HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: blei@midway.uchicago.edu (leo  bleicher)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: RE:Nanosystem wear and defects
Date: 6 Nov 92 04:20:53 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organiz

An alternative and possibly, in the long run, superior answer to
simply making extremely redundant nanomachines, would be to
incorporate the equivalent of the human immune system.  While this may
sound ridiculous, the fact that the nanomachines have been built
obviates some of the difficulties that appear at first glance.

Assuming that the technology for making redundant copies of
nanomachines is readily available ( in the form of assemblers ).  One
can see building a machine in which the same assemblers that built the
active parts in the first place can be left inside the structure
(which would be designed to allow them some degree of mobility) and
programmed to continuously tear apart and rebuild the active parts.
The assemblers would not necessarily have to distinguish between
functioning and non functioning parts as it would simply be taking
active parts out of their functional state for a short time.

This approach may seem bound by Godel's law, but if the assemblers
were in some way shielded, they might last for long enough.  While
this may seem a cumbersome and backwards design, one can (in classic
Drexler fashion) invoke an existence proof, for whatever that is
worth.

Leo

[There's no problem with self-referentiality in this approach;
 machine A can tear down and rebuild machine B even if they are 
 just the same kind of machine.  It's the same logic as allows
 you to design a self-replicating machine in the first place.
 --JoSH]
From: ejcampbe@eos.ncsu.edu (ERIC JON CAMPBELL)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: bio grown nano components
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:07:10 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos

My fellow net readers a question was poased to me and I couldn't answer.

What about using bacteria to produce organic components through genetic
manipulation?

[Given that the components are to be protein molecules, this is already
 a billion-dollar business.  Producing "Nanosystem"-style components,
 on the other hand, would be very difficult if not impossible.
 --JoSH]
From: ian@inf.ethz.ch (Ian)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: tunneling
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:51:58 GMT
Organization: Dept Biochemistry, University of Bristol, UK


>  (b) the molten part of the core has to be at least 1540C, and the 
>  night sky is 3K...
>  --JoSH]

Is it safe to cool the core ?  Presumeably only if we cool it *evenly*.  I
hate to think what effect changing the viscosity of part of the surrounding 
mantle would have (the mantle is the liquid layer isn't it ?).  I would have 
thought that from a really long-term point of view, the sun is still the 
biggest and best energy source around.

[The core heat supposedly comes from radioactive decay.  Even a drain
 of energy that was enormous in human terms would be small compared to
 the unevenness due the delta-T from tropics to polar regions.
 The mantle is the portion between the crust and the core.  It varies
 from solid to "plastic".  The outer core is liquid, the inner solid.
 (Don't ask me why!)
 --JoSH]
From: brian@brazil.psych.purdue.edu (Brian Berndt)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: underground space
Date: 6 Nov 92 04:43:40 GMT

In article <Nov.3.01.06.15.1992.26982@planchet.rutgers.edu> 
tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>... No one seems to consider the real engineering
>problems. I tried to read Drexler and found him to be such a cheer leader,
>with wild flights of fantasy on practically every page that I simply couldn't
>finish the book.

	Which of Drexler's books did you "try to read"?  I have read his
first two books and didn't find wild flights of fantasy on practically 
every page in either book.  His third book looks like it will be even more
what you are asking for.  I have been meaning to pick it up ...  :^)

In article <Oct.16.14.07.53.1992.26846@planchet.rutgers.edu>
(Josh writes)

>Nanosystems is the first technical introduction to molecular
>nanotechnology--an emerging field that has sparked increasing
>interest and controversy.  This groundbreaking book describes
>fundamental physical principles, components and devices, then examines
>applications including computers of unprecedented power and
>manufacturing systems able to build such products molecule by
>molecule.

Hopefully you will be able to finish this one!

	I would not be surprised to hear that most readers of Leonardo
da Vinci's notes would have thought they were reading wild flights of 
fantasy.  Hanggliders, helicopters, and many other realizable inventions
would never had become common machines had we listened to those readers.

	We need everyone's input.  Please continue to post useful
criticism to ideas that others present.  But I had thought Drexler's
books were FAQ to this newgroup.  If you haven't even finished his books
how can you criticize ideas you know nothing about?

Brian
--
Brian Berndt         Dept. of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University
Phone: (317) 494-6866          West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-1364   USA
Internet: brian@psych.purdue.edu                  BITNET: brian@PURCCVM

[To be nitpickingly rigorous, that quote I posted was from the 
 dustcover of Nanosystems.  An original review (by me) will appear
 in the next issue of Extropy.
 --JoSH]
From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: NECRONOMICON
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:44:24 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


It seems that people continue to doubt the Truth of H.P. Livecroft's
"Necromicon"!  They persist in claiming the spelling is
"Necronomicon," when any fool reading "alt.necromicon" can plainly see
the spelling right there in the name of the group! Can't they read?

And now some are even confusing the "Necromicon" with the "Necromicron"!

Brian Spolarich (briansp@css.itd.umich.edu) wrote:

:    Or for that metter, the name of this group:  alt.NECROMICRON.
:   
:   Wouldn't that be a dead, really little thing?


Scholars are torn about the meaning of the "Necromicron." Having finally
accepted Mitchell Porter's brilliant analysis of the "Necromicon" as,
literally, "The Book of Dead Mice," they are now looking for an
explanation of the "Necromicron."

The two leading contenders:

1. "The Book of Dead Microns," a screed by the Nanotechnologists (see
sci.nanotech) which denounces the micron as an obsolete measure for
Pre-Singularity "bulk" technology. The Mad Arab, Eric Al-Drexler, has
written a book, "Nanosystems," which may in fact be this long-lost
"Book of Dead Microns."

2. "The Book of Dead Microns," referring to the backlash against
Micron Corporation, Boise, Idaho, for urging tariffs on memory chips.
Having gotten tariffs placed on Korean RAMs, Micron now faces the
Wrath of the Users. The Mad Spud, J. R. Simplott, is looking for a job
peeling Ore-Ida potatoe chips.

-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^756839 | PGP Public Key: awaiting Macintosh version.

[In case the reader didn't realize:

  :^)

 --JoSH]
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Date: 10 Nov 92 11:43:47 EST

In article <1992Nov10.022121.25879@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
[...]
  Be open.  I have every confidence that you
> will come up with a clear working definition of what Christianity
> stands for (Christianity: Someone who follows the teachings of
> Jesus Christ). 

Which now have to be operationally defined.  However, let's take one specific
case.  Without qualifiers.  Love  the Lord God with they whole strength, etc.,
and Love they neighbor as thyself.  

Based on this, there are very very few followers of Christianity in the world. 
Note: very rigid definition. No qualifiers, no love some neighbors, no take
part of what you have and give to the poor, etc.  

Hmm.....if only we could find the six or so people in the world who do  this...

GXKambic
sd

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:19036 sci.philosophy.tech:3926
From: rubinoff@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Robert Rubinoff)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Does matter exist?
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:25:12 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


Well, if matter doesn't exist, then what *does* it do?

   Robert

From: wayne@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Wayne Covington)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:07:06 GMT
Subject: Re: Swallowed Chewing Gum
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic

jwlr@okeeffe.cc.rochester.edu (James Willer) writes in part:

> Back when I was in grade school, one of my teachers insisted that
> a piece of chewing gum would remain in the digestive tract for about
> seven years. (I was of course skeptical.)

Doctor:  How's the little boy who swallowed the quarter?

Nurse:   No change yet, doctor.

Wayne
From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Harmony Of The Gospels?
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:55:57 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:

>Eyewitnesses don't get everything right (unless, of course, they are
>being divinely guided so that their every word is accurate).  But when
>there are conflicts between eyewitnesses, it is clear that *at least
>one of them is wrong*.  This conclusion is not one which a biblical
>literalist is willing to draw.

But for non-literalists four gospels are better than two.  

EXAMPLE:  For flight hardware I specify a [3x] majority voting RAM 
because I know that when my software reads a bit while located in the
Van-Allen Belts I can assume that one of the three bits has experienced 
a single event upset  -- and I can accept that, because the other two
bits make a majority.

>   Also, if one witness says an airplane's engine fell off while another
>says the plane was shot down by an alien spacecraft, there is reason to
>believe that more is going on than the typical errors of perception and
>memory that plague eyewitness accounts.

It is not clear what alien spacecraft have to do in this discussion of
gospels and airline disasters.  When CNN had eyewitness accounts of the 
air crash at LAX a year or so ago, none of the eye-witnesses that I saw 
mentioned aliens.  Some saw a flaming plane descending onto the ruway,
but others saw no flames until the crash and subsequent explosion.

The point is any of these witnesses by themselves sounded plausible.  None
had outlandish tales of marauding saucers firing phasers set to kill.  Put
two reasonable though different eyewitness accounts side by side, and 
suddenly things start to look funny.  More information is needed, such 
accounts from from other witnesses.

It seems that four gospels is as good as the 1st century can pass on.
There were no videotapes, movies, or even (as far as I know) paintings 
made live on the scence of the crucifiction.  1st century evidence on 
its surface seems silly by 20th century standards.  The point is that
discounting the gospels just because they are in harmony instead of in
unison is not a good enough reason to reject all four as fiction.

Curt Roelle
From: marlowe@paul.rutgers.edu (Thomas Marlowe)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: insults
Date: 10 Nov 92 14:17:11 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


In the thread 'Gender-Neutral Pronoun', there has been some discussion about
whether someone can insult you without intending to insult you in
particular.

I would maintain, yes, they can, in the same way that a gunman atop a water
tower can shoot into a crowd, not intending to kill any known individual in
particular, and still commit murder.  In fact, if a bomber sets off a bomb,
not knowing for certain whether there will even be people present, but
people die, it can still be murder.  

What is needed is a combination of 'malicious intent', 'reckless disregard',
and 'knowledge of consequences'.  Murder can occur when someone, acting with
malice, performs an act which he/she clearly foresees is likely to cause
death.  Similarly (but, thank god, not comparably), someone who uses the
term 'faggot' (or whatever) (1) as a derogatory term, who is (2) aware that
the conversation is likely to be overheard by gays, and (3) without caring
(or even hoping) that they would feel insulted, is arguably insulting the gay
listener.

However, all three elements are needed: the speaker who is (emotionally or
intellectually) unaware certainly insults no one; if the conversation is
supposed to be private, we have bigotry, insensitivity, and so on, but no
insult; if the intent is to go along with the gang, or whatever, we have
moral cowardice and insensitivity, but arguably not insult.

tom
From: kanga.caltech.edu!magney (Michael Agney)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Homosexuality - genetic?  (was Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare)
Date: 6 Nov 1992 07:04:40 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: scratchy.caltech.edu

In article <1992Nov05.180105.14219@srg.srg.af.mil> dpipes@spica.srg (Dave  
Pipes x4552) writes:
> In article <1d7bniINNf9f@gap.caltech.edu> kanga.caltech.edu!magney  
(Michael Agney) writes:
> <chop chop>
> >Some scientists do claim to be omniscient;
> 
> Examples, please?  I think this is stretching it, and I'd rather not
> encourage people who *do* believe this is literally true...
> 

My apologies.  I was giving examples of people who claimed to be scien-
tists, but are not very good ones.  I got a little carried away in
relating my post to that of the person to whom I was responding.

Perhaps I should have been putting "scientists" in quotes, i.e.
Some "scientists" do claim to be omniscient;

but I probably shouldn't have made the statement at all.

--
/---------------------------------------------------------\
| Michael Agney          | "Well, if we were to build a   |
|                        |           giant badger..."     |
|                        |    - Monty Python and the      |
| magney@cco.caltech.edu |      search for the Holy Grail |
\---------------------------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Where has Galileo been all these years?
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 21:53:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.213858.17785@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>In article <2930020228.3.p00168@psilink.com> "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com> writes:
>>Did I hear correctly?  Has the Vatican now officially recognized the
>>!!!SUN as the center of the universe?  Surely not.
>>
>>Whatever.  In any case, the Pope seems sorry Galileo has been in
>>Purgatory, lo these many years, but what if G.G. was supposed to have gone
>
>Of course the Church has recognized that the sun is the center of
>the universe for some time now.  It has now gotten around to
>stating officially that it's condemnation of Gallelio was wrong.

It's been a long day, so please take this part of the posting with
the word "solar system" instead of "universe".  Then ignore it as
it finally sinks into my thick skull what was actually said.

>
>>to Heaven in 1843, having done his time burning in the fires of hell?
>>Just for the sake of argument (we don't know if G.G.'s
>>even due to get out anytime soon, with or without this heresy rap)
>>if he had been due an earlier release from agony, could he sue God 
>>for false damnation?  Or would he sue the Pope for making the mistake?
>
>FYI, the Church has never made an absolute pronouncement that
>anyone is with certainty in Hell or Purgatory, only Heaven.

Again, although what I said is true, I see the humorous intention of 
your posting...

>>jim tims 
>-- 
>John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Subject: Re: The Efficacy of Prayer
Reply-To: kraus@cheers.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:02:52 GMT

In article <1ds1j8INNslq@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.185551.24053@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>, kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:

>=Christianity is not in conflict with human nature. It is human nature to
> --------------------------------------------------
>=interpret just about everything in many different ways. 
>=
>=Sure, "YOU CAN'T EVALUATE THE PHILOSOPHY WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EFFECTS
>=IT HAS ON ITS FOLLOWERS.", but saying that the ideas of love that Jesus
>=put forth are somehow responsible for the state of the Christian Church 
>=(Jimmy Swaggert, Oral Roberts, whatever) is a bit farfetched. There are many
>=other factors involved, like greed, which is un-Christian.
>                         ----------------------------------
>
>Thank you for demonstrating my point.  Even in the process of trying to claim
>that Christianity isn't in conflict with human nature, you bring in a claim
>that it IS in such a conflict.

This is overgeneralization.
Christianity emphasizes the positive aspects of human nature. Just because
an aspect of human nature doesn't fall within that positive scope doesn't
mean that all of a sudden human nature is in conflict with Christianity.
Christianity emphasizes that subset of human nature which is good.

Being a subset of, is not being in conflict with.


---------------------------------------------------
Dave.Kraus@SanDiego.NCR.COM                       |
(619) 485-2504                                    |
---------------------------------------------------
From: avi@hawk.imagen.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:53:59 GMT
Reply-To: avi@hawk.imagen.com
Organization: none

>>The Talmud states that the Sanhedrin stopped judging capital cases "seventy
>>years before the destruction of the Temple". Even if seventy is just a round
									^^^^^^^
>>number, I'm pretty sure it's more than thirty, thus making any references to
  ^^^^^^^
>>capital cases in Jesus' time fictitious.

>Better check your math.  If the temple was destroyed in 70AD, and Jesus
>was crucified in 30AD, that's a gap of 40 years and your "pretty sure
>it's more than thirty" is insufficient to prove your case of fiction.

>Is it possible that reperucssions as a result of the crucifiction of
>Jesus resulted in the Sanhedrin ceasing to judge captial crimes?

>If you are truely skeptical, why is the Talmud considered more reliable
>than the New Testament?

1) The term "round number" is foreign to Hebrew, or the ancient Jewish culture.
   When the Talmud says "70 years" them mean "70 years".
2) The talmud is a MUCH more reliable source because despite the many years and
   hardships, there is ONLY 1 version of it (the Jersualem/Babelonyan being
   complementary). The New Testament however, has 4 different and often 
   contradictory versions (the 4 gospels) of the same story of Jesus' life and
   death.
3) The Sandhedrin had no special interest in Jesus, even in the New Testament it
   is said that there were MANY False Messiahs before Jesus and NONE was
   crucified ! Certainly, there were false Messiahs After Jesus, the most known of
   which is Shabtai Zvi (300-400 years ago).  Neither was cruficied nor executed
   in any way, even if their bad influence was MUCH more prominent among jews then
   Jesus' ever was. (especially true with Shabtai Zvi) - So, why the exception
   with Jesus ?
4) The Romans, however, had MORE than enough reason to crucify Jesus. Claiming
   to be the "King Messiah" was a DIRECT CHALLENGE to the Roman Emperor and more
   than enough reason to be crucified (remember, thieves were crucified, a sin  
   much less dangerous to the Romans, than direct challenge and competetion)
   The Romans were also the ONLY ones at the time, who had the authority to
   execute anybody. It was only after the establishment of the Roman-Catholic
   church, hundreds of years later, that the original story was changed and the
   Sandhedrin was blamed.
5) Haim HaCohen Levy, the president of Israel's Supreme Court and a world-renowned
   legal authority, wrote a book about it (Sorry, Can't remember the title) where
   he proved  the above, according to ALL the jewish laws and customs of the   
   time, including the Roman Laws and historical facts.

>Is it possible that reperucssions as a result of the crucifiction of
>Jesus resulted in the Sanhedrin ceasing to judge captial crimes?

6) What reperucssions ? By whom ? Not by the Pharasees (sp?) or the Romans (who
   according to your claims were both involved) leaves nobody else !
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Where has Galileo been all these years?
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 03:08:38 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

Did I hear correctly?  Has the Vatican now officially recognized the
!!!SUN as the center of the universe?  Surely not.

Whatever.  In any case, the Pope seems sorry Galileo has been in
Purgatory, lo these many years, but what if G.G. was supposed to have gone
to Heaven in 1843, having done his time burning in the fires of hell?
Just for the sake of argument (we don't know if G.G.'s
even due to get out anytime soon, with or without this heresy rap)
if he had been due an earlier release from agony, could he sue God 
for false damnation?  Or would he sue the Pope for making the mistake?
Does the Pope pay a penalty, say two weeks in Purgatory, or does
he get to stay on at the hand of God with just a reprimand?  Will
it bring up other mistakes, somewhat akin to Irangate, that could
get him in all kinds of trouble?

And what does he get if he wins?  Better Heaven?  A better harp?  What?
What could possibly beat the standard options of joy and life everlasting?

Any authorities on this sort of thing?  Maybe hell
isn't the one full of lawyers after all.  This religion stuff is really
hard, so I guess you've got to have some smart guys with experience
in this sort of thing.  They've probably got Clarence Darrow all warmed
up to work on the Darwin case.

Of course, there's always the chance that this Pope is wrong, too.  Guess
it'll all get sorted out at the Rapture.


-- 
jim tims 
"And if you're a miner, when you're too tired and old and sick and stupid
to do your job properly, you have to go, whereas just the opposite applies
with the judges."  Beyond the Fringe