Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:55, 6 October 2007

Clanking machine merge

Hi, I have proposed merging these two articles because there is very little content in the self-replicating machine article, and a lot of good content in the clanking replicator article, but I feel very few people would actually know what a clanking replicator was if you asked them, so I propose that the clanking replicator article be re-titled "Self-replicating machine" and the content of the two articles merged. Anyone with any objections please don't hesitate to add them here. User: Jaganath 18:28 31 May 2006

Well, okay, I'll object. It seems to me that the term and concept of a "clanking replicator" has been around in the literature for a long time, whereas, unless I've missed something "self-replicating machine" really hasn't. Clanking replicator is a specific term that differentiates the scale at which the process of self-replication occurs, that is, Clanking Replicators are made of macroscale discrete parts. There is a whole other self-replication discussion going on that is functionally the same but proposed to take place at nanoscale. Anyhow, what it appears to me that you've done is blur the boundaries of what we are discussing without taking in any more real material, viz, nanoscale technology to justify the blurring. Plaasjaapie 12:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

For me, the difference is one of presentation. Clanking replicator does have an implication of scale, so it could be considered equal to robotic self-replication. This, indeed, is the image shown at article page top. Yet, it would also be reasonable to view the clanking replicator as a metaphor. Self-replication is not. In my view, we should maintain a hierarchy of articles, and hotlinks between, so as to separate abstract from real, metaphor from description, etc. This is indeed the reason for separating von Neumann self-replication Von Neumann Universal Constructor from Universal Constructor. One article refers to the general notion, the other to a specific case. This is important, for as von Neumann defined the general case, he also developed a specific example. Well, actually two examples. The kinematic model (a robotic notion) is a good specific example of the clanking replicator concept. The tesselation model (cellular automata) is the abstract concept. Universal construction, on the other hand, is a global concept. These distinctions should be retained within the structure of article interconnection, and not within article wording. There is much value to the conveyance of information through its organisational structure, an additional measure of content beyond that one would obtain from an article. Further, this allows for pairing of fluff (do they call that cruft here?) in article content. Improved encyclopedic content and efficient presentation is a goal not to be corrupted by inappropriate article merger. William R. Buckley 18:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge? Constructors, replicators, machines, oh my

I'm trying to sort out the teminology used in various articles here. I've thrown some merge tags on them, although "merge" isn't /quite/ the concept I think is needed (but that's as close as I can think of). I think what is needed is to make sure that all editors are aware of alternative terminology and other articles, and then to re-arrange articles and content and article names to make things clearer. So far, I've encountered the following:

• Self-replicating
• Autopoiesis
• Self-replicating machine
• von Neumann machine
• von Neumann probe
• Universal Constructor
• clanking replicator
• Astrochicken
• Santa Claus machine
• Nanorobotics/Nanorobot/Nanobot
• Nanoprobe
  • Nanoprobe (device)
  • Nanoprobe (Star Trek)
• Molecular nanotechnology
• assembler/Molecular assembler/Assembler (nanotechnology)
• Molecular engineering/Molecular manufacturing
• Artificial life
• Grey goo
• Ribosome

All of the above appear to be related in some way. The terms aren't always well defined. Some of the terms are used interchangably in some places but not in others. One can, generally speaking, make their way from any of the above to any other, but it may take several hops when it should be one. Some of these are dab pages. Some are redirects. Some articles link to redirects. At least one article links to a redirect to itself. I think many of these articles probabbly should exist on their own, but clean-up and more structure is perhaps needed. I'm thinking those "Series boxes" one sees in other Wiki articles might be a good choice. Thoughts? --DragonHawk 01:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• The Ribosome is also a self-replicating machine, in that given the information necessary, it can construct its own components. Not all self-replicators are man-made. Here are mentioned both specific examples and the most general of theory, as well as applications areas and ethical concerns. Another to consider is epigenesis - machine developmental processes. The best umbrella for these concepts is constructor theory. William R. Buckley 06:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Not so sure this is a good idea. A self-replicating machine isn't necessarily a universal constructor. Indeed, it only needs to be able to construct one very specific thing in order to qualify as a self-replicating machine. Bryan 06:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that I've read the Universal Constructor article as well, I'm now quite sure it's not a good idea to merge them. "Universal Constructor" is about one very specific self-replicating pattern that von Neumann envisioned, and it isn't even a physical thing. Bryan 06:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Several comments. 1. It is not true that the universal constructor is a specific example of von Neumann. Indeed, the notion of universal construction is quite general. 2. No, these two articles, self-replicating machine and universal constructor, should not be merged. Though they are based on the same foundation, universal construction, one is a general topic (the notion of universal construction), the other specific (how a constructor, universal or not, can be organised to effect its replication, also called self-replication). 3. It seems that the structure of several articles, and their relationships to each other, need to be changed, to better represent the relationships between these articles. The article on John von Neumann is part of this need. I expect that a number of individuals are thinking carefully about reorganisation - comments on this point exists in talk pages of various relevant articles. 4. Frankly, we should also have an article about constructor theory, and derive universal constructor and self-replicating machine therefrom. William R. Buckley 16:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Complexity in Self-replicating Machines

