HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: merkle@parc.xerox.com (Ralph Merkle)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Adequacy of molecular mechanics
Date: 28 Sep 92 00:54:15 GMT

Several people have very correctly pointed out that the general
protein folding problem is difficult both because our
current force fields are often not sufficiently accurate to
determine the correct minima, and also because there are many
possible configurations into which a protein can fold making
the search through the configuration space very tedious.

Despite the difficulties involved in the protein folding problem,
it is still possible to design and model a very large and very
useful range of devices using existing force fields and existing
molecular mechanics packages.

A typical protein is a long floppy strand. Predicting how it will
fold is difficult.  A block of diamond is a solid structure,
predicting how it will "fold" is trivial.  Structures that, like
a diamond block, have few if any free torsion angles and basically
one possible configuration can be modeled easily and with a fairly
high confidence.  It is not necessary to search through a large
configuration space, because the configuration space is very
small.  Modest errors in the force field are unlikely to cause
significant errors in the structure because any significant
structural change would require ripping apart bonds.

Think of it this way:  if we put protein into boiling water, it
usually denatures (like egg white).  If we put a diamond into boiling
water, nothing happens.  Therefore, errors in our force field which
are similar in magnitude to the thermal "errors" introduced by boiling
water will cause major problems in determing the structure of a protein,
but essentially no problems in determining the structure of a diamond.

If a design is heat resistant, it's also resistant to errors in the
force field.  If it's sensitive to heat, it's also sensitive to
errors in the force field.  We can confine ourselves to heat resistant
designs, and thereby avoid the problems that are encountered in
determining the structures of proteins.  The class of diamondoid
structures is heat resistant, and therefore can be modeled adequately
with current tools.

More generally, computational models of a given device will produce
one of three answers:  (1) The model is sufficiently accurate that
we can say with confidence that the device works, (2) The model is
sufficiently accurate that we can say with confidence that the device
does NOT work, or (3) The model is not sufficiently accurate to let
us say that the device does or does not work.

Because we are designing the device, we can simply reject designs that
fall into either the second or third category, and accept only designs
that fall in the first category.  This will cause us to reject many
perfectly workable designs, but we can thereby avoid accepting an
unworkable design.

This philosophy is also called "molecular bridge building" because bridge
designs also have large safety margins to prevent collapse under
unexpected loads.
From: mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Eliminating the need to sleep?
Date: 29 Sep 92 03:47:25 GMT

In article <Sep.25.16.57.20.1992.22661@planchet.rutgers.edu> dyfl@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Daniel Y Lam) writes:

>Does anybody have any idea of the current state of research in this
>area?  What about wild speculations?

There are several theories about how the brain works that kind of mandate
a sleep like state.  The simplest theory that the the brain is doing
Garbage Collection when you are asleep.  Another possibility is that the
conversion from short term to long term memory happens while you are asleep.
Both of these activities could require that the brain be placed in a quiesent
(non-thinking) state.  Note that people when deprived of enough sleep
both loose short term memory and the ability to think correctly, just as if
they where running out of free memory space and some emeregency memory 
reclaimation process (not a good as a full Garbage Collect) is going on to
support brain functioning.
--
Mark Biggar
mab@wdl1.wdl.loral.com
From: centry@athena.mit.edu (Jae H Nam)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Any advances in STM's?
Date: 29 Sep 92 03:45:58 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Just wondering about what advances there have been
in STM's with regards to nanotechnology.

Thanks.

[Since when?  A lot of interesting proto-manipulator proposals have
 been advanced, and various experiments done, and more all the time.
 --JoSH]
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Chimpanzee vs Human DNA
Date: 2 Oct 92 01:03:13 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <Oct.1.13.12.40.1992.24207@paul.rutgers.edu> marlowe@paul.rutgers.edu (Thomas Marlowe) writes:
|In article <92273.141949RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>, RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu writes:
|> one other interesting tidbit from sagan and lady's article, which i didn't
|> realize before: not only are chimpanzees the closest related species to
|> humans, but also humans are the closest related species to chimpanzees.
|
|except of course that bonobos (pygmy chimps) and chimps are closer to one
|another than to humans or gorillas
|
|> think about it: chimps are genetically closer to us than they are to, say,
|> gorillas.  neat.  goes against what is "natural" to believe.
|
I think it is time to, dare I say it, put in a skeptical note here.

The evidence for the branching sequence amoung humans, chimps, and gorillas
is equivocal.  Yes, the DNA and some protein sequence data technically show
the human-chimp branch point after the gorilla branch point.  *But*, when
you analyze the numbers for error bars (or statistical significance, which
amounts to the same thing) it turns out that the gorilla and chimp branch
levels are closer together than the error range, and thus cannot be said
to be clearly different.

Also, some other data, such as arm and hand anatomy, indicate a closer
relationship between the gorilla an chimp than either has with humans.
[In particular, they share anatomical adaptations for 'knuckle-walking',
which we lack, and which have never been found in any hominid, not even
Australopithecus afarensis].


Thus, at present this is really best treated as an unresolved trichotomy
(to borrow a temr from the cladists).
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Farenheit (was Re: Well known scientifc facts
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:34:39 GMT
Reply-To: gascan@dcst16.dc
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 17162@newshost.lanl.gov, jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
> 
> Ok. I actually looked it up, and I was slightly wrong.  To quote the
> Encyclopedia Brittanica:
>[delete]

OK, OK, so I'm wrong.  Apologies all around.

---
1. Bill Gascoyne
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall)
Subject: Re: J. Witnesses
Reply-To: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall)
Organization: Xerox
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 12:41:18 GMT

In article <1a8h8nINN82t@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep22.162609.236@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
|> >One can always play logical games as this and come up with the
|> >conclusion that there is no such thing as selflessness.
|> 
|> I don't consider that to be playing logical games, especially when someone
|> starts claiming that his brand of selfishness is better than my brand of
|> selfishness, just because he's chosen to label his brand "selflessness."

All good and fine if you subscribe to the notion of dualism. There is a point of
transcendence, however. This dualistic thinking is more a product of the "Western"
brand of thinking than actual reality. Even physicists (via Quantum Physics) have
admitted that a dualistic nature is not true nature. So, basically, you _are_ playing
out a logic game within the very limited confines of the human brain. It is never
as clear cut as this _or_ that; more realistically it is this _and_ that. At least,
that's what my dog told me.

|> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Erik Radmall                    | Xerox Corp.
eradm@brahms.wbst845e.xerox.com    | Knowledge-Based Systems Competency Center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Soul
Date: 5 Oct 92 10:59:37 EST

In article <1992Oct2.213955.23389@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
[...much convolution removed...]
>>
> 
> The soul has a gift called free will.  It can choose to do things
> that are contrary to God.  Remember, because it is *like* God
> (i.e. have similar properties) this does not make it God.
> Therefore, there is no guarantee that all of its actions are what
> God would want that person to do.

How do you differentiate between the acts  that the soul wants to actually do 
and those that are filtered  through a damaged brain, if I understand your
model correctly?


GXKambic
sd
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Soul
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 14:52:24 GMT

In article <1113@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>No, it is an aspect of my *theology*.   It is a claim about the nature of
>*creation*.  I am claiming that for God to have created disconnected bits
>would be an *imperfection* in his creation - that in order for it to be
>perfect it must be *unified*, with no seperable bits.   Then the scientific
>claim follows from the definition of the *scope* of science as applicable
>to all regularly observable phenomena.

Well even assuming that your theology has validity, the existence of the
soul in no way contradicts it.  After all, *when* the soul was created 
is at issue for you, not its existence.

>-- 
>Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.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
From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Subject: Re: Of Egg Yolks and Astrology
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:59:36 GMT

JRowe@cen.ex.ac.uk (John Rowe) writes:


>	I thought the secret of balancing eggs upright was to use a
>little slight of hand to put down a small pile of salt or similar
>and balance the egg on that. Another UL?

No, Wrong trick.
It is used for balancing a salt shaker on one of it's bottom edges.
Works best for salt shakers with sharp, right-angled (or close) edges
on their base.  It works because the individual salt crystals are
shaped like little blocks.  These help support the tilted salt shaker.

CWR
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17317 talk.origins:12397
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Well known scientific facts
Date: 28 Sep 1992 13:10 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.196
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Sep26.042421.3276@mp.cs.niu.edu>, rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes...
> 
>A fever is when the oral temperature registers 99.5 or above within 20
>seconds of inserting the thermometer in the mouth.  The rapidity with
>which the thermometer reaches the temperature is probably more important
>than the temperature itself.  There are doubtless exceptions to this
>test too.  [Now why can't the manufacturers of digital thermometers
>design them to test how rapidly the thermometer reaches equilibrium?]

This sounds very unreliable to me.  First of all - is it a mercury or 
alcohol thermometer?  The heat capacity of mercury is much larger than that
of alcohol, significantly changing the rate at which the thermometer
will respond.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Famous Last Words
Date: 1 Oct 92 21:17:02 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <2025@snap> paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes:
>A Western Union memo stated that the the telephone "is inherantly of
>no use to us".  In the UK, the head of the Post Office (I think)
>remarked that "the Americans may have use for the telephone.  We do
>not.  We have plenty of office boys."  Meanwhile the Mayor of an
>American town was more visionary, saying "I can see a time when every
>town will have one!".

Notice something _not_ in there?

Right.  People are making claims about something's usefulness.  They're not
claiming that it's impossible or possible, or true or false.

I suspect Derek was well aware that he would elicit lots of answers like these.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Soul
Date: 3 Oct 1992 21:51:00 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Oct1.024923.13843@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>My recollection: I stated that I didn't think that there was an
>objective way for science to prove the existence of the soul.  I
>asked him to let me know of a way to do this, since he was arguing
>that it could be done.  He stated that I should define what a soul
>was so that he could try.  I did.  You know the rest. 

I was not arguing that it could be done.  I was pointing out that until you
gave a definition, there was no chance that it could be done.  Your
"definition" lacked any sort of specificity.  It could refer to anything, to
nothing, or to any combination thereof.  Not, as I pointed out, a useful
definition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Focus on Crucifiction (was: Cruxed for Prophecy?)
Keywords: crucifiction prophecy sacrifice hebrew
Date: 3 Oct 92 18:38:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <roelle.718068597@uars_mag>, roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes...
>One major target group for very early evangelists (e.g. writers of the
>gospels) were the Hebrews.  In their effort  to convert Hebrews to
>Christianity they based their argument on two important points.  These
>were than Jesus C.  was:
> 
>   (1) a most perfect sacrifice (the one to end all sacrifices), and
>   (2) a high priest more worthy than any previous priest (including 
>       Aaron, Melchizidek, and even Moses himself).
> 
>These points are discussed at length in the _Epistle_to_the_Hebrews_,
>found in the New Testament.  In order to be convincing it was
>necessary to point out passages in scripture that support the notion
>that JC had indeed been their Messiah.
> 
>To be fit for sacrifice, an animal had to be perfect.  The following
>OT passage is similar to others, and is from Leviticus 3 (KJV):
> 
>6: And if his offering for a sacrifice of peace offering unto the Lord 
>   be of the flock; male or female, he shall offer it without blemish.
>7: If he offer a lamb for his offering, then shall he offer it before 
>   the Lord.
>8: And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it 
>   before the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron's sons shall 
>   sprinkle the blood thereof round about upon the altar.
> 
>A sheep herder in the mountains may have a lamb that falls and breaks
>its leg.  He may as well use it next time he needs to sacrifice,
>right?  No, wrong -- an animal with broken bones makes not a suitable
>sacrifice. If Jesus had been stoned and had his bones broken, the
>sacrifice argument would not have been valid.

Read verse six again.  The sacrifice must be "without blemish."
Jesus, according to the gospels, was scourged, beaten, and bloody.
Therefore, by your own reasoning, the sacrifice argument is not valid.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Gerry Roston, I'm sorry.
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 16:13:12 GMT

In article <5770@tuegate.tue.nl> wsadjw@urc.tue.nl writes:
>In article <LEET.92Sep30095549@dove.ims.com> leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:
>>            At that time Gerry 
>>   posted a message which basically said:
>>
>>        Since God doesn't exist, what's the meaning of life?
>>
>>And I replied, in essence:
>>
>>        If God doesn't exist, life is meaningless.
>>
>>Not exactly the most sensitive, caring of responses, eh?  
>>Gerry, I'm sorry.
>
>It 's nice to reflect thusly on one's deeds, but I venture that there
>is no reason for remorse.  The question posted may not reflect any
>personal problems. Probably Mr. Roston will comment on it in his usual
>acerbic way. Let's just *assume* that the question was posed  in earnest.
>Even then, the answer is not necessarily unsensitive. 
>
>I remember discovering the liberating idea that life is meaningless (even
>if God does exist).  This idea puts an end to all laborious searching for
>meaning in improbable places (like misfortune).  It makes it possible to
>enjoy life without having to bother about the deeper meaning. 
>

It certainly is possible to believe that life in general has a
specific meaning or purpose, but not to believe that each
individual event in life has a deep hidden meaning.  For example,
that cup of coffee I spilled this morning need not have a deep
purpose behind it, however if I look back over my whole life,
then it certainly is possible to see God's handwriting in it
,IMHO.

>JWN
>


-- 
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: smlacke@isrc.sandia.gov (Scott M Lackey)
Subject: Re: Re: Faith and skeptics.
Organization: Sandia National Labs, Org. 1600, Albq., NM
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:11:43 GMT

From article <BvpEsG.8CI@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au>, by fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee):
> [........].
> 
> |> 
> |> Tell us something new please.  Tell us a reason to believe in your favorite
> |> pseudoscience.
> 
> Because it comes with a set of steak knives,.. and that's not all......
> 
	Well, I'll believe that when I actually *see* the steak knives!
  Any warranty on these knives?
> 

	 But seriously, you stated that skeptics reject ideas because they 
reason that they cannot be so.  Speaking for myself, I find the
possibility of bigfoot, Loch Ness monster, Extraterrestrial visitations
and some others to be totally reasonable within my understanding of
the world. I, however reject these ideas. Why? The evidence seems
*extremely* questionable (To put it tactfully).  Any decent skeptic
knows that you can assemble a huge amount of circumstantial evidence
for just about any idea you have the imagination to think up. 
	On the other side, I find some of the results of quantum mechanics
to be in direct opposition to my understanding of reality. I once
threw a book on the subject across the room from some sort of
infantile reaction to having my beliefs about reality challenged.
However, I accept what the book had to say. Why?  Because there
is a huge amount of repeatable evidence that says my ideas about
nature were just plain wrong.  
	My reason has nothing to do with acceptance or rejection when
I am truly skeptical.  Evidence does. Period.
> 
> I think skepticism is a necessary part of critical thought. However, if taken
> to extremes, skepticism leads to a prejudiced way of thinking. Prejudiced by
> the accepting of a necessarily incomplete current scientific world view.
> Any such prejudiced thinking can inturn cause a retardation in the 
> advancement of science. Thus I try to refrain from fostering any such 
> prejudiced thinking. This I believe to be a state of open-mindedness.
> 
	It seems to me that you are calling "extreme skepticism" what I or
many other skeptics would call denial.  If this is your usage, then
you are right that it is detrimental, but this statement gains truth
value at the cost of becoming absolutely trivial. Skeptics would agree
that denial in the face of evidence (Good evidence that is, I won't
spend pages defining "good") is detrimental to progress.
> 
> There are those of you who cry: "Give us EVIDENCE so that we may believe".
> 
> I would prefer to say: "Give me the scientific EVIDENCE so that I may believe,
> otherwise give me scientific EVIDENCE so that I may disbelieve".
> 
	Skeptics cry "Let the claimant provide evidence appropriate to the
claim made".
> 
>  
> I have a scientific curiosity, not an unwavering faith in my beliefs.
> 
> Mark.
> 
	If you equate skepticism, even "extreme" skepticism with unwavering
faith in beliefs, then you are using the term so differently from 
usage in this newsgroup that discussion is not even terribly meaningful.

Scott Lackey