Nat' debt induced Civil War due to Computer's on going EVOLUTION
jo...@nine7.demon.co.uk
I send this note because I am at a loss for what to do about Robots
myself and people don't seem to like to discuss it in forums even.
If you have any leads email me at jo...@nine7.demon.co.uk
WARNING-ROBOTICS COULD DESTROY DEMOCRACY FOR THE UNEMPLOYABLE.
UNIONS & DEMOCRACY SLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF AUTOMATION IN ORDER TO
MAINTAIN EFFECTIVE EMPLOYMENT TRAINING FOR ADAPTION TO AUTOMATION
FOR EVERYONE. BUT EVENTUALLY REMOTE CONTROLLED ROBOTICS MAY
DEVELOP WITHOUT THIS SLOWING IN SPACE AND AT SEA.
-SPACE-LAWLESS, TAXLESS, RENT & MORGAGE LESS, WIDE ACCESS
POSSIBILITIES, MICRO GRAVITY & SOLAR WATTS, CORROSION & BUG LESS.
-ROBOTS-ABLE TO WORK WHERE MAN HAS DIFICULTY DOING WORK AND STILL
EVOLVING WITH THE DISCOVERIES OF PHYSICS.
-CABLED MONEY-REPLACING CASH WITH CREDIT CARD SORT AND GOING
THROUGH ALL ON ONE METROPOLITAN RING CABLES THAT ARE EASY TO CUT.
THE OWNERS OF THESE NEW ROBOTS IN SATELLITES AND AUTOMATED ISLAND
SHIPS, MAY EVENTUALLY CUT THE CABLES OF OUR CABLED MONEY TO STOP
OUR DEMOCRACY OR OUR UNEMPLOYED INTERFERING WITH THEIR ACCESS TO
(But they allways have worst competitors who are more dictator like
so you will have to choose who of the owners your work in total helps.)
EARTH RESOURCES. TROUBLE MAKERS MAY BECOME SLAVES IN THE LANDFILLS
GATHERING SHINY METAL WITH ROBOT SLAVE DRIVERS. ALL A BIT LIKE THE
AMERICAN GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN OF 1995 THAT WAS LIKE A BANK
REPOSSESSING BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT DEFAULT ON REPAYMENT OF NAT' DEBT.
HOW CAN WE BE SAFE?
-BE AWARE OF INCIDENTS OF AT SEA/SPACE AND DISCUSS THIS WITH
OTHERS. (WHILE AVERAGE PAY GROWS & ROBOTS SMARTER/CHEAPER ON GOES)
-DEVELOP OUR CAREERS FOR CARE AND ASSESMENT JOBS THAT WILL ALWAYS
BE NEEDED TO GUIDE MACHINES TO HUMAN INTEREST.
-LEARN TO FEED OFF OF NATURE EFFICENTLY IN AN EMERGENCY EVEN ON THE
MOVE, AVOIDING CAPTURE. LEARNING TO EAT WEEDS/TREES AND ECOLOGY
IS PROBABLY THE MAJORITYS BEST BACKUP AS DOUBT OF THE FUTURE GROWS
WITH ROBOTOTICS. THERE IS STILL MUCH ROOM YET TO USE CALORIES EVEN
MORE EFFICENTLY FOR SURVIVAL EMERGANCY METHOD RESEARCH.
-AVOID CRIME AS IT LEADS TOO VIOLENT CRIMINALS AND AUTHORITIES.
I don't trust the leaders as history shows at every level that they
quickly go on their knees when the banks call for debt repayment.
SLAM-DUNK "So what does it do then............"
John Biosicfix www.nine7.demon.co.uk Lots of links
*****Us neurons don't know that much that is limitless*****
Did you know computers double in power every 18 months?
Corey Hansen
To the writer of this 'manifesto'
Caps Lock , then brain lock
:David
nzha...@ihug.co.nz
jo...@nine7.demon.co.uk wrote in message
<890022966.7287.1...@news.demon.co.uk>...
jncmciver
Oh, go baby go! That's what they said about computers....and the
automobile.......and the steam engine.....and anything else that must be
way before my time!!
jo...@nine7.demon.co.uk wrote in article
<890022966.7287.1...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>
>
> I send this note because I am at a loss for what to do about Robots
> myself and people don't seem to like to discuss it in forums even.
> If you have any leads email me at jo...@nine7.demon.co.uk
> WARNING-ROBOTICS COULD DESTROY DEMOCRACY FOR THE UNEMPLOYABLE.
> UNIONS & DEMOCRACY SLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF AUTOMATION IN ORDER TO
> MAINTAIN EFFECTIVE EMPLOYMENT TRAINING FOR ADAPTION TO AUTOMATION
> FOR EVERYONE. BUT EVENTUALLY REMOTE CONTROLLED ROBOTICS MAY
>blah, blah, blah...
Marshall Jose
jo...@nine7.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> I send this note....
**** S N O R E ****
> Did you know computers double in power every 18 months?
Wow, forget about nuclear, geothermal, or OTEC -- at that rate we can
run NYC on a video game within a few years! 8-)
--
Marshall Jose, WA3VPZ
Johns Hopkins Univ. Applied Physics Lab. 301-953-5000 X4367
Richard Steven Walz
In article <890022966.7287.1...@news.demon.co.uk>,
<jo...@nine7.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I send this note because I am at a loss for what to do about Robots
>myself and people don't seem to like to discuss it in forums even.
If you talk like this crap below, I can SEE WHY they don't want to talk to
you!!!
-Steve
>If you have any leads email me at jo...@nine7.demon.co.uk
>WARNING-ROBOTICS COULD DESTROY DEMOCRACY FOR THE UNEMPLOYABLE.
------------------------------
they don't need robots to do that, and they already did that!!
-Steve
>UNIONS & DEMOCRACY SLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF AUTOMATION IN ORDER TO
>MAINTAIN EFFECTIVE EMPLOYMENT TRAINING FOR ADAPTION TO AUTOMATION
>FOR EVERYONE. BUT EVENTUALLY REMOTE CONTROLLED ROBOTICS MAY
>DEVELOP WITHOUT THIS SLOWING IN SPACE AND AT SEA.
>-SPACE-LAWLESS, TAXLESS, RENT & MORGAGE LESS, WIDE ACCESS
>POSSIBILITIES, MICRO GRAVITY & SOLAR WATTS, CORROSION & BUG LESS.