"most living organisms are still many times more complex than even the most advanced man-made device"

What, exactly, does this mean? I don't like statistics like this; when you're talking about the majority (most) of living organisms you're referring to bacteria and there are plenty of man made machines more complicated than bacteria in many regards. You're also dealing with the definition of the word complexity, namely; complexity in what sense? The building blocks in a computer are far more complicated (due to relative scarcity of constituent materials and the necessary processing) than the DNA building blocks of bacteria (composed of 4 rather common nucleotides).

Where does anyone say that there is a need for complexity for self-reproduction? See this article:

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/May05/selfrep.ws.html

And also,

"If proof were needed that self-replicating machines are possible the simple fact that all living organisms are self replicating by definition should go some way towards providing that proof"

Who ever said that self-replicating machines were not possible?

Ironcorona 00:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Prior ro von Neumann, no one knew the details of how to build a self-replicating machine. So, as you used the word "ever," consider that any researcher questioning the likelihood of building such a machine, say in the 1700s, would be a candidate in answer of your last question. William R. Buckley 04:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I agree. In that light, perhaps this paragraph should be modified to read something like

"some critics such as X, Y and Z have voiced opposition to the posibility of creating self-replicating machines, although the simple fact that all living organisms are self replicating, by definition, should go some way towards providing that proof."

I'm not sure that we should assume that, because there were people that might have thought that self-replicating machines were not possible, had they been consulted, that, in fact, anyone did.

There's also the point that perhaps not all living organisms are self replicating. According to the Virus article some people think that viruses are alive . As far as I can tell, viruses cannot self-replicate. If anyone had some clarification on that point it would be quite helpful.

of course I realise that I'm in danger of being overly pedantic :)

Ironcorona 00:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Phoenix liquid plastic replicator

I removed this from the article:

• In 1998, Chris Phoenix suggested a general idea for a macroscale replicator on the sci.nanotech newsgroup, operating in a pool of ultraviolet-cured liquid plastic, selectively solidifying the plastic to form solid parts. Computation could be done by fluidic logic. Power for the process could be supplied by a pressurized source of the liquid.

It appears to be a concept that's only been published in a Usenet post, which IMO isn't a good source for this sort of thing even if Phoenix himself is reasonably well known within the field. Anyone know if he republished the concept anywhere else? Bryan 07:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I just found reference to it in Freitas' "Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines", which is probably about the best third-party backing a usenet post like this can get. So back into the article it goes. Bryan 06:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Quote

If proof were needed that self-replicating machines are possible the simple fact that all living organisms are self replicating by definition should go some way towards providing that proof, although most living organisms are still many times more complex than even the most advanced man-made device.

I feel I've read this before. In Goedel, Escher, Bach perhaps? Anyhoo: Is this a quote? If so, it should be marked as such. (Obviously.) --91.64.240.54 20:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

A Google search led me to these quotes:

"Machines today are still a million times simpler than the human brain. Their complexity and subtlety is comparable to that of insects." -- Ray Kurzweil, as quoted in http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0498.html?printable=1

"Drexler's most compelling argument that radical nanotechnology must be possible is that cell biology gives us endless examples of sophisticated nano-scale machines." -- Richard Jones, http://nanotechweb.org/articles/feature/3/8/1/1

Or is there some other original quote that would be better? --68.0.120.35 07:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Great upgrade

Wow! Great additions to the entry Bryan! 206.55.252.246 15:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Been tinkering with it off and on for quite some time, but just recently sat down with Frietas' book "Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines" to do some solid writing based off of the information in there. This is a favorite subject of mine. :) Bryan Derksen 05:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup on self-replicating machine

You just added a cleanup header to self-replicating machine but didn't provide any indication of what you thought needed cleaning up. The article is in very good condition as far as I can tell. Could you specify on the article's talk page please? Bryan Derksen 05:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I can give a very detailed explanation of why I put that tag there, but basically I think there's too many short sections that felt like it cut the narrative of the article, or like the article seems like a bunch of stubs put together. And some parts can be a bit confusing for example, the first line says The concept of self-replicating machines has been advanced and examined by, amongst others, whereas I think it should explain what a self replicating machine is. Well, that's just an example. I don't wish to get involved in editing specific articles, (besides, all I know about this thing is from this article) I hope that helps, good luck.~ Feureau E.S.P. 15:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've pondered this issue off and on for a while now and I can't really consider the current layout to be wrong. There are a few sections with single paragraphs but I'm not sure that they should be expanded much; this is an article about a general concept, specific examples should get details in separate articles. I've added a new first sentence but can't think of anything in particular to do about the section headers. Bryan Derksen 07:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Existance of self-replicating machines

Removed the line: "As of 2007, there are no extant self-replicating machines, although this is a burgeoning research area."

see this article from Cornell News

Ironcorona 14:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is a sticky issue, the existence of self-replicating, self-reproducing, self-repairing, and self-assembling machines. William R. Buckley 19:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• The work of Hod Lipson is probably best described as self-assembling. Reproduction has been reserved for use within biological systems. Replication is the equivalent in machines. Perhaps repair is a higher function than replication. William R. Buckley 19:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• In fact, no machine, not even man, is able to build all of the parts from which it is made, and by this I mean to include extraction and forming of raw materials to feed all subsequently necessary processes and purposes. Man does not know how to take raw atoms and simple molecules, and by the multitude of industrial processes turn these into the various components of which he is built, and these into another he. Adrian Bowyer looks to have about the closest example of a machine that can produce all its parts. It cannot produce the raw materials, nor can it assemble the parts. William R. Buckley 19:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Actually, a man can build another man fairly easily with the assistance of a woman. Even if you require that we start with just pure raw atoms we currently have the technical ability to synthesize all the micronutrients we'd need. That goes a bit beyond the common definition of self-replication, though. Any definition of "self-replicating" that excludes biological organisms is not a particularly useful definition of self-replication IMO. Bryan Derksen 07:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • This is a non sequitur. William R. Buckley 19:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how. You suggested that humans were incapable of "building all the parts from which made", and I pointed out that they are indeed capable of doing this. The only thing industrial processes would be required for are in manufacturing biochemical feedstocks that we can't manufacture within our own bodies, ie vitamins and such, and that's actually a fairly simple thing to do if we really needed to. Bryan Derksen 23:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Because, you are begging the question. The point is, can you build the thing external to your own body? Can you construct a living system external to all the others known? Can you cobble together all the necessary components, sit back, and observe the act, without participation? William R. Buckley 23:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This subthread is veering off in weird directions, so let's just go back to the core issue. Are you seriously arguing that humans should not be considered self-replicating? If so, can you point to any remotely credible source that supports this view? All those requirements you specify above seem strange and ad-hoc. Why can't a self-replicator build copies internally instead of externally? Bryan Derksen 07:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing self-replication with self-reproduction. This language is contemporary in usage, and you can find plenty of examples in research literature. How are these processes different? A big difference is the lack of developmental processes in self-replication. Humans do not self-replicate. Rather, they self-reproduce. William R. Buckley 20:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• My own work in cellular automata is not particularly different from that of Rendell, Langton, Sayama, to name but a few. In these cases, we say we have self-replicating machines, even if abstract, but they do not make their parts. William R. Buckley 19:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• The endpoint of this technology is the assembler of Drexler (a centralised solution), and the ribosome(a distributed solution), it would seem. Certainly a macroscopic notion is the robot which commands traditional manufacturing processes, having suitable manipulators and sensors, computing systems, and sufficient information stores, which can then direct the production of all its parts, and the assembly of its replicants. The only difference is the scale at which atoms are manipulated. William R. Buckley 19:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• It may be too soon to say that we have now a self-replicating machine but, also soon will such a statement be true. William R. Buckley 19:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Bias Complaint

