tech: [Fwd: Filtered Extropians]

[Eugene.Leitl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

-------- Original Message --------
From: Damien Sullivan <damien@mindstalk.net>
Subject: Filtered Extropians
To: select-l@ugcs.caltech.edu

Amara Graps           Re: Progress: What does it mean to you?
Amara Graps           Re: Progress: What does it mean to you?
Amara Graps           Re: Progress: What does it mean to you?
Amara Graps           Re: Progress: What does it mean to you?
Amara Graps           The Spike Process
Amara Graps           Dark Energy and Quintessence papers at LANL Preprint server
James Rogers          Resource rights (was Re: nuclear power)
Robin Hanson          Re: Forks, Duplicates, and Justice
Max More              Re-crafting the extropian image [Was: RE: Norman Spinrad on
James Rogers          Re: Re-crafting the extropian image [Was: RE: Norman Spinrad on 
Max More              Re: Re-crafting the extropian image [Was: RE: Norman Spinrad
James Rogers          Re: Re-crafting the extropian image [Was: RE: Norman Spinrad


From: Amara Graps <amara@amara.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 14:51:17 +0100
Subject: Re: Progress: What does it mean to you?

From: Spudboy100@aol.com

>There is a lot one would change or just consider changing, if we had the
>means. This has always been a concern of mine, on this, and the transhuman
>mailing lists, that they never really focus on conceptual ideas, on doing the
>ultimates

Know Thyself.

I believe that the universe within is just as vast as the universe without.

To change the world outside requires changing the world inside. Do you
know what are the things uniquely you, that you can offer to the world?
If you lost everything that you knew and loved, what are the things,
your passions, that would drive you to continue living? What are the things
in your mind that prevent you from being free? If you could build yourself
over from the smallest dust particle, what are the elements of yourself
that you would begin with?

I don't strive to 'change the world'. I only strive to find and do the
things that are uniquely mine to give, to be the best that I can be,
in my own way.

It's only when one has tapped the vast resources inside, that one build
and connect with the vast resources outside.

Amara



********************************************************************
Amara Graps                 |   Max-Planck-Institut fuer Kernphysik
Interplanetary Dust Group   |   Saupfercheckweg 1
+49-6221-516-543            |   69117 Heidelberg, GERMANY
Amara.Graps@mpi-hd.mpg.de  *    http://galileo.mpi-hd.mpg.de/~graps
********************************************************************
        "Never fight an inanimate object." - P. J. O'Rourke



From: Amara Graps <amara@amara.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 13:45:08 +0100
Subject: Re: Progress: What does it mean to you?

> I believe what is most meaningful to me is a consistent science
>or cosmology that provides, well, shall I say hope. Is this possible?

Mitch,

'hope' is a state of mind. A human could be in the most dire life
circumstances (ever read: Viktor Frankl's _Man's search for Meaning_ ?),
and still have hope for his/her future and carry a passion for living.
I think that you are devoting a lot of attention to looking for a
philosophical/scientific savior, instead of cultivating your own hope.
The world is what it is, what we have to work with is only ourselves to
follow our own dreams. If by accident we influence someone else,
then hallelujah, but otherwise why bother?

Once you have your own hope, the human brain will do an amazing thing:
it will filter for you all of the hopeful things that humans are actively
working at presently. Yes, indeedy, they are all around you.

Of course the world is a lousy mess, but it's a beautiful lousy mess.

Amara


********************************************************************
Amara Graps                  email: amara@amara.com
Computational Physics        vita:  finger agraps@shell5.ba.best.com
Multiplex Answers            URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the
future of the human race."   -- H. G. Wells




From: Amara Graps <amara@amara.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 20:36:55 +0100
Subject: Re: Progress: What does it mean to you?

From: Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>:

>I am not so sure that I have a lot that is uniquely me in the
>sense that it is just there and mine alone.

