2010-09-02T05:30:00-05:00 CryoNet http://www.cryonet.org/cryonet.xml http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32795 2010-08-25T16:48:46+0200

Hi Cryonauten, Breaking news about women and Cryonic Paris Hilton, http://www.google.de/images?hl=de&q=Paris%20Hilton%20Business%20Hotel&um=1&i e=UTF-8&source=og&tab=wi&imgtype=i_similar&sa=X&ei=YiJ1TPSMGMid4Qb07ojvBQ&ct =img-sim-l&oi=image_sil&resnum=19&tbnid=lK127BLR1rYnJM ... . . .

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32796 2010-08-26T07:47:18-0700

Cooling live patients is known to help prevent brain damage. I am not aware of this sort of technology being used for treating terminal patents interested in cryonics. Nonetheless, it still looks interesting, if a little pricey. Here's a nice picture illustrating the Cincinnati SubZero cooling system. http://www.cszmedical.com/ Has anybody . . .

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32797 2010-08-26T16:13:53+0100

I can find nothing on the search engines that actually support this claim about Paris Hilton and Lady Gaga wanting cryonics. The links posted were just images of the women concerned - no text about cryonics or anything else. Unfortunately celebrities have learned that they can say something about cryonics . . .

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32798 2010-08-27T19:04:03+0200

On 27 Aug 2010, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote: There is no scientific support for this view, that I am aware of. No effect was found in the Badger data, as I recall. In fact, the only strongly significant result among the motivational statements: "I would feel more favorably toward . . .

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32799 03:49:57-00-AugT-0000

The ISP hosting cryonet.org got cranky and insisted that CryoNet now use its new mailing list software rather than its ancient mailing list software. (The new software has better performance but is missing important features.) I just created one of the new mailing lists and called it BDCryoNet (Brain Damaged . . .

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32800 2010-08-30T09:00:09-0400

To Kevin Q. Brown: Thank you very much for hosting Cryonet, and maintaining archives in a fairly accessible fashion. While other cryonics themed bulletin boards have come and gone, Cryonet remains a fixture. Indeed, a fixture with a sometimes uneven noise to signal ratio, but a good forum nonetheless. . . .

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32801 2010-08-30T07:41:47-0700

As I've suspected, cryonics organizations might have made an error a generation ago by identifying revival scenarios too closely to certain technological speculations which haven't born fruit: http://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/nano-nonsense-25-years-of-charlatanry/ Mark Plus Life is short: Freeze hard! . . .

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32802 2010-08-30T15:01:10+0000

I recently wrote a blog entry, regarding Alcor's propensity for doing "last-minute" cases and/or "charity" cases, something I consider to be a slap in the face to conscientious cryonicists who have diligently filled out Alcor's extensive paperwork, taken the trouble to make sure their legal affairs are in order for . . .

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32803 2010-08-30T23:17:31+0100

The world's first car appeared around 1800. A replica built a few years ago was virtually impossible to control, so articles could have appeared for nearly 100 years suggesting that "horseless carriages" were an idea that would never bear fruit. http://www.h2-hydro-gen.com/page19.html Steam engines appeared two millenia ago - Hero's Engine. . . .

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32804 2010-08-31T09:33:34+0100

[Mark Plus' message below to Longevity Report was held up by the Yahoo moderation process] The comment below is surely a feature of exponential growth. da Vinci was writing about planes with little hope of making one with the materials and knowledge of his time. PCM (or analogue to digital . . .

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32805 2010-08-31T11:32:23+0200

There are several different levels to be considered. One is the progress of science. That is what the original article was addressing. Another is the politico-religious: will the progress arrive in time to provide my salvation. That is the argument we see in transhumanism, with concepts like the 'singularity'. Techno-rapture . . .

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32806 2010-08-31T08:35:33-0400

I second Rudi's comments... Thanks Kevin. Dennis To Kevin Q. Brown: Thank you very much for hosting Cryonet, and maintaining archives in a fairly accessible fashion. While other cryonics themed bulletin boards have come and gone, Cryonet remains a fixture. . . .