I'm complaining about the hard bias Misplaced Pages ends up presenting via the type of politically biased hacker cult editors it attracts in its final results in this page due to its "GNU" affiliation and similar policy thereof along with that drug advocate Stallman (I do not mean all of you). Patents are cited here in number only while omitting the names of the inventors which is not giving due credit to the inventors and nothing is extant now in the content here discussing the contents of any of the patents listed which is just as creditable as the rest of the entries (please name the inventors and give them their just credit). Further, the article indicates that no replicators have ever been devised when one was presented before the patent office during the filing of patent #5,764,518 and Frietas and Merkle's libelous and copyright infringing book "Kinematic Replicators" is placed front and center without a word about the war that exists between myself (Charles Michael Collins) and those two government blackguards who seek to supplant maliciously and nefariously Mechagenics terminology with Neumanspeak and Misplaced Pages management refuses to remove it though were asked to do so (they suggested I get you guys to do it as it presents lengthy excerpts from my copyrighted patent description, far more than allowed for fair use under law, REMOVE IT PLEASE). Here is the address to the page of their book of their infringement:

http://www.molecularassembler.com/KSRM/3.16.htm

NOTE NO DIRECT SPECIFICS, ALL GENERALITIES.

Further, there is no mention of the multiple time after time kidnappings of my person, such as the well documented one on 07/21/99 (federal case # N004860) later thrown out with prejudice by the Quantico Military base and other government goons in a criminal effort to prevent me from moving forward with the technology as crushing secret government security operations are ongoing to "manage" me and the technology progress outside public knowledge including the smashing of laboratory equipment with billy clubs and interrogations involving my personal torture and seizing of absolutely everything I own including my rental business, house on Scott Street in Springfield Virginia and my car and repeated serial back to back unfounded arrests all thrown out later to run up my legal bills that put me out of business leaving me $30,000.00 in debt and how the chief of police in Prince William County Virginia (Charlie T. Dean) where I was forced to move thereafter tried on 3/12/01 before the Prince William County Circuit Court to have me found mentally insane discussing my patent and my allegations of the government stealing my technology saying of me "He does not appear to have the ability to determine the difference between reality and fantasy (and) would be a direct threat to any citizen that he perceives to be a threat, real or imagined" while setting forth several acts of material perjury in the same affidavit before the high court after conspiring to concoct it all with Hilda Barge my local district supervisor to have me committed for "hallucinating that I had a replicator patent" even though I produced the patent to them gold seal and all.

There was also recording of my home phone calls as well without my consent nor warrant by Hilda Barge while she asked disconcerting questions designed to make me sound crazy and Chief Dean lied before the court saying they were consensual and the transcript was forged to that end. Special detective Garity in conjunction with these actual acts of terror executed his own terror tactics such as having other officers drop down from the rafters in my face menacingly after I answered their knocks on my front door trying to get me to react so that they could have an excuse to do me harm. I've had guns held to my head while crazy police officers held their knee on my head and screamed vile obscenities while my face was smashed into the ground. I've been accused of being racist, being a child molester and a "harborer of runaways etc. etc. etc. all lies. Dean also said on the affidavit that I "had a gun on the Quantico Military Base which was a lie, said I had a sawed-off shotgun which was a lie, said I had a silencer which was a lie and all was thrown out and talked the court into temporarily seizing my concealed carry permit even after he knows I had numerous telephone threats from Unibomber, technophobe type groups like the ELF who are well known to terrorize high technology innovators. The Fairfax County Police infiltrated my rental properties and stirred up discontent crashing the whole operation and there is much more of this continual harassments (I can produce documents of all this including the affidavit from Dean).

Further, The naval research laborotory called me up only two days after the filing of the first patent and requested me to weaponize the technology and offered me more money than I could imagine. I turned them down not wanting to be known as the "Oppenheimer of nanotechnology". Do you think Ralph Merkle and his wanton attacks on me in his and Frietas book "Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines" are related to all this? You take a guess, he's been involved with stealthy government work before such as his work with public key encryption and Frietas is a psychologist involved with "nanomedicine" (a real piece of work) and a lawyer to boot. Looks like they are loaded for bear.

Further, there's no mention of how Irah Donner my patent lawyer that I paid $40,000.00 to do the PCT filing (see: WO 96/20453 and PLEASE ADD THIS TO THE PATENT ROSTER) sabotaged my patent by deliberately missing the filing dates saying "I can't tell you why" and how the Office of Enrollment and Discipline at the PTO deliberately took no action though investigated PERSONALLY by the director of OED Harry I. Moatz OED File C98-52 (Irah Donner).

