Re: Religion Discussion, was God, Religion and Sports
At 01:23 PM 7/4/03 -0400, David Hobby 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. I'm not sure what you are getting at in the last paragraph. Let's change the topic under discussion from religion to astronomy (or math, or physics, or some other subject at which you may be considered an expert). When I go into the classroom, it is assumed that I know something about the topic, and that it is not just a possibility but a certainty that the students in the class do not know as much about it as I do. So what I do is to share as much of my knowledge of the topic with them as is possible. However, it seems as if the above is saying that instead of sharing my knowledge with others, if they do not already know what I know, I should pretend that I don't know either? Is that the correct interpretation, or am I misreading what the above says? If you aren't ...open to the possibility that others don't know (?) ... , there really isn't much to say, is there? But since I am open to the possibility that others don't know as much as I do about certain topics, I am willing to share what I do know in order to help others learn more about those topics. Do we agree, or am I missing the point you were trying to make? -- Ronn! :) Ronn Blankenship 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
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
At 12:10 PM 7/4/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 03:25:48PM -, iaamoac wrote: 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? If you are not willing to change your assumptions based on data, then the discussion will be rather limited. Does that apply equally to atheists and agnostics as well as believers? If religion is measured on a linear scale with atheists on one end and zealots and literalists on the other end, then it seems that agnostics are the most neutral and willing to change assumptions, and therefore the best viewpoint for a productive discussion. At least, that is how I interpreted David's comment. So agnostics are just as willing to find out if God exists as they are to find out that God does not exist? --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: God, Religion, and Sports
At 10:16 AM 7/4/03 -0600, Michael Harney wrote: Every time I bring up anything related to vegetarianism I get pounced on by people acting less than civil. With all due respect, and I am NOT talking about you, I think many people react that way because SOME vegetarians are every bit as zealous about that lifestyle as the most fundamentalist Christian is about his/her beliefs, and like those fundamentalist Christians, the zealous vegetarians say that anyone who does not believe and behave as they do is evil. Thus, as some here have pointed out that there are some Christians who display intolerance for others' beliefs and practices that as far as those list members are concerned all who label themselves Christian must accept the blame for that attitude and expect others to consider them guilty of that attitude, many who have had previous encounters with zealous vegetarians worry that all who identify themselves as vegetarians are similarly intolerant of anyone who is not a vegetarian. --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: God, Religion, and Sports
At 04:16 AM 7/4/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:13:00AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: But is it likely to be any more possible for the believers to adopt an agnostic viewpoint, even temporarily, than for the agnostics or atheists to adopt the viewpoint of a believer, even temporarily? In other words, is it easier for a neutral-rational person to adopt an extreme-irrational position, or for an extreme-irrational person to adopt a neutral-rational position? Interesting question. To me, it's possible for a rational, sane, intelligent, educated person to be a believer, an agnostic, or an atheist, just as, frex, it is possible for a rational, sane, intelligent, educated person to be a Republican, an independent, or a Democrat. Or, to put it another way, I think you could plot rationality and belief on two orthogonal axes, with some people ending up in each of the four quadrants (rational/believer, irrational/believer, rational/non-believer, irrational/non-believer). OTOH, it seems that some people believe that a person who believes in God by definition is irrational, just as some people seem to believe that a person who principally votes for one of the two major parties is either irrational or evil. So I guess the question becomes Which is the more neutral position, the one that recognizes that belief and rationality are two different characteristics, or the one which says that all believers are irrational? --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: God, Religion, and Sports
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 06:13:40AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 04:16 AM 7/4/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: In other words, is it easier for a neutral-rational person to adopt an extreme-irrational position, or for an extreme-irrational person to adopt a neutral-rational position? Interesting question. So I guess the question becomes Which is the more neutral position, the one that recognizes that belief and rationality are two different characteristics, or the one which says that all believers are irrational? That it a very different question, and not nearly as interesting. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 04:49:54AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: So agnostics are just as willing to find out if God exists as they are to find out that God does not exist? That is pretty much the definition, I thought. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
My point is that the biography does not idolize him as a person. The author idolizes him as an athlete and appreciates him as a man. But I would make the point that Kofax seems unique in his maintaining his dignity and his refusal to cash in on his celebrity. But rather then argue this I would suggest that you read the book to learn of his small kindnesses and his interactions with others. I have read the book. Again, I agree with you that it is not Koufax elevating himself. A lot of people are dignified and kind. I know it isn't Leavy who elevates him but rather many of his other admirers. 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: God, Religion, and Sports
Erik Reuter wrote: On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 04:49:54AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: So agnostics are just as willing to find out if God exists as they are to find out that God does not exist? That is pretty much the definition, I thought. I agree. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Spider space elevator? (was: US-based missiles tohaveglobalr each)
I see 2 smallish problems with your analogy. 1 It ignores the control systems of an elevator and the fact that control systems operate independent of current cable length. 2 Loading on the bungee cord would take it to its maximum length (assuming it could even support the load of a cab). The bouncing you propose is likely a fantasy making the proposal irrational. I'll add 3 The automatic braking system would kick in response to an elevator exceeding the limits set for acceleration. My case in point was when a bunch of early morning pc techs decided one morning to load up into a small elevator, then started to jump in unison. The automatic brake kicked in, and they were stranded in the elevator for an hour until security started for the day. NFH Erik is a really smart guy, and I would never say anything other. My point is that his analogy doesn't pan out when filtered through practical experience. Don't the bungee cords you've used have a maximum length? xponent I'm S Stupid Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
I think some of the arguments in this thread beg important questions. E.g., altruistic behavior doesn't require faith because it leads to success as a species; success is an outcome of evolution, so altruism evolved. Is that right? The first part begs the question of success as a species. If success is nothing more than survival (is there another scientific definition?), then this is the anthropic principal. The second part (altruism is an outcome of evolution) is circular, since it assumes that our characteristics are derived exclusively from evolutionary processes. Even if true, it begs the question of the origin of evolution as we understand it. Like everything else, evolution would seem to be grounded in the fundamental physics of the universe, but that doesn't really answer anything about altruism, does it? In fact, it starts to seem imaginary, doesn't it? How about if we apply the same reasoning to religious behavior? It must lead to success as a species; otherwise it wouldn't have evolved. One can justify any human characteristic that way. I see bigger problems than the logical ones above. First, nobody knows if anyone does anything for just one reason, I'd argue -- we never really know if our motivations are altruistic or not, and it's not a Boolean function! Clearly, we know a lot of what happens in our brains, so we have far less than perfect knowledge of our motivations. I certainly have had flashes of insight that some of my supposedly altruistic behavior had big selfish components. Imagine, for example, a person who is quite certain that disrupting this community to demand better behavior, who realizes that he actually is craving the disruption and attention that results (any similarity to persons living or dead is probably less than a coincidence). I think the same sort of argument applies to us as a species. While evolution may be the mechanism that gave us altruistic behavior, none of us has perfect knowledge of what behavior in a specific situation will contribute to evolutionary success. Without that knowledge, such decisions cannot be logical, at least in the formal sense of logic. For me, faith is largely a response to imperfect knowledge. Although I'd like to operate as if I know myself, my species and everything else well enough to remove ambiguity (supervisor-of-the-universe mode), I've only found peace when I accept that I will never fully understand my own motivations or those of humanity in general (humble mode, much harder to stick with). I have faith because I am convinced that it leads to greater wisdom than logical processes alone. This doesn't just mean that I accept a lack of knowledge, it means that I believe that some valuable ideas just cannot be understood rationally. Perhaps this means nothing more than the fact that a society is smarter than its individuals and no member can assimilate all that it knows, so we are obligated to accept some of society's teachings on faith or live outside of society. Or perhaps it means that there is a God who has perfect knowledge, to which we have access in a less comprehensible way. I don't know, but I've made a choice and while it isn't the most logical, it is the most life-giving, to paraphrase Rich Mullins. Nick -- Nick Arnett Phone/fax: (408) 904-7198 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 10:16 AM 7/4/03 -0600, Michael Harney wrote: Every time I bring up anything related to vegetarianism I get pounced on by people acting less than civil. With all due respect, and I am NOT talking about you, I think many people react that way because SOME vegetarians are every bit as zealous about that lifestyle as the most fundamentalist Christian is about his/her beliefs, and like those fundamentalist Christians, the zealous vegetarians say that anyone who does not believe and behave as they do is evil. Thus, as some here have pointed out that there are some Christians who display intolerance for others' beliefs and practices that as far as those list members are concerned all who label themselves Christian must accept the blame for that attitude and expect others to consider them guilty of that attitude, many who have had previous encounters with zealous vegetarians worry that all who identify themselves as vegetarians are similarly intolerant of anyone who is not a vegetarian. I am well aware of that fact, and it only solidifies the point of my original message. The fact that I am being projected and generalized on just parrallels JDG's situation that much more as he is deeling with the obvious projections and generalizations of The Fool and maybe some other list members (honestly I haven't been following the thread too closely). Read the whole of my post, it wasn't a complaint to the list, it was just used as an example to illustrate to JDG that other people deal with the same sort of bias and that there are other (and IMO better) ways of dealing with it than complaining to the list about it. 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: God, Religion, and Sports
On Monday, July 7, 2003, at 02:59 pm, iaamoac wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 04:49:54AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: So agnostics are just as willing to find out if God exists as they are to find out that God does not exist? That is pretty much the definition, I thought. In practice, I think that many, if not most, agnostics are simply honest atheists. So atheists are dishonest? Are you just being rude as usual or do you have any kind of a point at all? Since true atheism would require a matter of faith - No it doesn't. All of this has been gone over many many times on this list and you obviously have never paid the least bit of attention, yet you have the discourtesy to interject your nonsense despite not having a clue what you are talking about. That is very very rude. since a negative cannot be proved, Can you even read? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible. - Bertrand Russell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] The only way I know of to get a simple equation is to make a couple approximations: (1) The temperature of all the air is the same, 300K (2) The air all rotates with the endcaps, speed proportional to radial distance from center The second approximation, or assumption, makes good sense. But the first begs the question. Is the air temperature the same throughout the spinning space habitat? Think of a parcel of air near the axis. It cools and becomes denser than the surrounding air. So it drops towards the rim. As it drops its pressure increases. Does it not heat up? (As well as move anti-spinward.) Erik Reuter goes on to say: Here is the corrected formula for the pressure in the habitat as a function of height h: P/P0 = exp[ - ( h / R )^2 / ( 2 k T / ( m g R ) ) ] = exp[ - ( h / R )^2 / 3.45 ] So to make a table, evaluate: (mapconcat '(lambda (h) Calculate air pressures in a spinning space habitat (format %f \n (let ((e 2.718181828) (R 5.0)) ; radius of habitat (expt e (- (/ (expt (/ h R) 2) 3.45)) '(0 1 2 3 4 5) ) Altitude Atm. Pressure for a spinning space habitat, radius 5 km 0.0 1.00 rim (i.e., `surface') 1.0 0.99 2.0 0.95 3.0 0.90 4.0 0.83 5.0 0.75 central spin axis On earth, according to the standard tables, the pressure at 3 km (9800 feet) is 0.7 of an atmosphere. In this spinning space habitat, at 3 km it is 0.9 atm. So the pressure drop is less in the spinning space habitat than on earth. Indeed, according to this table, it would be possible for humans to breath the air at the central spin axis; its pressure there, 3/4 of an atmosphere, is about the same as on earth at an altitude of 2 km or 6500 ft. Incidentally, according to Erik's formula, the pressure at the center of a spinning space habitat with a radius 8 km, like Rama, would be nearly 0.9 of the pressure at the rim. But I still wonder what the standard temperature is? What is the lapse rate? How much does temperature drop per kilometer of increased altitude? How much does dew point drop? -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Same-sex marriage
So why are US Conservatives against same-sex marriage? Do they want to force same-sex couples to live in sin? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Those who study history are doomed to repeat it. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Space Elevator was RE: US-based missiles to have global reach
-Original Message- From: Richard Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 11:18 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: US-based missiles to have global reach Erik said: I'd even be willing to bet that no serious agency in the world has even STARTED actual construction of a space elevator by 2023. I'd be willing to bet that too. The construction of a space elevator would require the manufacture of many, many orders of magnitude more carbon nanotubes (or whatever) than have ever been made. I a currently collecting data to suggest the total output of Carbon Nanotube (fullerenes) raw material worldwide in the next decade to be in excess of 3000 tons. The proposed space elevator (from my past post) only requires 20 tons of cable to get started. It then hauls up the next few elevators. My estimates place the cable, and the anchoring spacecraft within the mass capacity for lift of 2 shuttle missions. In my past message, I listed out the web sites that contained information on current plans for a space elevator. Here are some more: Chinese develop machine that creates 15kg/hour of nanotube material - 2001 http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?document_id=2608 University of Texas researchers create fibers 4 times stronger that spider silk, 20 stronger than steel, and 17 times stronger than Kelvar. (Go Texas!) http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?document_id=6204 June 2003 For the first time, the team got nanotubes to align and clump together into long, tough fibers. After spinning nanotubes in a vat of polyvinyl alcohol, the scientists drew out black threads that were roughly the width of a human hair and often stretched longer than a football field. Buy Nanotube material by the gram online http://www.cnanotech.com/pages/store/6-0_online_store.html It would also require such a substantial counterweight that we'd have to capture a near-Earth asteroid, and we won't have the space infrastructure to do that for many decades (assuming we even manage to climb out of the market inelasticity trap). That was Kim Stanley Robinson's space elevator. We are probably 100 years away from that. In order to anchor a 20 ton cable, along with another 20 tons of cargo on the cable, will not take an astroid to anchor. I am certainly not questioning your assumptions, because we are talking about 2 very different models for a space elevator. KSR's Space elevator is impractical, and practically impossible. When he wrote about the space elevators, buckytubes were barely discovered. Who knew then you could make it into conductive rope? Nerd from Hell Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion Discussion, was God, Religion and Sports
--- Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 01:23 PM 7/4/03 -0400, David Hobby 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. I'm not sure what you are getting at in the last paragraph. Let's change the topic under discussion from religion to astronomy (or math, or physics, or some other subject at which you may be considered an expert). When I go into the classroom, it is assumed that I know something about the topic, and that it is not just a possibility but a certainty that the students in the class do not know as much about it as I do. So what I do is to share as much of my knowledge of the topic with them as is possible. However, it seems as if the above is saying that instead of sharing my knowledge with others, if they do not already know what I know, I should pretend that I don't know either? Is that the correct interpretation, or am I misreading what the above says? If you aren't ...open to the possibility that others don't know (?) ... , there really isn't much to say, is there? But since I am open to the possibility that others don't know as much as I do about certain topics, I am willing to share what I do know in order to help others learn more about those topics. Do we agree, or am I missing the point you were trying to make? Ronn, I think you are missing the point. You are getting cought up in alternate interpritations of the words being used. You have gone off down a metiforical path which has little to do with the original conversation. I could easily repond with Take yourself out of the position of teacher and treat the others in the disagreement as if they were equals. but then I would taking that path with you and that would be counter productive. Let em see if I can help. The Idea here is that two equaly intelegant people have a disagreement on of somthing or other we wil call (X). Person (A) believes that (X) is True, but person (B) does not. If they are going to have an enlightened disagreement where each is open to the posability that they migt be wrong they should each start from a position that the -truth value- of A is unknown, and then describe to the other how a postition of truth or falsification is reached. Persons of faith tend not to want to engage in this type of discussion about their faith. Even though they are willing to have (and often require) this type of discussion on every other topic. = _ 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
--- Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 12:10 PM 7/4/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 03:25:48PM -, iaamoac wrote: 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? If you are not willing to change your assumptions based on data, then the discussion will be rather limited. Does that apply equally to atheists and agnostics as well as believers? Yes If religion is measured on a linear scale with atheists on one end and zealots and literalists on the other end, then it seems that agnostics are the most neutral and willing to change assumptions, and therefore the best viewpoint for a productive discussion. At least, that is how I interpreted David's comment. So agnostics are just as willing to find out if God exists as they are to find out that God does not exist? Yes = _ 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
--- iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 04:49:54AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: So agnostics are just as willing to find out if God exists as they are to find out that God does not exist? That is pretty much the definition, I thought. In practice, I think that many, if not most, agnostics are simply honest atheists. Since true atheism would require a matter of faith - since a negative cannot be proved, many people who might casually be thought of as atheists tend to self-characterize themselves as agnostic. As such, I think a great many of self- described agnostics strongly lean atheist. It would be the same as being agnostic about the space alien zipeldorbgh from the planet tripalawalazipdang. I can neither prove nor disprove zipeldobgh's existance. = _ 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: Same-sex marriage
On 7 Jul 2003 at 17:09, William T Goodall wrote: So why are US Conservatives against same-sex marriage? Do they want to force same-sex couples to live in sin? They think it's a sin in the first place. In the abstract, I agree. But I won't judge individuals for that kind of personal choice. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday, July 7, 2003, at 02:59 pm, iaamoac wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 04:49:54AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: So agnostics are just as willing to find out if God exists as they are to find out that God does not exist? That is pretty much the definition, I thought. In practice, I think that many, if not most, agnostics are simply honest atheists. So atheists are dishonest? Are you just being rude as usual or do you have any kind of a point at all? Since true atheism would require a matter of faith - No it doesn't. All of this has been gone over many many times on this list and you obviously have never paid the least bit of attention, yet you have the discourtesy to interject your nonsense despite not having a clue what you are talking about. That is very very rude. since a negative cannot be proved, Can you even read? William, I am sorry, but it seems that you were vexed by the post you are responding to above. However, it seems that you are under some alternative interpritation. Your cry of rudeness seems unwarented. Perhaps you shoudl re-read and reconsider the intent, with the assumption that it is not meant to vex. = _ 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: Same-sex marriage
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So why are US Conservatives against same-sex marriage? Do they want to force same-sex couples to live in sin? Maybe it is becouse they think that they are already living in sin and what they are afraid of is that their children, or childrens children will think that it si all right or even appropriate to live in that kind of sin. Such people have a hard time seperating religous consepts from law. They beleive that our laws should match their religious consepts. Fortunatly this nation was founded in part on the consept that the two should be seperate. A good American would shun religious conservatism. = _ 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: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 04:06:48PM +, Robert J. Chassell wrote: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] The only way I know of to get a simple equation is to make a couple approximations: (1) The temperature of all the air is the same, 300K (2) The air all rotates with the endcaps, speed proportional to radial distance from center The second approximation, or assumption, makes good sense. But the first begs the question. Is the air temperature the same throughout the spinning space habitat? Probably not. As I said, I didn't make the assumptions because I thought they were the best model of the habitat, I made them because they were the minimum assumptions I could make that allowed me to come up with a simple formula. In defense of the assumption, the same assumptions produces a model of Earth's pressure that is quite accurate (better than 5%) over a large altitutde range (10's of kms). So, that assumption probably does not result in total nonsense. Erik Reuter goes on to say: Here is the corrected formula for the pressure in the habitat as a function of height h: P/P0 = exp[ - ( h / R )^2 / ( 2 k T / ( m g R ) ) ] = exp[ - ( h / R )^2 / 3.45 ] Incidentally, according to Erik's formula, the pressure at the center of a spinning space habitat with a radius 8 km, like Rama, would be nearly 0.9 of the pressure at the rim. No, don't think so. Where did you get 0.9? Note that the 3.45 number has a 1/R factor in it. If R goes from 5km to 8km, then 3.45 goes to 2.16. Then, exp[- 1/2.16] is 0.63. The larger the radius, the lower the pressure at the center. But I still wonder what the standard temperature is? What is the lapse rate? How much does temperature drop per kilometer of increased altitude? How much does dew point drop? Those questions are well beyond my calculation abilities. If you are interested in doing a simulation, I'd be willing to work with you, but I'd have to do some reading on how to deal with the moisture and air currents and so on. I'm certain there won't be an accurate closed form solution. At best we will probably start with some boundary conditions and grid up the air in the habitat and then run the formulas. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Space Elevator was RE: US-based missiles to have global reach
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:16:49AM -0700, Chad Cooper wrote: I a currently collecting data to suggest the total output of Carbon Nanotube (fullerenes) raw material worldwide in the next decade to be in excess of 3000 tons. The proposed space elevator (from my past post) only requires 20 tons of cable to get started. It then hauls up the next few elevators. My estimates place the cable, and the anchoring spacecraft within the mass capacity for lift of 2 shuttle missions. When you collect that data, better make sure that it is data for ROPES or SHEETS with sufficient strength and durability. As far as I have read, they do not exist yet. So any estimates for something that hasn't yet been made are highly suspect. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Same-sex marriage
William T Goodall wrote: So why are US Conservatives against same-sex marriage? Do they want to force same-sex couples to live in sin? They don't want there to be any same-sex couples, period. They don't want anyone to engage in homosexual acts. Many conservatives belong to the religious right. I've had someone throwing Leviticus at me on this issue. Julia who doesn't really care what other people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms with other consenting adults; if it's sinful, that's something they and God will have to work out without her ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Software licenses don't work
http://www.idg.se/ArticlePages/idgnet.asp?id=4635 Software licenses don't work 2003-07-04 01:18 SAN FRANCISCO - IDG News Service\San Francisco Bureau - Robert McMillan PeopleSoft Inc. may be spending its nights tossing and turning about a hostile takeover by Oracle Corp, but maybe Oracle should be the one losing sleep. At least that's what O'Reilly Associates Inc. Chief Executive Officer Tim O'Reilly believes. EBay Inc. will someday buy Oracle, open source licenses don't work, and the software market is about to change forever. These are three of the predictions that O'Reilly, a well-known publisher of technical books and an open source advocate, had to offer in an interview conducted the week before his company's annual Open Source Convention. The conference, which attracts a who's who of the open source community, will be held in Portland, Oregon, next week. IDGNS: You're keynoting at the Open Source Convention next week. What will you be talking about? Tim O'Reilly: I think there's a paradigm shift going on right now, and it's really around both open source and the Internet, and it's not entirely clear which one is the driver and which one is the passenger, but at least they are fellow travellers. Let me give you an example of what I would consider a paradigm failure that happens all the time in the open source community. The critic of open source says, Open source is just not very good at building easy-to-use software. And the open source defender says, Oh, you haven't seen the latest version of Gnome (GNU Object Model Environment). It's really getting pretty good. Nobody is pointing out something that I think is way more significant: all of the killer apps of the Internet era: Amazon (.com, Inc), Google (Inc.), and Maps.yahoo.com. They run on Linux or FreeBSD, but they're not apps in the way that people have traditionally thought of applications, so they just don't get considered. Amazon is built with Perl on top of Linux. It's basically a bunch of open source hackers, but they're working for a company that's as fiercely proprietary as any proprietary software company. What's wrong with this picture? Well, one thing is that one of the fundamental premises of open source is that the licenses are all conditioned on the act of software distribution, and once you're no longer distributing an application, none of the licenses mean squat. I would go further than the fact that the licenses don't work. I would also point out that these applications are fundamentally different in that their interfaces are composed much more of data than they are of just software. My basic premise is, Let's stop thinking about licenses for a little bit. Let's stop thinking that that's the core of what matters about open source. And that's not to say that they're completely unimportant, it's just that they can blind (us) to other things that are perhaps more important. IDGNS: Like what? O'Reilly: The commoditization of software. Open source is a contributor to the commoditization of software, but it's not the only contributor. Open standards lead to commoditization. The Web browser is proprietary, but it's a commodity. Basically, we're really seeing the development of something that's analogous to hardware with the IBM (Corp.) PC. If you look at what happened to the hardware business, there was a transitional period where everybody tried to play by the old rules. It wasn't until Dell (Computer Corp.) figured out that, no, the rules really are different, and the business levers are different, that we saw somebody figure out how to really leverage commodity hardware. Ian Murdock, the guy who started Debian, and now runs a company called Progeny (Linux Systems Inc.) is right on track with this. Instead of seeing Linux as a product, he sees Linux as a set of commodity software components he can put together for different purposes. IDGNS: Isn't that how IBM sees Linux? O'Reilly: Absolutely, but I would say that IBM's current strategy with open source is very close to the Compaq (Computer Corp.) strategy in the early days of the PC. There were a whole bunch of vendors who took this commodity thing and tried to tweak it and improve it and add value in some way, and differentiate themselves that way. And so (with) WebSphere, for example, (IBM says) OK, we'll put together a bunch of open source components with a bunch of proprietary components and we'll bundle it up in some way that everybody will say, OK, I guess I've got to pay for it. That's a lot like Compaq's strategy. Somebody will come along eventually and put together the complete open source stack. If you look at the history of the PC, the Compaq strategy didn't fail. It's just that the Dell strategy was marginally better. The whole essence of the Dell approach was build to order, and I think we're going to see the emergence of that business model for Linux. IDGNS: Is the open source software stack mature enough for there to be an open source Dell?
Re: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
I figured out some of the values relating to Rama; the air is thin and the acceleration figures are not consistent with other claims. Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rama had a radius of about 8km. They entered near the axis and began descending in spacesuits. After descending 2km, they found the pressure was about 300millibars. Not enough to breathe, although Mercer briefly sniffed the air, but he put his helmet back on afterwards. Gravity was 0.1 earth gravities at that point. Slightly below that, they were able to breathe the atmosphere. The surface gravity was 0.6 earth gravities. I didn't see a mention of the pressure at the surface. Let's reverse engineer: * Find the spin rate, when given the radius and surface acceleration | 4 pi^2 r T = period-of-rotation = \ | -- \| A or (let ((pi 3.14159265359) (r 8000) (A 6)) (sqrt (/ (* 4 (expt pi 2) r) A))) == 229.43 seconds or nearly four minutes per revolution. * Find air pressures, when given the radius, surface acceleration, and the air pressure at an altitude; P = P0 exp[ - ( h / R )^2 / ( 2 k T / ( m g R ) ) ] P0 exp[ - ( h / R )^2 / 3.45 ] From Erik: Rama had a radius of about 8km. After descending 2km, they found the pressure was about 300 millibars. So to make a table, evaluate: (mapconcat '(lambda (h) Calculate air pressures in a spinning space habitat (format %f \n (let ((e 2.718181828) (R 8.0)) ; radius of habitat (expt e (- (/ (expt (/ h R) 2) 3.45)) '(0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8) ) Pressure Pressure Calculated pressure Altitude ratiogiven in book 0.0 1.000 353 rim (i.e., `surface') 1.0 0.995 351 2.0 0.982 347 3.0 0.960 339 4.0 0.930 328 5.0 0.892 315 6.0 0.850 300 mb 300 7.0 0.801 283 8.0 0.748 264 central spin axis (Calculated pressure is 353 times Pressure-ratio) * Does the acceleration fit the other info consistently? According to Erik, at an altitude of 6 km (i.e., 2 km from the spin axis), the acceleration was 1 m/s^2 Knowing that A = v^2/r, where A is the acceleration and v is the tangential velocity of the rim, equal to circumference/time-of-a-rotation. Since v = (2 pi r)/T, A = (4 pi^2 r)/T^2 and r =(A T^2)/(4 pi^2) (let ((pi 3.14159265359) (r 2000) (T 229.43)) (/ (* 4 (expt pi 2) r) (expt T 2))) == 1.5 m/s^2, which does not fit. For an acceleration of 1/10 gravity, the distance from the axis must be (let ((pi 3.14159265359) (A 1.0) (T 229.43)) (/ (* A (expt T 2)) (* 4 (expt pi 2 == 1.3 km and the altitude from the rim must be 6.7 km at which point the pressure is (* 353 (let ((e 2.718181828) (R 8.0)) ; radius of habitat (expt e (- (/ (expt (/ 6.7 R) 2) 3.45) == 288 mb which is equivalent to about 8800 meters on the Earth or the height of Mt. Everest. * Can the humans breath? Humans have a hard time breathing a standard Earthly air mix when the pressure is less than about 40% of sea level, or less than about 400 mb. This is equivalent to an altitude of 6500 meters (21000 ft) on Earth. However, people can survive breathing natural air that is as thin as the top of Mt. Everest, approx 285 mb, but that takes acclimatization. -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
By the way, does anyone know why so many science fiction writers descripe spinning space habitats as being longer than they are wide? Such habitats are intrinsically unstable. But habitats that are wider than they are long are intrinsically stable I know that the habitats are supposed to have stability controls -- just pump water around. Nonetheless, it is easier to keep an instrinsically stable system stable than to stabilize an unstable configuration. -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Religion based ethics
I decided to finish my reply on religion based ethics, since there've been comments on me ducking the issue. I am more than happy to discuss it; its just that it takes a bit of time to clearly express my thoughts on it. Even if man is 'created in the image and likeness of God' that says nothing about how men should treat each others without an additional assumption that 'those created in the image and likeness of God must be treated in such and such ways'. Right, just as if one points out how valuable $100 bills are, there is nothing said about burning them being a bad idea. Rather, they are simply called valuable. I cannot imagine picturing someone as the image and likeness of Love and Truth and Goodness, and still thinking there is nothing at all wrong with harming them. So you might as well ditch the 'image and likeness of God' part and go directly to the 'must be treated in such and such ways' part. God is a redundant assumption that adds nothing to the line of argument. No, not really. To me, the real question/the real dividing point is whether one accepts the transcendental. Once one does this, one is arguing theology when one sees Love and Goodness as self-aware and the foundation of all existence or as non-self aware principals. I certainly will not claim any proof of God's existence by simplicity; I was just pointing out having one starting point for self worth, the foundation of Love, the foundation of right and wrong is not really a matter of complication. I would add that although the concept of god IS redundant to that argument, it may have been useful in persuading people to the 'must be treated in such and such ways' point of view. But I question its usefulness for that purpose today in places where we are enlightened enough not to need fear and superpower to motivate and comfort us. Its amazing that such a large number of folks arguing with theists argue against a 6th graders understanding of God. Why, if you are so sure of your position, don't you consider the understanding of God put forth by serious adults? For me, the question of God is not fear of punishment if I break the rules. It's a more being out of sync with Truth and Good when I do wrong. I really worry little about heaven and hell, but worry a good deal about how my actions jib with actually living out love. Are we not mature enough to persuade people to morality by honest argument, trusting them to make their choices with their eyes open, rather than tricking them into believing in fairy tales and fearing boogey-men? What constitutes having their eyes open? It certainly is not pretending that morality comes from genetics, since we have inherent tendencies to do both immoral and moral things. Rather, it comes from accepting the implications of one's position. One of the reasons I enjoyed Weinberg's arguments in a recent discussion in Houston on God and science is that he readily acknowledged the difficult conclusions that could be derived from his position. He regretted, but accepted, the unpleasant consequences of atheism, rather than waving his arms and pretending that could eliminate them. One of the conclusions he accepted was the difficult position someone with his philosophy has with the foundation of ethics. It was one of his greatest regrets in life that there was no logical/calculus foundation for ethics. It was clear, by the nature of his statements, that he accepted that ethics have no firm foundation in his worldview. Indeed, he volunteered this when he was asked about regrets. There's an atheist with his eyes open. I respectfully differ with his position, but he certainly has strong integrity. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Same-sex marriage
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 12:54 PM Subject: Re: Same-sex marriage William T Goodall wrote: So why are US Conservatives against same-sex marriage? Do they want to force same-sex couples to live in sin? They don't want there to be any same-sex couples, period. They don't want anyone to engage in homosexual acts. Many conservatives belong to the religious right. I've had someone throwing Leviticus at me on this issue. Have you thought of asking them if they ever wore cotton blends? If so, they are violating Leviticus. :-) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion Discussion, was God, Religion and Sports
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 01:23 PM 7/4/03 -0400, David Hobby 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. I'm not sure what you are getting at in the last paragraph. Let's change the topic under discussion from religion to astronomy (or math, or physics, or some other subject at which you may be considered an expert). When I go into the classroom, it is assumed that I know something about the topic, and that it is not just a possibility but a certainty that the students in the class do not know as much about it as I do. No, our situation is more like a seminar. We all know a lot about some subjects, and less about others. You need to be respectful, and not assume you know more than others. We have different data and viewpoints, and are trying to work out what is true. In that sense, I'm asking for a spirit of scientific inquiry. ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion based ethics
On Monday, July 7, 2003, at 07:24 pm, Dan Minette wrote: I decided to finish my reply on religion based ethics, since there've been comments on me ducking the issue. I am more than happy to discuss it; its just that it takes a bit of time to clearly express my thoughts on it. Even if man is 'created in the image and likeness of God' that says nothing about how men should treat each others without an additional assumption that 'those created in the image and likeness of God must be treated in such and such ways'. Right, just as if one points out how valuable $100 bills are, there is nothing said about burning them being a bad idea. Rather, they are simply called valuable. The analogy is closer to 1) Man is made in God's image = This is a $100 bill 2) 'those created in the image and likeness'... = $100 bills are valuable. I cannot imagine picturing someone as the image and likeness of Love and Truth and Goodness, and still thinking there is nothing at all wrong with harming them. Sorry, but I don't see how the limitations of your imagination constitute an argument. So you might as well ditch the 'image and likeness of God' part and go directly to the 'must be treated in such and such ways' part. God is a redundant assumption that adds nothing to the line of argument. No, not really. Yes, really. To me, the real question/the real dividing point is whether one accepts the transcendental. Once one does this, one is arguing theology when one sees Love and Goodness as self-aware and the foundation of all existence or as non-self aware principals. I certainly will not claim any proof of God's existence by simplicity; I was just pointing out having one starting point for self worth, the foundation of Love, the foundation of right and wrong is not really a matter of complication. So you don't have an argument then? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ A bad thing done for a good cause is still a bad thing. It's why so few people slap their political opponents. That, and because slapping looks so silly. - Randy Cohen. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
Erik Reuter wrote: On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 12:38:36AM -0400, David Hobby wrote: Yes, but I gave arguments showing that it did not give reasonable results. Not at all convincing arguments, with no numbers or equations. They may not have convinced you, but they were intuitive to me. And I was correct, your formula was wrong. By the way, I just re-read Rama. The atmosphere changes quite a bit later on after the Cylindrical Sea melts. That was what allowed the Dragonfly pilot to breathe near the axis. Oh. I thought that I had read the first one. Sorry. ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:47:03PM -0400, David Hobby wrote: Oh. I thought that I had read the first one. Sorry. The cylindrical sea melts in the first one, that was what I was referring to. But they go in before it melts, and that is when most of the numbers are given. It melts and causes a hurricane, and much higher O2 levels (apparently there was an organic soup frozen in there that released a lot of O2) -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
Robert J. Chassell wrote: By the way, does anyone know why so many science fiction writers descripe spinning space habitats as being longer than they are wide? Such habitats are intrinsically unstable. But habitats that are wider than they are long are intrinsically stable I know that the habitats are supposed to have stability controls -- just pump water around. Nonetheless, it is easier to keep an instrinsically stable system stable than to stabilize an unstable configuration. It probably makes for an environment that the reader is more comfortable visualizing. It also makes for more interesting crises. So, from a writer's reader's standpoint, it may be desirable, even if it isn't from an engineering standpoint. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Same-sex marriage
In a message dated 7/7/2003 11:38:33 AM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Have you thought of asking them if they ever wore cotton blends? If so, they are violating Leviticus. :-) 50% straight cotton? 50% gay cotton? Vilyehm Teighlore - Toke that barge Uplift that baleen. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Same-sex marriage
Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 12:54 PM Subject: Re: Same-sex marriage Many conservatives belong to the religious right. I've had someone throwing Leviticus at me on this issue. Have you thought of asking them if they ever wore cotton blends? If so, they are violating Leviticus. :-) No, and I haven't called them on eating cheeseburgers, either, which I ought to do if they use that argument over lunch ;) Julia who eats cheeseburgers ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
In a message dated 7/7/2003 12:08:13 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Robert J. Chassell wrote: By the way, does anyone know why so many science fiction writers descripe spinning space habitats as being longer than they are wide? Such habitats are intrinsically unstable. But habitats that are wider than they are long are intrinsically stable I know that the habitats are supposed to have stability controls -- just pump water around. Nonetheless, it is easier to keep an instrinsically stable system stable than to stabilize an unstable configuration. It probably makes for an environment that the reader is more comfortable visualizing. Gee. I was going to say more people get off on seeing giant phalic symbols than giant pizzas. Julia William Taylor What da hell happens if Frank jogs in the opposite direction? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think some of the arguments in this thread beg important questions. E.g., altruistic behavior doesn't require faith because it leads to success as a species; success is an outcome of evolution, so altruism evolved. Is that right? The first part begs the question of success as a species. If success is nothing more than survival (is there another scientific definition?), then this is the anthropic principal. The week one, not the strong one. The second part (altruism is an outcome of evolution) is circular, since it assumes that our characteristics are derived exclusively from evolutionary processes. There is no reason for it to be exclusive. Even if true, it begs the question of the origin of evolution as we understand it. Like everything else, evolution would seem to be grounded in the fundamental physics of the universe, but that doesn't really answer anything about altruism, does it? In fact, it starts to seem imaginary, doesn't it? No, our behaviors, or at least our tendencies for certain behaviors are genetic. Sorry, that is just the way it is. You might want to silence this idea becouse a few idiots might try and use this in an atempt to lagitimize raceism, but that will not change the reality of it (or the wrongness of racesism). We are what we are -in part- becouse we evolved that way. Like it or not, we all have differnt choices within our own posible range of normal behavior. Once again this does not lagitimize violence or damaging deviancy. But it does mean that differing forms of emotional expression should be tolerated, and that some individuals may be better suited to altruistic behavior than others. It does not mean that each indiciudal does not make their own choices, but that the range of choices avaialble to them on any particular axis may be limited. The further out of the bounds of those limits, the harder it is for that individual to make that choice. How about if we apply the same reasoning to religious behavior? It must lead to success as a species; otherwise it wouldn't have evolved. One can justify any human characteristic that way. Yes you can. In the extream it is of course rediculous. Of course we do have free will. No one is saying we don't. And yes religion, and the propencity to be spiritual have been shown to increase ~some~ individuals happyness. I see bigger problems than the logical ones above. I se no logical problems above other than your own. (pardon me for saying) First, nobody knows if anyone does anything for just one reason, I'd argue -- we never really know if our motivations are altruistic or not, and it's not a Boolean function! Clearly, we know a lot of what happens in our brains, so we have far less than perfect knowledge of our motivations. I certainly have had flashes of insight that some of my supposedly altruistic behavior had big selfish components. Imagine, for example, a person who is quite certain that disrupting this community to demand better behavior, who realizes that he actually is craving the disruption and attention that results (any similarity to persons living or dead is probably less than a coincidence). But is that craving from a desire to make things better, and being an instramental part of that betterment a sens of reward, or is it mearly the simple attention, bad or good? I think the same sort of argument applies to us as a species. While evolution may be the mechanism that gave us altruistic behavior, none of us has perfect knowledge of what behavior in a specific situation will contribute to evolutionary success. Without that knowledge, such decisions cannot be logical, at least in the formal sense of logic. I agree with that. I wonder how many here do? For me, faith is largely a response to imperfect knowledge. Why have faith at all? Shouldnt a state of not knowing be the appropriate response to imperfect knowledge? Of course I am not talking about the kind of faith you have in your own abilities or the abilities in others. I am not talking about the kind of wishful thinking faith when you make a decision based on incomplete data, but the kind of faith in a god or some extra-ordinary spiritualism. There are big differences in these kinds of faith. One is social group forming and confidence building, another allows you to stay focused and actually make decisions rather than spinning in an indecisive state. The last however makes no sense to be so I do not know what purpose it might serve. Although I'd like to operate as if I know myself, my species and everything else well enough to remove ambiguity (supervisor-of-the-universe mode), I've only found peace when I accept that I will never fully understand my own motivations or those of humanity in general (humble mode, much harder to stick with). Why not simply accept that you do not ~yet~ understand, and the possibility and probability that you will never
Re: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, regarding the pressure at the center of a spinning space habitat with an 8 km radius: Where did you get 0.9? Note that the 3.45 number has a 1/R factor in it. If R goes from 5km to 8km, then 3.45 goes to 2.16. Then, exp[- 1/2.16] is 0.63. The larger the radius, the lower the pressure at the center. Woops! My mistake. You are right. -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Vinyl Chloride Eater
On Monday, July 7, 2003, at 11:35 pm, Deborah Harrell wrote: I replied to this over 2 hours ago; the post hasn't shown, so I'm trying again (although I don't remember exactly what I said then... :P ). It might show up in a week or so :) (An email of mine showed up on the list after more than a week in limbo...I sent an email about that a couple of hours ago and *it* hasn't turned up yet...) -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ First they came for the verbs, and I said nothing because verbing weirds language. Then they arrival for the nouns, and I speech nothing because I no verbs. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Spider space elevator? (was: US-based missiles tohaveglobalreach)
Sorry its taken me so long to get back to the discussion. I was busy with my son over the holiday. - Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 3:04 PM Subject: Re: Spider space elevator? (was: US-based missiles to haveglobalreach) On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:42:21PM -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote: From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can you imagine if steel elevator cables were replaced with bungee cords? If a bunch of really large people got into the elevator, would the elevator still line up with the floors at each level? Bad example Erik. Sounds like you have only a nebulous idea of how elevators actually work. G Bad statement, Rob, as usual. Sounds like you have only a nebulous idea of the point. There is a reason elevators aren't built with bungee cables, Rob, but it sounds like you have no clue about that. G The cables do stretch over time, but they are not used to level the elevator at each floor. Bungees stretch much more than steel and much more quickly, Rob. Quite different than steel cables. Which was rather the point, Rob. Do you not think that even bungee cables would reach an equilibrium? Leveling is done with a system of limit switches and a flat ribbon cable that locates each floor for the elevator control system. Newer elevator systems do almost all of this electronically. (Elevators tend to have a very long use cycle. Where I work, the elevators range from 20 to 80 years of usage) So, you replace the steel cables with bungees. Ignore the fact that they would be much thicker than steel to support the same weight. When someone gets onto the elevator, the bungee stretches. Do you think these feedback systems are built to rapidly reel in and out quickly enough and long enough lengths of bungee to counteract the bouncing up and down as people get in and out and keep it perfectly level with the floor? Once loaded, the bungee cables will stretch to a nominal length and remain at that length pretty much the same way steel rope does. (BTW you can't use tables for steel to determine elevator cable yields or tensiles because elevator cable has a manila rope core) Elevator cable does stretch quite a bit and elevators do bounce a bit anyway. Elevator cables have a constant amount of tension on them. (Disregarding for just a moment the stresses of stopping and starting that cause steel cable to stretch and bounce) There is no reeling in and out of the cable. The cable is attached to the cab on one end and a counterweight on the other with the motor moving the cable whatever direction or distance is required. Regarding the stresses of stopping and starting, if one were to make a serious effort at engineering an elevator using bungee cord, one would size the bungee cord with a thought toward minimizing the bouncing effects from acceleration and decelleration. Anything less would be amateurish. Cause it sounds like this absurdity is what you are claiming. Either that, or you just totally missed the point. I can understand you seeing it that way, but I think the difference is in how we each approach the problem. Each of us is engineering an elevator using bungee cord for cable. You are engineering it with a mind to exaggerate problems because that supports the point you originally wanted to make. I am engineering it with a mind to minimize those same problems because I can see how it could be done. All in all its a ludicrous idea, but it is a fun thought problem. And the elevator techs at work had fun discussing it at break. xponent Is It Friday Yet? Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
On Monday, July 7, 2003, at 05:29 pm, Jan Coffey wrote: William, I am sorry, but it seems that you were vexed by the post you are responding to above. However, it seems that you are under some alternative interpritation. Your cry of rudeness seems unwarented. Perhaps you shoudl re-read and reconsider the intent, with the assumption that it is not meant to vex. In general I agree with you that it is both polite and wise to attempt the most generous reading of the intent of a post. In this case however, and given the history of JDGs posting, I have difficulty finding an alternative interpretation to 'provocative rudeness' that is more favourable to him. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ I speak better English than this villain Bush - Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, Iraqi Information Minister ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
At 06:05 PM 7/7/2003 +, you wrote: By the way, does anyone know why so many science fiction writers descripe spinning space habitats as being longer than they are wide? Such habitats are intrinsically unstable. But habitats that are wider than they are long are intrinsically stable I know that the habitats are supposed to have stability controls -- just pump water around. Nonetheless, it is easier to keep an instrinsically stable system stable than to stabilize an unstable configuration. Robert J. Chassell I'm having trouble visualizing any of this. When you say 'longer than they are wide' do you mean like a cigarette or a can? And you are saying a habitat that is more like a wheel is more stable, right? A can like structure would have more surface area where the gravity is, obviously one reason to use it in stories. But how are they unstable? Just asking because I don't know. Do you mean because they can tumble? If so, how much inertia would a wheel like structure need to not tumble? For those figuring out the air pressure question, would there be differences if a) the structure was disc like, completely open on the inside (other than support structures) b) wheel like, with the rim having air and four (or x) spokes open all the way to the axis c) wheel like, with only the rim having air, the spokes separate from the rim d) a can like structure, completely open e) a can like structure, with only the rim pressurized If I can, I'll play with this at work. Kevin T. - VRWC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Faith and subjectivity
(1) Belief in god(s) requires faith because there is insufficient evidence to persuade an open-minded rational person, without preexisting prejudice, that god(s) exist. I don't think that is a matter for argument - theistic religion explicitly requires faith *because* of this state of affairs. Absent faith there is no cogent reason to believe in god(s), afterlives, reincarnation, heavens or hells, ghosts or any of the other supernatural trappings of many religions. Or for that matter ouija boards, tarot cards or astrology. (2) Not all beliefs lacking public evidentiary support require faith. My belief that brie is nicer than camembert is a private subjective belief whose final arbiter is me. I don't need faith to know that, and no-one can persuade me otherwise. If someone else finds camembert preferable to brie, or finds all cheese disgusting, their belief doesn't falsify mine and mine doesn't falsify theirs. (3) (At least) many ethical beliefs are subjective. The ethical codes of bankers would seem superfluous to someone who believes that money-lending is evil. The picketers outside abortion clinics seem evil to someone who believes in a woman's right to choose. (4) I am not a moral relativist. The fact that someone is acting morally according to their beliefs helps me to understand their actions, but does not absolve them if they are acting wrongly according to my moral beliefs. (5) No faith is required for the above. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ If you listen to a UNIX shell, can you hear the C? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
On agnosticism: I consider myself an agnostic. I don't see God as being a driving factor in my life in any way, but I am unwilling to discount His existence entirely. That seems to be the definition that works best for me at least. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Same-sex marriage
William T Goodall wrote: So why are US Conservatives against same-sex marriage? Do they want to force same-sex couples to live in sin? That's a darn good question. I mean, why *shouldn't* gays have to suffer through the agonies of splitting the china and giving all their money to lawyers the same as straight people? :-) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RFID: Industry Confidential memos
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/07/07/229216.shtml?tid=126tid=158tid=172; tid=99 RFID Industry Confidential Memos from the just-look-away-citizen dept. An anonymous reader writes Cryptome has learned www.autoidcenter.org (RFID flak) has made internal memos available for perusal at their site. Those RFID people sure have some interesting plans for the future. Who needs conspiracy theories, when you can hear it from the horses mouth? Wee! http://cryptome.org/rfid-docs.htm RFID Site Security Gaffe Uncovered by Consumer Group CASPIAN asks, How can we trust these people with our personal data? CASPIAN (Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering) says anyone can download revealing documents labeled confidential from the home page of the MIT Auto-ID Center web site in two mouse clicks. The Auto-ID Center is the organization entrusted with developing a global Internet infrastructure for radio frequency identification (RFID). Their plans are to tag all the objects manufactured on the planet with RFID chips and track them via the Internet. Privacy advocates are alarmed about the Center's plans because RFID technology could enable businesses to collect an unprecedented amount of information about consumers' possessions and physical movements. They point out that consumers might not even know they're being surveilled since tiny RFID chips can be embedded in plastic, sewn into the seams of garments, or otherwise hidden. How can we trust these people with securing sensitive consumer information if they can't even secure their own web site? asks CASPIAN Founder and Director Katherine Albrecht. It's ironic that the same people who assure us that our private data will be safe because 'Internet security is very good, and it offers a strong layer of protection' http://cryptome.org/rfid/questions_answers.pdf would provide such a compelling demonstration to the contrary, she added. Among the confidential documents available on the web site are slide shows discussing the need to pacify citizens who might question the wisdom of the Center's stated goal to tag and track every item on the planet, http://cryptome.org/rfid/communications.pdf along with findings that 78% of surveyed consumers feel RFID is negative for privacy and 61% fear its health consequences. http://cryptome.org/rfid/pk-fh.pdf PR firm Fleischman-Hillard's confidential Managing External Communications suggests a variety of strategies to help the Auto-ID Center drive adoption and neutralize opposition, including the possibility of renaming the tracking devices green tags. It also lists by name several key lawmakers, privacy advocates, and others whom it hopes to bring into the Center's 'inner circle'. http://cryptome.org/rfid/external_comm.pdf Despite the overwhelming evidence of negative consumer attitudes toward RFID technology revealed in its internal documents, the Auto-ID Center hopes that consumers will be apathetic and resign themselves to the inevitability of it instead of acting on their concerns. http://cryptome.org/rfid/cam-autoid-eb002.pdf Consumer citizens who are not feeling apathetic will be pleased to learn that the site provides names and contact information for the corporate executives who oversee the Center's efforts. Since the phone list isn't labeled confidential, we're assuming that Auto-ID Center Board members are open to calls and mail that might help them better understand public opinion on this important subject. Anyone interested in speaking with Dick Cantwell, the Gillette VP who heads the Center's Board of Overseers, for example, can find his direct office number listed on the Auto-ID Center's website here: http://cryptome.org/rfid/226691160-list_board_of_o verseers.pdf To experience the Auto-ID Center's security holes firsthand, simply visit the web site at http://www.autoidcenter.org and type confidential in the site search box. The Center encourages such site exploration: Our website has Research Papers and other information that anyone can download for free. There is also a Sponsors Only area of the site, which includes information and materials not available to the public at large. We encourage you to visit our site frequently to stay up to date with the Center's many activities. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: multitasking not always good
On 7 Jul 2003 at 14:15, The Fool wrote: Human Task Switches Considered Harmful: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog22.html The Lure of Data: Is It Addictive?: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/business/yourmoney/06WIRE.html?pagew ante d=1ei=5062en=027a31a06e611f55ex=1058068800partner=GOOGLE Also talks about O.C.D. online compulsive disorder. and pseudo-attention deficit disorder. Its sufferers do not have actual A.D.D., but, influenced by technology and the pace of modern life, have developed shorter attention spans. I need to dig up the study about a year ago which found that Dyslexic people can multitask with PC applications, on average, over a third better than the average person :) Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
Kevin Tarr wrote: ... A can like structure would have more surface area where the gravity is, obviously one reason to use it in stories. But how are they unstable? Just asking because I don't know. Do you mean because they can tumble? If so, how much inertia would a wheel like structure need to not tumble? I think the problem is that the spin axis might precess. Then a cigarette shape would prefer to be spinning end-over-end, rather than about its axis. So it would tend to wind up spinning end-over-end, contrary to its original design. ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion Discussion, was God, Religion and Sports
At 02:44 PM 7/7/03 -0400, David Hobby wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 01:23 PM 7/4/03 -0400, David Hobby 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. I'm not sure what you are getting at in the last paragraph. Let's change the topic under discussion from religion to astronomy (or math, or physics, or some other subject at which you may be considered an expert). When I go into the classroom, it is assumed that I know something about the topic, and that it is not just a possibility but a certainty that the students in the class do not know as much about it as I do. No, our situation is more like a seminar. We all know a lot about some subjects, and less about others. You need to be respectful, and not assume you know more than others. Does this mean that the statement You might personally KNOW... was intended specifically for John? We have different data and viewpoints, and are trying to work out what is true. In that sense, I'm asking for a spirit of scientific inquiry. Some also think it's useful during a scientific or academic inquiry to consult those who have spent significant time studying the subject and who have taught the subject. --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: No conflicts between selfishness and morality? L3
Nick Arnett wrote: I think some of the arguments in this thread beg important questions. E.g., altruistic behavior doesn't require faith because it leads to success as a species; success is an outcome of evolution, so altruism evolved. Is that right? Except that some (most?) things we consider to be altruistic are to some degree, not. This due to the idea that cooperation is beneficial to all and thus selfish to some degree. The first part begs the question of success as a species. If success is nothing more than survival (is there another scientific definition?), then this is the anthropic principal. By that definition, crocodiles are successful. Doesn't the anthropic principal have something to do with intelligence? I'm not sure how I would define success, but it would include factors such as the ability to shape ones development (actually influence evolution), the ability to understand ones environment beyond what is necessary to survive, and the ability to expand ones influence beyond ones original confines. To dominate ones envoronment. The second part (altruism is an outcome of evolution) is circular, since it assumes that our characteristics are derived exclusively from evolutionary processes. Even if true, it begs the question of the origin of evolution as we understand it. Like everything else, evolution would seem to be grounded in the fundamental physics of the universe, but that doesn't really answer anything about altruism, does it? In fact, it starts to seem imaginary, doesn't it? That makes little sense to me, could you step me through how (pseudo) altruism is circular? How about if we apply the same reasoning to religious behavior? It must lead to success as a species; otherwise it wouldn't have evolved. One can justify any human characteristic that way. I have no doubt that religion has contributed to the success of our species. I see bigger problems than the logical ones above. First, nobody knows if anyone does anything for just one reason, I'd argue -- we never really know if our motivations are altruistic or not, and it's not a Boolean function! Clearly, we know a lot of what happens in our brains, so we have far less than perfect knowledge of our motivations. I certainly have had flashes of insight that some of my supposedly altruistic behavior had big selfish components. Imagine, for example, a person who is quite certain that disrupting this community to demand better behavior, who realizes that he actually is craving the disruption and attention that results (any similarity to persons living or dead is probably less than a coincidence). Yes, pseudo altruism. I volunteer several hours a month, and the work I do is often drudgery, disgusting, and even dangerous, but I have no doubts that the reasons I do so are not purely altruistic. I think the same sort of argument applies to us as a species. While evolution may be the mechanism that gave us altruistic behavior, none of us has perfect knowledge of what behavior in a specific situation will contribute to evolutionary success. Without that knowledge, such decisions cannot be logical, at least in the formal sense of logic. But no one altruistic (or pseudo-altruistic if you will) act by itself is relevant. It is the community that, through religion or other means, began to codify their behavior and became more successful. This kind of behavior is evident to a lesser extent in lower animals - wolves have an alpha male and a pecking order, for instance. Do wolves need faith for their laws? For me, faith is largely a response to imperfect knowledge. Although I'd like to operate as if I know myself, my species and everything else well enough to remove ambiguity (supervisor-of-the-universe mode), I've only found peace when I accept that I will never fully understand my own motivations or those of humanity in general (humble mode, much harder to stick with). I have faith because I am convinced that it leads to greater wisdom than logical processes alone. This doesn't just mean that I accept a lack of knowledge, it means that I believe that some valuable ideas just cannot be understood rationally. My response to imperfect knowledge is to believe that we should attempt to make it more perfect. I don't need faith because I believe it is an impediment. I do not believe that there are valuable ideas that cannot be understood rationally, con you give an example? Perhaps this means nothing more than the fact that a society is smarter than its individuals and no member can assimilate all that it knows, so we are obligated to accept some of society's teachings on faith or live outside of society. Or perhaps it means that there is a God who has perfect knowledge, to which we have access in a less comprehensible way. I don't know, but I've made a choice and while it isn't the most logical, it is the most life-giving, to paraphrase Rich Mullins. IMO, gods and religion have outlived their
Re: Religion based ethics
Dan Minette wrote: One of the conclusions he accepted was the difficult position someone with his philosophy has with the foundation of ethics. It was one of his greatest regrets in life that there was no logical/calculus foundation for ethics. It was clear, by the nature of his statements, that he accepted that ethics have no firm foundation in his worldview. Indeed, he volunteered this when he was asked about regrets. There's an atheist with his eyes open. I respectfully differ with his position, but he certainly has strong integrity. Let me ask you this, Dan. If morals/ethics are purely a matter of faith, and the rules as set forth by a god, why aren't they constant? Why are slavery, human sacrifice, infanticide, child labor, the subjugation of women etc. etc. ethical in the past, but unethical now? We are discussing gay marriage in another thread. Is it unethical in your opinion? I see our morals evolving before our very eyes, don't you? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
At 09:42 AM 7/7/03 -0600, Michael Harney wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 10:16 AM 7/4/03 -0600, Michael Harney wrote: Every time I bring up anything related to vegetarianism I get pounced on by people acting less than civil. With all due respect, and I am NOT talking about you, I think many people react that way because SOME vegetarians are every bit as zealous about that lifestyle as the most fundamentalist Christian is about his/her beliefs, and like those fundamentalist Christians, the zealous vegetarians say that anyone who does not believe and behave as they do is evil. Thus, as some here have pointed out that there are some Christians who display intolerance for others' beliefs and practices that as far as those list members are concerned all who label themselves Christian must accept the blame for that attitude and expect others to consider them guilty of that attitude, many who have had previous encounters with zealous vegetarians worry that all who identify themselves as vegetarians are similarly intolerant of anyone who is not a vegetarian. I am well aware of that fact, and it only solidifies the point of my original message. The fact that I am being projected and generalized on just parrallels JDG's situation that much more as he is deeling with the obvious projections and generalizations of The Fool and maybe some other list members (honestly I haven't been following the thread too closely). Read the whole of my post, it wasn't a complaint to the list, it was just used as an example to illustrate to JDG that other people deal with the same sort of bias and that there are other (and IMO better) ways of dealing with it than complaining to the list about it. I meant it in much the same way, and I'm sorry if the way I said it made it seem critical of you. I probably should have worded it differently. --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: Same-sex marriage
At 12:54 PM 7/7/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: Many conservatives belong to the religious right. I've had someone throwing Leviticus at me on this issue. I hope they at least tore it out before they did so, rather than throwing all 66 books at you, which might be heavy enough to hurt some . . . particularly if it were one of those big hardcover Bibles like the ones they give you when you buy a cemetery plot . . . --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: Same-sex marriage
At 03:10 PM 7/7/03 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/7/2003 11:38:33 AM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Have you thought of asking them if they ever wore cotton blends? If so, they are violating Leviticus. :-) 50% straight cotton? 50% gay cotton? The cotton fibers in my underwear are happy, but AFAIK not gay . . . --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: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
At 12:48 PM 7/7/03 -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: --- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think some of the arguments in this thread beg important questions. E.g., altruistic behavior doesn't require faith because it leads to success as a species; success is an outcome of evolution, so altruism evolved. Is that right? The first part begs the question of success as a species. If success is nothing more than survival (is there another scientific definition?), then this is the anthropic principal. The week one, not the strong one. I realize it was a typo, but it got me wondering: Could the Week Anthropic Principle be the hypothesis that the Earth was created in seven days? ;-) If So I Talked About It In Class Tonight Maru --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: Scouted: Vinyl Chloride Eater
At 03:35 PM 7/7/03 -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: I replied to this over 2 hours ago; the post hasn't shown, so I'm trying again (although I don't remember exactly what I said then... :P ). Well, I tried to send a bunch of e-mail messages earlier (before I had to leave for class), but I got an error message every time I tried to send anything, and then it got to the point where it wouldn't even let me download incoming mail, so I gave up and went to class with a bunch of messages waiting unsent in my outbox. Apparently ATT fixed whatever the problem was while I was away, because it seems to be working correctly now (and I had 180 new incoming messages waiting when I got back) . . . --- Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: Apparently we've inadvertantly helped develop a bacterium that needs our waste to live: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=storyu=/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 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. Didn't I read that novel 30 years ago? http://homepage.ntlworld.com/john.seymour1/ukbookguide/Series/Doomwatch/mutant59.html grin I also read that one...about 3 decades ago. Yeah, it was memorable . . . and that is _not_ a compliment . . . Funny how 'monsters' can be both huge flesh-eating creatures, and - microscopic flesh-destroying ones. Though I guess to be precise the microorganism described in the article feeds on vinyl chloride monomer, not the polymer. (If it does eat the latter, I hope they will be careful about dumping it into the drain, given the wide use of PVC pipe in plumbing these days . . . ) Life Under The Cover-slip Maru ;) I _never_ wear a slip when I'm under the covers . . . --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: Faith and subjectivity
At 02:23 AM 7/8/03 +0100, William T Goodall wrote: The ethical codes of bankers would seem superfluous to someone who believes that money-lending is evil. They have an ethical code? -- Ronn! :) Professional Smart-Aleck. Do Not Attempt. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 04:49:54AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: So agnostics are just as willing to find out if God exists as they are to find out that God does not exist? That is pretty much the definition, I thought. In practice, I think that many, if not most, agnostics are simply honest atheists. Since true atheism would require a matter of faith - since a negative cannot be proved, many people who might casually be thought of as atheists tend to self-characterize themselves as agnostic. As such, I think a great many of self- described agnostics strongly lean atheist. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