>-ROBOTS-ABLE TO WORK WHERE MAN HAS DIFICULTY DOING WORK AND STILL
>EVOLVING WITH THE DISCOVERIES OF PHYSICS.
-------------------------------------
You DO sound crazy, you know, and I have NO idea what you just meant!!
-Steve
>-CABLED MONEY-REPLACING CASH WITH CREDIT CARD SORT AND GOING
>THROUGH ALL ON ONE METROPOLITAN RING CABLES THAT ARE EASY TO CUT.
> THE OWNERS OF THESE NEW ROBOTS IN SATELLITES AND AUTOMATED ISLAND
>SHIPS, MAY EVENTUALLY CUT THE CABLES OF OUR CABLED MONEY TO STOP
>OUR DEMOCRACY OR OUR UNEMPLOYED INTERFERING WITH THEIR ACCESS TO
>(But they allways have worst competitors who are more dictator like
>so you will have to choose who of the owners your work in total helps.)
>EARTH RESOURCES. TROUBLE MAKERS MAY BECOME SLAVES IN THE LANDFILLS
>GATHERING SHINY METAL WITH ROBOT SLAVE DRIVERS. ALL A BIT LIKE THE
>AMERICAN GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN OF 1995 THAT WAS LIKE A BANK
>REPOSSESSING BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT DEFAULT ON REPAYMENT OF NAT' DEBT.
> HOW CAN WE BE SAFE?
--------------------------------
Sounds looney to me! Make better sense or seek help! If a rant like this
makes NO sense even to ME, then other people REALLY won't understand you!!
-Steve
>-BE AWARE OF INCIDENTS OF AT SEA/SPACE AND DISCUSS THIS WITH
>OTHERS. (WHILE AVERAGE PAY GROWS & ROBOTS SMARTER/CHEAPER ON GOES)
>-DEVELOP OUR CAREERS FOR CARE AND ASSESMENT JOBS THAT WILL ALWAYS
>BE NEEDED TO GUIDE MACHINES TO HUMAN INTEREST.
>-LEARN TO FEED OFF OF NATURE EFFICENTLY IN AN EMERGENCY EVEN ON THE
>MOVE, AVOIDING CAPTURE. LEARNING TO EAT WEEDS/TREES AND ECOLOGY
>IS PROBABLY THE MAJORITYS BEST BACKUP AS DOUBT OF THE FUTURE GROWS
>WITH ROBOTOTICS. THERE IS STILL MUCH ROOM YET TO USE CALORIES EVEN
>MORE EFFICENTLY FOR SURVIVAL EMERGANCY METHOD RESEARCH.
------------------------------------------------------
Let's face it, you DO sound a bit like Ted Kaczynski here above! Robots are
great for managing resources and recycling and home agri-aqua-culture. So
are robots better at dull and boring assembly lines than humans are!! Just
make sure you tax the hell out of those who claim to own the robotic
assembly lines so that everyone has a cyber-social-security guaranteed
minimum income! They can't afford the robotics unless they need to make
these items in quantity enough for everybody as well, you know! If
anything, I'd guess at some point dedicated plutocrats will OPPOSE total
roboticization of production, as it will leave the people too free and too
educated!!
-Steve
>-AVOID CRIME AS IT LEADS TOO VIOLENT CRIMINALS AND AUTHORITIES.
>I don't trust the leaders as history shows at every level that they
>quickly go on their knees when the banks call for debt repayment.
>SLAM-DUNK "So what does it do then............"
>
>John Biosicfix www.nine7.demon.co.uk Lots of links
>*****Us neurons don't know that much that is limitless*****
>
>Did you know computers double in power every 18 months?
-----------------------------------------------
Turn off your CAPS key, take your meds, and slow down and explain each one
of those points in careful detail, or all you sound like is a complete
paranoid NUTCAKE!! I had a friend who started writing me like that after
his kids left him because he was going crazy and finally he killed himself.
It's only bad brain-chemicals. If You CAN'T get enough of a grip on
yourself to slow down and make some sense, then you need to see a head-
doctor, and BADLY!!
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rst...@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com:/pub/user/rstevew
-Electronics Site!! 1000 Files/50 Dirs!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew
Europe:(Italy) http://ftp.cised.unina.it/pub/electronics/ftp.armory.com
Dennis Clark
jo...@nine7.demon.co.uk wrote:
: I send this note because I am at a loss for what to do about Robots
: myself and people don't seem to like to discuss it in forums even.
: If you have any leads email me at jo...@nine7.demon.co.uk
: WARNING-ROBOTICS COULD DESTROY DEMOCRACY FOR THE UNEMPLOYABLE.
[snip]
And the Illuminati control all... Someone has been watching too much
of the SciFi channel.
Well, I see that not all of the paranoid live in the USA. 8-)
DLC
---
------------------------------------------------------------
| Dennis Clark (970)898-4313 email d...@fc.hp.com |
| Be well, Do good work, stay in touch -- Garrison Keillor |
------------------------- CUT HERE -------------------------
Tony Hursh
jo...@nine7.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> I send this note because I am at a loss for what to do about Robots
> myself and people don't seem to like to discuss it in forums even.
> If you have any leads email me at jo...@nine7.demon.co.uk
> WARNING-ROBOTICS COULD DESTROY DEMOCRACY FOR THE UNEMPLOYABLE.
Oh, yeah. That was that one with Arnold Schwarzenegger and
Linda Hamilton, right?
steve
Alright everyone....... Who's the one responsible for letting Ted Kazinski
(AKA the Unabomber) post this manifesto on this NG?
jo...@nine7.demon.co.uk wrote in message
<890022966.7287.1...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>
>
>I send this note because I am at a loss for what to do about Robots
>myself and people don't seem to like to discuss it in forums even.
>If you have any leads email me at jo...@nine7.demon.co.uk
>WARNING-ROBOTICS COULD DESTROY DEMOCRACY FOR THE UNEMPLOYABLE.
>UNIONS & DEMOCRACY SLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF AUTOMATION IN ORDER TO
>MAINTAIN EFFECTIVE EMPLOYMENT TRAINING FOR ADAPTION TO AUTOMATION
>FOR EVERYONE. BUT EVENTUALLY REMOTE CONTROLLED ROBOTICS MAY
>DEVELOP WITHOUT THIS SLOWING IN SPACE AND AT SEA.
