I wonder how long will the anthrax hysteria last. Repetitive stimulation yields diminished response over time. This is not to say that there is no danger - but perception of danger seldom has any relation to danger itself. The only way to protect from living organisms used as weapons (after all - life is a weapon) in the long run is immunity. Sooner or later any small determined group will be able to create some bug. I see no way that government can stop this - it's like trying to stop crypto or C coding. Will not happen. Maybe the high density living that we are so used to is incompatible with new weapons. Maybe societal structures based on projectile-throwing weaponry are passe. New weapons always changed rules, and it was called progress. One obvious advance is that using and defending from bugs requires more intelligence than pulling the trigger. This may be the main cause of Fear from WMD. ===== end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com
On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 10:12:38PM -0700, Morlock Elloi wrote:
Maybe the high density living that we are so used to is incompatible with new weapons. Maybe societal structures based on projectile-throwing weaponry are passe. New weapons always changed rules, and it was called progress.
I think that's an interesting argument, but you'll note that the Florida Anthrax case targeted a firm that was hardly in a "high density living" situation. Apparently it was a nondescript suburb. Throughout history people have congregated together, in family groups and small tribes. It strike me as hardly likely that we'll give up that pleasure because of some vague fear of anthrax. (Maybe huge island cities like NYC, however, will see a sudden erosion of residents.) Instead we'll take proper precautions and continue meeting. This is a perfect market opportunity for a "mail opening and detoxification" firm that would be employed by media groups and large, hated computer companies as a contractor. Think food tasters, but different. -Declan
On 14 Oct 2001, at 10:28, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 10:12:38PM -0700, Morlock Elloi wrote:
Maybe the high density living that we are so used to is incompatible with new weapons. Maybe societal structures based on projectile-throwing weaponry are passe. New weapons always changed rules, and it was called progress.
I think that's an interesting argument, but you'll note that the Florida Anthrax case targeted a firm that was hardly in a "high density living" situation. Apparently it was a nondescript suburb.
Since Anthrax isn't human to human conatgious, population density is pretty much irrelevant, at least if you're delivering it by mail.
Throughout history people have congregated together, in family groups and small tribes. It strike me as hardly likely that we'll give up that pleasure because of some vague fear of anthrax. (Maybe huge island cities like NYC, however, will see a sudden erosion of residents.)
If they can survive rent control, they can survive anything.
Instead we'll take proper precautions and continue meeting.
This is a perfect market opportunity for a "mail opening and detoxification" firm that would be employed by media groups and large, hated computer companies as a contractor. Think food tasters, but different.
-Declan
The kind of food irradiators used to make the milk that doesn't spoil should be able to destroy anthrax spores, I think. You might have to cook it a little longer because spores are harder to kill then wet bacteria, but if your letters are just letters you can get away with cooking it longer, you don't care if you denature some proteins. I'm guessing if all mail was sterilized at the post office the cost could be held below 2 cents a letter. Of course, you'd still have crop dusters to worry about. George
On Sunday, October 14, 2001, at 07:28 AM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 10:12:38PM -0700, Morlock Elloi wrote:
Maybe the high density living that we are so used to is incompatible with new weapons. Maybe societal structures based on projectile-throwing weaponry are passe. New weapons always changed rules, and it was called progress.
I think that's an interesting argument, but you'll note that the Florida Anthrax case targeted a firm that was hardly in a "high density living" situation. Apparently it was a nondescript suburb.
I drove through that area (Delray Beach. Lantana, Boca Raton) when I was visiting my sister in South Florida in 1994. One continuous urban area, from Homestead to Miami to Hollywood to Fort Lauderdale to Delray Beach to West Palm Beach. There's a corridor on both sides of I-95 that is dense-packed with condos, apartments, tilt-ups, trailer parks, slums, estates, and a few farms. (When I was there, the "new frontier" was a former farming community called Plantation...being replaced by new developments.) As for Morlock's thesis, I don't know that any strong conclusions can be drawn about "high density living...incompatible with new weapons." Certainly _some_ of us have decided to live in less crowded areas. Or, more accurately, in areas that are: -- not Schelling points for attack (that is, not high value targets for terrorists or for rioters) -- areas that are moderately defensible (My area is not as defensible as that of some folks I know, who live in Idaho or northern Arizona. But, as Declan knows, it's isolated enough that major problems in the Bay Area would take a long time to reach me. Especially if I "button down.") Some cities seem to be high value targets, something we've talked about for a _long_ time. (Do a search on "soft targets" in this group.) But I'm not persuaded that the risks are greater now than they were during, say, the Cuban missile crisis--I was living as a kid in the Arlington suburb of D.C. then and I had an inkling of what the dangers were. --Tim May, Occupied America "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759.
Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 10:12:38PM -0700, Morlock Elloi wrote:
Maybe the high density living that we are so used to is incompatible with new weapons. Maybe societal structures based on projectile-throwing weaponry are passe. New weapons always changed rules, and it was called progress.
I think that's an interesting argument, but you'll note that the Florida Anthrax case targeted a firm that was hardly in a "high density living" situation. Apparently it was a nondescript suburb.
Throughout history people have congregated together, in family groups and small tribes. It strike me as hardly likely that we'll give up that pleasure because of some vague fear of anthrax. (Maybe huge island cities like NYC, however, will see a sudden erosion of residents.) Instead we'll take proper precautions and continue meeting.
This is a perfect market opportunity for a "mail opening and detoxification" firm that would be employed by media groups and large, hated computer companies as a contractor. Think food tasters, but different.
-Declan
Maybe, but what you're talking about is fighting for crumbs falling from those hoarding ever shrinking pieces of pie. What there is a real market opportunity and need for are venues for the younger (and older) progeny of ruling elites from Saudi Arabia to the U.S., to wherever, to excercise their territoriality and personal hegemony, instead of fomenting jihads, revolutions, wars, coups, etc. Space is a logical opportunity. The war on "terrorism" is doomed. This bunch is fucked, but there will *alwayy* be more to replace them, and always just cause for their actions, in their minds if not in reality. I'm suspending my cynicism for the moment because this has been such a shock to so many, but it's hard not suspect malice on the part of those in positions to do something about this for so long, who didn't, with every opportunity. I'd hate to think they were just stupid instead. It'd mean they didn't deserve their advantages, maybe. jbdigriz
Targeted bioweapons will offer, for the first time, opportunity to get rid of "others". The more "others" present a monoculture group (genetically, eating habbits, behavioural patterns) the easier it will be to target them. In this regard bioweapons work directly against what was driving force in history so far - grandfalooning around concepts, feeling safe among the same. [Think microsoft & windoze - I notice that those using them spend more and more time fighting plagues than doing some useful work, if they ever did. When was the last time you saw a macintosh or lynx virus ?] Some alternate lifestyles will (statistically, by chance) offer some protection. Not that I know what they may be. Ultimately, when everyone has a bioprinter*, your only safety will be having as little in common with everyone else as possible, to raise the cost of creating the custom bug. And this will bring some profound changes. * genetic engineering is today where computers were in 1950-ties. Huge buildings staffed with government/corporate contractors. ===== end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com
Morlock Elloi wrote:
I wonder how long will the anthrax hysteria last. Repetitive stimulation yields diminished response over time. This is not to say that there is no danger - but perception of danger seldom has any relation to danger itself.
Ask the Afghans how long bomb hysteria lasts. They been dealing with them for a few decades now.
The only way to protect from living organisms used as weapons (after all - life is a weapon) in the long run is immunity. Sooner or later any small determined group will be able to create some bug. I see no way that government can stop this - it's like trying to stop crypto or C coding. Will not happen.
That or genetic engineering, biotechnology, other advances in medicine and other fields. Brought about in no small measure to crypto and C coding, if only indirectly.
Maybe the high density living that we are so used to is incompatible with new weapons. Maybe societal structures based on projectile-throwing weaponry are passe. New weapons always changed rules, and it was called progress.
Give me enough room for projectiles any day.
One obvious advance is that using and defending from bugs requires more intelligence than pulling the trigger. This may be the main cause of Fear from WMD.
Putting whole societies in the line of fire of microbes is intelligent? Like I've been saying, folks, get a fucking grip. jbdigriz
participants (5)
-
Declan McCullagh -
georgemw＠speakeasy.net -
James B. DiGriz -
Morlock Elloi -
Tim May