It may be my own personality quirk or lack of self-confidence
that seeks to find the particular niches where I think that I can
uniquely contribute the most, while deriving the most joy.

However, here's another perspective:

The sum of each of our experiences makes us who we are today,
lending to a uniqueness in both our worldview and what we each
have to offer.

(as crummy as some of those past experiences were, I would not
change an nanominute of my past because I wouldn't have learned what
I learned, to be who I am now)

>It seems to me though that going inside
>and becoming my best takes me outside and going outside I come
>up against much of the same thing as inside.  The boundary
>wavers.

Exactly.. which makes it difficult to escape one's self, hmm?

> I am continually
>amazed to find the things I thought were uniquely mine also
>quite active and flowing through other people.  The mix is
>different, which of us can best express it in various ways and
>various times differs.

Oh sure! That's one effect of knowing yourself. Once you recognize
those aspects of yourself, it becomes easy to recognize the same
'flow' in others, often unconsciously. I *like* finding people who
share my worldview and passions in all of those different mixes and
timeframes.

(It's one reason to visit this extropian space, yes?)

Amara




********************************************************************
Amara Graps                  email: amara@amara.com
Computational Physics        vita:  finger agraps@shell5.ba.best.com
Multiplex Answers            URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"If you gaze for long into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into
you."  - -Nietzsche




From: Amara Graps <amara@amara.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 21:37:19 +0100
Subject: Re: Progress: What does it mean to you?


Mitch,

>If my belief-system, is however, founded on what we can determine as reason
>and science, then I am free to build my 'castles in the air.'

Hey very cool. Our spacecraft dust detectors do indeed look like
pie-in-the-sky detectors. ;)

> More to the point, if we merely, "follow our dreams" then why not all
>embrace religion, or some unsubstantiated, idea or philosophy?

Is that dream your own ? Is it your reason to jump out of bed every morning
and say 'great! another day that I can do what I love!' ?

Those dreams (say, most of them) aren't based on anyone or anything else.
(If they died tommorrow, that would be pretty grim, eh?) It's all yours.
Once you have passions, you can  look at the technology/yourself and figure
how to get from here to there, with the  tools available. And if the tools
are not available then build the tools (to build the tools.. to build the
tools.. infinite regress, if necessary)

"Value and reason".. I would think that those are embedded  (consciously
or unconsciously) in the process when discovering your dreams. Hopefully
your dreams are not to become a mass murderer.

It looks to me like you have the procedure switched from how I see the process

Your view (I think): Grasp someone else's dream you appreciate,
                     build the tools/technology, know yourself along the way

My view: Know yourself, grasp your own dreams, build the
                      tools/technology (and yourself, if necessary)

Amara


********************************************************************
Amara Graps                  email: amara@amara.com
Computational Physics        vita:  finger agraps@shell5.ba.best.com
Multiplex Answers            URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
     "Trust in the Universe, but tie up your camels first."
               (adaptation of a Sufi proverb)




From: Amara Graps <amara@amara.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 00:30:09 +0100
Subject: The Spike Process


For your amusement: The following excerpt from the latest Wavelet Digest
describes a stochastic process called "The Spike Process."

Amara

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 21:21:42 -0800
From: Naoki Saito <saito@math.ucdavis.edu>
Subject: #6 Preprint: Sparsity vs. Statistical Independence

Dear Wavelet Digest subscribers,

The following preprint is available from my web page:
http://math.ucdavis.edu/~saito/publications/spikes.html

This contains some unexpected results and I am very interested in hearing
your comments!

Title: Sparsity vs. Statistical Independence in Adaptive Signal
Representations: A Case Study of the Spike Process

Authors: Bertrand Benichou and Naoki Saito

Institute: Department of Mathematics, University of California, Davis

Abstract: Finding a basis/coordinate system that can efficiently
represent an input data stream by viewing them as realizations of a
stochastic process is of tremendous importance in many fields
including data compression and computational neuroscience. Two popular
measures of such efficiency of a basis are sparsity (measured by the
expected $\ell^p$ norm) and statistical independence (measured by the
mutual information).  Gaining deeper understanding of their intricate
relationship, however, remains elusive.  Therefore, we chose to study
a simple synthetic stochastic process called the spike process, which
puts a unit impulse at a random location in an $n$-dimensional vector
for each realization.  For this process, we obtained the following
results: 1) The standard basis is the best both in terms of sparsity
and statistical independence if $n \geq 5$ and the search of basis is
restricted within all possible orthonormal bases in ${\bf R}^n$; 2) If
we extend our basis search in all possible invertible linear
transformations in ${\bf R}^n$, then the best basis in statistical
independence differs from the one in sparsity; 3) In either of the
above, the best basis in statistical independence is not unique, and
there even exist those which make the inputs completely dense; 4)
There is no linear invertible transformation that achieves the true
statistical independence for $n > 2$.

Keywords: Sparse representation, statistical independence, data compression,
basis dictionary, best basis, spike process

Also, in my web page:
http://math.ucdavis.edu/~saito/publications/
there are several related papers you can retrieve.

Sincerely yours,
Naoki Saito

--
 Naoki Saito, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics
 University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616-8633 USA
 Voice: 530-754-2121, Fax: 530-752-6635, Email: saito@math.ucdavis.edu
 Home Page: http://math.ucdavis.edu/~saito/




********************************************************************
Amara Graps                  email: amara@amara.com
Computational Physics        vita:  finger agraps@shell5.ba.best.com
Multiplex Answers            URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
     "There are strange things done in the midnight sun..."
         --  Robert W. Service



From: Amara Graps <amara@amara.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 11:54:03 +0100
Subject: Dark Energy and Quintessence papers at LANL Preprint server

Some bits of news and info re: cosmology

'Dark energy' is a hypothetical repulsive force that exerts a negative
pressure which cosmological theoreticians are using to try to explain
the observations from 3 years ago that the universe's expansion is
accelerating. More recent observations of distant supernova have confirmed
the observations from 3 years ago (see Science News April 7, 2001, "A Dark
Force in the Universe"), and the astrophysics community are in a tizzy,
judging from the number of abstracts I see in the Los Alamos preprint
server.

'Quintessence' is a variable form of dark energy, where the properties
vary with time. When the universe was very young and radiation was the
dominant form of energy, quintessence would have exerted a positve pressure
and an attractive gravitational force. About 50 000 yrs
after the Big Bang, when matter became the dominant reservoir
of the universe's energy, quintessence would have begun exerting
a negative pressure and a repulsive gravitational force.

Try the following to see some of the papers from this year
on the Los Alamos Preprint server about 'dark energy' and
'quintessence'

http://arXiv.org/find/hep-th,astro-ph/1/abs:+AND+energy+AND+quintessence+dark/0/
1/0/past/0/1


Amara


********************************************************************
Amara Graps                  email: amara@amara.com
Computational Physics        vita:  finger agraps@shell5.ba.best.com
Multiplex Answers            URL:   http://www.amara.com/
********************************************************************
"Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the
future of the human race."   -- H. G. Wells




From: James Rogers <jamesr@best.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 15:21:41 -0700
Subject: Resource rights (was Re: nuclear power)

At 12:40 PM 6/4/2001 -0700, Anne Marie Tobias wrote:

>As far as ownership... there is a thing called public domain, a
>critical concept that says yuo may own something, but if your
>singular benefit, harms the greater public, then you have to be
>a little less selfish, and we'll work out REASONABLE terms
>to make sure your benefit is weighed fairly against the social
>harm it may impose. Just like the ranch boss, who dammed the
>stream to wipe out those down the valley, so he could destroy
>them and take their property... there are certain acts that may
>be a function of ownership, that still qualify perfectly as unlawful
>and immoral acts.


Electricity is manufactured, not claimed like water.  "Claiming" any 
manufactured resource is obviously theft of the capital expended.  But even 
for natural resources, you state a hypothetical case that doesn't make 
sense with respect to how these things are actually managed.

Your ranch boss example is odd and doesn't support the point you are trying 
to make.  Virtually all natural resources, renewable or not, have titular 
rights that have been assigned to someone, or to the State by default.  In 
your ranch boss example, you have two possible scenarios (at least in the 
U.S.).  First, the ranch boss owns the rights to the surface water in the 
stream he is damming, and therefore the people downstream were surviving 
off his generosity in letting them use the water; he is under no obligation 
to give it to them any more than you or I would be obligated to let 
strangers live in our house.  The second possibility is that the ranch boss 
does *not* have rights to the water, in which case it is a significant 
criminal offense *if* someone else downstream can demonstrate a rightful 
claim to it and cares enough to take it to court.  If the only owner of the 
rights to the water is the State, they may or may not care what happens to 
the water as no one actually using it has a rightful claim to it.  Many 
times (most likely depending on your State), the State will assign 
unclaimed resources to individuals who ask nicely and fill out the proper 
paperwork.

Just about every natural resource you can think of has rights that are 
bought and sold, sometimes with the land that it applies to, sometimes 
separately.  This includes water rights (ground and surface), mineral 
rights (alluvial and fixed), grazing rights, timber rights, hunting rights, 
etc., all of which is supported by the courts using ancient common 
law.  Most property owners today have few if any rights associated with 
their land title -- if you find gold nuggets in your backyard, they most 
likely do not belong to you.  However, various resource rights can be 
bought and sold (there are sites on the Internet for doing just that in 
fact), and many of them are quite cheap to obtain.  Many rights in the U.S. 
are held by absentee landlords, so what appears to be a "public" resource 
may in fact be a privately owned resource that is simply not being used or 
restricted by the owner at the current time.

In any case, I don't see how you can justify making generosity mandatory 
just because someone is generous once.  Only a fool or a con man would make 
a business plan that relies solely on the generosity of others.  It takes a 
whole series of stupid decisions to get to that point, but I don't see how 
you can force the resource owner to pay for the consequences, or even 
worse, force that generosity in perpetuity.

-James Rogers
  jamesr@best.com



From: Robin Hanson <rhanson@gmu.edu>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 10:58:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Forks, Duplicates, and Justice

Lee Corbin wrote:
>A very good question, "Who should get punished if one of a
>number of duplicates commits an evil act?". ...
>Classically, are four reasons societies punish wrongdoers:
>
>1. Deterrence
>2. Removal
>3. Retribution
>4. Rehabilitation
>
>(Personally, I believe that right now only 1 and 2 are
>both logical and feasible, but 4 is a possibility for
>the future, and possibly works on animals right now.)
>
>So if one of N close duplicates commits a crime, should
>that duplicate alone receive punishment, or should all
>the close duplicates?  I would say that if the crime
>related to "lower level" impulses, then the individual
>duplicate should be punished, but if the crime directly
>resulted from beliefs, ideologies, or other "higher level"
>patterns, then punishment for all the duplicates ought to
>be considered.

I teach undergraduate law & economics this fall.  Law&econ
analyzes the deterrence motive for law.  This sounds like a
great topic for me to assign a paper on.

If the split between duplicates happened so long ago that
the original could not conceivably have anticipated and
taken actions to prevent the crime, then it seems clear
the other duplicates should not be punished.  But if the
original could have so prevented, then it becomes more of
an open question I think.  And if the duplicate is easier
to find and punish, the case gets stronger.




Robin Hanson  rhanson@gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323


From: Max More <max@maxmore.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 08:53:54 -0700
Subject: Re-crafting the extropian image [Was: RE: Norman Spinrad on

At 07:23 AM 6/5/01, Ben Goertzel wrote:

>I don't think that Extropy is *anything* like a cult, in actual fact
>
>What I was agreeing with was the statement that it often *looks* this way to
>outsiders.

While I agree, obviously, that there is no cult here, I also have to agree 
that it sometimes appears that way to some outsiders, especially before 
they meet the principals involved. I don't *like* that fact, but I have to 
acknowledge it objectively. The interesting question is: Why do some people 
respond that way, and what can we do about it? (And is it worth doing what 
it would take to dispel that response?)

>And I think that this appearance is hard to avoid.  One has to work to avoid
>it, it comes automatically from being a moderately coherent group of
>like-minded out-of-the-mainstream people.

Yes, just being out of the mainstream, having unusual ideas that involve 
numerous unfamiliar ideas talked about using terms unknown to the majority 
(with a liberal sprinkling of neologisms, useful as they are), and a 
comprehensive and divergent perspective (or weltanschauung to use the 
wonderful German term) are enough to cause this misperception in casual, 
careless, or malicious observers.

> From reading the documents on the Extropy website, Extropy looks a lot
>*more* cultlike than it does from reading this list, however.

And they may appear more that way than the impression people get from 
public talks given by ExI reps such as myself, ExI Advisor's Natasha 
Vita-More, Ray Kurzweil, Marvin Minsky, and Roy Walford, or ExI VP Greg Burch.

>  For instance,
>the website states certain principles to which all extropians must adhere.
>[...] I do not find myself being cast out for my lack of
>intellectual obedience.

This prompts me to ask for input from all extropians who want to help 
improve our image. We are currently thoroughly re-writing the FAQ (delayed 
due to focusing on the conference), and I have already determined that a 
complete overall of ExI's website is a top priority for the summer. So, 
here is my request:

INPUT PLEASE: In order to maximize the effectiveness of ExI's public 
on-line presence, I ask for your feedback on the current contents, look, 
and feel of our Website (and any other forums and points of contact with 
the public). We have already shifted considerably away from cult-meme 
triggers, such as by de-emphasizing the use of symbols and by changing the 
look of the site. What else can we do? I don't believe the Extropian 
Principles are a problem since they explicitly not a set of doctrines, but 
a revisable codification of values and attitudes that give meaning to 
"extropian". Are there essays, phrases, images, or other cognitive or 
emotional triggers in our on-line presence that we could change in more 
effective ways? (Without becoming boring and characterless.)

PLEASE do look over the website and think of other ExI points of contact 
and give me feedback on this. I may not reply quickly until after Extro-5, 
but you can be sure that I will be gathering your comments for action 
during the summer re-design. Your careful and constructive input on this 
would be *invaluable* in helping us attract a wider range of people.

[If I could include audio here, I would now insert a sample from The Fifth 
Element where Leeloo (Milla Jovovich) irresistibly pleads for help. ;-)

It would be very useful for bringing in MONEY to do cool projects....  Also,
>of course, it would help us to have some influence over politicians, perhaps
>causing there to be slightly fewer stupidly restrictive laws in the short
>term...

You will be hearing something along these lines at Extro-5 and afterwards. 
In the meantime, feedback (public or private) on enhancing our image would 
be very helpful.

Onward!

Max

_______________________________________________________

Max More, Ph.D.
Futurist, Speaker, Consultant.
max@maxmore.com or more@extropy.org
http://www.maxmore.com
________________________________________________________________

President, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org
Chair, 06.15.01, Extro-5: Shaping Things to Come, 
http://www.extropy.org/ex5/index.htm
________________________________________________________________

Senior Content Architect, ManyWorlds Inc.: http://www.manyworlds.com
"The Premier Business Strategy Source"
m.more@manyworlds.com
_______________________________________________________


From: James Rogers <jamesr@best.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 23:05:50 -0700
Subject: Re: Re-crafting the extropian image [Was: RE: Norman Spinrad on 

On 6/5/01 10:35 PM, "Ben Goertzel" <ben@goertzel.org> wrote:
> 
> so why did Wired thrive and Extropy and Mondo 2000 not?  I guess just
> *because* Wired became fairly shallow and commercial and mainstream...


Because Wired was sexy, accessible, and had quite a bit of content (in the
early days at least).  Mondo 2000 was sexy, but lacking content and only
moderately accessible.  Extropy had content, but wasn't sexy or very
accessible.  Or at least these were my impressions from the early days,
observing these things from the outside.

Wired struck a good balance of sexiness, content, and accessibility, which
is why I think they were successful.  They started to die when the content
started to wither.

-James Rogers
 jamesr@best.com


From: Max More <max@maxmore.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 08:21:04 -0700
Subject: Re: Re-crafting the extropian image [Was: RE: Norman Spinrad

At 11:05 PM 6/5/01, James Rogers wrote:
>On 6/5/01 10:35 PM, "Ben Goertzel" <ben@goertzel.org> wrote:
> >
> > so why did Wired thrive and Extropy and Mondo 2000 not?  I guess just
> > *because* Wired became fairly shallow and commercial and mainstream...
>
>Because Wired was sexy, accessible, and had quite a bit of content (in the
>early days at least).  Mondo 2000 was sexy, but lacking content and only
>moderately accessible.  Extropy had content, but wasn't sexy or very
>accessible.

I would same the same about Wired and Mondo 2000 (though the latter had 
some content, depending on your tastes). However, for the most part I think 
Extropy was no less accessible than a magazine like Scientific American. 
Just look through the issues and you will see many competently written 
articles. Certainly it would have continued to improve along those lines if 
it had continued past the fateful issue #17. As for sexiness, clearly it 
was improving over time as I consciously moved in that direction, and as 
Natasha also strongly guided it that way. That last cover worked for many 
people...

What Extropy did not have that Wired did have, was good funding to get 
started. Extropy (and ExI) began very small, with #1 having 50 copies 
photocopied and given out to whoever would take them by T.0.Morrow and 
myself. The lack of funds for marketing and the infrequent publication were 
limitations even when the look and feel become sexier. By contrast, Wired's 
launch came along with massive advertising (I saw it on the sides of many 
buses in L.A.) and money for promotion. We did quite well considering. Same 
with ExI which we started with practically zero money -- quite the opposite 
way that most non-profits get started. (The Electronic Frontier 
Foundation's initial directors were very wealthy; The Milken Foundation, 
the Getty.... you get the idea.)

The funding point is crucial. If Extropy ever were to be re-launched, 
readable content and good design would not be enough. Funding and 
distribution would be essential. Considering that we could not afford to 
pay anyone to write, we got a good and improving level of writing, but a 
major new launch would *have* to be able to pay writers to be sustainable. 
We would also need a paid staff to focus on the tedious but important 
things like collecting from distributors (who are a major pain), marketing, 
and the mechanics of production. I learned those things as I went along 
(though I had done four previous small scale magazines), but I was not very 
business minded and did not like those tasks. I'm much more business-smart 
these days, but still would not want to do those jobs. I did them only 
because I had to, and I had the time when I was employed full-time by ExI 
to do those jobs among others (although at a pitiful salary).

It's interesting that ExI reached a peak of paid members when the magazine 
was coming out -- a level it has not reached since despite the enormous 
expansion in awareness of the ideas. (Though we're climbing back up, and we 
have a large number of "Free Electronic Members".)

Now I'm tempted to spend an hour looking fondly through the back issues. 
Ah, the memories! But no time!

Onward!

Max

_______________________________________________________
Max More, Ph.D.
Futurist, Speaker, Consultant.
max@maxmore.com or more@extropy.org
http://www.maxmore.com
________________________________________________________________
President, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org
Chair, 06.15.01, Extro-5: Shaping Things to Come, 
http://www.extropy.org/ex5/index.htm
________________________________________________________________
Senior Content Architect, ManyWorlds Inc.: http://www.manyworlds.com
"The Premier Business Strategy Source"
m.more@manyworlds.com
_______________________________________________________


From: James Rogers <jamesr@best.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 17:58:56 -0700
Subject: Re: Re-crafting the extropian image [Was: RE: Norman Spinrad

At 08:21 AM 6/6/2001 -0700, Max More wrote:
>At 11:05 PM 6/5/01, James Rogers wrote:
>>
>>Because Wired was sexy, accessible, and had quite a bit of content (in the
>>early days at least).  Mondo 2000 was sexy, but lacking content and only
>>moderately accessible.  Extropy had content, but wasn't sexy or very
>>accessible.
>
>I would same the same about Wired and Mondo 2000 (though the latter had 
>some content, depending on your tastes). However, for the most part I 
>think Extropy was no less accessible than a magazine like Scientific 
>American. Just look through the issues and you will see many competently 
>written articles. Certainly it would have continued to improve along those 
>lines if it had continued past the fateful issue #17. As for sexiness, 
>clearly it was improving over time as I consciously moved in that 
>direction, and as Natasha also strongly guided it that way. That last 
>cover worked for many people...


I was trying to remember my impressions of the three when I was first 
introduced to them, to give a baseline for the experience of people that 
aren't already immersed in these types of magazines.  "Accessible" doesn't 
just have a technical level component, it also has an experiential 
component as well.  People who might find Scientific American accessible 
might not find Extropy accessible for reasons having directly or indirectly 
to do with the topics at hand, rather than the style or technical depth.  I 
was pre-disposed to find all of these magazines accesible, so it wasn't a 
problem for me.  There was nothing wrong with the quality of the writing in 
Extropy.

I liked Extropy, but I wouldn't classify it to be an outreach tool for 
engaging new people.  Instead, it seemed to attract people who were already 
latent Extropians.  I can think of many people I worked with in the past 
who *did* read Scientific American and even Wired, who got that "deer in 
the headlights" look when they read Extropy.  People who really "got" early 
Wired, usually "got" Extropy, but people who were fence-sitters with 
respect to Wired almost never did.  Many avid readers of Scientific 
American are often very conservative mentally, and while they are 
technically up to the challenge of Extropy, they may not have the 
mental/emotional/cultural/whatever maturity to "get" it.  I observed many 
well-educated and technically savvy people who appeared almost revulsed by 
it for whatever reason.  I've observed the same reaction to Wired, but 
never as pronounced or as often; they talked a much slicker line from the 
viewpoint of the masses, which allowed them to reach a broader audience and 
pull in some of the fence-sitters.  In many ways, Wired was very 
well-orchestrated propaganda.

I guess my point is that one has to determine what the goals of a magazine 
are as a tool before you can really decide the format and contents.  I view 
it as a comparison between, say Scientific American and Physical Review, in 
that Scientific American is a slick communication piece by The Scientists 
for The Masses and may even serve to recruit new scientists from The 
Masses, whereas Physical Review is a communication piece by Scientists for 
Scientists, aiding communication among scientists but doing little to 
communicate with those outside the field.  It is nearly impossible to do 
both these things in a single publication, so the question is which are you 
trying to be?  I found Extropy to be largely for people who were already 
more-or-less extropians, even if they didn't call themselves that.  This 
isn't a criticism, just an observation; it assumed a pre-disposition that 
most people just don't have.  IMO, to engage the masses one would need a 
sexier style that operated at more of an "extropian prep-school" content 
level, letting people get comfortable with the conceptual framework without 
scaring them away.  The step from "the masses" to "full-blown 
futurist/extropian/transhumanist" is too big for most people; there needs 
to be a middle step which I think is missing.

Cheers,

-James Rogers
  jamesr@best.com

http://www.homoexcelsior.com/archive/technology/