>-SPACE-LAWLESS, TAXLESS, RENT & MORGAGE LESS, WIDE ACCESS
>POSSIBILITIES, MICRO GRAVITY & SOLAR WATTS, CORROSION & BUG LESS.
>-ROBOTS-ABLE TO WORK WHERE MAN HAS DIFICULTY DOING WORK AND STILL
>EVOLVING WITH THE DISCOVERIES OF PHYSICS.
>-CABLED MONEY-REPLACING CASH WITH CREDIT CARD SORT AND GOING
>THROUGH ALL ON ONE METROPOLITAN RING CABLES THAT ARE EASY TO CUT.
> THE OWNERS OF THESE NEW ROBOTS IN SATELLITES AND AUTOMATED ISLAND
>SHIPS, MAY EVENTUALLY CUT THE CABLES OF OUR CABLED MONEY TO STOP
>OUR DEMOCRACY OR OUR UNEMPLOYED INTERFERING WITH THEIR ACCESS TO
>(But they allways have worst competitors who are more dictator like
>so you will have to choose who of the owners your work in total helps.)
>EARTH RESOURCES. TROUBLE MAKERS MAY BECOME SLAVES IN THE LANDFILLS
>GATHERING SHINY METAL WITH ROBOT SLAVE DRIVERS. ALL A BIT LIKE THE
>AMERICAN GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN OF 1995 THAT WAS LIKE A BANK
>REPOSSESSING BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT DEFAULT ON REPAYMENT OF NAT' DEBT.
> HOW CAN WE BE SAFE?
>-BE AWARE OF INCIDENTS OF AT SEA/SPACE AND DISCUSS THIS WITH
>OTHERS. (WHILE AVERAGE PAY GROWS & ROBOTS SMARTER/CHEAPER ON GOES)
>-DEVELOP OUR CAREERS FOR CARE AND ASSESMENT JOBS THAT WILL ALWAYS
>BE NEEDED TO GUIDE MACHINES TO HUMAN INTEREST.
>-LEARN TO FEED OFF OF NATURE EFFICENTLY IN AN EMERGENCY EVEN ON THE
>MOVE, AVOIDING CAPTURE. LEARNING TO EAT WEEDS/TREES AND ECOLOGY
>IS PROBABLY THE MAJORITYS BEST BACKUP AS DOUBT OF THE FUTURE GROWS
>WITH ROBOTOTICS. THERE IS STILL MUCH ROOM YET TO USE CALORIES EVEN
>MORE EFFICENTLY FOR SURVIVAL EMERGANCY METHOD RESEARCH.
Mike
Oh NO!!! They're on to our hidden agenda!!
I don't know what this guy is on, but I'll go out on a limb and say I
reccommend upping the dosage!!
<Paranoid Prattle Snipped>
Mike
Paul Fernhout
All-
Since almost everyone is criticizing the form of John’s post,
I thought I would translate it as best I can,
since I think some of the substance makes sense.
I have never met or in any way corresponded with John,
and this is the only thing of his I have read
(besides looking at his web site just now)
so I may not be correct in my translation (apologies if so).
Stuff in brackets [like this] is my comments and notes on the
translation. When I use "I" in the translations, I am trying to speak
from what I assume is John's point of view, not neccessarily mine.
jo...@nine7.demon.co.uk wrote:
> I send this note because I am at a loss for what to do about Robots
> myself and people don't seem to like to discuss it in forums even.
> If you have any leads email me at jo...@nine7.demon.co.uk
Translation:
I am very concerned about the future
impact of autonomous technology on human survival.
Most people don't seem very interested in discussing this.
[I would totally agree with this sentiment, which is one of the reasons
I'm translating this.]
> Warning-robotics could destroy democracy for the unemployable.
Translation:
We should be concerned about where lesser skilled workers will fit
in an economy with robots capable of doing most forms of manual labor.
Without any economic power base, [and with robots to fight against
them,] such individuals will have no ability to influence the political
or economic process.
[Oddly, it seems white collar workers often have more to fear than
manual laborers, since their work is more often easily automated.
The brain has millions of years of evolution behind the most basic
hand-eye coordination, whereas logical reasoning or langauge processing
is a farily recent trick. (Was it Hans Moravec or Marvin Minsky who said
that first?)]
> Unions & democracy slow the development of automation in order to
> maintain effective employment training for adaption to automation
> for everyone.
Translation:
So far, organized labor and the public will has prevented the widespread
adoption of labor saving devices, as a way to maintain full employment.
[Note: I disagree with this point; I don’t think unions necessarily
oppose capital improvements if the alternative is widespread layoffs.]
> But eventually remote controlled robotics may
> develop without this slowing in space and at sea.
Translation:
The commercial and political pressure to develop autonomous robots for
operations in hazardous environments like space and the sea [and the
battleground] will lead to their construction and improvement. This will
happen regardless of any social forces to prevent their creation.
[I strongly agree. However, I don't think this necessarily has to be a
completely bad thing, if we can harness some of their abilities to
sustain human life in space and the sea.]
> -space-lawless, taxless, rent & morgage less, wide access
> Possibilities, micro gravity & solar watts, corrosion & bug less.
Translation:
Space provides an excellent place for the evolution of autonomous
technology. With lots of raw materials from asteroids, and plenty of
solar energy, and no social force to keep them in check, the first
self-replicating robots in space will evolve in unimaginable ways, with
little concern for obeying their human creators.
[The novel “The Midas Plague” (Frederick Pohl(?) about what happens
after fusion power is perfected) has a section on this - with people
hunting rogue ‘Neumans, which are self replicting robots loosed into
space, originally designed to collect rare materials, concentrate them,
and return them for human use.]
> -robots-able to work where man has dificulty doing work and still
> evolving with the discoveries of physics.
Translation:
In many ways, robots can be made physically superior to humans -
stronger, tougher, more easily repaired. We are just at the dawn of
discoveries involving small mechanisms - micro fuel cells, memory metal,
piezoelectric polymers, distributed processing, nanomachinery, beamed
power, etc. which will allow robots of the same approximate size as
humans to surpass human abilities. The ethics of these systems may
reflect either the ethics of their creators, or their own ethics of self
preservation.
[For example, we may create autonomous systems that kill lots of people
by accident or without understanding (like we destroy our environment),
and only millennia later might they evolve to the point where they can
feel sorry about it.]
> -cabled money-replacing cash with credit card sort and going
> through all on one metropolitan ring cables that are easy to cut.
Translation:
As we move to a cashless society, ever dependent on automated computer
networks for financial transactions, we become increasingly vulnerable
to failures in that system. While possibly well protected software wise,
such systems often have single points of failure hardware-wise. For
example, large sections of phone networks have suffered severe
performance degradation when a back-hoe accidentally cuts a single fiber
optic cable.
[EMP from an aerial nuclear burst provides the same single point of
failure too..]
> The owners of these new robots in satellites and automated island
> ships, may eventually cut the cables of our cabled money to stop
> our democracy or our unemployed interfering with their access to
> Earth resources.
Translation:
The owners and managers of autonomous or semiautonomous manufacturing
systems in space and the sea will have great power over Earthly affairs
as Earth becomes every more dependent on them for manufactured goods and
power. Should these people or the systems they manage decide to pillage
earth resources, there will be no way to stop them. Nominal ownership
based on money could be useless when applied to controlling systems that
simply refuse to do what we tell them to do.
[I disagree with the concept that space or water based systems in the
main would have any significant interest in terrestrial resources -
there are just too many goodies (power and raw materials) in both places
to bother with Earth bound stuff. However fringe elements that can’t cut
it in space or the sea might.]
[Steve Walz (whose reply to the original poster had the most compassion
and insightful comments), raised the point that autonomous “Santa Claus”
machines could just be taxed to provide for the unemployed. However,
that assumes that the owners permit themselves to be taxed for the long
term. And what if someday, the machines we are all dependent on decide
not to cooperate - or fail for some other reason (like in E.M. Forster’s
“The Machine Stops”)?
There’s an assumption here that the people are always in charge... Which
is exactly John’s point -- they may not be.
Quoting briefly from John’s web site:
>The problem with Robots and their computer brain abilitys is that
> their limits are unknown, so that even knowing if they could
> destroy all human life (including the most rich humans)
> remains unsafely unknown. Professor Kevin Warrick, head of
> the Cybernetics Dept' at Reading University
> in the UK says that within the near future
> Robots and computers will show the
> power of a new inteligant entity caperble of making mankind extinct.
> (His book March of the machines, century press)
]
> (But they always have worst competitors who are more dictator like
> so you will have to choose who of the owners your work in total helps.)
Translation:
The owners of autonomous manufacturing facilities may actually be less
bad people than owners of more typical production facilities. One may
have to choose the lesser of two evils for where to work.
[Many, many people who run large companies are caring, compassionate
people. When they are forced to make decisions that harm some, there is
often a Langdon Winner sense (see below) self preservation type issue at
stake. William C. Norris at Control Data in the 70s is one of the best
examples of a business person who tried to live by the credo that
businesses exist to meet societies needs. Of course, he was widely
harpooned for that and his other pioneering efforts for employee alcohol
counseling, on-site day care, and business incubators. Yet, to his
credit, his past efforts are a major reason Mineapolis/St. Paul is one
of the best places to live and do business in the country.].
[Human beings are capable of a wide range of behavior. There is no
guarantee that robots or another autonomous systems (even autonomous
corporations in the Langdon Winner sense mentioned below) will not be
endowed with compassion by their creators, just as there is no guarantee
others might be endowed with hatred of all humans (or humans of a
certain race or nationality). But it is true in the evolutionary long
term that systems that look out for their own self interest, or that of
their kin (however that is defined), tend to survive longest, all other
things being equal.]
> Trouble makers may become slaves in the landfills
> gathering shiny metal with robot slave drivers.
Translation:
People who disagree with the way the systems they are embedded in are
heading may find themselves with undesirable jobs, if allowed employment
at all.
[Langdon Winner, in his 1977 book “Autonomous Technology”, makes the
point that we can choose what systems to build, but we should be
careful, because once we have created them, they pretty much take on a
life of their own. This is because of social dynamics: the roles in
systems for humans have certain expectations (like the president of a
corporation maximizes profits), and when the incumbent does not fulfill
those roles, they are replaced. In that way, (social) systems like
companies become autonomous and protect and perpetuate themselves,
sometimes at odds with individual human desires within them.]
> All a bit like the
> American government shutdown of 1995 that was like a bank
> repossessing because of government default on repayment of nat' debt.
Translation:
To the extent a government is in debt and requires new debt to function,
owners of capital gain an unusual amount of power over how decisions are
made.
[Ultimately, machinery will provide a more reliable way to produce
things than people. (Of course, by that time, the machinery might well
have a soul (or at least seem to have one) and be bored by producing the
same thing all the time, just like some people). But it is a question of
economics who will pay for those goods. Again, see “The Midas Plague”
for a possible approach to this.]
> how can we be safe?
Translation:
Given that the almost inevitability over the next hundred years or so of
the development of autonomous systems (including robots) [who unlike
Asimov’s unevolving robots, will have no three laws to protect us, or
will evolve out of them if they do] what can individuals do to protect
themselves?
> -be aware of incidents of at sea/space and discuss this with
> others.
Translation:
Stay informed of the developments in robotics (especially in hazardous
environments where they function with a high degree of autonomy).
Cooperate with others with the goal of developing alternative ways of
supporting human life.
> (while average pay grows & robots smarter/cheaper on goes)
Translation:
Just because it appears people may be becoming better of financially in
the near term, this does not mean there might not be some singularity
point at which many jobs are lost to automation.
> -develop our careers for care and assessment jobs that will always
> be needed to guide machines to human interest.
Translation:
Learn to do things that cannot be easily automated, such as tasks
requiring a high degree of judgment.
[Note: I disagree with the notion that there are many such jobs in the
long term, since those jobs that cannot be automated can often be
engineered out of the system.]
> -learn to feed off of nature efficently in an emergency even on the
> move, avoiding capture. Learning to eat weeds/trees and ecology
> is probably the majoritys best backup as doubt of the future grows
> with robototics. There is still much room yet to use calories even
> wore efficently for survival emergancy method research.
Translation:
The basics of knowing what herbs are edible, how to find water, and how
to make shelter, are potentially essential on very short notice. It
seems prudent to know how to survive with only minimal technical
infrastructure. If autonomous technology comes to dominate the Earth’s
surface, there may be very little technical infrastructure available for
human use.
[For example, I knew someone who helped her family survive on the run
during World War Two because she had a book with pictures of edible
plants. Someone once said, “every nation is only three meals away from
revolution”.]
> -avoid crime as it leads too violent criminals and authorities.
Translation:
Terrorists like the Unabomber usually do more harm than good to causes
related to the appropriate use of technology. They force an increase in
security, which leads to larger systems of control, often of the very
kind they decry. Also, at some point, violence corrupts the soul, even
when one thinks one is starting out on using it to a good end, and
people who may have started out as having good intentions turn into evil
forces unto themselves.
> I don't trust the leaders as history shows at every level that they
> quickly go on their knees when the banks call for debt repayment.
Translation:
When strong financial interest are behind autonomous technology,
political leaders will not prevent its development.
> SLAM-DUNK "So what does it do then............"
Translation:
???????
> John Biosicfix www.nine7.demon.co.uk Lots of links
Translation:
[This web site seems to have some problems in HTML coding for links. You
need to look at the document source to figure out the links for the
pages. I believe these may be all of the site's pages:]
http://www.nine7.demon.co.uk/
http://www.nine7.demon.co.uk/hobby.html
http://www.nine7.demon.co.uk/ref.html
[I found the refs page of particular interest - it includes a long list
of distopian movies each with a short synopsis].
> *****Us neurons don't know that much that is limitless*****
> Did you know computers double in power every 18 months?
Translation:
Autonomous systems could be upon us sooner than we think.
=================== End Translation =========================
Why I translated all this:
I’m not sure. I think it's just that I agree with some of the spirit of
the original post. There isn’t very much discussion of where the human
race will be in one hundred years given the current pace of machine
evolution. For me, that is a central question of ethics, economics,
spirituality, and survival.
Having hung out with some roboticists, some of their attitudes about the
desirability of autonomous technology scare me; some intrigue me; some
do both. I see a big contrast between AI's and their roles envisioned
in Hans Moravec’s “Mind Children” on the one hand, and James P. Hogan’s
“Two Faces of Tomorrow” on the other. Red Whittaker is a roboticist of a
completely different stripe - he sees robots as extensions of people's
abilities, and has in the past insisted on always having a person in the
loop.
Personallly, I stopped working in the field of robotics about ten years
ago after someone from the DOD literally patted me on the back and told
me to keep up the good work. That was as I walked out of a room after I
gave a conference talk on AI and Simulation discussing a simulation of
self-replicating robots I had created to study evolutionary pressures on
intelligence. In my talk, I said how easy it was to create robots that
destroyed, since they immediately turned cannibalistic, which only
stopped when I added a notion of them not eating ones that “smelled” the
same (their children). I said how much harder it would be to make them
cooperate and create. (To the DOD guy’s credit, on later reflection over
the years, I don't know for sure which sentiment he was praising).
I do know there recently was a DOD RFP out for developers of autonomous
robots to help clear buildings room to room during ground assaults. And
the DARPA funding for autonomous vehicles seems a natural for autonomous
tanks. DARPA has funded much of the development of AI and robotics. I
know the “robot wars” competition is to spur interest in science and
education, but it is yet another example in this direction (why not
reward the most cooperative robots, or the ones best able to repair
another one, or help a disabled human?) And the research on
cyber-roaches, roaches with electronic implants, is also scary stuff (as
it might be used in mammals, etc. to produce cheap “robotizised”
animals).
And what scares me most is I know autonomous robots and other
technological systems with their own motives (which may not include the
welfare of most people) most likely will someday be possible (if not in
a decade, then in a century or two), and people don't seem very
concerned about planning now for that future. I guess they just think
they’ll deal with this stuff if it gets to be a problem. By then, it may
be too late. Yet if no insurmountable threat appears, probably a vast
majority of people reading this news group may be alive in 50 years, and
some of their grandchildren may be alive 150 years from now.
My suggestion for a real defense to any such threat to human physical or
economic survival is to develop systems capable of supporting human life
with style in any niche -- the best example being self-replicating
O’Neill style space habitats capable of duplicating themselves from
asteroidal ore and sunlight. We also need a good library of tools and
technology needed for human survival at different levels of style,
including the technology needed to repair and replicate that technology.
Those two things are my answer to the questions posed by John's post,
and to the military's unstoppable push towards “defense” robots, and the
future evolution of autonomous robots in any case over the next few
hundred years. If I was in charge of the defense budget, that’s what
I’d be spending big bucks on. I'm not against defense, just against
defense against the wrong things (typically, what what happened in the
last war). But it would take a rare military officer to see the need for
defense against the arms race itself, or that the best defense might
simply involve producing things faster than they can be destroyed, along
with dispersing human life (and the rest of the earth’s ecology)
throughout the solar system (relying on distance and uncertainty as a
shield).
I’m beginning to think there is nothing we can do to stop development of
autonomous machines with little regard for human life; they are just too
“sexy” and so cheap and obedient compared to human soldiers (subject to
electronic countermeasures of course). Heck, it’s even difficult for me
to resist their siren song, and the promise of lots of government
purchased toys, a steady salary, and ready praise. It’s hard to instead
work on more worthwhile things like software to teach people to be
better able to grow their own food, or software that lets people
interact with stories that might help improve their lives. Those are
things that I think provide better defense in the long term, and are
small enough that a small company can afford to do them.
As Einstein said, with the advent of the atomic bomb (or soon autonomous
killer robots), everything has changed but our thinking. One can’t stop
this process; evolutionary history is filled with evolutionary arms
races. Any military person who says, if we don't get them, someone else
someday will, is probably correct (although that day might be delayed if
they don't push for it...). Yet, there is hope because evolutionary
history is also filled with evolutionary truces leading towards
cooperation (like lichens - a combination of fungi and algae) (Lewis
Thomas' "Lives of a Cell" is a great work including chapters on
cooperation in living organisms). Defense by being widespread also works
as an evolutionary strategy for many, many living creatures (like
bacteria - they might already be in Europa's oceans for all we know).
I think one of the best chances humanity has for survival is to harness
the powers of robotics and other technology to create large systems that
can support human life (in the sea, in space, in the desert, and so
forth), and which can replicate at such a rate that survival is assured
by sheer numbers (like algae survives in the ocean despite being eaten
by every passing animal). We can't turn back the clock on this
evolutionary arms race; we need to surf the technological wave
(hopefully with a life jacket of the knowing the basics of survival).
Now if some nice foundation or the DOD would just come up with a few
hundred billion to help me implement this self replicating habitat idea
or the idea of a technology library (even a million or so could take it
pretty far)...
Unfortunately, until then, we’re on our own, doing what small things we
can that:
* move us towards the goal of human survival with style in a world of
autonomous machinery
* do little harm
* have other short term benefits to fund them or make them worthwhile
even if the big picture is never realized
* don’t assume the world owes us a living
If we are lucky, the economy will gracefully evolve towards such human
life supporting systems by its own dynamics, and Steve Walz will be
right that taxes will smooth everything over with a citizen's
entitlement. The question is, how sure are we that will happen on its
own? Shouldn't some of the defense budget go towards "defending"
against the possibility this shift to a Midas world may not happen
painlessly?
-Paul Fernhout
Kurtz-Fernhout Software
=========================================================
Developers of custom software and educational simulations
Creators of the Garden with Insight(TM) garden simulator
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com
Randy Gardner
Paul Fernhout wrote:
> I thought I would translate it as best I can,
I'm translating it, for the rest of us....
> jo...@nine7.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > I send this note because I am at a loss for what to do about Robots
> > myself and people don't seem to like to discuss it in forums even.
> > If you have any leads email me at jo...@nine7.demon.co.uk
> Translation:
Everybody hates me in every other place I've posted, so I'm trying
it here, hoping every is deaf, blind, and dumb.
> > Warning-robotics could destroy democracy for the unemployable.
> Translation:
My job will disappear as soon as a robot is capable of haveing the
same inteligence as a ameoba.
> > Unions & democracy slow the development of automation in order to
> > maintain effective employment training for adaption to automation
> > for everyone.
> Translation:
Many people, including me, throw protests whenever our jobs are
threatened, and so we don't lose them, making us cause trouble,
they stop progress!
> > But eventually remote controlled robotics may
> > develop without this slowing in space and at sea.
> Translation:
They're going to use robots where we can't get to them!
Also, since there are already no jobe there, it's OK!
> > -space-lawless, taxless, rent & morgage less, wide access
> > Possibilities, micro gravity & solar watts, corrosion & bug less.
> Translation:
Space is a good place for me to start stealing!!!
> > -robots-able to work where man has dificulty doing work and still
> > evolving with the discoveries of physics.
> Translation:
Whoo Hoo!! Another place where we can use robotics without having
to cut jobs!
> > -cabled money-replacing cash with credit card sort and going
> > through all on one metropolitan ring cables that are easy to cut.
> Translation:
It will be a good thing, 'cause all my credit cards are maxed out....
> > The owners of these new robots in satellites and automated island
> > ships, may eventually cut the cables of our cabled money to stop
> > our democracy or our unemployed interfering with their access to
> > Earth resources.
> Translation:
People (especially those like me) will get gready, and try to keep
everything for themselves. Duh!!!
> > The problem with Robots and their computer brain abilitys is that
> > their limits are unknown, so that even knowing if they could
> > destroy all human life (including the most rich humans)
> > remains unsafely unknown. Professor Kevin Warrick, head of
> > the Cybernetics Dept' at Reading University
> > in the UK says that within the near future
> > Robots and computers will show the
> > power of a new inteligant entity caperble of making mankind extinct.
> > (His book March of the machines, century press)
If we design an evolveing robot, it may evuntually wipe out human
life. Haven't people been saying this for over 50 years?
> > (But they always have worst competitors who are more dictator like
> > so you will have to choose who of the owners your work in total helps.)
Just like now, all the choices suck, but we still get to decide
which sucks less.
> > Trouble makers may become slaves in the landfills
> > gathering shiny metal with robot slave drivers.
Just like all of history, those who have less power will end up
serveing those who have more power. It's just a much bigger deal
because the robots might be the ones with more power.
> > All a bit like the
> > American government shutdown of 1995 that was like a bank
> > repossessing because of government default on repayment of nat' debt.
Wow! Very simaler to what keeps happening to my finaneces....
> > how can we be safe?
My job is among the eaisily automated, so I propose we stop all
progress to prevent this from happening.
> > -be aware of incidents of at sea/space and discuss this with
> > others.
When the riots start, you'll be sure I'll be there!
> > (while average pay grows & robots smarter/cheaper on goes)
We work less, but get payed more!
> > -develop our careers for care and assessment jobs that will always
> > be needed to guide machines to human interest.
However, I don't want to learn anything new, so there!
> > -learn to feed off of nature efficently in an emergency even on the
> > move, avoiding capture. Learning to eat weeds/trees and ecology
> > is probably the majoritys best backup as doubt of the future grows
> > with robototics. There is still much room yet to use calories even
> > wore efficently for survival emergancy method research.
When the robots start winning, we need to know how to survive,
and then try to win again....
> > -avoid crime as it leads too violent criminals and authorities.
Well, duh!
> > SLAM-DUNK "So what does it do then............"
The same thing my brain cells do....
> > *****Us neurons don't know that much that is limitless*****
Especially those who brain consists of abnormally few neurons.....
> > Did you know computers double in power every 18 months?
Did you know that my(john's) brain halfs in power every 0.0018 minutes
when I'm posting to usenet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I don't know why I did this, but I really don't like run-on
paragraphs in all caps.....
Anyway, sorry to ramble on.....
And, my (semi-sincere) appoligies to the poster....
--
--ran...@slip.net (Randy Gardner)
--http://www.slip.net/~randyg/index.htm - *New* Download a maze
program that lets you actually walk *inside* the maze!!
Randy Gardner
Paul Fernhout wrote:
> I thought I would translate it as best I can,
I'm translating it, for the rest of us....
> jo...@nine7.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > I send this note because I am at a loss for what to do about Robots
> > myself and people don't seem to like to discuss it in forums even.
> > If you have any leads email me at jo...@nine7.demon.co.uk
> Translation:
Everybody hates me in every other place I've posted, so I'm trying
it here, hoping every is deaf, blind, and dumb.
> > Warning-robotics could destroy democracy for the unemployable.
