Re: [agi] Where are the women?
--- BillK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 30, 2007 2:37 PM, James Ratcliff wrote: More Women: Kokoro (image attached) So that's what a women is! I wondered.. Wrong. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7mZStNNN7g -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=70917982-4af5b5
Re: [agi] Where are the women?
On Nov 30, 2007 2:37 PM, James Ratcliff wrote: More Women: Kokoro (image attached) So that's what a women is! I wondered.. BillK - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=70777441-ffcff3
Re: [agi] Where are the women?
Yeah I couldnt resist, thanks for the video though, I handt seen that one, was well done. James Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- BillK wrote: On Nov 30, 2007 2:37 PM, James Ratcliff wrote: More Women: Kokoro (image attached) So that's what a women is! I wondered.. Wrong. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7mZStNNN7g -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; ___ James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com Looking for something... - Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=70926189-eb232f
Re: [agi] Where are the women?
This is not sociology, it is mathematics. Transforming one set of binary states to another set of binary states. Yes, there a number of different methods for doing a given a transformation, but those are all the same kind of mathematics and understanding the tradeoffs between those methods is also the same kind of mathematics. And choosing a method is *not* arbitrary -- see the part about tradeoffs. Right, but an important part of the design of any programming language is how easy it will be for other programmers to use. Otherwise, we'd still be using assembly language. Designing a language that is easy for others to use is much more of an art than a science. Mathematics does not work differently based on cultural context. There is not a lot of room for whimsy if economical results matter. Right, but different cultures understand mathematics differently. For example, the romans had a really strange and inefficient numerical system. Despite the fact that they were the economic power of their day, they still didn't abandon an inefficient system when other more efficient systems existed elsewhere. There could be a more efficient, easier to understand programming paradigm that people aren't adopting for the same reasons the romans stuck with their numerical system. Or maybe after she has actually studied theoretical computer science, this female minority understands the subject well enough to realize that there is no such thing as this mythical culturally sensitive programming language so many people are pining for. Where is your evidence of this? What did I miss out in my theoretical computer science class? This is a recurring theme, that Holy Grail programming language that requires no knowledge of computer science to use well. These arguments are based entirely the desire to create a language that can turn a thoroughly ambiguous and contradictory specification into a perfectly working program, without grokking that programming languages are *by necessity* non-ambiguous and require consistent constraints -- explicit and implicit -- if you want a useful result. No, I am not aware of anybody that wants to create such a language. We just want languages that are better than the ones that exist today, there is a lot of room for improvement. Your above argument is handwaving. There was a reason I was looking for a specific example -- a minority friendly lambda calculus language -- because I've heard your claim made repeatedly for many, many years and have yet to see a single shred of evidence that such a language would not look virtually identical to one of the thousands of existing languages. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. We have many dozens of languages that were expressly designed to make the underlying concepts as easy to grasp as possible for a non-geek. Ahh, that's the key word We. Have you done any actual field work to see what sorts of difficulties and misunderstandings people have in understanding your languages? Uh, what kind of programming do you do that you would assume that almost the entire software universe is working in some kind of linear scripting environment? I don't, I just don't think it's necessary to construct multi-dimensional graphs in my head. Perhaps when I am programming I am doing something equivalent, but by making such a claim you are only reinforcing my point... there are many different ways to program and claiming that one must do a certain thing to program only prevents people from entering the field. What on earth do you think code is? The only difference between code and people-talk is that code requires precision and non-ambiguity since incorrect results are generally considered unacceptable. Ok, so code is communication between human and computer, I know that. But usually when somebody says communication I assume they mean communication with a human. Because I've never seen anyone learn it, ever; experience changes a lot, but the ability to handle complex abstract models doesn't seem to. I've known many software engineers with careers that span decades and bucketloads of experience that really don't grok graphs beyond a certain complexity Do you have any objective measures? Can you mathematically describe the degree of complexity of graphs or models that certain people can't understand? -- it is a bit like you reach a certain description threshold where pushing more bits into the model makes other bits fall out. That threshold varies from individual to individual, and it is difficult to not notice that the correlation between really bright software designers and people who are quite apparently able to atypically work with complex models in their heads. I've worked on more than one software project where there were members of the team that quite obviously never grokked the dynamic characteristics of a system even after many months of intimate experience with it,
Re: [agi] Where are the women?
