Anders Sandberg wrote:
> I think this would be an interesting exercise. It might be a good idea
> to have someone knowledgeable in technological history look into the
> design to make it reasonable..
>
> As I see it, we want nodes and links between them, both able to be
> commented (first a general description like "Simple nanotechnology:
> the ability to mechanosynthetize some molecular structures using
> special tools in a controlled environment", or "Simple nanotech leads
> to advanced nanotech given enough interest and investments", then
> comments and discussions about the details). Ideally it should be
> clear what nodes and links are regarded as likely (lots of supporting
> analysis: lots of small green markers), what is regarded as unlikely
> (red markers) and controversial (many markers of different colors).
>
> I wish I could devote more time to something like this, but I have a
> scarce supply of that precious commodity. However, I really wish to
> see this implemented and hope to participate in the debate..
Implementing the ideal interface would probably take more work than any of us have time for. However, IMO we can get most of the benefit with much less work. A series of static web pages could display the summary info for different scenarios, and a simple database app could store and display arguments on the different points. Someone would have to spend time keeping everything up to date, of course.
Any other ideas on how to organize such a site?
Billy Brown, MCSE+I
bbrown@conemsco.com