HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: swarner@bbs1984.chi.il.us (Steve Warner)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: 21st Century Soldier
Date: 14 Sep 92 13:40:00 GMT
Organization: Not an Organization

In article <s3NXqB1w165w@rivdell.sccsi.com>, megazone@rivdell.sccsi.com
(Megazoner) writes:
>rwmurphr@crusader.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert W Murphree) writes:
>
>> according to an article in the last month or so of new scientist.
>> The soldier of tomorrow will carry a laser to blind other soldiers.
>> and wear goggles to save his own eyes.  Expect battlefield opthalmalic
>> surgery to be a big part of 21rst century MASH units.
>
>
> Here's my $2.0x10^-2 worth...
>
> Having been an infantry soldier, I found that using all sorts of high 
>tech didn't help me very much while dodging bullets. Most of it we stored 
>in the IFV, which we always expected to blow up when it hit the front 
>lines. (Fortunately, this did not occur in Iraq. It's a long walk 
>anywhere.)
>
> All we ever wanted was lighter stuff. Big death rays would be nice, but 
>do you want to carry that stuff 30 miles? Humping batteries for the radio 
>was a pain as it was, imagine the cell for a portable laser...I routinely 
>discarded my flak vest 'cos it was too heavy and wouldn't stop much 
>anyway, just grenade fragments. I'm more worried about concussion.
>
> What can one improve with conventional weapons? All the neat new stuff 
>would break down after minimal use, cracked, peeled, dented, abused and 
>rattled about. You gonna tell me that the lenses on a heavy laser are 
>gonna last mounted on a tank moving in rough terrain? The ranging laser 
>on the M1 had those problems, even with turret stabilization.
>
> Give me lighter night vision stuff, lighter ammo, a bigger rifle that's 
>lighter than the last, and heavy artillery support.
>
> Besides, lasers are active emissions. I used to watch 'em and figure out 
>where the tanks were before they saw me. Result, dead tank.
>
>
>--
....and here's my .02 cents worth.
     I've worked with lasers for about 20 years now. Current technology using
MBE (Multiple Beam Epitaxy) waffer procedures has these critters fitting inside
of a matchbox now, using camera batteries as power sources. I find it all to
easy to see the 21st century soldier using BLINDING techniques (note I did not
say "Death Ray Beams) in the battlefield. On a similar note, one of the trade
journals ("Laser Focus") just had an article about a new surgical laser using
an Nd/YAG element pumped by a laser diode array. This device delivers its beam
thru a fiber-optic cutting tool and is about the size of a paperback book. It
too was designed for use in the battlefield. With the advance of Quantum well
lasers, the days of hauling around a power source the size of a truck are gone.
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: danny@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Danny Faught)
Subject: Re: What do I do with it?
Organization: University of North Texas, Denton
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:48:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.194253.12195@access.usask.ca> choy@skorpio.usask.ca writes:
>
>Let's say I want to build an intelligent machine. What's it to be
>used for? Can this machine out [?] its role in the universe?

If you believe Star Trek doctrine, your intelligent machine has
unalienable rights and should be set free upon society so it
can exercise those rights.  What's amazing is that people actually
believe in this doctrine.

Trekkie-Disclaimer: Well, the Star Trek guys wouldn't talk philosophy,
so maybe the philosophy guys will talk Star Trek.

-- 
Danny Faught    danny@ponder.csci.unt.edu
Save this sig - I'll be famous someday
Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:6064 rec.arts.sf.misc:2867 alt.cyberpunk:4216
From: olson@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul Olson)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: 21st Century Soldier
Date: 11 Sep 92 17:05:00 GMT
Organization: Mission Operations and Data Systems
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Sep10.172333.4545@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes...
> 
>Given that very little fighting today is done hand-to-hand why do you
>think this is an important feature?  Today artillery and tanks are two
>of the biggest killers on the battlefield.  The infantry system
>described will let US soldiers fight better especially in certain types of
>terrain, for example places with lots of obstacles like forrests and
>cities, where tanks and artillery are not as useful.
> 

O.K., give the infantry all kinds of high-tech electronic equipment.  Train
them on it.  Make them dependant on it.  Then put them up against a third world
army who is medium or low tech, but has a number of cheap tactical nukes made
from materials supplied by Iran who bought their nuclear capabilities from
China (see the news from this last week).  The high tech soldiers move in, only
to have all of their electronics (visual, audio, communications, cooling vests,
etc.) wiped out by an electromagnetic puslse from a nuke which was detonated
overhead.  It doesn't even need to drop on them.  They are now back to
hand-to-hand combat against a foe who has been trained to fight that way.

