- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Nanotechnology
by Otto Matic 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Cross posted to the "Highly Imaginative Technology List" HIT-list(a)asisem.org >------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- >Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 23:14:32 -0500 >From: Nathan Russell <frussell(a)frontiernet.net> >Reply-to: frussell(a)frontiernet.net >To: HIT-list(a)asisem.org >Subject: Re: HIT: Fwd: (Fwd) Re: Nanotechnology > >Otto Matic wrote: >> >> >Orinally posted to the cypherpunks list cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net. >> > >> >------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- >> >Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 11:45:36 -0500 >> >From: ghio(a)temp0181.myriad.ml.org (Matthew Ghio) >> >Subject: Re: Nanotechnology >> >To: cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net >> >Reply-to: ghio(a)temp0181.myriad.ml.org (Matthew Ghio) Matthew Ghio Wrote to the Cypherpunks: <<<SNIP>>> >> >So roughly 8 months just to build one copy, rather than to achieve >> >world domination. :) >> > >> >Still, unless I'm way off on these estimates, it's within the right >> >ballpark. If the cubes were 1 cm, you could make copies in less >> >than a day, assuming it didn't get too hot at that power level. >> >Just figure out how you're going to feed the electricity and raw >> >materials into all those little things... > >You could direct the molecules the same way electron beams are steered >in a TV > > > >This sort of replicator is not what is usually >considered > >nanotechnology, but if it actually worked, such a >device >could become > >quite popular. Nathan Russell wrote to the HIT-List Yeah... what about making microchips, LSD or diamonds - all of which have very high value/mass ratios. Or bio warfare agents - maybe in cryogenic state to be warmed up when finished. What about more complicated lifeforms - like people. It would be hard to figure out what to use for currancy, though - in Star Trek, Latinum is assumed, according to one book, to be dependent for its properties on a huge number of molecular legs resting against each other rather like the fins of an artichoke steamer - can't be replicated because unless the molecule is complete each leg creates an unequal force on its neighbors and they flip into a non-latinum position. Not that there wouldn't be positive elements - medicine would be very cheap. In fact, a pound - or maybe a mole - of anything with value would cost no more than its component elements, plus labor. What about little self- 'replicating' robots that go into a landfill and produce an army of themselves, turning excess elements into something useful. BTW, could living things be replicated or would the structure be too complex? Intelligence supposebly depends on electrons moving in tiny protein quantom channels in the brain in a completely unprodictable way, telpathy is the electrons becoming quantom linked. That could be hard to replicate. -Nathan ___END FORWARDED___ Thought you cypher punks would like to see this. Otto ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

1 0

RE: rant on the morality of confidentiality
by Wayne Radinsky 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> dilemmas do not prove a concept does not exist. That's correct. My point is natural selection can explain why the dilemma exists. > there are pretty clear cut cases Natural selection also explains why there are "clear cut" cases, since it assumes our "moral sense" is just our mental accounting of reciprocal altruism: what we've done for others and what (we think) others owe us. > natural selection does however support the idea of altruism. natural > selection does not require each individual seek survival. various aspects > of the genetic code that lead to survival of the species are what are > truly favored. a breed of animals that does nothing but try to kill > each other off leads to a situation where each individual is maximizing > the odds of its own DNA propagating, no? but how long would such a > species survive? and extra credit, to what "animal" am I actually > alluding to here? You are correct: the object is survival of the gene and this can be at odds with survival of an individual. This applies to all animals and even "non" animals; so I have no way of knowing which "animal" you are alluding to. > natural selection is relevant among species that have no intelligence > or intellectual control over their own destiny. it is only relevant to > humans insofar as we wish to behave like animals. Our "intelligence" itself evolved, presumably, because it enhanced genetic fitness in the evolutionary past. Intelligence exists to increase, rather than overcome, inclusice genetic fitness. >>So it is a myth that scientists live to find deep truths or to benefit humanity >>. They may do those things, but their real goal is maximizing their own >>inclusive fitness. > > false, even by your own reasoning, because a scientists DNA does not > necessarily lead to more scientist DNA. sons and daughters of scientists > may be anything they wish to be in a free country. All that is required is that the offspring can survive and reproduce. Scientists use their jobs as "scientists" to fund survival and reproduction. > natural selection among animals. and a pretty scary mind that would > consider us on that level. I agree there are some vague parallels for > human development. but humans do not have children in the mindless way > that animals breed, The use of birth control causes the trait, "conscious desire to have children" (and not use birth control) to be selected. It was not required before, so natural selection gave more weight to sex drive and love of offspring. > nor hopefully do they live their lives according > only to evolutionary instincts, The whole premise of evolutionary psychology is that we live according to evolutionary instincts, it's just that those instincts (and our behavior) are very complex, and that "consciousness" and "free will" are illusions. > but of course letters like yours tend > to make me wonder, and I'm being deliberately ambiguous here by what > I mean by that <g> Of course most people are bothered by the idea that copying genes is the only thing their life (and all lives) are about. Life is totally meaningless if you follow Darwin's logic to its conclusion, and the alternative is religion and belief in the afterlife. I personally believe someday we will see a synthesis of the two, but at the present, which to believe is a philosophical decision. ---------- From: Vladimir Z. Nuri[SMTP:vznuri@netcom.com] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 1998 12:52 PM To: Wayne Radinsky Cc: 'Blanc'; 'cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net'; 'tcmay(a)got.net'; 'vznuri(a)netcom5.netcom.com'; vznuri(a)netcom11.netcom.com Subject: Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality philosophers have struggled with what is moral since the beginning of civilization. at least they are struggling with the question. each new civilization and era gives a new answer to the question, "what is morality", and hopefully each is more evolved than the last, unless humanity is regressing. "what is morality" is obviously something that cannot be settled in cyberspace, it hasn't even been settled by great writers, and there are only mediocre and borderline insane minds in cyberspace <g> >The reason morality is impossible to nail down is because it does not exist al >all in any absolute sense, at least as far as science is concerned. If you dec >lare, for example, that "murder" is "wrong" you are always left with dilemmas, >such as whether soldiers who kill during a war are doing something "wrong". dilemmas do not prove a concept does not exist. there are pretty clear cut cases, and less well clear cut cases. those that have difficulty with the concept of morality will tend to focus on the fuzzy cases and conclude that the whole exercise is a waste of time. >According to the principle of natural selection, all people, including scientis >ts, exist purely to maximize their own inclusive genetic fitness. "Fit" means >that an organism is well adapted to it's environment, so "maximizing inclusive >genetic fitness" means having the maximum number of offspring which are themsel >ves fit. natural selection does however support the idea of altruism. natural selection does not require each individual seek survival. various aspects of the genetic code that lead to survival of the species are what are truly favored. a breed of animals that does nothing but try to kill each other off leads to a situation where each individual is maximizing the odds of its own DNA propagating, no? but how long would such a species survive? and extra credit, to what "animal" am I actually alluding to here? >The underlying reason people benefit by promoting themselves as moral people, i >n general, is because of the benefit of what evolutionary psychologists call re >ciprocal altruism. With reciprocal altruism, both parties benefit if they are >in a non-zero-sum situation. Because most situations are non-zero-sum and the >benefits are so great, everyone has a stake in promoting themselves as a good r >eciprocal altruist, in other words, a good, trustworthy, moral person. This is > how natural selection explains the existence of the concept of "morality". natural selection is relevant among species that have no intelligence or intellectual control over their own destiny. it is only relevant to humans insofar as we wish to behave like animals. >So it is a myth that scientists live to find deep truths or to benefit humanity >. They may do those things, but their real goal is maximizing their own inclus >ive fitness. false, even by your own reasoning, because a scientists DNA does not necessarily lead to more scientist DNA. sons and daughters of scientists may be anything they wish to be in a free country. >The only way out is to believe in the afterlife, and religion, and that life ha >s meaning beyond the genes and material world. Doing so doesn't make moral dile >mmas go away, and you never know, people may just be believing such things for >the benefit of genes, after all natural selection has no real concern for "trut >h". natural selection among animals. and a pretty scary mind that would consider us on that level. I agree there are some vague parallels for human development. but humans do not have children in the mindless way that animals breed, nor hopefully do they live their lives according only to evolutionary instincts, but of course letters like yours tend to make me wonder, and I'm being deliberately ambiguous here by what I mean by that <g>

1 0

Re: (eternity) Eternity as a secure filesystem/backup medium (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 21:31:38 -0800 > From: Kent Crispin <kent(a)songbird.com> > Subject: Re: (eternity) Eternity as a secure filesystem/backup medium (fwd) > You must find the advertising business completely mystifying, then. Not at all. I even manage to use it well enough to make money selling my own services now and again... > You pay to have your data disseminated in a form that you can be later > paid -- for example, leave the juciest part of the data in encrypted > form, along with a public key through which payment options can be > negotiated. Exactly, which means we are left with two results. Either the source forgoes the d-h completely, since they could dissiminate their data through a normal anon remailer and usenet (for example) completely eliminating the whole point of the d-h and the consequential payments - this reduces their overhead considerably. Or they share the income through the d-h operator. Now if the source has two halves of a clue to rub together their share will include whatever money they paid the d-h operator in the first place - thus eliminating the need for the source to have paid in the first place. Either way the source ends up with the net effect they don't pay the d-h operator for their services - the end user does. In only one case is there a economic reason for the d-h to exist. Now if the goal of a d-h operator is to make some income which model would you choose? From the source's perspective the d-h model makes sense because it places two (not one) layer of anonymity between them and Mallet. As a source, which model would you choose? Either way you look at it, the end result is the end user pays the bills. > Why on earth do you try to be an ISP, then? Why on earth are you assuming that is what I do? While I have sold dedicated and intermittent dial-ups they in general have not been to the general public and my customer base is not one that comes from general advertising. At no point has it ever been a significant portion of my income in any case. As a matter of fact I haven't advertised in any public forums. Don't know where you get your data about me from but you really should go to the horses mouth instead of some jackass. Your data would be much more accurate. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The most powerful passion in life is not love or hate, | | but the desire to edit somebody elses words. | | | | Sign in Ed Barsis' office | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

Re: new netscape servers
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:14 PM 3/7/96 -0500, Michael Froomkin wrote: >What law applies to a certificate used in a multi-jurisdictional >transaction is less obvious to me than I would like. I think I have >talked a student in my seminar into writing a paper to educate me. Are your concerns international, interstate, or (it seems unlikely) intrastate? Regards - Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

2 1

Re: ANTI-CRYPTO CYPHERPUNKS
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

B. Schneier: bs208(a)newton.cam.ac.uk, schneier(a)counterpane.com M. Blaze: mab(a)crypto.com, mab(a)research.att.com J. Bizdos: jim(a)rsa.com S. Safaddar: shabbir(a)vtw.org D. Weinstein: djw(a)vplus.com P.. Peterson: padgett(a)hobbes.orl.mmc.com I wish to point out that some of these people are just probably misguided and should be educated not hurt. A full mail spool is educatio[nal but but it would IMHO be wrong to do mailbombing the postmaster or hacking their accts etc. Give them a chance.

3 2

Atilla Remailer Down...
by Linda Reed--PCC West Campus CSC 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: MX%"Postmaster(a)west.cscwc.pima.edu" "SMTP delivery agent" 15-JUL-1998 22:13:46.82 To: MX%"lreed(a)west.cscwc.pima.edu" CC: Subj: SMTP delivery error Return-Path: <> Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 22:13:44 MST From: SMTP delivery agent <Postmaster(a)west.cscwc.pima.edu> To: <lreed(a)west.cscwc.pima.edu> Subject: SMTP delivery error X-Report-Type: Nondelivery; boundary="> Error description:" Note: this message was generated automatically. An error was detected while processing the enclosed message. A list of the affected recipients follows. This list is in a special format that allows software like LISTSERV to automatically take action on incorrect addresses; you can safely ignore the numeric codes. --> Error description: Error-For: attila(a)prime.net Error-Code: 2 Error-Text: %MX_SMTP-F-GENERIC_FAILURE, unknown failure status -(Via prime.net) -Transcript: -Rcvd: 220 webm4.ntx.net ESMTP Sendmail 8.8.5/8.8.5; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 21:58:47 -0700 (PDT) -Sent: HELO west.cscwc.pima.edu -Rcvd: 250 webm4.ntx.net Hello west.wc.pima.edu [144.90.64.14], pleased to meet you -Sent: MAIL FROM:<lreed(a)west.cscwc.pima.edu> -Rcvd: 250 <lreed(a)west.cscwc.pima.edu>... Sender ok -Sent: RCPT TO:<attila(a)prime.net> -Rcvd: 571 <attila(a)prime.net>... [144.90.64.14] not permitted to relay from <lreed(a)west.cscwc.pima.edu> to <attila(a)prime.net> Error-End: 1 error detected ------------------------------ Rejected message ------------------------------ Received: by west.cscwc.pima.edu (MX V4.2 VAX) id 21; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 22:13:22 MST Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 22:13:22 MST From: Linda Reed--PCC West Campus CSC <lreed(a)west.cscwc.pima.edu> To: attila(a)prime.net Message-ID: <009C93C6.3E06C0E0.21(a)west.cscwc.pima.edu> Subject: Sure, you *claim* you're a Deacon... "Evangelists do more than lay people."

1 0

show me
by dennis e strausser jr 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I will not say much give me what you have

1 0

My wife shagged the pool team/Swedish hooker sues clients
by STUFFED/EUREKA! 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

Re: Whitehouse Bastards want my name named.
by Samson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Cyberdog wrote: > > Blumenthal Discovery requests both the Email subscriber list to > Drudge Report AND contributor list to Drudge Legal Defense > Fund... mailto:help@nym.alias.net - don't subscribe without it.

1 0

FREE! Brilliant Audio With New RealPlayer G2
by RealNetworks News 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear RealPlayer User, I'm very excited to announce the beta release of RealPlayer G2 and RealPlayer Plus G2, available for download now. With RealPlayer G2 you'll get a quantum leap in RealAudio and RealVideo quality, including an 80% improvement in RealAudio's frequency response and smoother, sharper RealVideo. RealPlayer G2 technology dramatically reduces rebuffering, which means less break-up in RealAudio and RealVideo streams. With this new feature you'll notice increased performance over your modem -- even under poor network conditions. RealPlayer G2 allows you to reach a universe of programming directly through your player. With the touch of a button through RealChannels you can access great channels like CNN, Screening Room (movie previews), ABC, NPR, Comedy Central, and more. To download now, visit: --> http://www.real.com/50/rg26a.html We are also releasing a new version of the premium RealPlayer, RealPlayer Plus G2. With RealPlayer Plus G2 you'll receive: * Even better RealAudio and RealVideo quality * Hi-fi audio display with spectrum analyzer * 10 channel graphic equalizer for tuning treble, bass, and mid-range * Video controls which work just like your TV set -- you control brightness, contrast, and saturation All of this with a 30-day money back guarantee -- just $29.99. To download now, visit: --> http://www.real.com/50/plusg26a.html +===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+ "RealPlayer G2 from RealNetworks is the next generation of streaming media players. End users can now experience high quality audio and video..." - ZDNet, 5/1998 "Overall, RealPlayer is a class-act, this is one application you'll definitely want to have for your online daily web surfing..." - Strouds Review, 5/1998 84% of our users say RealPlayer G2 sounds better. 86% say the new RealPlayer G2 interface is better. They also use RealPlayer G2 to stay informed everyday! We hope you'll try for yourself -- and ENJOY! +===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+ Thank you for continuing to use RealNetworks products, Maria Cantwell Senior Vice President RealNetworks, Inc. Seattle, WA USA --------------------------------------------- ABOUT THIS E-MAIL This e-mail was sent to users of RealPlayer software who indicated a preference during the download or installation process to receive notification of new RealNetworks products or services via e-mail. For information about subscribing to or unsubscribing from future announcements, visit http://www.real.com/mailinglist/index.html

2 1