Re: Free will and physics

[Erik Reuter]

On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 11:02:26PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:

> From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 07:46:46PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > At some level, yes. But all moralities aren't created equal. Some
> > are clearly better than others, in that some will almost surely lead
> > to a society that almost no one would want to live in.
>
> It depends on what is desired from morality.  Some are better than
> others for reaching particular goals, certainly.  But, that naturally
> leads to the question "what goals?"  It's easy to label your goals
> "rational" and another's goals as "irrational."

I did not label goals rational and irrational -- in fact, in this thread
I specifically stated that my stated goal was subjective. Your reply
does not address my comment...I was just watching the Godfather. If
everyone behaved as the dons in that movie, almost no one would want
to live in the resulting world. And sure enough, the crime bosses are
largely gone now. Most people realized what would happen if such a
system were allowed to expand. This is not rational or irrational, it
is just that most people don't like to live in such a world. As I said
previously, this is mostly an accident of evolution and environment,
but it is certainly true that most people share some of these basic
sensibilities about what is desirable and what is not.

> I'll agree if you show that the conflict between the goals of
> different people is an illusion (i.e. you show that rational self
> interest is served by considering the needs of others as just as
> important as one's own), then you will have reduced the question of
> morality to a question of accurately gauging one's own self interest.
>
> But, that premise really doesn't match observation.  The question is
> complicated enough, so that it is probably not possible to actually
> falsify that hypothesis, but the overwhelming amount of evidence is
> against it.

Actually, the overwhelming amount of evidence is for it. That is why
humans have progressed from animal-like apes, to tribes, feudalism,
and finally liberal democracy with the rule of law. And progress has
accelerated, especially with the transition to liberal democracy and
rule of law.

> Part of the reason for that is the fact that, by the nature of the
> premise, you have set yourself a very high standard for proof.  The
> existence of win-win situations, where the predominant strategy
> for the individual benefits all is not sufficient.  Rather, it
> is necessary to show that win-lose scenarios do not exist to any
> significant extent.

No, you are thinking much too small. There are indeed many win-lose
scenarios if you look at thing myopically. But if you consider both
the long-term and the interaction of others if they all followed a
similar strategy, then the world is a big win-win scenario. I mentioned
this previously, but again you failed to address it. Surely you don't
think we could have made as much progress as we did in the 20th century
with everyone acting myopically in their own self interest? How do you
explain the huge growth in GDP per capita in the Western world in the
last 150 years?

> Let me give just one counter example now.  (Only one for space
> limitation, not for lack of examples.)  Tonight, on the local news,
> there was an apartment fire.  One man was taken to the hospital for
> smoke inhalation. He was at risk because, instead of just yelling fire
> and getting out of the complex, he went door to door knocking on the
> doors telling people to get out.
>
> He is up for a hero's award, which I think is reasonable. From a
> Christian standpoint, his actions are an example of the greatest
> form of love possible.  But, from the standpoint of enlightened
> self-interest, his actions were irrational.  On a cost/benefits basis,
> it was the wrong decision to make.

Not necessarily. If I thought my neighbor(s) would be likely to take
the same risks for me in the future, I would do it, and it would be
in my self-interest, unless I could trick my neighbors (or they could
trick me) into thinking I (they) would do it but really would not. Of
course, then honesty and trustworthiness comes into it. If I didn't
think my neighbors were honest and trustworthy in these matters, then
I would be less likely to do it since it would be much less in my own
self-interest.

> Sure, there are actions that can be identified as beneficial for the
> whole community if everyone does this. But, this begs the question
> "why worry about what benefits others?"

Because if you don't (and enough others don't), they won't, and everyone
loses.

> >This can make for an interesting game theory problem, but in general
> >the "golden rule" strategy is frequently the best game theory tactic.

> I looked up game theory, and found what seems to be a pretty decent source
> for it at:
> 
> http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/eco/game/game.html

That site is incomplete. Here are some key words for you

RE: More on Spiders

[Horn, John]

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> >  Comic Geek Maru
> 
> But were you sexuaSPAT!

Are there any other kind of male teenagers???

 - jmh
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: More on Spiders

[Medievalbk]

In a message dated 7/5/2003 8:17:33 PM US Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

>  - jmh
>  
>  Comic Geek Maru

But were you sexuaSPAT!

Where'd that cream pie come from?

Vilyehm Teighlore
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Free will and physics

[Dan Minette]

> We've had this discussion before -- the concept of free-will as you >use
it is just as useless a concept as god. But morality, as I've >argued
above, is quite useful in progressing towards goals.