Just because it hasn't happened, doesn't mean it can't.

Dr. Forbin
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
From: leebal@teal.csn.org (Lee Ballentine)
Subject: Re: _The Turing Option_
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 10:15:44 GMT

minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:

>In article <185bhuINNj0v@agate.berkeley.edu> cascio@garnet.berkeley.edu (Jamais Cascio) writes:
>>>
>>btw-- F451 is on the list for the top 5 banned books in US schools...
>>wonder why?

>Where is this marvelous list?  I'g like to see the rest of it!

This may have been answered elsewhere, but the American Bookseller's
Association designates a "Banned Books Week" every year. Among the
materials they produce for booksellers are lists of banned books,
reports on censorship, and bookstore promotional items such as T-shirts,
posters, etc.

There's also an organization called "Booksellers for Free Expression"
which looks at censorship issues in Congress, lobbies against
bookseller liability legislation ("It's those books I bought at
Daltons that made me do heinous crimes--sue them since I don't have
any money here on Death Row"), etc.

Any good independent bookstore should know about Banned Books Week,
and they may have some of the reference materials on school and
library banning mentioned above.

Lee Ballentine
probook@csn.org
From: chris@applix.com (Chris Howell [ext 238])
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
Date: 10 Sep 92 15:10:42 GMT
Organization: Applix, Inc., Westboro, MA

In article <1992Sep9.034138.15488@news.media.mit.edu> minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:
>That reminds me of once noticing that the English lexicon of verbs is
>asymmetrical with respect to winning contests of bloody force.  You
>can say in only three words that "Boston clobbered Philadelphia" or
>"Martina defeated Chris".  But you cannot say "Chris (lost to)
>Martina" in three words with Chris occupying the subject-case-slot.
>This seems to show that there is a sinister psychological bias
>concealed in the very lexicon (not grammar) of the language!  Winning
>a contest is an "action" (that is, has an actual verb) on the part of
>the subject of the sentence, whereas losing a contest cannot be
>expressed as an action.  As though to win is to one's credit, whereas
>when you lose, it is the act of someone else and not your own.
>

"Best" and "worst" as verbs, mean the same! They both mean that the subject
defeats the object. How could this happen?

Maybe the defeated one loses face, looses the right to be a subject. Maybe to
be the subject of active verbs like these one has to have intention.

Most cases I can think of where one intentionally loses a conflict, one
also wants to conceal the intention. Like when playing a game with a
child. Since the intention is concealed, we do not need words to
express it.

Remember the film "Lonliness of a Long Distance Runner"? The
prisoner-runner's act of deliberately losing the race was an extremely
powerful gesture as he made his intention obvious. If "best" and
"worst" meant what they might, one might say the prisoner "worsted" the
other runners in the race but "bested" the prison warden in the greater
contest the film portrays.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Chris Howell                   Applix, Inc.          (508) 870-0300 x238
chowell@applix.com OR          112 Turnpike Road
...!uunet!applix!chowell       Westboro MA 01581
"Oh, the cheapness of mindless calculation in this modern age!" - Roger
Penrose, in "The Emperor's New Mind", commenting on his word processor.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: ns111310@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Nate Sammons)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: RE: bio-chip (kind of)
Date: 7 Sep 92 19:14:44 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University

In article <1992Aug31.081556.8263@kth.se> Tord Malmgren, tordm@vana
writes:
> hello! I just read an article about a Geunter W. Gross (AT&T Bell) doing
>experiments letting nerves grow on a micro-chip thus studying how signals
>are done (for example in the brains) -- does anybody have any more info
>about this to share with me??

	In the August 1992 issue of Discover magazine, there is an article
(pg 54-60) entitled "If he only had a brain" (yes, how cute!)

	It is about Masuo Aizawa of the Tokyo Institute of Technology who is 
growing nerve cell derivatives on microchips aswell, he is experimenting
with them as signal processors.... This is a good article, and worth the
read,
even worth maybe tricking someone into typing it in and uploading it
(hint!)


+----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----+
|   Nate Sammons            <ns111310@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu>         
   |
|                                                                        
   |
|  "I don't want to be immortal through my work....                      
   |
|              ...I want to be immortal through not dying." -Anonymous   
   |
|                                                                        
   |
|  "We are the children of concrete and steele....                       
   |
|        ...everything is possible, but nothing is real."   -Living
Colour   |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----+
Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:6098 rec.arts.sf.misc:2920 alt.cyberpunk:4276
From: caross@acsu.buffalo.edu (Christian Ross)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: 21st Century Soldier
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:17:22 GMT
Organization: UB

m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:

>In article <1992Sep14.134609.23335@cas.org> sdr57@cas.org () writes:
>}In article <BuH0JM.5E4@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>}>In article <1992Sep11.230936.14718@cas.org> sdr57@cas.org writes:
>}>
>}>       On using small nuclear devices to produce EMP  to destroy
>}>high-tech gadgets:
>}>
>}>
>}>       Hmmm. Anyone  know if EMP-enhanced weapons are available?
>}>A  non-nuclear EMP device might be very useful in a near-future war,
>}>as well. Only problem is that producing EMP weapons may require
>}>First World grade industry, in which case the Third World may find
>}>it hard to get their hands on them.
>}>
>}Generating an electromagnetic pulse can be done without a nuclear device.
>}It requires lots of power and an interesting array of wires. There is an
>}EMP setup big enough to put whole airplanes into at Kirtland Air Force
>}Base in New Mexico (it was, and presumably still is, used to evaluate
>}the vulnerability of aircraft electronics to emp - military electronics
>}are designed to survive with the possibility of exposure to EMP in mind).
>}It is big - not portable - and the aircraft has to be inside. Its use
>}did not disrupt electronics in Albuquerque, which is adjacent to the
>}site. In short, if you want to generate an EMP under battlefield conditions,
>}you will need a nuclear device

>Nah.  A cesium seeded high temperature explosion can generate the electrical 
>pulse through MHD to send the wave through trailing wires.  A use-it-once
>weapon, but most are.  Fits in a BIG artillery shell.

An interesting article in IEEE spectrum speculated on the use of high power
microwave tubes (virtual cathode oscillators) to produce intense pulses of
microwave radiation, not only to couple to and destroy non-hardened hardware,
but also cause neurological problems and tissue heating in battlefield troops.
-- 
Christian A. Ross                |               Student (Physics/Mathematics)
caross@acsu.buffalo.edu          |     State University of New York at Buffalo
-- 
 "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
From: trev@hubcap.clemson.edu (Trevor Bauknight)
Subject: Re: 21st Century Soldier
Organization: Jes Grew Carriers -- Metaphysical Bunko Squad 
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 06:30:41 GMT

rwmurphr@crusader.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert W Murphree) writes:

>according to an article in the last month or so of new scientist.
>The soldier of tomorrow will carry a laser to blind other soldiers.
>and wear goggles to save his own eyes.  Expect battlefield opthalmalic
>surgery to be a big part of 21rst century MASH units.

Or Zeiss Ikons...

 
Trevor Bauknight         trev@hubcap.clemson.edu    ...gatech!hubcap!trev
 
                                                     +-----------+
                                                     | _> ###    |
                  fleshy from the wetter             |     |     |
                                                     +-----------+
From: sl4q+@andrew.cmu.edu (Scott T. Lillis)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Cellular Automata
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:59:13 GMT
Organization: Freshman, MCS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

I have been researching Cellular Automata similar to the popular "Life
Hack" program.  I have been looking in to more in depth algorithms than
the one found in life hack, using relatively more complex boolean
algebra to devise of a control structure.  If anyone has any ideas on
this subject in general, I'd like to here it.

Scott Lillis
sl4q+@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
From: jwtlai@jeeves.uwaterloo.ca (Jim W "GrimJim" Lai)
Subject: Re: _The Turing Option_
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 04:12:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.183924.1074@mercury.unt.edu> danny@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Danny Faught) writes:
>In article <185bhuINNj0v@agate.berkeley.edu> cascio@garnet.berkeley.edu (Jamais Cascio) writes:
>>btw-- F451 is on the list for the top 5 banned books in US schools...
>>wonder why?
>
>Don't worry - they made an asbestos-covered edition.

You know, a CD-ROM burning just doesn't have the visceral effect that a good
old fashioned book burning does.  Sigh.  Technology ruins everything.
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: forbis@carson.u.washington.edu (Gary Forbis)
Subject: On the implications of biology as to "functional equivalence"
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 22:29:15 GMT

In article <18tpp9INNjtb@agate.berkeley.edu> william@moica.berkeley.edu (William E. Grosso) writes:
>I think the point my be that "biology" is a very strong piece
>of corroborating evidence that could sway the decision towards 
>the conclusion "my pen-pal is intelligent". Because, if an
>entity which is quite similar to me is writing me letters, I
>am predisposed to say that it is producing the letters in much
>the same way I would. E.g. by thinking.

Unless you know what constitutes "similar" you have no reason to claim
similarity.  

Take almost any two randomly chosen computer programs.  It is highly
unlikely that they are functionally equivalent even though there is
nothing beyond their functional organization to indicate so.  One cannot
look at the computer running these programs and say they are functionally
equivalent and yet that seems to be what you wish to do by appealing to
"biology".

>Whereas I might not have a similar insight into how a dis-similar
>entity produces its letters and therefore might not be so hasty
>in crediting said entity with intelligence.

And yet two totally dissimilar computers may run two distinct object
codes and produce functionally equivalent results.

>Having said the above, let me say that I think it is flawed.
>It gives me another method to detect intelligence (e.g 
>through the argument "I am intelligent. That being is functionally
>equivalent to me. therefore that being is intelligent"). It does
>bot invalidate TT.

I think you are too liberal in judging "functionally equivalent".

>Bill Grosso

--gary forbis@u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark)
Subject: Re: What do I do with it?
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 03:14:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.194253.12195@access.usask.ca> choy@skorpio.usask.ca writes:
>
>Let's say I want to build an intelligent machine. What's it to be
>used for? Can this machine out its role in the universe?

People tryly misunderstand the historical direction this evolution is taking
place in.  It is not heading toward the evolution of intelligent human-like
machines per se (have you all forgotten about overpopulation?) but rather
it's heading toward the evolution more intelligent controllers and more
direct connection between them and the human brain.

This evolution will not stop until the Ultimate User Interface is completed --
the direct link between the brain and the intelligent machine.  At this point
we will have such intimate contact between our brains to the artificially
created intelligence that we will perceive it as a part of ourselves, not as
part of an Alien mechanical intelligent species.  Thus our own brains will
take a instantaneous and momentous quantum leap forward in evolution with the
unanticipated synergism of this potent combination.

This will happen within my lifetime.  I'll make sure of that. :)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: vender@plains.NoDak.edu (Does it matter?)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Consciousness
Summary: Consciousness is a trick
Date: 16 Sep 92 03:34:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: plains.20390
Organization: NA

As human beings, we have sensory inputs from the real world.  This makes
  us aware of our surroundings.  We are self-aware because we have nerve
  endings throughout our bodies.  Consciousness is merely our model
  for seperating ourselves from the rest of existance (presumably to
  make it easier to keep track of spatial data or something).

Now that I've made that statement (which I would like feedback on):
  In an earlier thread, it was said that a computer based AI could
  not be conscious because its inputs lacked grounding in the real
  world.  The question is, what if we grounded it in a computer
  system (say a UNIX system on the Internet).  Granted it may
  be an incomprehensible intelligence, but would it qualify
  as having its inputs solidly grounded in its environment
  (and thus avoid that argument)?

--Brad
From: udumudi@maxine.wpi.edu
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: SICK
Date: 11 Sep 1992 05:27:20 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: maxine.wpi.edu



hey guys the newsgroup is getting sick nowadays.
i prefer reading rec.humor more than this one,

i am not able to figure out why. 

could someone help me.


Sri
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Turing Test Myths
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:18:49 GMT
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <1992Aug17.191457.8645@spss.com> markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
>In article <BILL.92Aug17114642@ca3.nsma.arizona.edu> bill@nsma.arizona.edu 
>(Bill Skaggs) writes:
>>   > > I believe that, given an hour of interrogation, I would have a
>>   > > better than 90% probability of distinguishing between a man and
>>   > > a woman.  [ . . . ]
>>
>>For a male imitating a female, I would begin by asking for an
>>explanation of the system of women's clothing sizes.  (Junior, Misses,
>>etc.)  Then I would ask for an explanation of "her" philosophy for
>>using makeup.  And so on.
>
>Would *you* be able to detect "wrong" answers to these questions?  
>If so, then you know enough about women to pass your own test.

This is not necessarily true.  Think, for example, of how much 
easier it is to have a reading knowledge of a programming language
than a writing knowledge.  

>Or perhaps you're thinking that a woman will administer this particular
>test?  Then my wife would probably fail.  She doesn't use much makeup,
>so she probably doesn't know enough about it to satisfy a female
>inquisitor.

That may be why he asked for a philosophy of using makeup rather
than something that more directly addressed knowledge about makeup.

Etc.
Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:6067 rec.arts.sf.misc:2871 alt.cyberpunk:4222
From: sdr57@cas.org
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: 21st Century Soldier
Date: 11 Sep 92 23:09:36 GMT
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio

In article <11SEP199212055913@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov> olson@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul Olson) writes:
>
>O.K., give the infantry all kinds of high-tech electronic equipment.  Train
>them on it.  Make them dependant on it.  Then put them up against a third world
>army who is medium or low tech, but has a number of cheap tactical nukes made
>from materials supplied by Iran who bought their nuclear capabilities from
>China (see the news from this last week).  The high tech soldiers move in, only
>to have all of their electronics (visual, audio, communications, cooling vests,
>etc.) wiped out by an electromagnetic puslse from a nuke which was detonated
>overhead.

Using a cheap tactical nuke against a country which has a lot
of expensive tactical nukes (not to mention a lot of really
expensive strategic nukes) is probably not a real good idea.
Generally, weapons of mass destruction are not used against
enemies who can retaliate in kind. The use of poison gas in
WWI came about because it was expected to be a war-winning
surprise. In WWII, neither the Axis or the Allies used it
because both sides knew the other had it. Iraq used chemical
weapons freely against the Iranians and the Kurds, but
did not use them against the Coalition forces: this was
certainly not due to any sudden feeling by Mr. Hussein that
such weapons were immoral. It probably had a lot to do with
our public and private messages that we would get *really* mad
if anybody did something like that.

>             It doesn't even need to drop on them.  They are now back to
>hand-to-hand combat against a foe who has been trained to fight that way.
>
>Just because it hasn't happened, doesn't mean it can't.
>
>Dr. Forbin

I will agree that an overdependence on technology is dangerous,
but at the same time you must use technology as a force multiplier
unless you are willing to maintain extremely large standing armies.
Given that the United States wishes to maintain a small volunteer
army, that army is going to need a lot of technology. Of course,
there are advantages to small professional armies. For one thing,
you can train them very well. This training might even include
some practice in hand-to-hand combat.

******************************************************************************
Renegade academician. They're a dangerous breed when they go feral,
academics are...a chemist, too.
		    -(James P. Blaylock in "Lord Kelvin's Machine")

My organization hasn't agreed with any of my opinions so far, and
I doubt they'll start now.

Stanley "Ya nee speon" Roberts
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk