaging techniques that can be used as effective lie
detectors. If you show a person a picture, imagers can
detect whether the person is familiar with the picture's
subject.

I wonder if these techniques are being used in questioning
terrorists. It seems to me that with clever questioning,
and looking for correlations among the responses of many
terrorists, that brain imaging could be quite effective.

Anyone know?

Cheers,
Bill



From asa at nada.kth.se  Fri Mar 19 16:13:18 2004
From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:13:18 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Neural Engineering
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0403190922250.28269-100000@demedici.ssec.wisc.edu>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0403190922250.28269-100000@demedici.ssec.wisc.edu>
Message-ID: <200403191713.18458.asa@nada.kth.se>

fredagen den 19 mars 2004 16.23 wrote Bill Hibbard:
> The really interesting question is whether something like
> this is happening already. I understand that there are
> brain imaging techniques that can be used as effective lie
> detectors. If you show a person a picture, imagers can
> detect whether the person is familiar with the picture's
> subject.

"Brain fingerprinting" as it is called. You look for the P300 "oddball" 
pattern in the EEG when the subject sees images of objects in the same 
category. If you see a number of knives and have nothing to do with a murder, 
you would not react to any in particular. But if you were the murderer (or 
knew something of the murder) there would be a P300 response when you saw 
something you recognized.

This has been used in a few court cases, and is apparently viewed as 
admissible evidence in the US. There is debate about admissibility in India 
right now, and in a few other places.

>From a neuroscience point of view it seems workable, although we might want 
more reliable methods and there is a serious problem of using the right 
questioning technique (bad pictures of the target objects distinguishable 
from other pictures, subconscious influence from testers etc). 

> I wonder if these techniques are being used in questioning
> terrorists. It seems to me that with clever questioning,
> and looking for correlations among the responses of many
> terrorists, that brain imaging could be quite effective.

In principle, yes. In practice this would be very messy. Imagine that you have 
a number of suspected terrorists and try to find out who were in the cell 
planning 911. Doing brain fingerprinting on them for recognition of some 
items that were in the cell, you could probably find them and maybe a few 
people closely connected. But what if you don't have the item and the 
existence and membership of the cell is conjectural? You could start showing 
pictures, finding out who knew who - but that is just a hightech version of 
what intelligence agencies already do. It doesn't help you in proving that 
they did it. Even worse, if you don't have the terrorists to study, you have 
a very hard time finding them. It is the usual intelligence problem. The 
usual suspects are easy to get (unless they hide in a cave somewhere), but it 
is the unusual suspects or remote parts of the network that are dangerous 
because they can strike at any time. 

In the end brain fingerprinting is an adjunct to ordinary intelligence 
gathering. It gets some bits of information that otherwise might be hidden, 
but it is no mind reader.




-- 
Anders Sandberg
http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa
http://www.aleph.se/andart/

The sum of human knowledge sounds nice. But I want more.


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri Mar 19 16:28:13 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 08:28:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Being Human: Readings from the President's Council
	on Bioethics
In-Reply-To: <405B1094.5030402@jefallbright.net>
Message-ID: <20040319162813.35233.qmail@web80403.mail.yahoo.com>

> -------- Original Message --------
> From: Info, Bioethics (Bioethics)
> <Info at bioethics.gov>
> To: 'Jef Allbright' <jef at jefallbright.net>
> 
> Thank you for your interest in the works of the
> Council.
> 
> We regret to inform you that we have run out of
> copies of Being Human 
> due to the unforeseen demand for this publication.
> Unfortunately, our 
> copyright agreements prevent us from posting the
> book on our website or 
> from printing further copies at this time.

Hmm.  My initial instinct is to take this at face
value: they believe - rightly or wrongly, probably
wrongly - that somewhere along the line, they made a
binding agreement only to produce X number of copies.
Said agreement automatically implies the document
isn't to go up on the Web, since that would
effectively make unlimited copies.

I suspect that, if you look through all the laws,
even if they did make such an agreement, it's null and
void: a government entity like they are is not allowed
to make this sort of agreement in the first place.
But that's just my suspicion, from having seen similar
information snarls in other government agencies.


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri Mar 19 16:40:13 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 08:40:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Neural Engineering
In-Reply-To: <200403191111.21847.asa@nada.kth.se>
Message-ID: <20040319164013.1494.qmail@web80410.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Anders Sandberg <asa at nada.kth.se> wrote:
> As I tend to think of it, we own the contents of our
> minds just as we own our 
> bodies. We have the sole right to determine what to
> do with our internal 
> information, whether to reveal it or remain silent.
> This right appears to be 
> stronger than just the ordinary ownership rights
> just as the right to one's 
> body is stronger than ordinary ownership of external
> objects. 

So...do we need an automatic copyright of experiences?
Sharing of which, without the full consent of everyone
involved or special government circumstance, would be
a criminal act?  And if corporations who make products
that contribute the the experience can be considered
to be "involved" (watching a DVD or reading a book
yields obvious involvement, but extend that to include
situations where the DVD's case or a book happens to
be on the shelf in the background of a shared
moment)...

Yes, this is (somewhat) tongue in cheek.


From asa at nada.kth.se  Fri Mar 19 16:45:30 2004
From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:45:30 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Neural Engineering
In-Reply-To: <20040319164013.1494.qmail@web80410.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040319164013.1494.qmail@web80410.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200403191745.30081.asa@nada.kth.se>

fredagen den 19 mars 2004 17.40 wrote Adrian Tymes:
> --- Anders Sandberg <asa at nada.kth.se> wrote:
> > As I tend to think of it, we own the contents of our
> > minds just as we own our
> > bodies. We have the sole right to determine what to
> > do with our internal
> > information, whether to reveal it or remain silent.
>
> So...do we need an automatic copyright of experiences?

Yes. At least our own unique neural recordings of them.

> Sharing of which, without the full consent of everyone
> involved or special government circumstance, would be
> a criminal act?

Not as I see it, but my argument was an ethical rather than a legal one. There 
are jurisdictions (Germany comes to mind) where everybody in a photo has a 
right to demand at least compensation. But this seems rather cumbersome, and 
besides that would make a lesser right (the right to privacy) stronger than a 
more important right (the right to mental integrity, plus freedom of speech). 
If I show pictures of my latest amorous escapade my partner might not be very 
happy, but the court case would be about damaging reputations, not whether I 
had any right to release the pictures. Of course, with copyrighted 
appearances things get more iffy...

> And if corporations who make products 
> that contribute the the experience can be considered
> to be "involved" (watching a DVD or reading a book
> yields obvious involvement, but extend that to include
> situations where the DVD's case or a book happens to
> be on the shelf in the background of a shared
> moment)...
>
> Yes, this is (somewhat) tongue in cheek.

We had a lovely discussion on the Swedish transhumanist list about taking IP 
to the logical conclusion, where mental objects were owned by various parties 
and you had to pay for using them mentally. We ended up with a scenario of 
beings whose bodies and minds were all owned in part, but whose emergent 
properties were their only (internal) belongings.


-- 
Anders Sandberg
http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa
http://www.aleph.se/andart/

The sum of human knowledge sounds nice. But I want more.


From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Fri Mar 19 19:26:25 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 19:26:25 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] The end of crime as we used to know it?
Message-ID: <405B4961.2010508@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20040319/ap_on_sc/crime_fighting_camphones&e=1>

Quote:

Fri Mar 19, 7:53 AM ET
By MARK NIESSE, Associated Press Writer

ATLANTA - When Lisa Johnson saw a man exposing himself to her in a 
parking lot, she reached for her cell phone ? not to call 911, but to 
snap a picture.

The images captured on her camera phone led police to the capture of the 
former principal of a nearby high school. After his arrest on public 
indecency charges last month, he resigned from a lower school job

Cell phones that can take pictures are becoming a more common way for 
victims and other witnesses to help police capture criminals. Because 
the phones are so portable and always on, it takes only a moment to 
photograph the face or license plate of someone in the act of a crime.

Highlight Quote:
* Their real impact will be in the future, when millions of phone users 
will be able to document any event at any time. *


So the idea of the open society is breaking through to your average 
man-in-the-street newsreader. That's quick. I expected it to take years 
for it to become common knowledge.

BillK


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Fri Mar 19 19:27:08 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 12:27:08 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (Got Caliche?) The real method of scientific
	discovery: [...]
Message-ID: <405B498C.E2A8C488@mindspring.com>

TOOLS & TECHNOLOGY

< http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m2843/1_28/111897967/print.jhtml >

The Scientific Method: The idea that there is a single Scientific Method and
that induction is a key part of it is one of the most unfortunate fables
foisted off on innocent students, and I have often wondered if the very
dullness of the method described in textbook after textbook is not responsible
for turning many young people away from science. Retroduction, or abduction,
is the real method of scientific work, although it generally proceeds by small
steps requiring relatively small imaginative leaps. We should tell people about
those imaginative leaps. They are more exciting and creative than enumerating
crows.


-- 
"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 eugen at leitl.org  Fri Mar 19 19:43:48 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 20:43:48 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] The end of crime as we used to know it?
In-Reply-To: <405B4961.2010508@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
References: <405B4961.2010508@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20040319194347.GP28136@leitl.org>

On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 07:26:25PM +0000, BillK wrote:

> So the idea of the open society is breaking through to your average 
> man-in-the-street newsreader. That's quick. I expected it to take years 
> for it to become common knowledge.

Open society? Where? Have you been reading too much Brin again?

Have you ever tried recording anything in a shop? Try it. Let the owner know
you're doing it. Read Steve Mann's account of shooting back.

Have you ever tried recording a LEO while on duty? Try it. Make sure you have
good health and lawyer insurance. Bring overnight kit for the cell.
A politician? Try it. Bring overnight kit for the cell.

Have you ever tried preventing a LEO from filming you? Try it. See above.

So how's it helping if the evidence is admissible/not
admissible/admissible/not admissible (it all depends on who's doing whom)?

How do you stream your stuff if the connection is jammed? Make these things
cheap, because they will be confiscated. A lot. It's all a photoshop job,
anyway, nyahnyah.

Central control beats decentral control. Those in power will use the
technology against you, and will not allow the technology to be used against
them. They're much better at this game than the disorganized, apathetic
public.

Sorry if this came out of nowhere, I've been reading today's news again, and
these are not good. Not good at all, and channelling Brin's not helping.

-- 
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/20040319/a16d0c35/attachment.bin>

From neptune at superlink.net  Fri Mar 19 19:55:17 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 14:55:17 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] The end of crime as we used to know it?
References: <405B4961.2010508@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <013b01c40dec$1aeb7ce0$71cd5cd1@neptune>

On Friday, March 19, 2004 2:26 PM BillK bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
>
<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20040319/ap_on_sc/cr
ime_fighting_camphones&e=1>
>
> Quote:
>
> Fri Mar 19, 7:53 AM ET
> By MARK NIESSE, Associated Press Writer
>
> ATLANTA - When Lisa Johnson saw
> a man exposing himself to her in a
> parking lot, she reached for her cell
> phone ? not to call 911, but to snap
> a picture.
>
> The images captured on her camera
> phone led police to the capture of the
> former principal of a nearby high
> school. After his arrest on public
> indecency charges last month, he
> resigned from a lower school job
>
> Cell phones that can take pictures are
> becoming a more common way for
> victims and other witnesses to help
> police capture criminals. Because
> the phones are so portable and
> always on, it takes only a moment to
> photograph the face or license plate
> of someone in the act of a crime.
>
> Highlight Quote:
> * Their real impact will be in the future,
> when millions of phone users will be
> able to document any event at any time. *
>
> So the idea of the open society is breaking
> through to your average man-in-the-street
> newsreader. That's quick. I expected it to
> take years for it to become common
> knowledge.

I'm not so sure I follow you hear.  Some guy shows his willy to a woman
who takes a photo of it and he gets arrested?  Now, don't get me wrong
here.  I'm saying that in the open society, public nudity will be the
norm, but this example cuts both ways.  I mean I immediately thought it
might make agents of the state less brutal because of fear of being
caught in the act.  But imagine the democratic despotism which is now
coalsecing around the world.  Good little citizens are able to enforce
any law that they please.  Someone photographs you in the deepest wood
smoking a joint.  You're busted.  Etc.

In fact, I'd say this falls into the category of "enforcement
technology" -- technology that enhances centralized power at the expense
of individual freedom.

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html



From natashavita at earthlink.net  Fri Mar 19 20:44:40 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 15:44:40 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Christopher Reeve Foundation: Request
Message-ID: <57050-220043519204440294@M2W034.mail2web.com>

Friends -

A bi-partisan group of representatives has authored a letter to President
Bush pressing him to expand the Federal Policy on Embryonic Stem Cell
Research.

You can sign the bi-partisan letter at this link:
 
http://www.capwiz.com/reeve/mail/compose/
http://www.capwiz.com/reeve/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=5369466

FYI:
 
"--While it originally appeared that 78 embryonic stem cell lines would be
available for research under the federal policy, now, more than two years
after August 9, 2001, only 15 are available to researchers. 
 
--All of those 15 lines are contaminated with mouse feeder cells, making
their therapeutic use for humans uncertain. 
 
--Scientists are reporting that it is increasingly difficult to attract new
scientists to this area of research because of concerns that funding
restrictions will keep this research from being successful. 
 
--This promising field of research is moving overseas. We have already seen 
researchers move to countries such as the United Kingdom, Singapore,
Israel, Sweden, and Australia, which have more supportive policies."

Natasha



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




From es at popido.com  Fri Mar 19 21:25:37 2004
From: es at popido.com (Erik Starck)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 22:25:37 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] The end of crime as we used to know it?
In-Reply-To: <20040319194347.GP28136@leitl.org>
References: <405B4961.2010508@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
	<20040319194347.GP28136@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <405B6551.4050107@popido.com>

Eugen Leitl wrote:

>Open society? Where? Have you been reading too much Brin again?
>
>Have you ever tried recording anything in a shop? Try it. Let the owner know
>you're doing it. Read Steve Mann's account of shooting back.
>
>Have you ever tried recording a LEO while on duty? Try it. Make sure you have
>good health and lawyer insurance. Bring overnight kit for the cell.
>A politician? Try it. Bring overnight kit for the cell.
>
>Have you ever tried preventing a LEO from filming you? Try it. See above.
>
>So how's it helping if the evidence is admissible/not
>admissible/admissible/not admissible (it all depends on who's doing whom)?
>
>How do you stream your stuff if the connection is jammed? Make these things
>cheap, because they will be confiscated. A lot. It's all a photoshop job,
>anyway, nyahnyah.
>
>Central control beats decentral control. Those in power will use the
>technology against you, and will not allow the technology to be used against
>them. They're much better at this game than the disorganized, apathetic
>public.
>
>Sorry if this came out of nowhere, I've been reading today's news again, and
>these are not good. Not good at all, and channelling Brin's not helping.
>  
>

I think you're being a bit too pessimistic. One person with a camera 
phone doesn't make a revolution, but add the smart mobs of Rheingold, 
mobile blogging tools soon to hit the market big time 
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3497596.stm) and mobile video on 
the way and you've got something that very well may put a lethal crack 
in some of the current power structures. The shopowner and the 
politician can't put the guards on every customer or voter they've got.

Of course, at this stage they respond with force as they feel 
threatened. The watchmen aren't used to being watched. But something is 
happening. Something big.

Also see:

http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/narrative_overview_eight.asp?media=1
"The only sectors seeing general audience growth today are online, ethnic and alternative media."

and
"In many parts of the news media, we are increasingly getting the raw 
elements of news as the end product."


--
Erik S



From asa at nada.kth.se  Fri Mar 19 21:37:42 2004
From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 22:37:42 +0100 (MET)
Subject: [extropy-chat] The end of crime as we used to know it?
In-Reply-To: <405B6551.4050107@popido.com>
References: <405B4961.2010508@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk><20040319194347.GP28136@leitl.org>
	<405B6551.4050107@popido.com>
Message-ID: <4375.213.112.90.218.1079732262.squirrel@webmail.nada.kth.se>



One can look at it this way. Once upon a time when you saw a LEO doing
something illegal it was your word against his. Not much of a chance. But
now it is possible to get more evidence. It is still not an even fight.
But it is far more possible to make it.

I think the main effect of ubiquitious cameras is not going to be on
police violence or crime but on other areas. People documenting events as
they happen is going to have a far more profound effect. It is going to be
both small things - which lettuce to buy in the store - and big things - a
random photo showing the assassin on his way to the podium. As the
prevalence increases it is going to become more uncertain for store
personell to throw out customers apparently debating what to buy with
their girlfriends over the phone, and that is going to spread to other
areas. At the same time we are going to see the development of norms and
customs of what not to photo - and this of course still enables people to
hide in the shadows.


-- 
Anders Sandberg
http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa
http://www.aleph.se/andart/

The sum of human knowledge sounds nice. But I want more.



From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Mar 19 22:04:53 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 23:04:53 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] The end of crime as we used to know it?
In-Reply-To: <405B6551.4050107@popido.com>
References: <405B4961.2010508@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
	<20040319194347.GP28136@leitl.org> <405B6551.4050107@popido.com>
Message-ID: <20040319220453.GZ28136@leitl.org>

On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 10:25:37PM +0100, Erik Starck wrote:

> I think you're being a bit too pessimistic. One person with a camera 

I sure hope so. Given just today's headlines, we've been progressing down the
slippery slope towards a control and surveillance society, with nary a sqawk
but a few digerating fuming and sputtering.

The general public doesn't know, and doesn't care. In fact, it has been
silently accepting some pretty outrageous things. Things people used to riot in
the streets for.

Nowadays, people don't riot even if their portemonnaie's being bled. Now this
makes me genuinely worried.

> phone doesn't make a revolution, but add the smart mobs of Rheingold, 

Smart mobs are just a lark. Highly unpolitical, but for protester tourism
(against globalization, etc.).

> mobile blogging tools soon to hit the market big time 

I repeat, how can you blog if your channel is jammed? How can you blog if
your cellphone has been confiscated? How can you blog if you're ordered to
put it down, and your ISP will cut you off, in compliance with law XY.Z?
Your connection logs are essentially eternal, and subpoenable. Your premises
can be searched just because somebody claims you're a pirate (complete with
cutlass and eyepatch, ARRRRRR matey!). Your financial transactions and RFID
movement profile gets collected. Your cellphone location profile gets
tracked. All your voice is tappable, and tapped. Your car's license plate and
toll collect RFID are being scanned everywhere, and ditto your face on a
dozen cams on your way from home to work. All of this will be actively data
warehoused, and crosscorrelated.

How many of normal people know how much of it is already law, where, about to
become law, and what is on the drawing boards still?

> (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3497596.stm) and mobile video on 
> the way and you've got something that very well may put a lethal crack 
> in some of the current power structures. The shopowner and the 

How so? Voting is your only option, and if there's just 3 candidates none of
which is representing your views, and you're not demonstrating, how does your
blogging matter?

> politician can't put the guards on every customer or voter they've got.

You cannot vote candidates *away*. You can only vote for, or abstain voting
for those candidates which are present. The political process resulting in
selection of said is a travesty in most parts of the world, US included.
 
> Of course, at this stage they respond with force as they feel 
> threatened. The watchmen aren't used to being watched. But something is 

What is the response to that response? The street is ducking, and covering. 

> happening. Something big.
> 
> Also see:
> 
> http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/narrative_overview_eight.asp?media=1
> "The only sectors seeing general audience growth today are online, ethnic 
> and alternative media."

Online people never riot. They're too busily cocooning while blogging their
rage away for that.
 
> and
> "In many parts of the news media, we are increasingly getting the raw 
> elements of news as the end product."

No doubt. What is the general public doing with those raw bits, though?

-- 
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/20040319/148543a0/attachment.bin>

From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Fri Mar 19 22:43:24 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 22:43:24 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] The end of crime as we used to know it?
Message-ID: <405B778C.5020807@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

On Fri Mar 19 12:43:48 MST 2004 Eugen Leitl wrote:
> Central control beats decentral control. Those in power will use the
> technology against you, and will not allow the technology to be used
> against them. They're much better at this game than the disorganized, 
> apathetic public.

Who're you calling apathetic? Uh, sorry, that's me, that is. (Shrugs) ;)

I agree with Erik that you are assuming the worst scenario here.
You don't see cops going around in a haze of electronic jamming and I
don't think you are likely to either. You forget just how essential
cell-phones have become. Even concert halls can't get permission to use
jamming devices to stop yobs chatting through Beethoven's Fifth.

Video cameras are now plentiful and cops have been caught by them and
punished for misbehavior (in UK, anyway). Digital cameras are also very
widespread. But everyone and their dog has a cell-phone and they are all
now upgrading to 3G picture cell-phones. Sure, if it was just you, your
phone could be impounded. But not if there was a crowd. Even a small
group of friends would have time for at least one of them to have
transmitted the pictures before the cops got round to everybody.

In Japan shopkeepers are already complaining about customers taking
pictures of stuff and sending it to their friends - but they can't stop
them - that's why they are kicking up a fuss.

Go to any exhibition, people are photographing every stand and the
equipment on display. (Or is it the models they are photographing?)

The general public is now realizing the power of these cameras. As Erik
said, something big is happening.

The next step will be always-on mobile net connections, with a camera on
your lapel, streaming at the click of a switch.


At present people are still being caught out by surreptitious filming
and sound recording, but not for long. By next year everyone will be
assuming that anything said or done in public will be recorded and will
be behaving accordingly.

Next time you are out on a date, remember that she has already done a
Google search to find out about you, and is now recording all your
chatup lines to discuss with her best friend tomorrow.

Scary, Huh?

BillK








From neptune at superlink.net  Fri Mar 19 22:54:54 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:54:54 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] The end of crime as we used to know it?
References: <405B4961.2010508@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk><20040319194347.GP28136@leitl.org>
	<405B6551.4050107@popido.com> <20040319220453.GZ28136@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <00ac01c40e05$3267b820$a7cd5cd1@neptune>

I side with Eugen here, though I can understand Anders point about the
other impacts.  Also, this is more a case of learning how to deal with
the ramifications anyhow.  My fear is that since we all tend to live in
democratic societies where there's a strong streak of the despotic
impulse -- in the form of people wanting to tell their neighbors what to
do and how to think -- that the technology will provide for stronger
forms of social control.

In order to prevent this, we need only [26 lines deleted].

BTW, is anyone going to see the new "Dawn of the Dead" film?  What are
its ramifications for the Singularity?

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html



From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Fri Mar 19 23:33:20 2004
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 15:33:20 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Being Human: Readings from the President's
	Councilon Bioethics
References: <405B1094.5030402@jefallbright.net>
Message-ID: <011501c40e0a$90448d10$b7be1218@Nano>

Go to this url: http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/beyondtherapy/index.html . Under the image of the book in very small print you will see "If you are interested in ordering a report, please send requests with the name of the report and your full mailing address to info at bioethics.gov. Please allow 6 to 8 weeks for delivery." I sent for a copy using this address and the book was mailed to me about a week and a half later without charge. Gina
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jef Allbright 
  To: ExI chat list 
  Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 7:24 AM
  Subject: [extropy-chat] Being Human: Readings from the President's Councilon Bioethics


  Interesting that this "government publication" by Leon Kass is being 
  limited in its distribution in some unclear way, while it continues to 
  be promoted on the bioethics website.  Could it be that the bioethics 
  panel believe that the appearance of this work is more valuable than its 
  content?

  Does anyone here have any insight into this, or know how to obtain a copy?

  - Jef

  -------- Original Message --------
  Subject: RE: Request for document:  Being Human: Readings from the 
  President's Council on Bioethics
  Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:14:23 -0500
  From: Info, Bioethics (Bioethics) <Info at bioethics.gov>
  To: 'Jef Allbright' <jef at jefallbright.net>

  Thank you for your interest in the works of the Council.

  We regret to inform you that we have run out of copies of Being Human 
  due to the unforeseen demand for this publication. Unfortunately, our 
  copyright agreements prevent us from posting the book on our website or 
  from printing further copies at this time.

  We are looking at different options and will keep your name on a waiting
  list. We thank you for your understanding.

  The President's Council on Bioethics

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Jef Allbright [mailto:jef at jefallbright.net]
  Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:32 AM
  To: Info, Bioethics (Bioethics)
  Subject: Request for document: Being Human: Readings from the
  President's Council on Bioethics


  Please send a copy of the document,  Being Human: Readings from the
  President's Council on Bioethics, to me at the following address:

  <snip>



  _______________________________________________
  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/20040319/2ec4d832/attachment.html>

From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sat Mar 20 00:51:44 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 11:51:44 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Christopher Reeve Foundation: Request
References: <57050-220043519204440294@M2W034.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <015a01c40e15$843e6440$412b2dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>

From: <natashavita at earthlink.net>


> Friends -
>
> A bi-partisan group of representatives has authored a letter
> to President Bush pressing him to expand the Federal Policy
> on Embryonic Stem Cell Research.
>
> You can sign the bi-partisan letter at this link:
>
> http://www.capwiz.com/reeve/mail/compose/
> http://www.capwiz.com/reeve/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=5369466

Although I think Christopher Reeve is one of the best, most
effective, advocates for embryonic stem cell research around,
and I think it's great that ExI is getting into this issue, I am not
optimistic that President Bush will be swayed away from his
embryonic stem cell policy. He's relying on the religious right as
a strategic demographic. Perhaps a later Republican President
(if the Republican's can find a way to separate the abortion
debate from the stem cell debate along the lines of an Orin Hatch)
but this won't happen not under President George W Bush.

STEM CELL POLITICS: Scientist kicked off council
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hssci193714043mar19,0,6010801.story?co
ll=ny-health-headlines

"White House officials said (Elizabeth) Blackburn's two-year
term on the council expired in January and that the biologist's
contribution would no longer be relevant, because the panel
was moving away from discussing embryonic stem cells."
----

I haven't got the source handy but I'm pretty sure Bush has
already given commitments to the religion right not to soften
on embryonic stem cells.

The Bush govt has led the push to get therapeutic cloning
banned in the UN. (This could not work as a legal move
- General Assembly resolutions would not be binding - nothing
could stop China - a permanent security council member
from pursuing embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic
cloning legally should they choose to in their national interest
- but a General Assembly resolution would have a lot of
political clout if it got up).

I am not voting in the US elections (obviously - I'm not a
US citizen), and I would not be particularly keen on voting
for Kerry if I was, but a vote for Bush is a vote for going
slower on embryonic stem cell research. There should be
absolutely no illusions about that.

Regards,
Brett Paatsch



From es at popido.com  Sat Mar 20 01:05:59 2004
From: es at popido.com (Erik Starck)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 02:05:59 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] The end of crime as we used to know it?
In-Reply-To: <20040319220453.GZ28136@leitl.org>
References: <405B4961.2010508@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>	<20040319194347.GP28136@leitl.org>
	<405B6551.4050107@popido.com> <20040319220453.GZ28136@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <405B98F7.7050901@popido.com>

Eugen Leitl wrote:

>On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 10:25:37PM +0100, Erik Starck wrote:
>
>> think you're being a bit too pessimistic. One person with a camera 
>>    
>>
>
>I sure hope so. Given just today's headlines, we've been progressing down the
>slippery slope towards a control and surveillance society, with nary a sqawk
>but a few digerating fuming and sputtering.
>  
>

Europe hasn't seen quite the same development, but maybe the Madrid 
bombings changes that. Let's hope not.

>The general public doesn't know, and doesn't care. In fact, it has been
>silently accepting some pretty outrageous things. Things people used to riot in
>the streets for.
>
>Nowadays, people don't riot even if their portemonnaie's being bled. Now this
>makes me genuinely worried.
>  
>

Hmm. Tell me about it. Sweden, where I live, has the highest tax level 
in the world, and people still seem to accept even higher taxes.

>>phone doesn't make a revolution, but add the smart mobs of Rheingold, 
>>    
>>
>
>Smart mobs are just a lark. Highly unpolitical, but for protester tourism
>(against globalization, etc.).
>  
>

They got Howard Dean a place in the race for the White House.

Some would even call the Al Qaeda a smart mob, and they are quite 
possibly one of the most powerful political organisations in the world 
at the moment.

>>mobile blogging tools soon to hit the market big time 
>>    
>>
>
>I repeat, how can you blog if your channel is jammed? How can you blog if
>your cellphone has been confiscated? How can you blog if you're ordered to
>put it down, and your ISP will cut you off, in compliance with law XY.Z?
>Your connection logs are essentially eternal, and subpoenable. Your premises
>can be searched just because somebody claims you're a pirate (complete with
>cutlass and eyepatch, ARRRRRR matey!). Your financial transactions and RFID
>movement profile gets collected. Your cellphone location profile gets
>tracked. All your voice is tappable, and tapped. Your car's license plate and
>toll collect RFID are being scanned everywhere, and ditto your face on a
>dozen cams on your way from home to work. All of this will be actively data
>warehoused, and crosscorrelated.
>  
>

The same goes for your boss, your political leaders and Bill Gates. The 
higher you climb, the more people are watching you, the more vulnerable 
you get.

>How many of normal people know how much of it is already law, where, about to
>become law, and what is on the drawing boards still?
>  
>

The less they know now, the angrier they will get when they find out.

>>(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3497596.stm) and mobile video on 
>>the way and you've got something that very well may put a lethal crack 
>>in some of the current power structures. The shopowner and the 
>>    
>>
>
>How so? Voting is your only option, and if there's just 3 candidates none of
>which is representing your views, and you're not demonstrating, how does your
>blogging matter?
>  
>

Wrong. Voting is not your only option. If you don't like the country: 
leave. I sure plan to, someday.

Blogging matters because every minute someone spends reading a blog in 
stead of watching the favorite tool of the governments of the 20th 
century: television, is a minute that broadens their perspective and 
spreads new memes.

It is my belief that the life of the national state is closely connected 
to the life of the television channels broadcasted within the same 
geographical borders. McLuhan would probably agree with me on that one. 
It is television that the foundation of a modern country stands on. Again:

"The only sectors seeing general audience growth today are online, ethnic and alternative media."

Television is dying: http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/01/14/geek.study.reut/index.html

This is good news for me and bad news for my government as well as established media. 


>>politician can't put the guards on every customer or voter they've got.
>>    
>>
>
>You cannot vote candidates *away*. You can only vote for, or abstain voting
>for those candidates which are present. The political process resulting in
>selection of said is a travesty in most parts of the world, US included.
>  
>

On that I agree.

>>Of course, at this stage they respond with force as they feel 
>>threatened. The watchmen aren't used to being watched. But something is 
>>    
>>
>
>What is the response to that response? The street is ducking, and covering. 
>  
>

I'm not so sure about that. And we haven't seen the start of this yet. 
Camera phones are still quite cumbersome to use, and picture quality is 
laughable. I want a recording device connected to my eye. A searchable 
lifelogger, constantly remembering everything I do and see, including 
police violence and crooked politicians. If I'm the only one who has 
one, they can make me blind, but if 90% of the population has one (90% 
of swedes have a mobile phone), that's another story.

>>happening. Something big.
>>
>>Also see:
>>
>>http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/narrative_overview_eight.asp?media=1
>>"The only sectors seeing general audience growth today are online, ethnic 
>>and alternative media."
>>    
>>
>
>Online people never riot. They're too busily cocooning while blogging their
>rage away for that.
>  
>

Riots. That's so... 1900. Isn't it? What do you expect? Torches and 
stones? Tar and feathers? This is not a war (if you want to call it 
that) on the streets, it is a war for information and attention. Eyeballs.

>>and
>>"In many parts of the news media, we are increasingly getting the raw 
>>elements of news as the end product."
>>    
>>
>
>No doubt. What is the general public doing with those raw bits, though?
>  
>

Recording them and posting it to the nearest web site.


--
Erik S.



From ladydisdain1984 at hotmail.com  Sat Mar 20 01:46:56 2004
From: ladydisdain1984 at hotmail.com (Kristen Young)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:46:56 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Questions About Real People
Message-ID: <Sea1-F156v6iuRfX3Ca00006580@hotmail.com>

I am writing a college term paper on transhumanism.  I have been reading 
various articles, primarily those written by Dr. Max More, but would like to 
get some more real life exposure to the real people.  I had wanted to attend 
a meeting or conference but it looks as though there aren?t any happening in 
the L.A. area soon enough.  So, I figured the next best thing would be to 
get email responses from people.  Below is a list of questions that will be 
helpful for my research and are also of interest to me personally.  If you 
would like to respond to my questions but you find a particular question(s) 
too probing, I will not be offended if you do not answer that/those 
question(s).

1.	What first attracted you to transhumanism?
2.	To you, what is transhumanism?s most important principle?
3.	Do you identify with a specific branch of transhumanism?  Which?
4.	Whose writings on transhumanism, or related principles and topics, have 
most greatly influenced you?
5.	Do you have a religious affiliation?  If yes, which religion and how 
strongly do you adhere to it?  If no, were you formerly?  If you were 
formerly religious, what caused you to change?
6.	What sort of impact does transhumanism have on your daily life?  Your 
life in general?

Many thanks in advance.

Sincerely,
Kristen Young
Ladydisdain1984 at hotmail.com

_________________________________________________________________
Find a broadband plan that fits. Great local deals on high-speed Internet 
access. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200360ave/direct/01/



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Mar 20 03:38:03 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 19:38:03 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Century City: The law show of the future
In-Reply-To: <BAY2-DAV516Ssuot0OU00033c15@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <005c01c40e2c$c0b4f0d0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

Zero Powers!  Long time zero Zero pal!  Welcome back.  {8-]  spike


> 
> -Zero
> 
> P.S. Hi everybody!  It's been a while since I've poked my 
> nose in this list.
> Hope all is well with all my old pals.
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 



From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Mar 20 05:18:03 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:18:03 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] The end of crime as we used to know it?
In-Reply-To: <20040319220453.GZ28136@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <000001c40e3a$b8878e00$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

> Eugen Leitl

> Nowadays, people don't riot even if their portemonnaie's 
> being bled. Now this makes me genuinely worried.

I googled to learn what a portemonnaie is, but all
the sites that mention it are in German.  {8-[  Gene?

Interesting aside: one article mentions an incident
where a basketball team was being accused of gang
raping a woman.  One of the players used his phone 
to make short videos showing the young lady participating 
in her rape with wild and joyful enthusiasm, thus 
exonerating the team of impropriety.  Or at least of 
criminal activity.  She confessed that she tried to
extort a thousand bucks from the team, but they refused
to pay.  

The twist is that the video was illegal, since he had 
not gotten her express permission to record the event.
So the evidence of their innocence was illegally
collected.

Clearly our society has not figured out what to
do with this technology.

Oh I love this.  Oooooh I love it.  I want to see
society ruled by technology, not by the whims of
lawmakers.  He who masters the best technology wins.  

spike 




From spike66 at comcast.net  Sat Mar 20 05:34:04 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:34:04 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] The end of crime as we used to know it?
In-Reply-To: <405B778C.5020807@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <002801c40e3c$f55dfa60$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

> 
> At present people are still being caught out by surreptitious filming
> and sound recording, but not for long. By next year everyone will be
> assuming that anything said or done in public will be 
> recorded and will be behaving accordingly.
> 
> BillK

Has it changed our behavior knowing that we are perhaps
being watched whenever we are in a hotel room?  Those
universal cheapy hotel clocks can have a transmitting
camera placed in them in such a way that one cannot find
the device without disassembling the clock.  Any previous
guest could have swapped in a transmitter cam and might
be watching you.  The clock cams are less than 100 bucks
now.  If you drop a towel over the clock, can you be
sure there aren't other cameras somewhere in the room?  
The snoop takes practically no risk of getting caught.  
He could be sitting out in the parking lot recording
everything, perhaps several rooms at once.  If I had 
ever been guilty of impropriety on a business trip I 
would be a worried man right now.

spike



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sat Mar 20 05:55:55 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:55:55 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Making technocracy popular and viable
In-Reply-To: <000001c40e3a$b8878e00$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20040320055555.31681.qmail@web80408.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> Oh I love this.  Oooooh I love it.  I want to see
> society ruled by technology, not by the whims of
> lawmakers.  He who masters the best technology wins.

The old term "technocracy" mostly applies to this
form of government - although there have been few
examples of it historically.  (Some say that modern
China is an example; this is debatable near the
coast, where the Internet is destabilizing official
control, but very true in the mostly agricultural
inland regions, where the government's ability and
willingness to reshape the land far exceeds what those
who would oppose it have been capable of.)

But consider Joe Luddite Sixpack, who has been raised
to believe that technology is hard and complicated and
something he shouldn't mess with - possibly reinforced
by clumsy, pitiful attempts to mess with things anyway
based on disastrously wrong misconceptions of how
things work in general.  Between alcohol binges and
prayer sessions, he can figure out that rule by
technology means he'll wind up in the slave class, a
fate he does not want.  (Yes, there are female
examples of this, possibly more than the male.  But
this stereotype serves as a blunt model distilled down
to near-pure relevance - and besides, many of those
who fit this stereotype might admit to it.)

Education, obviously, is at least a large part of the
solution to this, if not the entire solution.  But
what form of education?  And are there other
components?

Some have said that technocracy is inherently opposed
to democracy, in that the former does not make the
latter's assumption that all important issues are
within the mental reach of all voters.  Perhaps one
could incorporate an element of choice to balance this
out, though: anyone who chooses not to learn a new
technology sees their power decrease as the technology
spreads - if the technology is useful.  (If it
isn't...well, it's always a gamble whether to learn a
new technology in its early stages or not, before its
utility or lack thereof has made it through the hype.)
Eventually, they would be reduced enough in power as
to be forced to adapt for their own good, at least to
technologies that have been proven (to everyone elses'
satisfaction) to be good.  (E.g.: sorry, Mr.
Messiah-Wannabe, this medicine has been proven 100%
effective in curing your kids' condition, so we're not
going to let you continue to abuse your children by
denying it to them, no matter what your religion
says.  Even if the medicine is "morning after" pills,
and you're mad at your daughter for getting pregnant
when she was raped.)


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Sat Mar 20 06:17:19 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 23:17:19 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Re: The real method of scientific
	discovery: [...]
Message-ID: <405BE1EF.AA5D19BC@mindspring.com>

Terry W. Colvin forwarded:
>TOOLS & TECHNOLOGY
>
>< http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m2843/1_28/111897967/print.jhtml >
>
>The Scientific Method: The idea that there is a single Scientific Method and
>that induction is a key part of it is one of the most unfortunate fables
>foisted off on innocent students[...] Retroduction, or abduction,
>is the real method of scientific work

Also from the article:

"Peirce translated this third method as abduction or retroduction; it 
follows this pattern:

    Some surprising phenomenon P is observed.
    P would be explicable as a matter of course if H were true.
    Hence there is reason to think that His true.

A scientist does not make a lot of particular observations and then try to 
generalize from them to some hypothesis H. Instead, a scientist confronts 
puzzles that arise naturally in the course of her work. She ponders them in 
the light of the intimate knowledge of the system she has developed, and 
based on that knowledge, she makes a creative leap of the imagination to 
say, "This would all make sense if H were true!" I particularly want to 
emphasize that creative, imaginative leap, because this is the critical 
ingredient that makes scientific work different from following a cookbook 
(or a logic book), which makes it the exciting, challenging, creative human 
work that it is. This is the element that puts science on a par with the 
arts and other creative activities as an enterprise worthy of humans."

I think this misses a few things.

First of all, why is P surprising? The only reason the scientist is 
surprised by the white crow is because she induced something from having 
observed those 1000 black crows that came before. Without induction, there 
would be no surprise.

Secondly, abduction is not a "creative, imaginative leap". In a nutshell, 
we can abduce A from B if we can deduce B from A, but that doesn't tell us 
how to come up with A in the first place. Abduction does not tell us how to 
generate A.

And while it is true (in some sense) that this creative step makes science 
more than following a cookbook recipe, that's also true for painting, 
acting, and most human activities.

What distinguishes science is not that it's creative, but that it's 
inductive. Deductions are common: if water gets things wet and if something 
fell in water, we all deduce that thing is wet without being scientific 
about it. Same for abductions: if our friend missed his meeting with us, we 
can all think of abductive explanations for this suprising fact, including 
abduction in the other sense.

But if we see one hundred black crows and we present the hypothesis that 
all crows are black and predict the next crow will be black too, that 
begins to look like science.

So while science, like most human activities, uses deduction, abduction, 
and making things up on the spot, it's mostly identifiable by using 
induction too to create and test generalizations.

Finally, the formalism of logic rules is a powerful way of describing 
things but only an approximate model of how we think. Our brains don't work 
with rules, but with neural impulses and networks. When a scientist looks 
at a set of data and comes up with an explanation that's probably not 
deduction, nor abduction, nor induction, but something more fuzzy like 
statistical pattern matching.

Best,
Ludi

Ludwig Krippahl


-- 
"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 extropy at unreasonable.com  Sat Mar 20 06:24:00 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 01:24:00 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Christopher Reeve Foundation: Request
In-Reply-To: <015a01c40e15$843e6440$412b2dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
References: <57050-220043519204440294@M2W034.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040320003519.02648eb8@mail.comcast.net>

At 11:51 AM 3/20/2004 +1100, Brett Paatsch wrote:

>a vote for Bush is a vote for going slower on embryonic stem cell 
>research. There should be absolutely no illusions about that.

I want to assume that what you are saying is true, and go on from there.

In 1980, I had a friend who was convinced the country would be destroyed if 
Reagan won the election.

It's 24 years later. There is a wide spectrum of opinion on the merits of 
his presidency. But we're still here. Whatever you might say about Ed Meese 
or James Watts or Reaganomics, we didn't have a nuclear war, the Warsaw 
Pact is gone, and life rolled on.

I've been trying to convince the people in my life that this year's 
election is different. It is less important whether someone's job moves to 
India or it is harder to get an abortion than whether a cargo container in 
Boston Harbor has a 100 KT nuclear device. I'm not saying who one should 
vote for, just that it's essential to focus on the right issues.

They (some of them, anyway) can appreciate the desirability of avoiding a 
bio or nuclear attack.

The question I wish to raise is a variant on past threads. What could Bush 
or Kerry reasonably be predicted to do in our realm of extropian topics 
(such as Brett's example) that would have a greater likely effect for 
better or ill -- on sentient life, on the US, on us personally -- than 
preventing a large WMD attack?

What are the most important of these that Bush and Kerry differ on? Does 
this add up to a clear electoral choice?

And a related question -- given these critical matters and the differences 
between Bush and Democrat or Kerry and Republican, is the future better 
served now, in the decisions being made in the next four years, by a 
divided government or by the party that takes the White House also 
controlling Congress?


-- David Lubkin.




From gpmap at runbox.com  Sat Mar 20 06:34:05 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 07:34:05 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Questions About Real People
In-Reply-To: <Sea1-F156v6iuRfX3Ca00006580@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGIELJCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

1.	What first attracted you to transhumanism?

That thanshumanism is radical common sense (relatively) free from
preconceived ideas arising from the cultural heritage of past centuries,
welcoming radical change when it may result in a better life. Take
immortality (biological or cybernetic): in the past since there was clearly
nothing that we could do about it, thinkers have elaborated several ways to
deceive ourselves into accepting death as something good. Now we see that
perhaps we CAN do something about it, so we should discard previous
thinking.

2.	To you, what is transhumanism?s most important principle?

That we can and should use radical technologies to improve the well-being of
all conscious beings, regardless of preconceived ethical objection (NOT
regardless of real if-then practical considerations).

3.	Do you identify with a specific branch of transhumanism?  Which?

I don't think transhumanism has branches. Transhumanism defined as in my
answer to 2. can coexist with many different systems of thought. I think
those who say "I am a X (libertarian, socialist...) transhumanist" should
really say "I am a X AND a transhumanist".

4.	Whose writings on transhumanism, or related principles and topics, have
most greatly influenced you?

Non-fiction: Kurzweil - Fiction: Egan

5.	Do you have a religious affiliation?  If yes, which religion and how
strongly do you adhere to it?  If no, were you formerly?  If you were
formerly religious, what caused you to change?

I have no religious affiliation, but take religious and spiritual issues
seriously: "There are more things on Heaven and Earth..."

6.	What sort of impact does transhumanism have on your daily life?  Your
life in general?

The only impact on my daily life is that I dedicate part of my time to
trying to be an active member of the transhumanist community. No other
impacts that I can think of.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.634 / Virus Database: 406 - Release Date: 18/03/2004



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sat Mar 20 07:02:58 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 23:02:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Questions About Real People
In-Reply-To: <Sea1-F156v6iuRfX3Ca00006580@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403192146430.30350-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Kristen,

> I am writing a college term paper on transhumanism.  I have been reading
> various articles, primarily those written by Dr. Max More, but would like to
> get some more real life exposure to the real people. ...

Well my hat is off to you and your interest...  Sorry that there are not
any conferences at this time but I will attempt to fill in some of the blanks
from my limited perspective.

> 1.	What first attracted you to transhumanism?

I do not consider myself to be "first" a transhumanist.  I consider
myself first to be an extropian.  Transhumanism is perhaps one probable
extropic vector that may support extropian perspectives.

My attraction to "extropic" perspectives ranges from my attraction
to high school sports (gymnastics) -- to do something better than
I had ever done -- to my desire to participate in an olympic event
(what are the limits of my body or bodies in general?) to the desire
to create (something that had never before existed).

This involves a subtle distinction between extropianism and
transhumanism.  With transhumanism (I am using my own basic
definitions here and people may obviously disagree) one simply
wants to evolve beyond the current human state or condition.
(Nothing wrong with that -- but it lacks values IMO.)
With extropianism one is clearly stating greater complexity
has more value.  I am not sure if that is a "best" rule but
it is one that I think worthwhile for civilizations to explore.
(In some respects it involves the managing of the transition
of random evolution of complexity to a directed evolution of
complexity.)

One could obviously take "transhumanism" in many directions
(e.g. the greatest amount of pleasure in the shortest amount
of time, the greatest expression of creativity with respect
to "pinkness" (people are pink, cars are pink, houses are pink, etc.)
One problem I view with transhumanism vs. extropian perspectives
is that there do not seem to be well established ground rules.
There could be transhumanist vectors that might well be unextropic.
It might be good to explore these so we can understand them
in greater detail.

> 2.	To you, what is transhumanism?s most important principle?

The most important principle of transhumanism is that we have been
and will continue to evolve.  We have however reached an important
state in that we *may* define the environment(s) into which we
are evolving ourselves.  Thus we are creating ourselves as well
as the environment in which we live.  It has been very difficult
for humans before this time to see that.

> 3.	Do you identify with a specific branch of transhumanism?  Which?

I am extropic.  I believe in complexification.  I believe that in
general that complexity may provide solutions that are not otherwise
available.  However I also believe in elegant complexity.  The
statue of David is an example of such.  So one can seek complexity
while at the same time seeking simplicity.  When I look at something
I may ask "Is that the greatest amount of complexity that can be
supported with the minimal solution?"  If so then it is really really
cool.

> 4.	Whose writings on transhumanism, or related principles and topics, have
> most greatly influenced you?

Actually few.  While I admire the writings of many people (and they
are listed in my Readings page) most of my thoughts with respect to
transhumanism and extropianism have evolved based on independent
thought.

> 5.	Do you have a religious affiliation?  If yes, which religion and how
> strongly do you adhere to it?  If no, were you formerly?  If you were
> formerly religious, what caused you to change?

I am currently agnostic.  I was raised Catholic.  It became obvious to
me during my teenage years that the religion was based on premises
that could not be supported on a scientific (rational) basis.

I am currently of the opinion that many of the "miracles" that are
supposed to have been documented in the bible could perhaps be
accomplished by an alien species with nanotechnology.  So the
situations may not have been fiction but may have effectively
been rigged.  (In which case the entire "documented" history
of humanity is likely to be part of some experiment.)

> 6.	What sort of impact does transhumanism have on your daily life?  Your
> life in general?

What else can one do?  Even if the entire thing is a simulation (as Bostrom and
Freitas have speculated) then there is little to do but get up in the morning
and attempt to move things forward.  It seems pointless to move things
backwards (humanity has been there, done that).

So the only dynamic seems to involve the people who want to keep things
static (be they so-called bioethicists or greens) vs. those who accept
that things must evolve and move forward and who seek to produce the
most out of such processes.

(Good questions...)

Robert



From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Sat Mar 20 09:08:18 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 09:08:18 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: FWD (SK) Re: The real method of scientific
	discovery: [...]
Message-ID: <405C0A02.2080604@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

> Terry W. Colvin forwarded:
>>TOOLS & TECHNOLOGY
>>
>> <http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m2843/1_28/111897967/print.jhtml>
>>
>> The Scientific Method: The idea that there is a single Scientific
>> Method and that induction is a key part of it is one of the most
>> unfortunate fables foisted off on innocent students[...]
>> Retroduction, or abduction, is the real method of scientific work


What you really want is:
<http://www.besse.at/sms/smsintro.html>

The cornerstone of modern science is the scientific method. Scientists
first formulate hypotheses, or predictions, about nature. Then they
perform experiments to test their hypotheses.
There are two forms of scientific method,
the inductive and the deductive.

INDUCTIVE                               DEDUCTIVE
formulate hypothesis                  formulate hypothesis
apply for grant                        apply for grant
perform experiments or gather        perform experiments or gather
data to test hypothesis                data to test hypothesis
alter data to fit hypothesis          revise data to fit hypothesis
publish                                 backdate revised hypothesis
                                              publish



BillK


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sat Mar 20 14:35:23 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 06:35:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Space and evolution
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403200615140.6568-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Random notes on the state of the universe...

Robots to maintain Hubble?
  http://www.news-leader.com/today/0319-Robotmight-42679.html

Not much discussion about how one can make a decision to
make the boss happy but in the process *really* annoy a lot
of other people.  Nor any discussion about an XX% chance
of losing a billion dollar piece of hardware to save the
certain loss of a different billion dollar piece of hardware.
Nor any discussion with respect to how many astronomers or
astronauts would volunteer for the mission even at very
high risk levels.

Interestingly (for those of us who are longevity followers) --
it would take a detailed analysis but just a quick guess on
my part would seem to put the loss of an astronaut trained
to work on a Shuttle mission at $50 million+ -- that is
probably an order of magnitude over general value of life
evaluations (in wrongful death legal actions).

There is an interesting principle at work here -- in military
engagements (though everyone knows but they don't talk about
it) there are situations in which there is a very low probability
of return.  But people still execute these missions because
the payoff is worth the cost.  It would seem that we are
getting into a framework where one cannot have an opportunity
to sacrifice ones life for what one believes in.

Robert




From es at popido.com  Sat Mar 20 15:23:09 2004
From: es at popido.com (Erik Starck)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 16:23:09 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] It's A Blog World After All
Message-ID: <405C61DD.9060302@popido.com>

Topic: the change of the media landscape.

Key quotes: "If my credibility goes down," says Scoble, "then what do I 
have?"
and
"But that informal transparency is precisely why many companies' embrace 
of blogs is at best uneasy. [...] "[Companies] are not going to be able 
to stuff it back into the box," says Greg Lloyd, CEO of Traction, a 
business-oriented blog software company."

Question: When will we see the first blog from inside the white house?

--
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/81/blog.html

Robert Scoble may well be one of the most powerful people in Redmond 
right now. "The Scobleizer," as he's known to his daily readers, writes 
a Web log, or blog, posting comments on topics that range from the 
world's largest pistachio factory to how cheap it is to eat in Shanghai. 
Mostly, though, he writes about Microsoft. On January 27, 14 of the 31 
posts he made between midnight and the time he went to bed, sometime 
after 3:41 a.m., were about the software giant or its products. But the 
Scobleizer is no ordinary Windows-obsessed blog jockey. He is, in fact, 
a Microsoft employee. He's a "technical evangelist," to be precise, 
whose job includes communicating with customers on the Web. One way he 
does this is by writing blogs. He gets feedback from tech-savvy readers 
on how to improve Microsoft products, and at times, he's even mildly 
critical of his employer. After Microsoft threatened a teen who 
registered MikeRoweSoft.com, Scoble wrote this: "It's unfortunate that 
we went after a 17-year-old named 'Mike Rowe,' though. I'm sorry that 
happened to you Mike."

What's this? Humility from the House of Gates? That's life in the blog 
world, where one whiff of PR or marketing spin will instantly mark you 
as phony. "If my credibility goes down," says Scoble, "then what do I 
have?" Though he's just one of hundreds of employee bloggers at the 
software giant, Scoble is by far the most widely read. More than 850 
blogs and 1,300 sites link to him, putting him right up there with 
Howard Dean's Blog for America at its height. And he's aware of his 
power: "I know I'm playing with dynamite," Scoble says.

Dynamite, indeed. The burgeoning blog world--1.6 million keyboard 
tappers at last count--is making big inroads into corporate culture. 
 From tech companies like Microsoft (which says it "respects and 
supports" blogs like Scoble's) and IBM to decidedly nontech outfits like 
Dr. Pepper, companies are starting to use blogging both as a medium to 
market products and monitor brands and as an internal 
knowledge-management tool. To meet corporate demand, both UserLand and 
Six Apart, makers of popular blog software programs, are coming out with 
enterprise-level products later this year.

Corporate America is jumping onto the blogwagon for many of the same 
reasons all those journalists, brooding teenagers, and presidential 
campaigners are already on board. Unlike email and instant messaging, 
blogs let employees post comments that can be seen by many and mined for 
information at a later date, and internal blogs aren't overwhelmed by 
spam. And unlike most corporate intranets, they're a bottoms-up approach 
to communication. "With blogs, you gain more, you hear more, you 
understand where things are going more," says Halley Suitt, who wrote a 
fictional case study on corporations and blogging for the /Harvard 
Business Review/ . "Even better, you understand them faster."

At Verizon, Paul Perry, a director in the company's eServices division, 
started a blog to keep up with news about competitors. Using a news 
aggregator, a popular blog-world tool that grabs and assembles 
syndicated "feeds" of content from Web sites and other blogs, people in 
his group can quickly post news they find on those feeds to the internal 
blog. DaimlerChrysler employs Web log software at a few of its U.S. 
plants; managers discuss problems and keep a record of their solutions. 
And American Airlines, where only 20% of the company's highly mobile 
workforce has corporate email, is considering blogs as a way to give 
employees more channels to management.

The Hartford Financial Services Group is already finding success using 
blogs in one of its mobile groups. A team of 40 field technology 
managers, who serve as links between The Hartford's network of insurance 
agents and the home office, set up a blog in August. They use it to 
share information about e-commerce features and solutions to technology 
problems. Before, email and voice mail sufficed, but email threads would 
die, and there was no way to search past shared information. "We don't 
get a chance to talk with each other as often as we'd like," says Steve 
Grebner, one of The Hartford's field managers, who thinks of the blog a 
little like a town square. "To me, it's like there's 14--or 40--brains 
out there, and you might as well tap into that knowledge base."

So do blogs hold the key to seamless sharing of collective corporate 
intelligence, the holy grail of knowledge management? Web log software 
is cheaper to install and maintain than many knowledge-sharing programs, 
and it's extremely simple to use. Knowledge software often requires 
employees to take both an extra step and extra time to record what they 
know, and to fit their knowledge into a database of inflexible 
categories. Internal blogs are more integrated into a worker's regular 
daily communications. IBM began blogging in December, and by February, 
some 500 employees in more than 30 countries were using it to discuss 
software development projects and business strategies. And while blogs' 
inherently open, anarchic nature may be unsettling, Mike Wing, IBM's 
vice president of intranet strategy, believes their simplicity and 
informality could give them an edge. "It may be an easy, comfortable 
medium for people to be given permission to publish what they feel like 
publishing," he says.

But that informal transparency is precisely why many companies' embrace 
of blogs is at best uneasy. Internally, blogs have the potential to let 
employees who wouldn't otherwise be seen as authorities have a voice 
with a lot of impact. "[Companies] are not going to be able to stuff it 
back into the box," says Greg Lloyd, CEO of Traction, a 
business-oriented blog software company. Externally, the fears are even 
greater. Letting employees speak directly to customers requires a huge 
amount of trust. A loose cannon might reveal corporate secrets, give out 
the wrong message, or even open up the company to legal trouble.

Despite those worries, no new medium can go for long without being 
turned into a marketing channel. Got a message to get out or a product 
to promote? The blog world is populated by folks who thrive on racing to 
be first to post news and getting others to link to, or "blogroll," 
them. They're naturally the opinionated, hyperconnected influencers 
marketers crave. Jonathan Carson, president and CEO of BuzzMetrics, a 
New York-based firm that mines message boards, listservs, and blogs to 
see what's being said about companies, says his clients ignored blogs 
nine months ago. Today, more than half specifically ask whether his 
monitoring includes the blogosphere. "If companies focus in on what's 
going on in the blog world, it's an amazing leading indicator on what's 
going to break in the real world," he says.

That's why some businesses are going straight to bloggers for buzz. 
Random House's Crown Publishing sends books to bloggers for review. 
Nokia sent a small group of bloggers its 3650 model camera phone to take 
for a whirl. To help companies find bloggers who fit their target, 
Internet marketing firm Richards Interactive has even started 
ProjectBlog.com, a database of bloggers who've completed demographic 
surveys.

In an episode that shows both the promise and peril of a corporate 
embrace of blogging, Richards helped Dr. Pepper/Seven Up run a 
blogcentric campaign last spring for its new milk-based drink, Raging 
Cow. It started a blog for the cow--"the cow had his own site," says 
director of corporate communications Mike Martin (who's a little fuzzy 
on bovine anatomy). Then it screened hundreds of young bloggers to find 
a suitable group to help promote the drink. Dr. Pepper flew the five 
winners and their parents to Dallas to try the product and gave them 
several hundred dollars in Amazon gift certificates.

While Martin says the campaign was a success, it provoked an angry 
backlash in the blog world, where the relationship between the company 
and the blogs was seen as crassly commercial and poorly disclosed. "A 
case of crude corporate cluelessness," wrote one widely read pundit and 
law professor. Todd Copilevitz, director of interactive strategy at 
Richards, admits the company should have had the bloggers repeat 
disclosures more often.

Other companies are finding their visits to the blogosphere less 
bruising. Tiny 10e20, a Web design firm in Brooklyn, recently began 
requiring employees to post updates on their progress to a blog twice a 
day. Within the first six weeks, 10 projects were turned in early. 
Having a central repository for information helped--but so did the added 
scrutiny that came from letting everyone see how a project was 
progressing. Software maker Macromedia, one of the first companies to 
adopt blogs for customer service, saved tens of thousands of dollars in 
call-center support when it released a crop of new products for software 
developers in 2002. A trusted group of employees started blogs to answer 
users' questions, and the blogs have grown into online communities that 
give Macromedia valuable customer feedback.

At Microsoft, Scoble sees his blog as a way to put a gentler face on the 
often-reviled software giant. Is it working? The Scobleizer has 
detractors who think he's just a shill. But a comment from "thad," who 
began reading the blog before Scoble became a Microsoft employee, is 
revealing: "Really liked a lot of your ideas. Then you were assimilated 
and I came to see how you'd change. But something else happened. You 
turned me on to XP and I liked it. It is almost enjoyable to work on. . 
. . you have changed my views on the big evil company."

Jena McGregor (jmcgregor at fastcompany.com 
<mailto:jmcgregor at fastcompany.com> ) is Fast Company's associate editor.





From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 20 15:26:33 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 07:26:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Space and evolution
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403200615140.6568-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040320152633.44023.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>


--- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:
> 
> Random notes on the state of the universe...
> 
> Robots to maintain Hubble?
>   http://www.news-leader.com/today/0319-Robotmight-42679.html
> 
> There is an interesting principle at work here -- in military
> engagements (though everyone knows but they don't talk about
> it) there are situations in which there is a very low probability
> of return.  But people still execute these missions because
> the payoff is worth the cost.  It would seem that we are
> getting into a framework where one cannot have an opportunity
> to sacrifice ones life for what one believes in.

This is primarily because the capital cost used to be very low. A
footsoldier, his rifle and kit, plus 90 days of basic training. Not a
huge investment, so not a huge loss. From the POV of a government,
expending one rifleman is a petty cash expenditure.

With space exploration, there is several orders magnitude difference in
capital invested beyond just the life of the individual astronaut. THe
$50 million spent on their training is just one small item on the
balance sheet, as well.

As we saw with the last Columbia mission, each and every mission
imposes high risks of total mission failure, not just the loss of one
astronaut, but a loss of the shuttle and entire crew. That's a good $2
billion loss, no longer chump change. Bean counters therefore enter the
equation to make sure that any loss is properly documented and approved
ahead of time, and know who to point fingers at if it doesn't.


=====
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! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 20 16:03:08 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 08:03:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Questions About Real People
In-Reply-To: <Sea1-F156v6iuRfX3Ca00006580@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20040320160308.18798.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Kristen Young <ladydisdain1984 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 1.	What first attracted you to transhumanism?

It is one of the few philosophies left that has not succumbed to
post-modernist BS and pessimist/nihilist cynicism about the future of
humanity and the potential of technological progress.

Because it is so closely wedded to the sci-fi literary genre, it imbues
the sense of hope for the future that most SF posesses, even in most
dystopian examples of 'warning fiction'. Transhumanism also is the
proper inheritor of the classical humanists, while the modern humanist
movement has devolved into anti-human and anti-future luddist nihilism.

> 2.	To you, what is transhumanism?s most important principle?

That technology, properly applied, can solve any problem, and that
technological progress follows an exponential growth curve that means
problems of a previous technological generation can be quickly fixed by
future generations.

> 3.	Do you identify with a specific branch of transhumanism?  Which?

Classical extropianism, radically anarcho-capitalist libertarianism

4.	Whose writings on transhumanism, or related principles and topics,
have most greatly influenced you?

Robert Heinlein, Vernor Vinge, David Brin, David Friedman, Damien
Broderick, Ray Kurzweil, Eliezer Yudkowski, Anders Sandberg, TO Morrow,
Robert Bradbury, Thielhard des Chardins

 5.	Do you have a religious affiliation?  If yes, which religion and
 how strongly do you adhere to it?  If no, were you formerly?  If you
were formerly religious, what caused you to change?

Raised Roman Catholic. Gotten away from it as it doesn't seem to be
able to keep up with the times, and it treats its people too
condescendingly. More of an agnostic these days, though the
"Emmanetization of the Eschaton" theology of Fr. Thielhard des Chardins
does strike a chord as a very transhumanist oriented theology, and the
"Simulation Argument" theories of Nick Bostrom and Robin Hanson build
on a rougly deist view of the universe.

> 6.	What sort of impact does transhumanism have on your daily life? 
> Your life in general?

Seeing how important the next few decades are going to be for the
individual liberties that will be needed to keep the transhumanist
future from becoming dystopian, and the fact that truly free places in
the world are currently nearly non-existent, I've become dedicated to
helping the Free State Project become successful in making New
Hampshire into a truly Free State, where transhuman technologies can be
developed free of government repression.


=====
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! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From natasha at natasha.cc  Sat Mar 20 20:25:38 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 12:25:38 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Christopher Reeve Foundation: Request
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040320003519.02648eb8@mail.comcast.net>
References: <015a01c40e15$843e6440$412b2dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
	<57050-220043519204440294@M2W034.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040320114805.02b7cd40@mail.earthlink.net>

At 01:24 AM 3/20/04 -0500, David wrote:

>At 11:51 AM 3/20/2004 +1100, Brett Paatsch wrote:
>
>>a vote for Bush is a vote for going slower on embryonic stem cell 
>>research. There should be absolutely no illusions about that.
>
>I want to assume that what you are saying is true, and go on from there.

>The question I wish to raise is a variant on past threads. What could Bush 
>or Kerry reasonably be predicted to do in our realm of extropian topics 
>(such as Brett's example) that would have a greater likely effect for 
>better or ill -- on sentient life, on the US, on us personally -- than 
>preventing a large WMD attack?

I'm not sure this is a viable answer the most pending issue for the world - 
terrorism.  I'm begging to see terrorism as "gangs" and see the world 
dealing with them much as LA deals with its gangs.  There are a number of 
professional gangs in LA who have their territory, culture, and language. 
They have become accepted (to a point) and co-exist in LA 
community.  Everyone knows they are there, no one wants to cause any 
trouble by busting them up and getting ride of them because these gangs 
have become an "integrated" culture.  Speaking with a friend who defends 
the lifestyle of gangs, I can understand his perspective, as much as I 
morally disagree.  He says it is all they have and they are a by-product of 
society.  My friend is Caucasian gay male with a African American partner 
who got a job working as a word processor in a law firm.  He straddles the 
fence on the underground and the aboveground as proved to be a loyal cohort 
in a world that neither he nor I felt comfortable, however for very, very 
different reasons.

The police in LA know the gangs exist and work around them, making deals 
much life the ole' days with the Mafia.  I know that larger Mafia gangs 
have ruled countries for years and the world has cooperated to some extent 
with them to salvage some peace.

Today the religious terrorist gangs are gaining more and more 
control.  Bush wants to see them broken up and destroyed.  I am with 
comedian Dennis Miller on this one:

"I think as a nation periodically, you have to put your foot down and just 
let people know there's a line you don't go beyond," Miller said. "Now who 
are we going to bank on? The United Nations? For God sakes, you only have 
to watch one session of the General Assembly [and] you want to prescribe 
Ritalin to a glacier, they're so ineffective."

And regarding suicide bombers:

"They existed before this. They're gonna exist after this," Miller 
responded. "You know other than the bombs they strap to their chest, I have 
absolutely no idea what makes suicide bombers tick."

Oh, and I just have to toss this last Miller comment in for good measure:

"Not only did Miller analyze Operation Iraqi Freedom, he took a moment to 
touch on domestic problems including tort reform in the U.S. He was 
especially miffed about overweight Americans looking to sue fast-food 
outlets and the Big Three automakers.

"They say that the seatbelts in the cars don't fit around their waist," 
said Miller. "Now folks, if you can't get the seatbelt in a car around your 
waist, a head-on collision is like the least of your health concerns."

I'm not sure if Bush or Kerry have an opinion on that. :-)

>What are the most important of these that Bush and Kerry differ on? Does 
>this add up to a clear electoral choice?

I don't know but here are some basics:

Bush                                            Kerry
Terrorism utmost importance                     Against US war in Iraq
Against stem cell cloning                       Supports research
Medicare/prescript/help "illegals"              Health Insurance for Americans
Constitution against abortion                   Only elect Supreme Ct. 
Justice for Abortion Rights
Against gay marriage                            Against gay marriage but 
for civil rights or certificate
Environment -market solve probs.                Regulations on industries
Education?                                      Overhaul education
taxes - ?                                       Raise taxes of wealthy
Obesity- ?                                      Obesity- ?

>And a related question -- given these critical matters and the differences 
>between Bush and Democrat or Kerry and Republican, is the future better 
>served now, in the decisions being made in the next four years, by a 
>divided government or by the party that takes the White House also 
>controlling Congress?

Don't know.

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/20040320/6ca814c4/attachment.html>

From reason at longevitymeme.org  Sat Mar 20 21:44:18 2004
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:44:18 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Christopher Reeve Foundation: Request
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040320114805.02b7cd40@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNKEMAEGAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>


-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Natasha
Vita-More
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 12:26 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Christopher Reeve Foundation: Request

>Today the religious terrorist gangs are gaining more and more
>control.  Bush wants to see them broken up and destroyed.

Aside from the one he belongs to. You know, the one that's laying down
policies that have already set up a future in which an order of magnitude
more death and suffering will occur than any third or fourth generation
military force can aspire to. Five years of setback in regenerative medicine
multiplied by the number of people who suffer from incurable diseases and
die every day - that's the cost right now that our future selves must
suffer. War and terrorism are very minor concerns compared to medical
research, application and regulation legislation.

http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000020.php

http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000027.php

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 20 22:20:06 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 14:20:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Christopher Reeve Foundation: Request
In-Reply-To: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNKEMAEGAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
Message-ID: <20040320222006.7618.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Reason <reason at longevitymeme.org> wrote:
> > From: Natasha Vita-More
> >Today the religious terrorist gangs are gaining more and more
> >control.  Bush wants to see them broken up and destroyed.
> 
> Aside from the one he belongs to. ... War and terrorism are very
> minor concerns compared to medical
> research, application and regulation legislation.
> 

If the war and the terrorism is keeping your economy from focusing on
these things, then they are rather major concerns. It also doesn't help
to play the moral equivalency game in trying to fuzzify the definition
of 'terrorism'.

It is really alarming to see the degree to which some people are
willing to allow themselves to be programmed by the propaganda of those
that apologize for the terrorists and their agenda. More examples of
people with their minds so open that their brains fall out. What is so
incredibly astounding is the degree that the omni-tolerant are so
intent on defending and apologizing for a movement which is incredibly
intolerant, unapologetic, and morally indefensible.

=====
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! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From reason at longevitymeme.org  Sat Mar 20 22:40:14 2004
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 14:40:14 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Christopher Reeve Foundation: Request
In-Reply-To: <20040320222006.7618.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNKEMDEGAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Lorrey [mailto:mlorrey at yahoo.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 2:20 PM
> To: reason at longevitymeme.org; ExI chat list
> Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Christopher Reeve Foundation: Request

> --- Reason <reason at longevitymeme.org> wrote:
> > > From: Natasha Vita-More
> > >Today the religious terrorist gangs are gaining more and more
> > >control.  Bush wants to see them broken up and destroyed.
> >
> > Aside from the one he belongs to. ... War and terrorism are very
> > minor concerns compared to medical
> > research, application and regulation legislation.
> >
>
> If the war and the terrorism is keeping your economy from focusing on
> these things, then they are rather major concerns. It also doesn't help
> to play the moral equivalency game in trying to fuzzify the definition
> of 'terrorism'.
>
> It is really alarming to see the degree to which some people are
> willing to allow themselves to be programmed by the propaganda of those
> that apologize for the terrorists and their agenda. More examples of
> people with their minds so open that their brains fall out. What is so
> incredibly astounding is the degree that the omni-tolerant are so
> intent on defending and apologizing for a movement which is incredibly
> intolerant, unapologetic, and morally indefensible.

I'm not apologising for any group. I'm a libertarian
(minarchist/anarchocapitalist) pacifist myself. Violence and force are
reprehensible in all their incarnations, subtle or direct. I'm pointing out
that nothing that any existing terrorist organization is capable of can
match a five year legislative delay in regenerative medicine research in
terms of suffering and death caused. Hell, FDA policies alone have caused
more death and suffering than all formal terrorist groups (i.e. discounting
ad hoc / war-related terrorism of the Rwandan and Balkan sort) worldwide put
together over the past decade or two.

Reason
Founder, Longvity Meme




From extropy at unreasonable.com  Sat Mar 20 22:57:16 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 17:57:16 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Christopher Reeve Foundation: Request
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040320114805.02b7cd40@mail.earthlink.net>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040320003519.02648eb8@mail.comcast.net>
	<015a01c40e15$843e6440$412b2dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
	<57050-220043519204440294@M2W034.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040320170121.02872c10@mail.comcast.net>

I asked:

>The question I wish to raise is a variant on past threads. What could Bush 
>or Kerry reasonably be predicted to do in our realm of extropian topics 
>(such as Brett's example) that would have a greater likely effect for 
>better or ill -- on sentient life, on the US, on us personally -- than 
>preventing a large WMD attack?

>What are the most important of these that Bush and Kerry differ on? Does 
>this add up to a clear electoral choice?

to which Natasha replied:

>I don't know but here are some basics:
>
>Bush                                            Kerry

You're reporting them in terms of their public positions, versus what they 
could actually accomplish. In some cases, the rhetoric is irrelevant noise.

>Terrorism utmost importance                     Against US war in Iraq

While I have tremendous doubts about some of Bush's goals and methods, I'm 
very heartened by some of the ripple effects, such as Libya's about-face.

>Against stem cell cloning                       Supports research

Kerry. (Has Kerry advocated any limits at all?)

>Medicare/prescript/help "illegals"              Health Insurance for Americans

Bush, to the extent that Kerry would socialize medicine more, putting more 
bureaucratic inertia in the way of advanced tech.

>Constitution against abortion                   Only elect Supreme Ct. 
>Justice for Abortion Rights

Abortion is chump change compared to the pervasive, dramatic consequences 
of judicial activism vs. strict constructionism. Bush.

>Against gay marriage                            Against gay marriage but 
>for civil rights or certificate

A minor issue per se, but it would be useful to decouple the government 
from coupling. Slightly better for Kerry.

>Environment -market solve probs.                Regulations on industries

Similar to health care -- seems like Kerry's approach would impede advanced 
tech and private spaceflight.

>Education?                                      Overhaul education

"Overhaul" means strengthen the teachers' unions and public school statist 
indoctrination. This is the one issue where we have common cause with the 
religious right, in their quest for vouchers and home-schooling. Bush.

>taxes - ?                                       Raise taxes of wealthy

Both pathetic, but Bush is modestly better.

>Obesity- ?                                      Obesity- ?

Relevance?

And Reason wrote:

>Aside from the one he belongs to. You know, the one that's laying down
>policies that have already set up a future in which an order of magnitude
>more death and suffering will occur than any third or fourth generation
>military force can aspire to. Five years of setback in regenerative medicine
>multiplied by the number of people who suffer from incurable diseases and
>die every day - that's the cost right now that our future selves must
>suffer. War and terrorism are very minor concerns compared to medical
>research, application and regulation legislation.

That's the sort of issue I had in mind. I agree that "small" attacks like 
9/11 are not inherently disruptive, except perhaps in our reaction to them.

On the other hand, the cost in life, physical property, data, and societal 
disruption from an optimized nuclear attack on Manhattan is substantial. 
(BTW, does anyone know if there are any critical geographic loci of 
corporate or federal data where an EMP attack would be disastrous?)

With regard to stem cell research -- does Bush intend bans that would 
affect research elsewhere in the world? Is stem cell research the best 
short-term avenue to improved medical technology, or merely one among 
several to be pursued in parallel?


-- David Lubkin.




From reason at longevitymeme.org  Sat Mar 20 23:23:13 2004
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 15:23:13 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Christopher Reeve Foundation: Request
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040320170121.02872c10@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNAEMFEGAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>


> With regard to stem cell research -- does Bush intend bans that would
> affect research elsewhere in the world? Is stem cell research the best
> short-term avenue to improved medical technology, or merely one among
> several to be pursued in parallel?
> -- David Lubkin.

The US administration has made, and will continue to make, attempts to
enforce a therapeutic cloning ban at the UN. Banning therapeutic cloning is
pretty much equivalent to banning the most promising stem cell research:

http://www.longevitymeme.org/projects/oppose_global_therapeutic_cloning_ban.
cfm

Some high level thoughts on stem cells, regenerative medicine and where it
fits:

http://www.longevitymeme.org/topics/stem_cells_and_regenerative_medicine.cfm
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000006.php

Stem cell medicine seems to be the fastest course to repairing arbitrary
damage to the body, although some organ replacement needs will probably also
be well served by prosthetics. From a high level view, researchers are
attempting to learn fundamental cellular processes in order to manipulate
them to a desired result - repairing damage in situ in the body.
Understanding and modifying the existing toolset to accomplish our ends, in
other words.

My guesstimate - assuming no crackdown - is that we are 10 years away from
commercial availability of simple applications, such as nerve and muscle
repair, and 20 years away from complex uses, such as growing organs on
demand. These could easily turn out to be 20 and 30 years if efforts to
repress the technology continue, and I'm not convinced that the US is going
to be a very healthy part of the world economy 20 years from now.
Constraints on medical development and commercialization are becoming more
European with every passing year - and more of that means less meaningful
research:

http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000027.php

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sun Mar 21 00:40:05 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 16:40:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics [was: Christopher Reeve Foundation: Request]
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040320114805.02b7cd40@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403201541510.17187-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


There have been several quite educational and informative
comments on the list with respect to the U.S. political
season we are entering.

I am going to try and cut to heart of the situation.

The primary thing each and every individual should
be focused on is their own self-interest.  You don't
survive and your vote ranks right up there with
the opinions of the dominant T-rexes about 66 million
years ago (and we know what those opinions were worth...).

With respect to the powers in charge (Bush/Cheney/
Rumsfeld/Ashcroft) they are clueless.  You have
to get this -- they are completely clueless.
(I'm leaving Rice & Powell out of this discussion
since they may have a clue but be stuck in positions
where it is impossible to move forward with such
knowledge in an effective fashion.)

I could go on and on about everything from the Bioethics
situation (well documented by the Washington Post and
Blackburn) to the poor fiscal management (read huge
deficits), to the inability to inspire -- compare
Kennedy's speech to go to the moon with Bush's to
go to Mars.

Regarding claims for success -- Who would *not* have
been able rise to the opportunities presented
in a post-911 environment? Who would not have recognized
the need to remove leaders who represent potential
future threats?

Bottom line (IMO) -- Bush and the Bush agenda seem
to be poorly in line with extropic perspectives or
perhaps they are distinctly unextropic.  And even though I
tend to be aligned with the republicans from a fiscal standpoint
and I've voted independently (Anderson/Perot) in several
recent elections in November I will be down in the voting booth
checking off whomever seems likely to defeat Bush.

It seems very unlikely that it could get any worse.

Robert




From extropy at unreasonable.com  Sun Mar 21 01:41:11 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 20:41:11 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics 
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403201541510.17187-100000@server.aeiveos.co
 m>
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040320114805.02b7cd40@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040320200909.02da6ec8@mail.comcast.net>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>Regarding claims for success -- Who would *not* have
>been able rise to the opportunities presented
>in a post-911 environment? Who would not have recognized
>the need to remove leaders who represent potential
>future threats?
>
>It seems very unlikely that it could get any worse.

I've seen too many movies where someone paraphrased those words....

It could be much worse. And has been, historically, relative to the 
challenges of the time.

I don't know if Gore would have effectively dealt with 9/11, but we have 
had quite an assortment of naive, corrupt, criminal, reckless, and/or 
incompetent presidents who I would not have wanted in office then. (These, 
ironically, are the most revered by the public and by fellow politicians.)

To your request for a specific counter-example, an obvious candidate is 
2000's #3, Ralph Nader. Could you really see him as an effective 
Commander-in-Chief? Would Libya be disarming today under US President 
Nader? Would Saddam and the Taliban be gone?

Or, for that matter, some of the LP's candidates. Are you really confident 
in a President Marrou?


-- David Lubkin.




From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Mar 21 02:00:58 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 13:00:58 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Christopher Reeve Foundation: Request
References: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNAEMFEGAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
Message-ID: <002801c40ee8$5a716940$412b2dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>

Reason wrote:

> > With regard to stem cell research -- does Bush intend bans that would
> > affect research elsewhere in the world? Is stem cell research the best
> > short-term avenue to improved medical technology, or merely one among
> > several to be pursued in parallel?
> > -- David Lubkin.

..

> Stem cell medicine seems to be the fastest course to repairing arbitrary
> damage to the body, although some organ replacement needs will probably
also
> be well served by prosthetics. From a high level view, researchers are
> attempting to learn fundamental cellular processes in order to manipulate
> them to a desired result - repairing damage in situ in the body.
> Understanding and modifying the existing toolset to accomplish our ends,
in
> other words.
>
> My guesstimate - assuming no crackdown - is that we are 10 years away from
> commercial availability of simple applications, such as nerve and muscle
> repair, and 20 years away from complex uses, such as growing organs on
> demand. These could easily turn out to be 20 and 30 years if efforts to
> repress the technology continue, and I'm not convinced that the US is
going
> to be a very healthy part of the world economy 20 years from now.
> Constraints on medical development and commercialization are becoming more
> European with every passing year - and more of that means less meaningful
> research:

I just wanted to say good work to Reason re knowledge and
understanding of the politics and importance of embryonic stem cells.

>From what I can see Reason has an *uncommonly* good handle
on this issue. He's also done what I have not. He's made a web site
that can accelerate other peoples understanding.

Brett Paatsch



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 21 02:16:47 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 18:16:47 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Politics [was: Christopher Reeve Foundation:
	Request]
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403201541510.17187-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040321021647.85855.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>


--- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:
> 
> Bottom line (IMO) -- Bush and the Bush agenda seem
> to be poorly in line with extropic perspectives or
> perhaps they are distinctly unextropic.  And even though I
> tend to be aligned with the republicans from a fiscal standpoint
> and I've voted independently (Anderson/Perot) in several
> recent elections in November I will be down in the voting booth
> checking off whomever seems likely to defeat Bush.
> 
> It seems very unlikely that it could get any worse.

Actually, I think that the country getting stuck with Kerry at this
point in time bodes very well for the Free State Project. Every
slightly right libertarian who was content to sit tight wherever they
were under Bush is going to high-tail it to New Hampshire, and any left
libertarian who puts more libertarian than left in their thinking is
going to be very shocked at how much further over the edge the Kerry
presidency will take police powers like The Patriot Act. THe next four
years will see some significant battles over states rights.

While Ashcroft may have been focusing on foreigners with his new
fangled police powers, I expect a rather heinous gestapo to descend
across America under Kerry, since democrats typically award the AG
position to a more radical leftist to the same degree that the GOP
awards it to strict conservatives.

I myself am voting for Gary Nolan, and encourage my left friends to
vote for Nader. If we can keep both major candidates in sub-majority
numbers with good showings for major party candidates, it will send
signal that they can't keep playing the game they are.

=====
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! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From support at imminst.org  Sun Mar 21 10:50:03 2004
From: support at imminst.org (support at imminst.org)
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 04:50:03 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] ImmInst Update
Message-ID: <405d735b0a45b@imminst.org>

Immortality Institute ~ For Infinite Lifespans 
********************* 
Mission: End the Blight of Involuntary Death 
Basic Members: 1339 - Full Members: 71 


"Facing Cryonics"
********************* 
The goal of Facing Cryonics is to put faces to 
supporters of cryonics. Facing Cryonics will list 
names, locations, messages and photos from 
cryonics supporters.
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=61&t=3311


Chat - Singularitarian's View On Immortalism
********************* 
Gordon Worley, Singularitarian and volunteer for 
the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, 
joins ImmInst to discuss his views and projections 
for Immortalism.  Sunday Mar 21 @ 8 PM Eastern
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=63&t=3263


Support
********************* 
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 gpmap at runbox.com  Sun Mar 21 10:42:41 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 11:42:41 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Paul Allen Funds Next Stage of SETI Project
Message-ID: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGGELMCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From Universe Today: Billionaire Paul Allen has committed $13.5 million to
support the construction of the first and second phases of the Allen
Telescope Array. Construction of the array is now underway at the Hat Creek
Observatory, 466 km northeast of San Francisco; the first phase will include
the development of 32 6.1-metre radio telescopes. The second phase will see
an additional 174 built. Eventually there will be a total of 350 identical
dishes built. Once the first 32 dishes are completed, the array can begin
scientific operations.
The ATA will be a general-purpose radio telescope that will provide
fundamentally new measurements and insights into the density of the very
early universe, the formation of stars, the magnetic fields in the
interstellar medium, and a host of other applications of deep interest to
astronomers. At the same time, this 21 st Century radio telescope will also
have the capability to search for possible signals from technologically
advanced civilizations elsewhere in the galaxy. "I am very excited to be
supporting one of the world's most visionary efforts to seek basic answers
to some of the fundamental question about our universe and what other
civilizations may exist elsewhere," said Paul G. Allen, primary funder of
the ATA. "I am a big proponent of leveraging revolutionary technology and
design and applying it to important problems in science."

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.634 / Virus Database: 406 - Release Date: 18/03/2004
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040321/ec7b9934/attachment.html>

From gpmap at runbox.com  Sun Mar 21 16:12:29 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:12:29 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] NASA Develops System To Computerize Silent Speech
Message-ID: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGKELMCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From The Register: NASA boffins have pulled off a seemingly impressive
feat - reading words which have not actually been spoken. The system works
by computer analysis of "sub-auditory" speech at the throat. NASA's Ames
Research Center developer Chuck Jorgensen explains further: "A person using
the subvocal system thinks of phrases and talks to himself so quietly it
cannot be heard, but the tongue and vocal cords do receive speech signals
from the brain".
>From Science Daily: NASA scientists have begun to computerize human, silent
reading using nerve signals in the throat that control speech. In
preliminary experiments, NASA scientists found that small, button-sized
sensors, stuck under the chin and on either side of the 'Adam's apple,'
could gather nerve signals, send them to a processor and then to a computer
program that translates them into words. "What is analyzed is silent, or
subauditory, speech, such as when a person silently reads or talks to
himself," said Chuck Jorgensen, a scientist whose team is developing silent,
subvocal speech recognition at NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field,
Calif. "Biological signals arise when reading or speaking to oneself with or
without actual lip or facial movement," Jorgensen explained.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.634 / Virus Database: 406 - Release Date: 18/03/2004
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040321/574ae742/attachment.html>

From extropy at unreasonable.com  Sun Mar 21 16:55:40 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 11:55:40 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] NASA Develops System To Computerize Silent Speech
In-Reply-To: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGKELMCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040321114504.02988ca8@mail.comcast.net>

Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:

>NASA scientists found that small, button-sized sensors, stuck under the 
>chin and on either side of the 'Adam's apple,' could gather nerve signals, 
>send them to a processor and then to a computer program that translates 
>them into words. "What is analyzed is silent, or subauditory, speech, such 
>as when a person silently reads or talks to himself," said Chuck 
>Jorgensen, a scientist whose team is developing silent, subvocal speech 
>recognition at NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. 
>"Biological signals arise when reading or speaking to oneself with or 
>without actual lip or facial movement," Jorgensen explained.

If true, the ripples are significant. Combine with the research on 
non-invasive medical remote sensing and one could monitor someone's 
thoughts without their permission. We may need the human equivalent of 
Tempest shielding before too long.


-- David Lubkin.




From eugen at leitl.org  Sun Mar 21 17:15:48 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 18:15:48 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] NASA Develops System To Computerize Silent Speech
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040321114504.02988ca8@mail.comcast.net>
References: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGKELMCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20040321114504.02988ca8@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <20040321171548.GF28136@leitl.org>

On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 11:55:40AM -0500, David Lubkin wrote:

> If true, the ripples are significant. Combine with the research on 
> non-invasive medical remote sensing and one could monitor someone's 
> thoughts without their permission. We may need the human equivalent of 
> Tempest shielding before too long.

Personal area network needs authentication and encryption, too. There's a
Tempest shielding for humans already: poker players are using it. Masks would
help, but they're illegal.

There's not enough in telebiometrics but show that you're excited, or
attempting to suppress information (MEG, passive/active IR, T-ray, body
movement fingerprinting).

-- 
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/20040321/fccc0b7f/attachment.bin>

From gpmap at runbox.com  Sun Mar 21 17:55:18 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 18:55:18 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] NASA Develops System To Computerize Silent Speech
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040321114504.02988ca8@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGGELNCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

Good business opportunity isn't it?

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of David Lubkin
Sent: domingo, 21 de marzo de 2004 17:56
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] NASA Develops System To Computerize Silent
Speech


Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:

>NASA scientists found that small, button-sized sensors, stuck under the
>chin and on either side of the 'Adam's apple,' could gather nerve signals,
>send them to a processor and then to a computer program that translates
>them into words. "What is analyzed is silent, or subauditory, speech, such
>as when a person silently reads or talks to himself," said Chuck
>Jorgensen, a scientist whose team is developing silent, subvocal speech
>recognition at NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.
>"Biological signals arise when reading or speaking to oneself with or
>without actual lip or facial movement," Jorgensen explained.

If true, the ripples are significant. Combine with the research on
non-invasive medical remote sensing and one could monitor someone's
thoughts without their permission. We may need the human equivalent of
Tempest shielding before too long.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.634 / Virus Database: 406 - Release Date: 18/03/2004



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sun Mar 21 20:25:06 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 12:25:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] NASA Develops System To Computerize Silent Speech
In-Reply-To: <20040321171548.GF28136@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20040321202506.41837.qmail@web80406.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 11:55:40AM -0500, David
> Lubkin wrote:
> > If true, the ripples are significant. Combine with
> the research on 
> > non-invasive medical remote sensing and one could
> monitor someone's 
> > thoughts without their permission. We may need the
> human equivalent of 
> > Tempest shielding before too long.
> 
> Personal area network needs authentication and
> encryption, too. There's a
> Tempest shielding for humans already: poker players
> are using it.

Indeed.  Speed-readers who minimize (consciously or
not) these time-wasting, otherwise useless side
signals would also be difficult to read this way.
(For instance, I've been actively monitoring my lips,
tongue, and mouth while typing this, and they have
not moved so far as I can tell.)


From jonkc at att.net  Sun Mar 21 21:07:04 2004
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 16:07:04 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Perfect lens
References: <20040321202506.41837.qmail@web80406.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <176001c40f88$7cd4b460$2fff4d0c@hal2001>

There is a very interesting article in the March 17 issue of Science about
a material with a negative refractive index that could be used to make a
perfect lens. It might be possible to use this material in the next
generation of MRI machines to obtain vastly more detailed pictures. If they
can make such a lens work for light and not just microwaves in might even
have applications in Photo Lithography to make better computer chips.

John K Clark      jonkc at att.net

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

Lens Once Deemed Impossible Now Rules the Waves

For centuries, microscopes, eyeglasses, and magnifying glasses have been
limited by the laws of optics: No matter how good their lenses, details
smaller than a wavelength of light are irretrievably lost. Undaunted,
physicists have built a different breed of lens with the potential for
perfect resolution.

The new lens, which George Eleftheriades and Anthony Grbic of the University
of Toronto describe in an upcoming issue of Physical Review Letters, focuses
microwaves--long-wavelength radiation that falls next to radio waves in the
electromagnetic spectrum. By embedding a wire grid studded with capacitors
and inductors in a flat plane of plastic, the researchers created a lens
with a so-called negative refractive index, also called a left-handed lens.
Waves traveling through it bend in the opposite direction than they would in
a conventional material.

The left-handed lens achieves super-resolution by resurrecting waves that
carry the subwavelength details of an object. Such waves usually fizzle out
before they pass through a lens. But the Toronto group's lens traps and
amplifies them, allowing it to distinguish objects just 1/6 of a microwave
wavelength apart.

The new technique "smashed the barrier; it crashed through the glass
ceiling," says John Pendry, a physicist at Imperial College London. In 2000,
Pendry predicted that left-handed materials would make possible marvels such
as completely flat lenses with perfect resolution and zero loss (Science, 10
November 2000, p. 1066). In February, physicists at the Institute for
Theoretical and Applied Electromagnetics in Moscow announced a
super-resolving lens, but their technique required the object to be almost
touching the lens, making it impractical for real-life applications. The new
lens overcomes that limitation.

Eleftheriades dreams of applying the left handed lens to medical imaging.
"If you were to scale down the frequencies of a MRI (20 megahertz), you
could place the human body 1 meter away and still get super-resolution," he
says- a vast improvement over current instruments.


--KIM KRIEGER




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Sun Mar 21 21:40:59 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 13:40:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Perfect lens
In-Reply-To: <176001c40f88$7cd4b460$2fff4d0c@hal2001>
Message-ID: <20040321214059.13045.qmail@web80410.mail.yahoo.com>

--- John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:
> There is a very interesting article in the March 17
> issue of Science about
> a material with a negative refractive index that
> could be used to make a
> perfect lens. It might be possible to use this
> material in the next
> generation of MRI machines to obtain vastly more
> detailed pictures. If they
> can make such a lens work for light and not just
> microwaves in might even
> have applications in Photo Lithography to make
> better computer chips.

Microwaves are a certain frequency of light (approx.
.3-30 cm).  I wonder if this would get around the
limitation of high-frequency/low-wavelength light
having a certain minimum spot size (i.e., a microwave
laser couldn't be used to carve a nanometer-resolution
pattern).


From bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com  Mon Mar 22 00:22:01 2004
From: bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com (Bryan Moss)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 00:22:01 -0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] NASA Develops System To Computerize Silent Speech
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040321114504.02988ca8@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <003201c40fa3$cc72ad90$0600000a@Bryan>

David Lubkin wrote:

> If true, the ripples are significant. Combine with the research on
> non-invasive medical remote sensing and one could monitor someone's
> thoughts without their permission. We may need the human equivalent of
> Tempest shielding before too long.

I think those quotes misrepresent what they're doing.  From the articles
I've read (I don't have links on hand), it sounds like they're picking up
subauditory speech *signals* but they're not translating those into what's
actually spoken, they're using those to say *other* things.  That is, they
can't read what you're "thinking," but they can use the (untranslated)
signals created by what you're "thinking" to control a computer, which can
then be used to communicate via speech (or do anything else).  You have to
be trained to use the system, they can't actually *read* subauditory speech.

BM



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 22 01:10:38 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:10:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] NASA Develops System To Computerize Silent Speech
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040321114504.02988ca8@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <20040322011038.25483.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>


--- David Lubkin <extropy at unreasonable.com> wrote:
> Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:
> 
> >NASA scientists found that small, button-sized sensors, stuck under
> >the chin and on either side of the 'Adam's apple,' could gather
nerve
> >signals, send them to a processor and then to a computer program
that
> >translates them into words. 
snip... 
> If true, the ripples are significant. Combine with the research on 
> non-invasive medical remote sensing and one could monitor someone's 
> thoughts without their permission. We may need the human equivalent
> of Tempest shielding before too long.

Nah, I doubt it, though it is highly useful for eliminating that
annoying cell phone chatter, esp when driving around with other people.
It also is an excellent technology for voice control of PDA/wearables.
If you can convert the technology so that it converts the electrical
nerve signals into photonic signals, Tempest buggers won't even be able
to tap into the Van Eck signals of these pick-up devices.

=====
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! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From riel at surriel.com  Mon Mar 22 02:31:54 2004
From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel)
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 21:31:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Neural Engineering
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403182014010.1096-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403182014010.1096-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.55L.0403212130060.3642@imladris.surriel.com>

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

> I.e. if one has information that may relate to past or future
> damage to society or individuals within the society is it
> reasonable to "rape" such information from ones mind?

"Do not think about a pink elephant..."

How easy it would be to direct people's thoughts in a certain
direction.  Especially when you tell them what they've been
arrested for, which every decent country seems to be doing.

Of course people will be thinking about whatever they've been
talked to about for the last hours or even days.  I don't see
how this kind of tool would be useful for detective work...

Rik
-- 
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan


From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Mon Mar 22 02:42:17 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 20:42:17 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Questions About Real People
References: <Sea1-F156v6iuRfX3Ca00006580@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <Law10-OE14n16Sic5rI00056860@hotmail.com>

>
> 1. What first attracted you to transhumanism?
I can't say that I was "attracted" to transhumanism. It just happened to be
the next logical in my quest for truth, understanding, and immortality.
It was a long road getting here, but here is the simplified version:
When I was a kid, I was taught all of the standard christian beliefs. Most
people around me seemed content to accept everything they were told, but I
never was. Instead, I wanted a deeper understanding. I had questions that
noone could answer...even the preachers.
Then I forgot religion for a while while I spent my teenage years worrying
about more important matters such as "Does Missy like me?" and "What did you
do Friday night?"
When I hit my twenties, I started looking for "meaning" again. I couldn't
find it anywhere. Although I had left this alone for a while, my brain had
become very analytical. From 20-28 I struggled through many problems,
marriage, children, divorce, self-employment, new career, promotions,
downsizing, seld-employment, etc. You name it, I probably went through it!
My biggest fear was death. I was so afraid of dying that sometimes I
couldn't even sleep at night. I guess part of my reason for fearing death so
much was because I felt I hadn;t really been living. But there was one other
factor.
According to my upbringing I would go to heaven simply by asking Christ for
forgiveness of my sins. But I wasn;t sure exactly what a "sin" was.
According to some of my Baptist friends, drinking alcohol was a sin. My
Catholic friends drank alcohol like fish! It was this little problem that
led me to where I am now: "Which of my friend's are going to heaven, and
which one's are not?"
You see, IF the Catholics were correct, then my Baptist friends would be
going to hell whether or not they wanted to admit it. Surely a God wouldn;t
make several different sets of rules and expect people to choose any of them
and be OK! So I started doing research for years on each and every religion,
or type of religion that I could run into simply to see if I could figure
out which one was right. After all, it wouldn;'t do me any good to worship
God if Allah was "The One True God"

Now keep in mind, I already had my misgivings with religion, but I was
simply too afraid to embrace atheism. It took years of research into
religion, history, human evolution, biology, physics, and anything else that
might apply before I was confident enough to state out loud that religion
was horseshit without fear of bringing the Wrath of God upon myself.

It was during this time of intense study that I realized that:
A.) Human beings are simply complex machines
B.) Identity is simply the information that is contained in our brains.
C.) Human beings have an incredible ability to learn and alter their
environment
D.) Human beings will one day be able to alter and repair anything at the
most basic level.

To me, that meant that one day, unless there is some catastrophe,
 human beings will develop a way to become immortal. No religion or specific
belief was required.

So the only question to me was whether it would occur before, or after my
death. Since I would prefer to see the technology developed before I die
rather than keeping myself preserved via cryonics, I decided to actively
support this technology. It was after I had already decided to sign up for
Alcor and investigate the actual technologies when I started getting
involved with transhumanist societies. Until then, I had only stumbled onto
the word "transhumanism" on occasion while performing other research. There
were many times that I saw the term come up on Google and ignored it because
it sounded like some wacko group. :-)
Finally, one night I was looking for people that had thoughts similar to my
own, and I found them.


> 2. To you, what is transhumanism's most important principle?

Immortality. Nothing less. Yes, there is the "singularity". AI, Mollecular
manufacturing, but it is all useless to me if it can;t make myself and the
human species immortal...at least until the Big Crunch.

> 3. Do you identify with a specific branch of transhumanism?  Which?

Not really. I never bothered to see if there were other branches to be
honest. Unless you want to call the Extropians a "branch"; which I wouldn;t.
To me, a "branch" would be a group of individuals that have beliefs in
common which are slightly different from others of the same belief system.
The Extropians usually don;t agree on much at all. :-) This is agood thing.
Lots of ideas are thrown in, filtered, broken down, analyzed, and processed.
I don;t think any two of us has more than a few common thoughts. (As a
matter of fact, there is an ongoing debate here about whether or not the
word "belief" should even be used. I am one who thinks the word does more
harm than good. See the archives)
I guess the one common thread is that we all want to bring about the
singularity so we can become immortal. I don;t see how that would be any
different from any other transhumanist organization. In short, we deal in
science, not belief, and scientific facts are (supposed to be) the same
regardless of which "group" you associate with.

 4. Whose writings on transhumanism, or related principles and topics, have
> most greatly influenced you?
Um, Robert Bradbury, Damien Broderick, and Harvey Neustrom (sorry if I
misspelled that!.... :)
OK. There's also Drexler, Vinge, Stephen Baxter, Asimov, Herbert, Darwin,
heck...I have no idea!
> 5. Do you have a religious affiliation?  If yes, which religion and how
> strongly do you adhere to it?  If no, were you formerly?  If you were
> formerly religious, what caused you to change?
All that is above.
> 6. What sort of impact does transhumanism have on your daily life?  Your
> life in general?

None at all. I just enjoy research the way many watch Nascar and football. I
couldn;t tell you who was at the Superbowl or even the rules of football or
basketball. It leaves me a bit alienated since I am surrounded by Christians
that deny facts to keep their beliefs intact. I have trouble striking up
conversations with people since few respond to things such as "How 'bout
that Sedna planet?" Since they are all used to "How 'bout them Redsocks?" I
quit smoking, try to excercise, keep my mind and body fairly healthy, but
not obsessively so. It's not really a way of life, or a belief system. It is
simply an interest in my own future. I see it as such a shame that so many
people don;t even care what life will be like in 10, 20, or 30 years, let
alone the next million or so!

>


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Mar 22 03:05:47 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 21:05:47 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] drunken fish
In-Reply-To: <Law10-OE14n16Sic5rI00056860@hotmail.com>
References: <Sea1-F156v6iuRfX3Ca00006580@hotmail.com>
	<Law10-OE14n16Sic5rI00056860@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040321205951.01b47db0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 08:42 PM 3/21/2004 -0600, Kevin wrote:

>Catholic friends drank alcohol like fish!

That's a wonderfully theological image! Not so much episcopal as 
piscatorial, or more exactly pissedcatorial.

Damien Broderick
[does a Darwin fish drink alcohol too, or just walk on it?]




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 22 03:10:30 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 19:10:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Russians propose 6 man reusable capsule
In-Reply-To: <20040322011038.25483.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040322031030.46578.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/03/20/new.russian.vehicle.ap/index.html

MOSCOW, Russia (AP) -- Russian designers are working on a replacement
for the veteran Soyuz spacecraft, the mainstay of the nation's space
program since the 1960s, officials said Friday.

The new spacecraft, called the Clipper, will hold a crew of six
compared to Soyuz's three. It will have a takeoff weight of 16 tons --
more than twice its predecessor, Nikolai Bryukhanov, deputy chief
designer at the RKK Energiya company, told the ITAR-Tass news agency.

Unlike the Soyuz, which can only be used once, the Clipper will be
reusable and capable of making up to 25 flights, Bryukhanov said.

The new spacecraft also will be more comfortable, significantly
reducing G-forces on the crew during re-entry in comparison with the
Soyuz, he added.

Energiya can build the Clipper in five years if it receives sufficient
government funding, said the company's vice president, Nikolai
Zelenshchikov.

Russian Soyuz and Progress spacecraft have served as the only link to
the international space station since the U.S. space shuttle fleet was
grounded following the breakup of the Columbia during its return to
Earth in February 2003.

Zelenshchikov said Energiya engineers were also working on a huge
spaceship for a flight to Mars, set to weigh 660 tons, the Interfax
news agency reported. - end story - 

It sounds to me like they see a market opportunity. They possibly see a
limited market for such a product. 25 flights is a significant life
span (about the average number of flights that the Shuttles have under
their belts), though such a large capsule would also be useful for
extended operations by a crew of two, perhaps in deep space missions,
if attached to nuclear/plasma propulsion systems.

Energiya's Mars-ship sounds like fluff, though, maybe not. Perhaps they
are angling to be included in the contractor competition for the NASA
mission.

Ideally, I'd see a more effective design being a fully equipped
reusable titanium pressure capsule, with a cheap and replaceable
heatshield. What do you think is the layout for the six astronauts?
Arrayed around in a circle, or two rows of three, one above the other?



=====
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! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 22 03:38:26 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 19:38:26 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] drunken fish
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040321205951.01b47db0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20040322033826.60096.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 08:42 PM 3/21/2004 -0600, Kevin wrote:
> 
> >Catholic friends drank alcohol like fish!
> 
> That's a wonderfully theological image! Not so much episcopal as 
> piscatorial, or more exactly pissedcatorial.
> 
> Damien Broderick
> [does a Darwin fish drink alcohol too, or just walk on it?]

But is Kevin's judgement coming from a different tradition, like, say,
Mormon lifestyle?

The unofficial catholic tradition is that since Jesus turned water into
wine, he must have done it because he wanted man to turn wine into
water, so catholics are just doing their part... they wouldn't have to
drink so much if some of the other groups started taking up the slack a bit...

=====
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! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 22 03:43:01 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 19:43:01 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: Russians propose 6 man reusable capsule
In-Reply-To: <20040322031030.46578.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040322034301.51876.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/kliper.htm

http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/k/klipercu.jpg

http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/k/kliper04.jpg

http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/r/rvsrus90.jpg

=====
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! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Mar 22 05:45:50 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 21:45:50 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] drunken catholic fish
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040321205951.01b47db0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <000001c40fd0$ef1a02d0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


> At 08:42 PM 3/21/2004 -0600, Kevin wrote:
> 
> >Catholic friends drank alcohol like fish!

Kevin that gives me an idea: you have seen the 
christian fish symbol on the back of a car that
has just passed you going triple the speed limit,
along with all the derivatives: Darwin fish with 
feet, Darwin fish eating christian fish, christian
fish eating Darwin fish etc.  How about a 
Catholic fish?  Tilt the christian fish about
pi/4 radians mouth upward, swilling a martini.

{8^D

spike



From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Mar 22 06:02:37 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 22:02:37 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] drunken fish
In-Reply-To: <20040322033826.60096.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000001c40fd3$47bf9330$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


> > At 08:42 PM 3/21/2004 -0600, Kevin wrote:
> > 
> > >Catholic friends drank alcohol like fish!

> 
> But is Kevin's judgement coming from a different tradition, like, say,
> Mormon lifestyle?
> 
> The unofficial catholic tradition is that since Jesus turned 
> water into wine, he must have done it because he wanted man to
> turn wine into water... Mike Lorrey

Mike surely you need a good Seventh Day Adventist to
explain this to you: how JC could be sinless and
still have provided the demon liquor to the wedding
guests.  I would suggest it was a case of mistaken
identity: it was the evil twin brother Hoerkheimer who
did that.  But the traditional SDA interpretation
is to point out that the original Greek in which the
New Testament was written does not distinguish between
fermented wine and freshly squeezed grape juice.  Of
course this isn't entirely true; "oinos" is generally
thought to be fermented wine.  Furthermore the earliest 
Hebrew translations specify "yayin" which is unequivocally
"fermented juice of the grape."  But it makes a good
story anyway.

spike



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Mar 22 06:19:59 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 00:19:59 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] grape Jews
In-Reply-To: <000001c40fd3$47bf9330$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <20040322033826.60096.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
	<000001c40fd3$47bf9330$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040322001540.01b20ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 10:02 PM 3/21/2004 -0800, Spike hermeneuted:

>traditional SDA interpretation
>is to point out that the original Greek in which the
>New Testament was written does not distinguish between
>fermented wine and freshly squeezed grape juice.

And that is why the wedding party smacked their lips when they got to the 
Jesus brew and cried in surprise, `They have kept the best wine to last!' 
Obviously, the power of the Lord provided grape juice even more freshly 
squeezed than freshly squeezed grape juice. Or... well, maybe not.

Damien Broderick




From twodeel at jornada.org  Mon Mar 22 06:25:07 2004
From: twodeel at jornada.org (Don Dartfield)
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 22:25:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] drunken fish
In-Reply-To: <000001c40fd3$47bf9330$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403212224010.10128-100000@hplx.net>

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Spike wrote:

> Mike surely you need a good Seventh Day Adventist to explain this to
> you: how JC could be sinless and still have provided the demon liquor to
> the wedding guests.  <snip story about Jesus serving grape juice>

Hey, don't sell the identical Mormon explanation short!




From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Mar 22 07:08:41 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 23:08:41 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] drunken fish
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403212224010.10128-100000@hplx.net>
Message-ID: <000001c40fdc$8234d9e0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

> Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] drunken fish
> 
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Spike wrote:
> 
> > Mike surely you need a good Seventh Day Adventist to explain this to
> > you: how JC could be sinless and still have provided the demon
liquor to
> > the wedding guests.  <snip story about Jesus serving grape juice>
> 
> Hey, don't sell the identical Mormon explanation short!

Now I wonder who dreamed up that bit of absurdity and
who stole it from the other.  Perhaps both stole it from
some theologically-challenged third party.  How would we 
google up the answer to that one?  To sharpen the question:
who first suggested that oinos could mean either fermented
wine or grape juice, in the face of counterevidence in the 
form of the wedding guests comments about the wine?  

spike



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Mar 22 07:59:29 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 01:59:29 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] grape Jeez
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040322001540.01b20ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <20040322033826.60096.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
	<000001c40fd3$47bf9330$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
	<6.0.3.0.0.20040322001540.01b20ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040322015330.01b7a440@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

I'm especially struck by the way bigots murmured against Jesus, pointing 
out accusingly that he kept scandalous company with `publicans, sinners and 
freshly squeezed grape juice bibbers.'

Damien Broderick




From bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk  Mon Mar 22 12:06:36 2004
From: bill at wkidston.freeserve.co.uk (BillK)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:06:36 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: drunken fish
Message-ID: <405ED6CC.2050905@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>

On Mon Mar 22 00:08:41 MST 2004 Spike wrote:
> To sharpen the question:
> who first suggested that oinos could mean either fermented
> wine or grape juice, in the face of counterevidence in the
> form of the wedding guests comments about the wine?

Ah, this is known as "the two wines theory".
Most scholars support "the one wine theory" where oinos in the Greek New
Testament always refers to fermented wine.
IMHO the 'one wine' team has more credence.

Some scholars try to bring the Septuagint into the discussion. This is a
Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. IMHO this (while
interesting) is not helpful. It brings another level of distortion into
the argument because 'oinos' is used here rather loosely to translate a
selection of ancient Hebrew words whose meaning is none too clear to
start with.

I think the "two wines" school started with the temperance movement who
wanted to avoid any suggestion that alcohol could have been acceptable
in Jesus' times, or to early Christians.
(i.e. trying to turn the wine at Cana back into water again ;) )

As always with Bible queries, it is very difficult for modern
researchers to put themselves into a different time and culture and see
things as they were then, without putting a layer of modern assumptions
on top.

In New Testament times it would have been very difficult in such a hot
climate to avoid fermentation. Grapes on the vine could have already
started fermenting. Even newly-pressed wine is likely to have had traces
of alcohol. If it was drunk quickly, it would have had little alcohol
content. But this drink would only have been available for a short time
after the grape harvest. Fermentation leads to the problem of the wine
going 'off' and turning into vinegar. To solve this problem wine was
often stored in large jars as a thick, syrupy-like substance which was
expected to be diluted with water before drinking. The more water added,
the more the alcohol would be diluted.

In these days they did not have to deal with spirits. The distillation
process was not available to them. Water was often polluted, hygiene and
sewage systems unusual. They did have a selection of wines containing
various strengths of alcohol.

But practically speaking, almost everybody drank fermented wine every
day. Yes, even children. In the case of children, the wine would be
diluted with water. And if a cold well or stream was available, the
adults also would mix cold water with the wine for a refreshing drink.

There are many warnings (direct and indirect) about the evils of too
much 'oinos'. They were well aware of the problem of drunks. But, wine
with meals was a common practice - and still is today in Mediterranean
countries. One or two glasses of wine with dinner does not make the
whole population into alcoholics.

BillK





From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Mon Mar 22 13:12:27 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 05:12:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: How many planets?
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403220504230.1195-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Space Daily has an interesting article this morning on how
to settle the is it or isn't it a planet debate (I'll spoil
the article to some extent by providing a summary -- if it
has enough gravity to round itself but not enough to start
nuclear fusion its a planet).

But its a really interesting article in with respect to
both the physics and how one deals with young children
who may have different opinions:

URL:
  http://www.spacedaily.com/news/outerplanets-04b.html

R.



From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Mar 22 15:44:12 2004
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 07:44:12 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Christopher Reeve Foundation: Request
In-Reply-To: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNKEMAEGAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040320114805.02b7cd40@mail.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040322073311.01dcfa30@mail.earthlink.net>

At 01:44 PM 3/20/04 -0800, Reason wrote:


> >Today the religious terrorist gangs are gaining more and more
> >control.  Bush wants to see them broken up and destroyed.
>
>Aside from the one he belongs to. You know, the one that's laying down
>policies that have already set up a future in which an order of magnitude
>more death and suffering will occur than any third or fourth generation
>military force can aspire to. Five years of setback in regenerative medicine
>multiplied by the number of people who suffer from incurable diseases and
>die every day - that's the cost right now that our future selves must
>suffer. War and terrorism are very minor concerns compared to medical
>research, application and regulation legislation.

I am concerned with the fact that the terrorism is strongly related to 
terrorist gangs - all of them - and disease death is acceptable in its 
"natural" in its cloaked disguise  The most deviant terrorist in the world 
is death - no matter how it is packaged.  The fact that it is 
"premeditated" in the courtroom may hold greater significance in the future 
looking back at human war crimes.

BTY, if David is reading this:  as a very strong and in-you-face visual 
metaphor, obesity is a direct defiant on health and superlongevity.

best,
Natasha




>http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000020.php
>
>http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000027.php
>
>Reason
>Founder, Longevity Meme
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 22 15:07:00 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 07:07:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] grape Jeez
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040322015330.01b7a440@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20040322150700.64087.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> I'm especially struck by the way bigots murmured against Jesus,
> pointing 
> out accusingly that he kept scandalous company with `publicans,
> sinners and freshly squeezed grape juice bibbers.'

Yes, and don't forget the tax collectors and harlots, which is why you
find so many Kennedys in similar careers...

I hear that Yasser Arafat just declared "The Passion..." as "not
anti-semitic" after an evening viewing with muslim and christian
colleagues (they made sure both were mentioned in news reports). He
thought it was a "moving" depiction. This likely has caused great
consernation to the ignorant here in America who thought that Jews were
the only semites. Of course, Gibson didn't depict *arab* semites as
evil for conspiring against Jesus....

=====
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! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 22 15:06:58 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 07:06:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] grape Jeez
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040322015330.01b7a440@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20040322150658.15132.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> I'm especially struck by the way bigots murmured against Jesus,
> pointing 
> out accusingly that he kept scandalous company with `publicans,
> sinners and freshly squeezed grape juice bibbers.'

Yes, and don't forget the tax collectors and harlots, which is why you
find so many Kennedys in similar careers...

I hear that Yasser Arafat just declared "The Passion..." as "not
anti-semitic" after an evening viewing with muslim and christian
colleagues (they made sure both were mentioned in news reports). He
thought it was a "moving" depiction. This likely has caused great
consernation to the ignorant here in America who thought that Jews were
the only semites. Of course, Gibson didn't depict *arab* semites as
evil for conspiring against Jesus....

=====
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! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Mar 22 15:15:41 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 07:15:41 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] grape Jeez
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040322015330.01b7a440@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <001401c41020$8a56d1c0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

> I'm especially struck by the way bigots murmured against 
> Jesus, pointing 
> out accusingly that he kept scandalous company with 
> `publicans, sinners and 
> freshly squeezed grape juice bibbers.'
> 
> Damien Broderick

As it turns out, those criticisms had little effect,
for the attitude of the elders seems to be along the
lines of "sure he is hanging with whores and drunks,
but how many of you did not do those sorts of things
when you were his age?"  So it was followed by: yes
but he hangs out with TAX COLLECTORS!  A much more
serious charge.  spike



From natashavita at earthlink.net  Mon Mar 22 16:17:50 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:17:50 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Christopher Reeve Foundation: Request
Message-ID: <146040-220043122161750591@M2W035.mail2web.com>

>I am concerned with the fact that the terrorism is strongly related to 
>terrorist gangs - all of them - and disease death is acceptable in its 
>"natural" in its cloaked disguise  The most deviant terrorist in the world 
>is death - no matter how it is packaged.  The fact that it is 
>"premeditated" in the courtroom may hold greater significance in the
>future 
>looking back at human war crimes.

I mean:

I am concerned with the fact that terrorism is thought to be the No. 1
world issue concerning human abuse, while disease and death are accepted in
their "natural"-cloaked disguise.  

The most deviant terrorist in the world is death - no matter how it is
packaged.  Further, supporting it in the courtroom (referring to anyone,
including Bush, who writes legal policies and builds laws stopping
therapeutic cloning, for example) makes the same a premeditated act, just
like terrorism, and may hold even greater significance in the future while
looking back at human war crimes.

>BTY, if David is reading this:  as a very strong and in-you-face visual 
>metaphor, obesity is a direct defiant on health and superlongevity.

:-)
Natasha



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




From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Mon Mar 22 16:10:57 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 10:10:57 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] drunken catholic fish
References: <000001c40fd0$ef1a02d0$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <Law10-OE22ekVro4hTU0005c5ab@hotmail.com>

Hmmm. And I was looking for a new version of this fish symbol.......Maybe
I'll try one out! lol
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Spike" <spike66 at comcast.net>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 11:45 PM
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] drunken catholic fish


>
> > At 08:42 PM 3/21/2004 -0600, Kevin wrote:
> >
> > >Catholic friends drank alcohol like fish!
>
> Kevin that gives me an idea: you have seen the
> christian fish symbol on the back of a car that
> has just passed you going triple the speed limit,
> along with all the derivatives: Darwin fish with
> feet, Darwin fish eating christian fish, christian
> fish eating Darwin fish etc.  How about a
> Catholic fish?  Tilt the christian fish about
> pi/4 radians mouth upward, swilling a martini.
>
> {8^D
>
> spike
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From megao at sasktel.net  Tue Mar 23 04:48:20 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 22:48:20 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Arla Johnson Mar 14, 1959 - 3:45 AM  Sun Mar 21,
	2004]
Message-ID: <405FC193.38F1E055@sasktel.net>





-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc." <megao at sasktel.net>
Subject: [MedPot-discuss] Arla Johnson Mar 14, 1959 - 3:45 AM  Sun Mar 21, 2004
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 22:44:15 -0600
Size: 4068
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040322/094e246a/attachment.mht>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 22 16:56:57 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:56:57 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Christopher Reeve Foundation: Request
In-Reply-To: <146040-220043122161750591@M2W035.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <20040322165657.43688.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>


--- "natashavita at earthlink.net" <natashavita at earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> I mean:
> 
> I am concerned with the fact that terrorism is thought to be the No.
> 1 world issue concerning human abuse, while disease and death are
> accepted in their "natural"-cloaked disguise.  

It isn't so much that they are 'cloaked'. It is that terrorism unfairly
targets civilians who are not directly responsible for the policies of
their government that motivates the terrorist response.

Death, on the other hand, is fair and equal: everybody dies at one
point or another. Attempting to cheat death is seen as an attempt to
cheat your fellow man. Death fairly comes soonest to those who take the
most risks with it: choosing to be a combatant, to smoke, abuse drugs,
engage in promiscuous sex, drive fast and/or drunk, base jumpers, fire
fighters, submariners, etc etc....

Death is also seen as a lottery, a crap shoot. You die "when your
number is up". Games of chance are seen as fair so long as everyone
freely chooses the level of risk they want, and win or lose accordingly
to the roll of the dice. Immortality is playing with a loaded deck,
with loaded dice. It is counting the cards with x-ray vision.

You will note that news media, when they talk about cryonics, almost
always seem to mention the high price of a suspension, but rarely talk
about how suspension can be paid for with life insurance. This is
intentional, in order to portray cryonics as a frivolous waste of
money, which "could be better spent on real problems in our society".
The same sort of excuse making they make with space exploration, SETI,
or other blue-sky research.

> 
> The most deviant terrorist in the world is death - no matter how it
> is packaged.  

Lets not play the game of incrementalist redefinition of words. It is
cheap and beneath our intelligence.

Rather, I'd focus on emphasizing all the ways that Death cheats the
popular conception of its perverse fairness: kids being killed by drunk
drivers, poisoned by toxic homes and/or families. Victims of violent
crime, of disasters, and of government incompetence and oppression. The
"Do it for the children" meme does work, and work quite well.

=====
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! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From natashavita at earthlink.net  Mon Mar 22 17:22:18 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:22:18 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] grape Jeez
Message-ID: <244640-22004312217221815@M2W055.mail2web.com>

From: Spike 

> I'm especially struck by the way bigots murmured against 
> Jesus, pointing 
> out accusingly that he kept scandalous company with 
> `publicans, sinners and 
> freshly squeezed grape juice bibbers.'
> 
> Damien Broderick

"As it turns out, those criticisms had little effect,
for the attitude of the elders seems to be along the
lines of "sure he is hanging with whores and drunks,
but how many of you did not do those sorts of things
when you were his age?"  So it was followed by: yes
but he hangs out with TAX COLLECTORS!  A much more
serious charge.  spike"

Haha!  Better than hanging out with a relentless apologist who keeps waving
grap-smeared hands in your face :-)

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 gpmap at runbox.com  Mon Mar 22 17:38:15 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:38:15 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Evolution Encoded
Message-ID: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGOELNCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From Scientific American: New discoveries about the rules governing how
genes encode proteins have revealed nature's sophisticated "programming" for
protecting life from catastrophic errors while accelerating evolution. The
DNA molecule contains nothing less than the secret of life, which permits
organisms to store themselves as a set of blueprints and convert this stored
information back into live metabolism.
Only in recent years have new discoveries about the code revealed just how
sophisticated a piece of programming it really is. Why nature chose these
basic rules and why they have survived three billion or so years of natural
selection have started to become clear. We can now show that the code's
rules may actually speed evolution while protecting life from making
disastrous errors in protein synthesis.
When we speak of the "code" and "decoding," we are being quite literal.
Genetic instructions are stored in DNA and RNA, both made of one type of
biochemical molecule, nucleic acid. But organisms are mostly built from (and
by) a very different type of molecule, protein. So although a gene is
traditionally defined as the sequence of nucleotides that describes a single
protein, the genetic sentence containing that description must first be
translated from one system of symbols into an entirely different kind of
system, rather like converting from Morse code to English.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.634 / Virus Database: 406 - Release Date: 18/03/2004
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040322/fca6d438/attachment.html>

From brentn at freeshell.org  Mon Mar 22 18:21:43 2004
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:21:43 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: How many planets?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403220504230.1195-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <r02010100-1033-C5F3DA187C2D11D88249000393A47D36@[192.168.123.121]>

 (3/22/04 5:12) Robert J. Bradbury <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:

>Space Daily has an interesting article this morning on how
>to settle the is it or isn't it a planet debate (I'll spoil
>the article to some extent by providing a summary -- if it
>has enough gravity to round itself but not enough to start
>nuclear fusion its a planet).
>
>But its a really interesting article in with respect to
>both the physics and how one deals with young children
>who may have different opinions:


This is new take on the debate I read. I think he leaves out some interesting physical criteria that could be used in combination with others, but the "roundness" one that he mentions is one I'd not seen before. Of course, when it comes down to it, the final solution will be 'political' in some sense, since the IAU will pick the rules to create the outcome they find desirable. :)

B
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From rafal at smigrodzki.org  Mon Mar 22 21:29:36 2004
From: rafal at smigrodzki.org (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:29:36 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] The end of crime as we used to know it?
In-Reply-To: <20040319194347.GP28136@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <OJEHKDIANIFPAJPDBDGLGEGCDBAA.rafal@smigrodzki.org>

Eugen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 07:26:25PM +0000, BillK wrote:
>
>> So the idea of the open society is breaking through to your average
>> man-in-the-street newsreader. That's quick. I expected it to take
>> years for it to become common knowledge.
>
> Open society? Where? Have you been reading too much Brin again?
>
> Have you ever tried recording anything in a shop? Try it. Let the
> owner know you're doing it. Read Steve Mann's account of shooting
> back.
>
> Have you ever tried recording a LEO while on duty? Try it. Make sure
> you have good health and lawyer insurance. Bring overnight kit for
> the cell. A politician? Try it. Bring overnight kit for the cell.
>
> Have you ever tried preventing a LEO from filming you? Try it. See
> above.
>
> So how's it helping if the evidence is admissible/not
> admissible/admissible/not admissible (it all depends on who's doing
> whom)?
>
> How do you stream your stuff if the connection is jammed? Make these
> things cheap, because they will be confiscated. A lot. It's all a
> photoshop job, anyway, nyahnyah.
>
> Central control beats decentral control. Those in power will use the
> technology against you, and will not allow the technology to be used
> against them. They're much better at this game than the disorganized,
> apathetic public.
>
> Sorry if this came out of nowhere, I've been reading today's news
> again, and these are not good. Not good at all, and channelling
> Brin's not helping.

### But Eugen, all that you write is again arguing against authoritarians
using or suppressing surveillance technology (and arguing against
authoritarians is usually futile, since they will do what they want, not
what you suggest), or against sheeple, but nothing really argues against the
use of private surveillance technologies in reasonably democratic societies.

(I wrote "again" because I remember you writing almost the same lines a year
ago, or so.)

Rafal




From joe at barrera.org  Mon Mar 22 18:35:25 2004
From: joe at barrera.org (Joseph S. Barrera III)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 10:35:25 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: How many planets?
In-Reply-To: <r02010100-1033-C5F3DA187C2D11D88249000393A47D36@[192.168.123.121]>
References: <r02010100-1033-C5F3DA187C2D11D88249000393A47D36@[192.168.123.121]>
Message-ID: <405F31ED.9080806@barrera.org>

Brent Neal wrote:

>This is new take on the debate I read. I think he leaves out some interesting physical criteria that could be used in combination with others, but the "roundness" one that he mentions is one I'd not seen before. 
>
I think Mike Lorrey proposed that criterion in this very forum :-)

- Joe



From joe at barrera.org  Mon Mar 22 18:40:51 2004
From: joe at barrera.org (Joseph S. Barrera III)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 10:40:51 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: How many planets?
In-Reply-To: <405F31ED.9080806@barrera.org>
References: <r02010100-1033-C5F3DA187C2D11D88249000393A47D36@[192.168.123.121]>
	<405F31ED.9080806@barrera.org>
Message-ID: <405F3333.3040509@barrera.org>

Joseph S. Barrera III wrote:

>  I think Mike Lorrey proposed that criterion in this very forum :-)

Yep, here we go:

Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: SPACE: new planet?
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 18:11:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com>

[...]

It is actually rather easy to define a planet:
a) it has its own independent orbit around the sun, and,
b) its own internal gravity has caused it to be round




From eugen at leitl.org  Mon Mar 22 18:55:31 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:55:31 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] The end of crime as we used to know it?
In-Reply-To: <OJEHKDIANIFPAJPDBDGLGEGCDBAA.rafal@smigrodzki.org>
References: <20040319194347.GP28136@leitl.org>
	<OJEHKDIANIFPAJPDBDGLGEGCDBAA.rafal@smigrodzki.org>
Message-ID: <20040322185531.GN28136@leitl.org>

On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 01:29:36PM -0800, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:

> ### But Eugen, all that you write is again arguing against authoritarians
> using or suppressing surveillance technology (and arguing against

I'm arguing that this lunacy is done because the governors have been able to
successfully sell this Massively Bad Idea to the governed:

	http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/45850

The people have been buying the party line, fish, hook and sinker.

> authoritarians is usually futile, since they will do what they want, not
> what you suggest), or against sheeple, but nothing really argues against the
> use of private surveillance technologies in reasonably democratic societies.

I'm telling you the status quo in reasonably democratic socities. 
I'm telling you that reality falsifies Brin, so far. There might be a
backlash due to coming social unrest (the economy in the EU deteriorates, US
is not far behind), but there's no evidence for it so far.
 
> (I wrote "again" because I remember you writing almost the same lines a year
> ago, or so.)

If anything, the situation has become worse since.

-- 
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/20040322/d4179a3a/attachment.bin>

From gpmap at runbox.com  Mon Mar 22 18:58:30 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:58:30 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Altered genes let roundworms wiggle longer
Message-ID: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGCELOCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From SFGate.com: If humans are like worms, we may be closer to living
considerably longer lives than most people realize. The worms in question
are transparent and about a millimeter long. A favorite of geneticists
because of their simple anatomy and small number of genes, they wriggle
around on a clear gel of worm-edible bacteria in the lab of Cynthia Kenyon,
a molecular geneticist at UCSF's new Mission Bay campus. Normally, these
roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans) live for about 20 days. But when
genetically tweaked by Kenyon and her team last year, they have lived an
average of 125 days, six times normal -- the equivalent of you or me living
to over 400 years old.
They weren't old and decrepit as they pushed outward in worm days, but
youthful, wiggling happily on their gel in videos Kenyon shows visitors to
her lab. In human terms, this would mean a person would remain youthful for
decades, growing old very slowly. It also suggests a radical new method for
treating maladies of aging such as Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease
and some cancers. The idea would be to manipulate a few genes to help fix
these ailments systemically by extending life span rather than by treating
one disease at a time. (For many of these diseases, aging is the No. 1 risk
factor.).
But why stop at 150? What about immortality? "I think this may be possible
someday," she says.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.634 / Virus Database: 406 - Release Date: 18/03/2004
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040322/1554fd6c/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 22 19:23:31 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:23:31 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: How many planets?
In-Reply-To: <r02010100-1033-C5F3DA187C2D11D88249000393A47D36@[192.168.123.121]>
Message-ID: <20040322192331.21291.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Brent Neal <brentn at freeshell.org> wrote:
>  (3/22/04 5:12) Robert J. Bradbury <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:
> 
> >Space Daily has an interesting article this morning on how
> >to settle the is it or isn't it a planet debate (I'll spoil
> >the article to some extent by providing a summary -- if it
> >has enough gravity to round itself but not enough to start
> >nuclear fusion its a planet).
> >
> 
> This is new take on the debate I read. I think he leaves out some
> interesting physical criteria that could be used in combination with
> others, but the "roundness" one that he mentions is one I'd not seen
> before. Of course, when it comes down to it, the final solution will
> be 'political' in some sense, since the IAU will pick the rules to
> create the outcome they find desirable. :)

Actually, roundness was the primary criteria I had stated here not so
long ago...

=====
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! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From brentn at freeshell.org  Mon Mar 22 20:09:07 2004
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:09:07 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: How many planets?
In-Reply-To: <20040322192331.21291.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <r02010100-1033-C6C3B8667C3C11D88249000393A47D36@[192.168.123.121]>

 (3/22/04 11:23) Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:

>> This is new take on the debate I read. I think he leaves out some
>> interesting physical criteria that could be used in combination with
>> others, but the "roundness" one that he mentions is one I'd not seen
>> before. Of course, when it comes down to it, the final solution will
>> be 'political' in some sense, since the IAU will pick the rules to
>> create the outcome they find desirable. :)
>
>Actually, roundness was the primary criteria I had stated here not so
>long ago...


Pardon. I meant in forums devoted to the topic. Everyone knows that the best ideas start here first. :)

B
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Mar 22 20:15:37 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:15:37 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Altered genes let roundworms wiggle longer
In-Reply-To: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGCELOCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>
References: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGCELOCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040322141242.01bbe3f8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>


> From 
> <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/03/22/BUG4E5OBTG1.DTL>SFGate.com: 
> If humans are like worms, we may be closer to living considerably longer 
> lives than most people realize.

This is so tiresome. Humans are *not* like worms. These worms have a 
programmed dauer phase which the genetic manipulations modify. We don't.

http://www.biotech.missouri.edu/Dauer-World/index.html

http://www.biotech.missouri.edu/Dauer-World/Aging/Agingmenu.html

Damien Broderick




From reason at longevitymeme.org  Mon Mar 22 20:32:50 2004
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:32:50 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Altered genes let roundworms wiggle longer
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040322141242.01bbe3f8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNIENPEGAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>



> ---> Damien Broderick
> > From
> >
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/03/22/BUG4E5OBTG1.DTL
> > If humans are like worms, we may be closer to living
> > considerably longer  lives than most people realize.
>
> This is so tiresome. Humans are *not* like worms. These worms have a
> programmed dauer phase which the genetic manipulations modify. We don't.
>
> http://www.biotech.missouri.edu/Dauer-World/index.html
>
> http://www.biotech.missouri.edu/Dauer-World/Aging/Agingmenu.html

It wasn't a bad article overall - much more positive than the average fair.
The author is fairly new to the small circle of journalists who write
sensibly about this topic. The more the merrier in my book and he should be
encouraged. Feel free to send him your constructive comments directly.

http://www.literati.net/Duncan/

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Mon Mar 22 22:31:17 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:31:17 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Altered genes let roundworms wiggle longer
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040322141242.01bbe3f8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403221348470.9543-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, Damien Broderick wrote:

> This is so tiresome. Humans are *not* like worms. These worms have a
> programmed dauer phase which the genetic manipulations modify. We don't.

Damien, I will voice objections on three counts.

1) Just because humans are not *currently* like worms, is no
assertion that they cannot be made like worms.   I for one can
think of a number of distinct advantages to having a human dauer
phase.  Two of which would be avoiding the current tiresome political
administration and simply allowing one to exist in a low
energy state as ones mutual fund wealth accumulated.  I am
sure the list could be extended.  (One can obviously draw
interesting comparisons between humans in a dauer phase and
humans which have been suspended using cryonics.)

2) I believe that a careful investigation of Cynthia's work may
indicate that that they have gone beyond the dauer phase slowing
of aging efforts.  [I am not absolutely certain about this -- but
would urge it to be investigated.]  If this is accurate they are
well into the *what is aging?* and *how do we slow it down?* phase.
[My off the cuff level reaction is that the dauer phase stuff got you 2x
but it took a lot more than that to get you 6x lifespan extension.]

3) It is reasonable to cite that extending the longevity of worms
is not the same as extending the longevity of humans.  *But*
it is completely different to assert that extending the longevity
of worms cannot be applied to the extending of the longevity of
humans.  I believe when this is all said and done we will find
that some of the ideas involved in extending the longevity of
short lived species will be useful for us (or other long lived
species) to consider.  And there will also be required new and
imaginative methods that involve therapies that are mainly useful
to long-lived species.

Bottom-line: do not count the worms out of the equation -- they may
still have something to offer -- however do not view them as a
complete solution.

You are dealing with a chessboard that Fisher *and* Kasparov
would stare at through crossed fingers...

R.




From eliasen at mindspring.com  Mon Mar 22 22:36:09 2004
From: eliasen at mindspring.com (Alan Eliasen)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:36:09 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: How many planets?
In-Reply-To: <20040322192331.21291.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040322192331.21291.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <405F6A59.4070008@mindspring.com>


Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Actually, roundness was the primary criteria I had stated here not so
> long ago...

   As I recall, that discussion dwindled off just as it started to get
interesting.  Nobody ever defined what "roundness" meant and how it was to be
defined.

   After all, Sedna is probably a lot "rounder" than Jupiter, which has an
equatorial radius of 71492 km, and a polar radius of 66854 km.  It's all squished.

   So what is the equation that quantifies "roundness," and what is the line
that differentiates planets from non-planets?

-- 
  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 mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Mon Mar 22 22:41:36 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 17:41:36 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Altered genes let roundworms wiggle longer
In-Reply-To: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGCELOCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>
Message-ID: <13A1AE1E-7C52-11D8-A7EE-000A27960BC6@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Monday, March 22, 2004, at 01:58 pm, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:

> From SFGate.com: If humans are like worms, we may be closer to living 
> considerably longer lives than most people realize.

I don't know why the author even bothered to start with sentence, when 
the logical premise is disproved immediately thereafter:

> The worms in question are transparent and about a millimeter long. A 
> favorite of geneticists because of their simple anatomy and small 
> number of genes,

These worms are favored by geneticists because they are NOT like 
complicated humans either in anatomy or genetics.

--
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: 1076 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040322/a7df666e/attachment.bin>

From extropy at unreasonable.com  Mon Mar 22 23:11:05 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:11:05 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Altered genes let roundworms wiggle longer
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403221348470.9543-100000@server.aeiveos.com
 >
References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040322141242.01bbe3f8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040322180348.036c9008@mail.comcast.net>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>1) Just because humans are not *currently* like worms, is no
>assertion that they cannot be made like worms.

I, for one, have known more than a few humans who were worm-like.

>I for one can
>think of a number of distinct advantages to having a human dauer
>phase.  Two of which would be avoiding the current tiresome political
>administration and simply allowing one to exist in a low
>energy state as ones mutual fund wealth accumulated.  I am
>sure the list could be extended.  (One can obviously draw
>interesting comparisons between humans in a dauer phase and
>humans which have been suspended using cryonics.)

Have any of you actually been to Alcor, behind the scenes? Is it possible 
that cryonics literature discussing humans in a dewar is simply a 
perpetuated Fred Chamberlain misspelling?

Enquiring minds want to know.


-- David Lubkin.




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Mon Mar 22 23:32:19 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:32:19 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: How many planets?
In-Reply-To: <20040322192331.21291.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <2997B2EA-7C59-11D8-A7EE-000A27960BC6@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Monday, March 22, 2004, at 02:23 pm, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
> --- Brent Neal <brentn at freeshell.org> wrote:
>>  (3/22/04 5:12) Robert J. Bradbury <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Space Daily has an interesting article this morning on how
>>> to settle the is it or isn't it a planet debate (I'll spoil
>>> the article to some extent by providing a summary -- if it
>>> has enough gravity to round itself but not enough to start
>>> nuclear fusion its a planet).
>>>
>>
>> This is new take on the debate I read. I think he leaves out some
>> interesting physical criteria that could be used in combination with
>> others, but the "roundness" one that he mentions is one I'd not seen
>> before. Of course, when it comes down to it, the final solution will
>> be 'political' in some sense, since the IAU will pick the rules to
>> create the outcome they find desirable. :)
>
> Actually, roundness was the primary criteria I had stated here not so
> long ago...

I think the orbit plays a bigger role, not only in defining planets and 
planetoids, but also moons which are not usually considered planets.

Here is my scheme:

1.  Planets are in unique orbits as the primary object for that orbit.

2.  Planetoids or asteroids are in belts with a lot of objects in 
similar or close orbits.

3.  Irregularly-shaped rocks that are too small to be rounded are just 
"rocks" or "debris".  I like to use the term "planetoid" for large 
rounded ones, and the term "asteroids" for the small irregular ones.

Therefore, we have eight planets.  Earth is an inner planet.  Jupiter 
is an outer planet.  Pluto is a Kuiper belt planetoid.  Ceres is an 
asteroid belt planetoid.  Sedna is an Oort Cloud planetoid.

I would even extend my bias to moons.  Earth has a moon.  Mars has two 
captured asteroids.  Jupiter has four moons and a bunch of captured 
asteroids.

--
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  Tue Mar 23 00:33:44 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:33:44 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: How many planets?
In-Reply-To: <2997B2EA-7C59-11D8-A7EE-000A27960BC6@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <20040323003344.38136.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:
> 
> On Monday, March 22, 2004, at 02:23 pm, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> >
> > --- Brent Neal <brentn at freeshell.org> wrote:
> >>  (3/22/04 5:12) Robert J. Bradbury <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Space Daily has an interesting article this morning on how
> >>> to settle the is it or isn't it a planet debate (I'll spoil
> >>> the article to some extent by providing a summary -- if it
> >>> has enough gravity to round itself but not enough to start
> >>> nuclear fusion its a planet).
> >>>
> >>
> >> This is new take on the debate I read. I think he leaves out some
> >> interesting physical criteria that could be used in combination
> with
> >> others, but the "roundness" one that he mentions is one I'd not
> seen
> >> before. Of course, when it comes down to it, the final solution
> will
> >> be 'political' in some sense, since the IAU will pick the rules to
> >> create the outcome they find desirable. :)
> >
> > Actually, roundness was the primary criteria I had stated here not
> so
> > long ago...
> 
> I think the orbit plays a bigger role, not only in defining planets
> and 
> planetoids, but also moons which are not usually considered planets.
> 
> Here is my scheme:
> 
> 1.  Planets are in unique orbits as the primary object for that
> orbit.
> 
> 2.  Planetoids or asteroids are in belts with a lot of objects in 
> similar or close orbits.

In my original post, the other criteria I had listed was that the
object was the gravitationally dominant object in its orbital region.

I don't think that point 2, though, is very accurate, though. There are
LOTS of asteroids of significant sizes in orbits resonant with Earth or
that cross Earth's orbit. This doesn't make Earth "not a planet".

I wouldn't say that Sedna and Pluto are in similar or close orbits,
either. Sedna is as far away from Pluto as Pluto is far away from Earth
(and there are a lot of planets between us and Pluto, obviously), and
Sedna is currently near its closest approach to the Sun, its orbit
lasts 10,500 years.

I would suggest holding off making any final decisions about objects in
the Kuiper Belt until we have identified a LOT more of them.

Another issue is orbitally resonant objects. Negating Pluto as a planet
because it is orbitally resonant with Neptune, a much larger object, I
can understand, just as many asteroids and comets are orbitally
resonant with Earth, but Pluto does not, in fact, orbit Neptune as a
moon. The fact that they share an orbit (and even Pluto has its own
moon) does not make Neptune "not a planet".

Sedna does not fall into this category though, and it is the most
significant object we've seen in that region to date. It does, in fact,
fit the bill as the most significant object in its own orbital region,
and it is round.

=====
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! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 23 00:14:34 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:14:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: How many planets?
In-Reply-To: <405F6A59.4070008@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <20040323001434.60950.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Alan Eliasen <eliasen at mindspring.com> wrote:
> 
> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > Actually, roundness was the primary criteria I had stated here not
> so
> > long ago...
> 
>    As I recall, that discussion dwindled off just as it started to
> get
> interesting.  Nobody ever defined what "roundness" meant and how it
> was to be
> defined.
> 
>    After all, Sedna is probably a lot "rounder" than Jupiter, which
> has an equatorial radius of 71492 km, and a polar radius of 66854 
> km.  It's all squished.

Atmospheric squishing from angular velocity or tidal influence is not
an issue here. It is assumed that any planet of any significant size is
going to be tidally influenced by other bodies in a similar way, as the
Earth is influenced by the Moon and vice versa.

Roundness is a matter of distinguishing the fact that some bodies have
enough gravity and resulting internal pressure and heat to cause their
material to have enough fluidity so as to become round, as opposed to
an oblong or an otherwise accreted misshapen pile of rubble.

> 
>    So what is the equation that quantifies "roundness," and what is
> the line that differentiates planets from non-planets?

Take its average internal temperature and pressure at different points
over the life and compare against the average elastic strength of the
material the body is made up of. If it is hot and high pressured enough
to cause some significant majority of the material to flow into a ball,
at some point in its evolution, then it is 'round'.

=====
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! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Tue Mar 23 02:21:40 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:21:40 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Altered genes let roundworms wiggle longer
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040322180348.036c9008@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403221754580.14228-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, David Lubkin wrote:

> Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>
> >1) Just because humans are not *currently* like worms, is no
> >assertion that they cannot be made like worms.
>
> I, for one, have known more than a few humans who were worm-like.

Yes, clearly David.  But I was attempting to deal with the
with the question that dauer like state might or might not
have a survival benefit to the species.  (With specificity
whether Damien's arguments could have significant merit.)
(For example one might have various arguments as to whether
being in a conscious state was or was not essential to the
evolution of humanity...)

Now, with regard to the questions posed.

> Have any of you actually been to Alcor, behind the scenes?

No.  Though I do know people who work "behind the scenes".


> Is it possible that cryonics literature discussing humans in
> a dewar is simply a perpetuated Fred Chamberlain misspelling?

David, I am not sure that I understand this statement.

So I will attempt to deal with it given the best available
technologies at this time.

The best available technologies indicate that one can freeze
oneself -- and that given future advances in technologies
that frozen structures may be reanimated.



From extropy at unreasonable.com  Tue Mar 23 03:09:27 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 22:09:27 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Christopher Reeve Foundation: Request
In-Reply-To: <20040322165657.43688.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <146040-220043122161750591@M2W035.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040322214357.027bad28@mail.comcast.net>

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>Death is also seen as a lottery, a crap shoot. You die "when your
>number is up". Games of chance are seen as fair so long as everyone
>freely chooses the level of risk they want, and win or lose accordingly
>to the roll of the dice. Immortality is playing with a loaded deck,
>with loaded dice. It is counting the cards with x-ray vision.

Apropos of this, as I think I posted on the original list -- cognitive 
dissonance is also an important factor.

I've often encountered absolute unwillingness to contemplate cryonics from 
people who had loved ones who died and were not frozen. If cryonics could 
work, it means they failed their loved ones. Therefore, cryonics cannot be 
legitimate.

Similarly, I have a friend whose child had leukemia. I told my friend about 
therapies that might help (like Cathcart's experiences with massive doses 
of Vitamin C). He was not interested, and a few months later the child 
died. How could he ever accept the validity of alterative therapies now? 
The price would be acknowledging that he contributed to his son's death.


-- David Lubkin.




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Tue Mar 23 03:28:23 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 22:28:23 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: How many planets?
In-Reply-To: <20040323003344.38136.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <23ACD050-7C7A-11D8-94EB-000A27960BC6@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Monday, March 22, 2004, at 07:33 pm, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> I don't think that point 2, though, is very accurate, though. There are
> LOTS of asteroids of significant sizes in orbits resonant with Earth or
> that cross Earth's orbit. This doesn't make Earth "not a planet".

Good point.  I tried to describe an asteroid "belt", but it is fuzzy 
how many it takes to make a belt.  You are absolutely right that there 
are many asteroids outside the asteroid belt.

> I wouldn't say that Sedna and Pluto are in similar or close orbits,
> either. Sedna is as far away from Pluto as Pluto is far away from Earth
> (and there are a lot of planets between us and Pluto, obviously), and
> Sedna is currently near its closest approach to the Sun, its orbit
> lasts 10,500 years.

I was lumping Pluto in with the Plutions, and Sedna with the Oort 
Cloud.  Both are thought to contain a lot of objects in their zones.

> I would suggest holding off making any final decisions about objects in
> the Kuiper Belt until we have identified a LOT more of them.

I think it is just a matter of time.

> Another issue is orbitally resonant objects. Negating Pluto as a planet
> because it is orbitally resonant with Neptune, a much larger object, I
> can understand, just as many asteroids and comets are orbitally
> resonant with Earth, but Pluto does not, in fact, orbit Neptune as a
> moon. The fact that they share an orbit (and even Pluto has its own
> moon) does not make Neptune "not a planet".

Yes, my definitions of orbital uniqueness does get fuzzy.  Your way of 
choosing the largest object makes sense.  But this makes Titan not a 
planet, while Mercury is a planet.  (I always thought the moon 
designation was sloppy anyway.  I think moons should be classified the 
same as planets, et. al.)

> Sedna does not fall into this category though, and it is the most
> significant object we've seen in that region to date. It does, in fact,
> fit the bill as the most significant object in its own orbital region,
> and it is round.

I am predicting thousands of Sedna-sized objects out there.  But I have 
no proof.  Yet....

--
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  Tue Mar 23 03:40:18 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:40:18 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] fun
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040322015330.01b7a440@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <004601c41088$902f9290$6401a8c0@SHELLY>



> Spike you seem to be having so much fun with your life...

I am!  I consider myself the male counterpart of 
Paris Hilton.

Without the popularity, the youthful good looks,
the parties, or the money of course, but other 
than that.

spike








From eliasen at mindspring.com  Tue Mar 23 04:51:25 2004
From: eliasen at mindspring.com (Alan Eliasen)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:51:25 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: How many planets?
In-Reply-To: <20040323001434.60950.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040323001434.60950.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <405FC24D.9090602@mindspring.com>


   I like the idea of a roundness criterion, but it's always the vaguest one
when planets are brought up.

   If we're going to use a "roundness" definition, it has to be quantifiable,
otherwise it will be a completely subjective measure as to whether it's "round
enough" or not, and every single person will have a different answer.  It
becomes vaguer than a minimum radius question, or almost any other criterion
used.  So let's try to come up with one.  There are lots of subtleties to this.

   I have some questions below if you or others want to nail down a "round
enough" criterion.  Or, if someone has an equation as I originally requested,
you can ignore the questions and we'll discuss the equation.

> --- Alan Eliasen <eliasen at mindspring.com> wrote:
>>   As I recall, that discussion dwindled off just as it started to
>>get
>>interesting.  Nobody ever defined what "roundness" meant and how it
>>was to be
>>defined.
>>
>>   After all, Sedna is probably a lot "rounder" than Jupiter, which
>>has an equatorial radius of 71492 km, and a polar radius of 66854 
>>km.  It's all squished.

Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Atmospheric squishing from angular velocity or tidal influence is not
> an issue here.

   What about surface *liquid* deformation?  So when is it an issue and when
is it not an issue?  How do we determine that a body is non-spherical due to
angular velocity vs. due to tidal influence vs. due to not having enough mass?
 We have to be able to calculate the expected shape of the body under
gravitational and accelerational forces to calculate the deviation of its
actual "roundness" from this theoretical ideal condition.  What if the body
doesn't even have a well-defined surface (like the gas giants?)

   Put another way, if something is the exact same shape as Jupiter, is it a
planet too?  What if it has 1/10000 the mass?  What if it does or doesn't
rotate?   What if it's made of iron?  Largely liquid?  Why *doesn't* rotation
influence this decision?

> It is assumed that any planet of any significant size is
> going to be tidally influenced by other bodies in a similar way, as the
> Earth is influenced by the Moon and vice versa.

   If tidal influence isn't an issue, I guess I don't understand the point of
this paragraph.  Bodies like Sedna, if it has no moon, probably experience
near-undetectable tidal forces, especially because, as you probably know,
tidal force is inversely proportional to the *cube* of distance, not the
square.  We *do* need to know if there are any significant tidal effects,
though, to see if the object is actually relativistically round.

> Roundness is a matter of distinguishing the fact that some bodies have
> enough gravity and resulting internal pressure and heat to cause their
> material to have enough fluidity so as to become round, as opposed to
> an oblong or an otherwise accreted misshapen pile of rubble.

   So is any sphere of liquid automatically a planet?  It forms into a sphere
because it has enough internal pressure and heat to do so.  Even a glob of
water orbiting in, say, the space shuttle, tries to (and rapidly does) achieve
a spherical shape.  Is that a planet?  What if it's bigger?  What if it forms
a shell of ice adequate to keep its contents in place?  As a corollary, does
buffeting from micro- and macro-meteors affect its planet status?

>>   So what is the equation that quantifies "roundness," and what is
>>the line that differentiates planets from non-planets?
>  
> Take its average internal temperature and pressure at different points
> over the life and compare against the average elastic strength of the
> material the body is made up of. If it is hot and high pressured enough
> to cause some significant majority of the material to flow into a ball,
> at some point in its evolution, then it is 'round'.

   I guess I really don't understand this.  If you can rephrase as an
equation, that would be unambiguous.

   When you say "different points over the life" do we need to know the
history of the object for a million years to make the determination?  One
year?  A billion?  What does the history of an object have to do with its
current roundness?  What if it melted into a round shape due to being heated
by collisions or heating from a star or internal radioactivity?  Does it
really not count as being a planet?  What is the typical amount of heating a
body receives by loss of gravitational potential energy, as opposed to, say,
kinetic energy from collisions or heating from the sun or internal radioactivity?

   When you say to compare temperature, pressure, and "elastic strength," how
do we do compare those things which have different dimensions?  Would any body
in the solar system hold together if its gravity went to zero?  How small
would the average piece size get over time?  Is the average piece size
increasing or decreasing right now, and has this trend always been this direction?

   Again, a sphere of any liquid with some cohesion would almost always
qualify as being a planet.  How do you differentiate between the effect of
gravity and the electromagnetic force?

   Can you quantify "some significant majority?"  If so, how do you choose
(and calculate) that number?  Does the shape of the non-round minority affect
your metric?  Like if it was a lollipop shape with an almost-perfect sphere
but carrying a big stick?

   When you say, "at some point in its evolution," if it's temporarily round,
but then diverges from that, (say, by a large impact,) is it still round?  If
it achieves roundness by some other type of heating or forming, does that make
it *not* a planet?  Do we give points for age?  Is a younger body allowed to
be rougher?  Or expected to be hotter and smoother?  Is an older body
penalized for being old and frozen and not able to re-form into sphericality
as well from a severe impact?  Or do we penalize it for the opposite--for the
hills not eroding enough to the level of the valleys?

   Roundness is an extremely fuzzy concept.  Without being able to quantify it
by some (perhaps arbitrarily-chosen) metric, this is every bit as non-rigorous
as just saying "it's a planet if I say it is."

   I have my own quantifiable metrics in mind, which I've hinted at above, but
I know what *I* think.  Maybe someone else will come up with a quantifiable,
rigorous definition that we can argue.  And then try to come up with some
vaguely-reasonable but probably still utterly arbitrary line to distinguish
"round enough" bodies from "not round enough" ones.

   That's the problem.  This line *will* probably always be as arbitrary as
any one of the other metrics used to distinguish planet/non-planet.

   I apologize if this discussion isn't on-topic for this list.  If so, let me
know and I'll withdraw it, but it is an interesting physics problem.

-- 
  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  Tue Mar 23 05:12:05 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:12:05 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Altered genes let roundworms wiggle longer
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403221754580.14228-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <000901c41095$621c2640$412b2dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

> The best available technologies indicate that one can freeze
> oneself -- and that given future advances in technologies
> that frozen structures may be reanimated.

Maybe this isn't the best spot to bring this up, but I don't
think this is right.

There IS evidence that things like frogs can survive freezing
and that spores can be taken down towards absolute zero
and then resume life functioning simply by allowing them to
return to more normal temperatures, but there is no *evidence*,
technological or otherwise (that I am aware of) that shows that
an organ as complicated as a human brain can be frozen and
then returned to normal temperature and reanimated.

There is *hope* and *belief* that human brains can be reannimated
- cryonicists hope and  believe, as do 'resurrectionists' but there is
not yet technological evidence for either proposition (that I'm aware
of).

At this stage we can't even freeze organs like hearts and reanimate
them and these are organs in which no sense of self resides. So
there's currently technological limits.

Even IF we had mature nanotechnology and could rebuild a
new brain exactly as the old brain was, (ie. an atomic level copy)
there would still be real doubt in my opinion as to whether this
amounted in practice to reanimating the self from the standpoint
of the self.

Let me be clear, I come to consider this question without any belief
in souls or supernatural whatsoever.  I think I *am* my living changing
growing brain so I'm looking at this question from a very materialistic
standpoint.

So far as I can see there is absolutely no evidence anywhere that
*I* can survive the dismantling of my brain.

Seems to me the idea that the self as experienced in the first person
can be reduced to patterns and information that could then be replicated
as information and patterns can is pure speculation. Pure faith.

If there is any *evidence* to the contrary I'd like to see or hear it.

Seems to me that cryonics requires a sort of intensely reverse solipsicm
where one does not accept that one has a self - a conscious subjective
at all. One has lost the first person and sees oneself only as others can
see one - separately and from a distance. Ironically a person who thinks
they are no more than information and pattern would think that going
into a teleporter and think it coming out as the patterns would be the
same in both cases but what is lost is one self and what is replaced
is another self.

What constitutes one's self may not be fully explicable currently in
scientific terms but so what - from the standpoint of being one's self -
that there is a self of some form IS the bedrock experiential certainty,
even if the exact nature of what one is is unclear.

One reasons and practices the scientific method well or badly as a self.
One relates to others from the self. Perhaps the self is a high level
construct
of simpler phenomenon from the standpoint of outsiders looking in
(even scientifically) but not from the first person position of the self.

Regards,
Brett Paatsch




From gpmap at runbox.com  Tue Mar 23 05:26:53 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 06:26:53 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Interview With The Ambassador
Message-ID: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGKELOCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From The Speculist, a nice piece of fiction: Transcript of MOSH Radio 102.9
interview with Ambassador Bell. NEW YORK Ron Jones: It is our privilege to
have with us today the honorable Justin Bell. Dr. Bell is the augmented
community's official ambassador to natural humans. Ambassador Bell, it is a
pleasure to have you with us today. Ambassador Bell: It is an honor to be
here. Ron Jones: Augmented beings have been a reality for fifteen years.
During that time demographics have shifted dramatically... Ambassador Bell:
These 15 years have seen the most important changes in recorded history. I
think most of us will agree that some of these changes have caused problems
and pain. I have lost contact with a brother who has chosen to remain a
natural human. I love him and hope that some day we'll be friends again.
Would you like my impression of the days leading up to the singularity?....
I have always been what marketers would call an "early adopter." Whether it
was computers, cell phones, the Internet, life extension, or augmentation I
was always one of the first in line. This was called the "bleeding edge."
And with early adopters of augmentation, it was a literal description. But
each of these steps along the way prepared me individually and society as a
whole for the Singularity...

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.634 / Virus Database: 406 - Release Date: 18/03/2004
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040323/ba6d313e/attachment.html>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 23 06:06:21 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 22:06:21 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] fun
In-Reply-To: <004601c41088$902f9290$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <20040323060621.66256.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> > Spike you seem to be having so much fun with your life...
> 
> I am!  I consider myself the male counterpart of 
> Paris Hilton.
> 
> Without the popularity, the youthful good looks,
> the parties, or the money of course, but other 
> than that.

Well, I don't want to hear about any sex tapes floating around the net...

=====
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! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 23 06:13:50 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 22:13:50 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] fun
In-Reply-To: <20040323060621.66256.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040323061350.74790.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> --- Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > Spike you seem to be having so much fun with your life...
> > 
> > I am!  I consider myself the male counterpart of 
> > Pxxxx Hxxxxx.
> > 
> > Without the popularity, the youthful good looks,
> > the parties, or the money of course, but other 
> > than that.
> 
> Well, I don't want to hear about any pr0n tapes floating around the
> net...

Apparently this post originally had three wrong words in it that made
it be recognised as 'spam' (regarding a certain femail's name and a
form of entertainment media). The irony of it all...

=====
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! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From bjk at imminst.org  Tue Mar 23 10:35:45 2004
From: bjk at imminst.org (Bruce J. Klein)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 04:35:45 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Join The Three Hundred
In-Reply-To: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNAEHCEGAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
References: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNAEHCEGAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>
Message-ID: <40601301.7090900@imminst.org>

Perhaps you can spare six minutes to support cryonics in a new way, 
called "Facing" Cryonics.

The goal of "Facing" Cryonics is to show support for cryonics in order 
to send a message to AZ Senators that people care about cryonics before 
legislation passes that may harm Alcor (don't worry, it's free).

Show Your Face!
http://www.imminst.org/facing_cryonics


From amara at amara.com  Tue Mar 23 15:34:43 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:34:43 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Homeland Security Job in Hollywood
Message-ID: <p05100300bc8608b3d6cb@[150.146.134.133]>

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Office of Public Affairs
Entertainment Liaison Office

JOB ANNOUNCEMENT #DHSHQYR04-150

Director, Office of Public Affairs, Entertainment Liaison
GS-301-14/15

http://jobsearch.usajobs.opm.gov/getjob.asp?JobID=21344491&AVSDM=2004%2D03%2D17+16%3A59%3A39&Logo=0&col=dltc&cy=&brd=3876&lid=&fn=&q=liason+to+entertainment+industry

(stranger than fiction... did I wake up on the right planet?)


-- 

********************************************************************
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 try to make everyone's day a little more surreal." --Calvin


From sjvans at ameritech.net  Tue Mar 23 18:19:16 2004
From: sjvans at ameritech.net (Stephen J. Van Sickle)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:19:16 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Homeland Security Job in Hollywood
In-Reply-To: <p05100300bc8608b3d6cb@[150.146.134.133]>
References: <p05100300bc8608b3d6cb@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <1080065955.1051.77.camel@Renfield>

On Tue, 2004-03-23 at 09:34, Amara Graps wrote:

> http://jobsearch.usajobs.opm.gov/getjob.asp?JobID=21344491&AVSDM=2004%2D03%2D17+16%3A59%3A39&Logo=0&col=dltc&cy=&brd=3876&lid=&fn=&q=liason+to+entertainment+industry
> 
> (stranger than fiction... did I wake up on the right planet?)

Sure you did.  Nothing new about *this*.  DOD and FBI has been doing it
for decades.  What did you think it meant when those old war pictures
ended with "With the cooperation of the War Department"?



From amara at amara.com  Tue Mar 23 18:28:13 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:28:13 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] A Homeland Security Job in Hollywood
Message-ID: <p05100302bc8631bd6ef1@[150.146.134.133]>

Stephen J. Van Sickle:
>Nothing new about *this*.  DOD and FBI has been doing it
>for decades.  What did you think it meant when those old war pictures
>ended with "With the cooperation of the War Department"?


OK, true. This _does_ gives my favorite expression
"the Homeland Security Theater" an added dimension.

Amara


From asa at nada.kth.se  Wed Mar 24 00:00:10 2004
From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 01:00:10 +0100 (MET)
Subject: [extropy-chat] HUMOR [Fwd:  Israeli Cloning Law]
Message-ID: <4243.213.112.90.25.1080086410.squirrel@webmail.nada.kth.se>

J. Hughes quoted on >HTech from
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
&cid=1079929450118&p=1006953080053

>A permanent ban was imposed on the cloning of human beings under an
>amendment approved in by the Knesset on Monday that is to replace a 1998
>law that prohibited such genetic activities for a five-year period. The
>legislation was approved in a unanimous vote.
>
>Science and Technology Minister Eliezer Sandberg opposed the permanent
ban, >saying that the Knesset should have renewed the law for another
limited >period during which time it could be reviewed.

It is nice to see that a certain mutual clone is at least doing what he
should.


-- 
Anders Sandberg
http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa
http://www.aleph.se/andart/

The sum of human knowledge sounds nice. But I want more.



From dgc at cox.net  Wed Mar 24 00:46:03 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:46:03 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] HUMOR [Fwd:  Israeli Cloning Law]
In-Reply-To: <4243.213.112.90.25.1080086410.squirrel@webmail.nada.kth.se>
References: <4243.213.112.90.25.1080086410.squirrel@webmail.nada.kth.se>
Message-ID: <4060DA4B.8060409@cox.net>

Anders Sandberg wrote:

>J. Hughes quoted on >HTech from
>http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
>&cid=1079929450118&p=1006953080053
>
>  
>
>>A permanent ban was imposed on the cloning of human beings under an
>>amendment approved in by the Knesset on Monday that is to replace a 1998
>>law that prohibited such genetic activities for a five-year period. The
>>legislation was approved in a unanimous vote.
>>
>>Science and Technology Minister Eliezer Sandberg opposed the permanent
>>    
>>
>ban, >saying that the Knesset should have renewed the law for another
>limited >period during which time it could be reviewed.
>
>It is nice to see that a certain mutual clone is at least doing what he
>should.
>
>
>  
>
Do they intend to throw mothers of identical twins into jail, or is there an
exemption for this particular form of cloning?



From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Wed Mar 24 02:04:57 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:04:57 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Letter to NASA
Message-ID: <4060ECC9.26A0909C@mindspring.com>

Letter to NASA about Your Human Space Flight Programs from an Old Former
Astronaut Taxpayer  (Don Peterson, former astronaut)

I'm an old guy, over seventy, and over the past four decades I have
watched the things you NASA folks have been able to do with admiration and
a touch of awe.  I think NASA is a good outfit with lots of really fine,
bright, hard-working people.

But I have to admit, I need some help trying to understand exactly what
NASA is trying to do.

More than four decades ago you undertook a series of human space flight
programs - Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo - and you met the challenge posed
by President John F. Kennedy to send a man to the moon and bring him back
safe and sound.  That was an exciting and ambitious goal.  You justified
the cost by telling everyone that having a human go to the moon and return
would provide great benefits to the nation, and I think there were:
national pride and prestige, some new technology and scientific
discoveries, a winning edge in the cold war in space, and, maybe most
important, the development of a skilled, dedicated government and
contractor team who could use the Saturn rocket and the other Apollo
hardware to do amazing things in space.

And then for some reason you must have felt it had no long-term value,
because you canceled two or three flights and shut the moon program down.

Then you said you were going to use some of the hardware and knowledge
gained in the Apollo program to build and fly a couple of laboratories in
space.  You said this program, called SKYLAB, would produce many unique
and valuable discoveries that would benefit all of us here on earth, and
it did produce some interesting findings about the sun and about pollution
here on earth, and other things.  You also said you learned a lot about
the effects of long-term space flight on human beings, and that would be
important for more extended human flights.

But you must have felt that extending SKYLAB operations lacked long-term
value, because you canceled the second laboratory and two or three crew
flights and shut the program down.

It seems even stranger that you cast aside all the vehicles and equipment,
which you had said were such amazing advances in technology.  Just
recently I heard someone from NASA say that even the blueprints for Apollo
hardware had been lost.

That led to nearly a decade without U. S. human space activities while you
developed the Space Shuttle.  You said it would be a "space airliner,"
that would make access to space cheap, safe, and routine for people and
cargo.  And a decade or so later you followed that up with the Space
Station program; a joint effort with 15 partner nations.  You claimed that
its unique capabilities as a long-term, sophisticated, research facility
in the zero gravity environment of space would yield new, valuable
findings in medical knowledge, materials science, and other scientific and
technological areas.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that's not working out.
The Shuttle, like most NASA vehicles, does some amazing things, but at
more than $400 million per flight with two losses in the first 113 flights
it is neither cheap nor reliable enough to support long-term, routine,
space operations.  And, contrary to publicly released findings, it's
becoming clear that the Challenger and Columbia accidents were not caused
by careless preflight processing or poor real time decisions in Mission
Control, but rather by intrinsic, serious design flaws built in from the
beginning, that made the Shuttle vulnerable and are proving extremely hard
to fix.

It's disappointing that people like Ron Dittemore, Linda Hamm, and the
NASA and contractor personnel who processed the vehicle preflight and
worked in Mission Control took all the blame for the Columbia loss; and
that the NASA people who were responsible for the design - Kraft, Abbey,
Faget, Cohen, Thompson, and astronauts like me - have not stood up and
been accountable.  (By the way, I did write a letter to the Congressional
committee that was investigating the Columbia accident and stated that I
am among the people who are responsible, because I was an active NASA
astronaut all during the design, development, and test phases of the
Shuttle Program.)

Meanwhile, the Station is drifting along in a state of hibernation with
its parts wearing out, insufficient resupply and repair capability, no way
to bring up large new experiments or take completed experiments back to
earth, and greatly reduced science operations, because it cannot be fully
supported without the Shuttle, which will have been grounded for more than
two years if it flies as now scheduled in the spring of 2005.  Of course
we could improve the station situation by buying some more Soyuz and
Progress vehicles, but apparently either you NASA folks or the
Administration or both would rather have the Station remain useless and
wear out than put the Russians back in the "critical path."

And now the President has announced a desire to send humans to Mars, and
you seem eager to respond.

That's a very exciting prospect but I have several misgivings:

To begin with, it seems that you are eager to abandon all the current
human programs that you once said were of great value to the nation and
focus your entire attention on the President's proposal.  Various NASA
"spokespersons" have said you will limit the Shuttle to fly only the 32 or
so flights needed to finish assembly of the Space Station with no other
missions, and will then shut the program down without a replacement
vehicle of equal capability.  And they have also indicated that you will
stop participating in Station research as soon as you have completed your
zero gravity life science studies.  In fact it is already clear that the
Station cannot continue full scale operations without the Shuttle or an
equivalent vehicle.

To me it seems absolutely illogical that, after investing more than fifty
billion dollars to create the Shuttle, develop its capabilities, and learn
to operate it; you would shut it down without an equivalent replacement
vehicle.  And it seems totally unreasonable, that after investing more
than forty billion dollars to build, test, launch, and assemble the
station, you would plan to stop participating in onboard research
activities at the point in time when it first becomes fully operational.

Without these capabilities the nation will no longer be able to do any of
the things that you have said made the human space program valuable during
the past two decades such as: carrying satellites to orbit and checking
them out on board prior to deploying them, or supporting Extra Vehicular
Activity to assemble things in space, or capturing free flying
malfunctioning satellites and taking them on board for repair or return to
earth, or supporting the kind of scientific missions that require the
Space Station or a laboratory like the Shuttle-borne SpaceHab.  Indeed the
first casualty of your cutbacks is the failure to fly the life extension
mission of the Hubble Telescope; one of the most scientifically productive
satellites NASA has ever deployed, and one of the few that produced visual
products that even non-scientists could appreciate.

I also wonder what the station partner nations will do if, despite
international agreements with those nations, you withdraw your support for
continuing long-term research on the Space Station.  Will they develop
their own vehicles to launch and return large, heavy cargo items and use
Russian, or possibly Chinese, crew carrier vehicles to capitalize on the
research potential of the Space Station?  Will they be willing to carry
American astronauts to and from the station and share the research
facilities with us after we stop providing the Shuttle to launch and
return crew and cargo?  If we do not participate in station research, and
other nations reap the rewards of our space station investments, will we
regret our decision to abandon our efforts?


You seem to be saying that the things the Shuttle and Space Station could
do, other than life science, are no longer of any value; and you will walk
away as soon as you have met your station assembly obligations and
completed your research to advance knowledge of space effects on people so
you can fly longer human missions.  That's self-serving and it's
disappointing, because you promised so much more.

Also it is painfully clear that you have not created an operational
infrastructure or the logistics capability to enable you to undertake a
Human-To-Mars program.  At present, we aren't even able to support a half
dozen humans on a space station in low earth orbit.  It appears that after
more than four decades of effort, you are left with three launch vehicles
that you say are unsatisfactory, a station that you seem all too eager to
abandon, and a proposed Orbital Space Plane that doesn't seem to have any
of the capabilities to meet most of your requirements.

I am getting the feeling that NASA is like a high strung, poorly
conditioned, racehorse; strong out of the gate but not a good finisher.
You seem to be very interested in starting out the gate to create new,
exciting programs and build impressive high performance vehicles, but
lacking in stamina and often stopping before you reach a satisfactory
finish line.  Your philosophy seems to be "...let's build something
exciting and figure out what to do with it later..."  There is no
continuity in your programs; they have all been "giant leaps" followed by
cancellations.  And don't try to sell me on "spin-offs"; that's like
keeping a high priced racehorse to get fertilizer.

By contrast, other nations seem to be following more reasonable plans for
continuing space activities.  The Russians use their vehicles and systems
over and over for years; making improvements when they can.  They now have
operational crew carrier vehicles, reliable boosters, and upper stages and
resupply vehicles that can rendezvous and dock automatically to deliver
cargo.  Furthermore, it seems their approach is cheaper and results in
vehicles that are very effective and more rugged and reliable than yours.
The Europeans are developing a "Space Tug," that will allow the movement
of modules from orbit to orbit as desired.  These tugs could be used to
deploy "free flyers" from the station and later recover them.  And the
Chinese are developing their own launch capabilities, using vehicles
derived from Russian equipment, but featuring many improvements.  That
appears to me to be the beginning of an international functional human
space flight infrastructure, and could well lead to more economic,
productive space operations.

So, I have some questions.

Please explain to me why you think we no longer need the capabilities of
the Shuttle, or an equivalent vehicle, to support human activities in low
earth orbit.

Tell me why you have changed your mind about the value of long term
research on the Space Station.


Explain to me why the Space Station wouldn't serve as an excellent
facility to test the systems and equipment that will be needed for the
long journey to Mars and also provide an ideal place to assemble the Mars
vehicles?

Why isn't it to our advantage scientifically and economically to
participate in the burgeoning international human space flight effort?
(Some U.S. companies are using Russian-made boosters because of their low
cost, good performance, and high reliability.)

Finally, if you feel all the things that humans have done in the past on
the moon and in low earth orbit are not worth continuing, why do you
believe that humans on Mars will accomplish things that are worth the
cost?

I think you need to demonstrate long-term responsibility and
accountability for how you spend our tax money.  Tell us taxpayers what
human space activities you have decided to stop supporting and why.  Then
spell out in detail what you want to accomplish in the next two or three
decades and why that will have lasting importance.  And tell us how you
plan to go about it.  Define the essential infrastructure and logistics
plans and then follow a step-by-step building block approach that will
enable you to reach your goals without the wasteful, disruptive starts and
stops which are the unintended hallmark of your earlier programs.  Most of
us aren't rocket scientists, but we can understand a clear plan explained
in plain language.

I'm not against sending humans to Mars, but I'd be a lot more comfortable
about giving you 50 or 60 billion dollars of taxpayer money if you would
answer my questions and explain exactly what you plan to do and how you
plan to do it before you bolt out of the gate.

Respectfully,

Don Peterson


-- 
"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 avatar at renegadeclothing.com.au  Wed Mar 24 21:45:55 2004
From: avatar at renegadeclothing.com.au (Avatar Polymorph)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 13:45:55 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] EU judgement goes agaisnt Microsoft
Message-ID: <018e01c411e9$64bbd4e0$4dee17cb@renegade>

Microsoft: half billion euro fine and must offer non media player windows. EU judgement.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040324/8cb4c287/attachment.html>

From avatar at renegadeclothing.com.au  Wed Mar 24 21:57:54 2004
From: avatar at renegadeclothing.com.au (Avatar Polymorph)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 13:57:54 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] mech arm controlled via neurons
Message-ID: <000c01c411eb$11891600$4dee17cb@renegade>



Thought-controlled robotic arm may work in people, say scientists

24.03.2004
10.20am
WASHINGTON - Scientists who trained a monkey to move a mechanical arm using
thought alone say that experiments in Parkinson's disease patients show the
technique may work in humans too.

Electrodes implanted in the brains of Parkinson's disease patients
transmitted signals that might someday be used to operate remote devices,
the team at Duke University Medical Centre reported.

In 2000, Dr. Miguel Nicolelis, the neurobiologist who led the studies, made
headlines when he trained a monkey to move a robotic arm using thoughts and
electrodes implanted in her brain.

Last October, he refined the experiment, training a monkey to move the arm
without even bothering to move her own arm. It showed she consciously knew
she was controlling the device with her thoughts.

The hope is to create artificial arms and other prosthetic devices to help
severely disabled people.

The researchers are also getting funding from the Defence Advanced Research
Projects Agency, presumably with secret military applications in mind.

But experimenting on people is tricky.

Nicolelis said he and colleagues took advantage of brain surgery being done
on patients with Parkinson's disease.

These operations involve the use of deep brain stimulators that work to help
counteract the severe tremors of Parkinson's, an incurable disease marked by
the destruction of certain brain cells.

In order to find the best place to put the stimulators, surgeons at first
temporarily implanted arrays of 32 microelectrodes. The patients are awake
during surgery so they can guide the surgeon.

Nicolelis and colleagues were given five minutes to add their own
experiments to the procedure on each of 11 patients.

IDENTIFYING THE RIGHT NEURONS

They gave the patients a video game to play while the electrodes sent their
signals from within the brain. A computer had five minutes to analyse the
signals and correlate them with the hand movements used during the video
games.

"We were surprised to find that our analytical model can predict the
patients' motions quite well," said Nicolelis. "We only had five minutes of
data on each patient, during which it took a minute or two to train them to
the task."

The key is to find the individual neurons that are activated when someone
consciously thinks about a movement and then makes the movement. Studies
have shown that these brain cells remain active even in amputees.

Electrodes and the right computer program can translate the faint signals
made by each neuron into something that can be used to operate and direct a
machine such as a robotic arm.

While the monkeys had wires implanted in their skulls that were connected to
a device that controlled an external robotic arm, Nicolelis said his team
had recently designed a wireless model of electrode that worked in monkeys.

"Something like this would be implanted. It would remain in place and
continuously send activity from the brain areas," Nicolelis said in a
telephone interview.
His team will report its findings in the July issue of the journal
Neurosurgery.

Dr. David Turner, who also worked on the study, said the most obvious
application of such technology would be a robotic arm for a quadriplegic.
Another possibility his team is working on is a thought-controlled electric
wheelchair, or a keyboard that could be used by patients paralyzed by injury
or disease.

Nicolelis said his team was seeking Food and Drug Administration permission
to do more experiments on human volunteers. "As soon as we have permission
to proceed, we are building a whole apparatus," he said.

- REUTERS




From extropy at unreasonable.com  Wed Mar 24 04:07:18 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:07:18 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] HUMOR [Fwd:  Israeli Cloning Law]
In-Reply-To: <4060DA4B.8060409@cox.net>
References: <4243.213.112.90.25.1080086410.squirrel@webmail.nada.kth.se>
	<4243.213.112.90.25.1080086410.squirrel@webmail.nada.kth.se>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040323223616.01da4a30@mail.comcast.net>

Dan Clemmensen wrote:

>Do they intend to throw mothers of identical twins into jail, or is there an
>exemption for this particular form of cloning?

There is also the relatively common phenomenon of the "disappearing twin," 
where one twin's cells are absorbed by the other and only one child is 
born. All Israeli mothers should be arrested on suspicion of cloning. All 
Israeli fathers should be arrested as co-conspirators. Proof of 
contraception will be accepted as a mitigating factor.

All Israeli identical twins whose age is under the statute of limitations, 
less 9 months, should be arrested for aiding and abetting cloning, after 
the fact. All Israelis, regardless of age, who were not born coincident 
with an identical twin should be arrested and charged with murder, or at 
least manslaughter.


-- David Lubkin.




From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 24 01:48:50 2004
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 17:48:50 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] HUMOR [Fwd:  Israeli Cloning Law]
In-Reply-To: <4243.213.112.90.25.1080086410.squirrel@webmail.nada.kth.se>
Message-ID: <20040324014850.56575.qmail@web60004.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Anders Sandberg <asa at nada.kth.se> wrote:

> It is nice to see that a certain mutual clone...

Shouldn't that be "chimera"?

Best, Jeff Davis

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


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From reason at longevitymeme.org  Wed Mar 24 04:52:46 2004
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 20:52:46 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] how much to save for a future containin anti-aging
	medicine?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403221754580.14228-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNCEPBEGAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>

This is an interesting one to discuss (more links and whatnot in the
original):

http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000057.php

-----

As medicine improves - and improves faster thanks to the efforts of
researchers, educators, businesspeople, advocates and other pro-research
folks - we will have access to ever more options for living longer, healthy
lives. Those options are unlikely to be free, however, especially in the
early years of availability. The cost of any given medical treatment drops
as marketplace competition sets in and the technology is improved, but most
medical expenses require planning.

That said, what sort of medical expenses should you plan on for a future
that involves real anti-aging medicine? If I knew the answer, I'd go into
business as a fortune teller (and make a killing on the stock market). I
think, however, that there are some useful guesstimates that we can make
based upon possible events down the road, the plausible future of
regenerative medicine, and the way in which medical pricing has behaved in
the past.

The current cost of a major medical procedure that does not require
extensive, long-term hospitalization is around $100,000 to $200,000. This
may sound like a lot of money, but remember that it's quite possible to find
yourself a millionaire late in life - even on a modest income - if you make
good choices about saving for retirement. "The power of compound interest"
is a phrase often used in those pro-401K leaflets.

You should not expect insurance or governments to pay for real anti-aging
treatments when they become available. They might do it, or they might not.
There are several proposed future scenarios under which the medical
insurance industry and government programs are bankrupted or forced into
reform by extended healthy life spans. "Forced into reform" is a polite
euphemism for "we are not paying for your treatment." The power of compound
interest allows you to accumulate a great deal of money before you will need
to spend it on retirement and future medical technologies - so make best use
of your time and save wisely.

The trend today is towards more regulation and price controls on medicine
(which translates to scarcities, less investment in research, expensive
products, and poor quality of service). If this trend continues, it means
that we can expect more and more countries to look like Canada or France, in
which low-grade medicine is free, but complex, new medical technologies are
unavailable to the public. Once again, this indicates that you should save
enough money to pay for expected medical expenses ... plus transport costs
to a place with a more sensible government.

The first wave of healthy life extension technologies will most likely be
based on regenerative medicine and damage repair rather than damage
prevention. Starting from this point, we can guess that the worst case
scenario is that you will have to pay for replacement or major repair for
each major organ in your body during this first wave period. If we believe
that the costs for future regenerative medicine will be similar to current
transplant costs, then that is a chunk of change. We can go back and forth
on costs, but I'd start with $1,000,000 as a nice, round guesstimate.

While $1,000,000 is a scary, scary number, the best case scenario may be
much better depending on your age. If you have 50 years to go before you
expect to need even one major medical procedure, then you're in good shape
and will probably not even have to take advantage of first wave regenerative
medicine. If you are only a decade or two away from your first expected
major medical procedure, then you have plans to make.

There are good reasons for believing that costs will remain much the same
for major new medical procedures. Very little of that money actually goes
towards technology and materials (no matter what that bill says). Most of it
pays for people, time, expertise and organizational overhead. Those items
tend to remain more consistant across the years even as the underlying
technologies, skills and materials change.

There is a great deal you can do to give yourself the best chance at good
health in old age. If you are planning on spending money on new anti-aging
technologies, why hamper yourself with costly, avoidable conditions? Take
care of the health basics and you'll save an enormous amount of money.
Prevention is far better (and cheaper) than cures.

What about paying for the rest of your retirement? Well, if you're happy,
healthy and active, why retire? Life goes on, and eternal play is just as
boring as eternal work. It will be interesting to see how things evolve.

As a last word, predicting the future is has long been shown to be a job in
which random number generators and chimps do as well as humans. Regulation,
societies, research and economies could diverge off into any number of
unexpected directions, both good and bad. I hope these points demonstrate
that you should be thinking about scenarios involving future medicine and
the associated costs now, however, no matter what your age and status.

-----

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme



From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Wed Mar 24 04:58:29 2004
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 21:58:29 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Curious structures on the surface of Mars
Message-ID: <40611575.DBFE6931@mindspring.com>

Forwarding permission was given by William R. Corliss.

Science Frontiers, No. 152, Mar-Apr, 2004, p. 2
< http://www.science-frontiers.com >

ASTRONOMY

Curious structures on the surface of Mars

Several camera-carrying spacecraft have landed successfully on the surface of
Mars.  The pictures they radio back to our gaping, dish-like antennas show
mostly just rocks, dirt, and some hills in the distance.  Great for geologists,
but not too exciting for laymen.  Photos from artificial satellites circling
Mars can be more interesting.  The evidence for flowing water and even
glaciers is becoming more and more convincing.  Again, the geologists are
are ecstatic, but it's Dullsville for most folks who want sure signs of
Martian life.

But, hold on!  A few of the multitudinous satellite photos show some oddball
structures.  Pyramidal shapes are surprisingly common; then, there's that
famous "face."  If you are patient and go through these photos systematically,
there are many images to ponder over---structures for which we have no ready
explanation.

T. Van Flandern has collected some of these suspicious structures in an
article in his *Meta Research Bulletin*.  We reproduce here the one that
*seems* to us highly suggestive of a geodesic dome.  Actually, it looks
like a half-buried golf ball, but it is really miles in diameter.  Artificial
or trick of Nature?

(Van Flandern, Tom; "Forbidden Shapes on Mars," *Meta Research Bulletin*,
12:49, no. 4, December 2003)

[Photo]
A Martian crater with a domed interior.  Reference:
< http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m13_m_gif_non_map/M15/M1501228.gif >.


[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 > [Vietnam veterans,
Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]


From gpmap at runbox.com  Wed Mar 24 05:52:33 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 06:52:33 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists Report Evidence of Saltwater Pools on Mars
Message-ID: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGIELPCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From the New York Times: Mars was once a much warmer, wetter place, with
pools of saltwater that sometimes flowed across the surface, scientists
reported Tuesday. Analyzing findings from sedimentary rocks explored by the
rover Opportunity, the scientists said the rocks now appeared to have formed
under a shallow bed of softly flowing water near a shoreline - not, as
formerly seemed possible, through seepage from underground. It was the first
concrete evidence that water might have flowed on the Martian surface, and
it provided new hints that life may have existed there. "We think
Opportunity is now parked on what was once the shoreline of a salty sea on
Mars," Dr. Steven W. Squyres of Cornell University, principal investigator
for the science payload on the Opportunity and its twin Mars exploration
rover, Spirit, said at a news conference here at NASA headquarters. "If we
are correct in our interpretation, this was a habitable environment," Dr.
Squyres went on.
>From Space.com: The discovery re-ignited enthusiasm over Mars as a potential
well for biology, at least in the past. (Researchers are unsure whether any
life that ever developed on Mars -- if it did -- could have endured into the
present era, with Mars being cold and dry.). Most scientists agree that
finding signs of past or present life will likely require sending human
geologists or, in the near term, sending a robot to bring back samples for
study in laboratories on Earth. Meridiani Planum is, for now, the best
destination for such a mission, which NASA has slated for launch sometime in
the next decade.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.634 / Virus Database: 406 - Release Date: 18/03/2004
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040324/0550abc1/attachment.html>

From gpmap at runbox.com  Wed Mar 24 06:21:03 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 07:21:03 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Studies Show Feasibility of Brain-Machine
	Interfaces
Message-ID: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGMELPCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From Duke University News: Research may lead to advances allowing paralyzed
people to control prosthetics by thought. In their first human studies of
the feasibility of using brain signals to operate external devices,
researchers at Duke University Medical Center report that arrays of
electrodes can provide useable signals for controlling such devices. The
research team is now working to develop prototype devices that may enable
paralyzed people to operate "neuroprosthetic" and other external devices
using only their brain signals. While the new studies provide an initial
proof of principle that human application of brain-machine interfaces is
possible, the researchers emphasize that many years of development and
clinical testing will be required before such neuroprosthetic devices are
available. Application of such technology would be a robot arm for a
quadriplegic, a neurally controlled electric wheelchair, and another a
neurally operated keyboard, whose output could include either text or
speech. Such devices could help both paralyzed people and those who have
lost speech capabilities. A key question in future clinical studies will be
whether humans can incorporate such devices into their "schema," or neural
representation of the external world.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.634 / Virus Database: 406 - Release Date: 18/03/2004
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040324/8e445168/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Mar 24 11:20:08 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 12:20:08 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Curious structures on the surface of Mars
In-Reply-To: <40611575.DBFE6931@mindspring.com>
References: <40611575.DBFE6931@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <20040324112008.GY28136@leitl.org>


Please don't crosspost (see below) irrelevant forteana to extropy-chat@

Thanks.

From: "Terry W. Colvin" <fortean1 at mindspring.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 21:58:29 -0700
To: "Extropy-chat at extropy.org" <Extropy-chat at extropy.org>,
        "fantasticreality at yahoogroups.com"
<fantasticreality at yahoogroups.com>,
        "Fort [No Personal Forwards]" <fort at yahoogroups.com>,
        Forteana /Alternate Orphan/ <forteana at yahoogroups.com>,
        "skeptic at listproc.hcf.jhu.edu" <skeptic at listproc.hcf.jhu.edu>,
        "uasr at topica.com" <uasr at topica.com>,
        UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates at virtuallystrange.net>
Cc:
Subject: [extropy-chat] Curious structures on the surface of Mars


On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 09:58:29PM -0700, Terry W. Colvin wrote:
> Forwarding permission was given by William R. Corliss.
> 

-- 
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/20040324/7b2819de/attachment.bin>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Mar 24 15:59:34 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 09:59:34 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] gays can be fired for being gay
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040324095215.01b21988@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

Uh-oh; hard to say how much of a beat-up this is:

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

http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df03202004.html


BUSH ALLOWS GAYS TO BE FIRED FOR BEING GAY

Despite President Bush's pledge that homosexuals "ought to have the same
rights" (1) as all other people, his Administration this week ruled that
homosexuals can now be fired from the federal workforce because of their
sexual orientation.

According to the Federal Times, the president's appointee at the Office of
Special Counsel ruled that federal employees will now "have no recourse if
they are fired or demoted simply for being gay." (2) While the Bush
Administration says it is legally prohibited from firing a person for their
conduct, they have the legal right to fire or demote someone based on their
sexual orientation. To carry out the directive, the White House has begun
removing information from government websites about sexual orientation
discrimination in the workplace. (3)

Not only does the new directive contradict the president's own promise to
treat homosexuals as equals under the law, but it also contradicts what the
Administration told Congress. As noted in a bipartisan letter from four
Senators to the Administration, "During the confirmation process [of the
president's appointee], you assured us that you were committed to protecting
federal employees against unlawful discrimination related to their sexual
orientation." (4)




From wingcat at pacbell.net  Wed Mar 24 17:02:39 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 09:02:39 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] mech arm controlled via neurons
In-Reply-To: <000c01c411eb$11891600$4dee17cb@renegade>
Message-ID: <20040324170239.58579.qmail@web80408.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Avatar Polymorph <avatar at renegadeclothing.com.au>
wrote:
> 24.03.2004
> 10.20am
> WASHINGTON - Scientists who trained a monkey to move
> a mechanical arm using
> thought alone say that experiments in Parkinson's
> disease patients show the
> technique may work in humans too.

So...why did this need to be re-proven?  There was
substantial existing literature that already proved
this.  (Minor irritation: those who think this hasn't
been done before waste their time repeating earlier
work, thus delaying the eventual release of what
they're working towards.)


From xllb at rogers.com  Wed Mar 24 19:56:43 2004
From: xllb at rogers.com (xllb at rogers.com)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:56:43 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mystery of Missing Mayans Solved
Message-ID: <20040324195643.TYZT147578.fep03-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com@localhost>

J. Rothdell Grape, P.H.D. candidate, has published a paper in the Spring, 2004 issue of The Christian Anthropologist Journal.  His theory is likely to prick a lot of pride.

Mr. Grape is studying Central American Missions at Blake Bible College, in Lynchburg, Virginia.  Grape credits the summer he spent building homes for missionaries in Cancun, Mexico, for his theory. 

?I was at Carlos and Charlie?s having a pop.  There were Mayan hieroglyphics on the menu.?  Grape says.

 ?They got me thinking, and I knew God was telling me to get to the real Mayan ruins right away.?

When Grape examined the ancient marks that covered the stone monuments, he didn?t see what he was looking for right away.  Grape knelt, facing away from the monument in case it was some kind of idol, and prayed for guidance.

?I?d been walking around the thing for about twenty minutes before the first hint hit me.  Some of the markings clearly represented animals and people.  A significant number of the people or animal drawings were in pairs.

?My thought process, which God was gently guiding, went kind of like this.  That?s two dogs or wolves or something, doing something together.  I wrote that down in my notebook.  That there is two Mayan people standing on a wall.  That one is a Mayan guy pointing a spear at another Mayan guy.  And that one is two Mayans dancing.

?Right then God gave me the second clue.?  It wasn?t just any two Mayans dancing.  It was two ancient Mayan guys dancing. ?

?I was really excited, because this is exactly what I was looking for to prove my theory, but my faith is small, so I asked God for one more sign.  I knew that if my theory could be proven, we would defeat our homosexual opponents once and for all.  Even if they come up with a gay gene, we will still be able to show that gays caused the downfall of the entire Mayan civilization, just as they had caused the downfall of Sodom and Gomorrah. 

?I was looking for the third sign as I rushed to the men?s washroom, passing stone things that had the answer right there on them.  I should have caught on right away but I really had to pee.

?I was standing at the urinal, thinking about the drawing of the Mayan guy poking a spear at the other Mayan guy.   As I put myself away, I realized that the guy wasn?t poking the other guy with a spear.?

?I ran back out to the big old stone thing and my eyes were opened.  What I?d thought was a spear was a penis.  And the other guy didn?t look the least bit unhappy.  They were having homosexual relations.

?The fourth and final sign sealed my mind on this one.  The drawing that I?d first interpreted as two Mayan people standing on a wall, I?m now convinced are two gay guys getting married.?

Watch for ?Mystery of Missing Mayans Solved? in the Spring, 2004 issue of The Christian Anthropologist Journal.

Rick Strongitharm


"Dogma blinds."
"Hell is overkill."




From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 24 20:31:46 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 12:31:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] gays can be fired for being gay
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040324095215.01b21988@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20040324203146.75414.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>

Considering I was once fired by a US subsidiary of the French National
Railway for being Libertarian, I'm asking why you are surprised? One
more example of liberals whining when their own ox is being gored, but
cheering along the gestapo when it serves their needs.

--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df03202004.html
> 
> 
> BUSH ALLOWS GAYS TO BE FIRED FOR BEING GAY

=====
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! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 24 20:40:15 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 12:40:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mystery of Missing Mayans Solved
In-Reply-To: <20040324195643.TYZT147578.fep03-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com@localhost>
Message-ID: <20040324204016.54762.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>


--- xllb at rogers.com wrote:
> J. Rothdell Grape, P.H.D. candidate, has published a paper in the
> Spring, 2004 issue of The Christian Anthropologist Journal.  His
> theory is likely to prick a lot of pride.
> 
> ?I was at Carlos and Charlie?s having a pop.  There were Mayan
> hieroglyphics on the menu.?  Grape says.
> 
>  "... and I knew God was telling me to get to the
> real Mayan ruins right away.?
> 
> Grape knelt, facing away from the monument in case it was some kind
of
> idol, and prayed for guidance.
> 
> ?My thought process, which God was gently guiding,...
> 
> ?Right then God gave me the second clue.?  
> 
> ?... but my faith is small, so I asked God for one
> more sign....
> 
> ?I was looking for the third sign ...
> 
> ?The fourth and final sign sealed my mind on this one.  ...
> 

Wow, this guy has a really well developed scientific principle working
for him, have you noticed? I hear there are signs of perversion and
evil in Shakespeare, too. We can burn that book once we're done
deconstructing the Mayan ruins... ;)

=====
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! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 24 20:42:43 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 12:42:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] EU judgement goes agaisnt Microsoft
In-Reply-To: <018e01c411e9$64bbd4e0$4dee17cb@renegade>
Message-ID: <20040324204243.55198.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Avatar Polymorph <avatar at renegadeclothing.com.au> wrote:
> Microsoft: half billion euro fine and must offer non media player
> windows. EU judgement.

I hear that the software security companies are launching legal action
against Microsoft in Justice Jackson's court to prevent Microsoft from
closing any of the many and various backdoors, repairing any of the
security flaws, which make the Windows user market so lucrative for
their anti-virus, firewall, and privacy software. If making your
operating system secure is an anti-competetive act, why aren't they
suing the pants off of Linus?

=====
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! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Mar 24 20:57:11 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:57:11 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mystery of Missing Mayans Solved
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040324145256.01b54f80@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

Although at much greater length, that's as cleverly done as David Lubkin's 
witty gag about dauer=>dewar the other day. Maybe the inventor of `J. 
Rothdell Grape' and his divine insights was inspired by our Freshly 
Squeezed Grape thread...

Damien Broderick




From john_robert_marlow at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 24 22:30:53 2004
From: john_robert_marlow at yahoo.com (John Marlow)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:30:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Missing (Genetic) Link found?
Message-ID: <20040324223053.1212.qmail@web21403.mail.yahoo.com>

Gene Mutation Said Linked to Evolution 
 
By JOSEPH B. VERRENGIA, AP Science Writer 
 
Igniting a scientific furor, scientists say they may have found the genetic mutation that first separated the earliest humans from their apelike ancestors....
 
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=6&u=/ap/20040324/ap_on_he_me/the_human_gene
 
 
 



john marlow
author: NANO
"Marlow's debut is a real page-turner." --Kirkus Reviews
free excerpts and more online at
www.johnrobertmarlow.com

"John Robert Marlow" <john_robert_marlow at yahoo.com>


.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040324/7aa16c86/attachment.html>

From wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu Mar 25 02:05:25 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:05:25 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] EU judgement goes agaisnt Microsoft
In-Reply-To: <20040324204243.55198.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040325020525.79117.qmail@web80403.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Avatar Polymorph
> <avatar at renegadeclothing.com.au> wrote:
> > Microsoft: half billion euro fine and must offer
> non media player
> > windows. EU judgement.
> 
> I hear that the software security companies are
> launching legal action
> against Microsoft in Justice Jackson's court to
> prevent Microsoft from
> closing any of the many and various backdoors,
> repairing any of the
> security flaws, which make the Windows user market
> so lucrative for
> their anti-virus, firewall, and privacy software. If
> making your
> operating system secure is an anti-competetive act,
> why aren't they
> suing the pants off of Linus?

On the chance that was serious: they never had a
chance to set up said industry for Linux.  They'll
probably be laughed out of court even on Microsoft,
since they're just offering services that many people
have sued Microsoft to provide in the first place.

Besides, Microsoft has lots of cash, and they might
think it less costly to just settle.  Linus doesn't
have the same amounts, and he's not subject to the
US legal system (being not a US resident).


From dgc at cox.net  Thu Mar 25 02:30:43 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:30:43 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] EU judgement goes agaisnt Microsoft
In-Reply-To: <20040325020525.79117.qmail@web80403.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040325020525.79117.qmail@web80403.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <40624453.8080906@cox.net>

Adrian Tymes wrote:

>--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>--- Avatar Polymorph
>><avatar at renegadeclothing.com.au> wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Microsoft: half billion euro fine and must offer
>>>      
>>>
>>non media player
>>    
>>
>>>windows. EU judgement.
>>>      
>>>
>>I hear that the software security companies are
>>launching legal action
>>against Microsoft in Justice Jackson's court to
>>prevent Microsoft from
>>closing any of the many and various backdoors,
>>repairing any of the
>>security flaws, which make the Windows user market
>>so lucrative for
>>their anti-virus, firewall, and privacy software. If
>>making your
>>operating system secure is an anti-competetive act,
>>why aren't they
>>suing the pants off of Linus?
>>    
>>
>
>On the chance that was serious: they never had a
>chance to set up said industry for Linux.  They'll
>probably be laughed out of court even on Microsoft,
>since they're just offering services that many people
>have sued Microsoft to provide in the first place.
>
>Besides, Microsoft has lots of cash, and they might
>think it less costly to just settle.  Linus doesn't
>have the same amounts, and he's not subject to the
>US legal system (being not a US resident).
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>  
>
Linus Torvalds is a resident of the state of Califonia, which is
(arguably) part of the US.

However, Linus does not run a compony which controls the
content of an operating system, and is therefore not accountable for
the capabilities of any particular computer that is running Linux.

This is in stark contrast to M$, which uses its monopoly power
to coerce computer manufacturers to deliver computers with
M$ operating systems.





From wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu Mar 25 02:52:13 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:52:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] EU judgement goes agaisnt Microsoft
In-Reply-To: <40624453.8080906@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20040325025213.66030.qmail@web80406.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:
> Linus Torvalds is a resident of the state of
> Califonia, which is
> (arguably) part of the US.

I thought he was just visiting, on extended visa from
Finland.  Oh, well...

> However, Linus does not run a compony which controls
> the
> content of an operating system, and is therefore not
> accountable for
> the capabilities of any particular computer that is
> running Linux.
> 
> This is in stark contrast to M$, which uses its
> monopoly power
> to coerce computer manufacturers to deliver
> computers with
> M$ operating systems.

Technically, he runs the group that creates the core
architecture of Linux; a poor understanding of how
this works (all too easy to find among judges) might
conceive that he could use this power to introduce
security flaws, if he wanted.  (In truth, he couldn't;
the only result of serious and repeated attempts to do
so is that someone else would take over.  But you just
have to convince the judge that it could happen.)

The real reason is the money.  If justice be done,
Microsoft should easily win any suit claiming that
trying to remove security holes is, itself, inherently
anti-competitive.  In fact, if the suit is as it
seems, justice would say it should be able to extract
damages just for having this particular suit brought
against them (if, in fact, it has been).


From dgc at cox.net  Thu Mar 25 02:53:30 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:53:30 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] EU judgement goes agaisnt Microsoft
In-Reply-To: <20040325025213.66030.qmail@web80406.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040325025213.66030.qmail@web80406.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <406249AA.1070003@cox.net>

Adrian Tymes wrote:

>Technically, he runs the group that creates the core
>architecture of Linux; a poor understanding of how
>this works (all too easy to find among judges) might
>conceive that he could use this power to introduce
>security flaws, if he wanted. 
>
What group does Linus run?



From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 25 03:12:36 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 19:12:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] EU judgement goes agaisnt Microsoft
In-Reply-To: <20040325020525.79117.qmail@web80403.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040325031236.19506.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> On the chance that was serious: they never had a
> chance to set up said industry for Linux.  They'll
> probably be laughed out of court even on Microsoft,
> since they're just offering services that many people
> have sued Microsoft to provide in the first place.

Not if Penfield Jackson is consistent with his legal logic.

The security industry can say that Linux developers and distro
releasers are creating 'barriers to entry', and since they are not all
one company, they are operating an illegal 'cartel'.

> 
> Besides, Microsoft has lots of cash, and they might
> think it less costly to just settle.  Linus doesn't
> have the same amounts, and he's not subject to the
> US legal system (being not a US resident).

Linus is a resident of California. However, his residency is
immaterial. Judgements can be served in any ICC/UCC nation, based on
the common law principle of 'full faith and credit'.
Interjurisdictional process serving happens across more than just state
lines, it happens across international boundaries as well.

=====
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! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From twodeel at jornada.org  Thu Mar 25 04:04:16 2004
From: twodeel at jornada.org (Don Dartfield)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 20:04:16 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] gays can be fired for being gay
In-Reply-To: <20040324203146.75414.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403242004010.20284-100000@hplx.net>

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> Considering I was once fired by a US subsidiary of the French National
> Railway for being Libertarian, I'm asking why you are surprised? One
> more example of liberals whining when their own ox is being gored, but
> cheering along the gestapo when it serves their needs.

Uh ... oooooooooooookay then, Mike.



From joe at barrera.org  Thu Mar 25 04:18:49 2004
From: joe at barrera.org (Joseph S. Barrera III)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 20:18:49 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] gays can be fired for being gay
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403242004010.20284-100000@hplx.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403242004010.20284-100000@hplx.net>
Message-ID: <40625DA9.8050404@barrera.org>

Don Dartfield wrote:

>  Uh ... oooooooooooookay then, Mike.

Does that mean I wasn't the only one who couldn't parse Mike's response?



From neptune at superlink.net  Thu Mar 25 04:34:59 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 23:34:59 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] gays can be fired for being gay
References: <20040324203146.75414.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <009101c41222$891ec660$19cd5cd1@neptune>

On Wednesday, March 24, 2004 3:31 PM Mike Lorrey mlorrey at yahoo.com
wrote:
> Considering I was once fired by a US
> subsidiary of the French National Railway

Whaa???

> for being Libertarian, I'm asking why you
> are surprised?

You'll have to elaborate on that one.  I've always tried not to let
politics interfere with my work, but the times when it does come up,
it's never gotten me fired.  Then again, I've never worked with the
French National Railway.:)

> One more example of liberals whining when
> their own ox is being gored, but cheering
> along the gestapo when it serves their needs.

I couldn't get to he web site and don't have any other confirmation on
this story, so I'm not even sure it's true.  It's an election year, so
all kinds of stories will be popping up like this.

To respond directly to your comment, yes, people in general -- many
liberals, so called conservatives (liberals who happen to go to church
like the President), etc. -- tend to only feel for their particular
cherished oxes are being gored by not otherwise.  Just human nature.  I
would single out modern liberals in this area.

Even so, the libertarian position -- which I'm saying you're against --
would be freedom of association.  If people want to demote or fire gay
employees for being gay, so be it.  The problem here, however, is these
are government jobs, which makes me wonder if the jobs in themselves are
legitimate functions of the government.  (Okay, under my view, there are
none, but libertarian minarchists would limit government jobs solely to
those involved in rights protection -- courts, police, and maybe
militia.)  Anyhow, if these were legit jobs, then firing someone on a
basis that did not impair his or her ability to do the job would be
wrong.  (In the private jobs, it's ethically wrong, but should not be
illegal.  Employers should be allowed to make stupid mistakes and suffer
the consequences.)

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html



From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Thu Mar 25 04:37:09 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 22:37:09 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Studies Show Feasibility of
	Brain-MachineInterfaces
References: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGMELPCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>
Message-ID: <LAW10-OE55xJJbch6ZH00001c78@hotmail.com>

Didn;t someone accomplish this in late 2002?
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 
  To: Extropy-Chat 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 12:21 AM
  Subject: [extropy-chat] Human Studies Show Feasibility of Brain-MachineInterfaces


  From Duke University News: Research may lead to advances allowing paralyzed people to control prosthetics by thought. In their first human studies of the feasibility of using brain signals to operate external devices, researchers at Duke University Medical Center report that arrays of electrodes can provide useable signals for controlling such devices. The research team is now working to develop prototype devices that may enable paralyzed people to operate "neuroprosthetic" and other external devices using only their brain signals. While the new studies provide an initial proof of principle that human application of brain-machine interfaces is possible, the researchers emphasize that many years of development and clinical testing will be required before such neuroprosthetic devices are available. Application of such technology would be a robot arm for a quadriplegic, a neurally controlled electric wheelchair, and another a neurally operated keyboard, whose output could include either text or speech. Such devices could help both paralyzed people and those who have lost speech capabilities. A key question in future clinical studies will be whether humans can incorporate such devices into their "schema," or neural representation of the external world.


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


  _______________________________________________
  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/20040324/628a6753/attachment.html>

From gpmap at runbox.com  Thu Mar 25 07:23:22 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 08:23:22 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists may have found the 'human gene'
Message-ID: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBAEDGCBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From the Houston Chronicle: Touching off a scientific furor, researchers say
they may have discovered the mutation that caused the earliest humans to
branch off from their apelike ancestors -- a gene that led to smaller,
weaker jaws and, ultimately, bigger brains.
Smaller jaws would have fundamentally changed the structure of the skull,
they contend, by eliminating thick muscles that worked like bungee cords to
anchor a huge jaw to the crown of the head. The change would have allowed
the cranium to grow larger and led to the development of a bigger brain
capable of tool-making and language.
The mutation is reported in the latest issue of the journal Nature, not by
anthropologists, but by a team of biologists and plastic surgeons at the
University of Pennsylvania and the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. The
report provoked strong reactions throughout the hotly contested field of
human origins with one scientist declaring it "counter to the fundamentals
of evolution" and another pronouncing it "super."
---
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/20040325/38a01562/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Thu Mar 25 09:58:55 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:58:55 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] EU judgement goes agaisnt Microsoft
In-Reply-To: <20040325020525.79117.qmail@web80403.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040324204243.55198.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20040325020525.79117.qmail@web80403.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040325095855.GL28136@leitl.org>

On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 06:05:25PM -0800, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> Besides, Microsoft has lots of cash, and they might
> think it less costly to just settle.  Linus doesn't
> have the same amounts, and he's not subject to the
> US legal system (being not a US resident).

If you're looking for an example on how to make a living by litigation ("read
my lips -- we're not a litigation company") and have industry monopoly pump 
you with funds behind the scenes (because you're delaying the inevitable somewhat: 
you can't compete with free software if you're a business), have a look at SCO.

It's a nasty business. They seem to balk at whacking people, though, thanks a
bunch for that, I guess.

-- 
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/20040325/e00716b8/attachment.bin>

From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 25 14:56:01 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 06:56:01 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] EU judgement goes agaisnt Microsoft
In-Reply-To: <20040325095855.GL28136@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <20040325145601.18520.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> 
> It's a nasty business. They seem to balk at whacking people, though,
> thanks a bunch for that, I guess.

As if getting looted to the tune of $600 million for out-competing
everybody else is not enough to make Bill want to whack someone. Doing
so wouldn't be an initiation of force.

=====
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! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From eugen at leitl.org  Thu Mar 25 16:25:25 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:25:25 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] EU judgement goes agaisnt Microsoft
In-Reply-To: <20040325145601.18520.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040325095855.GL28136@leitl.org>
	<20040325145601.18520.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040325162525.GA28136@leitl.org>

On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 06:56:01AM -0800, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> As if getting looted to the tune of $600 million for out-competing

"Looting" isn't according to consensus legal criteria (could as well call
illegimate copying piracy, pegleg, parrot, eyepatch and cutlass, arrrr!). 
Redmond has not been playing by the rules, and eventually got a slap on 
the wrist (I'd given them the full Ma Bell treatment a decade ago).

I was getting tired of Microsoft's legal shenanigans (via the SCO proxy) of
intimidating industrial and commercial Linux users, so if this makes them
tread more softly in future, it's only fair. Apart from that I regard both
the state and corporate masters with a healthy dose of suspicion. 

> everybody else is not enough to make Bill want to whack someone. Doing

Threats and legal suits isn't a good way of conducting business. Sooner or
later your reputation is going to catch up to you, and, apparently, not all
politicians and judges are up on eBay yet (it depends whether they're going
to have to pay up/trade sanctioned, they're going to use the finest legal
firepower they can buy, which should be enough to stall this indefinitely or
use their lobbying muscle behind the scene, as so many times before).

> so wouldn't be an initiation of force.

Whacking people as an integral part of conducting business is an earmark of
immature business environments. After so much AK-47 and plastique they tend
to settle down, and use hostile takeovers and legal suits. And that's much
for the better.

(Besides, if this was anarchocapitalism Bill/Paul would have been whacked
by the people they cheated a long time ago).

-- 
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/20040325/7caa9f73/attachment.bin>

From wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu Mar 25 21:46:41 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:46:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] EU judgement goes agaisnt Microsoft
In-Reply-To: <406249AA.1070003@cox.net>
Message-ID: <20040325214641.53934.qmail@web80403.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:
> Adrian Tymes wrote:
> >Technically, he runs the group that creates the
> core
> >architecture of Linux; a poor understanding of how
> >this works (all too easy to find among judges)
> might
> >conceive that he could use this power to introduce
> >security flaws, if he wanted. 
> >
> What group does Linus run?

>From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds :

> [Linus] is now seconded to OSDL to work on the Linux
> Kernel full-time.

> [Linus] remains the ultimate authority on what new
> code and innovations are incorporated into the Linux
> kernel; other operating system aspects (both user
> visible and invisible) such as the X windowing
> system, gcc, and various package management schemes
> are run by others.

I don't think he runs OSDL itself.  There may not be a
formal name for the group he runs - they might not
have need of a formal working group name in the manner
of corporations and standards commitees.

But the point remains: the main reason nobody's suing
him is that there's no money in it, either directly or
in terms of disrupting Linux's market share.  Those
who do want money from suing Linux chase more
potentially profitable targets, as in SCO vs. IBM.


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Thu Mar 25 23:46:48 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 15:46:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] fun
In-Reply-To: <20040323060621.66256.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403251521430.32264-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> --- Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > > Spike you seem to be having so much fun with your life...
> >
> > I am!  I consider myself the male counterpart of
> > Paris Hilton.

Spike -- only you would come up with that metaphor.

> > Without the popularity, the youthful good looks,
> > the parties, or the money of course, but other
> > than that.

But Spike, you *way* trump her with respect to knock
down drag outs on the resolution of good technical
problems that millions of lives just might depend on.

Paris is good eye candy but when push comes to shove
her survival enhancement value is probably squat.
I'd take Spike and Mike any day even though they are
somewhat less attractive.

> Well, I don't want to hear about any sex tapes floating around the net...

Oh, come on -- without in any way casting suggestions
towards Spike -- one would have to believe that any such
tapes should have both interesting educational and
entertainment opportunities.

Hell, with computer graphics/animation capabilities being what
they are now-a-days it would not be very difficult to insert
Spike, Mike, Greg, etc. into a sexy interlude.  What is it that
you are objecting to?  That it is their physical body performing
on the tape or what it is that they may be doing?

(Of course I am being somewhat tongue-in-cheek and rhetorical
here...)

R.




From jrd1415 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 26 06:50:04 2004
From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 22:50:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Kass again
In-Reply-To: <IJEMLOJHDCNDHIICMJDBIEDECBAA.gpmap@runbox.com>
Message-ID: <20040326065004.74186.qmail@web60001.mail.yahoo.com>

Extropes,

I've not read Kass at any length.  I only have the
impression drawn from what I've heard.  "Wisdom of
repugnance", bushman, etc.  Then I came across this
(below).  Incredible!  Check it out.

Best, Jeff Davis

"The new always carries with it the sense of violation
and sacrilege.  What is dead is sacred. What is new,
that is different, is evil, dangerous, or subversive."

                       Henry Miller

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

The below is taken from a blog at:

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/000831.html

The blogger says:

"While I don't know his exact position on home-brewing
or beer-drinking, Leon Kass definitely hates ice cream
cones, and cone-licking!"

Then quotes Kass: 

"Worst of all from this point of view are those more
uncivilized forms of eating, like licking an ice cream
cone --a catlike activity that has been made
acceptable in informal America but that still offends
those who know eating in public is offensive. 

I fear I may by this remark lose the sympathy of many
reader, people who will condescendingly regard as
quaint or even priggish the view that eating in the
street is for dogs. Modern America's rising tide of
informality has already washed out many long-standing
traditions -- their reasons long before forgotten --
that served well to regulate the boundary between
public and private; and in many quarters complete
shamelessness is treated as proof of genuine
liberation from the allegedly arbitrary constraints of
manners. To cite one small example: yawning with
uncovered mouth. Not just the uneducated rustic but
children of the cultural elite are now regularly seen
yawning openly in public (not so much brazenly or
forgetfully as indifferently and "naturally"), unaware
that it is an embarrassment to human self-command to
be caught in the grip of involuntary bodily movements
(like sneezing, belching, and hiccuping and even the
involuntary bodily display of embarrassment itself,
blushing). But eating on the street -- even when
undertaken, say, because one is between appointments
and has no other time to eat -- displays in fact
precisely such lack of self-control: It beckons
enslavement to the belly. Hunger must be sated now; it
cannot wait. Though the walking street eater still
moves in the direction of his vision, he shows himself
as a being led by his appetites. Lacking utensils for
cutting and lifting to mouth, he will often be seen
using his teeth for tearing off chewable portions,
just like any animal. Eating on the run does not even
allow the human way of enjoying one's food, for it is
more like simple fueling; it is hard to savor or even
to know what one is eating when the main point is to
hurriedly fill the belly, now running on empty. This
doglike feeding, if one must engage in it, ought to be
kept from public view, where, even if WE feel no
shame, others are compelled to witness our shameful
behavior."

Kass, Leon: The Hungry Soul at 148-149. (University of
Chicago Press, 1994, 1999)


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri Mar 26 07:16:37 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:16:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Kass again
In-Reply-To: <20040326065004.74186.qmail@web60001.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040326071637.67442.qmail@web80404.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Jeff Davis <jrd1415 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Then quotes Kass: 
> 
> "Worst of all from this point of view are those more
> uncivilized forms of eating, like licking an ice
> cream
> cone --a catlike activity that has been made
> acceptable in informal America but that still
> offends
> those who know eating in public is offensive. 

Meow.  Catty, isn't he?

I know he'll never read this, but I can't help but
comment...

> But eating on the street -- even when
> undertaken, say, because one is between appointments
> and has no other time to eat -- displays in fact
> precisely such lack of self-control: It beckons
> enslavement to the belly. Hunger must be sated now;
> it
> cannot wait.

Hunger must be sated sooner or later.  While there is
a place in the world for enjoyment of food - as with
any other hedonistic pleasure - to force the devotion
of time to it alone in all circumstances shows,
perhaps, an enslavement to that pleasure.  Eating on
the run, meanwhile, shows a willingness to subsume
pleasure to more important things when necessary - not
a lack of self-control, but in fact a prime example of
it.

> Lacking utensils
> for
> cutting and lifting to mouth, he will often be seen
> using his teeth for tearing off chewable portions,
> just like any animal.

Homo sapiens is, biologically, an animal.  Those who
try to deny that, deny a portion of themselves.  Some
of us wish to move beyond this state someday, but
those who have the best chance of accomplishing said
deed remain realistic: as of today, we're all human.
We improve what parts of our nature we can, and work
with what results.

> Eating on the run does not
> even
> allow the human way of enjoying one's food, for it
> is
> more like simple fueling;

Would that food could be reduced to simple fuelling,
with the pleasurable aspects completely separated out!
This would do much to combat the growing problem of
obesity.  Alas, the pleasure and the fuelling are
intrinsically mixed, and it is fair to say that most
living human beings are addicted to food (and water,
and air containing the right partial pressure of
oxygen).

> This
> doglike feeding, if one must engage in it, ought to
> be
> kept from public view, where, even if WE feel no
> shame, others are compelled to witness our shameful
> behavior."

And if others feel no shame in it either?  Popular
behavior patterns are, well, popular, usually to the
point where one can reasonably assume they will
approximate the usual behavior patterns of others (if
they're truly worthy of the "popular" label).  Of
course, one can always try to change what's popular,
but one often has to address the reasons behind the
unwanted popularity to be at all successful.


From gpmap at runbox.com  Fri Mar 26 07:21:18 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 08:21:18 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mosquito Immune System Recruited in Fight against
	Malaria
Message-ID: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGCEMACAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From the New Scientist: "Groundbreaking" new approaches to stopping
mosquitoes spreading the malaria parasite have been discovered by gene
researchers. The scientists identified three mosquito genes that dictate
whether Plasmodium falciparum, the parasite which causes malaria, can
survive and grow in the insect gut. The discoveries have raised new
possibilities for stopping mosquitoes from spreading the parasite. For
example, genetically engineering mosquitoes with extra genes to attack the
parasites, or lacking the genes that protect them, could help. The best
route may be to develop chemicals that can be delivered like pesticides.
>From Scientific American: These studies are the first to show the power of
the mosquito's immune system and give us some very real options for fighting
the disease in the insect before it even has a chance to be passed to a
human. The findings give cause for optimism that new methods of malaria
control through blocking transmission in the mosquito vector will be
possible.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.634 / Virus Database: 406 - Release Date: 18/03/2004
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040326/a6c65e48/attachment.html>

From reason at longevitymeme.org  Fri Mar 26 08:08:35 2004
From: reason at longevitymeme.org (Reason)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 00:08:35 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Methuselah Mouse Prize passes $50,000
Message-ID: <FCEDLEKFOENAIDKOGMNNKEBEEHAA.reason@longevitymeme.org>

The Methuselah Mouse Prize has passed $50,000 in cash (with another $300,000
in pledges) and 100 donors - which you'll already know if you read
Betterhumans and have been watching the prize total there. Great job from
everyone involved :)

http://www.methuselahfoundation.org/prize.asp

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme



From amara at amara.com  Fri Mar 26 13:45:01 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:45:01 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] some new photo pages
Message-ID: <p05100300bc89de292669@[150.146.134.133]>


To help celebrate this week, I followed my creative impulses and
collected some of my recent photographs and embedded them into a
stream of consciousness. They are here:

http://www.amara.com/photo/photo.html

The new pages lean toward storyscapes and more colored than my
typical black and white and light texturescapes.

The new pages are:

The Mists of Time
Blue
Portals
Sea People
Mud People

Enjoy...

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 mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 26 14:44:48 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 06:44:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] some new photo pages
In-Reply-To: <p05100300bc89de292669@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <20040326144448.5968.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote:
> 
> To help celebrate this week, I followed my creative impulses and
> collected some of my recent photographs and embedded them into a
> stream of consciousness. 

Excellent work, Amara.

BTW: THere is another Amara in my region. Kate Amara is a news anchor
and co-host of "NH Chronicle" on WMUR Channel 9.

=====
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! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From natashavita at earthlink.net  Fri Mar 26 14:51:12 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:51:12 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Kass again
Message-ID: <63340-220043526145112465@M2W058.mail2web.com>


From: Jeff Davis 

>The below is taken from a blog at:

>http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/000831.html

>Then quotes Kass: (above)

Whoa, now.  This comment is so visual and almost humorously filled with
repugnance.  I could "see" the fat Americans stuffing their faces, with
their bellies and behinds jiggling as they scamper from here to there
totally lacking any awareness of their animalistic belches and gas.

Natasha

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




From natashavita at earthlink.net  Fri Mar 26 17:55:34 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 12:55:34 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism:  Social Equality and Politics
Message-ID: <323910-220043526175534782@M2W032.mail2web.com>

Question:

For years, I have considered Transhumanism to favor all of society and to
work toward improving the human condition equally for who so desire it.  By
this I mean that each human being is given the freedom to choose a
transhumanist life.  This choice includes all the elements of the
innovative ideas and intellection of transhumanism, as Max More defined the
term and fathered the movement.

Also FM-2030, who wrote the original philosophy of the "transhuman"
(different than transhumanism), was a humanist who became a transhumanist. 
His ideology was neatly written in his book, _Are You A Transhuman?_ which
o outlined his philosophy about personal growth in becoming a transhuman. 
Herein, he was adamant about human rights and wrote about talked about
human rights since his early years as a diplomat.

In my estimation, and what I believe in my own philosophical views about
transhumanism, and as I wrote and lectured on the topic from the 1980s
forward, transhumanism is more of an intellectual enlightenment that
proposes to work toward improving the human condition for all who want to
improve themselves and to implement the sciences and technologies that will
assist us in this quest while extending our lives.

Transhumanists have been told there were ?elitists? (not in the culturally
positive sense as being culturally polished, but in the negative sense as
being intellectual/technological superior than the average person.)  This
is something that we did not ask for or attempt to represent, but was
donned on us because of our ideas being ahead of their time and speaking in
a language that was not understood by the mainstream.

What do you think about pushing transhumanism into political camps? 
Because politics is based not so much on human values and transhumanist
goals, but on competing interest groups or individuals for vie for power
and leadership.  Is this politics over philosophy/social understanding, the
former being displayed with underhand tactics, and the latter being
influenced by reasonable efforts?

So, you tell me ? those of you who are not pushing any one political
agenda, what do you think?  Do we need to segregate transhumanism into
political camps that are subsets of political party lines?  Or do we need
to let the camps be driving forces aspects of transhumanism forward?

Remember, Extropy Institute does not sponsor or claim any one political
affiliation or belief, as its core is based in ?transhumanism,? not
politics.  Our members share varied political views and I believe that we
can solve world problems by employ the most workable solution to the
problem, regardless of which specific positive political course.


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




From natashavita at earthlink.net  Fri Mar 26 19:01:33 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:01:33 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] some new photo pages 
Message-ID: <410-22004352619133603@M2W047.mail2web.com>

Amara these are very beautiful and moving.

N

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




From gpmap at runbox.com  Fri Mar 26 19:06:53 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 20:06:53 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism:  Social Equality and Politics
In-Reply-To: <323910-220043526175534782@M2W032.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGOEMACAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

I think all transhumanists read the press, watch TV, and have more or less
defined political views. Some transhumanists are actively involved on one or
another political movement. As I must have said a couple of times, I think
the core values and goals of transhumanism (desirability of improving the
human condition with all means, including radical use of advanced
technology) are equally compatible with the two main political camps found
in the transhumanist movement (social-democratic and libertarian).
Discussion on which of the two camps has the Truth is usually heated and
produces little result. I tend to lean more toward the social-democratic
camp but the question makes little sense to me: the Truth, if such a thing
exists, is probably complex and cannot be captured by a simple slogan.
Probably any workable solution for today's world will require elements from
both approaches.
Transhumanism cannot be a political movement because it is fragmented on the
very issues that are the object of politics: taxation, economic policy,
social policy, foreign policy, defense... if we have not agreed on these
things so far my bet is that we will never agree. At the same time, like it
or not, politics has and will continue to have a tremendous impact on the
issues that we transhumanists focus on.
Transhumanists, or groups of transhumanists, can and do take an active role
in the mainstream political movement that they prefer. This should be
encouraged. I think the time we spend arguing about politics in
transhumanist fora, would be spent much more productively arguing about
transhumanism in political fora, where we should push for life extension
research, the relinquishment of unnecessarily strict legislation in genetic
research and therapies, the acceptance of the proactionary principle, fight
Kass,... We should try developing solid arguments and the best ways to sell
them to audiences of different political persuasion.


-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of
natashavita at earthlink.net
Sent: viernes, 26 de marzo de 2004 18:56
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism: Social Equality and Politics
...What do you think about pushing transhumanism into political camps?
Because politics is based not so much on human values and transhumanist
goals, but on competing interest groups or individuals for vie for power
and leadership.  Is this politics over philosophy/social understanding, the
former being displayed with underhand tactics, and the latter being
influenced by reasonable efforts?

So, you tell me ? those of you who are not pushing any one political
agenda, what do you think?  Do we need to segregate transhumanism into
political camps that are subsets of political party lines?  Or do we need
to let the camps be driving forces aspects of transhumanism forward?

Remember, Extropy Institute does not sponsor or claim any one political
affiliation or belief, as its core is based in ?transhumanism,? not
politics.  Our members share varied political views and I believe that we
can solve world problems by employ the most workable solution to the
problem, regardless of which specific positive political course.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.634 / Virus Database: 406 - Release Date: 18/03/2004



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Fri Mar 26 19:29:02 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 11:29:02 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism:  Social Equality and Politics
In-Reply-To: <323910-220043526175534782@M2W032.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403261039350.23122-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Natasha,

I do not believe that it would be wise (or even possible)
to attempt to merge transhumanism with politics.

You are correct in pointing out that politics is in large
part about power (IMO).  We can see that with the political
(aka religious) factions in Iraq currently.  It extends
to the Jews and Palestinians (I'm using the word Jew
intentionally to imply someone who believes that Israel
belongs to the Jews rather than someone who might live
in Israel).  And then one has the right wing and/or
born again Christians in the U.S.

The first problem is that these people function on the
basis of faith rather than reason.  If transhumanism
and Max's principles are to have any throw weight at all
it has to be that we should be operating on the basis
of "reason".  It ranges from difficult to impossible
to "reason" with someone whose life is based on faith.

The second problem is that the people that I mention above
are well integrated into the political structures.  This
does not apply only to the conservative right -- one could
argue that the activist left may have problems as well for
attempting to create a social order that could be in conflict
with the time tested principle of natural selection.

I do not believe it is possible to have a reasonable
discussion with many, if not most, of the people involved
in politics (unfortunately).  There might be ways --
the Ghandi path and Zen/Buddhism come to mind -- but they
are foreign to the systems you seek to influence.

You are dealing with very large amounts of inertia
(dozens to hundreds to thousands of years worth).
Because much of transhumanism happens in the future
it is difficult to present sufficient force now to
balance this (one lacks things like experience,
evidence, credibility, etc.).

It is not impossible -- but I would suggest that the
most effective approaches are not likely to involve
taking on entrenched political systems.  The way
to tackle this problem is not by attemptiong to
convince al-Sistani or Arafat (or others).  They
have vested interests -- they are not going to alter
their mindset.  They are like Smalley's perspective
in dealing with Drexler (in nanotech) [my mind is
made up, I'm not going to bother to read the literature
and nothing you can say can make me change my mind].
No -- the way to deal with this is to work with the 13-25
year olds -- those who grew up on "7 of 9" or the X-men
and view that as cool, who discuss nanotech over lunch,
who want to seize control of their own destiny and view
self-evolution as something with possibilities rather
than something to be resisted.

Robert




From natashavita at earthlink.net  Fri Mar 26 20:50:01 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 15:50:01 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism:  Social Equality and Politics
Message-ID: <68680-22004352620501152@M2W060.mail2web.com>



Original Message:

>From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 gpmap at runbox.com

>I think all transhumanists read the press, watch TV, and have more or less
>defined political views. Some transhumanists are actively involved on one
>or
>another political movement. As I must have said a couple of times, I think
>the core values and goals of transhumanism (desirability of improving the
>human condition with all means, including radical use of advanced
>technology) are equally compatible with the two main political camps found
>in the transhumanist movement (social-democratic and libertarian).

Yes, I understand what you are stating, however aren't we limiting
ourselves by cashing in to two camps that are not based in transhumanism?

>Discussion on which of the two camps has the Truth is usually heated and
>produces little result. I tend to lean more toward the social-democratic
>camp but the question makes little sense to me: the Truth, if such a thing
>exists, is probably complex and cannot be captured by a simple slogan.
>Probably any workable solution for today's world will require elements from
>both approaches.

As a socialist, do you (general, not personal) think that we should hold
back on advances until all humanity can share the advances equally?  Or,
the opposite extreme - do you think that each person should be out for
himself and get what he wants regardless of who might be left behind?

>Transhumanism cannot be a political movement because it is fragmented on
>the
>very issues that are the object of politics: taxation, economic policy,
>social policy, foreign policy, defense... if we have not agreed on these
>things so far my bet is that we will never agree. At the same time, like it
>or not, politics has and will continue to have a tremendous impact on the
>issues that we transhumanists focus on.

Rightfully so, transhumanism is *not* a political movement, it is a
philosophical/cultural movement.  My reason for continuously writing about
this (every few months to be exact) is that I do think we need to develop a
strategy that is not one party against another, or one transhumanist
political position against or accusing another.  This erodes the very sense
of reason establshed in the foundation of transhumanism.


>Transhumanists, or groups of transhumanists, can and do take an active role
>in the mainstream political movement that they prefer. This should be
>encouraged. I think the time we spend arguing about politics in
>transhumanist fora, would be spent much more productively arguing about
>transhumanism in political fora, where we should push for life extension
>research, the relinquishment of unnecessarily strict legislation in genetic
>research and therapies, the acceptance of the proactionary principle, fight
>Kass,... We should try developing solid arguments and the best ways to sell
>them to audiences of different political persuasion.

Precisely. Thank you.  

Now, I'm going back to the drawing board.  Great!

Natasha

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




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Mar 26 21:29:27 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 15:29:27 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] cold fusion again again
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040326152917.01b6ade8@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/25/science/25FUSI.html




From jef at jefallbright.net  Fri Mar 26 21:33:50 2004
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 13:33:50 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism:  Social Equality and Politics
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403261039350.23122-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403261039350.23122-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <4064A1BE.2020306@jefallbright.net>

Natasha -

It isn't productive to challenge the entrenched political forces 
directly on their own playing field.  Such an attempt is sure to fail, 
not only due to the disparity in size and clout, but also because the 
existing powers are highly tuned to popular sentiment  and exploit it 
effectively.

Technological, social, and political change is happening, and the 
overall trend is toward ever-increasing complexity which includes 
greater awareness, freedom and potential.  This process will continue in 
any case, because the underlying drivers are much more fundamental than 
our current social structures.

The challenge, and the opportunity, is to facilitate this change in the 
most effective way, and minimize the pain and loss that accompanies all 
great change.

Interestingly, and perhaps to be expected, we are just now acquiring the 
tools to achieve this.  Tools for effective information management, 
sharing, and collaboration are augmenting the awareness and intelligence 
of individual humans and groups.  This synergetic, bottom up process 
will eventually displace strong top-down government.

The question is, how much pain and loss will go through as we proceed?

There are some who have looked at this problem and promote racing to 
create a friendly AI that will save us.  Despite noble intentions, the 
glory of the quest, and a comforting wish to be saved by a higher power, 
these efforts are missing the mark, in part due to an elitist arrogance 
that inhibits collaboration.

Natasha, if you want to make a difference toward this cause, I would 
suggest using ExI as a clearing house and resource for extropian and 
transhumanist thinking.  Create an example of what can be done by 
establishing highly effective collaborative and knowledge management 
tools.  Promote constructive dialogue that stimulates young people, by 
maintaining a dynamic list of intriguing questions and thoughts on 
extropian issues.  Direct the creative thoughts of members into a 
growing knowledge base rather than the dissipative ego battles that 
currently predominate. Be prepared when the mainstream media begin to 
come calling -- they're already waking up to these issues.

We're going to get there.  And it will be in a pervasively intelligent 
environment where governments no longer hold their historical monopoly 
on power. The best thing we can do right now is help promote greater 
awareness and effective intelligence among humankind.

- Jef
http://www.jefallbright.net









From astapp at fizzfactorgames.com  Fri Mar 26 21:51:24 2004
From: astapp at fizzfactorgames.com (Acy James Stapp)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 13:51:24 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism:  Social Equality and Politics
Message-ID: <56BC65EB2F3963489057F7D978B5E7B71145F6@amazemail2.amazeent.com>



-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of
natashavita at earthlink.net
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 9:56 AM
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism: Social Equality and Politics


Question:

/For years, I have considered Transhumanism to favor all of society and to
/work toward improving the human condition equally for who so desire it.  By
/this I mean that each human being is given the freedom to choose a
/transhumanist life.  This choice includes all the elements of the
/innovative ideas and intellection of transhumanism, as Max More defined the
/term and fathered the movement.

/Also FM-2030, who wrote the original philosophy of the "transhuman"
/(different than transhumanism), was a humanist who became a transhumanist. 
/His ideology was neatly written in his book, _Are You A Transhuman?_ which
/o outlined his philosophy about personal growth in becoming a transhuman. 
/Herein, he was adamant about human rights and wrote about talked about
/human rights since his early years as a diplomat.

/In my estimation, and what I believe in my own philosophical views about
/transhumanism, and as I wrote and lectured on the topic from the 1980s
/forward, transhumanism is more of an intellectual enlightenment that
/proposes to work toward improving the human condition for all who want to
/improve themselves and to implement the sciences and technologies that will
/assist us in this quest while extending our lives.

An intellectual enlightenment is nothing without power. To achieve
transhuman ideals in the face of powerful opposition demands a
concerted, knowledgeable, and powerful push.

/Transhumanists have been told there were "elitists" (not in the culturally
/positive sense as being culturally polished, but in the negative sense as
/being intellectual/technological superior than the average person.)  This
/is something that we did not ask for or attempt to represent, but was
/donned on us because of our ideas being ahead of their time and speaking in
/a language that was not understood by the mainstream.

/What do you think about pushing transhumanism into political camps? 
/Because politics is based not so much on human values and transhumanist
/goals, but on competing interest groups or individuals for vie for power
/and leadership.  Is this politics over philosophy/social understanding, the
/former being displayed with underhand tactics, and the latter being
/influenced by reasonable efforts?

Politics is all about power, and power is needed to achieve any
grand goal. If you want to achieve anything, you have to play 
the political game. Politics is not all about underhanded
tactics and unreasonable action. Politics is about compromising
what is least important to achieve your cause within the legal
framework for action. We need a political entity to fight for
us in the same political arena as those who oppose us.

/So, you tell me - those of you who are not pushing any one political
/agenda, what do you think?  Do we need to segregate transhumanism into
/political camps that are subsets of political party lines?  Or do we need
/to let the camps be driving forces aspects of transhumanism forward?

/Remember, Extropy Institute does not sponsor or claim any one political
/affiliation or belief, as its core is based in "transhumanism," not
/politics.  Our members share varied political views and I believe that we
/can solve world problems by employ the most workable solution to the
/problem, regardless of which specific positive political course.

I said earlier that we need to make a concerted, knowledgeable, 
and powerful push. Here are my ideas:

To achieve power, we need to get as many people as possible united
in action. We need to determine what the core issues of
transhumanism are. We need to create legal political entities
to represent us. Those entities need to be aggressively centrist
(for the political arena they are competing in) except in the 
areas of utmost importance to transhumanism, so as to get the
most unified support. We need to be willing to sacrifice some
of our values for the greater good. In my experience, we are a
group of idealists. We need pragmatism. We need political experience.
We need to get our core ideals out there. We could learn a lot
from the efforst of Dean, Kucinich, et. al. in the recent US
presidential primaries.

We need to be able to succintly and pointedly present our core
ideals to non-extropians. It's important that they agree with and 
accept the core ideals before they discover that they conflict 
with some of their present values. We need to not conflate the
secondary issues with our core ideas. It's crazy to try and
disentangle extropianism with politics. We need to work within
the system to change it.

Most importantly, we need to convert people to our core ideals,
and we need to not shoot ourselves in the feet. We can't tread
on the sacred values of others unless they are critically and
terminally opposed to the extropian cause.

Peace out,
Acy Stapp


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 26 21:53:43 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 13:53:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] IMMUNE: Nose picking is good for you...
Message-ID: <20040326215343.71236.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com>

Top doc backs picking your nose and eating it 

Picking your nose and eating it is one of the best ways to stay
healthy, according to a top Austrian doctor.

Innsbruck-based lung specialist Prof Dr Friedrich Bischinger said
people who pick their noses with their fingers were healthy, happier
and probably better in tune with their bodies.

He says society should adopt a new approach to nose-picking and
encourage children to take it up.

Dr Bischinger said: "With the finger you can get to places you just
can't reach with a handkerchief, keeping your nose far cleaner.

"And eating the dry remains of what you pull out is a great way of
strengthening the body's immune system.

"Medically it makes great sense and is a perfectly natural thing to do.
In terms of the immune system the nose is a filter in which a great
deal of bacteria are collected, and when this mixture arrives in the
intestines it works just like a medicine.

"Modern medicine is constantly trying to do the same thing through far
more complicated methods, people who pick their nose and eat it get a
natural boost to their immune system for free."

He pointed out that children happily pick their noses, yet by the time
they have become adults they have stopped under pressure from a society
that has branded it disgusting and anti social.

He said: "I would recommend a new approach where children are
encouraged to pick their nose. It is a completely natural response and
medically a good idea as well."

And he pointed out that if anyone was really worried about what their
neighbour was thinking, they could still enjoy picking their nose in
private if they still wanted to get the benefits it offered.


=====
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! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From riel at surriel.com  Sat Mar 27 03:21:06 2004
From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:21:06 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] gays can be fired for being gay
In-Reply-To: <20040324203146.75414.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040324203146.75414.qmail@web12907.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.55L.0403262218410.16932@imladris.surriel.com>

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> Considering I was once fired by a US subsidiary of the French National
> Railway for being Libertarian, I'm asking why you are surprised?

Not surprised at all.  US democracy is more and more
resembling the parabel of 3 wolves and 1 sheep voting
what's for dinner.

> One more example of liberals whining when their own ox is being gored,
> but cheering along the gestapo when it serves their needs.

Since you've already pointed out that anybody could be the
proverbial sheep, I'm not sure you should be so enthusiastic
when you can be a wolf this time.

Taking away each other's rights in turns will leave us all
robbed of our rights.  Better spend our efforts trying to
increase (or at least preserve) each other's rights, so we
all end up better in the end.

Rik
-- 
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan


From extropy at unreasonable.com  Sat Mar 27 05:06:30 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 00:06:30 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism:  Social Equality and Politics
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403261039350.23122-100000@server.aeiveos.co
 m>
References: <323910-220043526175534782@M2W032.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040326231147.02891858@mail.comcast.net>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>I do not believe that it would be wise (or even possible)
>to attempt to merge transhumanism with politics.

I found your typically insightful posting marred by an inaccurate 
generalization --

>You are correct in pointing out that politics is in large
>part about power (IMO).  We can see that with the political
>(aka religious) factions in Iraq currently.  It extends
>to the Jews and Palestinians (I'm using the word Jew
>intentionally to imply someone who believes that Israel
>belongs to the Jews rather than someone who might live
>in Israel).  And then one has the right wing and/or
>born again Christians in the U.S.
>
>The first problem is that these people function on the basis of faith 
>rather than reason.  ...  It ranges from difficult to impossible to 
>"reason" with someone whose life is based on faith.

Perhaps we need the disambiguation that Spike and I discussed not long ago. 
By your examples, you suggest that faith refers to "a system of religious 
belief" [1] but then use it in its sense of "belief not based in proof" [2] 
and present it as incompatible with reason.

A majority of Israelis of Jewish ethnicity lack religious belief, as well 
as a sizeable fraction of ethnic Jews elsewhere. Presumably the irreligious 
also exist in Iraq, among Palestinians, and in the US right wing.

They may reach the same policy positions as the religious but their 
justification differs. This difference may leave them more amenable to 
compromise or negotiation. ("We must keep this land because God/Allah gave 
it to us" differs from "We must keep this land because we face annihilation 
if we relinquish it.")

As for faith-2 being incompatible with reason, any chain of logic begins 
with axioms and premises. We all must accept some matters as axiomatic, 
although we may on occasion speculate as to their validity.

I think you and I differ from "a man of faith-1" not in the use of reason 
but in our desire and efforts to minimize our regions of faith-2.


-- David Lubkin.


PS -- This posting marks my first conscious attempt to post in E-Prime. In 
practicing, I already encountered one statement I found difficult to 
express clearly in E-Prime: "Friday is John's birthday." I needed untenable 
circumlocution. Any ideas?




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sat Mar 27 10:28:08 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 02:28:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism:  Social Equality and Politics
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040326231147.02891858@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403270057480.8807-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, David Lubkin wrote:

> I found your typically insightful posting marred by an inaccurate
> generalization --

Ok, yes David, I was generalizing.  I did attempt to qualify
the statements but may not have done so sufficiently because
I was attempting to make the points as short as possible.

> Perhaps we need the disambiguation that Spike and I discussed not long ago.
> By your examples, you suggest that faith refers to "a system of religious
> belief" [1] but then use it in its sense of "belief not based in proof" [2]
> and present it as incompatible with reason.
[snip]

Let me attempt to qualify.  I have no problems with a system of beliefs.
We may require these because they provide shortcuts for how to think
about things (I believe it was recently demonstrated that the thought
processes in the brain will take the short cuts when they are available --
this only makes sense as it consumes less energy.)

Where I have a problem is as you point out "belief not based in proof"
and where I get particularly annoyed is with the "fiction" that may
be involved in the Christian gospels (the recent PBS special I observed
documented how the gospels were written long after Christ may have been
alive, were selected from multiple histories available for political
purposes, and so on and so forth).  The situation in the Iraq at
this time is probably little different (multiple factions fighting
for their beliefs when there are nothing but hand-me-down stories
that their beliefs are accurate much less reasonable).

I think this all goes back to "tribalism" and perhaps even further
to reproductive opportunities.  (In other words I think it may be
rooted in our genes.)  As you point out it is in large part about
survival and that in turn is linked to opportunities to procreate.
Obviously the more resources that one can control the better are
ones opportunities in that respect.  And so of course the desire
(or genetic need) to control resources leads to politics and
then power structures.  [Iraq is a classic case in point in
this respect now -- the old power holding elite have been
or are being thrown out and they aren't happy about it.]

My perspective is that extropianism and/or transhumanism
are going to have to come to grips with this.  We have strong
drives to exist in "tribes", tribes want to eliminate or
disempower other tribes to gain power.  Once in power they
want to reproduce.  It doesn't work.  You can go all the
way from Malthus to Dyson to my work on MBrains -- you
will at some point hit the reproductive wall.  The most
recent book by Kirkwood had an interesting solution -- that
parents were bound by contract to end their lives after a
certain amount of time so that their children might live.
I think there may be other solutions but it is going to
require a fair amount of work to define and implement them.

So here is the short form:

- We are probably driven by genes to group ourselves into
  "tribes", "clans", "families" and behave in ways that
  support such.

- Such behavior cannot probably survive in the long form
  due to environmental limits (witness the degree to which
  humanity is stressing the ecology of the planet already).
  [Oh yes -- technology development can deal with it in
   the short term but that doesn't deal with the fact that
   sooner or later there are limits.]

- Even limited immortality and reproduction are inherently
  not compatible.  And I'd enjoy watching the survival
  time of any politician that attempts to present that point.
  [One would be placing two primary instincts -- survival and
   reproduction up against each other.]

But David's points are well taken -- the problem really is
the survival of people who are alive now.  I've pointed out
previously how to deal with this -- just use Nanotech to
duplicate Israel.  Unfortunately as Mike has pointed out
to me offlist we do not have Nano-santas today.  But the
question to ask just might be how do we get them here
a bit sooner?  I do not fully agree with people who would
kill big government that can execute genome projects ranging
from 50 million to 3 billion dollars.  At the same time
I don't agree with big government that hasn't figured out
how to balance its books with respect to entitlements.
I do not think these problems are easy to resolve.

Robert




From gpmap at runbox.com  Sat Mar 27 11:43:50 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 12:43:50 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] The Brain? It's A Jungle in There
Message-ID: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGKEMBCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From the New York Times: The immensity of Dr. Edelman's project - explaining
the development of the human mind - overwhelms. Yet his ideas about how
consciousness arises from the firings of neurons begin to seem eminently
plausible because something similar seems to be happening in the hum and
current of your own brain, in the excited state brought on by Dr. Edelman's
voluble mixture of calculation, charisma, enterprise and brilliance.
In his new book [Wider than the Sky: The Phenomenal Gift of Consciousness],
in just 148 pages of exposition, he tries to distill his ideas for a lay
reader. This is a quixotic task, given the nature of what he has called "the
most complicated material object in the known universe." But Dr. Edelman
gives a sense of the problem's scope and some flavor of his proposals.
Located on Torrey Pines Mesa in La Jolla, California, Nobel Laureate Gerald
M. Edelman's The Neurosciences Institute is a not-for-profit research center
dedicated to "high risk - high payoff" research designed to discover the
biological basis of higher-level brain functions in humans.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.634 / Virus Database: 406 - Release Date: 18/03/2004
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040327/79401188/attachment.html>

From gpmap at runbox.com  Sat Mar 27 14:14:38 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 15:14:38 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism:  Social Equality and Politics
In-Reply-To: <68680-22004352620501152@M2W060.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGKEMCCAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

(personal, not general: cannot answer for others). No, and no. These two
extreme views are two good examples of precisely what I stand against.

---Natasha: As a socialist, do you (general, not personal) think that we
should hold
back on advances until all humanity can share the advances equally?  Or,
the opposite extreme - do you think that each person should be out for
himself and get what he wants regardless of who might be left behind?
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.634 / Virus Database: 406 - Release Date: 18/03/2004



From support at imminst.org  Sat Mar 27 14:33:50 2004
From: support at imminst.org (support at imminst.org)
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 08:33:50 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] ImmInst Update - "Luna" Virtual Spokesperson
Message-ID: <406590ce7d99d@imminst.org>

Immortality Institute ~ For Infinite Lifespans 
********************* 
Ending the Blight of Involuntary Death 
Basic Members: 1358 - Full Members: 72 


Luna: ImmInst's New Virtual Spokesperson
********************* 
Luna presents daily updates from the homepage: 
http://www.imminst.org (click "PLAY AUDIO")


**Chat: Posthumans & Extended Lifespans
********************* 
Writer, artist, and Associate Editor of Leonardo 
Reviews for the journal of the International Society 
for the Arts, Science and technology, Robert Pepperell 
joins ImmInst to discuss the prospect for posthuman 
existence and extended lifespans. 
**Special Chat Time: *3* PM Eastern - Sunday Mar 28
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=144&t=3214


Chat: Infinite Females 
********************* 
This month's chat is open (public) to all 
members interested in talking about issues 
important to immortalist women.
Chat - Sunday Mar 28 @ 6 PM Eastern - http://www.imminst.org/if


"Facing" Cryonics 
********************* 
Up to 19 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 bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sat Mar 27 15:25:52 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 02:25:52 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism:  Social Equality and Politics
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403270057480.8807-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <008f01c4140f$cac9bc20$412b2dcb@homepc>

Robert Bradbury wrote:

... as Mike has pointed out
> to me offlist we do not have Nano-santas today.  But the
> question to ask just might be how do we get them here
> a bit sooner?

If Nano-santa and genie-machine requiring an assembler are
the same thing then I don't think that's "how soon" is the 
question.

The question is is it possible? And the answer is we don't know 
until we see a systems specification that shows a full set of 
components necessary to produce an assembler (at any scale
would be a very good start). 

If we knew an assembler could be produced from 300 or 
even 300,000 parts because those parts together constituted
a full set of elements then we could look at various ways to 
improve or better optimise the design and to apply a timeline.
We'd have a basis for working out how long it might take to
build the parts and to assemble assembler number 1. Without
a list of components showing its possible any time and cost
numbers may as well be numerology.

We could just as usefully ask "how soon to Elvis next appears
in concert?"

Drexler did not outline a set of parts for an assembler in 
Nanosystems and if Von Neumann or anyone else has 
done it I haven't seen it.

Unless we can see that it is possible somehow in engineering
terms to build an assembler (by reference to a full set of
components -even a suboptimised set at the microscale or
any scale) how soon is a premature question. 

Show the world that assemblers are possible with a spec
that contains all the parts and it would be possible to put
both a political and commercial value on each of the parts. There
would be a reason to pursue each part.

In politics, as in engineering, opportunity costs matter as there 
are only a finite amount of resources to go around. 


Regards,
Brett Paatsch




From samantha at objectent.com  Fri Mar 26 09:20:34 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:20:34 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] The end of crime as we used to know it?
In-Reply-To: <OJEHKDIANIFPAJPDBDGLGEGCDBAA.rafal@smigrodzki.org>
References: <OJEHKDIANIFPAJPDBDGLGEGCDBAA.rafal@smigrodzki.org>
Message-ID: <D5D083A3-7F06-11D8-8124-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>


On Mar 22, 2004, at 1:29 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> ### But Eugen, all that you write is again arguing against 
> authoritarians
> using or suppressing surveillance technology (and arguing against
> authoritarians is usually futile, since they will do what they want, 
> not
> what you suggest), or against sheeple, but nothing really argues 
> against the
> use of private surveillance technologies in reasonably democratic 
> societies.
>
> (I wrote "again" because I remember you writing almost the same lines 
> a year
> ago, or so.)
>

Ultimately, it will come down to whether any politician will want to go 
on record for limiting the intelligence, memory, and ability to 
communicate of his or her constituents.    As technology moves forward 
it will eventually become assumed that no one ever forgets anything 
they have experienced and that they are able to replay that experience 
with high fidelity at any time.  Less than this is placing hard limits 
on human cognitive ability.  It is a claim that if you were not born 
with such an ability then you have it only at the discretion of the 
State.  I don't think that will play very well.

- samantha



From samantha at objectent.com  Fri Mar 26 09:24:47 2004
From: samantha at objectent.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:24:47 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Altered genes let roundworms wiggle longer
In-Reply-To: <13A1AE1E-7C52-11D8-A7EE-000A27960BC6@HarveyNewstrom.com>
References: <13A1AE1E-7C52-11D8-A7EE-000A27960BC6@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <6C9F607A-7F07-11D8-8124-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>


On Mar 22, 2004, at 2:41 PM, Harvey Newstrom wrote:

>
> On Monday, March 22, 2004, at 01:58 pm, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:
>
>> From SFGate.com: If humans are like worms, we may be closer to living 
>> considerably longer lives than most people realize.
>
> I don't know why the author even bothered to start with sentence, when 
> the logical premise is disproved immediately thereafter:
>
>> The worms in question are transparent and about a millimeter long. A 
>> favorite of geneticists because of their simple anatomy and small 
>> number of genes,
>
> These worms are favored by geneticists because they are NOT like 
> complicated humans either in anatomy or genetics.
>

Do you believe the differences are so relevant that they make this 
result utterly useless?

- samantha
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1011 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040326/1263c9e5/attachment.bin>

From twodeel at jornada.org  Sat Mar 27 16:03:27 2004
From: twodeel at jornada.org (Don Dartfield)
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 08:03:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism:  Social Equality and Politics
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040326231147.02891858@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403270802440.20284-100000@hplx.net>

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, David Lubkin wrote:

> PS -- This posting marks my first conscious attempt to post in E-Prime.
> In practicing, I already encountered one statement I found difficult to
> express clearly in E-Prime: "Friday is John's birthday." I needed
> untenable circumlocution. Any ideas?

How about "John has a birthday Friday"?



From extropy at unreasonable.com  Sat Mar 27 17:49:11 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 12:49:11 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] E-Prime (was: Transhumanism:  Social
	Equality and Politics)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403270802440.20284-100000@hplx.net>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040326231147.02891858@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040327123312.029176f0@mail.comcast.net>

I asked:

 > PS -- This posting marks my first conscious attempt to post in E-Prime.
 > In practicing, I already encountered one statement I found difficult to
 > express clearly in E-Prime: "Friday is John's birthday." I needed
 > untenable circumlocution. Any ideas?

and Don Dartfield replied:

>How about "John has a birthday Friday"?

That works, but I actually needed to express

"Today isn't John's birthday. It's Friday."

I suppose then

"John has a birthday not today but Friday." or
"John has a birthday on Friday not today."

I lack the experience to reliably invent graceful phrasings in E-Prime 
without multiple drafts.

Does anyone also omit forms of "to have", on grounds of imprecision?


-- David Lubkin.




From dgc at cox.net  Sat Mar 27 18:00:43 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 13:00:43 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] E-Prime (was: Transhumanism:  Social	Equality
	and Politics)
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040327123312.029176f0@mail.comcast.net>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040326231147.02891858@mail.comcast.net>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20040327123312.029176f0@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <4065C14B.4050404@cox.net>

David Lubkin wrote:

> I suppose then
>
> "John has a birthday not today but Friday." or
> "John has a birthday on Friday not today."
>
"John's birthday will occur on Friday."

(I assert that this statement implies the second statment also,
because you know that today is not Friday.)

However, "birthday" is not precise, so the following may be better:

"John's mother bore John on a prior anniversary of Friday."

I have not studied E-prime. I simply restated your assertion in
less ambiguous english.



From zero_powers at hotmail.com  Sat Mar 27 19:23:42 2004
From: zero_powers at hotmail.com (Zero Powers)
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 11:23:42 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Christianity (Was Transhumanism: Social Equality and
	Politics)
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403270057480.8807-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <BAY2-DAV17YccSN00kt00011550@hotmail.com>

Robert, the issues you raise with the development of the Christian canon are
precisely what started me down the road to conversion.  About 10 years ago I
was an evangelical christian and came across The Jesus Seminar's "The
Complete Gospels"
http://westarinstitute.org/Polebridge/Title/Complete/complete.html

Which introduced me to the works of the Jesus Seminar.  It wasn't long after
reading some of their excellently researched and written books (including
"Honest to Jesus," "The Acts of Jesus," and "The Historical Jesus") that my
conversion began.  I went from being a Christian, to an agnostic, to (now)
an atheist.

I checked out the PBS website to see what I could find on the show you
mentioned and here it is:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/emergence.html

-Zero

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 2:28 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism: Social Equality and Politics


Where I have a problem is as you point out "belief not based in proof"
and where I get particularly annoyed is with the "fiction" that may
be involved in the Christian gospels (the recent PBS special I observed
documented how the gospels were written long after Christ may have been
alive, were selected from multiple histories available for political
purposes, and so on and so forth).  The situation in the Iraq at
this time is probably little different (multiple factions fighting
for their beliefs when there are nothing but hand-me-down stories
that their beliefs are accurate much less reasonable).


From extropy at unreasonable.com  Sat Mar 27 19:34:41 2004
From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 14:34:41 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] E-Prime
In-Reply-To: <4065C14B.4050404@cox.net>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040327123312.029176f0@mail.comcast.net>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20040326231147.02891858@mail.comcast.net>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20040327123312.029176f0@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040327141312.02dd8008@mail.comcast.net>

Dan Clemmensen wrote:

>"John's birthday will occur on Friday."
>
>(I assert that this statement implies the second statment also,
>because you know that today is not Friday.)

The context in which the question occurred was that a correspondent 
asserted that "today is X's birthday" and I wished to correct them. Your 
rephrase doesn't reflect the need in conversation to explicitly deny the 
initial assertion.

>However, "birthday" is not precise, so the following may be better:
>
>"John's mother bore John on a prior anniversary of Friday."
>
>I have not studied E-prime. I simply restated your assertion in
>less ambiguous english.

Your second rephrase presupposes existence of a mother and of pregnancy.

Of more immediate concern, no form either of us presented clarifies the 
calendrical system in use. Indeed, my grandmother celebrated her birthday 
on the anniversary of its date according to the Hebrew calendar and even 
did not know her correct Gregorian birth date.

I had disputes with my ex-wife over whether a day began at sundown the 
night before, at midnight, or at a reasonable morning hour. (When does a 
custodial period begin or end?)

And my daughter takes birth time and time zone into account, and raises a 
glass at the precise time designated on her birth certificate.

Our exchange emphasizes for me the great difficulty of removing all 
ambiguity. So much for writing a clarified version of the US Constitution....


-- David Lubkin.




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sat Mar 27 20:13:15 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 15:13:15 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Altered genes let roundworms wiggle longer
In-Reply-To: <6C9F607A-7F07-11D8-8124-000A95B1AFDE@objectent.com>
Message-ID: <2E0DDD83-802B-11D8-B905-000A27960BC6@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Friday, March 26, 2004, at 04:24 am, Samantha Atkins wrote:

>
> On Mar 22, 2004, at 2:41 PM, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
>>
>> On Monday, March 22, 2004, at 01:58 pm, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:
>>
>>> From SFGate.com: If humans are like worms, we may be closer to 
>>> living considerably longer lives than most people realize.
>>
>> I don't know why the author even bothered to start with sentence, 
>> when the logical premise is disproved immediately thereafter:
>>
>>> The worms in question are transparent and about a millimeter long. A 
>>> favorite of geneticists because of their simple anatomy and small 
>>> number of genes,
>>
>> These worms are favored by geneticists because they are NOT like 
>> complicated humans either in anatomy or genetics.
>
> Do you believe the differences are so relevant that they make this 
> result utterly useless?

No.  I never said the results were utterly useless.  I said the first 
sentence was refuted by the third sentence, so that the conclusion is 
obviously faulty.  We are NOT "closer to living considerably longer 
lives than most people realize" as a result of this finding.  This may 
be useful in the long-term, but not in the way speculated by the first 
sentence.

--
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: 1694 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040327/3a970817/attachment.bin>

From dgc at cox.net  Sat Mar 27 20:11:03 2004
From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen)
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 15:11:03 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] E-Prime
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040327141312.02dd8008@mail.comcast.net>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040327123312.029176f0@mail.comcast.net>	<5.1.0.14.2.20040326231147.02891858@mail.comcast.net>	<5.1.0.14.2.20040327123312.029176f0@mail.comcast.net>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20040327141312.02dd8008@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <4065DFD7.20001@cox.net>

David Lubkin wrote:

> Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>
>> "John's birthday will occur on Friday."
>>
>> (I assert that this statement implies the second statment also,
>> because you know that today is not Friday.)
>
>
> The context in which the question occurred was that a correspondent 
> asserted that "today is X's birthday" and I wished to correct them. 
> Your rephrase doesn't reflect the need in conversation to explicitly 
> deny the initial assertion.
>
>> However, "birthday" is not precise, so the following may be better:
>>
>> "John's mother bore John on a prior anniversary of Friday."
>>
>> I have not studied E-prime. I simply restated your assertion in
>> less ambiguous english.
>
>
> Your second rephrase presupposes existence of a mother and of pregnancy.
>
> Of more immediate concern, no form either of us presented clarifies 
> the calendrical system in use. Indeed, my grandmother celebrated her 
> birthday on the anniversary of its date according to the Hebrew 
> calendar and even did not know her correct Gregorian birth date.
>
> I had disputes with my ex-wife over whether a day began at sundown the 
> night before, at midnight, or at a reasonable morning hour. (When does 
> a custodial period begin or end?)
>
> And my daughter takes birth time and time zone into account, and 
> raises a glass at the precise time designated on her birth certificate.
>
>
I think that the following is an unambiguous statement of what you were 
trying to convey:
"John celebrates the holiday he calls his "birthday" on Friday, not today."
   or even
"John celebrates his birthday on Friday, not today."

My earlier example did not presuppose the existence of a mother. The 
speaker can use it when
the speaker knows the circumstances and the speaker desires to convey 
them. Your other
examples demonstrate that you wanted to refer to "birthday" in the sense 
of a personal holiday.
The word "celebrates" (or "observes") do not conote anything about the 
actual date of birth.
Since you want to convey John's actions or state of mind, you do in fact 
need the "not today:" John
could after all elect to observe his birthday twice, or for a period 
longer than a day.



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sat Mar 27 21:48:30 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 13:48:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Altered genes let roundworms wiggle longer
In-Reply-To: <000901c41095$621c2640$412b2dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403271301160.23691-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


I'm not going to respond to Brett's points with a case by case
argument for the sake of trying to be brief.  I will make two
points.

First, I believe that Greg Fahy at 21st Century Medicine is
making good progress with using vitrification for the preservation
of at least some organs.  Investigating in PubMed and/or contacting
them directly would probably confirm or deny this.

I also believe there is a lot of scientific area that remains
to be explored with respect to cells that can tolerate freezing
(in areas ranging from antifreeze proteins to the repair of
damage caused by freezing).

Second, with respect to the "self" debate (relating perhaps to choices
with respect to reanimation style) -- this has come up a number
of times on the ExI list over the years.  I do not believe it
has ever been resolved.  In part it remains a difficult philosophical
problem to exactly what "self" is.

There are going to be people who insist that they want the original
atoms in the original form.  For example if one looks at my solution
to the Israel-Palestinian problem of eventually using nanotech to
duplicate the country and splitting the atoms such that each party
gets half people who have the opinion "I want nothing less than
the original" will not be satisfied.

Now on the other side of the fence there are people who will be
comfortable with "if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck
and quacks like a duck -- its a duck".

I do not see a way to resolve this debate.  I would simply hold
that in my opinion that the closer one can get to the pattern
and expression of "Robert" then the closer one is to my "self"
surviving (which is one reason why I raised the possible
reconstruction of Robert from a database of information about
Robert a month or so ago [which if I recall correctly Harvey completely
dissed]).  Now the only problem is that if the technology is
good enough (i.e. not dealing with reconstructions from an information
base but dealing with reconstructions from the actual molecular framework)
one could easily end up with a dozen Robert's in operational condition.
And I'm not going to inflict that upon the list (at least not today :-)).

Robert

P.S. It would however be an interesting debate as to how many copies
of specific individuals it would take to make the ExI list non-functional.
Hmmmm... seems like we need a revision to the posting limits with respect
to how many messages one (or ones copies) can send each day.



From eugen at leitl.org  Sat Mar 27 21:55:34 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 22:55:34 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Altered genes let roundworms wiggle longer
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403271301160.23691-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <000901c41095$621c2640$412b2dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0403271301160.23691-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040327215534.GX28136@leitl.org>

On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 01:48:30PM -0800, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

> First, I believe that Greg Fahy at 21st Century Medicine is
> making good progress with using vitrification for the preservation
> of at least some organs.  Investigating in PubMed and/or contacting
> them directly would probably confirm or deny this.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WD5-4BDC848-2&_user=10&_handle=B-WA-A-A-AC-MsSAYZA-UUA-AUYWADYUYU-AUDEDCYYYU-BUYDDAUBU-AC-U&_fmt=full&_coverDate=02%2F29%2F2004&_rdoc=3&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236757%232004%23999519998%23480579!&_cdi=6757&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=47a4cadf64be1e80b143eacbc2f5af6d

Volume 48, Issue 1  ,  February 2004,  Pages 22-35

doi:10.1016/j.cryobiol.2003.11.004?????Cite or link using doi  ? 
Copyright ? 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Improved vitrification solutions based on the predictability of vitrification
solution toxicity*1, *2

Gregory M. Fahy, , a, Brian Wowka, Jun Wua and Sharon Paynterb 

a 21st Century Medicine, Inc., 10844 Edison Court, Rancho Cucamonga, CA
91730, USA
b Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Wales College of
Medicine Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4XN, Wales, UK 

Received 9 July 2003;? accepted 18 November 2003.?; Available online 7
January 2004. 

Abstract

Long-term preservation of complex engineered tissues and organs at cryogenic
temperatures in the absence of ice has been prevented to date by the
difficulty of discovering combinations of cryoprotectants that are both
sufficiently non-toxic and sufficiently stable to allow viability to be
maintained and ice formation to be avoided during slow cooling to the glass
transition temperature and subsequent slow rewarming. A new theory of the
origin of non-specific cryoprotectant toxicity was shown to account, in a
rabbit renal cortical slice model, for the toxicities of 20 vitrification
solutions and to permit the design of new solutions that are dramatically
less toxic than previously known solutions for diverse biological systems.
Unfertilized mouse ova vitrified with one of the new solutions were
successfully fertilized and regained 80% of the absolute control (untreated)
rate of development to blastocysts, whereas ova vitrified in VSDP, the best
previous solution, developed to blastocysts at a rate only 30% of that of
controls. Whole rabbit kidneys perfused at -3??C with another new solution
at a concentration of cryoprotectant (8.4?M) that was previously 100% lethal
at this temperature exhibited no damage after transplantation and immediate
contralateral nephrectomy. It appears that cryoprotectant solutions that are
composed to be at the minimum concentrations needed for vitrification at
moderate cooling rates are toxic in direct proportion to the average strength
of water hydrogen bonding by the polar groups on the permeating
cryoprotectants in the solution. Vitrification solutions that are based on
minimal perturbation of intracellular water appear to be superior and provide
new hope that the successful vitrification of natural organs as well as
tissue engineered or clonally produced organ and tissue replacements can be
achieved.

Author Keywords: Cryoprotective agents; Organ preservation; Engineered
tissues; Tissue banking; Dimethyl sulfoxide; Formamide; Ethylene glycol; Ice
blockers; Polyvinyl alcohol; Polyglycerol; Polyvinylpyrrolidone; LM5;
TransSend; X-1000; VM3; 9v; Z-1000 


-- 
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/20040327/298aa44f/attachment.bin>

From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sat Mar 27 22:22:37 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 14:22:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Christianity (Was Transhumanism: Social Equality
	and Politics)
In-Reply-To: <BAY2-DAV17YccSN00kt00011550@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403271356210.23691-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Zero -- thanks for the links though I may not have time to
review them all.  I thought the PBS program was good in that
it compressed a lot of information that people should know
into a short amount of time.  I wish it were required viewing
for most high school students.

I want to be clear about something -- I do *not* object
to Christian, Jewish or Muslim (or other major religious
groups) codes of conduct.  I think they may have provided
rules that allowed people in tribes or clans to behave
reasonably and prosper (i.e. be extropic).

Where I have a problem is with the concept(s) that these
perspectives are (a) accurate; and (b) cast in bronze.

The concepts were always being manipulated (studies
the history of the popes to the emperors in China
ought to demonstrate that).

And more importantly -- from an extropian/transhumanistic
perspective we cannot allow the concepts to be cast in bronze.

If Ray is right and the rate of change is only going to
increase (which is correct as far as I can judge) then
if humanity is to survive (in an evolved form) we are
going to have to significantly increase our rate of adaptation.

Hanging onto 1300 or 2000 or 4000 year old perspectives
is *not* going to work.  Taking the best of those perspectives
and seeking to evolve them (rationally) in light of our
increased and increasing knowledge might.

Robert



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sat Mar 27 22:24:10 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 17:24:10 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Altered genes let roundworms wiggle longer
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403271301160.23691-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <781F32E1-803D-11D8-9C29-000A27960BC6@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Saturday, March 27, 2004, at 04:48 pm, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> There are going to be people who insist that they want the original
> atoms in the original form.

Has anybody ever really claimed this on this list?  I keep seeing this 
as the default straw-man position that people ascribe to opposing 
positions.  But I can't recall anybody actually claiming that for their 
own position.

--
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 jcorb at irishbroadband.net  Sat Mar 27 22:35:09 2004
From: jcorb at irishbroadband.net (J Corbally)
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 22:35:09 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS:Nasa Mach 7 mission accomplished
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20040327223159.01c19338@pop3.irishbroadband.ie>

They did it!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3575561.stm

Just watched it live on the ITV 24 news, but had to wait a few minutes for 
the confirmation.


>The US space agency, Nasa, has successfully flown an experimental 
>hypersonic plane over California for the first time.
>The unpiloted X-43A aircraft used a scramjet engine that could one day 
>usher in a new generation of space shuttle propulsion systems.
>Nasa said it briefly reached a record Mach 7, AFP news agency reported.
>The technology could one day pave the way for faster long-distance air 
>travel and cheaper access to space.
>The mission began when a B-52 bomber carrying the experimental aircraft 
>under its wing took off from Edwards Air Force Base.
>Once the bomber reached cruising altitude, the X-43A was launched in 
>mid-air, its speed initially boosted by a rocket.
>However, the 1,300kg wedge-shaped research craft then separated from its 
>booster and accelerated away with the power from its scramjet.
>The engine was designed to operate for just 10 seconds, leaving the X-43A 
>was to glide through the atmosphere, conducting a series of aerodynamic 
>manoeuvres for several minutes before it finally splashed down off the 
>Californian coast.
>The mission marked the first time a non-rocket, air-breathing scramjet 
>engine had successfully powered a vehicle in flight at hypersonic speeds.




James...




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sat Mar 27 23:17:09 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 15:17:09 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Altered genes let roundworms wiggle longer
In-Reply-To: <781F32E1-803D-11D8-9C29-000A27960BC6@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403271454250.23691-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, Harvey Newstrom wrote:

> On Saturday, March 27, 2004, at 04:48 pm, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> > There are going to be people who insist that they want the original
> > atoms in the original form.
>
> Has anybody ever really claimed this on this list?

Harvey -- to the best of my knowledge nobody on the list has
attempted to assert this.  I did offer it as the straw-man
because I suspect there are a *lot* of people in the world
who (being unexposed to the list and its related educational
aspects) might take that position.  (You and I as well as
others on the list with backgrounds in biochemistry can of
course discuss at length rates of atomic turnover within the human
body -- so the concept as I stated it is problematic from the start.
I attempted to make it a little less problematic by selecting an inanimate
object (the state of Israel) for an example of something that might
be replicated.  It at least may be closer to its "original form"
than any of our bodies are.)

To the best of my recall Damien may be the person who is
least comfortable with a copy (in various forms) being oneself.
Since I think the discussions related to this were several years
ago I do not know what his current opinions are.

Robert




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sat Mar 27 23:37:55 2004
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 18:37:55 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Altered genes let roundworms wiggle longer
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403271454250.23691-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <C5C604F6-8047-11D8-ADDB-000A27960BC6@HarveyNewstrom.com>


On Saturday, March 27, 2004, at 06:17 pm, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, March 27, 2004, at 04:48 pm, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>>> There are going to be people who insist that they want the original
>>> atoms in the original form.
>>
>> Has anybody ever really claimed this on this list?
>
> Harvey -- to the best of my knowledge nobody on the list has
> attempted to assert this.  I did offer it as the straw-man
> because I suspect there are a *lot* of people in the world
> who (being unexposed to the list and its related educational
> aspects) might take that position.

I doubt this.  I think it is a non-issue and the wrong problem to solve.

Specifically:  I think the real concern is not whether we can attach 
the label "self" to new copies, but whether we can *detach* this label 
from the original or pre-existing copies that are already identified as 
"self".

Also:  I don't recall anybody objecting to the *creation* of copies.  
People only seem violently opposed to the *destruction* of the original 
or pre-existing copies.

--
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 bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sat Mar 27 23:42:35 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 09:42:35 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility
References: <4065BF36.7000704@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <00d901c41455$2e527cb0$412b2dcb@homepc>

> Re your recent ExI posting on assemblers:
> 
> You seem to be assuming that assemblers must be
> incredibly complex. And that's true--but the complexity 
> doesn't have to be mechanical. A computer-controlled
> assembler can be physically quite simple, and have all the
> complexity downloaded.
> 
> A simple mechanism can be constructed in many different
> ways.  All you need is manipulators with a few degrees of 
> freedom, and enough precision to do the job.  10 N/m 
> stiffness should work for scanning probe surface deposition,
> and diamond should be that stiff even at the nanoscale.

I don't think I was assuming much about complexity at all. I said 
anything from 300 to 300,000 parts. 300 parts would not be 
particularly complex.

My point was there is no specification for a system to produce an 
assembler of any finite number of parts. And therefore there is no
sound basis for either (a) estimating how soon that system could
be produced such that the first assembler could be made, or 
(b) suggesting optimisations or streamlines on that design to bring
the estimated time of arrival pr assembly of that first assembler
forward. 

The assembler (however complex) has to be *physical* to make
physical objects. There are no computers completely without 
hardware. If the computer is not part of the assembler then 
its not a self-replicating system, if it is, the parts for the computing
subsystem have to be included in the parts for building the first
assembler.  

How do you know that "a computer-controlled assembler can
be physically quite simple" without have a specification for it that
includes a set of physical components? Do you have such a 
specification showing a finite set of component parts? 

If not, how is this a statement of anything more than hope and 
belief?

And if it is merely a statement of hope and belief why should 
public resources be directed towards it and away from other
projects that can show a return on investment?

Regards,
Brett Paatsch

PS: I've back-posted this to the ExI list and to Robert because
I thought it might be of interest there as well. 




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Mar 28 00:41:08 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 18:41:08 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Altered genes let roundworms wiggle longer
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403271454250.23691-100000@server.aeiveos.co
 m>
References: <781F32E1-803D-11D8-9C29-000A27960BC6@HarveyNewstrom.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0403271454250.23691-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040327182630.01bf5ec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 03:17 PM 3/27/2004 -0800, Robert wrote:

> > > There are going to be people who insist that they want the original
> > > atoms in the original form.
>
> > Has anybody ever really claimed this on this list?
>
>To the best of my recall Damien may be the person who is
>least comfortable with a copy (in various forms) being oneself.

Nobody with an understanding of the current ceaseless replacement of atoms 
in a living body could possibly insist on *the same atoms*. Interestingly, 
ardent Xians must also accept that when God resurrects them on the Last 
Day, they'll be made of different atoms; apart from anything else, there 
won't be enough to go around.

The identity question has to do with continuity in space and time.

As Harvey added:

 >I don't recall anybody objecting to the *creation* of copies.
 >People only seem violently opposed to the *destruction*
 >of the original or pre-existing copies.

Make as many copies of me as you wish. The world can use all it can get. 
Each of them will feel convinced that he's me, but they'll all be in error, 
as I will be happy to assure them if I'm still alive at the end of the 
copying process.

And at this point the evil doctor thought-experiments always kick in, and 
we're all severally confounded by our ingenious antagonists.

I can't set a point at which gradual replacement goes to discontinuity. To 
set up a simple model: if we can introduce blank nanones each with the 
capacity to program itself with the function of one existing neuron and its 
thousands of synapses, dendrites and all, and these nanones sit quietly as 
inconspicuous redundant backup, switching into use only as their organic 
partner neuron ails and dies, I'm still me in 1000 years, even though not 
one wheel or spoke of the old cart is still there. But if the copies all 
get sneezed out during a terrible hayfever attack, and coalesce on the 
floor into a functioning Damien brain, that guy will *think* he's me, but 
he won't be.

Damien Broderick 




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sun Mar 28 00:47:31 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 16:47:31 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Altered genes let roundworms wiggle longer
In-Reply-To: <C5C604F6-8047-11D8-ADDB-000A27960BC6@HarveyNewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403271556150.27210-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, Harvey Newstrom wrote:

Commenting on my commentary with respect to how various
elements at loose in the world might view aspects of
reanimation and/or copies of oneself:

> I doubt this.  I think it is a non-issue and the wrong problem to solve.

I might agree on the non-issue part -- it begs the issue of where
extropians or transhumanists should place their priorities.

I might disagree on it being the wrong problem to solve.  I am
an extropian.  I believe that greater complexity, understanding,
ways of operating are a good thing.  (I will admit that there
are some shots that can be taken against this perspective -- but
then I'm going to take you to the wall on when less complexity works
better than more complexity and can it be applied from a universal
perspective?  Case in point -- the understanding that viruses and
bacteria cause diseases -- and we can produce drugs that defeat them.
Nature is complex -- we have to learn to live with it.

> Specifically:  I think the real concern is not whether we can attach
> the label "self" to new copies, but whether we can *detach* this label
> from the original or pre-existing copies that are already identified as
> "self".

Ok, now this is an interesting idea.  Let us consider this to be the
concept of "mobile self".  I can already imagine a number of problems
that this would present to the legal system, the civil rights system, etc.
In short you have probably thrown things into the swamp.  Nothing wrong
with that -- we have been there before.  But I would like to see some
agenda and/or guidelines as to how society deals with a "mobile self".

> Also:  I don't recall anybody objecting to the *creation* of copies.
> People only seem violently opposed to the *destruction* of the original
> or pre-existing copies.

I also do not recall any significant objections to the creation of copies.
(One however might envision some on the basis of resource utilization --
i.e. what is the value of an unextropic copy?).  Perhaps this implies
an implicit or explicit contract with copies that they must be extropic???
Lacking this would seem to suggest that the civilization is doomed to
failure in any case so what is the point of attempting to uplift it at all
(if most of the copies are not bound to be uplifting?)  [I realize this
is a radical concept here -- most people are required to operate in
a way that benefits humanity rather than in their own self-interest.]

Now, with regard to the destruction of copies -- I think this may go
to the core of extropianism vs. transhumanism.  I'm going to throw
this out there (and you should feel free to critique it).  Extropianism
is about developing something greater that one can admire.  Transhumanism
is about developing something different that may be interesting.  Nothing
wrong with things that are different that one might admire (the late
'60s and early '70's had a lot of this).  But one has to come back to
the laws of physics.  When you push the peddle to the floor how fast
does the car go?  So Extropianism is about exploring the limits
with a background desire to stretch them.  Transhumanism is not.

Key question that extropians may engage in but transhumanists may not:
  "What are you doing to alter the fate of the universe?"

Robert




From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Mar 28 01:39:38 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 11:39:38 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Evidence for the self surviving brain disassembly?
	(was Altered genes let roundworms wiggle longer)
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403271454250.23691-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <015701c41465$888163d0$412b2dcb@homepc>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

> To the best of my recall Damien may be the person who is
> least comfortable with a copy (in various forms) being oneself.

If the continuation of my self (my very life) depended on it, like 
in cryonics for instance, I'd be pretty uncomfortable assuming
that all the matter that makes up my living brain could be replaced
in one go with a mere copy to someone else's level of satisfaction. 

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? 

So long as this question remains unanswered 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?

Regards,
Brett Paatsch




From dan at 3-e.net  Sun Mar 28 01:58:04 2004
From: dan at 3-e.net (Daniel Matthews)
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 12:58:04 +1100
Subject: [extropy-chat] [REFERENCE] [Longevity Library]
Message-ID: <200403281158.09400.dan@3-e.net>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

[REFERENCE] [Longevity Library]
http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0203cat/0203longevitylibcat.html

Two of the greatest barriers to universal  health and longevity are inequity 
and ignorance.

In the Americas there exist a perverse situation where as many people die from 
over eating as die from not having enough food to eat.

Advanced science is not required to help these people live longer and 
healthier lives. The requisite knowledge is far from novel.

Dan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAZjEtPY2Ltzc2YLMRAr1wAJ9dZxL0eYYkqygqcYzMk0ouIAnfZQCfV8Lk
95IX1aLv4JhxbGkKNbXzyic=
=JKwE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sun Mar 28 02:04:31 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 18:04:31 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility
In-Reply-To: <00d901c41455$2e527cb0$412b2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403271656550.27210-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


I'm going to focus on an extremly narrow set of
points in this discussion.  The wider set of the discussion
is very large.  But given the costs (~40 million
lives a year) it is reasonable to attempt to focus.

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> My point was there is no specification for a system to produce an
> assembler of any finite number of parts.

This is not completely accurate.  Eric's specification for his
nanoassembler is reasonably precise (at the 100 nm scale).  Given
the amount of time it took Eric and Ralph to create their molecular
designs and the scale-up required for the assembler I would estimate
you are talking less than five years for a group of clever graduate
students.  The incentive is high -- they would make their careers.
There will be only a few people who will claim "we designed and built
the Drexler nanoassmebler".  Those people will walk on water.
They may also go down in history as being more significant than
Jesus (because they may be able to lay a legitimate claim that
they have actually saved more people).

> And therefore there is no sound basis for either (a) estimating
> how soon that system could be produced such that the first assembler
> could be made, or

Well Zyvex seems to be projecting within 10 years.  (Disclaimer:
I do not know any inside information with respect to Zyvex).  I
simply know Jim to be a good manager and someone who wants to
make nanotechnology happen.  Zyvex in my opinion is in a good
position to take one of the possible fronts.

> (b) suggesting optimisations or streamlines on that design to bring
> the estimated time of arrival or assembly of that first assembler
> forward.

One does not need to discuss this.  There are nanoscale assemblers
now (from DNA polymerase complexes to the ribosome).  The only questions
one needs to ask are with respect to what environments in which they may be
limited to operating and what are the materials they are limited to
assembling?

> If the computer is not part of the assembler then its not a
> self-replicating system, if it is, the parts for the computing
> subsystem have to be included in the parts for building the first
> assembler.

As Christine Peterson recently proposed self-replication is
to be de-emphasized [1] as an component of nanotech.  Though
I may continue to have debates with people such as Robert Freitas
on the topic -- self-replication and nanotech are not tied together.
Though self-replication has been with humanity for thousands of years
and we should have a balanced perspective with respect to its costs
and benefits -- it is not necessary to include it in the nanotechnology
debate.

Robert


1. C. L. Peterson, "The Evolution of Foresight's Message", Foresight Update
53 pgs 2-4.



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sun Mar 28 02:43:26 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 18:43:26 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Evidence for the self surviving brain disassembly?
	(was Altered genes let roundworms wiggle longer)
In-Reply-To: <015701c41465$888163d0$412b2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403271810110.27210-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Brett, I am going to make an argument that may be somewhat
in contrast to the perspective you seem to be operating from.

> 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?

I don't know -- I doubt we have the theoretical knowledge at this
point to make good arguments pro or con.  I think it may tend to
be both a transhumanist and extropic question -- "What do you
want to be?".

> So long as this question remains unanswered 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?

I would like to correct a misperception -- cryonics does *not*
strictly require the disassembly of the brain.  One is involved
in very complex biochemical processes as to how one reanimates
a brain.  Those may involve in turn the amount of damage that
were present or took place when a brain was suspended.

Sooo... using my original analogy you may (*or may not*) get
back your original atoms in their original structural form.
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 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.  It may however take some time for humanity to make
this process work on a reliable basis.



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Mar 28 03:34:11 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 13:34:11 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403271656550.27210-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <019401c41475$89008ba0$412b2dcb@homepc>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

> I'm going to focus on an extremly narrow set of
> points in this discussion.  The wider set of the discussion
> is very large.

Me too. 

> On Sun, 28 Mar 2004, Brett Paatsch wrote:
> 
> > My point was there is no specification for a system to
> > produce an assembler of any finite number of parts.
> 
> This is not completely accurate.  Eric's specification for his
> nanoassembler is reasonably precise (at the 100 nm scale).

Which specification?

>  Given
> the amount of time it took Eric and Ralph to create their
> molecular designs and the scale-up required for the 
> assembler I would estimate you are talking less than five 
> years for a group of clever graduate students. 

It's not *me* that talking timeframes - its me asking which 
specification is the basis for your timeframes? ;-)

> The incentive is high -- they would make their careers.
> There will be only a few people who will claim "we designed
> and built the Drexler nanoassmebler".  

And those who find Eldorado will be rich - there just one l-ee-ttle
problem.  Where's Eldorado?  :-)

On the other hand those who look for Eldorado and don't
find it will be shorter on time and money for other things.  

>Those people will walk on water. They may also go down
> in history as being more significant than Jesus (because they
> may be able to lay a legitimate claim that they have actually
> saved more people).

May (above) is a word that can be replaced with may-not. The
point is why should they choose to try? What basis for confidence
do you offer them that this is a good place to spend time, effort 
and money? 

> > And therefore there is no sound basis for either 
> > (a) estimating how soon that system could be produced 
> > such that the first assembler could be made, or
> 
> Well Zyvex seems to be projecting within 10 years. 
> (Disclaimer: I do not know any inside information with
> respect to Zyvex).  I  simply know Jim to be a good manager
> and someone who wants to make nanotechnology happen. 
> Zyvex in my opinion is in a good position to take one of the
> possible fronts.

So does Zyvex have a specification for an assembler at the 
(microscale even) or not? 

If so, they can probably right their own check for R&D funding.

If not, they can "project" all they like the US is a relatively free
country so far as projecting without promising or legally 
guaranteeing goes. 

For what its worth I hope someone can show that an assembler
is possible at some scale. But wishing won't make it so. Mine
or anyone else's. 

> > (b) suggesting optimisations or streamlines on that design 
> > to bring the estimated time of arrival or assembly of that
> > first assembler forward.
> 
> One does not need to discuss this. 

My point was without a specification to improve on there is
nothing to optimise and no basis for putting down a time
estimate. 

Its like saying the estimated travel time to X is Y. So how do 
we cut down the travel time to X to less than Y? My point is
- its a pointless question until you specify X as a specific place. 

> There are nanoscale assemblers now (from DNA polymerase
> complexes to the ribosome).  

This is a different use of the word assembler. 

> The only questions
> one needs to ask are with respect to what environments in which
> they may be limited to operating and what are the materials they
> are limited to assembling?

The "only questions" in relation to what? - your shifting the frame
of reference. Biology can and does do some limited forms of
assembly that's not the point. 

> > If the computer is not part of the assembler then its not a
> > self-replicating system, if it is, the parts for the computing
> > subsystem have to be included in the parts for building the first
> > assembler.
> 
> As Christine Peterson recently proposed self-replication is
> to be de-emphasized [1] as an component of nanotech. 

This is off-topic but sure others are de-emphasising it too. And
some of them are getting funded. As you have pointed out biology
does some forms of  assembly too. But this is nothing to do with 
"Nano-santa" nano-assembler feasibility. 

> Though
> I may continue to have debates with people such as Robert
> Freitas on the topic -- self-replication and nanotech are not
> tied together.

Agreed. But "self"-replication means different things in different
contexts.

> Though self-replication has been with humanity for thousands
> of years and we should have a balanced perspective with
> respect to its costs and benefits -- it is not necessary to include
> it in the nanotechnology debate.

There's that slippery little word "self" again :-)

That amoebas and some simple bio-critters can "self"-replicate
does not mean we are in a position to do a count down towards 
Nano-santas or Genie machines.   

Cheers,
Brett Paatsch




From eliasen at mindspring.com  Sun Mar 28 07:22:37 2004
From: eliasen at mindspring.com (Alan Eliasen)
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 00:22:37 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS:Nasa Mach 7 mission accomplished
In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.1.20040327223159.01c19338@pop3.irishbroadband.ie>
References: <5.0.2.1.1.20040327223159.01c19338@pop3.irishbroadband.ie>
Message-ID: <40667D3D.8050300@mindspring.com>


J Corbally wrote:
> They did it!
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3575561.stm
> 
> Just watched it live on the ITV 24 news, but had to wait a few minutes
> for the confirmation.

   Does anyone know what its velocity was 1.) at separation from rocket
booster 2.) at initiation of scramjet burn 3.) max velocity during scramjet
burn 4.) velocity at termination of scramjet burn.

   I'm just wondering if the scramjet was powerful enough to sustain the
velocity it got from the rocket booster and accelerate.  The press releases
are vague on this point.

-- 
  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 gpmap at runbox.com  Sun Mar 28 09:00:36 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 11:00:36 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Ken MacLeod on space exploration
Message-ID: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGCEMECAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

>From the Sunday Herald, science fiction author Ken MacLeod puts the case for
humankind's bold journey into space. Last January, President Bush announced
a new US-manned space programme. Complete the space station, replace the
Shuttle, return to the Moon, build a Moon base, learn more stuff, go to
Mars... and worlds beyond. It would be "a journey, not a race", he insisted;
a human adventure, with no prospect of an end: "Human beings are headed out
into the cosmos."
It's also important to clarify the goal. Ultimately, if civilisation
survives, people will go to Mars "and worlds beyond" not because they must,
but because they want to. It's not that it's necessary for the sake of
studying Mars, but that it's vital for the sake of enriching Earth, and
helping civilisation to survive and expand. The real justification is
spiritual, not scientific. As the prophet wrote: "Where there is no vision,
the people perish." Vision, especially television, isn't enough. We need to
do more than see - we need to reach out and touch it. On that point Bush is
right. There's no guarantee that his project will take us there. But one way
or another, humanity is headed out into the cosmos. The Space Age, far from
being over, is only beginning.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.634 / Virus Database: 406 - Release Date: 18/03/2004
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040328/e4b30684/attachment.html>

From gpmap at runbox.com  Sun Mar 28 09:01:29 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 11:01:29 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Anti-Aging Gene
Message-ID: <MAELIJOHMBHKKJLFFKDGGEMECAAA.gpmap@runbox.com>

Most of us think aging is inevitable. But one scientist has committed her
career to proving us wrong. As this ScienCentral News video reports,
genetics research could lead to anti-aging drugs.
What if there was a drug that made you feel like a 45-year old at the age of
90, and could eventually help you live to be 200? Scientists think it's
possible, and are trying to make it a reality. "A lot of people think that
aging is something that just happens, it's inevitable - you know, we wear
out like old cars do," says Cynthia Kenyon, professor of biochemistry and
biophysics at the University of California at San Francisco. "But it turns
out that that's not completely true."
Kenyon's so optimistic in her quest to extend life that she founded a
company, Elixir Pharmaceuticals, to eventually create an anti-aging drug for
people. That goal could be more than a decade away, but if Kenyon succeeds,
would she take such a drug herself? "Yes, absolutely. I don't want to get
old. And I don't think I'm the only person that feels that way. In fact, if
you read Shakespeare's sonnets, so many of them are about the anguish of
aging. People don't like to get old, they don't like to lose their
abilities, their capacities. So for people who love life, like I do, what
could be better?"

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.634 / Virus Database: 406 - Release Date: 18/03/2004
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040328/a2753445/attachment.html>

From anyservice at cris.crimea.ua  Sun Mar 28 08:17:20 2004
From: anyservice at cris.crimea.ua (Gennady Ra)
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 12:17:20 +0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] AAAS Forum on Science and Technology Policy - Apr
	22nd 
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20040328121641.00b8cba0@pop.cris.net>

-  AAAS FORUM ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY - APR 22ND

On April 22nd, the American Association for the Advancement of Science
is having its 29th annual forum on science and technology policy at
the Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill in Washington DC.

One of the three concurrent symposia during the day is titled "Policy
Implications of Converging New Technologies: Nano-, Bio-, Info- and
Cognitive", dealing with social ethics, enhancing humans, uncertainities
of these new technologies and their intersection.

For more info:  www.aaas.org/spp/rd/forum.htm



From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sun Mar 28 10:50:44 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 02:50:44 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility
In-Reply-To: <4066611B.1030801@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403280106590.3737-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


Side note to Chris -- it seems unreasonable to fault Brett for perhaps
being poorly informed with respect to nanoassemblers as he has been working
on stem cells and the politics thereof for the last few years.
And there are several paths to MNT where preserving our butts
for long enough (quite possibly perhaps making stem cell technology
a requirement) may be essential to get us to the point where we can
consider something like vasculoid technology.

The second point that I might make is that given Brett's questions
it points out how *really* poorly informed people who would be
viewed as highly educated are about nanotech.  And I would offer
the idea that we are going to need hundreds of thousands if not
millions of engineers who are well informed about nanotech to
make it work.

Brett pointed out:

> Which specification?

This is in large part in Chapter 13 of Nanosystems.  The essential
elements are worked out on pages 398-410.


> It's not *me* that talking timeframes - its me asking which
> specification is the basis for your timeframes? ;-)

Ok, this is relatively easy to speak to.  It took Ralph
and Eric a couple of months to design the Fine Motion Controller (FMC)
which could be considered the tip of an assembler arm as described
in Nanosystems.  The FMC contains 2600 atoms.  An assembler arm has
been variously estimated from 4 to 8 million atoms.  The assembler arm
is highly regular (unlike the FMC which is somewhat like a Stewart
Platform at the molecular scale).  We had software that was written
perhaps a decade or more ago (by Ralph Merkle, Will Ware and Geoff Leach in
various distinct efforts) that could help to automate the design of
"regular" nanoscale structures.

Based on the regularity of the nanoassembler arm and a scale up from
2600 atoms to 4-8 million atoms -- a team of graduate students (augmented
by some semi-intelligent software) should be able to manage a complete
atomic scale design.  (My gut level evaluation -- you have to decide
how much you can trust me.)

*Now* once one has a complete atomic scale design the difficult part
will be how to build it.

> And those who find Eldorado will be rich - there just one l-ee-ttle
> problem.  Where's Eldorado?  :-)

Oh its there -- and the interesting part is that there is not simply
a single city.  There are multiple paths to nanotech and companies
ranging from IBM to CALMEC to Zettacore are slowly starting to figure
that out.

> On the other hand those who look for Eldorado and don't
> find it will be shorter on time and money for other things.

Some will win and some will lose.  Do a google on Amdahl and Trilogy.
This may help:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Amdahl

The idea behind Trilogy was great (wafer based computers).  The problem
is that it simply could not be executed with the technology available then
and perhaps even with the technology available now.  In the process it burned
$200 million -- perhaps one of the greatest crash and burn exercises
in the history of Silicon Valley -- and it was doing it at a time when
$200 million was real money.


> May (above) is a word that can be replaced with may-not. The
> point is why should they choose to try? What basis for confidence
> do you offer them that this is a good place to spend time, effort
> and money?

Ah... because ones personal survival is at stake.  Unless one is
a hard-core cryonics fan (and signed up and in a location where the
political winds may not shift) there is a significant advantage
to not becoming "dead".  If one is looking at the technologies
that provide an extension to lifespan one (a) has more time and
(b) has more money (wealth is a no brainer problem if one can simply
live long enough -- its called compound interest).

> So does Zyvex have a specification for an assembler at the
> (microscale even) or not?

Go look at their current product line.  It is most probably
at the microscale currently but presentations previously made
by Ralph suggest to me that it should scale down.  It becomes
a complex cost vs. benefit tradeoff of how difficult it is
to manufacture the machines relative to what the demand is
for manipulating structures at a specific size scale.

Now it may be useful to distinguish between an assembler
and a manipulator.  The products being produced by Zyvex
may tend more towards the second.  *But* they are both
important.  I can envision using chemistry to assemble
the components of the Fine Motion Controller -- but it
may be very difficult to produce one if one does not have
a means of manipulated directed assembly to put one together.
One is dealing with the problem where one does direct molecular
assembly and where one is using self-assembly -- but one problem
with self-assembly is that it may not happen in our lifetimes.

> If so, they can probably right their own check for R&D funding.

Oh no...  The people who write the checks are well aware of
Trilogy and other similar crash and burn experiences -- it
is their business to know them.  And if they good at their
jobs they are always asking -- "Is this a crash and burn
scenario?".

> For what its worth I hope someone can show that an assembler
> is possible at some scale. But wishing won't make it so. Mine
> or anyone else's.

It already is possible -- things from the various DNA polymerases
to the ribosome demonstrate that directed nanoassembly is possible.
What is more interesting is to explore the limits of general atomic
assembly.  The biological examples are cases where the machines
evolved to fit the parts (DNA bases, amino acids, etc.).  We
do not have any good ideas with respect to what the limits may be.
Are we going to have to design an assembler specific to each type
of nanoscale part we would like to put together?  (This is not
unheard of in the mechanical engineering world -- one designs jigs
that assemble one and only one kind of part.)  Or can assemblers
that can deal with a variety of parts be designed?  (The biological
example of the proteosome which can disassemble a variety of proteins
comes to mind).

Hope my comments which got a lot longer than I intended are helpful.

Robert



From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Mar 28 11:02:45 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 21:02:45 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility
References: <4065BF36.7000704@CRNano.org>
	<00d901c41455$2e527cb0$412b2dcb@homepc>
	<4066611B.1030801@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <023001c414b4$3335f720$412b2dcb@homepc>

On Sunday, March 28   Chris Phoenix wrote:

> >>A simple mechanism can be constructed in many different
> >>ways.  All you need is manipulators with a few degrees of 
> >>freedom, and enough precision to do the job.  

> ...  Have you read Merkle's papers?

I have read some. But none contained a spec with a full set of 
parts for an assembler.   Is there one that does?

[Chris] 
> The computer may or may not be nanoscale, depending 
> entirely on what's easiest.

Sure attempts to design of a full set of components for a self 
replicator at any scale would permit the chosen scale of the design
itself to be one of the degrees of freedom.

[Chris]
>  Have you read my nanofactory paper?

I've read at least one of your papers. It did not contain a full set
of parts for an assembler. 

[Brett quoting Chris] 
> > How do you know that "a computer-controlled assembler
> > can be physically quite simple" without have a specification
> > for it that includes a set of physical components? Do you
> > have such a specification showing a finite set of component
> > parts? 

[Chris]
> We have a specification that includes most functional components,
> and supplemental information about range of motion, required 
> stiffness, speed, etc.  We know the functions it must perform. 

Talking engineering:

Having less than 100% of the necessary parts in the system design
for the first prototype amounts to having 0% of a designed (and 
buildable) prototype.

If you don't know how many parts are needed to produce a
full design spec for an assembler then how can you know that you
have "most" of them? 

Talking politics:

The vision articulated in Nanosystems and by Eric Drexler and
others in the Foresight Institute has already played a very useful 
role in getting funding into nanotechnology. 

[Chris]
> Your question about a "finite set of component parts" 
> doesn't  make sense, unless you intend to imply that it might
> require an  infinite set. 

I wasn't implying that.

I said what I meant when I said (in the post you replied to):  

"If Nano-sanjta and genie-machine requiring an assembler 
are the same thing then I don't think "how soon" is the question.

The question is is it possible? And the answer is we don't know
until we see a systems specification that shows a full set of 
components necessary to produce an assembler (at any scale
would be a very good start)

If we knew an assembler could be produced from 300 or even
300,000 parts because those parts together constituted a full
set of elements then we could look at various ways to improve
or better optimise the design and to apply a timeline.

We'd have a basis for working out how long it might take to
build the parts and to assemble assembler number 1. Without
a list of components showing its possible any time and cost 
numbers may as well be numerology "

Is this still unclear?

[Brett]
> > And if it is merely a statement of hope and belief why should 
> > public resources be directed towards it and away from other
> > projects that can show a return on investment?

[Chris] 
> Are we talking engineering and science, or politics? 
> I thought we were  talking engineering, but "hope and belief" and 
> "return on investment" sound political--and shallow. 

In the first post that you replied to I'd said

"In politics, as in engineering, opportunity costs matter as there
are only a finite amount of resources to go around."

I didn't change the subject on you I was talking about both politics
and engineering already.  If you want to split the two go ahead
it doesn't bother me. 

[Chris]
> If we're talking politics, then we should  mention the geopolitical
> implications of some ambitious nation making a breakthrough
> while the current superpower is saying, "Let's not try anything till
> we see it done." 

*You* just mentioned it.

Talking about politics (of funding and risk management):

Without a specification of the full list of component parts how
would you *quantify* the risk of that?  It looks unquantifiable
to me.

- Brett Paatsch




From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Sun Mar 28 14:07:08 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:07:08 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403280106590.3737-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <029701c414cd$f53ea0b0$412b2dcb@homepc>

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
 
> Side note to Chris -- it seems unreasonable to fault Brett for perhaps
> being poorly informed with respect to nanoassemblers 

Bollocks. Please quit crapping or spinning on my behalf (or pretending
to - I can't tell). It hard enough to get through Chris's defensive shit 
to get him to answer a straight question without also having to shovel
pages of irrelevant sop (gratuitious statements of beliefs and trust me's)
and misrepresentations out of the way. 

I'm interested in the truth, not in beliefs and not in sentiment.

The truth is worth making the effort of posting for - the other stuff is
not. 

Brett Paatsch























From neptune at superlink.net  Sun Mar 28 15:05:30 2004
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 10:05:30 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility
References: <4065BF36.7000704@CRNano.org><00d901c41455$2e527cb0$412b2dcb@homepc><4066611B.1030801@CRNano.org>
	<023001c414b4$3335f720$412b2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <005c01c414d6$1d6176a0$77cd5cd1@neptune>

I haven't been following this discussion closely, but I feel an
incremental approach might be necessary here.  Why can't bacteria be
used as models of what needs be done to make a nanoassembler?  Yes, they
are not _universal_ nanoassemblers, but they do make more of themselves
as well as other things.  Can't one just use this as a rough
approximation of a nanoassembler specification?  (Hopefully, initial
non-universal nanoassemblers would be a bit less complex than bacteria.
Why?  At the very least one might eliminate non-essential functions and
junk parts.)

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html



From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Sun Mar 28 05:22:35 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 00:22:35 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility
In-Reply-To: <00d901c41455$2e527cb0$412b2dcb@homepc>
References: <4065BF36.7000704@CRNano.org>
	<00d901c41455$2e527cb0$412b2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <4066611B.1030801@CRNano.org>

In this post, I will talk about technical issues.

Brett Paatsch wrote:
>>A simple mechanism can be constructed in many different
>>ways.  All you need is manipulators with a few degrees of 
>>freedom, and enough precision to do the job.  
> 
> I don't think I was assuming much about complexity at all. I said 
> anything from 300 to 300,000 parts. 300 parts would not be 
> particularly complex.
> My point was there is no specification for a system to produce an 
> assembler of any finite number of parts. 

Talk of 300,000 parts makes it sound like we have no clue how complex it 
must be.  That's flatly wrong.  Have you read Merkle's papers?

> The assembler (however complex) has to be *physical* to make
> physical objects. There are no computers completely without 
> hardware. If the computer is not part of the assembler then 
> its not a self-replicating system, if it is, the parts for the computing
> subsystem have to be included in the parts for building the first
> assembler.  

Irrelevance, followed by topic change, followed by false dichotomy. 
That the manipulator has to be physical is a no-brainer, and I'm 
surprised you brought it up.  The computer may or may not be nanoscale, 
depending entirely on what's easiest.  The first assembler can be 
controlled by an external computer.  As we scale up to thousands or 
trillions of assemblers, we can include maybe one nanoscale computer for 
every thousand assemblers, adding moderately to the design work and 
fractionally to the mass.  Have you read my nanofactory paper?

> How do you know that "a computer-controlled assembler can
> be physically quite simple" without have a specification for it that
> includes a set of physical components? Do you have such a 
> specification showing a finite set of component parts? 

We have a specification that includes most functional components, and 
supplemental information about range of motion, required stiffness, 
speed, etc.  We know the functions it must perform.  Your question about 
a "finite set of component parts" doesn't make sense, unless you intend 
to imply that it might require an infinite set.  At this point, twelve 
years after Nanosystems and half a decade after Merkle's papers, such an 
implication would be silly.

> And if it is merely a statement of hope and belief why should 
> public resources be directed towards it and away from other
> projects that can show a return on investment?

Are we talking engineering and science, or politics?  I thought we were 
talking engineering, but "hope and belief" and "return on investment" 
sound political--and shallow.  If we're talking politics, then we should 
mention the geopolitical implications of some ambitious nation making a 
breakthrough while the current superpower is saying, "Let's not try 
anything till we see it done."  But if I were to start talking about 
that, you'd say that I was being alarmist by talking about possibilities 
that haven't been scientifically proved.

We could go for weeks with you always taking my statements out of 
context: criticizing my technical statements from a political point of 
view, and vice versa.  I have played that game before, and I don't have 
time for it now.

I strongly suggest that we begin each post, as I did, with the 
statement, "In this post I will talk about technical issues" or "In this 
post I will talk about political issues."  Funding, political 
implications, economic implications, return on investment, whether to 
investigate it... all are political.  Number of parts in an assembler, 
energy per kilogram fabricated, whether the computer can or must be 
miniaturized, researchers / years required to build the first 
assembler... all are technical.

If you answer a technical point with politics, I will point out your 
error rather than answering you.

Chris

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


From asa at nada.kth.se  Sun Mar 28 15:30:37 2004
From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 17:30:37 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Limitpushers and Limitexplorers (Was: Altered
	genes)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403271556150.27210-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403271556150.27210-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <200403281730.38320.asa@nada.kth.se>

s?ndagen den 28 mars 2004 01.47 wrote Robert J. Bradbury:
> I'm going to throw
> this out there (and you should feel free to critique it).  Extropianism
> is about developing something greater that one can admire.  Transhumanism
> is about developing something different that may be interesting.  Nothing
> wrong with things that are different that one might admire (the late
> '60s and early '70's had a lot of this).  But one has to come back to
> the laws of physics.  When you push the peddle to the floor how fast
> does the car go?  So Extropianism is about exploring the limits
> with a background desire to stretch them.  Transhumanism is not.
>
> Key question that extropians may engage in but transhumanists may not:
>   "What are you doing to alter the fate of the universe?"

Interesting dichotomy, but I don't see it as being between transhumanism and 
extropianism. Rather, both strains exist within both groups. 

The key problem is defining "better". In modernist America it is far easier to 
claim that something is good or better than in postmodernist Europe, where 
sceptics always ask "better to whom?" with a nasty smile. The easy way out is 
to say you want something different rather than better. This might actually 
be why one sees a slight difference between extropians (center of mass of 
self proclaimed extropians is likely in the US) and transhumanists (center of 
mass probably still in the US, but a larger contingent in Europe). 

Maybe one could distinguish between limitpushers and limitexplorers by their 
interests: moving beyond limits in order to achieve more of something, and 
moving around in the vast space inside the limits exploring it, perhaps 
finding sneaky ways around them but mainly seeing that as a chance for more 
exploration rather than a help in storming the cosmos. But things are more 
complex: right now we have some problems we really need to push - ageing and 
death, lack of freedom, material wants etc. These things need to be pushed 
back even if one is an explorer. And the limitpushers likely have some goals 
beyond pushing limits - that in itself seems rather ascetic - that motivates 
them to go onwards. 


-- 
Anders Sandberg
http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa
http://www.aleph.se/andart/

The sum of human knowledge sounds nice. But I want more.


From eugen at leitl.org  Sun Mar 28 15:35:55 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 17:35:55 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility
In-Reply-To: <005c01c414d6$1d6176a0$77cd5cd1@neptune>
References: <023001c414b4$3335f720$412b2dcb@homepc>
	<005c01c414d6$1d6176a0$77cd5cd1@neptune>
Message-ID: <20040328153555.GZ28136@leitl.org>

On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 10:05:30AM -0500, Technotranscendence wrote:

> I haven't been following this discussion closely, but I feel an
> incremental approach might be necessary here.  Why can't bacteria be
> used as models of what needs be done to make a nanoassembler?  Yes, they

Because the repertoire of chemical structures bacteria can create is quite
limited, as well as their degree of control over the product. Engineered
biology in theory could create a whole set of macroscopic objects, but we
can't do that yet. 

> are not _universal_ nanoassemblers, but they do make more of themselves
> as well as other things.  Can't one just use this as a rough

We can make them to make bread, cheese, wine and beer, but, say, cars?
Houses? Solar panels? Not necessarily impossible, but rather inefficient.
And very very hard.

> approximation of a nanoassembler specification?  (Hopefully, initial
> non-universal nanoassemblers would be a bit less complex than bacteria.

There's nothing particularly complicated about a 3d lithography printer. 
The difficulties are at scaling down the design to nanosccale.

> Why?  At the very least one might eliminate non-essential functions and
> junk parts.)

-- 
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/20040328/ade90b3f/attachment.bin>

From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Sun Mar 28 15:35:41 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 10:35:41 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility
In-Reply-To: <023001c414b4$3335f720$412b2dcb@homepc>
References: <4065BF36.7000704@CRNano.org>
	<00d901c41455$2e527cb0$412b2dcb@homepc>
	<4066611B.1030801@CRNano.org>
	<023001c414b4$3335f720$412b2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <4066F0CD.5050500@CRNano.org>

This post will be about technology.

Brett Paatsch wrote:

> On Sunday, March 28   Chris Phoenix wrote:
>>...  Have you read Merkle's papers?
> 
> I have read some. But none contained a spec with a full set of 
> parts for an assembler.   Is there one that does?

No.  But that's not necessary for making preliminary estimates of 
performance.

>>The computer may or may not be nanoscale, depending 
>>entirely on what's easiest.
> 
> Sure attempts to design of a full set of components for a self 
> replicator at any scale would permit the chosen scale of the design
> itself to be one of the degrees of freedom.

What I mean is that the computer may or may not be at the same scale as 
the mechanical parts.  The first few nanofabricators can be controlled 
by a large computer.  Then you can use a lot of nanofabricators to build 
the nanocomputer quickly.  A tabletop integrated almost certainly needs 
nanocomputers, or at least nano-logic.  But the first, bootstrapped 
nanofabricators don't need a nanocomputer.

>>We have a specification that includes most functional components,
>>and supplemental information about range of motion, required 
>>stiffness, speed, etc.  We know the functions it must perform. 
> 
> Having less than 100% of the necessary parts in the system design
> for the first prototype amounts to having 0% of a designed (and 
> buildable) prototype.

Why are you talking about prototypes?  Lots of pre-prototype engineering 
work can be done, and some of it has to be done before a prototype can 
be designed.  We knew we could get to the moon before we finished the 
Saturn V design.  So why are you focusing on the 100% completed 
blueprints?  We don't have them, we can't have them yet, we don't need 
them.  Let's move on and talk about the interesting issues.

> If you don't know how many parts are needed to produce a
> full design spec for an assembler then how can you know that you
> have "most" of them? 

I said we know most functional components.  Not individual parts.  If I 
were talking about an internal combustion engine, I'd say we know it 
needs valves, a piston, a crankshaft.  But it's too early to talk about 
valve springs or crankshaft bearings.

> The question is is it possible? And the answer is we don't know
> until we see a systems specification that shows a full set of 
> components necessary to produce an assembler (at any scale
> would be a very good start)

As far as we can tell today, from all of the science and engineering 
work that's been done, it's more than possible.  It should have 
excellent performance numbers.  Feel free to address the engineering.

But "We don't know for sure until we've seen it done" is interesting 
politically but trivial scientifically.  So I won't try to answer it here.

> Without
> a list of components showing its possible any time and cost 
> numbers may as well be numerology "

No, the time and cost numbers *may be wrong.*  "Numerology" is 
name-calling.  Time and cost projections may always be wrong.  If 
there's an undiscovered error in the engineering, they may be very 
wrong.  This is a given.  So why are you saying it in an engineering post?

Chris

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


From megao at sasktel.net  Mon Mar 29 03:56:47 2004
From: megao at sasktel.net (Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc.)
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 21:56:47 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403271656550.27210-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<019401c41475$89008ba0$412b2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <40679E7F.9DEAD5EB@sasktel.net>

This is as off base to the technical aspects of the discussion could be,
but a logical method of molecular assembly is to add an overriding
interactive controller "chipset"  to  organisms.
Epigenetics is the bio equivalent.  It is a very high level language
chemistry.  To intervene in a manner which re-directs the epignetic
program to carry out assembly instructions which might be encoded in
newly added DNA or a separate structure akin to a mitochondria as the
active factory unit is also a high level
enterprise.  To add a programing (silico , bio or de-novo)  chipset which
allows outside control over diverse cell biofunctions is another task.
Each individual cell in a mass of of cells needs to be addressible and
able to be directed individually and separately from each other cell.
This is going to be an enormous undertaking but if each part of the
process is developed separately and then integrated, it might be much
simpler than addressing  the complexity of the whole.

Morris



Brett Paatsch wrote:

> Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>
> > I'm going to focus on an extremly narrow set of
> > points in this discussion.  The wider set of the discussion
> > is very large.
>
> Me too.
>
> > On Sun, 28 Mar 2004, Brett Paatsch wrote:
> >
> > > My point was there is no specification for a system to
> > > produce an assembler of any finite number of parts.
> >
> > This is not completely accurate.  Eric's specification for his
> > nanoassembler is reasonably precise (at the 100 nm scale).
>
> Which specification?
>
> >  Given
> > the amount of time it took Eric and Ralph to create their
> > molecular designs and the scale-up required for the
> > assembler I would estimate you are talking less than five
> > years for a group of clever graduate students.
>
> It's not *me* that talking timeframes - its me asking which
> specification is the basis for your timeframes? ;-)
>
> > The incentive is high -- they would make their careers.
> > There will be only a few people who will claim "we designed
> > and built the Drexler nanoassmebler".
>
> And those who find Eldorado will be rich - there just one l-ee-ttle
> problem.  Where's Eldorado?  :-)
>
> On the other hand those who look for Eldorado and don't
> find it will be shorter on time and money for other things.
>
> >Those people will walk on water. They may also go down
> > in history as being more significant than Jesus (because they
> > may be able to lay a legitimate claim that they have actually
> > saved more people).
>
> May (above) is a word that can be replaced with may-not. The
> point is why should they choose to try? What basis for confidence
> do you offer them that this is a good place to spend time, effort
> and money?
>
> > > And therefore there is no sound basis for either
> > > (a) estimating how soon that system could be produced
> > > such that the first assembler could be made, or
> >
> > Well Zyvex seems to be projecting within 10 years.
> > (Disclaimer: I do not know any inside information with
> > respect to Zyvex).  I  simply know Jim to be a good manager
> > and someone who wants to make nanotechnology happen.
> > Zyvex in my opinion is in a good position to take one of the
> > possible fronts.
>
> So does Zyvex have a specification for an assembler at the
> (microscale even) or not?
>
> If so, they can probably right their own check for R&D funding.
>
> If not, they can "project" all they like the US is a relatively free
> country so far as projecting without promising or legally
> guaranteeing goes.
>
> For what its worth I hope someone can show that an assembler
> is possible at some scale. But wishing won't make it so. Mine
> or anyone else's.
>
> > > (b) suggesting optimisations or streamlines on that design
> > > to bring the estimated time of arrival or assembly of that
> > > first assembler forward.
> >
> > One does not need to discuss this.
>
> My point was without a specification to improve on there is
> nothing to optimise and no basis for putting down a time
> estimate.
>
> Its like saying the estimated travel time to X is Y. So how do
> we cut down the travel time to X to less than Y? My point is
> - its a pointless question until you specify X as a specific place.
>
> > There are nanoscale assemblers now (from DNA polymerase
> > complexes to the ribosome).
>
> This is a different use of the word assembler.
>
> > The only questions
> > one needs to ask are with respect to what environments in which
> > they may be limited to operating and what are the materials they
> > are limited to assembling?
>
> The "only questions" in relation to what? - your shifting the frame
> of reference. Biology can and does do some limited forms of
> assembly that's not the point.
>
> > > If the computer is not part of the assembler then its not a
> > > self-replicating system, if it is, the parts for the computing
> > > subsystem have to be included in the parts for building the first
> > > assembler.
> >
> > As Christine Peterson recently proposed self-replication is
> > to be de-emphasized [1] as an component of nanotech.
>
> This is off-topic but sure others are de-emphasising it too. And
> some of them are getting funded. As you have pointed out biology
> does some forms of  assembly too. But this is nothing to do with
> "Nano-santa" nano-assembler feasibility.
>
> > Though
> > I may continue to have debates with people such as Robert
> > Freitas on the topic -- self-replication and nanotech are not
> > tied together.
>
> Agreed. But "self"-replication means different things in different
> contexts.
>
> > Though self-replication has been with humanity for thousands
> > of years and we should have a balanced perspective with
> > respect to its costs and benefits -- it is not necessary to include
> > it in the nanotechnology debate.
>
> There's that slippery little word "self" again :-)
>
> That amoebas and some simple bio-critters can "self"-replicate
> does not mean we are in a position to do a count down towards
> Nano-santas or Genie machines.
>
> Cheers,
> Brett Paatsch
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Sun Mar 28 16:30:06 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 11:30:06 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility
In-Reply-To: <023001c414b4$3335f720$412b2dcb@homepc>
References: <4065BF36.7000704@CRNano.org>
	<00d901c41455$2e527cb0$412b2dcb@homepc>
	<4066611B.1030801@CRNano.org>
	<023001c414b4$3335f720$412b2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <4066FD8E.4030903@CRNano.org>

This post will be about politics.

Brett Paatsch wrote:

> The vision articulated in Nanosystems and by Eric Drexler and
> others in the Foresight Institute has already played a very useful 
> role in getting funding into nanotechnology. 

The nanotech that's being funded is very cool, but the NNI is busy 
distracting us from the fact that they're not working on Drexler's ideas.

> The question is is it possible? And the answer is we don't know
> until we see a systems specification that shows a full set of 
> components necessary to produce an assembler (at any scale
> would be a very good start)

No, we don't know for sure.  But if we're talking about a massive 
national security issue, is "We don't know" an acceptable state of 
affairs?  Or should we be working to learn more?

The more we learn, the more likely it looks.  No one has come up with 
anything that would keep it from working.  The designs are getting more 
detailed, and more scary, all the time.  And everything we look at turns 
out to be easier than we thought.  If you want to say "We don't know" 
until it's demonstrated by someone else, go right ahead.  That's as bad 
as NASA saying "We don't know that there's a problem with the foam."

> "In politics, as in engineering, opportunity costs matter as there
> are only a finite amount of resources to go around."

Well, we have some scientists and engineers saying "This looks possible, 
we think it could be developed within a decade, and if so, it would 
change the world."  We have others, for a variety of plainly 
identifiable political reasons, saying "We don't think it's likely and 
we don't want you to study it."

If you were in charge of national security, would you adopt a strategy 
of ignoring it and hoping that the politician-scientists were right?  Or 
would you spend a little bit of effort extending the studies, looking 
for weak points in the theory and strong points in the engineering?

If you were in charge of a technology business, would you bet your 
business that the politician-scientists were right and there was no 
possibility of a nano-enabled manufacturing revolution on the horizon?

> On Sunday, March 28   Chris Phoenix wrote:
>>If we're talking politics, then we should  mention the geopolitical
>>implications of some ambitious nation making a breakthrough
>>while the current superpower is saying, "Let's not try anything till
>>we see it done." 
> 
> Talking about politics (of funding and risk management):
> 
> Without a specification of the full list of component parts how
> would you *quantify* the risk of that?  It looks unquantifiable
> to me.

I'll start by noting that "quantify" isn't a word normally used in politics.

So we're asking, "Is the risk that this is possible, and that someone 
else is working on it, and will succeed before we start, significant 
enough to worry about?"

The possibility of it working at some point, vs. being impossible, is 
not affected by the presence or absence of blueprints today.  No one has 
tried to make blueprints.  So to estimate the possibility of it working, 
I'd look at the solidity of the theories, their application, and the 
engineering built on them.  I'd try to poke holes in it.  Since this 
isn't a technical post, I'll merely note that no one has managed to do 
this in over a decade, and even very smart scientists dedicated to 
debunking it can only handwave about strawmen--while the proposal gets 
more and more detailed, with fewer and fewer uncertainties.

BTW, I wrote Whitesides a week or so ago, asking him what he thought 
about superlubricity vs. what he's said about nanomachine friction.  He 
didn't answer.  I wrote to Mark Ratner asking about whether there was 
any evidence that mechanochemistry couldn't build diamond.  His answer 
invoked the scaling problem--which is not a problem if the rest of it 
works.  When I pointed this out and asked again about chemistry, he's 
been too busy to answer for a month and a half.  He says he'll be less 
busy in April... I'm looking forward to seeing whether he has anything 
to say.

The chance that any particular group (nation, company) is already 
working on it is very hard to quantify.  And we're likely to 
underestimate this for two reasons: First, because we forget that not 
everyone listens to NNI propaganda.  Second, because it's very rapidly 
getting cheaper, and the number of groups that could develop it is 
exploding.

The chance that they'll get it before we do depends on whether it's 
possible--and at this point, the burden of proof is on the doubters. 
And on whether we'll start looking at it before someone else does a 
start-to-finish program.  If you are representative, then we probably 
won't start looking.  We'll keep hoping that it's impossible.  So the 
chance of someone else doing it first also looks very high.

Should we worry?  Yes.  Either there's a gaping but unnoticed flaw in 
the theory that's been around for well over a decade.  Or the people 
studying it most closely have underestimated its difficulty by multiple 
orders of magnitude.  Or we'll have it by 2015, perhaps quite a bit 
earlier.  Are you willing to bet your life that the engineering work is 
flawed?  That would be pretty stupid.  And by arguing the way you do, 
you're betting our lives as well.

Chris

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


From hal at finney.org  Sun Mar 28 17:13:58 2004
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 09:13:58 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility
Message-ID: <200403281713.i2SHDw830881@finney.org>

I agree with much of Brett's skepticism on this issue.  Given the fact
that so many prominent scientists continue to maintain that assemblers
are impossible, supporters of the concept need to take on the burden
of proof.  It's not enough any more to say, tell us why it won't work.

In the case of assemblers, we're missing the most important pieces:
the parts which do assembly.  We can invent bearings and struts,
cables and even works of art like the fine motion controller.  But I
have yet to see any proposal for how these pieces can be built.  I mean
specifically what tool-tips will be used, how they will be swapped out,
and what construction sequences will be used to build the components.

Now, there are two parts to this question.  The first is, how can an
assembler self-replicate; how can it build its own parts.  (Downplaying
self-rep is not relevant here; obviously the system composed of the
assembler plus supporting technology has to be able to replicate
in some way, otherwise we'll only have one assembler.)  The second,
even more difficult, is how can we bootstrap into an assembler from
today's technology; how can we build its parts without already having
an assembler.

I'm really just asking the first question, the easier one.  If you could
show an assembler design that was complete enough to give confidence that
the answer to the first question was positive, it would eliminate many of
the objections of the skeptics.  No longer would you have to use shaky
biological analogies or vague and confusing jargon to address Smalley's
fat-finger and sticky-finger issues.  You could just point to the design,
to the construction steps, and show that each part could be made, that
the fingers were not too fat or too sticky, and that it would work.

I think it's going to be important to answer that first question, as a
first step to motivate the efforts to answer the second (bootstrapping).

Now, I am somewhat familiar with work towards answering this question in
two areas.  The first goes towards constructing bulk diamond.  This looks
promising and, while the details need to be fleshed out, it looks to me
that tool tips have been designed which could plausibly work to produce
large pieces of diamond.

The problem is that this is not enough to produce all possible parts,
even among those that are composed solely of carbon and hydrogen.  One of
the issues in producing bulk diamond is which surface you are building on:
the different crystaline surfaces of diamond have different spacings of
the carbon atoms and the layers, as well as any terminating hydrogens.
Different strategies for construction are necessary for different
surfaces.  But these techniques will not be applicable to a small part,
because it does not have consistent surfaces with uniform atomic spacing.
Each atom in the small part is going to be a unique challenge and require
a customized assembly procedure.

Then there are the problems in gripping the parts, and in putting the
first two pieces together at the beginning of constructing a part.
These are where I think Smalley's finger problems are most likely to be
an issue.  I'd like to see a synthesis for diamond that didn't already
start with a big slab of diamond.  How will you start from nothing and
produce bulk diamond?  That would be a good first step towards addressing
problems involving gripping and releasing parts.

The other direction towards answering my question comes from one paper
by Merkle from 1997(!),
http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/hydroCarbonMetabolism.html.  This is the
only paper I am familiar with that makes a real attempt to close the
loop and show how an assembler can construct its own parts.  This is
the kind of work I'd like to see expanded, but as far as I know no one
has developed it any further.

The reasons why this does not fully answer my questions are, first, that
the assembler being described is a very simplified and schematic one; and
second, that the reactions seem to have potential fat-finger problems.
They require four assembler arms (or equivalent) to come together in a
tiny space.  Yet you've never seen a diagram of an assembler from Drexler
which required four arms, have you?  If assemblers are going to require
this many arms, wouldn't it be nice to find out ahead of time?

I appreciate that these are all very hard problems.  Realistically, it
may be impossible to produce an assembler design sufficiently detailed to
answer them, without an enormous and well-funded effort.  So we are back
to the chicken and the egg, that we can't get started on a large project
until we know we will succeed, and we can't know we will succeed until
we get a detailed design, and we can't get a detailed design without
getting started on a large project.

This is why the alternative strategy is being tried, of claims that we
already have enough data to know that we will succeed.  But I think the
political reality today is that this strategy is not working.  The only
alternative is to take many years of time and effort to tackle these
problems one at a time, until we do get to the point where we have a
design that answers all the questions and eliminates the objections,
by construction.

Hal


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Sun Mar 28 18:10:09 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 10:10:09 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Limitpushers and Limitexplorers (Was: Altered
	genes)
In-Reply-To: <200403281730.38320.asa@nada.kth.se>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403280925500.23596-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


I will agree with the premises and assertions as stated.

I might like to study a bit more how one prioritizes
between pushing and exploring.  As Eric conservatively
points out in Nanosystems (Chp. 9, pg 264) -- one has
over 10^148 structures that can fit into a cubic
nanometer.  And that is only the nanostructure phase
space.  I wouldn't want to begin to estimate the
variants when you start exploring the amount of
intelligence that an XYZZY-brain can support
(i.e. the intellectual phase space on top of the
physical phase space).

So I don't think one can explore much of the phase
space(s) without pushing on the limits that the universe
seems to be presenting to us.  So one has to strike
some kind of balance between pushing those limits (if
that is possible) and exploring what they allow.  To
do this wisely (extropically?) requires some way of
establishing values and priorities.

I'm not suggesting any (but all of those mentioned --
such as resolving starvation, disease, premature death
from aging, etc. come near the top of my priority list).
I think it would be an interesting topic for discussion
between the various people that we know who can bring a
variety of perspectives into the conversation.

Robert




From asa at nada.kth.se  Sun Mar 28 18:48:07 2004
From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 20:48:07 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Limitpushers and Limitexplorers (Was: Altered
	genes)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403280925500.23596-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403280925500.23596-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <200403282048.07756.asa@nada.kth.se>

s?ndagen den 28 mars 2004 20.10 wrote Robert J. Bradbury:
> So I don't think one can explore much of the phase
> space(s) without pushing on the limits that the universe
> seems to be presenting to us.  So one has to strike
> some kind of balance between pushing those limits (if
> that is possible) and exploring what they allow. 

Hmm, the glass is (1/sqrt(2))(|full> + |empty>) :-)

You are right in that the space of possibilities is extremely vast, and that 
exploring it would require *extreme* pushes beyond current limits (probably 
into the vicinity of Omega Point-like methods). But are we interested in 
exploring *all* 1 nm nanostructures? Even if we could, the vast majority 
would be rather uninteresting and given the tech needed to do it it would not 
be very necessary to do so. There would be far richer domains to explore. 

This is in many ways the evolutionary problem. Life has not had the time (and 
never will) to explore genotype space fully. It just randomwalks through it, 
producing a range of unique and highly contingent species. In some cases 
these come up with further adaptations that enlarge the state space further 
(more genome, alternate splicing, nervous systems), making it even harder to 
explore it all. And what need is there for evolution to explore all <1kb 
genomes? 

The unmanageable vastness of things to explore is in my opionion wonderful, 
because it makes choices matter. If one could just brute-force through all 
designs and ideas, one would in the end likely end up with just a few 
"optimal" results - the best nanoassembler, the best social system, the most 
appealing artwork etc. The future becomes convergent. But if we cannot 
explore all possibilities, then the future is divergent. Depending on what we 
explore (and how) we will find different solutions, making the world 
contingent. It would likely never repeat itself if it was re-run. This ties 
in with my views that humans (and species) gain much of their individual 
value just by being irreplaceable; no process can recreate the uniqueness 
that emerges from individual development (I leave the ethics of copying 
uploads for later :-). 

Still, in practice the choice of what to explore and to what ends matters much 
and involves plenty of trade-offs. The exploration-exploitation dilemma in 
learning theory is a good example: spend time using what we have learned 
(safe) or try to learn more (risky, but could have far greater rewards)? The 
answer (at least in some cases) is to both explore and exploit, with 
intensities depending on past experience. Often the best breakthroughs seem 
to occur due to unrelated exploration; deliberate and concerted pushes work 
better when one knows there is a crack in one of the limits and want to 
exploit it. 

Right now the originally basic science of genetics is becoming a very powerful 
tool to push back biological limits. Here random exploration of interesting 
things seems to work very well with finding powerful tools that we can apply 
to many problems, and the mutual feedback is strong. In mathematics on the 
other hand many breakthroughs happen out in the esoteric spaces far from 
reality with little connection to it, but sometimes have a very strong impact 
(like in cryptography and computer science). It remains to see if the 
borderlands of applied math and complexity will have the same kind of 
feedforward or feedback effects on our limits. 

-- 
Anders Sandberg
http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa
http://www.aleph.se/andart/

The sum of human knowledge sounds nice. But I want more.


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Mon Mar 29 09:48:19 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 19:48:19 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility - technology
References: <4065BF36.7000704@CRNano.org>
	<00d901c41455$2e527cb0$412b2dcb@homepc>
	<4066611B.1030801@CRNano.org>
	<023001c414b4$3335f720$412b2dcb@homepc>
	<4066F0CD.5050500@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <03b201c41572$f803f340$412b2dcb@homepc>

> This post will be about technology.

Sorry for the delay, in getting back to this Chris, by all means
takes as long as you need to reply yourself (if you want to).

BTW. If you did not see Hal Finney's post to the ExI list
I think you should check it out.

> Brett Paatsch wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, March 28   Chris Phoenix wrote:
> >>...  Have you read Merkle's papers?
> >
> > I have read some. But none contained a spec with a full set of
> > parts for an assembler.   Is there one that does?
>
> No.

Okay. Thanks.

> But that's not necessary for making preliminary estimates of
> performance.

I think we are still talking past each other.

"Performance" of what? You don't seem to be referring to the
performance of a self-replicating assembler. So performance
of what?

> >>The computer may or may not be nanoscale, depending
> >>entirely on what's easiest.
> >
> > Sure attempts to design [..] a full set of components for a self
> > replicator at any scale would permit the chosen scale of the
> > design itself to be one of the degrees of freedom.
>
> What I mean is that the computer may or may not be at the same
> scale as the mechanical parts.

Okay, but I am not sure where you are going with this.

Wouldn't you agree that it is necessary, if a first assembler is
ever to be build in practice, that there would be prior to
its existence a specification for building it that includes a full list
of its necessary component parts and preferably some
way of putting them together?

>  The first few nanofabricators can
> be controlled by a large computer.  Then you can use a lot of
> nanofabricators to build the nanocomputer quickly.  A tabletop
> integrated almost certainly needs nanocomputers, or at least
> nano-logic. But the first, bootstrapped nanofabricators don't
> need a nanocomputer.

None of this seems unreasonable to me in so far as it goes.

> >>We have a specification that includes most functional
> >> components, and supplemental information about range
> > > of motion, required stiffness, speed, etc.  We know the
>> > functions it must perform.
> >
> > Having less than 100% of the necessary parts in the system design
> > for the first prototype amounts to having 0% of a designed (and
> > buildable) prototype.
>
> Why are you talking about prototypes?  Lots of pre-prototype
> engineering work can be done, and some of it has to be done
> before a prototype can be designed.

I used prototypes because I am at a loss for a better word. Prototype
captures most of what I wanted to say in that a prototype need not
be an optimised design and yet it can be sufficient to show proof
in principle. A prototype can be used to show feasibility and to
win buy-in from folks that might not have otherwise accepted.

Drexler in Nanosystems (I'm talking from memory) recognized that
doing design work in this space was not like doing design or
engineering work in other spaces. He coined the phrase "theoretical
applied science" to try and outline a discipline/approach for
working in that space.

Lots of time and effort could be expended producing specs for
parts that may or may not ever get used in the first assembler or
for anything at all. Engineering is not usually that much of an
all of nothing exercise.

If one cannot conceptualise the entire system to the level of
knowing what each of the individual parts that make it up
are then how could one hope to build it to any sort of
timeframe or to place an estimate on its construction ahead
of time? I think the answer is that one can't.

>  We knew we could get
> to the moon before we finished the Saturn V design.

I accept that that was so. But I don't think that is a comparable
example. I don't know much about the Saturn V but I can see
that the sort of complex systems designing in it might have been
approaches in a series of incremental steps with each step
representing a discrete product in its own right.

I'm thinking people at different times in history saw logs float,
then built dug out canoes, then boats, then submarines and then
a space vessel.

There were useful relevant examples and existence proofs
available to guide the exploration of the design space for
engineers good enough to see them.

But when I come to consider a self-replicating assembler
I do not get the sense that I am being asked to consider
something for which there are any relevant existence
proofs.

Robert used a term he said Mike had used Nano-santa.
I associated the term genie machines that I think Drexler
first used in Engines of Creation. These terms denote a
particular type of self-replicator. The sort that might
product not just themselves but also products like
diamondoid.

I know that no biological assemblers can produce
diamondoid.

There are no existence proofs that these sorts of
self-replicators assemblers can be made. And there are
no proofs that they cannot. We simply do not know if
they can.

>From where I sit neither the case that these sort of
assemblers are definately possible nor the case that they
are impossible has ever been convincingly made.

Both sides want to put the burden of proof on those
holding the other view.

Because I can see how attractive it would be to have such a
Nano-santa, or even a complete blueprint for one, I don't think
it is sensible to start from the presumption that it is possible
to build one.

The existence proofs for lesser types of assemblers are
not satisfactory to be also existence proofs for the much more
complex self-replicating assemblers.

>  So why
> are you focusing on the 100% completed blueprints?
> We don't have them, we can't have them yet, we don't need
> them.  Let's move on and talk about the interesting issues.

Because I suspect people (like me) would like to assume that
100% blueprints (full sets of specs for all the parts in assembler
number 1) are possible in advance of their having any intellectual
reason for asserting that they are.

I think it will only be when (actually if) we have the full set of
specs that we will have the relevant existence proof that the
self-replicator of the sort we would like to have is possible.

This side of that discovery I don't think work aimed at producing
parts can even be assumed to be progress at all. There is possibly
a big time trap there as seductive as the the search for the perpetual
motion machine.

> > If you don't know how many parts are needed to produce a
> > full design spec for an assembler then how can you know that you
> > have "most" of them?
>
> I said we know most functional components.  Not individual parts.  If I
> were talking about an internal combustion engine, I'd say we know it
> needs valves, a piston, a crankshaft.  But it's too early to talk about
> valve springs or crankshaft bearings.

I can't see any point earlier than the point at which a full spec is
produced when we will even be able to measure progress towards
that goal because prior to then I don't see how we can know
that that goal is in fact achieveable.

This is not to say that there is no value in nanotechnology or that
non-assembler nanotechnology cannot advance I think it can and it
will. But without the assembler it will be incremental advances only.

> > The question is is it possible? And the answer is we don't know
> > until we see a systems specification that shows a full set of
> > components necessary to produce an assembler (at any scale
> > would be a very good start)
>
> As far as we can tell today, from all of the science and engineering
> work that's been done, it's more than possible.  It should have
> excellent performance numbers.  Feel free to address the engineering.

I disagree. I don't think you know or anyone else knows that to
construct the assembler or a produce a full spec for it (as described
above) is possible.  Can you show me that I am wrong?

I think that you know, that you don't know that it is impossible altogether,
That is not the same as knowing that it is possible in any one or more
particular ways.

There is a position of agnosticism in the middle, that I think is the
logical
place to be at present, given that

a) we don't know that all the possible designs people will suggest will
be impossible.

and

b) we don't know that there is any particular design that is possible.

> But "We don't know for sure until we've seen it done" is interesting
> politically but trivial scientifically.  So I won't try to answer it here.

Can you show that it is trivial?   I am all ears if you can.

> > Without a list of components showing its possible any time and
> > cost numbers may as well be numerology "
>
> No, the time and cost numbers *may be wrong.*  "Numerology" is
> name-calling.  Time and cost projections may always be wrong.  If
> there's an undiscovered error in the engineering, they may be very
> wrong.  This is a given.  So why are you saying it in an engineering post?

1 + 1 = 3 is wrong.   Saying we are getting closer to the day when we
will discover the unicorn is numerology in the sense that I meant it.
We can't predict this side of the event when we will discover the
unicorn, or if.

I didn't mean to insult with name calling. I did mean to be provacative.
I did not know that you in particular would be provoked.

Regards,
Brett Paatsch





From eugen at leitl.org  Mon Mar 29 10:30:03 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 12:30:03 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Evidence for the self surviving brain disassembly?
	(was Altered genes let roundworms wiggle longer)
In-Reply-To: <015701c41465$888163d0$412b2dcb@homepc>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403271454250.23691-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<015701c41465$888163d0$412b2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <20040329103003.GJ28136@leitl.org>

On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 11:39:38AM +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> If the continuation of my self (my very life) depended on it, like 
> in cryonics for instance, I'd be pretty uncomfortable assuming
> that all the matter that makes up my living brain could be replaced
> in one go with a mere copy to someone else's level of satisfaction. 

I don't understand where "mere copy" comes from. "Can't tell from the
original" is good enough for external observers. "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.
 
> 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? 

An anser to that should be in the FAQ.

Briefly, animals can be shut down for about one hour, and resume cleanly.
That info is encoded in the physical system.
Isomorphic substitution results in the same system, given pattern identity.
Pattern identity follows from measurable observations (quantum identity).
The actual requirements are very far removed from that, given biological
infoprocessing noisefloor.
 
> So long as this question remains unanswered 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?

I can't believe we're holding this conversation on this list, 2004.

-- 
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/20040329/4ee4b007/attachment.bin>

From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Mon Mar 29 16:59:35 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 11:59:35 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nano-assembler feasibility - meta
In-Reply-To: <03b201c41572$f803f340$412b2dcb@homepc>
References: <4065BF36.7000704@CRNano.org>
	<00d901c41455$2e527cb0$412b2dcb@homepc>
	<4066611B.1030801@CRNano.org>
	<023001c414b4$3335f720$412b2dcb@homepc>
	<4066F0CD.5050500@CRNano.org>
	<03b201c41572$f803f340$412b2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <406855F7.8000101@CRNano.org>

This post is meta-discussion.

Brett wrote: "From where I sit neither the case that these sort of 
assemblers are definately possible nor the case that they are impossible 
has ever been convincingly made."

Brett, what is your purpose in holding this discussion?  Do you want our 
readers to believe that we know nothing about how an assembler might 
work--and if so, why do you want people to believe that?  Are you trying 
to convince people not to work on or study assemblers?

It seems likely to me that this is your goal.  If not, please explain 
what your goal is.  What do you want to convince people of?

If I'm right about your goal, I have trouble imagining your motivation. 
  Trying to save tax dollars doesn't seem likely... maybe you're trying 
to prevent discussion of dangerous technology, but that would be very 
irresponsible.... what is your motivation?

My goal has been 1) to establish that we know, calculate, and reasonably 
suspect quite a lot about molecular manufacturing (the technical side); 
2) to convince people that, given what we know and suspect, there are 
several compelling reasons for investigating further.

My motivation is that I believe we may get an unpleasant surprise from 
someone developing molecular manufaturing technology before the rest of 
us have studied it, and I'm trying to reduce the chance of that.

If we can't agree on the purpose of the discussion, then there's no 
point in having one.  So let's see if we can agree on a basis for 
exchanging useful information.  Let's start by agreeing that there is 
some non-zero uncertainty about whether molecular manufacturing can work.

So how do we deal with uncertainty?  Scenario planning is a useful 
approach.  I propose that we structure our discussion around scenario 
planning, giving us--within each scenario--a context for meaningful 
discussion.  If you don't like this, please propose an alternate 
approach for dealing with uncertainty, rather than simply continuing to 
repeat that the uncertainty exists.

I'll follow with a post based on scenario planning.

Chris

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


From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Mon Mar 29 17:02:39 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 12:02:39 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility - scenarios
In-Reply-To: <03b201c41572$f803f340$412b2dcb@homepc>
References: <4065BF36.7000704@CRNano.org>
	<00d901c41455$2e527cb0$412b2dcb@homepc>
	<4066611B.1030801@CRNano.org>
	<023001c414b4$3335f720$412b2dcb@homepc>
	<4066F0CD.5050500@CRNano.org>
	<03b201c41572$f803f340$412b2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <406856AF.5000108@CRNano.org>

My first-draft scenario planning approach to addressing the 
uncertainties about molecular manufacturing: Use four scenarios, the 
product of two options: it's workable or it's not, we study it or we 
don't.

1) Molecular manufacturing is unworkable, and we don't study it.  This 
scenario is boring.

2) Molecular manufacturing is unworkable, and we do study it.  We spend 
money on the studies, and eventually evidence accumulates that it's 
unworkable.  In the process, we do some basic research that can be 
applied to other nanotechnologies.  And at the end of this scenario, we 
learn that gray goo is impossible--a fact that would be very valuable to 
the nanotech industry, if it turns out to be true.  So this scenario 
looks very acceptable to me, and I don't see a need to talk about it 
further.

3) Molecular manufacturing is workable, and we study it.  That directly 
opens the door to manufacturing for the cost of raw materials.  Reducing 
the cost of raw materials is an engineering challenge with huge payoff. 
  So we probably win big in this scenario.

4) Molecular manufacturing is workable, and we don't study it.  Then 
someone else develops it first.  They get the huge payoff, and we have 
an unpleasant surprise, because we don't have the technology and there's 
no policy in place to protect us from its negative consequences.

So as far as I can see, whether or not MM is workable, it's better to 
investigate it than not to.  If it's not workable, then not 
investigating produces nothing, but investigating produces basic 
research as well as information useful to the nano industry.  If it is 
workable, then not investigating could be very dangerous, and 
investigating will likely be very productive.

Did I omit an important scenario that would affect this argument?  Did I 
say something you disagree with within the context of any of the scenarios?

Chris

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


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 29 17:19:35 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 09:19:35 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] NANO: Buckyballs kills fish
Message-ID: <20040329171935.28440.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/29/0328251&mode=thread&tid=134&tid=191

Buckyballs apparently kill fish and other waterborne creatures. 

Of course, on slashdot, the best part are the jokes:

"Imagine the death certificate. CAUSE: Buckyballs." 

"I thought 'Buckyballs' was an injury suffered by rodeo riders, like
'Tennis elbow'."

"Blueballs kill geeks, so I'm not feeling real sorry for the fish at
this time."

"I knew it, Soccer rots your brain."

"Re:What about other carbon arrangements? (Score:5, Funny) 
by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 29, @06:14AM (#8701721)  
Ummm ...
You have a girlfriend?
If you do, take her to a jewlers
Show her the diamonds
Watch her IQ drop like a stone :)"

"I have heard that another carbon arrangement, known as diamond, is a
pretty toxic chemical that affects the brain of many female homo
sapien. It is also known to be addictive.

Strangely, this material seems to have little effect on male home
sapien, although the lack of it seems to affect the reproductive
potential of that subspecies."

Now we know what happened to Blinky:
http://www.unet.univie.ac.at/~a9500945/toon/simpsons/bart/blinky.gif

At last!!! (Score:1, Funny) 
by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 29, @06:10AM (#8701712)  
A way to create my ill tempered mutated sea bass!
 
Don't worry, be happy (Score:5, Funny) 
by Bug2000 (235500)  on Monday March 29, @06:12AM (#8701715)  
At last, we have found a way to make Billy largemouth bass fish shut up
for good...


 'Do you have Buckyballs?' 'No, it's just the way I walk.'

"Should have read the fine print... (Score:5, Funny) 
by hustin (684493)  on Monday March 29, @07:33AM (#8701991)  

... Where it clearly states: Do not taunt happy fun ball."

 
"Mad Bass Disease? (Score:2, Funny) 
by Royster (16042)  on Monday March 29, @10:40AM (#8703506) 
(http://slashdot.org/)  
How does someone diagnose "severe brain damage" in bass? Do they flop
in a flamenco rhythm when pulled out of water? Do they play hooky from
the rest of the school?"
 


 


=====
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! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From mlorrey at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 29 17:35:33 2004
From: mlorrey at yahoo.com (Mike Lorrey)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 09:35:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] ECON/Liberty: Is choice bad for you?
Message-ID: <20040329173533.32242.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>

http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books/?040301crbo_books

"Researchers of cognitive dissonance in the nineteen-fifties found that
consumers would continue to read ads for a new car after they?d bought
it but would avoid information about other brands, fearing
post-purchase misgivings. And in the early eighties the social thinker
Albert O. Hirschman, in ?Shifting Involvements,? sought to introduce
the concept of ?disappointment? into mainstream economic theory. ?The
world I am trying to understand,?he wrote (and the desperate italics
are in the original), ?is one in which men think they want one thing
and then upon getting it, find out to their dismay that they don?t want
it nearly as much as they thought or don?t want it at all and that
something else, of which they were hardly aware, is what they really
want.?

Mischoosing of this kind is what Barry Schwartz, a social scientist at
Swarthmore, has in mind in his new book, ?The Paradox of Choice? (Ecco;
$23.95). In his view, ?unlimited choice? can ?produce genuine
suffering.? Schwartz makes his case mostly through research in
psychology and behavioral economics?research that shows how far real
people are from the perfectly rational ?utility maximizers? posited by
classical economists."

This looks to be a very interesting book. Has anyone on the list read
it yet (of course, I'd hate to buy it and then discover I'd
mischosen...;) ).



=====
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! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


From brentn at freeshell.org  Mon Mar 29 18:07:30 2004
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 13:07:30 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] NANO: Buckyballs kills fish
In-Reply-To: <20040329171935.28440.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <r02010100-1033-F229ADF581AB11D89CA1000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>

 (3/29/04 9:19) Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:

>http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/29/0328251&mode=thread&tid=134&tid=191
>
>Buckyballs apparently kill fish and other waterborne creatures. 
>
>Of course, on slashdot, the best part are the jokes:
>


I had a chance to talk to Rob Malda at a conference a year or so back. Several folks were complaining about how the -only- thing worthwhile on Slashdot was the wit, and wouldn't they try to increase the signal to noise ratio there.  Rob replied, essentially stating that he felt it was an impossible task to weed out the trolls and whingers, and so they might as well just try to have fun instead. 

Of course, this was after he showed us his Sims game on the conference hall projector system. I'm sure that does say -something- about his state of mind, although I'm not sure what... :)

Brent
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Mon Mar 29 18:29:20 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 10:29:20 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility - scenarios
In-Reply-To: <406856AF.5000108@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403290950080.19898-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Chris Phoenix wrote:

> And at the end of this scenario, we learn that gray goo is impossible--
> a fact that would be very valuable to the nanotech industry, if it turns
> out to be true.  So this scenario looks very acceptable to me, and
> I don't see a need to talk about it further.

Trust me -- gray goo is possible because green goo is possible.
And green goo already exists (e.g. Ebola, SARS, etc.).  What
isn't clear is how fast green or gray goo can adapt -- and that
depends in large part on its concentration and mutation rate.
If it cannot adapt very quickly then it isn't a problem.
If gray goo is dependent on human design then it will probably
be centuries before it even might become a problem.  If it is
dependent on non-human design then you may well have the problem
of AI to wrestle with.  AIs are not gray goo.  AIs are the problem that
humans are inefficient and should simply be eliminated (a Borg
mentality comes to mind).  And AI does not strictly depend on
nanotech in any way.

I personally do not believe one can get effective gray goo unless
one invests millions of person-years of human engineering (not
likely to happen anytime soon) or one allows for self-evolving
AI design engineers.  And that could be a very dangerous prospect.
We are already on the technological fringe of creating self-replicating
life forms (which could have variable mutation and adaptation rates).
If we cross the border into "intelligent" evolving and adapting
life forms then I suspect there may be real problems.  Note the
assertion here -- biotech is a much bigger problem than nanotech.
Simple question: how many *tons* of probably lethal bioweapons
under loose controls are currently stockpiled in Russia?
Do you have an understanding of what the common security systems
are in the country?  (For example I had to laugh at the wax
seals on the doors or locks because they could so simply be
worked around.)

I would assert that CRN (crnano.org) is focused on the wrong
problems.  Much more important are the risks of biotech and AIs
over the next 10-15 years.  Focusing on "gray goo" involves
a very specific assumption that it can be developed or evolve
quickly and there are few arguments for those positions
that cannot be subjected to refutation.

Robert



From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Mon Mar 29 18:57:45 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 13:57:45 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility - politics
In-Reply-To: <03b201c41572$f803f340$412b2dcb@homepc>
References: <4065BF36.7000704@CRNano.org>
	<00d901c41455$2e527cb0$412b2dcb@homepc>
	<4066611B.1030801@CRNano.org>
	<023001c414b4$3335f720$412b2dcb@homepc>
	<4066F0CD.5050500@CRNano.org>
	<03b201c41572$f803f340$412b2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <406871A9.10008@CRNano.org>

In a recent technology post I wrote: One of two events will happen. 
Either we will built a mechanochemical fabricator, or we will discover a 
significant error in the theory.

Which event will happen?  The discovery of an error in the theory looks 
pretty low-probability to me; Nanosystems has been out for over a 
decade.  Obviously, you disagree.  How much are you willing to bet? 
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?

This question is not rhetorical.  If we can work out a legal, and 
legally binding, way to make bets, I'll happily take those odds at those 
stakes.  Put your money where your mouth is.  I will.  (In fact, I 
am--I'm living on savings and working full-time to create CRN, which 
represents at least $100,000 of lost earnings so far.  And I don't see 
any way CRN can repay that money.)

Now that you know how much you're willing to bet that molecular 
manufacturing theory has a gaping hole that no one has noticed, consider 
this.  The theory predicts that up to $10 billion in research dollars 
will pay off one hundredfold.  So if you're not comfortable underwriting 
high-stakes hundred-to-one odds against the theory being correct, why 
are you wasting our time talking about unicorn hunts instead of 
promoting research?

Now think about what you are actually staking.  Your job, your 
investments, your political and physical security... how much is that worth?

In practice, if you're ignoring the possibility of molecular 
manufacturing, you're probably staking at least $100,000.  What odds 
would it take to make you bet $100,000?  If someone forced you to bet 
$100,000, would your talk of "We know nothing because we don't have 
detailed blueprints" make you feel any better?  What opposing stake 
would make you happy with that risk?  What does that say about the odds?

Everyone else, feel free to chime in as well.  I won't promise to take 
all bets, but I'd like to know: how much would you stake, and at what 
odds, against molecular manufacturing?

Chris

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


From hal at finney.org  Mon Mar 29 20:06:01 2004
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 12:06:01 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility - scenarios
Message-ID: <200403292006.i2TK61M03472@finney.org>

Chris Phoenix writes:

> My first-draft scenario planning approach to addressing the 
> uncertainties about molecular manufacturing: Use four scenarios, the 
> product of two options: it's workable or it's not, we study it or we 
> don't.

I see three problems with this analysis.  The first is the use ofbinary
distinctions.  It's not just a question of whether nanotech works or not.
There is also the issue of how long and how much effort it takes to
get it working.  It's different if it takes 10 years, vs 100 years, vs
1000 years.  The U.S. moon program was a large but manageable effort.
If somehow we had committed instead to sending a man to the stars and
returning him safely to earth, that would have been foolhardy in 1961.

Compare nuclear fusion power.  It's possible in theory, it would be
tremendously valuable, but we've been working on it for 50 years now
and it's still 50 years away.  Does this count as a "workable" technology?

Likewise there is no binary distinction between studying it or not.
Rather it is a matter of how many resources we put into it.  We're
studying it now, at a relatively low level.  Between that and some kind
of crash Manhattan Project program there are a wide range of possible
effort levels.  Your scenarios don't provide much information about how
much effort you think we should be expending.

The second problem is that in scenario 2, where we study it but it doesn't
work, you don't count the opportunity costs from not putting resources
into a more productive project.  Yes, we'll get some spinoffs from even
a failed nanotech effort, but Tang did not justify the space program.
Successful technology research will also produce spinoffs, plus whatever
benefits come from achieving its goal.  Working on a failed nanotech
effort means that we won't gain the benefits from whatever project we
didn't work on instead.

The third problem is that in scenarios 3 and 4, you fail to account for
the negative consequences of developing nanotech.  Yes, nano will give
enormous benefits in terms of new materials and new capabilities.  But it
also raises tremendous risks of misuse.  I'm not talking specifically
about gray goo, but the general concept of using nano for violent and
harmful purposes.  Any form of power can be both used and abused, and
nanotech is arguably the most powerful technology that we will have
ever developed.  The outcome is something like positive infinity plus
negative infinity, and that makes it very hard to predict.

Your analysis is similar to Pascal's wager, where he also used two
binary choices: God exists or not, and I believe in him or not.  If God
exists, believing or not makes an enormous difference, dominating the
considerations when God doesn't exist, even if it seems unlikely that
God exists.  In your argument, if nanotech works then developing it or
not makes an enormous difference, dominating the considerations when
nanotech doesn't work, even if it seems unlikely that nanotech will work.

Hal


From hal at finney.org  Mon Mar 29 20:23:37 2004
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 12:23:37 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility - politics
Message-ID: <200403292023.i2TKNbC03558@finney.org>

Chris writes:

> In a recent technology post I wrote: One of two events will happen. 
> Either we will built a mechanochemical fabricator, or we will discover a 
> significant error in the theory.
>
> Which event will happen?  The discovery of an error in the theory looks 
> pretty low-probability to me; Nanosystems has been out for over a 
> decade.  Obviously, you disagree.  How much are you willing to bet? 
> 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?

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?

If the latter, I'm sure you could get some takers, depending on the
time frame.

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 .

Hal


From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Mon Mar 29 21:30:48 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 15:30:48 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nano-assembler feasibility - meta
References: <4065BF36.7000704@CRNano.org><00d901c41455$2e527cb0$412b2dcb@homepc><4066611B.1030801@CRNano.org><023001c414b4$3335f720$412b2dcb@homepc><4066F0CD.5050500@CRNano.org><03b201c41572$f803f340$412b2dcb@homepc>
	<406855F7.8000101@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <LAW10-OE54KBEoQ6XZ60000dc3f@hotmail.com>



> exchanging useful information.  Let's start by agreeing that there is
> some non-zero uncertainty about whether molecular manufacturing can work.

I'm not so sure about this. I'm not an expert, but it seems that
1.) Nature has managed to create many such "devices" through random chance.
2.) Since human beings can manipulate nature, there should be no reason why
we can't create anything nature has produced or even improve upon it.(ie.
Nature made the bird, we made the shuttle orbiter)
3.) We have already demonstrated the baility to move individual atoms.
4.) It does not conflict with the laws of physics as we know them.

The only way I can think of to make the possibilty greater than zero is to
include such things as:
1.) We are incorrect in our basic understanding of physics.
2.) Either human beings die, or become incapable of the technology necessary
before we figure out how to do it.

Now we may be slightly off on a few things, but I don;t expect a complete
revolution in physics that shows that everything we thought we understood
was wrong, and the odds of our survival have little to do with whether or
not assemblers can be made, only whether or not they will.

Anyways, that's my two cents....:-)




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Mon Mar 29 22:00:35 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 14:00:35 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility - politics
In-Reply-To: <200403292023.i2TKNbC03558@finney.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403291238190.21259-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Hal Finney wrote:

> Chris writes:
>
> > In a recent technology post I wrote: One of two events will happen.
> > Either we will built a mechanochemical fabricator, or we will discover a
> > significant error in the theory.

This is a very unproductive approach to the problem.  It assumes that
nanotech requires a nanomechanical fabricator.  And that is clearly wrong.

It assumes that diamondoid or sapphire cannot be fabricated by enzymes.
Or more importantly that *any* material with a high covalent bond
density cannot be fabricated by enzymes.

You have to get *off* the friggen fabricator wagon.  Look at DNA polymerase and
the ribosome -- been there, done that. It is at the nanoscale and it *ain't*
impossible.  So if you are going to have objections they have to be in the
realm of "We can't fabricate that" (which is already a questionable claim
because it is difficult to differentiate the difficult from the impossible.
Once one is in that land it becomes an economic question -- "can one
manufacture it and make a profit?"  In the nanotech world its "oh yes
we can make that but its going to cost you megabucks".  So the bottom line
is whether you can afford megabucks and still make a profit?

ASSERTION: It has been demonstrably proven that it is possible to manufacture
complex chemical structures which contain a significant degree of covalent
bonding at the nanoscale level to be strong (hell one has everything from
tooth enamel to abalone shell to know this) are indeed possible.

CONCLUSION: There will not be any "significant" errors in the theory.
There may however be errors in precisely what the theory allows.
And that may allow for extensions in the theory as we become more clever
than what evolution has bequeathed to us.

BTW: I have proposed the "impossible" in molecular fabrication --
molecular chain mail.  It is likely to be significantly more difficult
to manufacture than Fine Motion Controllers.  If someone could get
it done by self-assembly then my hat would really be off to them
(and I don't take my hat off lightly).  If someone got it to be
done by directed assembly I would believe they had really done a
good job at avoiding the fat-fingers problem.  In either case
such an accomplishment should merit a Nobel Prize.

THOUGHT: EXI and WTA do not set enough goals.  We might perhaps
be more open with what using the current mind-set may be "impossible"
but what might be possible in the future.  (There are examples of
this -- in the mathematics realm for example).  The question is could we
carry it into the extropic/transhumanistic realm?  (Looking for some
convergence with regard to the values that Anders has pointed out
with respect to how do we extend vs. how do we explore?)

It might be reasonable for ExTI/WTA/Foresight to offer up a
top ten goals.  Perhaps even include the government(s) though
I will admit this might be difficult.  But it would at least
give people things to strive for.

Robert




From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Mon Mar 29 22:20:45 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 17:20:45 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] CRN's position on gray goo
In-Reply-To: <200403292006.i2TK68c32205@tick.javien.com>
References: <200403292006.i2TK68c32205@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <4068A13D.8020207@CRNano.org>

Robert Bradbury wrote (rearranged):

 > Focusing on "gray goo" involves a very specific assumption that
 > it can be developed or evolve quickly

CRN does not focus on gray goo.  See http://www.crnano.org/BD-Goo.htm

I mentioned gray goo in the context of a particular scenario, in the 
context of which gray goo was impossible (see below).  My point in that 
instance was that it would be good news for the nano industry if gray 
goo were actually impossible.

As far as I can tell, machine-phase gray goo is theoretically possible, 
but not our biggest nano worry (see below, and the URL above).

 > Trust me -- gray goo is possible because green goo is possible.

I use gray goo to refer to non-biological machine-phase replicators. 
Certainly, engineered green goo is possible.  Even fully constructed 
nucleic/protein/fatty acid self-replicating machines appear possible. 
That doesn't prove that goo using machine-phase chemistry is possible.

 > If it cannot adapt very quickly then it isn't a problem.
 > If gray goo is dependent on human design then it will probably
 > be centuries before it even might become a problem.

Gray goo requires a fabricator, a chemical plant (metabolism), a shell, 
an onboard computer with blueprints, mobility (either robotic, floating, 
or piggyback), and energy (either very efficient chemistry or solar 
collection), integrated.

None of these is conceptually difficult, especially if the chemistry can 
be inefficient.  Integrating them into a small (10 micron?) package 
could be very difficult, but I wouldn't want to bet my life on it.  And 
a mm-scale insectoid could be pretty destructive and require special 
effort to clean up.

 > AIs are not gray goo.  AIs are the problem that...

We need a Center for Responsible AI.  If someone wants to start one, 
I'll be happy to give him/her advice.  But CRN can't focus on AI as well.

 > I personally do not believe one can get effective gray goo unless
 > one invests millions of person-years of human engineering (not
 > likely to happen anytime soon) or one allows for self-evolving
 > AI design engineers.

I don't think any of the components/requirements listed above would take 
more than 100 person-years.  If designs are readily available for 
non-goo products (which will probably be the case), then adapting them 
might take less than one year.

 > Note the
 > assertion here -- biotech is a much bigger problem than nanotech.

In the short term, you are right.

 > I would assert that CRN (crnano.org) is focused on the wrong
 > problems.  Much more important are the risks of biotech and AIs
 > over the next 10-15 years.

CRN is CRN.  Along with CRAI, please start a Center for Responsible 
Biotech.  I mean that seriously.  But I know much more about 
machine-phase nanotech than about biotech, so I can't do CRB.  There are 
several big problems; there's nothing wrong about picking one to focus on.

If I thought that we definitely had 10-15 years before tabletop 
molecular manufacturing factories, I would not be making so much noise 
about the risks thereof.  But I don't think that.  I think it's much 
simpler than most people think it is.  And we're closer than most people 
think we are.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if we saw basic 
nanofactories by 2010.

And some of the problems will be harder to solve (take more time to 
prepare for) than bioweapons.  And some of the benefits will greatly 
mitigate current problems, including biotech problems.  And knowing in 
advance when computers are going to get a millionfold cheaper is 
important in planning for AI.  So I think what I'm doing is worthwhile.

Chris

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


From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Mon Mar 29 22:45:10 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 17:45:10 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility - scenarios
In-Reply-To: <200403292006.i2TK68c32205@tick.javien.com>
References: <200403292006.i2TK68c32205@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <4068A6F6.8080002@CRNano.org>

Hal Finney wrote:
> Chris Phoenix writes:
> 
>> My first-draft scenario planning approach to addressing the 
>> uncertainties about molecular manufacturing: Use four scenarios, the 
>> product of two options: it's workable or it's not, we study it or we 
>> don't.
> 
> I see three problems with this analysis.  The first is the use ofbinary
> distinctions.  It's not just a question of whether nanotech works or not.
> There is also the issue of how long and how much effort it takes to
> get it working.  It's different if it takes 10 years, vs 100 years, vs
> 1000 years.

OK, there are three options.
1) The theory has no big holes.  In this case it could happen quite soon.
2) There's a big hole in the theory, but some kind of MM works anyway 
eventually, but it's delayed.  I think this is more or less equivalent to:
3) MM doesn't work at all.

So I don't think this affects my analysis much.

> Likewise there is no binary distinction between studying it or not.
> Rather it is a matter of how many resources we put into it.  We're
> studying it now, at a relatively low level.  Between that and some kind
> of crash Manhattan Project program there are a wide range of possible
> effort levels.  

Relatively low?  Almost non-existent!  And much of that is volunteer.

If MM is impossible, then it doesn't much matter how quickly we study 
it.  If MM is possible, the important question is: do we study it enough 
to understand and prepare for its development?  That's reasonably 
binary.  You might argue that a last-minute panic, or partial awareness, 
are interesting cases.  I might well agree.  Especially if the 
last-minute panic causes military action.

> Your scenarios don't provide much information about how
> much effort you think we should be expending.

They weren't supposed to.  They were supposed to argue that the proper 
course of action is not wait-and-see.

I personally think we should be expending at least millions per year 
specifically on studying technical issues and policy implications, 
starting today.  And the studies should give a best-guess worst-case 
report every three months, for funding to be reevaluated.  Each three 
months that the report continues to say molecular manufacturing is 
possible, and does not come up with a comforting worst-case timeline, 
the funding should be doubled.  After six months, policy theorists 
should get involved.  After twelve months if not sooner, national 
security people should get involved.

> The second problem is that in scenario 2, where we study it but it doesn't
> work, you don't count the opportunity costs from not putting resources
> into a more productive project.

Funding is not zero-sum.  This is worth increasing the deficit for, or 
buying 1% less of a Stealth bomber.

> The third problem is that in scenarios 3 and 4, you fail to account for
> the negative consequences of developing nanotech.

In scenarios 3 and 4, I'm assuming it will be developed no matter what 
we do.  I'm arguing for studying it, not for developing it.  Studies 
will probably lead to development--but failing to study it will only 
lead to development elsewhere.

> Any form of power can be both used and abused, and
> nanotech is arguably the most powerful technology that we will have
> ever developed.  The outcome is something like positive infinity plus
> negative infinity, and that makes it very hard to predict.

I agree.  And this makes it important to study rather than going in blindly.

> Your analysis is similar to Pascal's wager, where he also used two
> binary choices: God exists or not, and I believe in him or not.  If God
> exists, believing or not makes an enormous difference, dominating the
> considerations when God doesn't exist, even if it seems unlikely that
> God exists.  In your argument, if nanotech works then developing it or
> not makes an enormous difference, dominating the considerations when
> nanotech doesn't work, even if it seems unlikely that nanotech will work.

In Pascal's wager, there is no way to estimate the likelihood that God 
exists.  That invalidates the comparison.  Here, we can at least guess 
at the likelihood.  Or we can go the other way: we can say that the 
difference between scenarios 3 and 4 means that if it's more than 1% 
likely to work, we'd better study it.  Then we can answer: Do we think 
it's less than 1% likely to work?  Anyone who thinks so is welcome to 
make a bet with me.

Chris

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



From hal at finney.org  Mon Mar 29 22:45:21 2004
From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 14:45:21 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: ECON/Liberty: Is choice bad for you?
Message-ID: <200403292245.i2TMjLb04299@finney.org>

I read Schwartz's article a few weeks ago in Scientific American,
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=0006AD38-D9FB-1055-973683414B7F0000 .
(Actually that's just the intro, I guess you have to subscribe to read
the whole thing online.)

It does seem to me that these kinds of results pose a problem particularly
for Extropians.  However, I would put a somewhat different spin on how
we interpret the data.

These results suggest that giving people what they want is not always
the best way to make them happy.  People who have many choices are not
happier than people who have few.  People who get something that they
want really badly are often not happier after they get it.  People today
are not happier than people in previous decades.

The author draws a personality type distinction between what he calls
satisficers, or people who are happy with something that is good enough;
and maximizers, or people who want the best.  His basic thesis is that
maximizers tend to be unhappy because it takes so much effort to decide
which is the best, and they are always worried that they don't have
the best.

The problem for us is that Extropians tend to be maximizers to the nth
degree!  We want choice, lots of choice, as much choice as possible.
We want to perfect ourselves, to maximize our abilities, our talents.
We want to live out our dreams, to make every desire come true, to
eliminate all obstacles.  Of course we don't expect to achieve all of
these things right away, but these are our goals, the direction which
we are striving towards.

Based on Schwartz's analysis, this is not going to make us happy.
We think these things will satisfy us, but they won't.  In fact, his
data suggests that we will be less happy and more anxious in such a
situation than we are today.

Now, he draws a lot of collectivist conclusions, tut-tutting about the
consumer society and advertisers and such.  Plus he manages to turn this
into an endorsement of Democratic Party positions on privatization of
Social Security and Medicare and school vouchers.  This part was tired
and predictable to me.

More helpful was his personal advice, which boiled down to, try to be a
satisficer rather than a maximizer.  Fine, but these personality traits
are to some extent built in to us.  It's not clear that we can change
and become satisfied more easily, just by wishing it were so.

My interpretation is to see these results in the light of some of the
similar paradoxes of perception and belief we have discussed previously,
such as Robin Hanson's theories about truth-seeking and altruism.
Our minds are evolved to be successful in a social environment, where
one of the main determinates of how well we do is how successful we
are socially.  Robin argued that in many cases the simplest and most
direct way to achieve social success would be for the mind to be deluded
about its own desires.  We have evolved a highly accurate ability to
detect lying and insincerity, so it follows that the most effective way
to fool others is to fool ourselves.  His work and that of evolutionary
psychologistss and social scientists has identified many areas in which
we are systematically self-deluded.

Schwartz's result should be seen as another example of this same
phenomenon.  We desire more choices because historically that desire
has been beneficial.  For example, leaders tend to have more choices
than followers.  By giving us a desire for choice, we will strive to
rise in the social heirarchy, which incidentally will let us have more
children and give them a better chance to survive.  But of course the
true direction of causation is the opposite.  What really matters
is reproduction and survival.  Striving for choice is just a trick
which evolution uses to get the mind to take steps that will benefit
reproduction.

So what does this all mean for Extropians?  Should we give up on our goals
and accept a future where we face the same limitations we have today?

Not necessarily.  If we ignore the psychological impact for a moment,
objectively, more choice ought to be genuinely better.  Everyone has
different needs, and so with more choices, each person is more likely
to find something which best suits his requirements.  The problem is
that Schwartz has shown that moving from a low-choice to a high-choice
situation can be stressful, and that further, having a differential in
choice level throughout society will lead to people trying too hard to
get into a high-choice situation.

I think we can remedy these problems with technology.  People will need
to delegate their choice-making to automated systems, and then trust
these devices to do their jobs.  We have had many discussions here in
the past about collaborative filtering as a technology to help people cut
through an overwhelming selection of choices and quickly identify those
which would be the most beneficial.  We see this has come to life in some
ways in the blogging world, where a constant flow of cross referencing
and commentary automates the distribution and filtering of information.
Likewise, comparison shopping sites make it easy to bring all the relevant
choices together.  I bought a new car last month, and it was tremendously
easier and less stressful than our previous purchase, nine years ago.

Future technologies of ubiquitous and pervasive computing will allow this
kind of support to be with us all the time.  Faced with an overwhelming
selection at the grocery store, your shopping agent will instantly
highlight the product which has gotten the best reviews from those with
tastes like yours.

The main personal adjustment will be for those high-stress type A people
to relax and trust this information.  It's not going to be practical in
the future to evaluate every alternative manually.  In business, part of
the secret of being a good manager is learning to delegate tasks and not
micro-manage.  In the future, we will all be managers, managers of our
own lives, and we will similarly have to learn to delegate and trust.

As far as the more extreme Extropian goals of self-perfection, we can
still hold to them, and we all may have our own reasons for seeking
such goals.  But we should be aware of the evolutionary bias which may
be driving us in this direction.  To the extent that our desires are
based on these ancient drives, we have to accept that we are likely to
be disappointed.  Becoming an immortal of godlike power is not going to
make us happy, in and of itself, not when everyone else is an immortal of
godlike power, too.  No matter how far we go, other people are going to be
there before us, and we need to keep that in mind as we dream our dreams.

Hal


From sentience at pobox.com  Mon Mar 29 22:54:48 2004
From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 17:54:48 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] CRN's position on gray goo
In-Reply-To: <4068A13D.8020207@CRNano.org>
References: <200403292006.i2TK68c32205@tick.javien.com>
	<4068A13D.8020207@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <4068A938.8020607@pobox.com>

Chris Phoenix wrote:
> 
>  > AIs are not gray goo.  AIs are the problem that...
> 
> We need a Center for Responsible AI.  If someone wants to start one, 
> I'll be happy to give him/her advice.  But CRN can't focus on AI as well.

What's your advice?

I do not commit to following, of course, but I'm interested in hearing.

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


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Tue Mar 30 00:21:13 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:21:13 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility - meta
References: <4065BF36.7000704@CRNano.org>
	<00d901c41455$2e527cb0$412b2dcb@homepc>
	<4066611B.1030801@CRNano.org>
	<023001c414b4$3335f720$412b2dcb@homepc>
	<4066F0CD.5050500@CRNano.org>
	<03b201c41572$f803f340$412b2dcb@homepc>
	<406855F7.8000101@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <04b301c415ec$e8f87a40$412b2dcb@homepc>

Chris Phoenix wrote

> This post is meta-discussion.
> 
> Brett wrote: "From where I sit neither the case that these
> sort of assemblers are definately possible nor the case that
> they are impossible has ever been convincingly made."
> 
> Brett, what is your purpose in holding this discussion? 

I don't "hold" discussions, I participate in them.

When I ask you a question it is because I want you to answer
it. I respect that sometimes you may not be able to or that you
may not have time to, or that you may not know the answer.

When you responded to a post of mine that was onlist,
I backposted your response to the list because I saw an 
opportunity to have a useful discussion and to better leverage
the value of that discussion.

> Do you want our readers to believe that we know nothing about
> how an assembler might work--and if so, why do you want people
> to believe that?  Are you trying to convince people not to work 
> on or study assemblers?

I don't want readers to believe anything, I want them to think. 

When they think they can work problems better. They can also 
make better determinations on which problems are worth their
while to work.

Sometimes uncertainties are difficult to manage, but believing
does not help. 

> My goal has been 1) to establish that we know, calculate, and 
> reasonably suspect quite a lot about molecular manufacturing 
> (the technical side); 2) to convince people that, given what we
> know and suspect, there are several compelling reasons for
> investigating further.

I think your beliefs are impacting upon your general effectiveness.

You are not alone in that, even amongst intelligent people.

I think Robert Bradbury's (whose intelligence I also respect)
tendency to professing beliefs when they are not germaine hinder
his effectiveness too.

Regards,
Brett Paatsch



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Mar 30 00:06:15 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:06:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: ECON/Liberty: Is choice bad for you?
In-Reply-To: <200403292245.i2TMjLb04299@finney.org>
Message-ID: <20040330000615.64968.qmail@web80406.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Hal Finney <hal at finney.org> wrote:
> I think we can remedy these problems with
> technology.  People will need
> to delegate their choice-making to automated
> systems, and then trust
> these devices to do their jobs.

Or, more simply: remove the unhappiness that doing
the work to make the best choice entails.  I'm sure
I'm not the only one who would prefer to get
pleasurable feelings from productive work rather than
reproductive labors.


From brentn at freeshell.org  Tue Mar 30 01:29:10 2004
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 20:29:10 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: ECON/Liberty: Is choice bad for you?
In-Reply-To: <200403292245.i2TMjLb04299@finney.org>
Message-ID: <r02010100-1033-A5308B4C81E911D89CA1000393A47D36@[192.168.123.152]>

 (3/29/04 14:45) Hal Finney <hal at finney.org> wrote:

>Future technologies of ubiquitous and pervasive computing will allow this
>kind of support to be with us all the time.  Faced with an overwhelming
>selection at the grocery store, your shopping agent will instantly
>highlight the product which has gotten the best reviews from those with
>tastes like yours.

The problem is, of course, that individuals tend not to have a good fit with "aggregate" tastes, no matter how small a sample population you choose. In the end, I fear, even with ubiquitous computing, we'll still be trying to "maximize."  We'll just have more time to do it.


B
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein


From kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Tue Mar 30 01:45:12 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 19:45:12 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Search
Message-ID: <Law10-OE19Rm5Zi37r80000e531@hotmail.com>

Does anyone know if/when we will have a search feature available in the archives? I am trying to find some kind of personal planner software to use/ I'd like to be able to keep it running in the system tray and have it pop up messages when I have a scheduled task. It would even be nicer if it would email me. Something small and with a simple user interface. 
I thought that a few months ago there was a discussion about this, but I really don't want to sift through 6 month's worth of discussions. Does anyone recall this?
Thanks!
Kevin Freels
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040329/eb3220a8/attachment.html>

From Johnius at Genius.UCSD.edu  Tue Mar 30 02:31:45 2004
From: Johnius at Genius.UCSD.edu (Johnius)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 18:31:45 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] IMMUNE: Nose picking is good for you...
Message-ID: <4068DC11.F13EBE4E@Genius.UCSD.edu>


Mike Lorrey forwarded:
>Top doc backs picking your nose and eating it 
>[...]
>Dr Bischinger said: "With the finger you can get to places you just
>can't reach with a handkerchief, keeping your nose far cleaner.

	Hmm.  I've seen a few children and young adults with 
	"virgin nostrils", and I've always thought they looked
	far healthier & more natural, at least regarding the
	delicate nose structures.  Their noses tend to look
	more like healthy young animal noses...

	A friend of mine studied yoga in an Indian ashram, and
	she doesn't pick, but uses a "neti pot" ... irrigating
	nasal passages with slightly salty warm water.  On the
	other hand, some yogis use thin towels which they thread
	through the nostrils or nostril-throat ... but most 
	people probably couldn't handle doing that.

	I also wonder how healthy/natural it is for so many
	people to have dried nasal mucus ... is it an indication
	that their systems are out of balance?  Perhaps water
	deficient, or protein overloaded?

	I'm not sure how much research has been done, but how
	do most mammals keep their nasal passages clean/open?
	When I stayed at a fire station in northern california,
	sometimes we would watch the deer, which came quite close.
	Their method seemed to be to snork-blow forcibly in rapid
	alternation, and it looked like their mucus tended to always
	be moist or liquid, not dried.  Of course, socially, even
	finger picking is probably more acceptable than snork-blowing!
	One advantage of the latter, if the article is correct,
	is that some of it probably gets ingested.

>"And eating the dry remains of what you pull out is a great way of
>strengthening the body's immune system.
>"Medically it makes great sense and is a perfectly natural thing to do.
>In terms of the immune system the nose is a filter in which a great
>deal of bacteria are collected, and when this mixture arrives in the
>intestines it works just like a medicine.


>He pointed out that children happily pick their noses, yet by the time
>they have become adults they have stopped under pressure from a society
>that has branded it disgusting and anti social.

	I've also seen young children playing with their sex organs, 
	which probably helps relieve stress and yield comfort.
	Of course nearly all of us are trained out of this one too,
	even though it probably would make all our lives just a 
	little bit (or a whole lot) nicer :-)

	I've also seen young childen sticking things in their mouths,
	and even eating dirt.  Some people in the alternative medicine
	movement still recommend eating a bit of dirt (or filtered
	clays) now and then...  At a recent new age event, I was helping
	in the kitchen to cut up some organic celery.  It was dirty,
	with organic dirt, and I mentioned that to the lady in charge
	of meal preparation.  She thought about it and told me not to
	clean them, that the organic dirt would be good for us to eat!

	And what about ear wax?  I've seen many people pick their ears
	but not so many eat that ... but according to the article it 
	just might be good to do so...

	Just one last thing, venturing off deeper into taboo.  There
	was a show on alternative medicine a few months ago, and one
	native american fellow was a big believer in sipping one's
	own urine.  He claimed it has all sorts of benefits, such as
	immune enhancement, and on the show he actually talked some
	people into giving it a try.  Before that, I'd only heard of
	the practice in connection with Siberian shamans trying to
	conserve precious psychedelic mushroom chemicals by drinking
	their own urine to keep the high going as long as possible...

	Johnius


From wingcat at pacbell.net  Tue Mar 30 00:50:10 2004
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:50:10 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Nano chain mail
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403291238190.21259-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
Message-ID: <20040330005010.79070.qmail@web80406.mail.yahoo.com>

--- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:
> BTW: I have proposed the "impossible" in molecular
> fabrication --
> molecular chain mail.  It is likely to be
> significantly more difficult
> to manufacture than Fine Motion Controllers.  If
> someone could get
> it done by self-assembly then my hat would really be
> off to them
> (and I don't take my hat off lightly).  If someone
> got it to be
> done by directed assembly I would believe they had
> really done a
> good job at avoiding the fat-fingers problem.  In
> either case
> such an accomplishment should merit a Nobel Prize.

Well...this isn't quite *molecular* chain mail, but
at the limits of e-beam lithography (~25 nm), it's
not that far away...

Basically, 3-D MEMS, using 7 layers.  Picking an
arbitrary axis, the "horizontal" links are forged from
layers 1-5, while the "vertical" links are forged from
layers 3-7.  For each layer, you add a new layer of
whatever material you're working with, attach it to
the layer beneath by some means (say, by slightly
melting it) (first layer skips this, of course), then
etch away the appropriate pattern, filling in the
area you've just etched out with some sacrificial
material (just enough so that the next layer only
attaches to this one - for example, that layer 3
doesn't attach to layer 1 thanks to the sacrificial
material on layer 2) (final layer can skip this, of
course).  Make sure the features are far enough apart
that the level attachment process doesn't bind the
rings together (which is why each link is made of 5
layers: a central layer for the other direction's
link to pass through, an empty layer on either side,
then the actual "horizontal" or "vertical" elements on
either side of that).  Actual manufacture would
probably turn one of these link sets on its side, so
as to do it in only five layers (which would make the
manufacture faster and cheaper).

If you're seriously interested, I could score you a
sample - probably at a larger resolution (say, at
least ~1 micron feature size or larger) so you could
actually see it with an optical microscope (I could
make it smaller, but facilities to verify the
merchandise beyond the limits of optical microscopy
are expensive), and you'd have to pay for the
manufacture (probably in the low $XX,XXX range).


From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Tue Mar 30 04:14:46 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 23:14:46 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility - meta
In-Reply-To: <04b301c415ec$e8f87a40$412b2dcb@homepc>
References: <4065BF36.7000704@CRNano.org>
	<00d901c41455$2e527cb0$412b2dcb@homepc>
	<4066611B.1030801@CRNano.org>
	<023001c414b4$3335f720$412b2dcb@homepc>
	<4066F0CD.5050500@CRNano.org>
	<03b201c41572$f803f340$412b2dcb@homepc>
	<406855F7.8000101@CRNano.org>
	<04b301c415ec$e8f87a40$412b2dcb@homepc>
Message-ID: <4068F436.3060406@CRNano.org>



Brett Paatsch wrote:

> Chris Phoenix wrote
> 
>> Brett, what is your purpose in holding this discussion? 
 >
> When I ask you a question it is because I want you to answer it.

That's not what I asked.  When you think up a question to ask, how do 
you decide whether it furthers your overall purpose?  And please don't 
claim that you're a disinterested observer who just wants to stir the pot.

 > .... I backposted your response to the list because I saw an
 > opportunity to have a useful discussion and to better leverage
 > the value of that discussion.

And how will you know whether the discussion is useful and valuable? 
How will you decide whether you have wasted your time?

I will think I've wasted my time if we do not start trading information 
about technical issues.  So far I've made lots of technical assertions 
and you've made very few.  Why should I keep talking to you?  Tell me 
what you find useful and valuable, and maybe I'll support it.

> When they think they can work problems better. They can also 
> make better determinations on which problems are worth their
> while to work.

So is this your goal--to help people determine whether molecular 
manufacturing is worth their while to work on?  If so, what advice would 
you give them?  I don't think you've actually contributed anything yet.

Chris

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


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Tue Mar 30 04:44:14 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 14:44:14 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility - meta
References: <4065BF36.7000704@CRNano.org>
	<00d901c41455$2e527cb0$412b2dcb@homepc>
	<4066611B.1030801@CRNano.org>
	<023001c414b4$3335f720$412b2dcb@homepc>
	<4066F0CD.5050500@CRNano.org>
	<03b201c41572$f803f340$412b2dcb@homepc>
	<406855F7.8000101@CRNano.org>
	<04b301c415ec$e8f87a40$412b2dcb@homepc>
	<4068F436.3060406@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <06a801c41611$a72dfac0$412b2dcb@homepc>

> Brett Paatsch wrote:
> > When I ask you a question it is because I want you to answer it.

[Chris] 
> That's not what I asked.  When you think up a question to ask, how do 
> you decide whether it furthers your overall purpose? 

I make a judgement. 

>  > .... I backposted your response to the list because I saw an
>  > opportunity to have a useful discussion and to better leverage
>  > the value of that discussion.
> 
> And how will you know whether the discussion is useful and
> valuable? 

I will make a judgement.

[Chris]
> Why should I keep talking to you? 

That's for you to decide.

> Tell me what you find useful and valuable, and maybe I'll support it.

No. I'll ask me questions my way. You can answer or not.

> So is this your goal--to help people determine whether molecular 
> manufacturing is worth their while to work on?  

This would be a side benefit only. 

I'll get to your other posts or some of them. I am answering this first
because its easy and you've meta'd it not because its the most
important. 

Regards,
Brett Paatsch




From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Tue Mar 30 04:46:40 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 20:46:40 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] IMMUNE: Nose picking is good for you...
In-Reply-To: <4068DC11.F13EBE4E@Genius.UCSD.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403292023040.31470-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Johnius wrote:

> >He pointed out that children happily pick their noses, yet by the time
> >they have become adults they have stopped under pressure from a society
> >that has branded it disgusting and anti social.

There may be a reason for this.  Nasal cavities are a quite popular
reservior for the bacteria streptococcus.  I believe I've even cultured
some of my own in the microbiology lab.  There may be a very active
principle -- "the bacteria you can live with may not be the bacteria I
can live with" at work here.  So the aspect of bacteria to hands
to other hands to who knows where may be involved here.  So "disgust"
may be a defense mechanism that could have been put into humans
(by genetics or education) for a very long time (and for good reason).

Bottom line -- nothing wrong with picking your nose -- but *always*
wash your hands after the fact.  You are dealing with a simple probability
of disease transmission issue (which if more people were aware of might
make the world a much healthier place).

Robert




From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Tue Mar 30 04:55:33 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 23:55:33 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] To: Hal Finney Re: Nano-assembler feasibility
In-Reply-To: <200403292006.i2TK68c32205@tick.javien.com>
References: <200403292006.i2TK68c32205@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <4068FDC5.8050106@CRNano.org>

 > I agree with much of Brett's skepticism on this issue.  Given the fact
 > that so many prominent scientists continue to maintain that assemblers
 > are impossible, supporters of the concept need to take on the burden
 > of proof.  It's not enough any more to say, tell us why it won't work.

We're not saying "Tell us why it won't work."  We're saying "Tell us 
where is the error in our work."  There's lots of work out there, 
including a decade-old 500 page technical book, that no one is 
reviewing--or they are reviewing, but are not publishing the fact that 
they haven't found any errors.

 > In the case of assemblers, we're missing the most important pieces:
 > .... I mean specifically what tool-tips will be used, how they will
 > be swapped out, and what construction sequences will be used to
 > build the components.

What do you think of the one Freitas and Merkle found recently?  Does it 
count as a piece?  Does it indicate to you that the rest of the pieces 
are likely to be findable?
http://www.rfreitas.com/Nano/DimerTool.htm

 > Now, there are two parts to this question.  The first is, how can an
 > assembler self-replicate; how can it build its own parts.

Agreed, this is a question we don't have a full answer to.  Further 
studies are needed.

 > The second,
 > even more difficult, is how can we bootstrap into an assembler from
 > today's technology; how can we build its parts without already having
 > an assembler.

Not sure this requires much more than knocking together a scanning probe 
that can duplicate the motions of the assembler's tip.  I wouldn't have 
sounded so blase about this a year ago, but there are now multiple 
techniques for making 3D structures down to 20 nm.  And multiple 
actuation techniques.  I no longer expect this to be especially challenging.

 > I'm really just asking the first question, the easier one.  If you
 > could show an assembler design that was complete enough to give
 > confidence that the answer to the first question was positive, it
 > would eliminate many of the objections of the skeptics.

This is one stage of many.  It's easy to pick a stage and say "This will 
satisfy the skeptics."  But I don't think this would satisfy Brett that 
it's worth looking at further.  And it's more than should be needed to 
inspire further research.  I would've thought that finding the first 
tool tip, out of maybe six to ten total (Freitas' estimate), would pique 
the interest of anyone who wasn't biased against the idea.

 > No longer would you have to use shaky
 > biological analogies or vague and confusing jargon to address
 > Smalley's fat-finger and sticky-finger issues.

What shaky biological analogies were made to address Smalley?  Drexler's 
talk of enzymes was not analogical.
Where did you find vague and confusing jargon?

 > [qualifiers].... it looks to me
 > that tool tips have been designed which could plausibly work
 > to produce large pieces of diamond. The problem is that this is
 > not enough to produce all possible parts, even among those that
 > are composed solely of carbon and hydrogen.

All possible?  Of course not.  But a large number of parts of the family 
"bulk diamond with voids" can probably be produced.  At what point does 
it make sense to say, "OK, we've got enough functionality to start 
looking at the design of kinematic systems with parts of this class"?

 > Different strategies for construction are necessary for different
 > surfaces.  But these techniques will not be applicable to a small
 > part, because it does not have consistent surfaces with uniform
 > atomic spacing. Each atom in the small part is going to be a
 > unique challenge and require a customized assembly procedure.

If that customized procedure required building new hardware, I'd be 
worried.  But if it merely requires changing the parameters in the 
manipulator-driving software, I'm not very worried.  I can't prove 
that's all it requires.  But the atoms aren't going to be *that* far out 
of register.  You might need one tool for surfaces, one for edges, and 
one for corners.

 > Then there are the problems in gripping the parts, ....
 > These are where I think Smalley's finger problems are most likely to be
 > an issue.

Wait... gripping a part doesn't require careful control of a chemical 
reaction, does it?  How are the "fingers" relevant for part-gripping? 
Especially since the parts can, in this case, be bigger than the fingers.

 > and in putting the
 > first two pieces together at the beginning of constructing a part.
 > .... I'd like to see a synthesis for diamond that didn't already
 > start with a big slab of diamond.

Merkle has proposed (in conversation) starting with a big slab of 
diamond, then cleaving the part loose when it's finished.

 > The other direction towards answering my question comes from one paper
 > by Merkle from 1997(!),
 > http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/hydroCarbonMetabolism.html.  This is the
 > only paper I am familiar with that makes a real attempt to close the
 > loop and show how an assembler can construct its own parts.  This is
 > the kind of work I'd like to see expanded, but as far as I know no one
 > has developed it any further.

The NNI says there's no point in studying it.

 > The reasons why this does not fully answer my questions are, first, that
 > the assembler being described is a very simplified and schematic one;

You're not going to get a full answer until we build the thing.  We 
could model the reactions (as I assume Merkle did), but someone can 
always say the models aren't trustworthy.

 > and
 > second, that the reactions seem to have potential fat-finger problems.
 > They require four assembler arms (or equivalent) to come together in a
 > tiny space.

This seems unlikely to be the only reaction set.  It's the first 
attempt, not the last hope.

 >  Yet you've never seen a diagram of an assembler from Drexler
 > which required four arms, have you?  If assemblers are going to require
 > this many arms, wouldn't it be nice to find out ahead of time?

Yes, of course it would.  (Note that Merkle said two arms plus fixtures 
would probably be sufficient, and it might be done with one.)  Obviously 
what we need is more study.

 > So we are back
 > to the chicken and the egg, that we can't get started on a large project
 > until we know we will succeed, and we can't know we will succeed until
 > we get a detailed design, and we can't get a detailed design without
 > getting started on a large project.

And it doesn't help when certain people keep asserting that there can be 
no basis for guesstimating likelihood of success until the thing is 
fully done.  There are, in fact, non-large projects proposed that may go 
a long way toward answering these questions.  But "We shouldn't do 
anything till we see it working" guarantees that even these won't be 
tried.  Bleah.

 > This is why the alternative strategy is being tried, of claims that we
 > already have enough data to know that we will succeed.

Who's claiming that?  I'm not.  I'm claiming that we have enough data to 
be legitimately worried, and that the appropriate response to that worry 
is to start studying.  Since, after all, we can learn a lot more about 
the difficulty of development without solving the whole problem.

 > But I think the
 > political reality today is that this strategy is not working.  The only
 > alternative is to take many years of time and effort to tackle these
 > problems one at a time, until we do get to the point where we have a
 > design that answers all the questions and eliminates the objections,
 > by construction.

What do you think of the alternative I described just above?  More 
formally, it goes like this:
1) Note that there's some risk of badness due to ignorance about 
molecular manufacturing.
2) Put some effort toward trying to disprove molecular manufacturing.
3) Note that continued failure of step 2 increases the risk, and 
justifies increased effort.  Iterate.

This does not require trying to develop molecular manufacturing.  It 
only requires playing it safe--something that bureaucracies and 
governments ought to be good at.  The trouble with that algorithm is the 
temptation to deny molecular manufacturing, rather than admitting you 
can't disprove it yet.  Especially when the NanoBusiness Alliance is 
lobbying for it not to be studied at all.

It might be argued that the initial risk is so low that there's no point 
in starting the process.  But the appropriate initial effort can be 
calibrated by noting that if there is no hole in Nanosystems, a powerful 
form of molecular manufacturing can and will be developed.  An 
appropriate effort for the initial step 2 would be comparable to the 
attention that has been paid to the book already... over the last 12 
years.  History says that if there's a problem, it probably won't be 
easy to find.

Chris

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


From bradbury at aeiveos.com  Tue Mar 30 06:02:53 2004
From: bradbury at aeiveos.com (Robert J. Bradbury)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 22:02:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] To: Hal Finney Re: Nano-assembler feasibility
In-Reply-To: <4068FDC5.8050106@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403292121340.31470-100000@server.aeiveos.com>


On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Chris Phoenix wrote:

>  > Now, there are two parts to this question.  The first is, how can an
>  > assembler self-replicate; how can it build its own parts.
>
> Agreed, this is a question we don't have a full answer to.  Further
> studies are needed.

This is an an area where I disagree strongly and willing to go toe-to-toe
with the proponents to figure it out.

First and most important "self-replication is not an essential component
of nanotech" (Robert Freitas may disagree with my opinion on this.)  It
is helpful in getting the scales required for useful nanoscale production
up to those levels required by humans -- but it is *NOT* essential.
For example humans derive great benefits from manufacturing
at the nanoscale level of 130-70nm chips that are produced by the millions.
These chips are *NOT* self-replicating.  Humans also derive great benefit
from the production of beer and wine that are based on self-replicating
nanoscale machines that we have been using for thousands of years.
So the only thing one can argue here is costs of production
efficiencies and I don't notice anyone doing that.

Bottom Line: self-replication is helpful but not essential to realize
what nanotech may offer.

Second, building ones own parts is completely irrelevant as well.  Most
viruses get *other* machinery to build their parts.

I agree with Chris that we do not (in any significant way) understand
what the limits are on the phase space of parts construction or parts
assembly.  We are therefore driving blind.  We only have some simple
hints as to what might be possible from known biology.  Whether or not
these could be considered dangerous I am somewhat doubtful.  But there
is ample room for me to be surprised.

I would like however to see CRN produce a hardcore estimate of precisely
how gray goo might be developed and the damage it might cause.  And
more importantly how it might be defended against.  (Gray goo is *not*
indefeatable -- but one does need however to be prepared for it.)

Robert




From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Tue Mar 30 06:06:51 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 16:06:51 +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>
Message-ID: <070001c4161d$31cf5330$412b2dcb@homepc>

Eugen Leitl wrote:

[Aside: I saw the link on the organ vitrification work by Fahy et al
you posted  - I had seen it before. Thanks for the link.

To the extent that a desire to enable cryonics gets work done
in the vitrification of organs (that might help in transplanting etc) and
that would otherwise not have gotten done that's to cryonics credit.

I want to respond to this now in case I can't get back to it for
a while. The nano-assembler thread *might* be diverting]

[Brett]
> > If the continuation of my self (my very life) depended on it, like
> > in cryonics for instance, I'd be pretty uncomfortable assuming
> > that all the matter that makes up my living brain could be replaced
> > in one go with a mere copy to someone else's level of satisfaction.

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

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

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.  

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. 

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 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. 

>  "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. 

[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?

> An anser to that should be in the FAQ.

Max More sort of addresses some of this in his doctoral dissertation.

> Briefly, animals can be shut down for about one hour, and resume
> cleanly.

Reason posted me this item from Charles Platt 
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000044.php


In cold water drowning (which is biologically interesting) the

same physical brain is inhabited by the subject before and 

after the near drowning. The atoms are not just functionally

eqivalent they are substantially the same. The brain structure

isn't a copy replacing the original it is the original.

Were I to experience cold water drowning and to be revived

an hour later I'd have no doubt that I was the same self.


> That info is encoded in the physical system.

I'm not sure encoded is the right word. 

> Isomorphic substitution results in the same system, given 
> pattern identity.

I am not sold on "pattern identity". 

> Pattern identity follows from measurable observations
> (quantum identity).

I don't follow. 

Regards,
Brett Paatsch



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Mar 30 06:11:42 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 00:11:42 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Feynman on Freud?
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040330001009.01c4fd90@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

I'm away from my library right now, and need to refresh my memory. Anyone 
able to tell me what Richard Feynman thought of Freud/psychoanalysis? A 
book reference would be dandy. Thanks.

Damien Broderick




From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Mar 30 06:59:30 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 08:59:30 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Search
In-Reply-To: <Law10-OE19Rm5Zi37r80000e531@hotmail.com>
References: <Law10-OE19Rm5Zi37r80000e531@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20040330065930.GE28136@leitl.org>

On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 07:45:12PM -0600, Kevin Freels wrote:
> Does anyone know if/when we will have a search feature available in the archives? 

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awww.lucifer.com+freels&hl=en&num=100&btnG=Google+Search


-- 
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/20040330/74437580/attachment.bin>

From scerir at libero.it  Tue Mar 30 07:06:56 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 09:06:56 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Feynman on Freud?
References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040330001009.01c4fd90@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <005e01c41625$9a354580$a9bf1b97@administxl09yj>

Something like "psychoanalysis is not a science"
I remember I read in "The Character of Physical Law",
by R.P.Feynman.
Cheers,
s. 


From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue Mar 30 07:20:30 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 23:20:30 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Feynman on Freud?
In-Reply-To: <005e01c41625$9a354580$a9bf1b97@administxl09yj>
Message-ID: <027601c41627$7ed37760$6401a8c0@SHELLY>

In Feynman's The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, 
pages 213-218, he goes on about poorly designed
psychology experiments, but does not mention
Freud specifically.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org 
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of scerir
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 11:07 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Feynman on Freud?
> 
> 
> Something like "psychoanalysis is not a science"
> I remember I read in "The Character of Physical Law",
> by R.P.Feynman.
> Cheers,
> s. 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 



From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Mar 30 08:42:42 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:42:42 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Evidence for the self surviving brain disassembly?
In-Reply-To: <070001c4161d$31cf5330$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>
Message-ID: <20040330084242.GK28136@leitl.org>

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

> [Eugene]
> > I don't understand where "mere copy" comes from.
> 
> I don't regard eqivalence and identity as the same thing in this case.

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

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

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

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

Fortunately for us, the laws of physics do believe in pattern identity.
 
> > Pattern identity follows from measurable observations
> > (quantum identity).
> 
> I don't follow. 

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.

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.

-- 
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/20040330/d7f48ae7/attachment.bin>

From scerir at libero.it  Tue Mar 30 14:47:31 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 16:47:31 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat][ OFF TOPIC: Passion Tour
References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040330001009.01c4fd90@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
	<005e01c41625$9a354580$a9bf1b97@administxl09yj>
Message-ID: <000901c41665$ef122bf0$12b91b97@administxl09yj>

Some business also on this side of the globe!

The town (the town of "sassi", rocks, stones)
http://www.sassiweb.it/matera/
The "Passion" (movie)
http://www.sassiweb.it/thepassion/
The "Passion" (tour)
http://www.sassiweb.it/tourplan/

Nobody now remembers that in 1964 Pier Paolo Pasolini 
directed his unbelievable "The Gospel According to St. 
Matthew", in the same town of Matera. 

This (black & white, intense) "Passion" was completely 
different. Palestine, Christ and his contemporaries 
were portrayed as they probably truly were in their 
simplicity and roughness. There was no beautiful Jesus, 
no "Raffaellesca" Madonna, no shining Roman soldiers, 
no lush landscapes, no stunning special effects. 
The actors are mostly common people and the scenery was 
from that poor regions of Basilicata, Calabria and - also - 
the magic island of Stromboli.



From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Tue Mar 30 16:32:17 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:32:17 -0500
Subject: Advice on CRAI (Re: [extropy-chat] CRN's position on gray goo)
In-Reply-To: <200403301444.i2UEiLc20783@tick.javien.com>
References: <200403301444.i2UEiLc20783@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <4069A111.1060402@CRNano.org>

Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
 > Chris Phoenix wrote:
>> We need a Center for Responsible AI.  If someone wants to start one, 
>> I'll be happy to give him/her advice.  But CRN can't focus on AI as well.
> 
> What's your advice?

I can only tell you what's been working for us.

How to get started:
   1) Care about the problem.  Write about the problem, and think about 
it, over a course of years.  Be prepared for a career change.  Write 
about it some more.  Have email conversations.  Explain it to people--a 
good way to boil down your theories to their essentials.
   2) Meet someone with a different perspective and background, 
complementary skills, and very compatible working style.  I met Mike in 
an email conversation.
   3) When it's right, you'll know it.  Mike and I agreed to start an 
organization within two weeks of the first email.

How to run the organization:
   1) Decide what kind of organization you want.  Pick simple goals: To 
make money?  To spread information?  To scare politicians?  We decided 
to spread information.
   2) Decide what reputation you want to build.  This should be 
compatible with the kind of organization you are.  In our case, we 
wanted a reputation as knowledgeable, careful, and trustworthy.
   3) Introspect and self-criticize.  Always be looking for new options. 
  Mike and I have spent hundreds of hours talking about what we 
could/should be doing next.  We have several pages on our website 
explaining how our organization works.  And we keep asking: is this idea 
compatible with being an Information organization?
   4) Figure out strategies for achieving your goals and purposes.  Then 
try to implement them.  Go to step 3.
   5) We are small enough, and compatible enough, to do everything by 
consensus.  This won't work for all personality types, and maybe not for 
all organization types.  All I can say is that it's worked for us.  It 
requires open-mindedness, and putting organizational goals ahead of ego.

How to have an impact:
   1) Design your own strategy.  Use your own skill set.
   2) We've found that press releases get some attention.  Writing 
papers and articles is also good, especially since there are several 
online sites willing to publish them.  And we've placed several articles 
in print magazines as well.

Hope this helps...

Chris



From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Tue Mar 30 18:05:02 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:05:02 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility - Bradbury
In-Reply-To: <200403301444.i2UEiLc20783@tick.javien.com>
References: <200403301444.i2UEiLc20783@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <4069B6CE.2020006@CRNano.org>


Robert J. Bradbury wrote (in two posts):
>Chris writes:
>>In a recent technology post I wrote: One of two events will happen.
>>Either we will built a mechanochemical fabricator, or we will discover a
>>significant error in the theory.
> 
> This is a very unproductive approach to the problem.  It assumes that
> nanotech requires a nanomechanical fabricator.  And that is clearly wrong.

Note I didn't say that nanotech requires a nanomechanical fabricator.  I 
said that the theory predicts a mechanochemical fabricator can be built. 
  I'm not claiming the fabricator is necessary, just that it's sufficient.

And I'm not sure which "nanotech" you mean.  I mean molecular 
manufacturing.  MM doesn't require diamondoid mechanochemistry, but that 
may be the easiest path.  MM does require programmability: the same 
machinery able to make multiple diverse products under computer control 
and deliberate design.  That's the main thing that distinguishes it from 
chemistry.  And that makes it fairly easy to implement 
self-manufacture--about which, more later.

> It assumes that diamondoid or sapphire cannot be fabricated by enzymes.
> Or more importantly that *any* material with a high covalent bond
> density cannot be fabricated by enzymes.

Diamond would be difficult or impossible.  Graphene looks quite doable. 
  (There's an enzyme, cytochrome P450-2K4, that breaks down buckyballs.) 
  And again, I'm saying fabricators are sufficient but not necessary.

> You have to get *off* the friggen fabricator wagon.  Look at DNA polymerase and
> the ribosome -- been there, done that. It is at the nanoscale and it *ain't*
> impossible.  So if you are going to have objections they have to be in the
> realm of "We can't fabricate that" (which is already a questionable claim
> because it is difficult to differentiate the difficult from the impossible.

The other objection is "How easily can you control it?"  Which is an 
engineering question.  I like all-digital control channels.  That's not 
to say analog is impossible.  But we understand it less.  So again, I 
think diamondoid machines may be the easiest to actually develop.  And 
may be the only thing that can do vacuum chemistry, which has various 
advantages for fabricating covalent lattices.

> Once one is in that land it becomes an economic question -- "can one
> manufacture it and make a profit?"  In the nanotech world its "oh yes
> we can make that but its going to cost you megabucks".  So the bottom line
> is whether you can afford megabucks and still make a profit?

In your nanotech world, it costs megabucks.  In mine, it costs 
millibucks.  Scientifically uninteresting, economically crucial.

> ASSERTION: It has been demonstrably proven that it is possible to manufacture
> complex chemical structures which contain a significant degree of covalent
> bonding at the nanoscale level to be strong (hell one has everything from
> tooth enamel to abalone shell to know this) are indeed possible.
> 
> CONCLUSION: There will not be any "significant" errors in the theory.

To me, the question of "Can you manufacture such structures with 
machines in vacuum" is very interesting.  I think that's what Brett has 
been trying to debunk, not the bigger question of whether covalent 
structures can be made by any chemistry.  And some of the theory 
asserting that possibility is untested.

> BTW: I have proposed the "impossible" in molecular fabrication --
> molecular chain mail.  It is likely to be significantly more difficult
> to manufacture than Fine Motion Controllers.  If someone could get
> it done by self-assembly then my hat would really be off to them
> (and I don't take my hat off lightly).

Seems doable by self-assembly, if you add a surface with a grid on it. 
You build up the rings in sections, from strings that will join 
end-to-end but will also match/attach to specific spots on surface and 
each other.  For two interlocked rings, you lay down string A, then 
string B that likes to cross string A, then string C that likes to cross 
string B and joins to the ends of A, then string D to close string B.

For chain mail, see the picture at 
http://www.mailleartisans.org/articles/pics/61994in109.jpg
There are four levels of crossings and two types of rings.  So you lay 
down chain A for the lowest fraction of the gold rings (toward the 
bottom of the picture) and P for the lowest fraction of the silver rings 
(toward the top of the picture).  Then B binding A (one end) and 
crossing P, and Q binding P (one end) and crossing A.  Then C binding B 
(both ends) and crossing Q to complete the gold ring, and R binding Q 
(both ends) and crossing B to complete the silver.

You could form the grid with DNA, attaching strands of varying length 
for binding and attracting side chains of the various lettered strings. 
  Some of the strings' side chains would bind to appropriate spots on 
the grid, and some to appropriate spots on each other.  You might have 
to anneal carefully and then cross-link after each step.  But I think 
it's doable.

> First and most important "self-replication is not an essential component
> of nanotech" (Robert Freitas may disagree with my opinion on this.)  It
> is helpful in getting the scales required for useful nanoscale production
> up to those levels required by humans -- but it is *NOT* essential.
> For example humans derive great benefits from manufacturing
> at the nanoscale level of 130-70nm chips that are produced by the millions.
> These chips are *NOT* self-replicating.  Humans also derive great benefit
> from the production of beer and wine that are based on self-replicating
> nanoscale machines that we have been using for thousands of years.
> So the only thing one can argue here is costs of production
> efficiencies and I don't notice anyone doing that.

Production efficiencies are crucial.  They're the difference between 
costly production (what's the cost per gram of silicon transistors?) and 
essentially unlimited production, where factories can sit idle most of 
the time and products cost the same as raw materials.  If we could build 
spacecraft for a few dollars a kilogram, would NASA have waited for 
years after the first scramjet blew up?  They could've run a test a week 
till they got it right, and we could have cargo-carrying scramjets today.

I agree we can build nanoscale structures without self-rep, and we can 
do self-rep biochemistry without programmability.  But put together 
self-rep and programmability, and you get a manufacturing revolution 
that makes the industrial revolution look trivial.

Drexler has been arguing costs of production all along.  After writing 
the NASA example above, I ran a Google on ["cost of" site:foresight.org] 
and found this in Unbounding the Future (1991): "At this point, the cost 
of materials and equipment for experiments will be trivial. No one today 
can afford to build Moon rockets on a hobby budget..."

> I agree with Chris that we do not (in any significant way) understand
> what the limits are on the phase space of parts construction or parts
> assembly.  We are therefore driving blind.  We only have some simple
> hints as to what might be possible from known biology.  

We don't know where the limits are, but we know or can guess where the 
limits aren't.  We know anything demonstrated by biology or biochemistry 
is possible.  In another area, a rich source of hints is the work on 
diamondoid structures and mechanochemistry.  Sorry, I know it annoys you 
that I keep bringing this up.  But I think it's more than a VHS/Beta 
choice; it's an analog/digital computer choice.  For some purposes, 
including much engineering, digital is fundamentally better.

> I would like however to see CRN produce a hardcore estimate of precisely
> how gray goo might be developed and the damage it might cause.  And
> more importantly how it might be defended against.  (Gray goo is *not*
> indefeatable -- but one does need however to be prepared for it.)

How it might be developed?  You mean a blueprint?  Or just a scenario? 
The scenario is simple: you give a bunch of engineering students a CAD 
program and a nanofactory, and let them compete with each other.  Gray 
goo is an obvious target.

Goo capabilities and defenses can barely be handwaved about at this 
point.  The chemical processing function might be roughly as complex as 
an oil refinery--or maybe as simple as a TDP plant.  The robotics might 
be approximated by the DARPA road race--or simple blundering about might 
be sufficient.  We can't know without a lot more information than we 
have today.

Defending against gray goo will depend on the gray goo design.  We know 
even less about that, because we don't even know the design space and 
the parameters.  Some versions of goo will be sterilizable with a mild 
dose of X rays or UV.  Some will be big enough to be easy to hunt down. 
  Small, redundantly-designed stuff would worry me quite a lot.  But how 
small can it be built?  We don't know.

Another question is detection, both to identify the problem and to clean 
it up.  What will we be able to do with non-proximal sub-wavelength 
imaging?  The ability to take noninvasive nanoscale census of 
cubic-centimeter volumes could make a huge difference, but it's too 
early to tell if that will be possible.

One thing I'm pretty sure of: If we get to the point where script 
kiddies are releasing modified versions for fun, we're in trouble.  It 
would take a lot of energy and disruption to scan for thousands of goo 
variants.  We do a lousy job with computer security, after two decades 
of practice.

But we don't have to worry about gray goo unless we manage to survive 
the unstable arms race.  That's what really worries me.  Weapons are a 
lot simpler than goo, and we already know enough about the performance 
of simple diamondoid products to say that cheap diamondoid manufacturing 
would completely (and rapidly!) revolutionize weapons and surveillance.

BTW, if bio-nano can't revolutionize weapons, that's a strong argument 
for treating diamondoid as a special case.

Chris

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


From eliasen at mindspring.com  Tue Mar 30 18:09:52 2004
From: eliasen at mindspring.com (Alan Eliasen)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:09:52 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Feynman on Freud?
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040330001009.01c4fd90@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040330001009.01c4fd90@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <4069B7F0.8030106@mindspring.com>


Damien Broderick wrote:
> I'm away from my library right now, and need to refresh my memory.
> Anyone able to tell me what Richard Feynman thought of
> Freud/psychoanalysis? A book reference would be dandy. Thanks.

   Remember that Feynman was given a psychiatric deferral from the Army after
his psychological exam.  He was a bit annoyed by questions like "how much do
you value life?" and answered "sixty-four."

   More details in "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman".  Also in Richard
Gleick's "Genius."

-- 
  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 spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Mar 31 03:07:27 2004
From: spike66 at comcast.net (Spike)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 19:07:27 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Feynman on Freud?
In-Reply-To: <4069B7F0.8030106@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <02b201c416cd$4c7c5560$6401a8c0@SHELLY>


> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Feynman on Freud?
> 
>    Remember that Feynman was given a psychiatric deferral 
> from the Army after his psychological exam...

Ya gotta read the account of his psych exam in Surely You
Jest, pages 137 to 145 Bantam edition.  Absolutely hilarious.  
{8^D  Ya gotta love the guy.  spike






From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Mar 31 04:22:23 2004
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 22:22:23 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Feynman on Freud?
In-Reply-To: <02b201c416cd$4c7c5560$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
References: <4069B7F0.8030106@mindspring.com>
	<02b201c416cd$4c7c5560$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040330221437.01bdeec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>

At 07:07 PM 3/30/2004 -0800, Spike wrote:

> > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Feynman on Freud?
> >
> >    Remember that Feynman was given a psychiatric deferral
> > from the Army after his psychological exam...
>
>Ya gotta read the account of his psych exam in Surely You
>Jest, pages 137 to 145 Bantam edition.  Absolutely hilarious.
>{8^D  Ya gotta love the guy.

Yes, this is summarized also in James Gleick's biography. But psychiatry is 
*not* psychoanalysis, nor has Freud ever been in good odor with 
psychiatrists. I haven't been able to track down any explicit denunciations 
of Freud's approach from RF, although Gleick does say of his 
(understandable) attitude to those army shrinks: `Witchdoctor. Baloney. 
Faker. Feynman held an extreme view of psychiatry
 the unscientific 
hocus-pocus of their enterprise (conveniently shifting terminology, lack of 
reproducible experiments)
? (223). BTW, during the second world war my 
wife's father was a young doctor who later specialized in radiology. The 
army used him as a psychiatrist, something I gather he had zero training 
in. Same old.

Damien Broderick




From cphoenix at CRNano.org  Wed Mar 31 05:09:39 2004
From: cphoenix at CRNano.org (Chris Phoenix)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 00:09:39 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility - politics
In-Reply-To: <200403301444.i2UEiLc20783@tick.javien.com>
References: <200403301444.i2UEiLc20783@tick.javien.com>
Message-ID: <406A5293.60203@CRNano.org>

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...

> 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?

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.

> 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

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


From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au  Wed Mar 31 08:07:11 2004
From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 18:07:11 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility - politics  meta
References: <200403301444.i2UEiLc20783@tick.javien.com>
	<406A5293.60203@CRNano.org>
Message-ID: <098501c416f7$2bdfd8c0$412b2dcb@homepc>

Chris,

Sorry for the still delayed response.  

So far I am in near complete agreement with Hal's comments
on this topic, not just in his first post but in his subsequent
discussion with you. A nice surprise given the esoteric nature
of the topic. 

Because, like you, I saw merit in the ideas therein, at one stage
or another I have read most of the works that you seem to 
regard as prerequisites for understanding what you see as an
extemely important topic. Hal seems to have done the same
and indeed seems to be making essentially the same points
to you that I would make only he is making them faster and
from a platform of a having a better understanding of the detail. 

I still plan to respond (I've just gotten a bit sidetracked).

Regards,
Brett

PS: The put money where mouth is idea is neat (and a nice
way at getting at quantifying) but think it would just a third
uncertainty - of payment ;-) 




From scerir at libero.it  Wed Mar 31 08:37:33 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 10:37:33 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Feynman on Freud?
References: <4069B7F0.8030106@mindspring.com><02b201c416cd$4c7c5560$6401a8c0@SHELLY>
	<6.0.3.0.0.20040330221437.01bdeec0@pop-server.satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <000301c416fb$6a8770c0$aebb1b97@administxl09yj>

"[...].In this connection, the historical information
in your letter about the use of terminology by
psychologists was very valuable to me, and I was
glad that you on the whole sympathize with my
approach. Indeed, contrary to some of our common
friends seem to believe of me, I have always sought
scientific inspiration in epistemology, rather than
in mysticism, and how horrifying it may sound, I am
at present endeavouring by exactitude as regards
logic to leave room for emotions.[...]"
- N.Bohr to W.Pauli, 2 march 1955
(N.Bohr, Collected Works, vol. 10, p.567)

Pauli and Bohr were discussing about the "detachment"
between the "observer" and the "observed", i.e. during
measurements, and in general. They also discussed 
about psychoanalysis, in few - but long - letters. 

Especially W.Pauli was very technical because - as it 
is well known - he was a real expert on that subject 
(Zurich, C.G.Jung, synchronycity, and all that).

Bohr, on his side, was a great fan of Eastern Religions
(and also "soap operas", during the Los Alamos years). 

In the "Celebrazione del Secondo Centenario della Nascita
di Luigi Galvani - Bologna - 18-21 Ottobre 1937-XV"
he gave a speech and said: "For a parallel to the lesson
of atomic theory regarding the limited applicability of
such customary idealisations, we must in fact turn to
quite other branches of science, such as psychology, or even 
to that kind of epistemological problems with which
already thinkers like BUDDHA and LAO TSE have been confronted,
when trying to harmonize our position as spectators
and actors in the great drama of existence."

In the paper "Unity of Knowledge" - Address
delivered at a Conference celebrating the Bicentennial
of Columbia Univesity, N.Y., on 28 October 1954 -
Doubleday & Co., N.Y., 1954 - he speaks of conscious
phenomena, memory (physical irreversibility),
"subconsciousness" (quantum reversibility), complementarity,
"confusion of the egos". Bohr wrote: "Incidentally,
medical use of psychoanalytical treatment in curing
neurosis may be said to restore balance in the content
of the memory of the patient by bringing him new conscious
experience rather than by helping him to fathom the
abysses of his subconsciousness."

And W. Pauli commented (letter to Bohr, Feb. 15, 1955): 
"I am quite glad about this [the above by Bohr] sentence, 
as logic is always the weakest spot of all medical therapeuts, 
who never learned the rigorous logical demands of mathematics."
And then: "Historically the word "the unconscious" was used
by Germa philosophers of the last century, particularly by
E. von Hartmann, (also E.G. Careus), developing further
older allusions of Leibniz and Kant. The Psycholamarckist
A. Pauly [August Pauly, 1850-1914, German zoologist], on
whom we spoke already, quoted von Hartmann in 1905 (Freud
was not known to him), when he called processes of biological
adaptation, already in plants, an "*unconscious* judgement
of the psyche of the organisms"."

Needless to say some of these arguments, or analogies, are 
still on the table.

In example so long as one keeps to the present formalism 
(see Kochen-Specker theorem) what we call the result of a 
quantum measurement of the "observable" X, cannot depend *only* 
on X and on the state of the (quantum) system (unless the 
wavefunction is an eigenstate of X). It also depends,
in a way still obscure, on the *choice* of other (quantum) 
measurements that *may* be performed (but are not performed, 
actually). These (at least apparent) "potentialities"
(Heisenberg) or "propensities" (Popper) have something in
common with the, so called, "abyss" of the psyche.

As Carl Friedrich von Weizsaecker said "Nature is older than 
man, and man is older than science." (The History of Nature,
London, 1951, in page 8 in the original German edition of
1948). 


 



From gpmap at runbox.com  Wed Mar 31 09:47:11 2004
From: gpmap at runbox.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 01:47:11 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Science on verge of new 'Creation'
Message-ID: <20040331094711.746.qmail@web13124.mail.yahoo.com>

>From SciScoop:  A must-read article out today, "Science on verge of new 'Creation'" quotes scientists who say they are finally ready to try their hand at creating life. It's certainly true that we are tinkering with something very powerful here... but there's no difference between what we do here and what humans have always done when we invented fire, transistors and ways to split the atom. The more powerful technology you unleash, the more careful you have to be. The ability to make new forms of life from scratch--molecular living systems from chemicals we get from a chemical supply store--is going to have a profound impact on society.Scientists now believe that, with a critical mass of people interested in the field and some recent breakthrough discoveries, it may be possible to create the first artificial unit of life in the next 5 to 10 years. If they succeed, humanity will enter a new age of "living technology," where harnessing the power of life to spontaneously adapt to
 complex situations could solve problems that now defy modern engineering. Artificial life now seems so attainable that the number of U.S. labs working in the field jumped from about 10 four decades ago to more than 100 today.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040331/5b89c8ab/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Mar 31 10:09:59 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:09:59 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Altered genes let roundworms wiggle longer
In-Reply-To: <000901c41095$621c2640$412b2dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403221754580.14228-100000@server.aeiveos.com>
	<000901c41095$621c2640$412b2dcb@vic.bigpond.net.au>
Message-ID: <20040331100959.GJ28136@leitl.org>

On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 04:12:05PM +1100, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> At this stage we can't even freeze organs like hearts and reanimate
> them and these are organs in which no sense of self resides. So
> there's currently technological limits.

The reanimate part is irrelevant. Most damage occurs during organ
devitrification. Degree of damage occuring during vitrification alone is
sufficiently high to require nanoscale scanning and/or reconstruction. This
might not be necessary for robust, simply structured organs, but we don't yet
have experimental proof of that (but that proof might soon be forthcoming).
For the same reason agent toxicity is irrelevant (unless it destroys
structures).

It does make sense to use bioviability as a hard validation criterium, simply
because it's trivial to screen for. There are no equivalent measurements for
degree of irreversible information erasure due to structure denaturation,
neither an agreement about which degree of damage is acceptable for identity
preservation.
 
> Even IF we had mature nanotechnology and could rebuild a
> new brain exactly as the old brain was, (ie. an atomic level copy)
> there would still be real doubt in my opinion as to whether this
> amounted in practice to reanimating the self from the standpoint
> of the self.

You're entitled to you opinion, of course, but it's a rather strange point of
view to take. You're routinely suffering far greater changes in course of
your life, and still live with that.
 
> Let me be clear, I come to consider this question without any belief
> in souls or supernatural whatsoever.  I think I *am* my living changing
> growing brain so I'm looking at this question from a very materialistic
> standpoint.

You claim to be a materialist, but you aren't. You just rejected that
preserving your biological substrate down to the atomic scale (while
technically feasible, a rather absurd requirement) conserves your identity.
How could a materialist claim that?
 
> So far as I can see there is absolutely no evidence anywhere that
> *I* can survive the dismantling of my brain.

No one can survive the destruction of your substrate if accompanied with the
destruction of structural information encoding the you-process. If you erase
the information, you can't rebuild it. Trivial.
 
> Seems to me the idea that the self as experienced in the first person

This is a very weak criterium to take. It merely takes a perceived
consistency, which doesn't take any external references.

> can be reduced to patterns and information that could then be replicated
> as information and patterns can is pure speculation. Pure faith.

You keep claiming stuff, but given that you're avoiding any technical details
it's difficult to tell what exactly you're claiming. So I'm claiming you're
operating on pure faith, unless you're willing to disclose more detail of
what exactly you're claiming.
 
> If there is any *evidence* to the contrary I'd like to see or hear it.
> 
> Seems to me that cryonics requires a sort of intensely reverse solipsicm
> where one does not accept that one has a self - a conscious subjective

It seems to me that you're projecting based on no evidence whatsoever.

> at all. One has lost the first person and sees oneself only as others can
> see one - separately and from a distance. Ironically a person who thinks

While there are some pretty strange beliefs amongst cryonics practitioners, I
haven't heard of many who adhere to that notion. I.e., you're addressing a
straw man.

> they are no more than information and pattern would think that going
> into a teleporter and think it coming out as the patterns would be the
> same in both cases but what is lost is one self and what is replaced
> is another self.

Ironically, if the teleporter is cloning quantum state the only information
allowing to tell is encoded outside of the system. You can't devise a
measurement principle allowing to tell which system is the original or the
clone, without referring to external information storage.
I.e., you've just fallen into the fallacy you're accusing others of 
(see your above "separately and from a distance" straw man).
 
> What constitutes one's self may not be fully explicable currently in
> scientific terms but so what - from the standpoint of being one's self -
> that there is a self of some form IS the bedrock experiential certainty,
> even if the exact nature of what one is is unclear.

While our knowledge is not perfect, one's self is encoded in the physical
system, and that process can be recreated by making a sufficiently accurate
reconstruction of the physical system. If you're denying that, then you're
obviously not a materialist, despite of your claims.
 
> One reasons and practices the scientific method well or badly as a self.
> One relates to others from the self. Perhaps the self is a high level
> construct
> of simpler phenomenon from the standpoint of outsiders looking in
> (even scientifically) but not from the first person position of the self.

You want your 30X homeopathic Coke to go with phlogiston, or with vis vitalis?

-- 
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/20040331/7fd37c9e/attachment.bin>

From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Mar 31 10:50:01 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:50:01 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility
In-Reply-To: <200403281713.i2SHDw830881@finney.org>
References: <200403281713.i2SHDw830881@finney.org>
Message-ID: <20040331105001.GL28136@leitl.org>

On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 09:13:58AM -0800, Hal Finney wrote:

> I agree with much of Brett's skepticism on this issue.  Given the fact
> that so many prominent scientists continue to maintain that assemblers
> are impossible, supporters of the concept need to take on the burden
> of proof.  It's not enough any more to say, tell us why it won't work.

If this was just an intellectual debate, with nothing else but participant's
egos or maybe their tenure at stake, that's a perfectly rational view to take.

However, successful molecular manufacturing is a very disruptive technology both in
terms of payoff and risk. As such we as a society simply cannot take any
risks to not try to investigate the issues practically.
 
> In the case of assemblers, we're missing the most important pieces:
> the parts which do assembly.  We can invent bearings and struts,

Absolutely. We're missing a library of deposition steps modelled in machina
and validated experimentally. However, we have both increasing evidence that
mechanosynthesis is both easy and rich, and that current nanolithoprinting
processes scale into the nano range.

> cables and even works of art like the fine motion controller.  But I

These are just mock-ups, instances of structural spaces very distinct from
biology. They are very much not authoritative blueprints. There's no point in
give them that degree of scrutity as if they were.

> have yet to see any proposal for how these pieces can be built.  I mean
> specifically what tool-tips will be used, how they will be swapped out,

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. Machine-phase
goes a long way to more control, but it clearly pays the price in energy and
processivity. 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.
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.

Latter's probably very feasible, just difficult to get to and not the optimal
way of doing things every time.

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, pumping as much R&D resources as we can syphon away
from other areas of human enterprise. 

> and what construction sequences will be used to build the components.
> 
> Now, there are two parts to this question.  The first is, how can an
> assembler self-replicate; how can it build its own parts.  (Downplaying
> self-rep is not relevant here; obviously the system composed of the

Self-rep is closure over unity. I agree with you that self-rep is the key
component for truly successful nanotechnology -- but being assistive in its
own manufacturing goes a long way towards that. Current semiconductors make
good headway towards nanoscale (90 nm feature size right now), and they're
very useful in their own design and production cycle.

Semiconductor nanolitho won't give us chips for the same price as potato
chips, but alternatives might. 

> assembler plus supporting technology has to be able to replicate
> in some way, otherwise we'll only have one assembler.)  The second,
> even more difficult, is how can we bootstrap into an assembler from
> today's technology; how can we build its parts without already having
> an assembler.

...
 
> This is why the alternative strategy is being tried, of claims that we
> already have enough data to know that we will succeed.  But I think the
> political reality today is that this strategy is not working.  The only
 
If you mean, allocation funds for R&D, that's accurate. Maybe the opportunity
to reach Drexler/Merkle/Freitas device country by big federally funded science 
is blown for good, but maybe we don't need that route.

> alternative is to take many years of time and effort to tackle these
> problems one at a time, until we do get to the point where we have a
> design that answers all the questions and eliminates the objections,
> by construction.

I think the reality will gently assemble itself, coming from organic and
polymer electronics, with possible confluence of self-assembly molecular
memory and electronics and manipulative proximal probe. Probably it will be
by another route entirely. It's too early to tell.

As usually, reality tends to become normative in pretty unexpected ways. 

-- 
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/20040331/f5094906/attachment.bin>

From amara at amara.com  Wed Mar 31 12:59:53 2004
From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:59:53 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Send your future self an email
Message-ID: <p05100301bc8a0cacd4cc@[150.146.134.133]>

This is a great idea. Send your future self an email:

http://futureme.org/

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/
********************************************************************
"What I find most disheartening is the thought that somewhere out there
our galaxy has been deleted from somebody else's sample."
   -- Alec Boksenberg [on the occasion of his 60th birthday celebration]


From hemm at br.inter.net  Wed Mar 31 13:02:32 2004
From: hemm at br.inter.net (Henrique Moraes Machado - HeMM)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 10:02:32 -0300
Subject: [extropy-chat] Send your future self an email
References: <p05100301bc8a0cacd4cc@[150.146.134.133]>
Message-ID: <00bc01c41720$6e313f10$fe00a8c0@HEMM>

I'd like more a service to send an email to my PAST self... so I could prevent myself from doing so many stupid things... :-)

-----Mensagem Original----- 
De: "Amara Graps" <amara at amara.com>
Para: <wta-talk at transhumanism.org>; <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Enviada em: quarta-feira, 31 de mar?o de 2004 09:59
Assunto: [extropy-chat] Send your future self an email


| This is a great idea. Send your future self an email:
| 
| http://futureme.org/
| 
| Amara
| -- 



From natashavita at earthlink.net  Wed Mar 31 15:23:10 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 10:23:10 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Send your future self an email
Message-ID: <119420-220043331152310560@M2W048.mail2web.com>

From: Henrique 

I'd like more a service to send an email to my PAST self... so I could
prevent myself from doing so many stupid things... :-)

I was wondering which "self" to send a message to, as I'm assuming there
will be many mes, or at least many aspects of me. :-)

Natasha


-----Mensagem Original----- 
De: "Amara Graps" <amara at amara.com>
Para: <wta-talk at transhumanism.org>; <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Enviada em: quarta-feira, 31 de mar?o de 2004 09:59
Assunto: [extropy-chat] Send your future self an email


| This is a great idea. Send your future self an email:
| 
| http://futureme.org/
| 
| Amara
| -- 

_______________________________________________
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 kevinfreels at hotmail.com  Wed Mar 31 16:43:51 2004
From: kevinfreels at hotmail.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 10:43:51 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Send your future self an email
References: <119420-220043331152310560@M2W048.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <Law10-OE422wLCVYl4m00010aa0@hotmail.com>

You plan to make mini-mes?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <natashavita at earthlink.net>
To: <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Send your future self an email


> From: Henrique
>
> I'd like more a service to send an email to my PAST self... so I could
> prevent myself from doing so many stupid things... :-)
>
> I was wondering which "self" to send a message to, as I'm assuming there
> will be many mes, or at least many aspects of me. :-)
>
> Natasha
>
>
> -----Mensagem Original----- 
> De: "Amara Graps" <amara at amara.com>
> Para: <wta-talk at transhumanism.org>; <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Enviada em: quarta-feira, 31 de mar?o de 2004 09:59
> Assunto: [extropy-chat] Send your future self an email
>
>
> | This is a great idea. Send your future self an email:
> |
> | http://futureme.org/
> |
> | Amara
> | -- 
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


From jonkc at att.net  Wed Mar 31 18:12:32 2004
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:12:32 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Send your future self an email
References: <p05100301bc8a0cacd4cc@[150.146.134.133]>
	<00bc01c41720$6e313f10$fe00a8c0@HEMM>
Message-ID: <059a01c4174b$c4731940$65f54d0c@hal2001>

"Henrique Moraes Machado - HeMM" <hemm at br.inter.net>

> I'd like more a service to send an email to my PAST self... so
>I could prevent myself from doing so many stupid things... :-)

In looking over the Extropian archives I noticed that the subject of sending
an Email into the past and faster than light travel came up on the list
about a seven and a half ago; I didn't have time to enter into the
discussion then but I do now so I just used my Tachyon modem to send a
message to the list for December 17 1997, just for the hell of it I decided
to cc a copy to the list for March 31 2004 too.
==========================================

Relativity does not forbid anything from moving faster than light, only
stuff that has mass or energy or carries information. Strangely some
things have none of these attributes, although calling them "things"
may be stretching a point. It's been proven experimentally that some
quantum effects propagate much faster than light, probably instantly,
and for unlimited distances. One system can influence another system
on the other side of the universe with little or no delay, but it carries
no information because the receiving system just changes from one
apparently random mode to another, it's only when you compare the
two systems (and that can only be done at light speed or less) does the
correspondence between the two systems become obvious.
The 2 random modes have equal energy so energy is not transferred either.

A less spooky example could be found in the idea of Phase Speed. I'm
standing in the center of a huge hollow sphere 2 light years in diameter,
I've been there for a long time and I'm holding a powerful LASER that
makes a spot of light on the distant wall of the sphere one light year away.
Suddenly, still holding the LASER and in the space of one second I make
a complete 360 degree turn. Exactly 2 years later an observer standing at
the same place would see the spot move much faster than light, it would
travel the entire circumference of the sphere, 2PI or 6.28 light years in
only one second. No photon moved faster than light however, and no energy
or information between any two points traveled faster than light. A photon
of light moves at light speed and carries energy and information, a spot of
light can move at any speed but carries neither energy nor information.

And then there are Tachyons. Actually relativity does not forbid matter
moving faster than light, it forbids matter moving AT the speed of light.
That's almost the same thing but not quite. Perhaps a particle could somehow
tunnel past the speed of light or maybe Tachyons have always moved faster
than light from the first instant of The Big Bang.

People have looked for Tachyons but have never found the slightest evidence
that they exist in nature, much to the relief of physicists. Tachyons are an
embarrassment, the faster they move less energy they have, one that moved
just a little faster than light would have a lot of energy, one that moved
at an infinite velocity would have zero energy. Much worse, Tachyons move
backward in time, they arrive at their destination before they start. You
could communicate with the past.

Even though they have never been detected and the laws of physics do not
demand that Tachyons exist, they don't seem to forbid them either. Most
think nature is totalitarian, if it's not forbidden then it's mandatory.

What about the logical paradoxes that would result from communicating with
the past, wouldn't that be enough to rule out Tachyons? It would if anybody
saw them, but suppose nature rubbed out any witnesses to her crime and
brought a universe to an end that was about to see a paradox.

Damn, I just knocked my coffee cup off the table, what a mess! I'm really
not in the mood to clean it up, instead I'll use my Gateway 14,400 Tachyon
modem and send myself some E mail 2 minutes ago. I'll just hit the send key
and

.....brought a universe to an end that was about to see a paradox. Pardon
me, I just got some E mail from John, let's see what it says " Dear John: Be
careful with that coffee cup near your elbow, you're about to knock it
over." Wow, John is right, that cup is dangerously near the edge, I'll put
it in a safe place. It was nice of John to warn me about it, it's too bad
that means oblivion for him and his entire universe but that's life,
nature just will not allow anybody to observe a paradox.

I know what you're thinking, how could John be so stupid, he must be
completely out of his mind, why else would he deliberately buy an obsolete
14,400 Tachyon modem? Well, call me cheap if you want but I still think the
28,800 model is too expensive, besides I have it on very good authority that
Gateway will drop the price next year.

 John K Clark    jonkc at att.net












From namacdon at ole.augie.edu  Wed Mar 31 18:14:32 2004
From: namacdon at ole.augie.edu (Nicholas Anthony MacDonald)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:14:32 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Send your future self an email
Message-ID: <1080756872.cfb6dea0namacdon@ole.augie.edu>


> I was wondering which "self" to send a message to, as I'm assuming there
> will be many mes, or at least many aspects of me. :-)

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. ;)

-Nicq MacDonald





From starman2100 at cableone.net  Wed Mar 31 18:26:46 2004
From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 11:26:46 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] (no subject)
Message-ID: <1080757606_31234@mail.cableone.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040331/a6e52a03/attachment.html>

From starman2100 at cableone.net  Wed Mar 31 18:32:53 2004
From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 11:32:53 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Needing Extropian list member help...
Message-ID: <1080757973_31426@mail.cableone.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040331/81e5a8d7/attachment.html>

From scerir at libero.it  Wed Mar 31 19:02:31 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 21:02:31 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Send your future self an email
References: <p05100301bc8a0cacd4cc@[150.146.134.133]>
	<00bc01c41720$6e313f10$fe00a8c0@HEMM>
Message-ID: <00b201c41752$b8718120$4dbb1b97@administxl09yj>

"HeMM" 

> I'd like more a service to send an email to my PAST self... 
> so I could prevent myself from doing so many stupid things... :-)

That does not work, at least for me. 
I'm *much* more stupid now 
than I was 20 or 30 years ago. 
But if you really need a device, 
to call yourself back in time,
there is a useful reference here 
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0205182
s.


From natashavita at earthlink.net  Wed Mar 31 19:38:32 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 14:38:32 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Send your future self an email
Message-ID: <269620-22004333119383276@M2W070.mail2web.com>

From: scerir 

>That does not work, at least for me. 
>I'm *much* more stupid now 
>than I was 20 or 30 years ago. 
>But if you really need a device, 
>to call yourself back in time,
>there is a useful reference here 
>http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0205182s.

"Entanglement occurs by creating indistinguishabilility between the two
mutually exclusive histories of the photon."

Sounds like the the photons had a Rashomon experience.

N
_______________________________________________
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 natashavita at earthlink.net  Wed Mar 31 19:53:54 2004
From: natashavita at earthlink.net (natashavita at earthlink.net)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 14:53:54 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Needing Extropian list member help...
Message-ID: <63340-220043331195354466@M2W049.mail2web.com>

John Grigg wrote:

>If anyone knows of a magazine distributor who you think would be open to
>distributing our transhumanist/immoralist magazine, please send me an
>email and let me know.  I would really appreciate the help!<BR>

I'm sorry that I have yet to help you with this John.  I'm cc'ing Max
because he is the one that knows about magazine distribution from the days
of "Extropy: Journal of Transhumanist Thought."

While comic books sell, magazines (and even comic books) are difficult to
get off the ground and in circulation without a smart marketing
production/marketing team and lots of advertisers.  

You might better use your talents in an alternative route, for example
-produce calendar series with transhumanist themes and images in 6-month
editions (that would keep the topics more current).  You could develop
enough material in the public domain or team up with an organization such
as ExI and use its material over the years and/or email posts and have
images to go with them for the calendar.  I love calendars and would love
to have one that focused on transhumanism.

In short, is there another way to use your talents to get ideas out to
people that is unique and timely and something that people would purchase.

Best,
Natasha


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




From scerir at libero.it  Wed Mar 31 21:44:55 2004
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 23:44:55 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Send your future self an email
References: <269620-22004333119383276@M2W070.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <002901c41769$6879e380$73b61b97@administxl09yj>

[the trio Zeilinger, Elitzur, Dolev wrote]
"Entanglement occurs by creating indistinguishabilility
between the two mutually exclusive histories of the photon."

[Natasha]
Sounds like the photons had a Rashomon experience.

Haha! We can also add "indistinguishability" and "histories",
if not "entangled", to this piece of poetry by John Bell ...

"The following words
have no place
in a formulation
with any pretension
to physical precision:
system, apparatus,
environment, microscopic,
macroscopic, reversible,
irreversible, observable,
information, measurement ..."
(also in "Against Measurement",
Physics World, August 1990)

But imagine that you have two "atoms":
A and B, situated in distant locations,
both in an "excited" state |0>.
These atoms may both decay to the state |1>,
due to spontaneous emission, thus producing
one "photon" ("photon" is not on that list,
by Bell, but it is something still unclear,
in the literature).

A (360?) detector is placed at half way,
between the two atoms. After some time
the dectector "clicks". But we cannot
"distinguish" (that's the word!)
from which atom the detected "photon" came.

We have produced the following "entangled" state:
|psi> = |0>_A |1>_B + |1>_A |0>_B)   [*]

The point here is the impossibility to determine,
from the detection event, which atom
emitted the "photon".

Hence ... entanglement occurs by creating
"indistinguishabilility" between two mutually
exclusive histories of the photon.

[*]
or |psi> = 1/sqrt2 (|0>_A |1>_B + e^(i phi)|1>_A |0>_B)
where phi is a fixed "phase".