From extropians-request@extropy.org Sun Sep 11 21:01:42 1994 Return-Path: extropians-request@extropy.org Received: from usc.edu (usc.edu [128.125.253.136]) by chaph.usc.edu (8.6.8.1/8.6.4) with SMTP id VAA17394 for ; Sun, 11 Sep 1994 21:01:39 -0700 Received: from news.panix.com by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA27014; Sun, 11 Sep 94 21:01:35 PDT Received: by news.panix.com id AA18851 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for more@usc.edu); Mon, 12 Sep 1994 00:01:31 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 00:01:31 -0400 Message-Id: <199409120401.AA18851@news.panix.com> To: Extropians@extropy.org From: Extropians@extropy.org Subject: Extropians Digest #94-9-89 - #94-9-95 X-Extropian-Date: September 12, 374 P.N.O. [00:00:55 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org X-Mailer: MailWeir 1.0 Status: RO Extropians Digest Mon, 12 Sep 94 Volume 94 : Issue 254 Today's Topics: Forward/Tech/Http: Please participate in our adaptive web expe ...[1 msgs] Hungarian Brainstorming [1 msgs] Memetics/evolution [2 msgs] PHYS: Hot discussion going on... [1 msgs] PHYS: PLASMAK(tm) info [1 msgs] Save the planet, kill yourself [1 msgs] Administrivia: Note: I have increased the frequency of the digests to four times a day. The digests used to be processed at 5am and 5pm, but this was too infrequent for the current bandwidth. Now digests are sent every six hours: Midnight, 6am, 12pm, and 6pm. If you experience delays in getting digests, try setting your digest size smaller such as 20k. You can do this by addressing a message to extropians@extropy.org with the body of the message as ::digest size 20 -Ray Approximate Size: 31680 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jessie5115@aol.com Date: Sun, 11 Sep 94 10:05:40 EDT Subject: [#94-9-89] Memetics/evolution Maybe the approach of the wall/singularity isn't limited to humanity. There's an elephant (Kamala, I believe) at the Calgary zoo who is now painting professionally and a pygmy chimp (Kanzi) at a research facility (I forget which one) who has learned to make and use stone tools. Himan memes infecting across species lines, maybe? ------------------------------ From: "Harry S. Hawk" Date: Sun, 11 Sep 1994 14:17:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [#94-9-90] Memetics/evolution I'd wonder what dawkins would say. Anyone have his e-mail.. Maybe it is just a case of human phenotypes really getting extended... /hawk a conscious being, Jessie5115@aol.com wrote: > Maybe the approach of the wall/singularity isn't limited to humanity. > There's an elephant (Kamala, I believe) at the Calgary zoo who is now > painting professionally and a pygmy chimp (Kanzi) at a research facility (I > forget which one) who has learned to make and use stone tools. Himan memes > infecting across species lines, maybe? -- Harry S. Hawk habs@panix.com Product Marketing Manager PowerMail, Inc. Producers of MailWeir(tm) & PowerServ(tm) ------------------------------ From: "Harry S. Hawk" Date: Sun, 11 Sep 1994 14:19:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [#94-9-91] PHYS: Hot discussion going on... a conscious being, Phil G. Fraering wrote: > of Paul Koloc's plasmak experiments over on sci. > physics.fusion. Phil how about a summary for us physics chanllenged folks.. /hawk -- Harry S. Hawk habs@panix.com Product Marketing Manager PowerMail, Inc. Producers of MailWeir(tm) & PowerServ(tm) ------------------------------ From: "Harry S. Hawk" Date: Sun, 11 Sep 1994 14:21:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [#94-9-92] Forward/Tech/Http: Please participate in our adaptive web experiment! (fwd) a conscious being, Francis Heylighen wrote: > Errors-To: secret@hpwww.cern.ch > Reply-To: fheyligh@vnet3.vub.ac.be > Originator: www-announce@info.cern.ch > From: fheyligh@vnet3.vub.ac.be (Francis Heylighen) > Subject: Please participate in our adaptive web experiment! > We have started an experiment with an adaptive hypertext network on the > World-Wide Web (WWW). The idea is that the network would restructure itself > in a a more coherent way, by learning from the way it is used. We would > like as > many people as possible to log in to our experimental network of English > nouns, so that it can learn and we can collect the necessary data. > It would be greatly appreciated if you would browse a little through the > network. You just have to select that word which is most related to the > title word from a list offered to you. For example, if you get the word > "dog", you might select the word "pet", or "cat" or "fur". You will then be > presented with a new document with the title word you chose, say "pet", and > be able to choose from a new list of possibly related words, e.g. "animal", > "house", or "family". > Participating will only cost you 5 minutes of your time, and we were told > it is quite enjoyable. Everything is explained in the starting page of the > network, at the following WWW-adress: > http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be:8080/STARTWEB.html > Mail us if you have any comments or questions at the following e-mail adress: > jbollen@vnet3.vub.ac.be > Thanks a lot in advance! > Francis Heylighen & Johan Bollen > _______________________________________________________________________ > Dr. Francis Heylighen Systems Researcher > PO, Free University of Brussels, Pleinlaan 2, B -1050 Brussels, Belgium > Phone: +32-2-629 25 25; Fax: +32-2-629 24 89 (**new numbers!) > Email:fheyligh@vnet3.vub.ac.be; URL: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/HEYL.html -- Harry S. Hawk habs@extropy.org Electronic Communications Officer, Extropy Institute Inc. The Extropians Mailing List, Since 1991 ------------------------------ From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 94 17:57:45 WET DST Subject: [#94-9-93] Save the planet, kill yourself I received the following in e-mail today. I have no idea how I got on this guys list. He probably caught one of my posts to usenet. He picked the wrong person to send it to. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- @@@@ @ @ @ @@@@ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@ @@@@@ @ @@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@ @@ @ @ @ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@ @ @@@@ @@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @ @@ @ @ @@@@ @ @ @ @@@@ @ @ @ @@@@ @ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@ @ @ @@@@ @@@@ @@@@ @ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@ @ @ @ @@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@ @@@@ @@@ @ @@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@ @@@@ @ @@@ @@@ @ @ @@@@ @@@@ @@@@ @ Greetings. We are not of this planet. We do not understand Your strange customs. Your planet's ecosystem Is failing. Your leaders deny this. Explain. Why Do your leaders lie to you? Why Do so many of you believe these lies? Save the planet! Kill yourself. # #.........# #...................# #.............................# +---------------------------------+ | THE CHURCH OF EUTHANASIA | +---------------------------------+ &&&&::&&&&:::::::::::::::&&&&::&&&& UU::::UU:::::+--+--+:::::UU::::UU UU::::UU:::::| | |:::::UU::::UU UU::::UU:::::| | |:::::UU::::UU &&&&::&&&&::::| | |::::&&&&::&&&& +-----------------------------------+ +-----------------------------------------+ +-----------------------------------------------+ SUICIDE . ABORTION . CANNIBALISM . SODOMY Issue #1 of _Snuff It_ is now available. gopher: gopher.etext.org Zines/Snuffit ftp: ftp.etext.org /pub/Zines/Snuffit If your site does not support gopher or ftp, send an e-mail message to listserv@netcom.com containing the line: subscribe snuffit-l Issue #1 will arrive in two pieces of 30k each. -------------------------------------------------------------------- I replied, "don't snuffit, FREEZE IT!" ------------------------------ From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 94 18:11:45 WET DST Subject: [#94-9-94] PHYS: PLASMAK(tm) info Since sci.physics.fusion is dominated by cold fusion crap, I thought it would be better to post this here to save people the trouble. I've been following Koloc's PLASMAK for about a year, but I'm beginning to think he's no different than the cold fusioneers. He withholds data, he does't publish, and he doesn't formalize (no equations). Everything is based on his spacial 3d intuition of how currents and magnetic fields interact. Now he seems to be running numerical models to test his concepts. Time will tell. That said, I agree with Paul's condemnation of the tokamak. It will never be commercially viable nor useable for space stuff. The Princeton people have to keep building bigger and bigger machines to reach the "ignition" point, however, ignition is not commercially viable. Tokamak fusion won't be competitive with other forms of energy if you barely get back more than you put in (energy wise) and if your machine takes a billion+ to build and needs frequent maintainence. Tokamak fusion produces 14Mev neutrons which strike the inner walls of the vessel containing the vacuum. This causes metal fatigue on these walls (makes them brittle) and makes them radioactive. Tokamak fusion will produce nuclear waste, in terms of the used thermal walls. The PPPL people are up to 1 gigawatt now and still can't "produce energy" Picture that, a gigawatt sized plant that is still only breakeven. What size machine will they need to build to exploit the small gains they forsee? How much will it cost? What private investor would ever build one without billions in government subsidy, when fission, geothermal, solar, wind, coal, petro, hydro, etc all so much cheaper? Fusion is simply dead if the future is the tokamak. Here's hoping that Paul is right, that his machine will work, that he can burn aneutronic fuels like he claims, because if he can, the solar system will be opened up to us. For the uninitiated, toroidal = long way around the torus, poloidal = short way around the torus. (atleast, I think ;-) ) > > Article 14759 of sci.physics.fusion: > Path: news.umbc.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cleveland.Freenet.Edu!al789 > From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan) > Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion > Subject: Re: What is a PMK > Date: 8 Sep 1994 03:28:55 GMT > Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) > Lines: 42 > Message-ID: <34m0dn$ado@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> > References: > Reply-To: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan) > NNTP-Posting-Host: kanga.ins.cwru.edu > > > bruce_schechter@cc.wdi.disney.com (Bruce Schechter) says: > > >Could somebody explain, or repost, a description of the PMK, and what > >the fuss is all about? > > I think I've got a few bits, so I'll post them just to help my own > thinking on the issues. > > PMK = Plasma Mantle Kernel = Paul M Koloc = hot fusion energy concept > > Paul envisions (has created?) two plasmas, one within the other. > > The outer plasma is spherical in shape, like the earth's crust (mantle). > The inner plasma (kernel) is shaped like a donut (torus.) > > There is a vacuum gap between the inner donut and the outer crust > plasmas. > > Electrical currents go east to west around the outer plasma sphere. > In the donut/torus the current flow is more complex and depends upon > the depth into the donut. On the outer surface of the donut, the > currents go around the short way. In the middle of the donut ring, > the currents go around the ring the long way. Between these two > extremes, the currents go in both vectors, giving rise to a sort > of screw like helical path, whose pitch depends upon depth into > the donut. > > The magnetic fields set up by these currents allegedly confine the > torus. The spherical mantle plasma traps an internal vacuum as well > as confining the expansionary effect of the torus. The air pressure > on the outside of the spherical mantle plasma pushes in against > the vacuum on the other side -- acting to contract the sphere. This > attempts to contract the inner torus via magnetic forces, so the > pressure in the torus will equilibriate with the atmospheric pressure > at some torus/mantle volume. > > Those are the bits I (think) I know. The fuss is all about plasma > theories -- which I have no hope of understanding. :-) > > -- > -- John Logajan --- al789@cleveland.freenet.edu > > > Article 14766 of sci.physics.fusion: > Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion > Path: news.umbc.edu!eff!news.duke.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!cs.umd.edu!prometheus!pmk > From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) > Subject: Re: What is a PMK > Message-ID: > Reply-To: pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) > Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd. > References: > Date: Thu, 8 Sep 1994 06:03:13 GMT > Lines: 154 > > In article bruce_schechter@cc.wdi.disney.com (Bruce Schechter) writes: > >I've been following this group for a while and have been trying > >heroically (or so it seems to me) to understand what all the PMK > >debate is about. Since I've come in to the whole thing rather > >late I haven't been doing too well. Could somebody explain, or repost, a > >description of the PMK, and what the fuss is all about? > > There are two applications under consideration, here, for the > PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasmoid or "PMK", for short, namely, Ball > Lightning and fusion. The initials "PMK" stand for "all Plasma > Mantle and Kernel. It's a sort of grandson of the old Tokamak, > or a son of the Spheromak. > > Although the magnetic topology is similar in the three, the tokamak, > Spheromak and PMK have differing amounts of essential mag field > generating currents in plasma rather than fixed solid coils. For > that matter the Stellarator, a PPPL toroid, had no plasma currents, > and thanks to the Russians the tokamak has one (toroidal current in > the torus). So that leaves the toroidal field and "vertical" field > still in coils, the latter of which controls the positioning of the > toroidal current (plasma ring) within the toroidal vacuum chamber of > the tokamak. > > Our Spheromak has both poloidal and toroidal currents (and their > generated fields) within the plasma ring, and therefore without the > need for plasma ring linking toroidal field coils of the tokamak, > this plasma ring can be put in to a spheric shelled vacuum chamber. > The Spheromak may have its vertical field generated by image currents > (the best case), in the solid shell. See T.Jarboe et al LANL 1980-87? > published in the APS plasma division or the Compact toroid meetings > held annually for most of those years. Or in a more primitive > version it has them predominately generated by coils as a tokamak. > However, if so it is both tilt unstable and slip unstable (at > optimal stability position), UNLESS the machine has a passive > image current conducting shell over at least the poles. The minimum > correction requirement consists of superior polarly positioned > "figure eight coils." See S. Jardin at al.PPPL same period. > > Here the word "Spheric" is *made up* to mean spheroidal"ish", but > not technically defined as a Spheroid, which apparently has a rigid > mathematical definition; and after all, we haven't had time to sit down > and figure exactly what topology the shell or Mantle is. > > The PMK is an all plasma Spheromak, and therefore the image currents > flow in the highly conducting shell or Mantle. Conductivity due to > energetic currents is still capable of adequate plasma heating due to > the their inverse particle density dependence, and the exceptionally > high achievable current, field, and plasma densities. What that says > is these things START at order an atmospheric pressure, which is where > the tokamak with fully pressurized coils end up. Top compression of > a PMK (it's fluid mechanical) could put the Kernel plasma at pressures > 10^4 to 10^5 higher than a tokamak plasma, and that means it might work, > and work with a vengence even burning the good stuff. So we might ALL > get a trip to Mars. > > So for a picture, imagine a soap bubble suspended in the air in > front of you is actually a thin film of hyperconducting energetic > electrons. This film is surrounded by a plasma skin or Mantle > which sits on it and defends the the film from invasive neutrals > from the surrounding air. Within the volume spheric film is a > toroidal plasma, which is suspended and insulated by a pure vacuum > and dense confining poloidal magnetic field that can't penetrate > the conducting film of energetic electrons. The volume within the > film shell is the Kernel region. The currents of the Kernel torus > circulate around both the long way (toroidally) and the short way > (poloidally) within the plasma ring. The toroidal currents > generates the spheric shell trapped vacuum poloidal field first > introduce above. It is the poloidal currents that produce a > toroidal field, but only within the torus (flux lines go the long > way around). > > Oops!! Guess, when this thing is born, a bit of the poloidal field > does slip out of the sheric shell, so there are a few flux lines > emanating from one pole and swinging out through all of space and > back through the surface on the spheric shell corresponding to the > locationg of the other pole. That constitutes a correction to the > simple conducting shell first described above. There's other junk, > but if you can read a GIF go back in time and pull out the > PLASMAK.GIF and you have a new grainy pin-up. > > This system is so much better than a tokamak, the chaps at IPP are > chomping at the bit to see how it works and to understand it. So far > they are having trememdous difficulty due to the vastly different > effect that such diverse parameter regimes have on function and > structure, as well as the weird (to them) structures. Their first > inclination has been to view the PMK as if it operated in the > tokamak regime (or worse the regime of nebulousities surrrounding > hot stars), for example. > > Their IPP code handles the plasma, currents and fields of the PMK as > a sort of anomalous set of effects. For tokamaks it's a different > story since they are mostly goverened by earth anchored monster > toroidal field coils, and there "aint' much a vacuum plasma can do > > As you can see we treat this with a bit of levity, though billions > of lives depend on us. The problem of developing commercial fusion > is tough and we are all plasma bangers in theory or practice, so we > do have a deep down affection for each other. At times we may sound > egotistical, but that's just the natural tendency for us to be > exuberent about our view point and to emphasize that we feel our > argument is superior over ALL the others' view points. (refrain > to the tune "Deutschlund Deutschlund".) In truth, we carefully > consider that we both need more careful work and that only through > cooperation we can crack a most interesting problem from nature that > is facing plasma physics. I know -- we have to keep the music down. > > The above is very simplistic but short, and should be consumed with > salt. > > So far, two areas of greatest disagreement and misunderstanding of > physics/math relate to method of discovering the internal energy > of the PMK, and information about the transport (radiative mostly) > processes that keep the Mantle alight and functioning (as a neutral > particle shield and magnetic field trap). > > By the way, I have diabetes and I go blind every once in a while, > so my printed word doesn't exactly slave my thoughts. -- and that > persists even into the periods when I see well.. :-) > > Also we have formed the beasties in air and IPP doesn't believe me > since I don't publish. Also note the DoE seems, from years of > observation (Maglich-Bussard-Bass- .. .), to **-abhor-** funding > independent fusion concepts.. and one related to BL... Well, "THEY" > (fear-ridden-fellows) would sooner close the gates at Germantown > and declare it a mental health facility. Notice the shared paranoia, > and light hearted wishful thoughts. > > See also; > for fusion : > Koloc, P. M. "PLASMAK(tm) Star Power for Energy Intensive Space > Applications" FUSION TECHNOLOGY Vol. 15, Mar 89, pp 1136-1141 > > for Ball Lightning: > > P. M. Koloc, "The PLASMAK(tm) Configuration and Ball Lightning," > presented at the First International Symposium on Ball Lightning, > Tokyo, Japan, July 1988. see Y. H. Ohtsuki (ed.), (below) > > Ohtsuki, Y. H. (ed.), Science of Ball Lightning (Fire Ball). Singapore: > World Scientific Publishing Co., 1989. (First International > Symposium on Ball Lightning, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan, > 4-6 July 1988) L.C. QC966.7.B3157 1988 551.5'634 89-9004 > Write to or telephone World Scientific Pub. Co. U.S.: 687 Hartwell > Street, Teaneck, NJ 07666; 1-800-227-7562 > > >Bruce_Schechter@cc.wdi.disney.com.......................................................................................... > > opinions expressed approximate only my own and coincide > > only coincidently with those of my employer or anyone else > +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > | Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037 | > | mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu FAX (301) 434-6737 | > | VOICE (301) 445-1075 ***** Commercial FUSION in the Nineties ***** | > +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > > > > > ------------------------------ From: szabo@netcom.com (Nick Szabo) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 1994 17:48:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [#94-9-95] Hungarian Brainstorming I once invented a party game that was dubbed "Hungarian Brainstorming". I've always liked brainstorming as a problem solving tool. But I find criticism to be an essential part of the creative process, so that entirely banning criticism goes too far. Even with the ban, in the relaxed atmosphere there is no reward for creativity. I find process of evolution, in which variation (coming up with new ideas) is linked with selection (criticism) to be a more creative process. On the other hand I agree that criticism induces a kind of penalty that discourages the expression of new ideas. So, I decided to reintroduce criticism in a way that puts the critic, as well as the idea generator, at risk: the critic risks a penalty for bad criticisms. Finally, I wanted to reward rapid generation of ideas, even whacky ideas (which are at least great at parties, and IMHO great in general). The game goes as follows: First, the group agrees solve a certain kind of problem. As a party game the problem can be something whacky, or it might be some widely annoying, seemingly unsolvable problem. It should be something all the participants are interested in. A party here in the Bay Area might tackle "how to get from U.C. Berkeley to Haight & Ashbury (in San Fransisco) in ten minutes", as most people are annoyed by long cummutes. The problem can also be artistic nature, like how to decorate a room. The players sit in a circle and the play rapidly goes around the circle. Each player must, within some very short time limit (we used five seconds), express a solution to the problem, however weird, whacky, or impractical it might be. The player gets a point unless she fails to express an idea. After a player has expressed her idea, but before the next player has started to express his idea, any other player has an opportunity to "call bullshit" (a cleaner crowd can of course choose a cleaner phrase for objection). She must then, within some time limit (we used one minute) express a solid, well reasoned scientific or logical argument as to why the idea won't work. Valid criticism includes (a) demonstrating that the idea violates physical law, or (b) demonstrating that the idea is logically irrelevant to solving the problem. If she fails to present such an argument she is penalized five points. Arguments of the form "that obviously won't work" invoke the strongest kind of penalty, ten points, even (or especially!) if the idea obviously won't work. A valid logical argument rewards the critic with two points. The idea giver keeps her point regardless of the outcome. A player can't criticize her own idea. The logic of a criticism is decided by the score keeper, but can be overruled by a 2/3 majority or if another player gives a counterargument that even comes close the the criticism in logical or scientific validity. It's important that the criticisms be based on logical argument and scientific reasoning, not common sense or opinion. Also, a player can't criticize his own ideas. After the "call bullshit" is resolved play resumes. Usually there is some set time or score limit, such as 30 points. The points can be distributed by players grabbing pennies out of a center pile of pennies after they have finished expressing their idea, or a scorer can be assigned to keep track. So, the game works kind of like a communal genetic algorithm. There is a steady state of wild ideas, which copy themselves and mutate from person to person, punctuated by occasional outbursts of logical and scientific reasoning. When I was living in Seattle a few years ago we played the game a few times, and for a while it was quite fun. All sorts of whacky, interesting and sometimes even useful ideas were proposed, on problems ranging from how to decorate the yuletide tree to how to shorten the commute. (We didn't try politically controversial topics for fear turning a party into a brawl; if anybody tries it let me know how it goes. :-) Of course the criticism resolution leads to squabbles, as different players have different views as to what constitutes a a good criticism, but that's all part of the fun. The biggest weakness was that once players caught on to strategy, the ideas tended to devolve down to trivial mutations of safe ideas. So, I'd like to introduce another rule to enourage variety, and discourage trivial mutation. Such a rule might be: * if a player uses a noun that has already been used, they are penalized one point (ie they get zero for the turn, they have to put the penny back) * same thing, but for a verb * the score keeper periodically declares "forbidden words" because they are being used too often, and the penalty for using them is two points; otherwise words can be repeated without penalty For example if the problem is to decorate a room, words like "chair", "couch", "carpet", and "curtains" can be eliminated. (incidentally, why do so many of these words start with 'c'? Never mind). If the repitition penalty is too restrictive, the delay between ideas might be extended to ten or twenty seconds. In an online version of the game, there might be a requirement for a minimum lexical editing distance between ideas, perhaps including an a analysis of synonyms (using a synonym counts the same as using the same word), or a penalty for ideas that are too close to other ideas by such a measure. The process of judging criticisms might also be improved, as it accounts for the bulk of the game's rules. Good play here requires both a common understanding of what constitutes a "good" and "bad" criticism, and an incentive compatable set of rules for making such judgements. Such rules incentize (via points on or off the field) making judgements according the the rules of logic and science (or any other mutually agreed to criteria). Ideas are welcome for making the criticism judgement rules simpler or more well defined while keeping within the goal of the game, which is to generate new and interesting ideas. Another rule might be to have "acclamation", where by 2/3 assent the players can reward a player one point for a good or delightfully outrageous idea. Pennies or can be used for points; high rollers brainstorming serious business plans might try dollar bills. An alternative penalty is tequila shots. :-) Nick Szabo szabo@netcom.com ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V94 #254 *********************************