From: Gordon Worley (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Oct 19 2001 - 13:00:41 MDT
At 12:44 PM -0600 10/19/01, Mitch Howe wrote:
The thing I like about this is that almost no one knows the existing
definition unless they have experience in cellular biology. This
means there isn't any prejudice involved in using the word. My only
complaint is that it sounds very singular, but then 'Sysop' is
singular as well.
>If I'm not mistaken, this is the sysop of cellular biology. Miriam-Webster
>online defines it as: "a group of closely linked genes that produces a
>single messenger RNA molecule in transcription and that consists of
>structural genes and regulating elements (as an operator and promoter)"
Well, I don't know enough about cellular biology to be sure if the
analogy really makes sense, but since a Singularity Sysop and a human
sysop are pretty different things and only related to a limited
extent, this isn't too much of a problem.
>I like the way Operon suggests structure and regulation from the bottom up,
>like the operator of an old switchboard. It allows for liberal, hands-off
>futures as well as oppressive, tyrannical ones.
>[Other, less optimal ideas I've toyed with in the last week include:
>Nodemind, Enviromind, Schematrix, Schematron, Schemamind]
Very less optimal. We want to avoid anything that sounds silly
outright (imagine trying to convince people that the Schematron is
what they want ;-)).
-- Gordon Worley `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty http://www.rbisland.cx/ said, `it means just what I choose firstname.lastname@example.org it to mean--neither more nor less.' PGP: 0xBBD3B003 --Lewis Carroll
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 19 2013 - 04:00:38 MDT