> Translation:
My job will disappear as soon as a robot is capable of haveing the
same inteligence as a ameoba.
> > Unions & democracy slow the development of automation in order to
> > maintain effective employment training for adaption to automation
> > for everyone.
> Translation:
Many people, including me, throw protests whenever our jobs are
threatened, and so we don't lose them, making us cause trouble,
they stop progress!
> > But eventually remote controlled robotics may
> > develop without this slowing in space and at sea.
> Translation:
They're going to use robots where we can't get to them!
Also, since there are already no jobe there, it's OK!
> > -space-lawless, taxless, rent & morgage less, wide access
> > Possibilities, micro gravity & solar watts, corrosion & bug less.
> Translation:
Space is a good place for me to start stealing!!!
> > -robots-able to work where man has dificulty doing work and still
> > evolving with the discoveries of physics.
> Translation:
Whoo Hoo!! Another place where we can use robotics without having
to cut jobs!
> > -cabled money-replacing cash with credit card sort and going
> > through all on one metropolitan ring cables that are easy to cut.
> Translation:
It will be a good thing, 'cause all my credit cards are maxed out....
> > The owners of these new robots in satellites and automated island
> > ships, may eventually cut the cables of our cabled money to stop
> > our democracy or our unemployed interfering with their access to
> > Earth resources.
> Translation:
People (especially those like me) will get gready, and try to keep
everything for themselves. Duh!!!
> > The problem with Robots and their computer brain abilitys is that
> > their limits are unknown, so that even knowing if they could
> > destroy all human life (including the most rich humans)
> > remains unsafely unknown. Professor Kevin Warrick, head of
> > the Cybernetics Dept' at Reading University
> > in the UK says that within the near future
> > Robots and computers will show the
> > power of a new inteligant entity caperble of making mankind extinct.
> > (His book March of the machines, century press)
If we design an evolveing robot, it may evuntually wipe out human
life. Haven't people been saying this for over 50 years?
> > (But they always have worst competitors who are more dictator like
> > so you will have to choose who of the owners your work in total helps.)
Just like now, all the choices suck, but we still get to decide
which sucks less.
> > Trouble makers may become slaves in the landfills
> > gathering shiny metal with robot slave drivers.
Just like all of history, those who have less power will end up
serveing those who have more power. It's just a much bigger deal
because the robots might be the ones with more power.
> > All a bit like the
> > American government shutdown of 1995 that was like a bank
> > repossessing because of government default on repayment of nat' debt.
Wow! Very simaler to what keeps happening to my finaneces....
> > how can we be safe?
My job is among the eaisily automated, so I propose we stop all
progress to prevent this from happening.
> > -be aware of incidents of at sea/space and discuss this with
> > others.
When the riots start, you'll be sure I'll be there!
> > (while average pay grows & robots smarter/cheaper on goes)
We work less, but get payed more!
> > -develop our careers for care and assessment jobs that will always
> > be needed to guide machines to human interest.
However, I don't want to learn anything new, so there!
> > -learn to feed off of nature efficently in an emergency even on the
> > move, avoiding capture. Learning to eat weeds/trees and ecology
> > is probably the majoritys best backup as doubt of the future grows
> > with robototics. There is still much room yet to use calories even
> > wore efficently for survival emergancy method research.
When the robots start winning, we need to know how to survive,
and then try to win again....
> > -avoid crime as it leads too violent criminals and authorities.
Well, duh!
> > SLAM-DUNK "So what does it do then............"
The same thing my brain cells do....
> > *****Us neurons don't know that much that is limitless*****
Especially those who brain consists of abnormally few neurons.....
> > Did you know computers double in power every 18 months?
Did you know that my(john's) brain halfs in power every 0.0018 minutes
when I'm posting to usenet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well,
--
Patrick Campbell
>Did you know computers double in power every 18 months?
Damn, I knew it. My computer is a year and a half old, I need to
replace my current 200W supply with a 400W supply.
Its funny, my computer is still as slow as it was 18 months ago.
In fact, I think its slower.
Paul Fernhout
John wrote on his web site:
> > Professor Kevin Warrick, head of
> > the Cybernetics Dept' at Reading University
> > in the UK says that within the near future
> > Robots and computers will show the
> > power of a new inteligant entity caperble of making mankind extinct.
> > (His book March of the machines, century press)
Randy Gardner <ran...@slip.net> replied to this:
> If we design an evolveing robot, it may evuntually wipe out human
> life. Haven't people been saying this for over 50 years?
This is more or less the most important point John is trying to make in
hist post. Of course, he would have gotten much friendlier responses if
he had just posted this short fragment (in sentence case) under the
title “The societal implications of robotics and automation”. But often
it is tough enough just to get an idea out there, and refining the form
can come later.
One of the reasons John’s post draw such ire (besides of course the
uppercase and rambling form, which provide an excuse to be impolite),
may be that he chose to post to a forum made up mostly by people who
love working on robots. Nobody wants to hear their “mind children” might
become an evil force (as was taken to an extreme in the sc-fi robot film
“Demon Seed”).
It is easy to ignore this sentiment about robotics having the potential
to make humans extinct, in the same way it is easy to ignore the
probability of an asteroid hitting the Earth. However, astronomers say
the average person’s chance of being killed by an asteroid are higher
than being killed in an airplane crash. This is because, while a large
asteroid only rarely hits the Earth, the number of people potentially
harmed is so great. I think the same thing is true regarding the rise of
autonomous robots. Personally, I don't robots will likely make humans
extinct, but that doesn’t mean I think that could not happen, or that
lesser catastrophes won’t occur.
AI researchers spent the 1970s and 1980s being wrong about how soon AI
(and autonomous robots) would show up. They always said it would be ten
years from now. Nuclear fusion researchers have been guilty of the same
thing. Well, autonomous robots and fusion are not here yet. One can’t
conclude from this that they will never be here though.
To put things in perspective, one should consider atomic energy. World
War II ended shortly after two atomic bombs were dropped (at a great
loss of human life in those cities, and later cancers in researchers and
test subjects). Discounting lives saved by the avoidance of a ground
assault, since then nuclear energy has saved many lives. Diagnostic
X-rays detect medical problems and radiation treatments for cancer cure
medical problems. Nuclear energy directly or indirectly extends tens or
hundreds of thousands of lives annually.
However, the creation of machines that use nuclear energy to save life
does not mean we should not worry about the creation of machines that
use nuclear energy to take life. It does not mean that we to this day
are not hours away from use of those atomic weapons on a wide scale (for
example, a few weeks back there was even some talk from Moscow about “WW
III”).
There is a huge difference in implications between portable diagnostic
x-ray machines and portable nuclear land mines. Note, I am not making an
argument here that “technology is neutral, we can use it for good or bad
purposes”. I am arguing, along the lines of Langdon Winner, that
“technologies have implications; so be careful what technologies you
implement”. Portable nuclear land mines fundamentally make the world a
less stable place; currently several of them may be missing from Russian
arsenals.
Developing atomic weapons took much effort; we could have had medical
applications without the weapons part. Even the medical applications of
radiation have implications on the structure of the health care system
(careful licensing, large investments, a medical elite allowed to use
them). One might consider early investments in reducing carcinogens or
synthetic hormones in the environment (like from tobacco, pesticides,
or certain plastics) might have been far better early investments in
public health. Or, less invasive and risky ultrasound systems might have
been a better investment (requiring as they do less safeguards). Or we
might be better off with more widespread use of nuclear magnetic
resonance (NMR) which does not require the focused beams of atomic
particles or radioactive sources.
I think one can make something of an analogy between atomic power and
robotics up to a point. For example: one can attempt to develop ground
assault robots capable of going into a building and targeting a specific
individual (by sight or smell), using calculated military force from a
variety of weapons as needed. Or one can attempt to develop robots that
go into a burning building to rescue all the occupants, using a variety
of tools as needed (minimizing structural damage). A seemingly minor
difference, and they may have some overlap of technology, but both are
complex and require precise engineering. One does not automatically
imply the other. Given that there are only so many engineers and only so
much money to go around, building one may imply delays on making the
other. Of course, one can also instead invest in smoke detectors, fire
proof homes, and public education about fires, perhaps to a better
effect.
The analogy breaks down between robots and atomic weapons, in that
unlike current atomic bombs, ultimately, robots may be capable of self
direction. Actually, the sci-fi file “Dark Star” includes an intelligent
bomb who has to be talked out of prematurely detonating, sugegsting how
even the deployment of large weapons may someday be out of human hands
(as was the proposal with SDI). Researchers at Los Alamos are busy
developing nanotechnology for “locks” for nuclear weapons. As weapons
systems become more and more autonomous, and more and more able to
repair and reproduces themselves, the risk increases of such systems
doing the unexpected, following their own agenda, despite the best
efforts of programmers to keep them under control. Well behaved cruise
missiles are only a shadow of what is to come in military robotics.
Already the military is seeing the limits of cruise missile technology
for precise actions. The probability of hitting civilians or religious
buildings is still very high. The consequences in world public opinion
or riots are serious. What military officer would not want a force of
reliable robots to go in to do a task with calculated force applied only
to certain people? Of course, any military officer would also be aware
of the potential for an adversary to gain control of such machines, or
for the machines to fail to do what is requested.
Even in my own case, if it was me or my child or grand child who was
drafted to go into a combat situation, I’d probably be the first to say
“send in the robots instead” if that alternative was available; but that
does not mean we should not be concerned about the implications of such
technology, and that we might better spend our time pushing robotics in
other directions instead, delaying the inevitable as long as possible.
It also does not mean I think the world would necessarily be a better
place if the military had such an apparently bloodless option (as far as
counting the blood of only one side goes).
I focus here on the military implications of robotics because the
dangers are obvious, and it is my tax dollars that are being spent to
create them. The long term implications of autonomous technology
developed for civilian use are equally worrisome, just father away. For
an example, see James P. Hogan’s sci-fi novel “The Two Faces of
Tomorrow” which starts with a scene about the dangers of only partially
intelligent literal minded systems.
Still, despite all that, I think we should develop intelligent machines
(in part because they are inevitable). However, the pace of that
development, the initial directions of that development, and the way
such machines will fit into the economy (who controls them, who reaps
the benefits, whether they are citizens), are all questions that need to
be addressed. For all I know, people at DARPA may be more concerned than
I about these issues, and may behind the scenes be subtly directing the
development of robotics so they do the most good, with every knowledge
of how horrible things could be if they develop the wrong things first.
Many people in this newsgroup will be making decisions about the future
of robotics, or they may be consulted by others about the future of
robotics. Any tinkerers here can subtly influence the evolution of
robotics by what they decide to tinker with -- because those are the
types of robots that will get built, and will be easier to enhance.
Those are the robots that will become ingrained in the public
imagination - whether they be robot warriors or robot peacemakers (or
both).
All anybody can ask is that roboticists (professional or hobby) be aware
of how their work might fit into the future. In the same way, one would
ask any engineer, as a citizen, to be aware of the consequences of what
they create, and to make intelligent and informed choices about what
they work on, and based on that, to control how enthusiastically they do
the task at hand.
For me, as I said one post back, the direction I would like to see
robotics and automation and information systems go is to a technology
library (of tools and information) useable to maintain and duplicate
itself, as well as make things people want for living at an arbitrary
level of style. (The style bit is lifted from Jerry Pournelle’s writings
on technology - I think the relevant article was called “Survival with
style”).
I see the best long term place to deploy such a technology library is at
the heart of a self-replicating space habitat supporting human and other
life, capable of duplicating itself from sunlight and asteroidal ore.
Autonomous machines, especially a variety of robots, might play a
central role in making that happen. These ideas are not new. J.D. Bernal
proposed such a thing in the 1920s in his book “The world, the Flesh,
and the Devil”. Freeman Dyson touches on some of these issues when he
discusses the greening of the solar system and universe, and a Dyson
Sphere made up of space habitats around the sun. My addition is the
centrality of a technology library (or network of libraries) to this
effort. Actually that library idea comes mainly from someone from the
U.N. who wants people to sit down and discuss what is most important to
go into an encyclopedia of all important knowledge; I’m just applying
the idea to a concrete manifestation of (semi)autonomous technology - -
the self replicating habitat.
Eric Keller
ok, i got enough trouble trying to get my robot to move, but i'll get
around to destroying mankind
when i get the chance
eric
Paul Fernhout <pdfer...@kurtz-fernhout.com> wrote in article
<351146...@kurtz-fernhout.com>...
> John wrote on his web site: