Re: Introductions

[Doug Pensinger]

Charlie wrote:


Hola.

I'm Charlie, 32 year old Brit from Wimbledon, London, UK. Work as a  PC 
tech and website builder these days. Degree in Zoology, worked  
variously in sales, finance and behind a bar. Spent 2005 cycling  round 
Australia. Joined Brin-L in '97 or 98, been here on and off  (with a 
long off 'til a few months ago) since. Moving to Australia to  get 
married (got my visa today!!!).


Excellent news Charlie, congrats and good luck!

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

Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex

[Doug Pensinger]

John wrote:



Isn't the real danger of ending up with an unbalanced population,
making it difficult for a generation to find a mate, worth noting?


So you're saying we should tailor our laws to remedy the shortcomings of 
the Chinese social system?



And is this really functionally different from eugenics?


Eugenics is a social philosophy.  I don't think that if I have six 
offspring and all of them are the same sex and I choose the sex of the 
seventh to be the opposite sex that that amounts to a social philosophy. 
It amounts to freedom of choice, one of the principals this country was 
founded upon.


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

Re: Bulwer-Lytton 2006

[Julia Thompson]

Robert G. Seeberger wrote:

http://www.bulwer-lytton.com/


Thanks.

Larry Person's entry that made the list wasn't as good as his 
contribution last year or the year before.  IMO.  So I'm not sure I'm 
going to compliment him if I see him at ArmadilloCon this time.  :)


Julia

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

Re: An Inconvenient Truth

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Do you believe we are near or past peak oil?

I certainly haven't seen any evidence that we are *past* peak oil,
if indeed, there is such a thing.  "Near" is, of course, an
ambiguous term.

> > Because Middle Eastern oil is, roughly, the
> > cheapest oil out there, it will be the last oil to be displaced
> > by consumption shifting to substitute goods.
>
> Which is why I suggested we buy now and save what we can for later.

Except for the fact that we have to buy Middle Eastern oil at the
global market price... so I don't see what you are driving at here.

> > That would essentially be a bet on the price of oil increasing
> > at a
> > rate faster than other assets you could spend your money on.
> >
>
> True, but there is also the consideration that rather than
> burning oil
> up for fuels and such that we use it to make items with greater
> utility. Oil is used to make a great many things in the chemical
> industry such as plastics and medicines.

Why is using oil for plastic or medicine of greater utility than
using oil to transport plastic or medicine?

And in any case, the use of oil doesn't change the fact that buying
oil and putting it in a hole in the ground is essentially a decision
to invest in an asset.   You'd be betting that oil prices would be
rising at a higher rate than other asset classes available.   Its
not a completely unreasonable bet, but given the possibility of a
recession in China or increased oil production in Alberta, it would
also be a bet with plenty of risk.  After all, if you had made the
same decision in 1980, you'd be looking pretty silly in 1998.

JDG




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

Re: Earth Shattering BREAKING NEWS!! (not!)

[Dave Land]

On Jul 12, 2006, at 8:22 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote:


Ronn!Blankenship wrote:

At 02:48 PM Wednesday 7/12/2006, Alberto Monteiro wrote:

Gary Nunn wrote:


Ok, does anyone really care that one guy head butted another
for insulting his lineage? Definitely don't think this warrants
a BREAKING NEWS! Alert from ABCnews.com. They must be bored  
today :-)



Is it so hard to USAns to understand how important Football
[the real one, played with a ball and the feet] is to all the
World? It's more important, for example, than the sexual
adventures of Angelina Jolie, J-Lo or Paris Hilton.


Together?


You can probably download their honeymoon tape if you care to brave
the porn sites.

I think all of our honeymoon tapes are out there.


Not mine. We didn't use tape, we used glue.

Dave

Definitely Not Staples Maru

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

Re: Earth Shattering BREAKING NEWS!! (not!)

[Robert Seeberger]

Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> At 02:48 PM Wednesday 7/12/2006, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
>> Gary Nunn wrote:
>>>
>>> Ok, does anyone really care that one guy head butted another
>>> for insulting his lineage? Definitely don't think this warrants
>>> a BREAKING NEWS! Alert
>>> from ABCnews.com. They must be bored today :-)
>>>
>> Is it so hard to USAns to understand how important Football
>> [the real one, played with a ball and the feet] is to all the
>> World? It's more important, for example, than the sexual
>> adventures of Angelina Jolie, J-Lo or Paris Hilton.
>
>
> Together?
>

You can probably download their honeymoon tape if you care to brave 
the porn sites.
I think all of our honeymoon tapes are out there.

xponent
The Viagra Sex Tapes Maru
rob 


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

Re: An Inconvenient Truth

[Robert Seeberger]

jdiebremse wrote:
> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Robert G. Seeberger"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/11/2006 8:48:13 AM, jdiebremse ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>>> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Robert Seeberger" 
>>> wrote:
 but because every MW of
 wind power used is that many barrels of Middle Eastern oil we
 won't
 need to purchase til later.
>>>
>>> Actually, this is unlikely.
>>>
>>> Let's
>>> say that increased use of wind power results in a decrease in the
>>> price of oil (this too is unlikely since little oil is used for
>>> electricity generation compared to coal and natural gas).   This
>>> decrease in the price of oil, would cause a little less oil to be
>>> supplied.   However, since the oil produced in the Middle East is
>>> produced extraordinarily cheaply there, the oil that is no longer
>>> supplied is unlikely to be Middle Eastern.   Rather, the
>>> displaced oil
>>> is likely to be expensively produced oil from marginal fields in
>>> developed countries like the US.
>>
>> I have no problem with your reasoning here, but I was talking
>> about  something different. If you generate power by some other
>> means than  the use of oil, then you are not using oil for that
>> particular amount of work. That means you do not have to buy that
>> bit of oil in the first place. That is a savings.
>
> Well, what you specifically suggested was that that savings would
> come from Middle Eastern oil.   My point is that we'll likely
> be "dependent on" Middle Eastern oil for as long as our society uses
> any oil whatsoever.

Do you believe we are near or past peak oil?



> Because Middle Eastern oil is, roughly, the
> cheapest oil out there, it will be the last oil to be displaced by
> consumption shifting to substitute goods.

Which is why I suggested we buy now and save what we can for later.


>
>> But yes, you are correct. If enough alternatives to fossil fuels
>> are used to generate power, then supply should increase and prices
>> should lower to whatever degree. I think any oil we don't buy will
>> just go to some other customerIndia or China frex. So it may
>> be a good idea to increase our reserve by buying oil now and
>> storing it in some salt dome or such.
>
> That would essentially be a bet on the price of oil increasing at a
> rate faster than other assets you could spend your money on.
>

True, but there is also the consideration that rather than burning oil 
up for fuels and such that we use it to make items with greater 
utility. Oil is used to make a great many things in the chemical 
industry such as plastics and medicines.

xponent
Phenol For One Maru
rob


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

Re: Earth Shattering BREAKING NEWS!! (not!)

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 02:48 PM Wednesday 7/12/2006, Alberto Monteiro wrote:

Gary Nunn wrote:
>
> Ok, does anyone really care that one guy head butted another
> for insulting his lineage? Definitely don't think this warrants
> a BREAKING NEWS! Alert
> from ABCnews.com. They must be bored today :-)
>
Is it so hard to USAns to understand how important Football
[the real one, played with a ball and the feet] is to all the
World? It's more important, for example, than the sexual
adventures of Angelina Jolie, J-Lo or Paris Hilton.



Together?


--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: An Inconvenient Truth

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Robert G. Seeberger"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On 7/11/2006 8:48:13 AM, jdiebremse ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Robert Seeberger" 
> > wrote:
> > > but because every MW of
> > > wind power used is that many barrels of Middle Eastern oil we
> > > won't
> > > need to purchase til later.
> >
> > Actually, this is unlikely.
> >
> > Let's
> > say that increased use of wind power results in a decrease in the
> > price of oil (this too is unlikely since little oil is used for
> > electricity generation compared to coal and natural gas).   This
> > decrease in the price of oil, would cause a little less oil to be
> > supplied.   However, since the oil produced in the Middle East is
> > produced extraordinarily cheaply there, the oil that is no longer
> > supplied is unlikely to be Middle Eastern.   Rather, the
> > displaced oil
> > is likely to be expensively produced oil from marginal fields in
> > developed countries like the US.
>
> I have no problem with your reasoning here, but I was talking
> about  something different. If you generate power by some other
> means than  the use of oil, then you are not using oil for that
> particular amount of work. That means you do not have to buy that
> bit of oil in the first place. That is a savings.

Well, what you specifically suggested was that that savings would
come from Middle Eastern oil.   My point is that we'll likely
be "dependent on" Middle Eastern oil for as long as our society uses
any oil whatsoever.  Because Middle Eastern oil is, roughly, the
cheapest oil out there, it will be the last oil to be displaced by
consumption shifting to substitute goods.

> But yes, you are correct. If enough alternatives to fossil fuels
> are used to generate power, then supply should increase and prices
> should lower to whatever degree. I think any oil we don't buy will
> just go to some other customerIndia or China frex. So it may
> be a good idea to increase our reserve by buying oil now and
> storing it in some salt dome or such.

That would essentially be a bet on the price of oil increasing at a
rate faster than other assets you could spend your money on.

JDG




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

Re: Introduction s

[Jo Anne]

Hello List -- Gotta love these intros.

T.Wavis Writ:

> Hello my ducky! What are ye at tonight, by?
> 
> I just use "by", by the way.
> 
> But anyway, I'm from Conception Bay, on the Avalon.
> About 50 km from St. John's.
> 
> And now I have two questions:
> 
> What were you doing on the Rock?
> 
> Do you like Jiggs dinner?

Conception Bay?  Where did you live to?

1) Well, my son, me 'usbond worked into the gypsum at Flat Bay.  I'm not
good at speaking Bay anymore, but pride myself for passing for a native
while living there.

2) Now why d'ya tink I needs the salt beef?  I smuggled some in when my
daughter and I went back in 2000, but that is long gone.  Sigh, I can smell
the turnips, the carrots, the cabbage and the bread pudding now

Funny story:  When we first moved there, my husband (also known as The
Engineer) thought every other man on the mine crew was named 'Buddy'  =+)).

We're left coasters now, returning to where we came from -- Cascadia.  I'm
trying to organize friends from Newfoundland for a 25 year reunion on *this*
coast, but, Jeez, it's hard to get Newfoundlanders to travel.

Julia wrote:

> Seriously, it wasn't pretty, what Kat was going through.  They're
> married now, though.  (Yay!)

Our Kat got married???  Just how out of touch am I?  (don't answer, anyone).

Do you realize that this leaves the list without a Maiden  Seriously
folks, we have the Mother in Julia (and a few others, but I don't know if
they're still around) in Debbi who is mothering a career and a few horses,
and the Crone in me, but we need the Maiden.  Anyone care to stand up to the
role???

Anyway, Amities, all.

Jo Anne
Still Working on Goddesshood Maru


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

Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex

[Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro]

Charlie Bell wrote:
> 
>> Many animal species have a disequilibrium.
>
> Such as?
>
>> One way is by polygamy.
>
> In mammals, that just leads to lots of unmated males, with fierce
> competition. The overall ratio, if you're talking lions or deer or
> something, is 50-50,
>
The end result is disequilibrium.

>> Homosexuality is either genetic, cultural or a mix of both. In
>> either case, a lesbian mother in a lesbian society will eventually
>> have an influence in making the daughter lesbian too.
>
> But those who fail will have more offspring, driving the ratio back
> to parity.
>
Except that those offspring may not be as successful as those
that come from the lesbians, because they weren't as carefully
selected as those.


>>> Even if it does become a common procedure, the selective balance
>>> prevails. Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium models can be used to show how
>>> this happens.
>>
>> So please enlighten me about this. 

I am still waiting for the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium models!

>> Intuition shows that genetic
>> manipulation and selection will converge to a mix of Glory Season
>> and Gattaca.
>
> No it doesn't. Gattaca maybe. Glory Season, only on a new planet with
> the geneering done at the time of colonisation.
>
Why do you think Glory Season so unlikely, with high-tech replacing
the genetic manipulation? Lots of lesbians cloning themselves, and
eventually mixing genes with another lesbian?

>> Selection at the level
>> of eggs may be what we will do - and then there's no reason
>> why both eggs can't come from two women.
>
> Urm... maybe there's a way to combine two eggs. But why? Better to
> substitute the DNA in a spermatozoa and let that do the job. The pain
> involved in fusing two eggs to viability is just not worth it.
>
It may not be now, but we are talking about the long-range future
of Humanity. If it's possible, then someone will do it.

>> Males are doomed to extinction
>
> Rubbish. Even aphids need males.
>
Males evolved *because* they were required to cause genetic variation.
If we do *not* want to mutate - are you ready to replace Homo sapiens for
Homo invictus or some other Evil Race from SF? - then cloning and elimination
of variety is all we will get.

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

Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex

[Charlie Bell]

On 12/07/2006, at 10:44 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:



Many animal species have a disequilibrium.


Such as?


One way is by polygamy.


In mammals, that just leads to lots of unmated males, with fierce  
competition. The overall ratio, if you're talking lions or deer or  
something, is 50-50,



The other way is by polyandry, and a female that puts enough eggs
to compensate the small number of females. Since humans can
hardly change ourselves into that second group, the more likely
scenario is the first.



Mebbe.




Eusociality is one
way, where kin relations make sisters more important than daughters
(haploid creatures like bees, wasps and ants have this bias built
in). Manipulation of the breeding patterns, as in Glory Season, is
another. But even in the scenario in which you describe, the
selective advantage would be towards women who have sons, and as
homosexuality isn't genetic (although it may have a genetic
component) straight daughters would also have selective advantage.


Homosexuality is either genetic, cultural or a mix of both. In
either case, a lesbian mother in a lesbian society will eventually
have an influence in making the daughter lesbian too.


But those who fail will have more offspring, driving the ratio back  
to parity.




And lesbians have a huge advantage in selection: they select the
father of their daughters based on logical criteria, while hetero
women chose based on "love" [or hormones, etc]. So, the daughters
of lesbians will have a competitive advantage over the daughters
of non-lesbians.


...but those who have more sons will have selective advantage




Don't be so sure about this. Having babies is a huge investment
in a human's lifetime, so spending lots of money to have the
baby of your dreams is the most likely scenario. Gattaca comes
to mind - with the risk of being banned from the List, for
mentioning _two_ sf stories, one by Himself.


Even if it does become a common procedure, the selective balance
prevails. Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium models can be used to show how
this happens.


So please enlighten me about this. Intuition shows that genetic
manipulation and selection will converge to a mix of Glory Season
and Gattaca.


No it doesn't. Gattaca maybe. Glory Season, only on a new planet with  
the geneering done at the time of colonisation.



Eugenics is evil when it's done by murder - but then it should
not be called Eugenics but simply Mass-Murder.


Therein lies the issue. Some among us regard discarding unimplanted
blastocysts as murder. I don't, and I'm guessing from your tone that
 you don't either.


If/when medical techniques evolve, it's expected that not even
this kind of selection will be necessary. Selection at the level
of eggs may be what we will do - and then there's no reason
why both eggs can't come from two women.


Urm... maybe there's a way to combine two eggs. But why? Better to  
substitute the DNA in a spermatozoa and let that do the job. The pain  
involved in fusing two eggs to viability is just not worth it.




Males are doomed to extinction


Rubbish. Even aphids need males.

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

Bulwer-Lytton 2006

[Robert G. Seeberger]

http://www.bulwer-lytton.com/

http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/english/2006.htm

An opening sentence containing a burrito, an angel and a shovel was 
judged appalling enough to win the annual Bulwer-Lytton literary 
parody prize on Tuesday.
Retired mechanical designer Jim Guigli of California was proclaimed 
winner of the contest, which challenges entrants to submit their worst 
opening sentence of an imaginary novel.

Guigli's winning entry read: "Detective Bart Lasiter was in his office 
studying the light from his one small window falling on his super 
burrito when the door swung open to reveal a woman whose body said 
you've had your last burrito for a while, whose face said angels did 
exist, and whose eyes said she could make you dig your own grave and 
lick the shovel clean."

Guigli's powers of invention and his determination to succeed -- he 
submitted 60 different entries -- also won him a "dishonorable 
mention" in the historical fiction category.

"My motivation for entering the contest was to find a constructive 
outlet for my dementia," Guigli quipped.

The Bulwer-Lytton fiction contest was started in 1982 by the English 
Department at San Jose State University to honor the Victorian 
novelist who opened his 1830 novel "Paul Clifford" with what were to 
become the immortal words, "It was a dark and stormy night."

It began as a quiet campus affair and now attracts thousands of 
entries from around the world. But the grand prize winner receives 
only a pittance and other winners "must content themselves with 
becoming household names," organizers say.

The 2006 runner-up, Stuart Vasepuru from Scotland, played with one of 
the most famous pieces of dialogue from the Clint Eastwood movie 
"Dirty Harry."

"I know what you're thinking, punk," hissed Wordy Harry to his new 
editor, "you're thinking, 'Did he use six superfluous adjectives or 
only five?' -- and to tell the truth, I forgot myself in all this 
excitement; but being as this is English, the most powerful language 
in the world, whose subtle nuances will blow your head clean off, 
you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' --  
well do you, punk?"



xponent

Cribbed From Yahoo News Maru

rob


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

RE: An Inconvenient Truth

[Dan Minette]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Alberto Monteiro
> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 3:45 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: RE: An Inconvenient Truth
> 
> Dan Minette wrote:
> >
> > You should still get great variation in power output.  A 20 mph wind
> > has 64x the power of a 5 mph wind, and 8x the power of a 10 mph
> > wind.
> >
> Power = k v^3 ?

Yup.


> I can't see this relation. Intuitively, I would imagine
> that the RPM of the generator is proportional to the speed,
> and the power to the square of the RPM, so it would be
> Power = k v^2.

Look at the power in the atmosphere.  The power in each molecule is 1/2
mv^2.  The number of molecules that flow past, the turbines goes as v.
Thus, the total power goes as k v^3.

This is akin to aerodynamic drag at k v^3.  Yes, there are some
complications with different flow regimes existing at different speed, but
that's the basic physics.

The power that is output from the turbine at various speeds, or even at the
same speed, can be matched to the input power by varying the load.

Dan M. 


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

RE: An Inconvenient Truth

[Alberto Monteiro]

Dan Minette wrote:
> 
> You should still get great variation in power output.  A 20 mph wind 
> has 64x the power of a 5 mph wind, and 8x the power of a 10 mph 
> wind.  
>
Power = k v^3 ?

I can't see this relation. Intuitively, I would imagine
that the RPM of the generator is proportional to the speed,
and the power to the square of the RPM, so it would be
Power = k v^2.

Alberto Monteiro

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

Re: An Inconvenient Truth

[Alberto Monteiro]

Robert Seeberger wrote:
> 
> That is what I'm seeing too. I gather that the higher prices are 
> going to be with us for quite a while, so there may be opportunity 
> for the investments to be substantially paid off before oil prices lower.
> 
This is not how most oil companies all over the world - at least
what they publish to their stockholders - think the future will be.
Oil prices - according to the published models - tend to get down
quite fast.

> As we are near or past peak oil
>
Not here in Brazil :-)

> (at least the easy stuff)
>
It was never easy here...

But I think the problem is not fossil fuel but free oxigen. We
all burn fossil fuel using air oxigen. We are reducing the 
atmosphere, and there's no mechanism to put this O2 back there.

Most planets have a reducing atmosphere, and our is an oxidant
atmosphere. Are we just Venusforming Earth?

I believe there will still be lots of reserves of fossil fuel
when it becomes illegal to burn them in oxigen air - the car
of the future will have one tank of fuel and one tank of oxidant.

Alberto Monteiro [maybe we should add a Brin: to these topics
of today, when we talk about possible futures]

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

Re: Earth Shattering BREAKING NEWS!! (not!)

[Julia Thompson]

Alberto Monteiro wrote:

Gary Nunn wrote:

Ok, does anyone really care that one guy head butted another
for insulting his lineage? Definitely don't think this warrants
a BREAKING NEWS! Alert 
from ABCnews.com. They must be bored today :-)



Is it so hard to USAns to understand how important Football
[the real one, played with a ball and the feet] is to all the
World? It's more important, for example, than the sexual
adventures of Angelina Jolie, J-Lo or Paris Hilton.


I understand it's important.  And I'm grateful that I'm not subjected to 
details of the French soccer player's live, unlike those of Angelina 
Jolie, Paris Hilton, J-Lo and Jennifer Anniston.  Oh, and I am SICK of 
Tom & Katie.  And my favorite grocery store isn't putting very many 
Sudoku books at the checkout line for me to try to distract myself with.  :(


Julia

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

Re: Earth Shattering BREAKING NEWS!! (not!)

[Alberto Monteiro]

Gary Nunn wrote:
>
> Ok, does anyone really care that one guy head butted another
> for insulting his lineage? Definitely don't think this warrants
> a BREAKING NEWS! Alert 
> from ABCnews.com. They must be bored today :-)
>
Is it so hard to USAns to understand how important Football
[the real one, played with a ball and the feet] is to all the
World? It's more important, for example, than the sexual
adventures of Angelina Jolie, J-Lo or Paris Hilton.

Alberto Monteiro

PS: no, I am not gay, and I don't think watching Zidane's
legs is better than the above mentioned girls' legs!

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

Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex

[Alberto Monteiro]

Charlie Bell wrote:
>
>> Unless there's a way to eliminate the need of one gender for
>> reproduction. If a large enough number of lesbians chose to
>> have girls by this method, the population could drift towards
>> the "Glory Season" equilibrium: a huge majority of lesbians
>> with a minority of males.
> 
> You can only maintain that disequilibrium through a serious  
> manipulation of the way diploid organisms breed.
>
Many animal species have a disequilibrium. One way is by polygamy.
The other way is by polyandry, and a female that puts enough eggs
to compensate the small number of females. Since humans can
hardly change ourselves into that second group, the more likely
scenario is the first.

> Eusociality is one  
> way, where kin relations make sisters more important than daughters  
> (haploid creatures like bees, wasps and ants have this bias built  
> in). Manipulation of the breeding patterns, as in Glory Season, is  
> another. But even in the scenario in which you describe, the  
> selective advantage would be towards women who have sons, and as  
> homosexuality isn't genetic (although it may have a genetic  
> component) straight daughters would also have selective advantage.
>
Homosexuality is either genetic, cultural or a mix of both. In
either case, a lesbian mother in a lesbian society will eventually 
have an influence in making the daughter lesbian too.

And lesbians have a huge advantage in selection: they select the
father of their daughters based on logical criteria, while hetero
women chose based on "love" [or hormones, etc]. So, the daughters
of lesbians will have a competitive advantage over the daughters
of non-lesbians.

>> Don't be so sure about this. Having babies is a huge investment
>> in a human's lifetime, so spending lots of money to have the
>> baby of your dreams is the most likely scenario. Gattaca comes
>> to mind - with the risk of being banned from the List, for
>> mentioning _two_ sf stories, one by Himself.
> 
> Even if it does become a common procedure, the selective balance  
> prevails. Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium models can be used to show how  
> this happens.
>
So please enlighten me about this. Intuition shows that genetic
manipulation and selection will converge to a mix of Glory Season
and Gattaca.

>> Eugenics is evil when it's done by murder - but then it should
>> not be called Eugenics but simply Mass-Murder.
> 
> Therein lies the issue. Some among us regard discarding unimplanted  
> blastocysts as murder. I don't, and I'm guessing from your tone that 
>  you don't either.
> 
If/when medical techniques evolve, it's expected that not even
this kind of selection will be necessary. Selection at the level
of eggs may be what we will do - and then there's no reason
why both eggs can't come from two women.

Males are doomed to extinction - but we will die happily.

Alberto Monteiro

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

Re: Earth Shattering BREAKING NEWS!! (not!)

[Charlie Bell]

On 12/07/2006, at 10:29 PM, Gary Nunn wrote:




Ok, does anyone really care that one guy head butted another for  
insulting

his
lineage? Definitely don't think this warrants a BREAKING NEWS!  
Alert from

ABCnews.com. They must be bored today :-)


Well, much of the world was wondering what set ZZ off, and it did  
possibly cost France the World Cup.


I do agree that "Breaking News" might be a *little* strong.

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

Earth Shattering BREAKING NEWS!! (not!)

[Gary Nunn]

Ok, does anyone really care that one guy head butted another for insulting
his 
lineage? Definitely don't think this warrants a BREAKING NEWS! Alert from
ABCnews.com. They must be bored today :-)


Breaking News from ABCNEWS.com:

FRENCH SOCCER STAR ZIDANE SAID HE HEAD BUTTED AN ITALIAN PLAYER IN THE WORLD
CUP FINAL AFTER THE PLAYER INSULTED HIS MOTHER AND SISTER. ZIDANE SAYS HE'S
SORRY BUT HAS NO REGRETS.

http://abcnews.go.com?CMP=EMC-1396 


 

 


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

Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex

[Charlie Bell]

On 12/07/2006, at 10:00 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:



Charlie Bell wrote:



Isn't the real danger of ending up with an unbalanced population,
making it difficult for a generation to find a mate, worth noting?


It's self-correcting - if there is an imbalance in gender one way,
it  is selectively advantage drives the ratio back to near 50-50.


Unless there's a way to eliminate the need of one gender for
reproduction. If a large enough number of lesbians chose to
have girls by this method, the population could drift towards
the "Glory Season" equilibrium: a huge majority of lesbians
with a minority of males.


You can only maintain that disequilibrium through a serious  
manipulation of the way diploid organisms breed. Eusociality is one  
way, where kin relations make sisters more important than daughters  
(haploid creatures like bees, wasps and ants have this bias built  
in). Manipulation of the breeding patterns, as in Glory Season, is  
another. But even in the scenario in which you describe, the  
selective advantage would be towards women who have sons, and as  
homosexuality isn't genetic (although it may have a genetic  
component) straight daughters would also have selective advantage.



Plus I  think it unlikely that it will ever be a common enough
procedure to  risk affecting the overall gender ratios (especially
as I think  unlikely that there'll be a significant bias in gender
chosen).


Don't be so sure about this. Having babies is a huge investment
in a human's lifetime, so spending lots of money to have the
baby of your dreams is the most likely scenario. Gattaca comes
to mind - with the risk of being banned from the List, for
mentioning _two_ sf stories, one by Himself.


Even if it does become a common procedure, the selective balance  
prevails. Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium models can be used to show how  
this happens.



Is eugenics itself *inherently* a bad thing? I say not. But it's
definitely, like pharmacology, nuclear physics, and chemistry, able
to be corrupted to bad ends and misused.


Eugenics is evil when it's done by murder - but then it should
not be called Eugenics but simply Mass-Murder.


Therein lies the issue. Some among us regard discarding unimplanted  
blastocysts as murder. I don't, and I'm guessing from your tone that  
you don't either.


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

Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex

[Alberto Monteiro]

Charlie Bell wrote:
>
>> Isn't the real danger of ending up with an unbalanced population,
>> making it difficult for a generation to find a mate, worth noting?
> 
> It's self-correcting - if there is an imbalance in gender one way, 
> it  is selectively advantage drives the ratio back to near 50-50. 
>
Unless there's a way to eliminate the need of one gender for
reproduction. If a large enough number of lesbians chose to
have girls by this method, the population could drift towards
the "Glory Season" equilibrium: a huge majority of lesbians
with a minority of males.

> Plus I  think it unlikely that it will ever be a common enough 
> procedure to  risk affecting the overall gender ratios (especially 
> as I think  unlikely that there'll be a significant bias in gender 
> chosen).
>
Don't be so sure about this. Having babies is a huge investment
in a human's lifetime, so spending lots of money to have the
baby of your dreams is the most likely scenario. Gattaca comes
to mind - with the risk of being banned from the List, for
mentioning _two_ sf stories, one by Himself.

> Is eugenics itself *inherently* a bad thing? I say not. But it's  
> definitely, like pharmacology, nuclear physics, and chemistry, able  
> to be corrupted to bad ends and misused.
> 
Eugenics is evil when it's done by murder - but then it should
not be called Eugenics but simply Mass-Murder.

Alberto Monteiro

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

Weekly Chat Reminder

[William T Goodall]

As Steve said,

"The Brin-L weekly chat has been a list tradition for over six
years. Way back on 27 May, 1998, Marco Maisenhelder first set
up a chatroom for the list, and on the next day, he established
a weekly chat time. We've been through several servers, chat
technologies, and even casts of regulars over the years, but
the chat goes on... and we want more recruits!

Whether you're an active poster or a lurker, whether you've
been a member of the list from the beginning or just joined
today, we would really like for you to join us. We have less
politics, more Uplift talk, and more light-hearted discussion.
We're non-fattening and 100% environmentally friendly...
-(_() Though sometimes marshmallows do get thrown.

The Weekly Brin-L chat is scheduled for Wednesday 3 PM
Eastern/2 PM Central time in the US, or 7 PM Greenwich time.
There's usually somebody there to talk to for at least eight
hours after the start time.

If you want to attend, it's really easy now. All you have to
do is send your web browser to:

  http://wtgab.demon.co.uk/~brinl/mud/

..And you can connect directly from William's new web
interface!

My instruction page tells you how to log on, and how to talk
when you get in:

  http://www.brin-l.org/brinmud.html

It also gives a list of commands to use when you're in there.
In addition, it tells you how to connect through a MUD client,
which is more complicated to set up initially, but easier and
more reliable than the web interface once you do get it set up."

-- 
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

"This message was sent automatically using cron. But even if WTG
 is away on holiday, at least it shows the server is still up."
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Crikey!

[Ronn!Blankenship]

Killer kangaroo, demon duck of doom roamed Outback

<<http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060712/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_science_australia_fossils;_ylt=Aii2PBwdv5Uu5oAVwlzlZAYZ.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA4cmUwbnA1BHNlYwMxNzAy>>,

<<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5172292.stm>>


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

Capitalism for Tots [was Introductions]

[Gibson Jonathan]

On Jul 12, 2006, at 12:53 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:


Hi, Jonathat.  Welcome to the list!

[please scroll down . . . ]


Mostly, we just need the economy to function properly again.


Define "function[ing] properly" . . .

-- Ronn! :)




OK,

Yes, let's re-organize society before breakfast.

My goals are modest: forestall the industrial feudalist model.
Here's a few talking points:
-  Strive to see wages & pay enough that a one parent can support a 
whole family with a single job.
- Executive pay shouldn't increase by factors of ten over their lowest 
paid members of their team, who rarely see any increase in good times 
or bad.
- Leading to productivity gains never reaching working folk, but 
siphoned off to "performance" benefits to executives, and sometimes 
shareholders.  How many years since there was even a modest minimum 
wage increase whereas congress builds-in $3K/yr average during this 
entire time?
- I want more money in people's pocket to buy the goods I would like to 
create and sell.
- I'd like to revoke recent congressional changes to copyright law on 
behalf of Disney, etc, that makes it impossible for creative works 
adopted by society from entering the public commons... as our Founders 
expected.
- Stop military boondoggle projects {white-collar welfare spread around 
congressional districts} and fully fund a space program that embraces & 
enables entrepreneurship and experimentation.
- Direct the moribund high-tech sector into a rejuvenated energy 
decentralization and cleaner generation system{s} and sell these goods 
to a world desperate for an upgrade: this would make the dot-com boom 
look like a fire-cracker.


Since I'm playing Chief Bottlewasher this AM I'd also break the 
thug/lawman dynamic around drug wars which costs society huge amounts 
of prison & court funds while health issues take a back seat.  America 
used to spell this P-r-o-h-i-b-i-t-i-o-n.  I've lived in Amsterdam and 
seen first-hand what happens when you remove the mafia/gangs incentives 
{gangs have no profits and lawmen no vested interest in asset 
forfeiture & aggrandizing personal power} to push the sane, rational 
and entirely civilized health-services approach.  Our DA's and Sheriffs 
are now as addicted to the drug economy as many gangs and those white 
collar figures who too-often fund illicit imports.  Better to regulate 
it like states already do with alcohol and assist the illness that do 
develop, but stop criminalizing morality.


 As Bill Murray said in Meatballs {roughly}, "It doesn't matter how 
well we play - and even if we win - because the guys across the lake 
will still get the all girls because they have the money!"  Any fool 
can have money, and often does, but that doesn't mean they are doing 
anything but leaching off others.  Paris Hilton is an excellent 
poster-girl for this foppishness: when hunger, poverty, homelessness 
are all on the rise Congress wants to enshrine the No Heir Left Behind 
tax-gratis act.  She's a relatively harmless figure compared to, say, 
Ken Lay and the harm he did - although the rolling blackouts were 
really lovely that time of year.
I treasure initiative and creative development all too often stifled by 
cartels and rigged monetary systems.  This has left me quite sour on 
the notion of Capitalism and I question the notion of profit itself.  I 
understand a service and product, but how can the goal be profit?  
Treasury functions are the mechanism to fund the creation of worthy 
goods/services that receive feedback from the marketplace {you and I} 
which justifies, enables, and {hopefully} modifies the continuation of 
such organizations to meet further needs and wants.  We've put too much 
stock in this notion of profit as the end-all.  No wonder the 
hind-brained rail against government services that see non profit - yet 
must be done to keep civ going enough for commerce to thrive: it's 
beyond there ken.


I don't have a replacement worked out, but this last decade {even the 
dot-com boom tail-end} has left me searching for something with heart.  
I think the Corporate model is pathological and I agree with our 
Founders that such enterprises must be very short-lived {human lifetime 
scales} and be stripped of "personhood".  They behave as sociopaths far 
too readily as constructed and there simply must be a social-feedback 
mechanism because right now they are an immortal form of life with 
thousands of stomachs, myopic vision and questionable brains - 
certainly no empathic system.  Our current model has recently been 
called a tapeworm economy, or Ponse-type scheme, modeled along the 
lines of Enron... and I don't see _that_ collapse having changed much.  
We need to embed self-sufficiency deeply in our psyche and actions: if 
you can't do with what you have regionally, then the model must take 
from somewhere else and is therefor unsustainable.  With the numbers of 
people on this planet and brittle institutions we've built to sustain 
us {health

RE: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex

[Jim Sharkey]

Horn, John wrote:
> On Behalf Of Jim Sharkey
>>why Australia's desire for girls?
>Must... Restrain... myself...  There are *so* many ways to answer
>that one...

Restraint?  On this list?  That's a bannable offense!  :)

Jim

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!


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

RE: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex

[Horn, John]

> On Behalf Of Jim Sharkey
> 
> Something that it looks like China will soon be facing.  
> Though that article indicates that OZ is looking for girls.  
> Can any of our Down Under folks enlighten us as to why that 
> is.  China's cultural bias is obvious, but why Australia's 
> desire for girls?

Must... Restrain... myself...  There are *so* many ways to answer
that one...

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

Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex

[Charlie Bell]

On 12/07/2006, at 2:46 PM, jdiebremse wrote:

Isn't the real danger of ending up with an unbalanced population,
making it difficult for a generation to find a mate, worth noting?


It's self-correcting - if there is an imbalance in gender one way, it  
is selectively advantage drives the ratio back to near 50-50. Plus I  
think it unlikely that it will ever be a common enough procedure to  
risk affecting the overall gender ratios (especially as I think  
unlikely that there'll be a significant bias in gender chosen).


And is this really functionally different from eugenics?


I'd say yes, but it's only a small step away. Close monitoring is  
necessary, and strict regulation. Oddly, the Australian system of  
only allowing gender selection to avoid genetic disease is closer to  
eugenics than just selecting a gender for personal reasons (like  
you've got 3 boys and want a girl...).


Is eugenics itself *inherently* a bad thing? I say not. But it's  
definitely, like pharmacology, nuclear physics, and chemistry, able  
to be corrupted to bad ends and misused.


Charlie 
___

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

Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex

[Jim Sharkey]

JDG wrote:
>Isn't the real danger of ending up with an unbalanced population,
>making it difficult for a generation to find a mate, worth noting?

Something that it looks like China will soon be facing.  Though that 
article indicates that OZ is looking for girls.  Can any of our Down 
Under folks enlighten us as to why that is.  China's cultural bias is
obvious, but why Australia's desire for girls?

Jim

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!


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

Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ronn! wrote:
>
> >
<>
>
> I don't understand what the objection is (the ones stated in the
article
> are lame), and I'm really surprised that the U.S. of all places is
the one
> allowing the procedure.


Isn't the real danger of ending up with an unbalanced population,
making it difficult for a generation to find a mate, worth noting?

And is this really functionally different from eugenics?

JDG



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

Re: An Inconvenient Truth

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So what would be the point in tapping the ANWR?

I'm not sure where this question comes from.   I personally don't
have particularly strong feelings either way about drilling in
ANWR.

If one wanted to make the case for drilling in ANWR, however, the
case would be this:
 -The oil in ANWR is currently more valuable than ever.
 -A whopping 57 million acres of Alaska are already preserved as
designated wilderness areas, forever closed to development.  This
means not just closed to mining and oil drilling, but closed to all
roads, all human structures, and even most forms of human machinery!
This land area amounts to over 15% of the land area for the entire
State.  Indeed, 57 million acres is larger than the land area in 40
other States!
 -As such, there is not a critical need for the preservation of
representative Alaskan ecosystems as designated wilderness.   The
people of Alaska are overwhelmingly in favor of drilling for oil in
this area, and given the federal interest that has already been met
by designating over 15% of their State as federal wilderness, to me,
that opinion counts for something.  Moreover, the land area in
question is already protected as a National Wildlife Refuge, the
drilling that occurs there will have to be managed concurrent with
the level of protection of the Wildlife Refuge.  So, while drilling
will naturally mean that the area won't have the highest level of
protection as wilderness, it also won't mean that the area will be
completely paved over by oil drilling either as if the land area
were, say, completely unprotected BLM Land.  As near as I can tell,
no one is talking about decertifying the ANWR as a Wildlife
Refuge.

Thus, if I were forced to cast a vote, I'd vote for drilling in ANWR
(particularly if I could convince the Republicans to make a trade by
voting for the establishment of Maine North Woods National Park in
exchange.)   And if a Democrat were elected President and made ANWR
a National Monument instead, it wouldn't bother me too much either.
Perhaps the thing that bothers me most about the issue, is the
completely disproportionate attention it has received, relative to
its significance.

JDG



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

Re: Introductions

[Ronn!Blankenship]

Hi, Jonathat.  Welcome to the list!

[please scroll down . . . ]


At 10:24 AM Tuesday 7/11/2006, Gibson Jonathan wrote:


On Jul 11, 2006, at 7:25 AM, Julia Thompson wrote:

Have you considered trying to get a job with a company that writes 
architectural software?  Seems like that might be a decent 
fit.  But I understand the appeal of self-employment.


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


Well, thank you for your concern.
I do keep my eye open to these developments and have no great desire 
to remain independent, especially now that I have a family to 
provide for - but the industry has changed.   I have sought roles 
like this many times over the years, but truth be known there is not 
that much software being developed and few leaders take risks 
exploring new products.  My own experience of late demonstrates 
executives all-too ready to shaft a local team once the design & art 
spec reaches working prototype and localization issues established - 
shipping the package overseas for completion wins our flag-pin 
wearing neo-nobility {guess my bias} Brownie points while leaving 
citizens staring at a cut-short project at only 1/3 the budget 
expected.  It's a real, recurring, problem.


Also, there have been a whole heap of us refugees from the 
building/product design world in this sector.  The fine technical 
line and creative product design aspects of the field made for easy 
transitions for many into the computer industry.  I don't feel there 
is great competition from this quarter, per se, because I always 
welcome these kindred spirits.  Many prefer the information 
architect path & milk big corps for an IT living - there just isn't 
that much design software being created as the industry ossifies and 
consolidates around fewer products.  The whole high-tech consumer 
field has shrunk and what little growth that has occurred is 
off-shored to India.  I was a defense contractor working on security 
simulations when 9-11 occurred, but that turmoil froze every budget 
{even security-oriented!} until teams simply had to disband ... and 
my politics makes for uncomfortable uniformed bosses now in charge 
ready to frown on semi-shaved "creative" types.  I've weathered 
several recessions with ease, but I never thought I should leave the 
field until just recently.
I'm more interested in applying myself to niche markets that simply 
don't show up on most corporate marketing radar... Games would be my 
first choice as this relates to the IP I've been nursing for my 
novel, but everything from hobby groups, religious accounting or 
retirement home software all can target significant populations, but 
fall through mass-market cracks as CEO's keep their eyes on 
horizon-sized pieces of pie.  I also like this because it keeps 
things much more intimately local.

Mostly, we just need the economy to function properly again.




Define "function[ing] properly" . . .



-- Ronn! :)

Ronn Blankenship
Sometime Adjunct Instructor of Astronomy/Planetary Science
University of Montevallo
Montevallo, AL

Disclaimer:  Unless specifically stated otherwise, any opinions 
contained herein are the personal opinions of the author and do not 
represent the official position of the University of Montevallo.



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