[ExI] Alexander Chislenko article on English Wikipedia in danger of deletion
david roman
aussiesta at hotmail.com
Fri Mar 4 19:03:30 UTC 2016
I'm stunned to read the discussion in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexander_Chislenko- One Wikieditor goes as far as writing: Even worse. Hits in google search prove nothing. What we need is references to reliable sources. Google books hit lots of self-published garbage. "Transhumanists" produce floods of bullshit. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC) Is this gutter level of discourse common, whenever one engages people outside the Transhumanist movement? I'm just curious, since I'm new at this and would like to be ready.
>
> The article has been deleted. Too bad I missed this post and couldn't
> participate in the Wikipedia discussion. Unfortunately Wikipedia has
> been colonized by SJWs (in this case, "Scientific Justice Warriors")
> who want to purge imagination from our spirit. I don't pay much
> attention to idiots, but Wikipedia is more and more important because
> Wikipedia pages are often at the top of Google search results.
> Debating SJWs is boring, but I think we should fight back.
>
> From: extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org
> Subject: extropy-chat Digest, Vol 150, Issue 2
> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 18:44:09 +0000
>
> Send extropy-chat mailing list submissions to
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> extropy-chat-owner at lists.extropy.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of extropy-chat digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: privacy again (Anders Sandberg)
> 2. Public-key encryption honored (David Lubkin)
> 3. Re: privacy again (Tara Maya)
> 4. Re: [PRIV] Re: disgusted with Windows (Eugenio Mart?nez)
> 5. Re: privacy again (BillK)
> 6. Re: privacy again (Anders Sandberg)
> 7. Re: privacy again (William Flynn Wallace)
> 8. Re: privacy again (spike)
> 9. Re: privacy again (Anders Sandberg)
> 10. Cognitive enhancement and health (Anders Sandberg)
> 11. Re: privacy again (Stephen Van Sickle)
> 12. Re: privacy again (spike)
> 13. Re: Alexander Chislenko article on English Wikipedia in
> danger of deletion (Giulio Prisco)
> 14. chromebook 1st report (William Flynn Wallace)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 23:47:20 +0100
> From: Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se>
> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> Subject: Re: [ExI] privacy again
> Message-ID: <56D76D78.7000309 at aleph.se>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"
>
> On 2016-03-02 18:34, spike wrote:
> >
> > Why does she think her exposed nudity is really worth 75 million bucks?
> >
> A career can be quite valuable. Top performers can produce 10-300 times
> the value of an average perfomer to a company (and would hence expect to
> get at least a fraction of that value as salary), and this is especially
> true for person-linked jobs like media careers. If somebody wrecks a
> career that might actually be worth a few million as 45-Year Earnings
> and the careerist was a top performer, then 75 million might make sense.
>
> Also, punitive damages might show up in torts.
>
> But the real game here is an out-of-court settlement with the hotel. The
> hotel has more to lose in terms of reputation (and hence money) than the
> nude newscaster, so it is rational to pay up a nice settlement to make
> things go away.
>
> (Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just married to one. And he is working
> in a non-US jurisdiction. I am considering this from an armchair. My
> views are not valid in Idaho.)
>
> >
> > As we brought up a decade ago: it would be eeeeeasy easy to hide a
> > video device in a hotel room, almost completely without risk. It
> > could be set up to receive a call and turn on at any time, and Skype
> > the video to any remote receiver, with very little risk of getting
> > caught and not much cost really. So are we now saying the hotel chain
> > is responsible for find that? In the meantime, are we cool with it
> > that all assured privacy in any public place, any public restroom and
> > any hotel room is
> >
> > now gone? Could we not argue that there is no reasonable expectation
> > of privacy there?
> >
>
> http://lifehacker.com/detect-and-disable-an-airbnbs-hidden-wi-fi-cameras-with-1752817084
>
> "Reasonable expectation of privacy" is not the same thing as being
> bug/drone/spyware free. The first is a legal term, the second is
> objective state of affairs. The first changes to some extent with
> technology and culture. But it is likely that US law regards it as
> applying to hotel rooms with some common sense limitations (hotel staff
> can in principle enter at any time, etc.) In the long run it might be
> both impossible to prevent and easy to do for so many people that
> reasonable expectation may not apply.
>
> The issue is whether the hotel was negligent in not preventing the
> spying in the present.
