Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Fantasy » alt.fan.pratchett » [I] Narrowmindedness!
[I] Narrowmindedness! [message #275603] Do, 01 Juni 2006 16:47
SauN  
I live and work for a web development company in Grenoble in the South
of France. Grenoble is a major scientific center, especially in the
fields of physics, computer science and applied mathematics. Important
laboratories and research centres are present here and among them is
Minatec (Micro and Nano Technologies Research Centre).

At midday today, I was talking to a colleague at the company's reception
desk when 20 to 30 persons wearing hoods entered the office and started
ransacking everything. They violently disconnected the computers' CPUs,
broke them open and took out Coke bottles and spilled the contents
inside. The screens were smashed and Coke thrown on the keyboards also.
We couldn't do a thing to stop them.

Before leaving they said that they were doing a demonstration because
they are firmly opposed to research on nano-technologies. IMHO, anybody
can be opposed to anything as long as it is justified but here you have
narrow minded persons demonstrating violently against computers used for
making websites thinking that it will have an impact on nano research.
In other words they want to stop Minatec from doing research.

A computer is just a machine and it is private property and destroying
it will not stop human beings from thinking and wanting to make
technology move forward. And it is even more hopeless when you destroy
web designing machines... there's no impact at all on research, only on
these people's narrowmindedness thinking they've done a great deed.

Cheers
SauN
http://sa-un.blogspot.com
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #275605 ] Do, 01 Juni 2006 16:51
Brenda  
SauN <"sachin[dot]brojmohun[at]free[dot]fr"> said:

> At midday today, I was talking to a colleague at the company's reception
> desk when 20 to 30 persons wearing hoods entered the office and started
> ransacking everything. They violently disconnected the computers' CPUs,
> broke them open and took out Coke bottles and spilled the contents
> inside. The screens were smashed and Coke thrown on the keyboards also.
> We couldn't do a thing to stop them.

Sorry to hear that. I hope those responsible are caught and made to pay for
the damage they caused.

I also hope you had backups!

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #275637 ] Do, 01 Juni 2006 17:33
Rgemini  
SauN wrote:
....
>
> At midday today, I was talking to a colleague at the company's reception
> desk when 20 to 30 persons wearing hoods entered the office and started
> ransacking everything. They violently disconnected the computers' CPUs,
> broke them open and took out Coke bottles and spilled the contents
> inside. The screens were smashed and Coke thrown on the keyboards also.
> We couldn't do a thing to stop them.
>
> Before leaving they said that they were doing a demonstration because
> they are firmly opposed to research on nano-technologies. IMHO, anybody
> can be opposed to anything as long as it is justified but here you have
> narrow minded persons demonstrating violently against computers used for
> making websites thinking that it will have an impact on nano research.
> In other words they want to stop Minatec from doing research.
>
....

Weird and misguided! Don't know if you follow UK news at all but here
the so-called animal liberation movement have stooped to attacking
people's homes and families, even digging up someone's recently-buried
mother/grandmother to stop their company breeding animals for medical
research. Presumably they don't mind wearing shoes and belts made of
leather, drinking milk and eating eggs, or relying on medical technology
if they get ill. Also believing that you can justify any amount of evil
behaviour if you think it's for a greater good. Cretins.

Glad you and your colleagues weren't harmed. Nil illegitimus carborundum!

Rgemini
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #275653 ] Do, 01 Juni 2006 17:50
SauN  
Richard Heathfield a écrit :

> Sorry to hear that. I hope those responsible are caught and made to pay for
> the damage they caused.

> I also hope you had backups!
>

Well, hard to get them down. All in all they were several hundreds going
around the city centre ransacking cyber-cafes and even ATMs. The
manager went to the police while we were nearly kneeling in admiration
in front of the servers' racks. Server backup proves to be really handy.
--
SauN
http://sa-un.blogspot.com
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #275677 ] Do, 01 Juni 2006 18:18
Torak  
SauN wrote:
> Richard Heathfield a écrit :
>
>> Sorry to hear that. I hope those responsible are caught and made to
>> pay for the damage they caused.
>> I also hope you had backups!
>
> Well, hard to get them down. All in all they were several hundreds going
> around the city centre ransacking cyber-cafes and even ATMs. The

Does anyone know why?

Paging Ned Ludd...
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #275712 ] Do, 01 Juni 2006 18:53
Joe C  
"SauN" <"sachin[dot]brojmohun[at]free[dot]fr"> wrote in message
news:447efde8$0$27382$626a54ce [at] news.free.fr...
>I live and work for a web development company in Grenoble in the South of
>France. Grenoble is a major scientific center, especially in the fields of
>physics, computer science and applied mathematics. Important laboratories
>and research centres are present here and among them is Minatec (Micro and
>Nano Technologies Research Centre).
>
> At midday today, I was talking to a colleague at the company's reception
> desk when 20 to 30 persons wearing hoods entered the office and started
> ransacking everything. They violently disconnected the computers' CPUs,
> broke them open and took out Coke bottles and spilled the contents inside.
> The screens were smashed and Coke thrown on the keyboards also. We
> couldn't do a thing to stop them.
>
> Before leaving they said that they were doing a demonstration because they
> are firmly opposed to research on nano-technologies. IMHO, anybody can be
> opposed to anything as long as it is justified but here you have narrow
> minded persons demonstrating violently against computers used for making
> websites thinking that it will have an impact on nano research. In other
> words they want to stop Minatec from doing research.
>
> A computer is just a machine and it is private property and destroying it
> will not stop human beings from thinking and wanting to make technology
> move forward. And it is even more hopeless when you destroy web designing
> machines... there's no impact at all on research, only on these people's
> narrowmindedness thinking they've done a great deed.
>
> Cheers
> SauN
> http://sa-un.blogspot.com