My collaborative platform is designed mainly with the aim of minimizing discrimination (be it racial, gender, nationalistic, etc) by being open and democratic. If there're other ideas that may help reduce discrimination, I'd be eager to try them. My observation is that when things are not transparent, many people tend to default to being biased. Openness does not solve all problems, but IMO it does help. YKY - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=70607861-f1f23b
Re: [agi] Where are the women?
On Nov 28, 2007 9:20 AM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sunday, November 25, 2007 Think Geek. Bet you're not picturing a woman. Nothing about a [computer] geek necessarily implies gender at all. To be fair, ask this same question but replace women with any other 'minority' and see if it's still a problem. Also, ask the question about how many of these stereotypical geeks are successfully employed in the real world these days. Perhaps the reason there are so few computer geeks is because those who are responsible for maintaining corporate computer systems have had to mature into roles less obviously geek. I have a very anti-bias bias :) - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=69403374-a2080b
Re: [agi] Where are the women?
Mike: To be fair, ask this same question but replace women with any other 'minority' and see if it's still a problem. I think women are the majority, aren't they? Anyway, yes, women are remarkably absent here. You will find them in fair numbers on science and philosophy groups for example. Perhaps it's something to do with a more abstract, less grounded subject area not appealing. Perhaps women are still much less involved in technology/ invention and machines. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=69415148-ec6947
RE: [agi] Where are the women?
From: Mike Tintner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Mike: To be fair, ask this same question but replace women with any other 'minority' and see if it's still a problem. I think women are the majority, aren't they? Anyway, yes, women are remarkably absent here. You will find them in fair numbers on science and philosophy groups for example. Perhaps it's something to do with a more abstract, less grounded subject area not appealing. Perhaps women are still much less involved in technology/ invention and machines. I've tried talking to women about artificial intelligence but often they are more interested in real intelligence so I don't bother anymore... If you tried rephrasing some of the terminology I'm sure it would be possible to attract interest. I mean once anyone hears the work artificial it immediately brings into the mind negative connotations. Perhaps that is why a lot of successful AI gets accomplished under another guise. John - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=69421062-d0bffa
Re: [agi] Where are the women?
Where are the women? I once read a short article on this topic. The author was trying to explain it suggesting that many technical books are using rather man-appealing analogies when explaining concepts which has discouraging effect for women. They were about experiment with this in Germany, planning to rewrite text-books (/lectures) using neutral and woman-appealing analogies. I did not really follow it so not sure what the outcome was. Regards, Jiri Jelinek - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=69430991-6928ba
RE: [agi] Where are the women?
At a funeral for a friend of my parents in Maine I met one of my deceased bright mother's bright friends who managed a consolidated school districts that covered several small towns near Brunswick, Me. I talked to her about the gap between women and men in science, and she claimed under her stewardship her junior high schools got a grant to promote the teaching of math to girls, and, in stark contrast to the previous condition, after several years the girls were outperforming the boys substantially on math aptitude tests. So women are capable of doing math. It is possible that men on average have some abilities women do not, just as it appears women on average have some capabilities men do not. But such generalities are only tendencies for which there are many exceptions, and I think there are enough different dimensions from which to attack AGI that even the mental strength commonly associated with females, such as dealing with people, could play a valuable role. And there are some very bright women in AI. Daphne Kohler, a leader in Bayesian reasoning, is a star. Janet Kolodner, one of the people on Schank's case-based-reasoning team obviously very bright. Regina Barzilay http://www.csail.mit.edu/biographies/PI/bioprint.php?PeopleID=1840 , at MIT's CSAIL, did a very interesting NL project called NewsBlaster, that automatically created an NL summary of current news stories. I have attended multiple lectures at MIT given by women that are very interesting. The percent of women doing valuable work in the area of brain science is probably even higher. I think one of the major reasons women are so under represented in math and AI is that the fields are considered by many women and men to be un-feminine. AGI in particular has a human threatening quality about it, that is offensive even to me. This aspect of AI does not fit well of the image many women have of themselves and their sex as being nurturing. But still if you go to the MIT AI labs, I think there are more women in the hallways and in the lectures than I saw 25 years ago (and the vibe is much better). From such events it actually seems there are currently substantially more women, as a percentage, in AI than in say in the audience at semiconductor technology lectures. The percentage of women at the MIT AI lab today is much higher, than say the percent of women in my advanced physics class when I entered college over forty years ago. So there is hope. As it become increasingly more obvious how important AI is I hope more women will participate. Ed Porter -Original Message- From: Robin Gane-McCalla [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 12:18 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] Where are the women? The interesting thing about CS and AI is that they are man-defined fields whereas physics, chemistry, biology etc are defined by nature. Perhaps the simple fact that almost all programming languages and concepts in AI were designed by white males (and a geeky subculture of white males at that) is the main factor that has limited the entrance of women and other minorities rather than other cultural differences. On Nov 28, 2007 7:46 AM, Jiri Jelinek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where are the women? I once read a short article on this topic. The author was trying to explain it suggesting that many technical books are using rather man-appealing analogies when explaining concepts which has discouraging effect for women. They were about experiment with this in Germany, planning to rewrite text-books (/lectures) using neutral and woman-appealing analogies. I did not really follow it so not sure what the outcome was. Regards, Jiri Jelinek - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; -- Robin Gane-McCalla YIM: Robin_Ganemccalla AIM: Robinganemccalla - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=69561096-dde293attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [agi] Where are the women?