As a useful fiction to persuade people, certainly (actually persuade
assumes free will, the uttering of the word morality has been correlated
with behavior changes consistent with other words that were uttered...that
might do.)But, "ought" is rather meaningless without free will.  I'll
be happy to admit that the causal chain in people's actions includes
hearing words.  But, that doesn't seem all that critical to me. It happens
to be a complex reaction the evolution of which is predictable in only a
statistical sense.  The inherent difference between this and less
complicated systems that can only be predicted in a statistical sense is
not apparent. I think your argument relies on complexity changing the
fundamentals.  I've yet to see a real example of this. Indeed, if it were
to exist, it would spark an overwhelming scientific revolution. The
falsification of reductionism would be a remarkable occurrence.


> It is absurd to compare a mind -- which is complex in a way that >cannot
be modeled by a few simple equations, is capable of >abstraction, logic,
and calculation -- to something like a star or a >lightning bolt which can
be modeled and predicted accurately by a few equations.

No, it is not absurd. I chose lightning and stars for a reason, not just
because I was grasping for metaphors. It is impossible to predict where
lightning will strike at a given time on a given day. I'm rather surprised
you claim that it is simple; the inability to ever predict popup
thunderstorms is classic. It is one of the best examples of macroscopic
indetermancy.

Indeed, the behavior of stars, humans, and lightning bolts are all
dependant on gravity and the physics of the standard model.  One could even
argue that the star takes more physics to explain than humans, since one
may have to consider QCD as well as the standard model.  I really expected
you to know this, since you have a BA in physics.

Complexity doesn't add anything; it just makes it harder to calculate.  A
very complex perpetual motion machine is no more likely to work than a
simple one.  There are occasions, indeed, where complexity results in
counter-intuitive results.  There has never been a verified case where
complexity introduces something truly new.


 > accurately predict what a mind will do with a simple model: you need to
> simulate it in its full complexity, essentially creating another copy of
> the mind. Furthermore, you can persuade a person not to do something;
> but you cannot persuade a lightning-bolt not to strike.

That is a convenient fiction.  You do what you are forced to do, they do
what they are forced to do. Persuade is a convenient shorthand

You are allowing
> yourself to be afflicted by the dreaded physics-cyst spherical-cow
> disease (modelitis), thinking that a simplistic model is an accurate
> representation of a complex phenomenon.
>
> I know you like to try out models until they "stick" (you tried equating
> a mind to a star last time, now you are trying a lightning bolt) but the
> last time this came up I mentioned about as useful a model as you're
> likely to get: humans have free will in the same sense as Chamlis
> Amalk-ney (or Mawhrin-Skel) has free will. No doubt you will complain
> that that is not a very useful model.

No, I'd complain that stars and lightning bolts and people are real,
Chamlis Amalk-ney is a fictional creation.
>Yes! That is the point! Free will  as you bandy the term around is a poor
concept and mostly useless.

So, you are willing to give up any description of human beings that is not
directly reducable to QED?  Anything that is added on is no more than a
convenient fiction, like reduced mass?

Dan M.





___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

No conflicts between selfishness and morality?

[Dan Minette]

I'm answering Erik's message in pieces, because it was extremely long.  I'
I'll start it with a general question, do people here think that there is
rarely a real conflict between one's own interest and the interest of
others?

- Original Message -
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?


> On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 07:46:46PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:

>
> At some level, yes. But all moralities aren't created equal. Some are
> clearly better than others, in that some will almost surely lead to
> a society that almost no one would want to live in.

It depends on what is desired from morality.  Some are better than others
for reaching particular goals, certainly.  But, that naturally leads to the
question "what goals?"  It's easy to label your goals "rational" and
another's goals as "irrational."

However, that requires a definition of rational that differs from mine.
Rational, to me, involves things like a reasoned deduction from axioms.
Typically, in science, we have a model and compare the model with
observation. A more general use of irrational is stating a set of
priorities and performing actions that are inconsistent with those
priorities.  An example of this is smoking, while being very concerned
about health risks from background radiation. If the small risk from
background radiation is important, why isn't the large risk from smoking?


But, some actions are arational.  Choosing to sacrifice one's life
defending another is inherently neither irrational or rational.  It depends
on one's set of priorities.  If one is only concerned with one's own self
interest, it is an irrational action: unless the alternative is a fate
worse than death. However, if one believes in principals, then those
principals can be worth dying for.



> If everyone went around indiscriminately hurting or killing each other,
it would be an
> awful world indeed. Also, some moralities are parasitic, in that if
> everyone followed those morals, the desired result would not obtain

I won't argue with that, but I don't think that's the question at hand.
The question at hand is "what will the plusses and negatives for that
individual if that individual performs the action in question." You appear
to argue that there is no significant conflict between rational
self-interest and the greater good for all.

I'll agree if you show that the conflict between the goals of different
people is an illusion (i.e. you show that rational self interest is served
by considering the needs of others as just as important as one's own), then
you will have reduced the question of morality to a question of accurately
gauging one's own self interest.

But, that premise really doesn't match observation.  The question is
complicated enough, so that it is probably not possible to actually falsify
that hypothesis, but the overwhelming amount of evidence is against it.

Part of the reason for that is the fact that, by the nature of the premise,
you have set yourself a very high standard for proof.  The existence of
win-win situations, where the predominant strategy for the individual
benefits all is not sufficient.  Rather, it is necessary to show that
win-lose scenarios do not exist to any significant extent.

Let me give just one counter example now.  (Only one for space limitation,
not for lack of examples.)  Tonight, on the local news, there was an
apartment fire.  One man was taken to the hospital for smoke inhalation. He
was at risk because, instead of just yelling fire and getting out of the
complex, he went door to door knocking on the doors telling people to get
out.

He is up for a hero's award, which I think is reasonable. From a Christian
standpoint, his actions are an example of the greatest form of love
possible.   But, from the standpoint of enlightened self-interest, his
actions were irrational.  On a cost/benefits basis, it was the wrong
decision to make.


> -- in other words, these moralities are only desirable to someone
> if the majority do not follow the same morals.

Sure, there are actions that can be identified as beneficial for the whole
community if everyone does this. But, this begs the question "why worry
about what benefits others?"  Cutting out another argument for brevities
sake, I'll just point out your whole theory hinges on the reduction of
conflicts of interest between people to insignificance.

>This can make for an interesting game theory problem, but in general >the
"golden rule" strategy is frequently the best game theory tactic.

I looked up game theory, and found what seems to be a pretty decent source
for it at:

http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/eco/game/game.html

There are a number of different models there.

One of the points that can be gleamed from reviewing these models is that
there are circumstances in which the dominant strategy for each individual
is, und

RE: More on Spiders

[Horn, John]

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
> In a message dated 7/5/2003 2:52:03 PM US Mountain Standard Time, 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> > 
> >  So What Could Spider*Woman* Do With Her More Complex
> >  Spinnerets? Maru  ;)
> 
> Sell a lot of comic books to sexually frustrated male teens 
> and preteens.
> 
> ---depending upon what her costume (or lack of) looked like.

There was a Spider-Woman comic (many) years ago.  She didn't have webs, just
a "venom" bolt of bio-electricity and the ability to stick to walls.  She
could also glide but I think that was a function of her costume, more than
anything.  I actually liked that book in the short time it was around.  Not
sure why.  Had some cool villains as I recall.

Ah, here's a link.  
http://thebookcase.org/webby-sneak/webby.html

and another

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/2855/jessica.html

Wow.  Did that book really start in 1978?  Sheesh, I feel old...

 - jmh

Comic Geek Maru
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Scouted: Vinyl Chloride Eater

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 03:21 PM 7/5/03 -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote:
Apparently we've inadvertantly helped develop a
bacterium that needs our waste to live:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030703/ap_on_sc/toxic_feeder_5
"...Vinyl chloride is one of the most common and
hazardous industrial chemicals. It can linger in the
soil for hundreds of years and is present at about a
third of the toxic Superfund sites listed by the
Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites). It
usually accumulates as a deteriorated form of more
complex compounds found in dry cleaning fluid and
metal cleansers.
"Brief contact with vinyl chloride can cause
dizziness, drowsiness and headaches. Long-term
exposure can raise the risk of a rare form of liver
cancer, according to the EPA.
"Loeffler has already tested the bacterium on vinyl
chloride at the contaminated site in Michigan. Its
ability to eat the toxic compound — and render it
harmless — was hastened in one test by adding plant
fertilizer and other nutrients to the soil. In another
trial, vinyl chloride was destroyed by injecting the
soil with concentrated amounts of BAV1 developed in
the lab
"..."These organisms can only grow when the
contaminants are present," he said. "When the material
is gone, their numbers decline because they don't have
any food. So really it's a perfect system."
Evolution In Action Maru  :)


Didn't I read that novel 30 years ago?

<>



--Ronn! :)

I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon.
I never dreamed that I would see the last.
--Dr. Jerry Pournelle
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Sandy Kofax

[TomFODW]

>No baseball for a while so I thought I might stir the pot. Just finished Jane Leavy's 
>excellent if reverential bio. 


There is an unfortunate tendency among some of Koufax's admirers, especially those who 
have known him, to elevate him into some kind of human paragon. Granted that he 
appears to be a highly decent, respectful, dignified person, the fact remains that he 
is, basically, someone who had an astounding God-given ability that he got the 
absolute most out of. He was a great baseball player; there's nothing wrong with being 
a great baseball player, but let's not make him out to be anything more than that. 
He's not Albert Schweitzer, he's not Martin Luther King Jr. And he doesn't have to be.


-- 
Tom Beck

www.prydonians.org
www.mercerjewishsingles.org



"I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last." - 
Dr Jerry Pournelle
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: 28 Days Later

[Erik Reuter]

On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 06:44:03PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> There is lots of tension not the cheap stuff the real deal.

I thought the stupid tunnel trip and the expedition into the gas-station
house were awfully cheap.


-- 
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Sandy Kofax

[Bemmzim]

No baseball for a while so I thought I might stir the pot. Just finished Jane Leavy's 
excellent if reverential bio. It provides some insight into this extrarordinarly 
private man. She dispells notions that he did not really like baseball, or that he was 
aloof from teamates. But the main thing about him is his absolute dominance from 1961 
through 1966. The statistics are daunting, 4 no hitters, an ERA of less than two, 
wining crutial games for the Dodgers at the end of the season and then in the world 
series often on 2 days rest. Other players of that era insist that he was the best. I 
know Gautam has argued in favor of Pedro Martinez but it seems to me that Pedro is not 
in the same league. As good as he Pedro has not been able to drag his team along with 
him. As good as he is he does not seem to have the ability to dominate the way Kofax 
could.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: More on Spiders

[Medievalbk]

In a message dated 7/5/2003 2:52:03 PM US Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> 
>  So What Could Spider*Woman* Do With Her More Complex
>  Spinnerets? Maru  ;)

Sell a lot of comic books to sexually frustrated male teens and preteens.

---depending upon what her costume (or lack of) looked like.

William Taylor
-
What is mulch?
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy

[d.brin]

Interesting.  But of course nothing new.  The reason these boys did 
what they did is because of lack of accountability.  SOme males hold 
THEMSELVES  accountable.  But nobody does it perfectly.  It's a favor 
that others will willingly to FOR you.  You repay them by (eagerly) 
returning the favor)

See
"Disputation Arenas: Harnessing Conflict and Competition for 
Society's Benefit," lead article in the American Bar Association 
Journal on Dispute Resolution (Ohio State University), V.15, N.3, pp 
597-618, Aug.2000.  Or see 
http://www.davidbrin.com/disputationarticle1.html

Alas, the online world has not yet developed accountability systems. 
See the article.

Thrive

db


I've been so incredibly busy with work lately so I've been cutting back
on posting "Scouted" stories to the list.  (In fact, from here on in,
they'll probably just wind up on my blog instead.)  But I thought this
might be of as much interest to brinellers as it was to me.  It's an
essay by Clay Shirkey entitled "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy"
http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html)

It's a rather fascinating analysis of the problems that can plague
long-lasting and/or long term online groups.  Discusses a variety of
posting patterns and topics that elicit reactions, including broadcast
vs., interactive online interactions, discussions about religion, the
externalization of enemies to encourage group cohesion, censorship and
free speech.
The reason I flagged this for you, Dr. Brin is I'm curious about your
opinion of the author's premise: that many of these patterns are
inherent to human interaction and are therefore unavoidable.   What do
you think?
Anyway, of particular interest to me was this section, which talks about
a problem we've experienced here in the past relating to disruptions,
censorship and free speech:
"And, indeed, as anyone who has put discussion software into groups that
were previously disconnected has seen, that does happen. Incredible
things happen. The early days of Echo, the early days of usenet, the
early days of Lucasfilms Habitat, over and over again, you see all this
incredible upwelling of people who suddenly are connected in ways they
weren't before.
..

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: 28 Days Later

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 7/4/2003 10:01:23 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

> More than a bit of night of the dead as well. Just saw this today.
> > Despite or in spite of its wholly unoriginal plot this is 
> a terrific
> > movie. See it
> 
> Are there any explosions?  I like explosions

Yes there are explosions and fires and lead characters who grow or at least grow on 
you as the movie progresses. There is lots of tension not the cheap stuff the real 
deal. The cinematography is complex but in this case it serves the movie rather than 
being pretentous. I was incredibly surprised by the film. A true original within the 
context of a very pedestrian horror/sci-fi film.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Government Information Awareness

[d.brin]

Very Transparency oriented.

Very cool.  I'm actually engaged on some work along similar lines.


http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,59495,00.html

Government Prying, the Good Kind

By Michelle Delio

"The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest,"
according to the architect of the Declaration of Independence and third
president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson.
Researchers at the MIT Media Lab unveiled the Government Information
Awareness, or GIA, website Friday. Using applications developed at the
Media Lab, GIA collects and collates information about government
programs, plans and politicians from the general public and numerous
online sources. Currently the database contains information on more than
3,000 public figures.
The premise of GIA is that if the government has a right to know personal
details about citizens, then citizens have a right to similar information
about the government.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Scouted: Vinyl Chloride Eater

[Deborah Harrell]

Apparently we've inadvertantly helped develop a
bacterium that needs our waste to live:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030703/ap_on_sc/toxic_feeder_5
"...Vinyl chloride is one of the most common and
hazardous industrial chemicals. It can linger in the
soil for hundreds of years and is present at about a
third of the toxic Superfund sites listed by the
Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites). It
usually accumulates as a deteriorated form of more
complex compounds found in dry cleaning fluid and
metal cleansers. 

"Brief contact with vinyl chloride can cause
dizziness, drowsiness and headaches. Long-term
exposure can raise the risk of a rare form of liver
cancer, according to the EPA. 

"Loeffler has already tested the bacterium on vinyl
chloride at the contaminated site in Michigan. Its
ability to eat the toxic compound — and render it
harmless — was hastened in one test by adding plant
fertilizer and other nutrients to the soil. In another
trial, vinyl chloride was destroyed by injecting the
soil with concentrated amounts of BAV1 developed in
the lab 

"..."These organisms can only grow when the
contaminants are present," he said. "When the material
is gone, their numbers decline because they don't have
any food. So really it's a perfect system." 

Evolution In Action Maru  :)

__
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

The economics of interface transportation

[Richard Baker]

I know that Gautam, at least, enjoyed my article "The economics of space
transportation" and thought that some of you might be interested in the
second part of my series on the economics of space. This one is called
"The economics of interface transportation" and covers the launch
vehicle market:

http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/66.html

Rich

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

More on Spiders

[Deborah Harrell]

Unless a spider actively gets in my way, I pretty much
ignore them, although I am careful to leave those that
live in my houseplants free to catch mosquitoes and
gnats (I have both tiny web-spinners and the larger
'jumping' variety).  But they're really quite
fascinating animals, besides their web-spinning
capabilities.  This is more a schoolkids' site, but it
has info on different kinds of spinning glands, and
links to stuff like the complex mechanism that allows
the spider to 'throw off' sticky strands from her feet
(think what the Tandu might modify such structures
into!).

http://www.szgdocent.org/ff/f-ssilk.htm

So What Could Spider*Woman* Do With Her More Complex
Spinnerets? Maru  ;)

__
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Spider space elevator? (was: US-based missiles to have globalreach)

[Deborah Harrell]

--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Deborah Harrell wrote:
> 
> > Having read somewhere that "spider silk has
> greater tensile strength
> > than steel"   It seems thatwhile still not
>understood, [the structure] involves sheets of
> 'stiff' alanine chains
> > coupled with more flexible/elastic protein
> sequences, twined together
> > in different ways for different types/uses of the
> silk.  It is
> > comparable to Kevlar (one article said 'tougher'),
> but much lighter.
 
> > So, could the structure and properties of dragline
> silk be helpful in
> > the design of carbon nanotubules for a space
> elevator? (Of course, I'm
> > guessing you wouldn't want it to be that elastic,
> but the structure is intriguing...)
> 
> I don't really know enough about practical building
> considerations
> to answer your question, but I think it is an
> interesting subject. I
> just did some reading, and I mostly found that it is
> a much more
> complex subject than I initially thought. Especially
> when you get
> away from basic materials properties and start
> looking at weaves and
> composite materials  Anyway, here are
> a few observations.
> 
> Spider silk is much more rubbery than kevlar. Silk
> can stretch by 30% to
> 40% before it breaks. Steel can stretch, too, but
> most steel structures
> are designed to operate safely below the "yield
> point" which is where
> the steel starts to get very plastic. In the links
> below, note how
> steel has very low strain (little elongation) up to
> a well-defined
> yield-point where it starts to stretch, whereas silk
> does not have a
> well-defined yield point and it follows a "smoother"
> elongation curve until it breaks.
>
http://www.umeciv.maine.edu/cie111/tension/default.htm
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6828/box/410541a0_bx1.html
 
>  
>"...Thus Kevlar is 3 times stronger but spider silk
is
> 5 times tougher
>   because it is 8 times more extendible"
> 
> The article I posted before quotes 60 GPa as the
> necessary number for
> a space elevator. So spider silk by itself is much
> too weak. But as a
> component in a composite? Maybe it could be helpful,
> I don't know.

I was thinking more of the structure, rather than the
actual silk; I'm going to guess that dragline silk,
being a protein polymer, would be damaged by the
conditions of space/vacuum, unless it was sealed off
from the outside.  Researchers at MIT are working on
creating artificial polymers based on what we
currently understand about spider silk structure:

http://www.utdallas.edu/research/friday_fyi/030425/internews.htm
(second story segment of this newsletter)
"...James-Korley's work focuses on the soft segment of
spider silk. It has been suggested that this soft part
has two different regions, one of which is slightly
harder than the other because the polymer fibers are
partially aligned. If this idea is correct, spider
silk actually has three different phases: hard, soft
and intermediate. The hard segments anchor the
partially aligned regions, holding them in place in a
matrix of soft material...

"Pollock is studying a different structural
element-the interface between the crystallites in
spider silk and the soft region around them. How the
interfacial material slides past the crystallites
without pulling away from them may hold the key to
spider silk's toughness..."

> Obviously, when you are designing a structure like
> this, you want to
> build in a safety factor so that the worst stress
> that you expect to be
> applied is say, 40% lower than that which will break
> the structure. With
> steel, this is relatively easy to design since the
> steel has a
> well-defined yield point, and as long as you stay
> below that, the
> steel has virtually no permanent deformation, so you
> can count on your
> structure staying the same size and shape. But if
> there is an impact,
> with a short but very high stress applied, the steel
> may break.
> 
> With something like spider silk, which stretches
> better, it may be
> possible to handle a very short but extreme stress
> better than steel
> (toughness). On the other hand, it looks like a very
> challenging design
> problemWould
> the space elevator wiggle back and forth like an
> anemone? It may be
> possible to design a space elevator with a rubbery
> material, but I think
> it makes for a very complex design that would
> require decades of study
> and testing to fully understand the implications.
> Here are a couple
> links that only begin to get into some of the
> complexities.
> 
> http://fiberarchitects.com/reading/rebars.html
> http://calcul.com/ian/thesis/node47.html


Now I'm envisioning "robot spiders" that are
programmed to run up and down the space elevator
cable, checking for strain/weakness, and having the
capability of extruding an elastic 'patch' material
that will hold the cable together until more definitve
repairs can be made...


However, some think that actual spidersilk might make
a good protective layer

Re: "King of the Hill" Re: God, Religion, and Sports

[Julia Thompson]

Jan Coffey wrote:
> 
> --- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > :)
> >
> > OK, just for that, Jan, I'm going to ask you the question under
> > discussion at the barbecue I was at yesterday evening (where the big
> > draw was the turkey breasts that the host had smoked from 8AM until 2PM
> > yesterday, and they were so tender they fell apart very nicely, and I
> > ate a fair bit of turkey, a fair bit of cantelope and probably too many
> > chocolate chip cookies and drank too much IBC Root Beer):
> >
> > What's your favorite "King of the Hill" episode?
> >
> > (I think mine is the one where Bobby feeds the raccoon that's been
> > hanging around the garbage and Dale ends up eating something with
> > hallucinogenic properties in the woods)
> >
> 
> Well In light of the topic at hand I feel like answering the one where Hank
> mistakenly believes that his new Laotian neighbors use dog meat to make their
> delicious barbecued hamburgers. Or how about the one where Bobby suffers
> enormous guilt after he consumes all of the new reverend's lutefisk and
> inadvertently burns the church to the ground. Or what about "There will be no
> enlightenment in this house!"? But to be honest it is the one where Hank's
> Father takes over the military school Bobby has been sent to and tries
> unsucessfuly to break bobby.

That was the favorite of someone else in the room during that
discussion.

I have to admit, I haven't seen that one yet.  Now I'm looking forward
to seeing it someday.  :)

The Lutefisk one was pretty good.  Of course, unlike my husband, I've
never been subjected to lutefisk.  (He hated the stuff.  That was the
worst thing about big family gatherings at Christmas during his
childhood)

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: "King of the Hill" Re: God, Religion, and Sports

[Jan Coffey]

--- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jan Coffey wrote:
>  
> > ""
> > Well If god hadn't meant for us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made
> them
> > out of meat.
> > ""
> > 
> > It works better if you pretend like your name is hank and you sell
> propane
> > and propane accessories.
> 
> :)
> 
> OK, just for that, Jan, I'm going to ask you the question under
> discussion at the barbecue I was at yesterday evening (where the big
> draw was the turkey breasts that the host had smoked from 8AM until 2PM
> yesterday, and they were so tender they fell apart very nicely, and I
> ate a fair bit of turkey, a fair bit of cantelope and probably too many
> chocolate chip cookies and drank too much IBC Root Beer):
> 
> What's your favorite "King of the Hill" episode?
> 
> (I think mine is the one where Bobby feeds the raccoon that's been
> hanging around the garbage and Dale ends up eating something with
> hallucinogenic properties in the woods)
> 

Well In light of the topic at hand I feel like answering the one where Hank
mistakenly believes that his new Laotian neighbors use dog meat to make their
delicious barbecued hamburgers. Or how about the one where Bobby suffers
enormous guilt after he consumes all of the new reverend's lutefisk and
inadvertently burns the church to the ground. Or what about "There will be no
enlightenment in this house!"? But to be honest it is the one where Hank's
Father takes over the military school Bobby has been sent to and tries
unsucessfuly to break bobby.



=
_
   Jan William Coffey
_

__
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: God, Religion, and Sports

[Julia Thompson]

Jan Coffey wrote:
> 
> --- Richard Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Jan quoted:
> >
> > > Well If god hadn't meant for us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made
> > > them out of meat.
> >
> > People are made of meat too. ObSF: the cannibals and vegetarian
> > guerrillas in _Delicatessen_.
> >
> 
> Eat me.
> 
> ..sorry, I just had to say it, I just can't help myself.

_Stranger in a Strange Land_, anyone?  :)

Julia

who would probably require salt, unless marinade were used for 2-4 days
first
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

"King of the Hill" Re: God, Religion, and Sports

[Julia Thompson]

Jan Coffey wrote:
 
> ""
> Well If god hadn't meant for us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them
> out of meat.
> ""
> 
> It works better if you pretend like your name is hank and you sell propane
> and propane accessories.

:)

OK, just for that, Jan, I'm going to ask you the question under
discussion at the barbecue I was at yesterday evening (where the big
draw was the turkey breasts that the host had smoked from 8AM until 2PM
yesterday, and they were so tender they fell apart very nicely, and I
ate a fair bit of turkey, a fair bit of cantelope and probably too many
chocolate chip cookies and drank too much IBC Root Beer):

What's your favorite "King of the Hill" episode?

(I think mine is the one where Bobby feeds the raccoon that's been
hanging around the garbage and Dale ends up eating something with
hallucinogenic properties in the woods)

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: 28 Days Later

[Michael Harney]

From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 10:01:23PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote:
>
> > Are there any explosions?  I like explosions
>
> I hear T3 has explosions, but little else (haven't seen it myself).
>

I haven't seen it myself, but I heard it has more than just explosions, it
has Arnold Schwarzenegger getting beat up by a woman.  :-)

Michael Harney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

"Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because
he had achieved so much... the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all
the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time.
But conversely the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than
man for precisely the same reasons." - Douglas Adams

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: 28 Days Later

[Erik Reuter]

On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 10:01:23PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote:

> Are there any explosions?  I like explosions

I hear T3 has explosions, but little else (haven't seen it myself).


-- 
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: God, Religion, and Sports

[Jan Coffey]

--- Richard Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jan quoted:
> 
> > Well If god hadn't meant for us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made
> > them out of meat.
> 
> People are made of meat too. ObSF: the cannibals and vegetarian
> guerrillas in _Delicatessen_.
> 

Eat me.

..sorry, I just had to say it, I just can't help myself.

=
_
   Jan William Coffey
_

__
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: God, Religion, and Sports

[Richard Baker]

Jan quoted:

> Well If god hadn't meant for us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made
> them out of meat.

People are made of meat too. ObSF: the cannibals and vegetarian
guerrillas in _Delicatessen_.

Rich
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Religion Discussion, was God, Religion and Sports

[Jan Coffey]

--- David Hobby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> iaamoac wrote:
> > 
> > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >   If you want a serious discussion of religion, we should
> > > probably all agree to adopt an agnostic viewpoint for the duration.
> > 
> > But what kind of discussion is it where one adopts a viewpoint that
> > one does not seriously believe?   Why should those who disagree with
> > agnostics be forced to adopt their viewpoint?
> 
>   "Agnostic" means "not knowing", right?  I don't really 
> see that there is much to DISAGREE with there.  You might personally
> KNOW, but should be open to the possibility that others don't.  
> If you aren't, there really isn't much to say, is there?  (Which is
> why I usually stay out of religious discussions.)
> 

Yea, the word "religious" is now commonly used to describe topics where one
or either side will not listen to reason. For Aithiests and agnotstics it is
easy to -adopt- an agnostic view for the sake of arguement, But for a
religious person even considering accepting an agnostic view would be
sinfull, and they would want to avoid it. 

=
_
   Jan William Coffey
_

__
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: God, Religion, and Sports

[Jan Coffey]

--- Michael Harney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> From: "iaamoac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> 
> > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If you want a serious discussion of religion, we should
> > > probably all agree to adopt an agnostic viewpoint for the duration.
> >
> > But what kind of discussion is it where one adopts a viewpoint that
> > one does not seriously believe?   Why should those who disagree with
> > agnostics be forced to adopt their viewpoint?
> >
> > More imporantly, why is it so radical to simply insist upon a basic
> > level of *civility* from all List-Members.   Sure, I have been known
> > to engage what has previously been described here as "rough and
> > tumble adult conversation", but when I apply "zingers" in my post, I
> > at least accompany it with content.   In my mind, the posting of mere
> > insults, without any accompanying substantive content is
> > inappropriate - and hence I am objecting to it.
> >
> > John D.
> 
> 
> Every time I bring up anything related to vegetarianism I get pounced on by
> people acting less than civil.  

Is this less than civil to you..?

"" 
Well If god hadn't meant for us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them
out of meat.
""

It works better if you pretend like your name is hank and you sell propane
and propane accessories.

No, no, actualy I do agree with the post.

> I learned that I either have to accept that
> behavior from others or simply not bring up the topic.  I don't whine and
> complain that the brin-l isn't my version of utopia where everything I say
> is accepted without any rude replies.  I simply post a reply to rude
> replies
> saying that I will not discuss the topic with them if they are not willing
> to discuss it maturely and rationally.  I see your current efforts only as
> an effort to get people moderated or kicked off the list.  Something I will
> not support.  Get over it.  You should welcome such behavior from your
> opponents in a debate, no matter how rational the person arguing against
> you
> claims his/her viewpoint is, it just proves how irrational the person is.
> 
> Michael Harney
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> "Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because
> he had achieved so much... the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all
> the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time.
> But conversely the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than
> man for precisely the same reasons." - Douglas Adams
> 
> ___
> http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


=
_
   Jan William Coffey
_

__
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Literalism (was RE: God, Religion, and Sports)

[Jan Coffey]

--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> > Jan Coffey
> > Sent: Friday,
> 
> There was plenty to respond to, but I'll pick this one...
> 
> > the guy preaching to you on sunday has
> > no right to
> > tell you anything becouse you know he "sins" just as much as anybody.
> 
> I think you've fallen into the traps of "church is for good people" and
> "priests are special people."  From my point of view, our pastors and
> priests have the "right" to instruct *because* they sin as much as anybody.
> The ones who pretend they don't -- and the people who expect them not to
> fail -- are setting themselves up for a fall.  The Bible teaches that all
> of
> those who believe are members of the priesthood.

...must.. ...not... ...engagre... ...dark...  ...humor... ...mode

Then why have priests at all?or alter boys

> > Uh? The vast majority ARE, that's the whole point. Shall I
> > continue the list?
> 
> Do you have any evidence that the vast majority of Christians are
> literalists?  My experience is quite the opposite.

literaly? The vast majority of the christians you have experienced do not
take the bible literaly? Can you define that? Becouse with my definition they
would beleive that Mary ~really~ did have some hanky panky? They would not
beleive that anyone rose from the dead. THey wouuld have to beleive that the
water was not turned into wine. They would have to beleive that Moses just
went up there on that mountain and came up with the 10 comandments all on his
own. Becouse that is literaly what the bible says, and if they are not taking
it literaly then their beleifes must literaly differ. right?


=
_
   Jan William Coffey
_

__
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: God, Religion, and Sports

[Jan Coffey]

--- iaamoac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you want a serious discussion of religion, we should
> > probably all agree to adopt an agnostic viewpoint for the duration.
> 
> But what kind of discussion is it where one adopts a viewpoint that 
> one does not seriously believe?   Why should those who disagree with 
> agnostics be forced to adopt their viewpoint?
> 
> More imporantly, why is it so radical to simply insist upon a basic 
> level of *civility* from all List-Members.   

Who's deffinition of civility are we going to use? Your's? I know you would
not want to use my deffinition becouse if you did you would be hard pressed
to find someoen who wasn't. It seems to me that just by the fact that you are
asking for civility shows that you haven't thought it through. Why not listen
to what others MEAN and forget your silly notions of civility?

>Sure, I have been known 
> to engage what has previously been described here as "rough and 
> tumble adult conversation", but when I apply "zingers" in my post, I 
> at least accompany it with content.   In my mind, the posting of mere 
> insults, without any accompanying substantive content is 
> inappropriate - and hence I am objecting to it.

I haven't seen anyone engaging in "posting of mere insults". On another list
where such a practice was commonplace I once posted the following.

""
Hold up your hand, fingers extended, palm out. Now put your smallest finger
down. Interpret the resulting formation as unary with your thumb in the first
postion, now traslate to binary.
""

Now that is a good example of "posting mere insults" (even if I do say so
myself). Feel free to use this as a basis of comparison, In situations you
need mear insults, or at geek/nurd dinner parties when you need a bit of
rough and tumble humor, just as long as you never take or mean it personaly.


=
_
   Jan William Coffey
_

__
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l