CryoNet #32482 - #32483

CryoNet - Mon 15 Mar 2010

    #32482: Re: CryoNet #32479 - #32481 [Luke Parrish]
    #32483: Re: Collateral Damage or Misguided Malarkey? [David Stodolsky]

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32482%2D32483

Administrivia

To subscribe to CryoNet, send email to:
    [email protected]
with the subject line (not message _body_):
    subscribe
To unsubscribe, use the subject line:
    unsubscribe
To post a message to CryoNet, send your message to:
    [email protected]
from the same address to which you are aubscribed.

Since all CryoNet messages are archived and accessible via WWW,
including search engines, make certain that your postings
reflect how you want the world to see you.

To retrieve past messages, send email to:
    [email protected]
with the message numbers in the subject line.
(Message 0003 describes the advanced syntax.)
You also can retrieve them via the CryoNet web page at URL:
    http://www.cryonet.org/

For administrative or other questions/suggestions, send email
to me at "[email protected]" with "cryonics" in the subject line.
    - Kevin Q. Brown


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

Message #32482
References: <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 12:01:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Luke Parrish <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #32479 - #32481

I've been a bit curious as to what agenda whoever negatively rates my
posts has. Is it someone from the Cold Filter holding a grudge? Is
there a bot that automatically flags as abusive anyone who mentions
Melody's name? Or did I actually step on some toes?

Whatever the case, I find it more humorous than worrisome. The post
was clearly not abusive, much thanks to Kitty and Melody for standing
up for me on this. However, I actually think the system is functioning
well, in that people *are* reacting against negative agenda-driven
ratings, and combating them with positive ones. The possibility of
negative ratings is an important incentive to good behavior, in my
opinion. Hopefully the recent modifications won't lead to problems in
this regard.


I would like to see more expert discussion of neuro-isolation
procedures that do not involve severing the body. Charles has
mentioned some important advantages of corpse-removal in terms of
mobility, but as the number of people in storage grows these seem less
relevant -- thousands of patients will tend to be difficult to move
regardless of if they are heads or bodies.

Further, I think Dave Pizer makes a good point that legal fees
incurred due to public misunderstandings are actually more expensive
than the difference in preservation costs. Perhaps at some point in
the future, there will be a more literate public to deal with, but for
now, I can see how an internal ban on neuroseparation might be the
most rational course of action.

From a pragmatic, self-centered, survivalist point of view, we should
consider how much less likely acts of terrorism are to be towards a
"legitimate" graveyard full of intactly "resting" bodies as opposed to
the cult-like compound that certain extremists (i.e. potential
terrorists) currently view Alcor as. In fact, I believe there was a
recent book which culminated in the "hero" crashing an airplane into
Alcor, exactly like a 9/11 terrorist.

More ethically sensitive cryonicists (obviously not everyone, but
certainly a significant faction) will want to consider what will lead
to the most people accepting cryonics. There are 100,000 people who
could possibly be saved every day if cryonics was practiced globally
and universally. Neuro may not be a realistic option for reaching
anywhere near a sizable fraction of those -- full body might.

From the suspension optimization (i.e. medical) point of view, we
should obviously consider whether there is any truth to Melody's
statement that this reduces the danger of clots, implying that it
might result in a better information-theoretic (or measurable
viability) preservation.

I don't always appreciate what Melody has to say, but this is one of
the things she's said that I do consider in need of serious reply. Is
the notion that neuroseparation is better actually obsolete?

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32482

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

Message #32483
From: David Stodolsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Collateral Damage or Misguided Malarkey?
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 22:18:27 +0100
References: <[email protected]>

On 14 Mar 2010, at 10:00 AM, CryoNet wrote:

> The Best Answer To Bad Speech Is More Speech
>
> How to do that? Frankly, I am loath to tinker too deeply
> into the creaky edifice of customized CryoNet code.
> (It's just so 90's and way overdue for a reboot.) But to
> help foster a kinder, gentler CryoNet rating system,
> I just patched in a quick-and-dirty 50% Discount Special.
> The Reputation Calculation Algorithm described at:
>
> http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/reputation.cgi?help=y
>
> now will employ a "spaminess" weight of just half the
> previous amount. "Bad" now will be just "half-bad" and
> "good" will be "great".

This will not work, because it assumes the ratings are honest. A  
dishonest rater is free to choose "abuse", the most negative rating.  
And as long as most messages are not rated at all, that rating will  
dominate.

The current System is vulnerable to strategic manipulation, therefore,  
there must be prescreening of raters for honest responding or it will  
not work. There is no way to solve this fundamental problem by  
changing the weights.

If Kevin is not going to make the needed changes, then it is time for  
some independent and respected group to set up a list that is not  
subject to manipulation. It probably isn't necessary that a voting  
process is used at all. It is essential, however, that any censorship  
can be appealed in some way. Maybe this is a job for the Venturist  
organization. The output of this new List could be transmitted to  
CryoNet during the changeover.


A message can now be marked down for a poor subject line, but the  
digest format makes generating a good subject line extra work that  
many don't do. In an age of social sites and instant messaging, this  
digest-only format is an embarrassment to the whole Movement. It is  
also a lost revenue opportunity. To the degree that primarily cryonics  
discussion is posted to other lists or sites, the Movement looses the  
opportunity for any income that might be generated from the  
accumulating content. At the moment, there are at least three general  
lists for cryonics discussion and now we see an "anti-cult" site  
benefiting from inputs of cryonics messages. From a marketing  
standpoint, it is hard to imagine a worst situation for Movement  
communications. We need a list/site that attracts posts from all  
cryonicists and even from those critical of cryonics.

Communication within the Movement is breaking down, because of the  
multiple forums for exchange of information. Many of the most  
important persons in the Movement stopped reading CryoNet long ago,  
due to the high noise level. We are jeopardizing the future of the  
Movement and the lives of cryonicists by poor coordination, which  
would cost virtually nothing to correct.



dss


David Stodolsky
[email protected]  Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32483

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

End of CryoNet Digest
*********************