Only to the extent that mathematics is man-defined, but then physics et al are built entirely on mathematics so I'm not sure where you are going with this. Computer science, and by extension AI, is not a field coalesced out of an arbitrary set of brain farts. Computer Science and AI are defined by humans with the help of math to achieve a specific goal. There are almost always multiple ways of achieving the specific goal, this is where the bias comes in, people usually chose that which is the way which is easiest for them and their colleagues and don't give much thought to how easy it will be for outsiders to understand their programming language or AI concept. The only substantive cultural bias in programming languages is the pervasive use of English language keywords, how can you say that? Programming is essentially a way to solve problems and all cultures solve problems differently. which hasn't seemed to slow down pasty white males who do not speak English a whit. There are only a handful of abstract concepts that underly all programming languages, what are these concepts? And if all you need to do is understand a few concepts, then why do computer experts (people who presumably understand all of these concepts) have languages they prefer and argue about which languages are best? and if you understand those abstract concepts then the construction details of the programming language are largely immaterial. How, precisely, would a female minority design a lambda calculus programming language that would be radically different from the myriad of such languages invented by pasty white male geeks? A female minority (or any other minority, anybody who is far away from the dominant geek culture that dominates CS) probably wouldn't ever get to the point of designing a programming language unless she joined the geek culture, and then she would be distanced from all the other people who don't understand programming, and thus not any more able to create a useful and easy to understand programming language than the geeky white males. Programming languages are derived from mathematical models, with some application-oriented syntactic sugar to make common operations simpler. They are precise and highly regular constructs whose only cultural bias is that they disallow ambiguity as a basic feature that follows from their mathematical derivation. The cultural bias lies in the choices that people make for the syntactic sugar and the mathematical models. Being able to manipulate complex multi-dimensional graphs in your head and wait, why do I have to manipulate complex multi-dimensional graphs in my head? I'm a programmer and I've never done that before. I'd be interested in knowing why you think this skill is important, but I can guarantee you many programmers never do it. communicate without ambiguity are the only background skills required to be a good software geek; the latter is learnable, Communication is necessary for programmers? I'd say useful, but not necessary. In my experience, it seems that human communication skills are inversely related to the ability to understand computers, but there are exceptions to that. but I suspect the former is largely innate and even most white males are relatively poor at it. Why do you think it is innate? Cheers, J. Andrew Rogers - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; -- Robin Gane-McCalla YIM: Robin_Ganemccalla AIM: Robinganemccalla - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=69736569-aa9169
Re: [agi] Where are the women?
On Nov 28, 2007, at 12:17 PM, Robin Gane-McCalla wrote: The only substantive cultural bias in programming languages is the pervasive use of English language keywords, how can you say that? Programming is essentially a way to solve problems and all cultures solve problems differently. This is not sociology, it is mathematics. Transforming one set of binary states to another set of binary states. Yes, there a number of different methods for doing a given a transformation, but those are all the same kind of mathematics and understanding the tradeoffs between those methods is also the same kind of mathematics. And choosing a method is *not* arbitrary -- see the part about tradeoffs. Mathematics does not work differently based on cultural context. There is not a lot of room for whimsy if economical results matter. which hasn't seemed to slow down pasty white males who do not speak English a whit. There are only a handful of abstract concepts that underly all programming languages, what are these concepts? And if all you need to do is understand a few concepts, then why do computer experts (people who presumably understand all of these concepts) have languages they prefer and argue about which languages are best? Different languages have different syntactic sugar and structural biases that are better or worse for solving different problems. And then there is the case of people being biased toward the familiar. There is no best language because no language is highly optimized toward solving all major classes of problem, yet all of the thousands of languages out there are essentially equivalent at a theoretical level. Arguments over whether one language is better than another are about practical concerns, like library support and expression density in various domains. A female minority (or any other minority, anybody who is far away from the dominant geek culture that dominates CS) probably wouldn't ever get to the point of designing a programming language unless she joined the geek culture, and then she would be distanced from all the other people who don't understand programming, and thus not any more able to create a useful and easy to understand programming language than the geeky white males. Or maybe after she has actually studied theoretical computer science, this female minority understands the subject well enough to realize that there is no such thing as this mythical culturally sensitive programming language so many people are pining for. Computer science is what it is. Chemistry cannot be made as simple as cooking in a kitchen either, even though it has some superficial similarities. This is a recurring theme, that Holy Grail programming language that requires no knowledge of computer science to use well. These arguments are based entirely the desire to create a language that can turn a thoroughly ambiguous and contradictory specification into a perfectly working program, without grokking that programming languages are *by necessity* non-ambiguous and require consistent constraints -- explicit and implicit -- if you want a useful result. Your above argument is handwaving. There was a reason I was looking for a specific example -- a minority friendly lambda calculus language -- because I've heard your claim made repeatedly for many, many years and have yet to see a single shred of evidence that such a language would not look virtually identical to one of the thousands of existing languages. We have many dozens of languages that were expressly designed to make the underlying concepts as easy to grasp as possible for a non-geek. This has lowered the barrier to learning a programming language a bit, but it has not obviated the necessity of learning the underlying concepts of theoretical computer science that would make knowing a programming language useful. The cultural bias lies in the choices that people make for the syntactic sugar and the mathematical models. For example...? Mathematical models are selected to optimize for certain functional characteristics. If you think those choices are arbitrary, you were sleeping in your computational theory classes. And in any case, you can find programming languages that run the range of every major (and most minor) mathematical models for programming in literature, and the major ones are available in major languages. The choice is yours. Syntactic sugar is not an excuse either; note that the cultural bias for syntactic sugar is among *sub-communities of geeks* and not the population at large. It is a technical culture, not a social culture (though LISP weenies get damn close). Also many (most?) languages let you create your own syntactic sugar. In any case, I'd be interested in seeing an example of a prohibitive cultural bias in syntactic sugar. And if what you assert is true, where are all the female COBOL
Re: [agi] Where are the women?
JAR: These arguments are based entirely the desire to create a language that can turn a thoroughly ambiguous and contradictory specification into a perfectly working program, without grokking that programming languages are *by necessity* non-ambiguous and require consistent constraints -- explicit and implicit -- if you want a useful result. No doubt - if you want a narrow AI result - a precise answer to a convergent problem. But virtually all human beings use natural language - ambiguous language - as their basic (though by no means exclusive) means of solving problems, and communicating with each other. Even mathematicians depend on natural language to frame their more numerical/ algebraic/ geometrical thoughts. An open-ended, ambiguous language is in fact the sine qua non of AGI. Thankyou for indirectly pointing that out to me. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=69969856-676ed0
Re: [agi] Where are the women?
On Nov 28, 2007 9:23 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An open-ended, ambiguous language is in fact the sine qua non of AGI. Thankyou for indirectly pointing that out to me. Would you agree that an absolutely precise language with zero ambiguity would be somewhat stifling for use in a creative mode? It seems to me that new points are discovered when different observers attempt to relate their positions relative to a third point of discussion. The analogies, misunderstandings, reconciliation, and meta-symbols that are required for even the simplest agreement often generates more context about the other party in the conversation than the point upon which they eventually agree. you think? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=69974416-f4c42d
Re: [agi] Where are the women?