What is their problem with nano technologies?
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #275724 ] Do, 01 Juni 2006 19:08
Brenda  
kathryn said:

> What is their problem with nano technologies?

Possibly the "grey goo" disaster scenario, where machines make smaller and
smaller copies of themselves, until the machines are nanoscopic, out of
control, and determined, like the Sorcerer's Apprentice's Broomstick, to
keep on going, and going, and going, and going... until the entire crust of
the planet (including every single living thing) has been used as raw
material for these machines, at which point, presumably, they'll start
using each other.

It's certainly an unpleasant thought, isn't it?

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #275733 ] Do, 01 Juni 2006 19:26
Jens Ayton  
Richard Heathfield:
> kathryn:
>>
>> What is their problem with nano technologies?
>
> Possibly the "grey goo" disaster scenario

....or possibly they're just cretins who can't tell nanotech from genetic
tech.


--
\\\\ Jens Ayton, Fratello di Vetinari 36.3636363636364% insane
\\\\\__, Bringing sarcastic one-liners to the common hedgehog since 1999
\\\\\`/
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #275744 ] Do, 01 Juni 2006 19:43
Brenda  
Jens Ayton said:

> Richard Heathfield:
>> kathryn:
>>>
>>> What is their problem with nano technologies?
>>
>> Possibly the "grey goo" disaster scenario
>
> ...or possibly they're just cretins who can't tell nanotech from genetic
> tech.

I think the cretinositude goes without saying. Anyone heavily motivated to
attack an IT outfit (for whatever misguided reason) who goes about it by
smashing up workstations and leaving server racks untouched is clearly a
few bits short of a quadword.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #275751 ] Do, 01 Juni 2006 19:57
Joe C  
"Richard Heathfield" <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:tMmdnQRZBeFvg-LZRVny2A [at] bt.com...
> kathryn said:
>
>> What is their problem with nano technologies?
>
> Possibly the "grey goo" disaster scenario, where machines make smaller and
> smaller copies of themselves, until the machines are nanoscopic, out of
> control, and determined, like the Sorcerer's Apprentice's Broomstick, to
> keep on going, and going, and going, and going... until the entire crust
> of
> the planet (including every single living thing) has been used as raw
> material for these machines, at which point, presumably, they'll start
> using each other.
>
> It's certainly an unpleasant thought, isn't it?
>
> --
> Richard Heathfield

I think they've been reading too many science fiction novels - or, more
aptly, watching too many sci fi movies.
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #275780 ] Do, 01 Juni 2006 20:19
Torak  
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Jens Ayton said:
>>Richard Heathfield:
>>>kathryn:
>>>
>>>>What is their problem with nano technologies?
>>>
>>>Possibly the "grey goo" disaster scenario
>>
>>...or possibly they're just cretins who can't tell nanotech from genetic
>>tech.
>
> I think the cretinositude goes without saying. Anyone heavily motivated to
> attack an IT outfit (for whatever misguided reason) who goes about it by
> smashing up workstations and leaving server racks untouched is clearly a
> few bits short of a quadword.

"Take that, HAL!"

"Er, guys... HAL doesn't exist."

"You're building him! Nano-nazis! Baaaaaahhh!"

"Guys... HAL was a lightbulb with a red cover, and a bloke with a
microphone."

"No! You deluded fools! Slaves of the machine god! We will cleanse you
with herbal bath salts! AAAARRRGH!!!"

"Okay." <starts walking away> "Oh, by the way. That's not our servers.
That's your VCR."
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #275795 ] Do, 01 Juni 2006 20:39
alec  
In article <tMmdnQRZBeFvg-LZRVny2A [at] bt.com>, invalid [at] invalid.invalid
says...
> kathryn said:
>
> > What is their problem with nano technologies?
>
> Possibly the "grey goo" disaster scenario, where machines make smaller and
> smaller copies of themselves, until the machines are nanoscopic, out of
> control, and determined, like the Sorcerer's Apprentice's Broomstick, to
> keep on going, and going, and going, and going... until the entire crust of
> the planet (including every single living thing) has been used as raw
> material for these machines, at which point, presumably, they'll start
> using each other.
>
> It's certainly an unpleasant thought, isn't it?

But the person who originally proposed that scenario has admitted that
it is completely ridiculous.

So far it is possible, *it has already happened*. The world is already
massively contaminated with incredible numbers of self-reproducing nano-
machines, each intent on manufacturing as many copies of themselves as
they can by stealing any resources they can from the environment. They
come in two classes: a large, self-powered class which is capable of
reproducing unlimitedly with no otner resources than raw materials
fromthe environment, and a smaller, more mobile class with no on-board
energy storage capacity which instead takes over machinery esential to
life as we know it and converts it into a replicator for the invading
nano-machine. These two classes are called bacteria and viruses.

There are problems with nanotechnology, which deserve a serious
discusssion. But the grey goo scenario makes Eugene McCarthy look like a
model of non-judgementalism.
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #275815 ] Do, 01 Juni 2006 20:18
Eric Jarvis  
Richard Heathfield invalid [at] invalid.invalid wrote in <tMmdnQRZBeFvg-
LZRVny2A [at] bt.com>:
> kathryn said:
>
> > What is their problem with nano technologies?
>
> Possibly the "grey goo" disaster scenario, where machines make smaller and
> smaller copies of themselves, until the machines are nanoscopic, out of
> control, and determined, like the Sorcerer's Apprentice's Broomstick, to
> keep on going, and going, and going, and going... until the entire crust of
> the planet (including every single living thing) has been used as raw
> material for these machines, at which point, presumably, they'll start
> using each other.
>
> It's certainly an unpleasant thought, isn't it?
>

On the whole I worry more about crossing the road.

I suspect it's more a case of being addicted to violent protest and
looking for things to protest about.

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #275818 ] Do, 01 Juni 2006 21:10
Jens Ayton  
Alec Cawley:
>
> So far it is possible, *it has already happened*. The world is already
> massively contaminated with incredible numbers of self-reproducing nano-
> machines, each intent on manufacturing as many copies of themselves as
> they can by stealing any resources they can from the environment. They
> come in two classes: a large, self-powered class which is capable of
> reproducing unlimitedly with no otner resources than raw materials
> fromthe environment, and a smaller, more mobile class with no on-board
> energy storage capacity which instead takes over machinery esential to
> life as we know it and converts it into a replicator for the invading
> nano-machine. These two classes are called bacteria and viruses.

You seem to be forgetting eukaryote cells. There are les sof them, of
course, but the description still applies.


--
\\\\ Jens Ayton, Fratello di Vetinari 36.3636363636364% insane
\\\\\__, Bringing sarcastic one-liners to the common hedgehog since 1999
\\\\\`/
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #275821 ] Do, 01 Juni 2006 21:14
RuneMaster  
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 19:18:57 +0100, Eric Jarvis <usenet [at] ericjarvis.co.uk>=
=

wrote:

<bits removed>
>
> I suspect it's more a case of being addicted to violent protest and
> looking for things to protest about.
>

The weird attitude is that if you have the temerity to disagree, however=
=

mildly, with their protest, or their methods, you get tarred with the sa=
me =

brush as the victim.

If any "pro" group targeted the "anti" people with the same tactics of =

intimidation, violence etc. I wonder what their reaction would be. The =
=

Golden Rule is "Do not do unto others what you would not like done unto =
=

you" but this seems to be conveniently forgotten by all the =

self-proclaimed "Campaigners".

This attitude is not confined to Animal Rights/Anti-Abortion or whatever=
=

groups - whole Governments also act this way, more's the pity.



-- =


"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any =

member of a civilised commuinity, against [their] will is to prevent har=
m =

to others. [Their] own good, either physical or moral, is not a =

sufficient warrant"

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty 1859
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #275822 ] Do, 01 Juni 2006 21:17
Daibhid Ceannaideach  
The time: 01 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
speaker: Rgemini <royOMIT.ayresCAPITAL [at] dsl.LETTERSpipex.com>

> Weird and misguided! Don't know if you follow UK news at
> all but here the so-called animal liberation movement have
> stooped to attacking people's homes and families, even
> digging up someone's recently-buried mother/grandmother to
> stop their company breeding animals for medical research.
> Presumably they don't mind wearing shoes and belts made of
> leather, drinking milk and eating eggs, or relying on
> medical technology if they get ill. Also believing that
> you can justify any amount of evil behaviour if you think
> it's for a greater good. Cretins.

Agreed, but I'm not so sure about your presumptions. I'm a
"normal" vegetarian who vaguely disaproves of animal research
but thinks these guys are loonies[1], and I wear fabric
trainers and a canvas belt. I'm sure actual fanatics are even
more concientious than I am.

[1]The main effect they have, as far as I can see, is stifling
debate. The pro lobby is afraid to speak lest they get
targeted, and people like me are afraid to voice our concerns
lest we get associated with them.

--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Suggs against sexism. It's Madness gone
politically correct.
Jon Holmes, The Now Show 26/5/06
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #275823 ] Do, 01 Juni 2006 21:18
Daibhid Ceannaideach  
The time: 01 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
speaker: SauN <"sachin[dot]brojmohun[at]free[dot]fr">

> I live and work for a web development company in Grenoble
> in the South of France. Grenoble is a major scientific
> center, especially in the fields of physics, computer
> science and applied mathematics. Important laboratories and
> research centres are present here and among them is Minatec
> (Micro and Nano Technologies Research Centre).
>
> At midday today, I was talking to a colleague at the
> company's reception desk when 20 to 30 persons wearing
> hoods entered the office and started ransacking everything.
> They violently disconnected the computers' CPUs, broke them
> open and took out Coke bottles and spilled the contents
> inside. The screens were smashed and Coke thrown on the
> keyboards also. We couldn't do a thing to stop them.
>
> Before leaving they said that they were doing a
> demonstration because they are firmly opposed to research
> on nano-technologies. IMHO, anybody can be opposed to
> anything as long as it is justified but here you have
> narrow minded persons demonstrating violently against
> computers used for making websites thinking that it will
> have an impact on nano research. In other words they want
> to stop Minatec from doing research.
>
> A computer is just a machine and it is private property and
> destroying it will not stop human beings from thinking and
> wanting to make technology move forward. And it is even
> more hopeless when you destroy web designing machines...
> there's no impact at all on research, only on these
> people's narrowmindedness thinking they've done a great
> deed.

Good grief. You have my sympathies.

--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Suggs against sexism. It's Madness gone
politically correct.
Jon Holmes, The Now Show 26/5/06
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #275875 ] Do, 01 Juni 2006 22:19
Arthur Hagen  
kathryn <nospam [at] here.com> wrote:
>
> What is their problem with nano technologies?

Some people don't want humans to "play god" and do such evil things as
repairing genes or otherwise change "creation".

--
*Art
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #275894 ] Do, 01 Juni 2006 22:42
Rgemini  
Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
> The time: 01 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
> speaker: Rgemini <royOMIT.ayresCAPITAL [at] dsl.LETTERSpipex.com>
>
>> Weird and misguided! Don't know if you follow UK news at
>> all but here the so-called animal liberation movement have
>> stooped to attacking people's homes and families, even
>> digging up someone's recently-buried mother/grandmother to
>> stop their company breeding animals for medical research.
>> Presumably they don't mind wearing shoes and belts made of
>> leather, drinking milk and eating eggs, or relying on
>> medical technology if they get ill. Also believing that
>> you can justify any amount of evil behaviour if you think
>> it's for a greater good. Cretins.
>
> Agreed, but I'm not so sure about your presumptions. I'm a
> "normal" vegetarian who vaguely disaproves of animal research
> but thinks these guys are loonies[1], and I wear fabric
> trainers and a canvas belt. I'm sure actual fanatics are even
> more concientious than I am.
>
> [1]The main effect they have, as far as I can see, is stifling
> debate. The pro lobby is afraid to speak lest they get
> targeted, and people like me are afraid to voice our concerns
> lest we get associated with them.
>

You and I are in agreement about that. That debate, conducted in
reasoned fashion, is vital.

My own view, as an omnivore by evolution, is that medical research using
animals is justifiable on ethical grounds but that the humane treatment
of those animals should be paramount, taking into account the social,
behavioural, exercise and dietary needs of each species. And even then
the numbers used should be minimal and the likely benefits great.

Just to complete the picture, I'm not a vegetarian but I do want the
food animals that I eat to be treated well, transported with regard to
minimising their stress and killed quickly and painlessly where their
death will not cause distress to others of their kind awaiting the same
fate. It doesn't happen as much as it could though.

regards
Rgemini
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #275964 ] Do, 01 Juni 2006 23:53
Matthew Seaman  
Richard Heathfield <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> writes:

> kathryn said:
>
> > What is their problem with nano technologies?
>
> Possibly the "grey goo" disaster scenario, where machines make smaller and
> smaller copies of themselves, until the machines are nanoscopic, out of
> control, and determined, like the Sorcerer's Apprentice's Broomstick, to
> keep on going, and going, and going, and going... until the entire crust of
> the planet (including every single living thing) has been used as raw
> material for these machines, at which point, presumably, they'll start
> using each other.
>
> It's certainly an unpleasant thought, isn't it?

Yup. It's quite biological.

But the grey goo people must have failed thermodynamics.

Matthew


--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
Kent, CT11 9PW
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #275972 ] Do, 01 Juni 2006 23:59
Rgemini  
RuneMaster wrote:
>
> The weird attitude is that if you have the temerity to disagree, however
> mildly, with their protest, or their methods, you get tarred with the
> same brush as the victim.
>
> If any "pro" group targeted the "anti" people with the same tactics of
> intimidation, violence etc. I wonder what their reaction would be. The
> Golden Rule is "Do not do unto others what you would not like done unto
> you" but this seems to be conveniently forgotten by all the
> self-proclaimed "Campaigners".
>

It's only the lack of numbers involved that distinguishes their
behaviour from the way the Nazis took power and Krystalnacht. Their
tactics and ideology are just as abhorrent. Using similar tactics
against them would take us down the same path, to a less free society.

regards
Rgemini
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #275976 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 00:04
alec  
In article <1ZGfg.3222$E02.737 [at] newsb.telia.net>,
UGPTDOVVSNIT [at] spammotel.com says...
> Alec Cawley:
> >
> > So far it is possible, *it has already happened*. The world is already
> > massively contaminated with incredible numbers of self-reproducing nano-
> > machines, each intent on manufacturing as many copies of themselves as
> > they can by stealing any resources they can from the environment. They
> > come in two classes: a large, self-powered class which is capable of
> > reproducing unlimitedly with no otner resources than raw materials
> > fromthe environment, and a smaller, more mobile class with no on-board
> > energy storage capacity which instead takes over machinery esential to
> > life as we know it and converts it into a replicator for the invading
> > nano-machine. These two classes are called bacteria and viruses.
>
> You seem to be forgetting eukaryote cells. There are les sof them, of
> course, but the description still applies.

They are just colonies of bacteria really.
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #275979 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 00:06
alec  
In article <e5ni3m$f3m$1 [at] tree.broomstick.com>, art [at] broomstick.com
says...
> kathryn <nospam [at] here.com> wrote:
> >
> > What is their problem with nano technologies?
>
> Some people don't want humans to "play god" and do such evil things as
> repairing genes or otherwise change "creation".

So definitely ban antibiotics, plant breeding, earth moving - or, in
fact, encouraging any plant to grow anywhere that it wouldn't have
seeded itslf.
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #276002 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 00:40
Peter Ellis  
Alec Cawley wrote:
> UGPTDOVVSNIT [at] spammotel.com says...
>>
>> You seem to be forgetting eukaryote cells. There are les sof them, of
>> course, but the description still applies.
>
> They are just colonies of bacteria really.

Well, strictly speaking you should be talking of Bacteria, Archaea and
Eukarya along with viruses. To the best of my knowledge it's not been
demonstrated whether any of these groups are ancestral to each other. Sure,
there's been a lot of lateral gene transfer, and some eukaryotic organelles
are apparently derived from endosymbiotic relationships (mitochondria,
chloroplasts, apicoplasts, nucleomorphs), but as far as we can tell there
are three major divisions of cellular life, as well as viruses.

There's even a very left-field suggestion that the three domains may have
arisen independently from the LUCA (last universal common ancestor) via gene
acquisition from viruses.

Peter
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #276018 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 01:08
alec  
In article <4e98nbF1djauqU1 [at] individual.net>, pjie2 [at] cam.ac.uk says...
> Alec Cawley wrote:
> > UGPTDOVVSNIT [at] spammotel.com says...
> >>
> >> You seem to be forgetting eukaryote cells. There are les sof them, of
> >> course, but the description still applies.
> >
> > They are just colonies of bacteria really.
>
> Well, strictly speaking you should be talking of Bacteria, Archaea and
> Eukarya along with viruses. To the best of my knowledge it's not been
> demonstrated whether any of these groups are ancestral to each other. Sure,
> there's been a lot of lateral gene transfer, and some eukaryotic organelles
> are apparently derived from endosymbiotic relationships (mitochondria,
> chloroplasts, apicoplasts, nucleomorphs), but as far as we can tell there
> are three major divisions of cellular life, as well as viruses.
>
> There's even a very left-field suggestion that the three domains may have
> arisen independently from the LUCA (last universal common ancestor) via gene
> acquisition from viruses.

You are, of course, quite correct. But it makes a lousy punch line.
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #276069 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 03:26
Lesley Weston  
in article 3rFfg.3203$E02.894 [at] newsb.telia.net, Jens Ayton at
PKWVQQGMIMEU [at] spammotel.com wrote on 01/06/2006 10:26 AM:

> Richard Heathfield:
>> kathryn:
>>>
>>> What is their problem with nano technologies?
>>
>> Possibly the "grey goo" disaster scenario
>
> ...or possibly they're just cretins who can't tell nanotech from genetic
> tech.
>
Or possibly they're just cretins, period.

--
Lesley Weston.

Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #276070 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 03:28
Lesley Weston  
in article tMmdnQRZBeFvg-LZRVny2A [at] bt.com, Richard Heathfield at
invalid [at] invalid.invalid wrote on 01/06/2006 10:08 AM:

> kathryn said:
>
>> What is their problem with nano technologies?
>
> Possibly the "grey goo" disaster scenario, where machines make smaller and
> smaller copies of themselves, until the machines are nanoscopic, out of
> control, and determined, like the Sorcerer's Apprentice's Broomstick, to
> keep on going, and going, and going, and going... until the entire crust of
> the planet (including every single living thing) has been used as raw
> material for these machines, at which point, presumably, they'll start
> using each other.
>
> It's certainly an unpleasant thought, isn't it?

So why think it? It has no connection with reality and isn't even good SF.

--
Lesley Weston.

Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #276075 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 03:36
Lesley Weston  
in article XdOdnd8VE567zOLZnZ2dnUVZ8qadnZ2d [at] pipex.net, Rgemini at
royOMIT.ayresCAPITAL [at] dsl.LETTERSpipex.com wrote on 01/06/2006 1:42 PM:

> Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
>> The time: 01 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
>> speaker: Rgemini <royOMIT.ayresCAPITAL [at] dsl.LETTERSpipex.com>
>>
>>> Weird and misguided! Don't know if you follow UK news at
>>> all but here the so-called animal liberation movement have
>>> stooped to attacking people's homes and families, even
>>> digging up someone's recently-buried mother/grandmother to
>>> stop their company breeding animals for medical research.
>>> Presumably they don't mind wearing shoes and belts made of
>>> leather, drinking milk and eating eggs, or relying on
>>> medical technology if they get ill. Also believing that
>>> you can justify any amount of evil behaviour if you think
>>> it's for a greater good. Cretins.
>>
>> Agreed, but I'm not so sure about your presumptions. I'm a
>> "normal" vegetarian who vaguely disaproves of animal research
>> but thinks these guys are loonies[1], and I wear fabric
>> trainers and a canvas belt. I'm sure actual fanatics are even
>> more concientious than I am.
>>
>> [1]The main effect they have, as far as I can see, is stifling
>> debate. The pro lobby is afraid to speak lest they get
>> targeted, and people like me are afraid to voice our concerns
>> lest we get associated with them.
>>
>
> You and I are in agreement about that. That debate, conducted in
> reasoned fashion, is vital.
>
> My own view, as an omnivore by evolution, is that medical research using
> animals is justifiable on ethical grounds but that the humane treatment
> of those animals should be paramount, taking into account the social,
> behavioural, exercise and dietary needs of each species. And even then
> the numbers used should be minimal and the likely benefits great.

Many countries have stringent requirements for people using animals for
research. The two I know about are the UK and Canada, both of which have
regulations demanding enough to satisfy me. There's a debate going on in the
western world right now as to whether or not the current method of killing
animals when their part in the research is completed is as humane as
everybody thinks it is; if it turns out not to be then the regulations will
change accordingly.
>
> Just to complete the picture, I'm not a vegetarian but I do want the
> food animals that I eat to be treated well, transported with regard to
> minimising their stress and killed quickly and painlessly where their
> death will not cause distress to others of their kind awaiting the same
> fate. It doesn't happen as much as it could though.

AOL

--
Lesley Weston.

Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #276076 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 03:44
Lesley Weston  
in article 4e98nbF1djauqU1 [at] individual.net, Peter Ellis at pjie2 [at] cam.ac.uk
wrote on 01/06/2006 3:40 PM:

> Alec Cawley wrote:
>> UGPTDOVVSNIT [at] spammotel.com says...
>>>
>>> You seem to be forgetting eukaryote cells. There are les sof them, of
>>> course, but the description still applies.
>>
>> They are just colonies of bacteria really.
>
> Well, strictly speaking you should be talking of Bacteria, Archaea and
> Eukarya along with viruses. To the best of my knowledge it's not been
> demonstrated whether any of these groups are ancestral to each other. Sure,
> there's been a lot of lateral gene transfer, and some eukaryotic organelles
> are apparently derived from endosymbiotic relationships (mitochondria,
> chloroplasts, apicoplasts, nucleomorphs), but as far as we can tell there
> are three major divisions of cellular life, as well as viruses.
>
> There's even a very left-field suggestion that the three domains may have
> arisen independently from the LUCA (last universal common ancestor) via gene
> acquisition from viruses.

Then there's some Nobel Laureate's idea (I wish I could remember who) that
Darwinian evolution is finished, ever since we took a hand in breeding
things, and that it was just an interlude anyway. In the beginning, he says,
organisms co-operated and swapped genetic material; then some creature
discovered an advantage and stopped sharing and the whole evolution thing
happened. Now we've stopped it again, and we're using GM to oversee a return
to the earlier, proper way of doing things.

--
Lesley Weston.

Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #276090 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 04:08
Stacie Hanes  
Torak wrote:

> "Take that, HAL!"
>
> "Er, guys... HAL doesn't exist."
>
> "You're building him! Nano-nazis! Baaaaaahhh!"
>
> "Guys... HAL was a lightbulb with a red cover, and a bloke with a
> microphone."
>
> "No! You deluded fools! Slaves of the machine god! We will cleanse
> you with herbal bath salts! AAAARRRGH!!!"
>
> "Okay." <starts walking away> "Oh, by the way. That's not our
> servers. That's your VCR."

Saved for later enjoyment.

--
Anastasia, 4th swordswoman of the afpocalypse.
AFPMinister of Flexible Weapons, Bondage-happy predator,
Speaker-To-Students, AFPMistress to peachy ashie passion &
AFPDeliciousSnack to 8'FED "If you can't be a good example, you'll
just have to be a horrible warning." C. Aird, _His Burial Too_
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #276204 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 09:05
Louise Mac Mahon  
"Rgemini" <royOMIT.ayresCAPITAL [at] dsl.LETTERSpipex.com> wrote in message
news:0KCdnSC1qbhZleLZRVnygg [at] pipex.net...
> SauN wrote:
> ...
>>
> ...
>
> Weird and misguided! Don't know if you follow UK news at all but here the
> so-called animal liberation movement have stooped to attacking people's
> homes and families, even digging up someone's recently-buried
> mother/grandmother to stop their company breeding animals for medical
> research. Presumably they don't mind wearing shoes and belts made of
> leather, drinking milk and eating eggs, or relying on medical technology
> if they get ill. Also believing that you can justify any amount of evil
> behaviour if you think it's for a greater good. Cretins.
>

Cretins yes. To be fair there are a lot of animal welfare people who are
quite sane and deplore the terrorist type tactics. It seems to be backfiring
now in that the greater public sympathy used to be with the cute and furry
"defenders" but now it has swung the other way.
To be even more fair. There are vegans who do not use leather goods, and all
vegans don't eat eggs or milk. I seem to remember talk at the time of Linda
Mc Cartney's death that she had refused a particular treatement because it
was either made from or tested on animals.
Personally I don't find giving up my place in the food chain to be of health
or moral value. But some do.
Louise
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #276205 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 09:07
Louise Mac Mahon  
"Jens Ayton" <PKWVQQGMIMEU [at] spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:3rFfg.3203$E02.894 [at] newsb.telia.net...
> Richard Heathfield:
>> kathryn:
>>>
>>> What is their problem with nano technologies?
>>
>> Possibly the "grey goo" disaster scenario
>
> ...or possibly they're just cretins who can't tell nanotech from genetic
> tech.
>
like the people who break up paediatricians offices "because they molest
children" :-(
Louise
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #276208 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 09:18
SauN  
Torak a écrit :
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> Jens Ayton said:
>>> Richard Heathfield:
>>>> kathryn:
>>>>
>>>>> What is their problem with nano technologies?
>>>>
>>>> Possibly the "grey goo" disaster scenario
>>>
>>> ...or possibly they're just cretins who can't tell nanotech from genetic
>>> tech.
>>
>> I think the cretinositude goes without saying. Anyone heavily
>> motivated to attack an IT outfit (for whatever misguided reason) who
>> goes about it by smashing up workstations and leaving server racks
>> untouched is clearly a few bits short of a quadword.
>
> "Take that, HAL!"
>
> "Er, guys... HAL doesn't exist."
>
> "You're building him! Nano-nazis! Baaaaaahhh!"
>
> "Guys... HAL was a lightbulb with a red cover, and a bloke with a
> microphone."
>
> "No! You deluded fools! Slaves of the machine god! We will cleanse you
> with herbal bath salts! AAAARRRGH!!!"
>
> "Okay." <starts walking away> "Oh, by the way. That's not our servers.
> That's your VCR."

GREEEEATTTT!!!!

--
SauN
http://sa-un.blogspot.com
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #276251 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 11:49
mcv  
Peter Ellis <pjie2 [at] cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> Alec Cawley wrote:
>> UGPTDOVVSNIT [at] spammotel.com says...
>>>
>>> You seem to be forgetting eukaryote cells. There are les sof them, of
>>> course, but the description still applies.
>>
>> They are just colonies of bacteria really.
>
> Well, strictly speaking you should be talking of Bacteria, Archaea and
> Eukarya along with viruses. To the best of my knowledge it's not been
> demonstrated whether any of these groups are ancestral to each other. Sure,
> there's been a lot of lateral gene transfer, and some eukaryotic organelles
> are apparently derived from endosymbiotic relationships (mitochondria,
> chloroplasts, apicoplasts, nucleomorphs), but as far as we can tell there
> are three major divisions of cellular life, as well as viruses.

I've always understood there are two: prokariotes (bacteria and archaea),
and eukariotes (plants, animals, fungi, protists, and tons of others).


mcv.
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #276253 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 11:53
mcv  
Lesley Weston <brightly_coloured_blob [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> in article 4e98nbF1djauqU1 [at] individual.net, Peter Ellis at pjie2 [at] cam.ac.uk
> wrote on 01/06/2006 3:40 PM:
>> Alec Cawley wrote:
>>> UGPTDOVVSNIT [at] spammotel.com says...
>>>>
>>>> You seem to be forgetting eukaryote cells. There are les sof them, of
>>>> course, but the description still applies.
>>>
>>> They are just colonies of bacteria really.
>>
>> Well, strictly speaking you should be talking of Bacteria, Archaea and
>> Eukarya along with viruses. To the best of my knowledge it's not been
>> demonstrated whether any of these groups are ancestral to each other. Sure,
>> there's been a lot of lateral gene transfer, and some eukaryotic organelles
>> are apparently derived from endosymbiotic relationships (mitochondria,
>> chloroplasts, apicoplasts, nucleomorphs), but as far as we can tell there
>> are three major divisions of cellular life, as well as viruses.
>>
>> There's even a very left-field suggestion that the three domains may have
>> arisen independently from the LUCA (last universal common ancestor) via gene
>> acquisition from viruses.
>
> Then there's some Nobel Laureate's idea (I wish I could remember who) that
> Darwinian evolution is finished, ever since we took a hand in breeding
> things, and that it was just an interlude anyway. In the beginning, he says,
> organisms co-operated and swapped genetic material; then some creature
> discovered an advantage and stopped sharing and the whole evolution thing
> happened. Now we've stopped it again, and we're using GM to oversee a return
> to the earlier, proper way of doing things.

Doesn't make sense. Sharing genetic material is essential to evolution.
Ever since we took a hand in breeding, we became a very powerful
environmental force influencing evolution. We're not stopping it, we're
changing its direction. GM introduces a rather radical new way of sharing
genetic material, which really is truly different from what has happened
before, because it's not random. Unlike all other processes that make up
evolution, GM has both a purpose and a direction.


mcv.
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #276256 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 11:58
SauN  
Richard Heathfield a écrit :
> kathryn said:
>
>> What is their problem with nano technologies?
>
> Possibly the "grey goo" disaster scenario, where machines make smaller and
> smaller copies of themselves, until the machines are nanoscopic, out of
> control, and determined, like the Sorcerer's Apprentice's Broomstick, to
> keep on going, and going, and going, and going... until the entire crust of
> the planet (including every single living thing) has been used as raw
> material for these machines, at which point, presumably, they'll start
> using each other.
>
> It's certainly an unpleasant thought, isn't it?
>
And it sure reminds me of Michael Chrichton's "Prey"...
Careful, we'll have terminators next! ROTFL

--
SauN
http://sa-un.blogspot.com
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #276258 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 11:59
SauN  
Daibhid Ceanaideach a écrit :
> The time: 01 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
> speaker: SauN <"sachin[dot]brojmohun[at]free[dot]fr">
>
>> I live and work for a web development company in Grenoble
>> in the South of France. Grenoble is a major scientific
>> center, especially in the fields of physics, computer
>> science and applied mathematics. Important laboratories and
>> research centres are present here and among them is Minatec
>> (Micro and Nano Technologies Research Centre).
>>
>> At midday today, I was talking to a colleague at the
>> company's reception desk when 20 to 30 persons wearing
>> hoods entered the office and started ransacking everything.
>> They violently disconnected the computers' CPUs, broke them
>> open and took out Coke bottles and spilled the contents
>> inside. The screens were smashed and Coke thrown on the
>> keyboards also. We couldn't do a thing to stop them.
>>
>> Before leaving they said that they were doing a
>> demonstration because they are firmly opposed to research
>> on nano-technologies. IMHO, anybody can be opposed to
>> anything as long as it is justified but here you have
>> narrow minded persons demonstrating violently against
>> computers used for making websites thinking that it will
>> have an impact on nano research. In other words they want
>> to stop Minatec from doing research.
>>
>> A computer is just a machine and it is private property and
>> destroying it will not stop human beings from thinking and
>> wanting to make technology move forward. And it is even
>> more hopeless when you destroy web designing machines...
>> there's no impact at all on research, only on these
>> people's narrowmindedness thinking they've done a great
>> deed.
>
> Good grief. You have my sympathies.
>
Cheers Dave.

--
SauN
http://sa-un.blogspot.com
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #276264 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 12:31
Torak  
Louise Mac Mahon wrote:
>
> Cretins yes. To be fair there are a lot of animal welfare people who are
> quite sane and deplore the terrorist type tactics. It seems to be backfiring
> now in that the greater public sympathy used to be with the cute and furry
> "defenders" but now it has swung the other way.
> To be even more fair. There are vegans who do not use leather goods, and all
> vegans don't eat eggs or milk. I seem to remember talk at the time of Linda
> Mc Cartney's death that she had refused a particular treatement because it
> was either made from or tested on animals.
> Personally I don't find giving up my place in the food chain to be of health
> or moral value. But some do.

'Scuse me, I need to go and get a nice big beefburger with bacon on top.

Just to support your argument, you understand. I'll try not to enjoy it
too much.

Oh, and I agree - the vegans and vegetarians whose views I can respect
don't wear leather... or at least those who are veg on ethical grounds.

I was vegan for a number of years on health grounds, because of all the
hormones they were pumping into animals; they kept giving me a rather
nasty rash. But now it's back to burgers!
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #276265 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 12:33
Torak  
SauN wrote:
> Richard Heathfield a écrit :
>> kathryn said:
>>
>>> What is their problem with nano technologies?
>>
>> Possibly the "grey goo" disaster scenario, where machines make smaller
>> and smaller copies of themselves, until the machines are nanoscopic,
>> out of control, and determined, like the Sorcerer's Apprentice's
>> Broomstick, to keep on going, and going, and going, and going... until
>> the entire crust of the planet (including every single living thing)
>> has been used as raw material for these machines, at which point,
>> presumably, they'll start using each other.
>>
>> It's certainly an unpleasant thought, isn't it?
>>
<snip>
> Careful, we'll have terminators next!

Hey, if they'll do my laundry for me...
Re: [I] Narrowmindedness! [message #276339 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 15:30
Brenda  
Louise Mac Mahon said:

>
> "Jens Ayton" <PKWVQQGMIMEU [at] spammotel.com> wrote in message
> news:3rFfg.3203$E02.894 [at] newsb.telia.net...
>> Richard Heathfield:
>>> kathryn:
>>>>
>>>> What is their problem with nano technologies?
>>>
>>> Possibly the "grey goo" disaster scenario
>>
>> ...or possibly they're just cretins who can't tell nanotech from genetic
>> tech.
>>
> like the people who break up paediatricians offices "because they molest
> children" :-(

Are you referring to the case of Yvette Cloete? If so, you are perpetuating
a minor urban legend.

It was her home, not her office, that was attacked, and no breaking up
occurred. The daubing of hate graffiti over the door and windows of her
house was, of course, a despicable act, but no breaking up of offices
occurred.


--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Vorheriges Thema:[M] Hello; welcome to afp #1/2 [FAQ]
Nächstes Thema:[I] mmmm. CHOCOLATE
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 06:46:26 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,10506 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered