virus: Re: virus-digest V2 #350
Donald Steven MacKay (dm965271@caper1.uccb.ns.ca)
Tue, 06 Jan 1998 13:15:25 -0400
At 06:10 AM 1/6/98 -0700, virus-digest wrote:
>
>virus-digest Tuesday, January 6 1998 Volume 02 : Number 350
>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 13:29:46 -0000
>From: Robin Faichney <r.j.faichney@stir.ac.uk>
>Subject: RE: Fw: virus: IAM what IAM and dats all what IAM
>
>> From: Wade T.Smith[SMTP:wade_smith@harvard.edu]
>>
>> It is very much a function of PR to direct people away from utility. I
>>
>> would contend religion is prone to the same motivation. (Then again, I
>>
>> have always contended religion is a part of the service economy.)
>>
>You think services aren't utilities?
>
>> I do not want CoV to direct people against utility. I have never, once
>>
>> form follows function set in, wanted ornamentation for ornamentation's
>>
>> sake.
>>
>If you give people something they enjoy, is that utility
>or ornamentation?
>
>Robin
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 13:48:40 -0000
>From: Robin Faichney <r.j.faichney@stir.ac.uk>
>Subject: RE: virus: agnosticism again (was Site du jour (Temple of the Vam
pire))
>
>> From: David McFadzean[SMTP:david@lucifer.com]
>>
>> The following is excerpted from
>> <http://pw1.netcom.com/~temple/truth.html>:
>>
>> We laugh in scorn at the humans who find themselves believing in the
>> superstitious nonsense which our kind created for their control.
>>
>How do people feel about this: every time you "believe in"
>anything, a meme has you in its thrall. So agnosticism,
>applied generally, not just to belief in God, is the ultimate
>meme-control mechanism. (To believe that something
>does not exist is to believe, while to be agnostic as to its
>existence is not.) Sure, agnosticism too is a meme, but
>it is a minimal one, unlike rationality, which is relatively
>complex, and certainly very useful, but not as
>fundamental as agnosticism. Actually, if I recall
>Huxley's formulation correctly, agnosticism supplies a
>simple and coherent reason to be rational, the latter
>being merely a means to that end: believing only in
>that for which there is sufficient reason to do so (where
>"believing" includes "disbelieving").
>
>Robin
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 15:54:05 -0500
>From: "MarXidad" <marxidad@innocent.com>
>Subject: RE: virus: Re: virus-digest V2 #347
>
>> I don't belive that Flash is availible for any UNIX platforms, or is it
>> Java?
>
> Java is available for all platforms. And Macromedia also has a
>cross-platform Java applet to display Flash animations, in addition to
>plug-ins and ActiveX controls.
>
>see http://www.macromedia.com/software/flash/asjp_content.html
>
>Mark
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 5 Jan 98 10:53:19 -0500
>From: "Wade T.Smith" <wade_smith@harvard.edu>
>Subject: RE: Fw: virus: IAM what IAM and dats all what IAM
>
>>If you give people something they enjoy, is that utility
>>or ornamentation?
>
>Good question. But my comment was about giving people things that perform
>a function. If they enjoy using it, why do they? Is that utility? Yes, I
>think so. Is that ornamentation? No, I think not.
>
>What do you prefer? The sharp knife or the fancy handle?
>
>********************************
> Wade T. Smith
> wade_smith@harvard.edu
> morbius@channel1.com
> morbius@cyberwarped.com
>********************************
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date:
>From:
>Subject: [none]
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 16:10:25 -0000
>From: Robin Faichney <r.j.faichney@stir.ac.uk>
>Subject: RE: virus: agnosticism again (was Site du jour (Temple of the V
>
>> From: Wade T.Smith[SMTP:wade_smith@harvard.edu]
>>
>> >Actually, if I recall
>> >Huxley's formulation correctly, agnosticism supplies a
>> >simple and coherent reason to be rational
>>
>> As if any reason were needed....
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>"Be reasonable!"
>
>"Why?"
>
>:-)
>
>Robin
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 10:07:13 -0700
>From: David McFadzean <david@kumo.com>
>Subject: virus: Interesting online debate
>
>Alan Wolfe vs. Stephen Pinker on the merits of evolutionary psychology:
><http://www.slate.com/Code/DDD/DDD.asp?file=Brain&iMsg=0>
>- --
>David McFadzean david@kumo.com
>Memetic Engineer http://www.kumo.com/~david/
>Kumo Software Corp. http://www.kumo.com
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 14:37:10 -0500
>From: "Paul Prestopnik" <pjp66259@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu>
>Subject: Re: virus: FW: The Webs Most Well Kept Secret
>
>> I still haven't found out if C.O.V. is the vector for The Webs Most
>> Well Kept Secret ... does anyone have any idea how one's name winds up on
>> the spam lists? This is the first spam I've received since I quit
>posting
>> to news groups a couple of years ago.
>
>I did not recieve this spam, although I have not posted recently to the
>C.O.V. I think I must have posted sometime in early December, and not
>since.
>- -Paul Prestopnik
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 01:55:04 -0500
>From: Brett Lane Robertson <unameit@tctc.com>
>Subject: Re: virus: Interesting online debate
>
>At 10:07 AM 1/5/98 -0700, you wrote:
>>Alan Wolfe vs. Stephen Pinker on the merits of evolutionary psychology:
>><http://www.slate.com/Code/DDD/DDD.asp?file=Brain&iMsg=0>
>
>>David McFadzean
>
>Read it.
>
>Wolfe was simplifying the "humanistic" position some for the sake of
>argument. Pinker vacillated on the idea of Darwinian "survival of the
>fittest" as being tripe. Wolfe wants distinctions/Pinker wants connections.
>Seems many on the list would memetically engineer more Wolfes so that we
>might all be different and thus open to memetic engineering. Wolf proclaims
>he is a *social* scientist...I wonder why he insists in focusing on
>differences?!?!
>
>Pinker says he is not a reductionist. Too bad. I say all behavior from the
>most complex to the most simple follow the same law(s). Neither (I would
>say) are memeticists. Wolfe would see no basic process one might call
>"meme" in common humanity/Pinker SEEMS to be too concerned with
>contradiction...at least in his diplomatic word usage as regards humanism
>(junk), sociology (fiction), and Darwin (wrong): Memetics is a unified
>theory (not humanism), evolutionary (not sociological), and
>cooperative--reducible to a unified theory (not Darwinian).
>
>Not a bad argument between the two...but miles from memetics.
>
>Brett
>
>
>Returning,
>rBERTS%n
>http://members.tripod.com/~Brettman35/index.html
>
>Bureaucrat, n.:
>A politician who has tenure.
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 23:44:18 -0800
>From: "Tim Rhodes" <proftim@speakeasy.org>
>Subject: Re: virus: agnosticism again
>
>From: Robin Faichney <r.j.faichney@stir.ac.uk>
>
>> How do people feel about this: every time you "believe in"
>> anything, a meme has you in its thrall.
>
>Actually I've always worked on the premise: every time you change your
>behavior because of something (a meme), it has exerted control over you.
>
>- -Prof. Tim
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of virus-digest V2 #350
>***************************
>
>COULD YOU PLEASE REMOVE ME FROM ALL MAILING LISTS!!!!!!!