Mike, I think that the central point of language is that it can be treated as consisting of general, abstract, open-ended scripts (the last being another way of describing concepts). The value of language then is that I can tell you Go to the movies for 2 hours - and I do not have to tell you any of the vast details of what to do - how to go - which transport to take, which movie to watch, which cinema to go to, how to divided your time, and so on. Or I can tell you Go and buy me something nice for supper and again I can leave the complex details up to you. Or I can say The cat sat on the mat and I don't have to draw you a detailed picture. All words - all scripts - leave the individuals concerned - both speaker and listener - immense latitude as to how to interpret them. (To the narrow AI, convergent mentality this is terrible. To a broad AGI divergent mentality it is a great virtue. It enables you, for example, to adapt to dynamic environments - to change your route to, and choice of movies if unforeseen obstacles arise - whereas a narrow AI program, that held your hand every step of the way, would get you stuck). The disadvantage of course of language's open-endedness is that it can leave room for considerable misunderstanding as to what are and are not proper details of a given script (or proper individual concretisations of those general abstractions). I might get upset, for example, if you didn't leave the house but watched movies on the house TV, (strictly a legitimate interpretation of my command). An additional advantage of language is, as you indicate at the end, that different individuals can agree on certain basic interpretations of any given set of words, and yet bring in addition their own rich associations - fill in those scripts with different details. We may agree that an open-ended language is the sine qua non of AGI and yet each have v. different associations with language/AGI etc. - which can be mutually enriching. P.S. The only thing I disagree with you about is that I don't think language is much use for analogies - I think they are derived primarily from graphics/ schemas and images. MD: MT An open-ended, ambiguous language is in fact the sine qua non of AGI. Thankyou for indirectly pointing that out to me. Would you agree that an absolutely precise language with zero ambiguity would be somewhat stifling for use in a creative mode? It seems to me that new points are discovered when different observers attempt to relate their positions relative to a third point of discussion. The analogies, misunderstandings, reconciliation, and meta-symbols that are required for even the simplest agreement often generates more context about the other party in the conversation than the point upon which they eventually agree. you think? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.9/1155 - Release Date: 11/27/2007 8:30 PM - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=70039594-936fe6
Re: [agi] Where are the women?
By coincidence whilst the debate was raging last night (local time:), I was busy reading 'Studying Those Who Study Us, An anthropologist in the world of artificial intelligence', (Stanford University Press, 2001) which is a posthumous collection of academic essays by Diana Forsythe. She roamed 4 or 5 AI labs for the better part of 10 years using her trained anthropologist's eye to reflect on the culture of AI labls and geeks. A couple of essays concern exactly this point (esp 'Disappearing Women in the Social World of Computing') and I have a feeling that she would strongly disagree with the feelings expressed on this list i.e. that women are scarce because of the nature of the field - she feels strongly it has much more to do with the social attitudes (cultural norms) in the discipline. Ok she took a bit of a feminist angle but that's not surprising considering what happened to her parents (both were acccomplished computer scientist, the father became famous, the mother forgotten), or probably more by exactly her personal experiences in these labs. Anyway it is a very interesting (and quick) read with some good thoughts/inputs on other aspects of AI (and AGI) thinking - especially the disconnect between how AI geeks think and how the rest of the world (including the user) operates. The article that I found the most interesting was 'The Construction of Work in Artificial Intelligence' where she highlights strongly what *we* (AI scientists) think is real A(G)I as opposed to what we actually really do. It relates to an earlier posting of mine whereby I queried how much time the people claiming to work on AGI really spend on AGI design as opposed to the time spent on peripheral issues (she lists 19 major things AI researchers do, only one of which is related to real AI :) Back to the women, there is at least one very smart woman on this list who's elected to stay quiet in this debate... Samantha? =Jean-Paul -- Research Associate: CITANDA Post-Graduate Section Head Department of Information Systems Phone: (+27)-(0)21-6504256 Fax: (+27)-(0)21-6502280 Office: Leslie Commerce 4.21 On 2007/11/28 at 19:18, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robin Gane-McCalla [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The interesting thing about CS and AI is that they are man-defined fields whereas physics, chemistry, biology etc are defined by nature. Perhaps the simple fact that almost all programming languages and concepts in AI were designed by white males (and a geeky subculture of white males at that) is the main factor that has limited the entrance of women and other minorities rather than other cultural differences. On Nov 28, 2007 7:46 AM, Jiri Jelinek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where are the women? I once read a short article on this topic. The author was trying to explain it suggesting that many technical books are using rather man-appealing analogies when explaining concepts which has discouraging effect for women. They were about experiment with this in Germany, planning to rewrite text-books (/lectures) using neutral and woman-appealing analogies. I did not really follow it so not sure what the outcome was. Regards, Jiri Jelinek - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=70075803-05025f