>
>
> --
> Anders Sandberg
> Future of Humanity Institute
> Oxford Martin School
> Oxford University
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160302/05be91f6/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 17:57:20 -0500
> From: David Lubkin <lubkin at unreasonable.com>
> To: Extropy Chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: [ExI] Public-key encryption honored
> Message-ID: <201603022334.u22NYJqh028613 at ziaspace.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/technology/cryptography-pioneers-to-win-turing-award.html
> Cryptography Pioneers Win Turing Award
>
> http://amturing.acm.org/
> Cryptography Pioneers Receive 2015 ACM A.M. Turing Award
>
> Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman won the 2015
> Turing Award. The Turing, often called the Nobel
> Prize of Computer Science, is a big deal. The
> honorees are the best we have. Folks like John
> McCarthy, Marvin Minsky, Vint Cerf, Donald Knuth,
> and Richard Hamming. And the prize is now a million dollars.
>
> Without doubt, Diffie and Hellman deserve this
> recognition. Public-key encryption is a big deal
> and we'll be finding new uses for it for decades.
> But there are two curiosities about the awarding.
>
> First, it was already given in 2002 to Rivest,
> Shamir, and Adleman for work that relied on
> Diffie and Hellman. Logically, RSA should have gotten it after Diffie-Hellman.
>
> Second, in many minds they're a trio?Diffie,
> Hellman, and extropian Ralph Merkle. The Computer
> History Museum named the three of them together
> as fellows, for their work with each other.
> Rudely, the photo that the New York Times used
> was actually of the three of them; they cropped Ralph out.
>
> In the earlier awarding of the Kanellakis Theory
> and Practice Award in 1996, all six public-key pioneers were named.
>
> http://awards.acm.org/kanellakis/year.cfm
>
> It doesn't make up for losing the prestige and a
> third of a million dollars, but I say ye Ralph Merkle!
>
>
> -- David.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 12:13:19 -0800
> From: Tara Maya <tara at taramayastales.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] privacy again
> Message-ID: <D9D9D9DB-AB86-468C-B0A1-86367C589E84 at taramayastales.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> The person who took the video should be found and sent to prison, not merely sued. But the amount of money involved is not based on ?hotness? ?it?s based on what would be a deterrent. A lot of money can be made from such videos, and it that means that if the punishment isn?t severe, nothing will be done to stop it.
>
> A nude video being taken is a huge violation. It?s a form of sexual assault. It?s not some funny little prank.
>
> Tara Maya
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 2016, at 9:34 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > There is a big case in the US courts about a newscaster who had a nude video taken of her by a stalker who removed the peephole in the door. The video made it to the internet. She claims damages against the hotel chain, not against the guy who took the video.
> >
> > This whole thing brings up a number of questions.
> >
> > Why does she think her exposed nudity is really worth 75 million bucks?
> >
> > What if she had been an ordinary person like you and me: is our nudity worth 75 million, or does it need to be scaled somehow?
> >
> > How?
> > Is there some kind of universal hotness scale?
> > Do hotties get more if they are recorded nude than coldies or tepidies?
> > How much more?
> > Can a person be so bone-deep ugly that such a video is worth zero point nada?
> > Is the payout proportional to the number of internet hits?
> > Why?
> >
> > As we brought up a decade ago: it would be eeeeeasy easy to hide a video device in a hotel room, almost completely without risk. It could be set up to receive a call and turn on at any time, and Skype the video to any remote receiver, with very little risk of getting caught and not much cost really. So are we now saying the hotel chain is responsible for find that? In the meantime, are we cool with it that all assured privacy in any public place, any public restroom and any hotel room is
> > now gone? Could we not argue that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy there?
> >
> > spike
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org <mailto:extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat <http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat>
> Tara Maya
> Blog <http://taramayastales.blogspot.com/> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/taramayastales> | Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Unfinished-Song-Epic-Fantasy/310271375658211?ref=hl> | Amazon <http://www.amazon.com/Tara-Maya/e/B004HAI038/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1349796143&sr=8-2-ent> | Goodreads <http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/2951879.Tara_Maya>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160302/8d438b77/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 11:25:29 +0100
> From: Eugenio Mart?nez <rolandodegilead at gmail.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Cc: Tomasz Rola <rtomek at ceti.pl>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] [PRIV] Re: disgusted with Windows
> Message-ID:
> <CANSO=1kEiRX+yi=M=owRJpwrdMrCOcd+Sy7Zu4ZP5=w57yHKGw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> If you got tired of Windows 10 just because a program was not compatible
> with it or there was some bugs or things like that, you are going back to
> Windows in less than a week.
>
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:51 PM, Tomasz Rola <rtomek at ceti.pl> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 01:08:47PM -0600, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
> > > Update: uninstalled Norton 360, took it home, locked up bad.
> > > Am trying to uninstall 10 and go back to Windows 7. Am determined not to
> > > lose my Toshiba 17" laptop because of a software conflict, but just in
> > > case.....
> > >
> > > Bought an Acer 15.6"monitor Chromebook for $250. We'll see.
> >
> > Good - from what I have gathered so far, this may indeed be best
> > option for you. Once you get used to it and feel like it, perhaps you
> > would be willing to share your thoughts?
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Tomasz Rola
> >
> > --
> > ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. **
> > ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home **
> > ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... **
> > ** **
> > ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com **
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> >
>
>
>
> --
> OLVIDATE.DE
> Tatachan.com
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160303/89132593/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 14:57:45 +0000
> From: BillK <pharos at gmail.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] privacy again
> Message-ID:
> <CAL_armhBTqRfpx8fQAost5mbXGcsbEXd8sEScf7mCXwrjVtaFg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On 2 March 2016 at 22:47, Anders Sandberg wrote:
> > A career can be quite valuable. Top performers can produce 10-300 times the
> > value of an average performer to a company (and would hence expect to get at
> > least a fraction of that value as salary), and this is especially true for
> > person-linked jobs like media careers. If somebody wrecks a career that
> > might actually be worth a few million as 45-Year Earnings and the careerist
> > was a top performer, then 75 million might make sense.
> >
> <snip>
> >
>
> In the context of nude videos, I'm not sure that 'top performers' is
> really an appropriate phrase to use. :)
>
> I suspect this is a cunning ploy by spike to get millions when his
> nude video hits the internet.
> Of course it would have to be 'full-frontal', as in the side view he
> almost disappears.
>
> Though thinking it over, perhaps spike could get more millions if he
> promises to *not* put his nude video on the net. :)
>
> BillK
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 16:23:10 +0100
> From: Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se>
> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> Subject: Re: [ExI] privacy again
> Message-ID: <56D856DE.3010600 at aleph.se>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"
>
> On 2016-03-02 21:13, Tara Maya wrote:
> >
> > A nude video being taken is a huge violation. It?s a form of sexual
> > assault. It?s not some funny little prank.
>
> The problem is that it depends on who it is. BillK is likely entirely OK
> in joking about a hypothetical Spike video, while to others a nude video
> can indeed be a sexual assault and is no joking matter at all. A lot of
> it depends on whether one belongs to a vulnerable group, or how the
> video is spread.
>
> It seems that the key issues is (1) a nude video means the intimate
> sphere has been made public, having a chilling effect on it even when
> there is no risk of outside peeking (this can be made even worse by
> outsider malicious comments - they can put their barbs more closely to
> the skin, so to say), and (2) the lack of control over the released
> information - integrity is about being able to control your information,
> and once it is out there you cannot do much to regain it in that domain.
>
> The problem with these is that neither can be remedied well with
> technology or law. Adding astronomical fines will not deter people if
> they think they can get away with it. Many intimate videos are made for
> consumption inside a relationship, but leak out anyway. "A right to be
> forgotten" is complicated to achieve outside a social context.
>
> One day we may build the cryptographic memory-DRM society of the
> Oubliette in "A Quantum Thief". But until then it will be hard to do
> something general and effective.
>
> --
> Anders Sandberg
> Future of Humanity Institute
> Oxford Martin School
> Oxford University
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160303/b9691d6c/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 10:57:37 -0600
> From: William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] privacy again
> Message-ID:
> <CAO+xQEZuWqey0yQx3_exDCcRJ-yeo2kYD2nbKcBGHqtwrWV3AQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
>
> > On 2016-03-02 21:13, Tara Maya wrote:
> >
> >
> > A nude video being taken is a huge violation. It?s a form of sexual
> > assault. It?s not some funny little prank.
> >
> >
> > The problem is that it depends on who it is. BillK is likely entirely OK
> > in joking about a hypothetical Spike video, while to others a nude video
> > can indeed be a sexual assault and is no joking matter at all. A lot of it
> > depends on whether one belongs to a vulnerable group, or how the video is
> > spread.
> >
> > It seems that the key issues is (1) a nude video means the intimate sphere
> > has been made public, having a chilling effect on it even when there is no
> > risk of outside peeking (this can be made even worse by outsider malicious
> > comments - they can put their barbs more closely to the skin, so to say),
> > and (2) the lack of control over the released information - integrity is
> > about being able to control your information, and once it is out there you
> > cannot do much to regain it in that domain.
> >
> > The problem with these is that neither can be remedied well with
> > technology or law. Adding astronomical fines will not deter people if they
> > think they can get away with it. Many intimate videos are made for
> > consumption inside a relationship, but leak out anyway. "A right to be
> > forgotten" is complicated to achieve outside a social context.
> >
> > One day we may build the cryptographic memory-DRM society of the Oubliette
> > in "A Quantum Thief". But until then it will be hard to do something
> > general and effective.
> >
> > ?I read where sexting is the 'in' thing to do in high school and if you don't, you're just out of the
> >
> > ?'in' group. I don't know that we will ever get used to a lot less
> privacy?
>
> ?but if everyone who had their nudity exposed on the net by some ex boy
> friend sued, the courts would have no room for any other cases. Clearly
> many or even most of these are without permission of any kind, which is
> hard to prove. And young teens, perhaps the most vulnerable group, are the
> most exposed to this. Teens of all sexes will do dumb things to conform to
> group norms and it's impossible to stop. For every complaint about it, a
> thousand cases go unnoticed - or more.
>
> In the case that started this chat, the lawyers will go after the deep
> pockets (hotel) but I agree with Tara that the people who removed the
> device and took the photos should be charged with something: You could
> make a case for assault.
>
> bill w
>
> > ?
> >
> > Anders Sandberg
> > Future of Humanity Institute
> > Oxford Martin School
> > Oxford University
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> >
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160303/e75c0097/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 08:46:16 -0800
> From: "spike" <spike66 at att.net>
> To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] privacy again
> Message-ID: <002401d1756c$34fd2c60$9ef78520$@att.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf
> Of BillK
> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 6:58 AM
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] privacy again
>
> On 2 March 2016 at 22:47, Anders Sandberg wrote:
> >>... A career can be quite valuable. Top performers can produce 10-300
> > times the value of an average performer to a company ...
>
> >...In the context of nude videos, I'm not sure that 'top performers' is
> really an appropriate phrase to use. :)
>
> {8^D
>
> Ja. The ironic part of it is that the penalty to the hotel chain for
> (somehow) allowing or facilitating the criminal act is proportional to the
> salary potential of the victim. Think of all those topless photos of
> Aboriginal people National Geographic published in the 1950s. Good chance
> the models had no idea what they were signing up for. I know, that's
> different of course.
>
> >...I suspect this is a cunning ploy by spike to get millions when his nude
> video hits the internet...
>
> Well now that is an idea.
>
> >...Of course it would have to be 'full-frontal', as in the side view he
> almost disappears...
>
> There is that.
>
> >...Though thinking it over, perhaps spike could get more millions if he
> promises to *not* put his nude video on the net. :)
> BillK
>
> {8^D
>
> This leads back to the original observation in a way. Cases like these can
> only become far more common as more proles discover that video devices can
> be hidden where they will never be discovered, activated by a phone call,
> video collected by Skype, then the low-cost device abandoned afterward. The
> potential damage is proportional somehow to the value of the video, which is
> proportional to the hotness of the victim. Now these kinds of court cases
> become a beauty contest.
>
> BillK, you hit it right on: if I were to bring a similar suit, it would be
> laughed out of court, along with insults. I can just imagine what the judge
> would say. Imagine this same victim except aged 40 yrs. Imagine this same
> victim, same crime except that she has had nude photos made professionally
> but not published. Same victim, same crime, victim is a news producer
> rather than a sports desk anchor.
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 22:50:37 +0100
> From: Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se>
> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> Subject: Re: [ExI] privacy again
> Message-ID: <56D8B1AD.4020903 at aleph.se>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> On 2016-03-03 17:46, spike wrote:
> > This leads back to the original observation in a way. Cases like these
> > can only become far more common as more proles discover that video
> > devices can be hidden where they will never be discovered, activated
> > by a phone call, video collected by Skype, then the low-cost device
> > abandoned afterward. The potential damage is proportional somehow to
> > the value of the video, which is proportional to the hotness of the
> > victim. Now these kinds of court cases become a beauty contest.
>
> Not exactly. It is a social capital contest. Beauty helps give you
> social capital, ugliness reduces it; in fact, lookism is a stronger
> factor than racism and sexism in some studies. But the not-so-beautiful
> VIP who gets harmed will be less likely to be told "deal with it" than
> the nobody.
>
> This is of course true for all crimes. Social status, ability to speak
> for oneself, or to invoke a support network, has always been protective
> against being accused, suspected or sentenced for most crimes. Not
> perfectly, of course, and there are other reasons people of low SES are
> overrepresented in courtrooms too. Conversely, when trying to get the
> legal system to listen the above factors really help.
>
> Crimes against integrity are bad even for slum-dwellers. In fact, they
> are often worse for people with few resources since their reputations
> and images are all they have. But they are less likely to prevail in
> court, or even seek legal help because of less resources and trust.
> Meanwhile high social capital people are more likely to try and to get
> remedies.
>
> So, yes, this is a kind of beauty contest. An unfair one, since it is
> involuntary and people cannot decide if to participate. But also very
> hard to fix, since whatever the system is there tends to be a worst off
> group (add affirmative action, and you get a different set; make clear
> rules not bound by personal liking, and the people who are bad with
> using such rules will be worst off).
>
>
> --
> Anders Sandberg
> Future of Humanity Institute
> Oxford Martin School
> Oxford University
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 23:23:58 +0100
> From: Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se>
> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> Subject: [ExI] Cognitive enhancement and health
> Message-ID: <56D8B97E.9080400 at aleph.se>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> Nice to see neuroenhancement covered in Nature this week.
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7592_supp/full/531S2a.html
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7592_supp/full/531S6a.html
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7592_supp/full/531S4a.html
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7592_supp/full/531S10a.html
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7592_supp/full/531S12a.html
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7592_supp/full/531S14a.html
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7592_supp/full/531S18a.html
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7592_supp/full/531S9a.html
>
> Still not using transhumanist as a wholly positive word, but it is used.
>
> Incidentally, Slate Star Codex has its nootropics survey results up:
> http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/03/01/2016-nootropics-survey-results/
>
> --
> Anders Sandberg
> Future of Humanity Institute
> Oxford Martin School
> Oxford University
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 20:04:00 -0800
> From: Stephen Van Sickle <sjv2006 at gmail.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] privacy again
> Message-ID:
> <CADYziYA-cEnkZJJo0x_6E0J0XbGoq-=inVogAo697vdKfTJDZQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Mar 2, 2016 09:49, "spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
> > There is a big case in the US courts about a newscaster who had a nude
> video taken of her by a stalker who removed the peephole in the door.
>
> Did the miscreant remove the peephole (which can arguable not have been
> anticipated by the hotel) or did he use a "reverse peephole" such as this:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Universal-Enforcement-Reverse-Peephole-Viewer/dp/B0036VJ3J4
>
> If the later, these are so available and cheap that not installing a
> peephole with a cover:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Tg3828PH-220-degree-Privacy-Thickness-Polished/dp/B00T415N8A/ref=sr_1_3?s=hi&ie=UTF8&qid=1457064088&sr=1-3&keywords=Door+peephole+cover
>
> could well be negligence.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160303/030bdbdb/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 20:34:54 -0800
> From: "spike" <spike66 at att.net>
> To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] privacy again
> Message-ID: <003301d175cf$33ba1c10$9b2e5430$@att.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>
>
>
>
> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Van Sickle
> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 8:04 PM
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] privacy again
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 2, 2016 09:49, "spike" <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:
>
> > >?There is a big case in the US courts about a newscaster who had a nude video taken of her by a stalker who removed the peephole in the door.
>
> >?Did the miscreant remove the peephole (which can arguable not have been anticipated by the hotel) or did he use a "reverse peephole" such as this:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Universal-Enforcement-Reverse-Peephole-Viewer/dp/B0036VJ3J4
>
> If the later, these are so available and cheap that not installing a peephole with a cover:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Tg3828PH-220-degree-Privacy-Thickness-Polished/dp/B00T415N8A/ref=sr_1_3?s=hi <http://www.amazon.com/Tg3828PH-220-degree-Privacy-Thickness-Polished/dp/B00T415N8A/ref=sr_1_3?s=hi&ie=UTF8&qid=1457064088&sr=1-3&keywords=Door+peephole+cover> &ie=UTF8&qid=1457064088&sr=1-3&keywords=Door+peephole+cover
>
> could well be negligence?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This is from the court testimony:
>
> After hearing Andrews leave, he removed the peephole from her door and went back to his own room, where he used a hacksaw to cut off the threads attached to it.
>
> ?I removed the peephole, altered it,? he said. ?I cut off the threads so it was basically a plug and could be put back in.?
>
> Later on in the day, Barrett returned to his room and heard the shower on in Andrews? room.
>
> ?I went back to the room, and unfortunately for both of us, I could hear that the shower was on in her room when I walked by,? he said.
>
> ?I waited until the shower went off. Then I pulled out the plug and waited for the opportunity.?
>
> There are a thousand ways something like this can happen. A sleazebag could perhaps use an endoscope underneath the door in those hotels where some adjoining rooms have a pair of doors separating them. I have seen flexible endoscopes smaller in diameter than a pencil that would fit underneath a door.
>
> A cell phone could be hidden in ceiling tiles or a smoke detector could be modified: slimeball rents room, switches smoke detector with one containing a cell phone camera, along with plenty of electrical storage capacity, checks out and perhaps records next occupants, later returns and retrieves phony smoke detector, replacing original. Lets a few months go by, emails video to occupant, demands whatever method those Hollywood hospital ransom-demander used, bitcoin, to collect the ransom, no way to catch the sleazy bastard.
>
> If the perp is careful and doesn?t leave fingerprints on the smoke detector, the authorities probably couldn?t even figure out whodunit: one hotel room looks like any other, and they might not even be able to determine what hotel was bugged. The bad guy could hide the video device inside the clock by the bed, rent the room, switch the clock, get the video, switch them back later. Or hide the device inside the HVAC vent. Hotels cannot stop this sort of thing.
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160303/7b2632bd/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 08:36:56 +0100
> From: Giulio Prisco <giulio at gmail.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Alexander Chislenko article on English Wikipedia in
> danger of deletion
> Message-ID:
> <CAKTCJydYHQHYzp-NbwQS5p5e6jg9iJgOjepgUDDdyFtA503RNQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> The article has been deleted. Too bad I missed this post and couldn't
> participate in the Wikipedia discussion. Unfortunately Wikipedia has
> been colonized by SJWs (in this case, "Scientific Justice Warriors")
> who want to purge imagination from our spirit. I don't pay much
> attention to idiots, but Wikipedia is more and more important because
> Wikipedia pages are often at the top of Google search results.
> Debating SJWs is boring, but I think we should fight back.
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com> wrote:
> > If you edit Wikipedia and/or have good references that can be used to
> > improve the article, visit and contribute:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexander_Chislenko
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Chislenko
> >
> > Mike
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 12:43:40 -0600
> From: William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>, Tomasz Rola
> <rtomek at ceti.pl>
> Subject: [ExI] chromebook 1st report
> Message-ID:
> <CAO+xQEZWQyKw9gaJq1rX8Pkx8dTQ5u-D28y1e987DEo0Lf-YXw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Bought an Acer Chromebook 15 - 15.6" screen, ssd
>
> It's not quite my 17" Toshiba laptop but it's sufficient - and very bright.
>
> It's hot - really fast. Boots in 7 seconds and turns off about the same.
> Web pages fast - maybe one second.
>
> I do miss my lighted keyboard, though typing on this is just fine.
>
> $250 - makes me think of the many thousands I paid for the first Pentium,
> (never mind my PCjr) my Apple Powerbook ($4200 - died after the warranty
> died).
>
> I do miss some of my Firefox addons like tree style tab but I have yet to
> really explore addons for this one.
>
> Plugged in the Logitech usb and my rollerball worked right away.
>
> Several keys missing: delete, page up and down, function keys, but most
> replaceable by shortcuts using alt or ctrl
>
> So far, so good, or maybe a lot better than good.
>
> bill w
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160304/9ed05f07/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of extropy-chat Digest, Vol 150, Issue 2
> ********************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160304/c128889c/attachment.html>
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list