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32807 2010-08-31T08:01:14-0500

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:00 AM, CryoNet <owner-cryonet> wrote: Scott Locklin in the comments to his blog post points out: me; well, I deny it. I maintain that they have picked a delivery date so far into the future that the day of judgement will never come. They'll . . .

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32808 2010-08-31T10:48:34-0400

On 31 Aug 2010 09:00:03 -0000 CryoNet <owner-cryonet> wrote: Bull. I've spent about the last five years of my life studying this field nearly full time. Let me start by saying that if nano is impossible, you are impossible, because you are made of molecular machines. How do you function . . .

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32809 2010-08-31T07:57:54-0700

In Cryonet #32803, John de Rivaz writes: was virtually impossible to control, so articles could have appeared for nearly 100 years suggesting that "horseless carriages" were an idea that would never bear fruit. [etc.] I don't understand the relevance of your examples to Locklin's critique. The prototypes of the inventions . . .

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32810 2010-08-31T11:46:01-0400

I don't have the patience to list the references or expound the results, but even a cursory search will reveal many useful developments in nanotechnology, and many patents. But even if there was or is over-optimism in some quarters about the pace of progress, that does not affect the iron . . .

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32811 2010-08-31T12:59:24-0700

Contrary to Maxim's post, as people who know me well would be aware, I am not in the habit of making threats, least of all to inhibit speech. The moderator of the forum concerned has made the following statement there: "Charles has made complaints, but he has never threatened me." . . .

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32812 2010-09-01T07:34:49-0400

Nearly three weeks ago Douglas Skrecky posted his message "a proposal to stimulate cryonics research": http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32767 to which this is my belated reply. The focus of Doug's message on cryoprotectant toxicity shows that his heart and mind are in the right place, so I hope that my acknowledgment . . .

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32813 2010-09-1T09:50:24-0400

Now THIS is more like it... I found the postings by Perry Metzger and Robert Ettinger most compelling on this morning's Cryonet. Observations by Mark Plus (I think...sorry if I got this attribution wrong, Mark) about the unlikely emergence of nanotech in 25 years...not so much. Having had extensive discussions . . .

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32814 2010-09-1T08:05:28-0700

Yes, and the existence of the Hula-Hoop shows that a sufficiently advanced civilization could build Larry Niven's Ringworld. You'll have to try harder than that. The "molecular machines" in biology don't incorporate principles from macroscopic mechanical engineering, because those principles don't work on that scale. Locklin and other critics like . . .

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32815 2010-09-1T08:54:39-0700

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 2:00 AM, "Perry E. Metzger" <perry> wrote: snip It's a good argument, same thing could have been said for a thousand years about heavier than air flight because birds and bats do it. Proof by example that it can be done. Living stuff is . . .

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32816 2010-09-1T09:09:11-0700

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 2:00 AM, MARK PLUS <holyspiritdenier> wrote: snip Drexler's work is not easy to understand and harder to implement but it is based on the best understanding we have of the physical world. That physical world included our bodies and those stored in LN2. If . . .

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32817 2010-09-1T12:33:23-0400

"Freeposity" wrote: Anything can be called anything. I can say my product contains fairy dust if I like. People might even believe that the marketing decision to say the product contains "fairy dust" means it actually does even if the idea is nonsense. There are no products on the market . . .

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32818 2010-09-1T13:03:15-0400

Robert Ettinger wrote: Most of the developments are in things that are labeled nanotechnology rather than in actual MNT, which is what is required to repair cryonics patients. Once a huge amount of funding became available in the 1990s for "nanotechnology" research, a lot of people suddenly "discovered" that their . . .

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32819 2010-09-1T22:44:03+0100

Keith Henson asks for better ideas to assembler nanotechnology for cryonic revivals. I think because life itself is based on this technology, it is unlikely that anything else will achieve the desired results. Although macro based surgery can do wonderful things, it falls far short of repairing living systems. It . . .