From: James Rogers (jamesr@best.com)
Date: Sun Sep 29 2002 - 16:36:40 MDT
On 9/29/02 2:08 PM, "hook" <hookysun@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> The potential donors are interesting; the potential capitalists are not, due
> to their mundane methods of calculating ROI. Their
> idea of high-tech stuff is sl<4.
I take it from you description of them that you have little or no real-world
experience with the capital markets. "Gross mischaracterization" and "vast
oversimplification" are terms that comes to mind.
> The thing is Ben doesn't grok seed AI, which is essential to getting anything
> transhuman within a timeframe to possibly beat
> nanotech.
You are making a LOT of unqualified assumptions here. I would even go so
far as to say that YOU may not really understand what you are talking about.
> His "sort of" interest has a lot to do with this incomprehension.
> He doesn't get Friendship Programming esp. structure, which is also essential.
> Certainly he is not going to have more than casual
> interest if he
> doesn't see how a whole dish (complex organization around a top-down, rational
> principle) approach is necessary, i.e.- an a la carte
> (altering strictly local properties, goals tacked on as almost an
> afterthought) approach won't work.
[...elided...]
Your whole screed really rubs me the wrong way. It reeks of the hubris of
ignorance. Your assertions are empty and unqualified, and you are doing
your reputation no credit here by taking this approach.
More to the point, what significant contributions have YOU made? What are
YOUR qualifications in making all these assertions?
-James Rogers
jamesr@best.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:40 MDT