Re: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey
Tim May wrote... "Because the Jews and negroes have demanded that all students be taught stuff they obviously will never use. Most inner city mutants should be taught practical skills, not abstract stuff their previous education has been bereft of." Well, I don't know who's responsible, but teaching what basically amounts to a liberal arts cirriculum is almost certainly useless in the inner cities, and black kids know this...they want something they can USE. Things like authomotive repair or, perhaps, airline baggage screening probably makes a lot more sense. "I don't give a shit whether they're "fully human" or not. I only care that they stop stealing from me, that liberal Jews stop saying that my taxes have to be increased to support these "fully human" bags of shit." Well, this is where you lose a lot of credibility on this list, despite your sometimes farily acute technical observations. Let's just say that your 'philosophy' has concluded that it's probably better for the "useless eaters" be burned off, and that this would be good for the planet (the scary thing is that it's becomming obvious that in the near future neither the planet nor human society will really need 6 billion or more people). So this is your "philosophy"...fine. But you seem to have little or no emotion or sympathy towards those 'lumpen proletariat' (cue commentary on term by James Donald)...in other words, these are people who love/hate/fear/lust/eat just like you, and who don't regard themselves as 'useless', and yet it would seem that history just might pass them by, and that there may be a large segment of human population that will (in the short run) be marginalized, and in the long run be wiped out (according to your philosophies), apparently in some terrible and painful cataclysm. That your philosophies seemed to have erased any interhuman emotion you may have in this context seems strange. And no, I'm not suggesting that you cry your way out of your ideas, but recognize that if your ideas are correct, they're tragic. That which is 'inevitable' and also cataclysmic and (arguably) avoidable may also easily be tragic. Hell...that's probably the very definition of tragic, and in the most pessimistic of appraisals (ie, yours) the fate of American black folks (with many, possibly millions of exceptions) might easily be tragic, and that's a shame, like all human suffering.
Then your education in physics about von Neumann is sorely lacking. Von Neumann spend part of several years investigating self-replicating machines, using some ideas of Ulam and others. Well-covered in the cellular automata literature.
As you can probably tell, I've never read many secondary or tertiary sources. (ie, as a physicist I've always considered it of dubious usefulness to read ABOUT physics...) I've only read the few more famous von Neumann journal articles I've come across w.r.t. cellular automata...I actually thought he had only written two or three, and I don't remember his ideas of self-replicating machines as including something like a GA, but then again it's easily possible I didn't pick up on the ramifications of what I was reading (which is granted when I was much younger).
Snoop is razzlekamazzled by the negroes, who have the money they stole from gullible whites, which is reason enough for niggers, whiggers, and chiggers to all be jivin' like daze shit.
Well, perhaps he's just wise to his market.
Those who steal need killing. Killing the guilty is about to get a lot more efficient. Billions in the world need killing, and tens of millions in the U.S. are part of this.
If true, this is tragic. You might argue that it's necessary, "good" and inevitable, but it's still tragic. Some of these people will be living lives of very high quality, despite their "need for killing". If you got out more, you might know that. -TD _________________________________________________________________ Make your home warm and cozy this winter with tips from MSN House & Home. http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx
I'll comment on the sociology after commenting on the physics: (actually, looking over your sociology, I see it's just more of the liberal whine and sleaze, so I won't bother commenting on it again) On Jan 1, 2004, at 6:34 PM, Tyler Durden wrote:
Tim May wrote...
Then your education in physics about von Neumann is sorely lacking. Von Neumann spend part of several years investigating self-replicating machines, using some ideas of Ulam and others. Well-covered in the cellular automata literature.
As you can probably tell, I've never read many secondary or tertiary sources. (ie, as a physicist I've always considered it of dubious usefulness to read ABOUT physics...) I've only read the few more famous von Neumann journal articles I've come across w.r.t. cellular automata...I actually thought he had only written two or three, and I don't remember his ideas of self-replicating machines as including something like a GA, but then again it's easily possible I didn't pick up on the ramifications of what I was reading (which is granted when I was much younger).
The last refuge of the scoundrel is to dismiss stuff as "secondary and tertiary sources," sort of like the fakers I used to meet in college who nattered on about having learned their physics from Newton's "Principia" instead of from secondary and tertiary sources. I encountered von Neumann's work on self-replicating machines when I was in high school (*). It came up in connection with the Fermi paradox and in issues of life (this was before the term "artificial life" was au courant...I was at the first A-LIFE Conference in '87...von Neumann couldn't make it). (* And no, I don't know mean my high school teachers taught us about von Neumann machines. 97% of the science I knew by the time I graduated from high school I'd learned on my own, from the usual "secondary and tertiary sources.") A few moments of thought will show the connection between replicators and general assemblers. A general assembler can make another general assembler, hence all general assemblers are replicators. And in fact this is necessary to make mechanosynthesis nanotech viable, as otherwise it takes all the multibillion dollar wafer fabs in the world, if they could make nanoscale things, to make some scum on the bottom of a test tube. GAs only start to become possible after the replication problem has been solved (which it has not, despite claims about self-reproducing software structures and train sets and the like). If you are not aware of basic developments, recall Wittgenstein's maxim: "Whereof one cannot speak, one must remain silent."
--Tim May "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." -- Nietzsche
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Tim May wrote:
A few moments of thought will show the connection between replicators and general assemblers. A general assembler can make another general assembler, hence all general assemblers are replicators. And in fact this is necessary to make mechanosynthesis nanotech viable, as otherwise it takes all the multibillion dollar wafer fabs in the world, if they could make nanoscale things, to make some scum on the bottom of a test tube.
Or a few-dollar fermentation tanks with suitable bacteria, once its genome is tweaked in required way. Who ever said that the nanoparticles we need can't be proteins or organic molecules with required shape/properties? If viral particles can self-assemble from host-cell-synthetized proteins, if complicated structures like bacterial propulsion systems - or even whole plants - can be formed, why not nanomechanical systems? Why bother with assembling machines when they could be grown? I hope I didn't screw up my understanding of "nanosynthesis". If it is "build anything you want by telling the general assembler", then this won't work and would need a lab; but for mass-producing nnoparticles, eg. surface coatings or elements for camera or memory arrays, biotech should be good enough.
On Jan 1, 2004, at 7:44 PM, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Tim May wrote:
A few moments of thought will show the connection between replicators and general assemblers. A general assembler can make another general assembler, hence all general assemblers are replicators. And in fact this is necessary to make mechanosynthesis nanotech viable, as otherwise it takes all the multibillion dollar wafer fabs in the world, if they could make nanoscale things, to make some scum on the bottom of a test tube.
Or a few-dollar fermentation tanks with suitable bacteria, once its genome is tweaked in required way. Who ever said that the nanoparticles we need can't be proteins or organic molecules with required shape/properties? If viral particles can self-assemble from host-cell-synthetized proteins, if complicated structures like bacterial propulsion systems - or even whole plants - can be formed, why not nanomechanical systems? Why bother with assembling machines when they could be grown?
I hope I didn't screw up my understanding of "nanosynthesis". If it is "build anything you want by telling the general assembler", then this won't work and would need a lab; but for mass-producing nnoparticles, eg. surface coatings or elements for camera or memory arrays, biotech should be good enough.
Which is why I was careful to say "mechanosynthesis" and even to qualify the type of replicator as "Drexler-style." We've had systems which can replicate in 25 minutes or so for as long as we've existed. But making bread is not the same thing as making computers, or Boeing 747s, or non-bread kinds of food. Specialized biologicals making specialized things is probably where "nanotechnology" will be a commercial success, but it just ain't real nanotech. --Tim May
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Tyler Durden wrote: <a whole lot of really good points elided>
As you can probably tell, I've never read many secondary or tertiary sources.
I have a very hard time believeing that anyone would consider VN a "secondary" or "tertiary" source.
(ie, as a physicist I've always considered it of dubious usefulness to read ABOUT physics...) I've only read the few more famous von Neumann journal articles I've come across w.r.t. cellular automata...I actually thought he had only written two or three,
That's only because he's hard reading :-) -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org "Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm
participants (4)
-
J.A. Terranson
-
Thomas Shaddack
-
Tim May
-
Tyler Durden