Further, there's no mention of my previous Misplaced Pages article on "independent operability" which included a photo of the replicator and how it was removed by the hacker cultist Misplaced Pages editors with scowling ridicule but without any material technical objection as to why with similar ethics baiting speak as Frietas and Merkle but with howling lunacy from all the hacker cult editors calling the article "vanity" but, of course no other Misplaced Pages editor seemed to pick the subject up themselves and redo it or even try to investigate it or offer to do a personal interview, call me or ask any questions whatsoever regardless of its pinnacle importance.

Note that Irah Donner (my malicious sleeper plant spy patent lawyer) left out key descriptions as well about the "Digital Referenced Area" (DRA) from the patent though it is still in there describing the "digitization" of replicator fabrication meaning the form of the innovation is an improvement over all other prior art because it can express all functions of build within a computer program or in the real world and trillions of years of evolution can be expressed inside a computer and later animating the results in the real world again as each tile, block and trace is indexed and tracked much like a hard drive does with clusters (but it does this to REPLICATE not track clusters which is new and unique).

Now, this completely absurd article about replicators diluted to the hilt with robot stacker's and "limited replicators" and the like has been put up here deliberately ignoring my work and continuing to use Neumannspeak on my ideas all through the article and citing Tihamer Toth-Fejel's and General Dynamics' deliberate cheap knock off that infringes my unique trolley car method in the claims of the my patent much like the Cornell robot stacker "replicator" does which does not even come close to an "independent" replicator as mine does (see my patent claim 64: "Legs using weight of tool upon them to establish electrical contact" (Cornell's in particular) and claim 63: "Conductive regions on bottom of legs connected to source of current" and claims 65, 67 and 27: These claims along with 8 & 37 protect assembly and disassembly of the units (protects unique combinational aspect of "REORDERABLE COLUMN(S) OF CONDUCTIVE FABRICATING AND/OR REPLICATING UNITS that RECEIVE and TRANSMIT the DATA INSTRUCTIONS and POWER TO and FROM the fabricating tool THROUGH said REORDERABLE COLUMN(S) of fabricating units".

Also: Claim 11: protecting COLOR aspects used WITHIN SOFTWARE is a stronger claim than one would think at first but protects infringing of color marked tiles or blocks, when depicting in software a replicator's particular material used in its replication, depicted on the net which is software is infringing too which is specifically set forth in the description. Toth-Fejel along with Frietas and Matt Moses (who belittled my patent in Frietas and Merkle's book) infringed on this in their work at NIAC along with General Dynamics Information Systems (Contract # P03-0984, April 20, 2004) see the deliberately colorized blocks at the publication of the project on the first color depiction at the net site publication here:

http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/883Toth-Fejel.pdf

K. Eric. Drexler, involved with this too is repeated it here:

http://www.foresight.org/Conference/AdvNano2004/Abstracts/Toth-Fejel2/Toth-Fejel_tech.pdf

Drexler knows me well as I was a member of his talk group "Nanodot" for years on line and requested consultations with him through his secretary in the 90s several times to come see my replicator to no avail. You can see the Cornell (infringing) replicator here with its infringing trolley car aspect (columns of conductive blocks) with the conductive contacts on each reorderable block just like set forth exactly in the claims of my patent and further as a deliberate finger in the eye situated it in a "box" just like set forth in my patent even though their device clearly needs no box to function, a deliberate finger in the eye and I offered them a license yet they willfully ignore me and continue to leave the device published on the net and ignore my communications offering friendly collaborations, see it here:

http://leenks.com/link15145.htm

Clearly something is afoot. Am I "vain" for pointing that out? Well I don't think so because I stayed quiet a while and none of you here at Misplaced Pages wrote on it which presents the fallacy of omitting ALL "vanity" submissions particularly in instances where the subject matter is extremely complex because you disallow the source of the innovation from describing the work (like the problem I had with the patent lawyers trying to describe it resulting in an absurdly drafted description that has you all upset). Mine is totally and completely "independent" even if you placed it on a dead planet a billion light years from any sun or star. It would self-replicate through chemosynthesis after it was first allowed to establish its unique self-replicating ecosystem. Further, every widget in the system can be self-replicated including the actuator, memory and computing means UNLIKE Von Neumanns's so called replicator that uses a tape for memory that cannot be replicated and I cannot find a description in ANY of Von Neumann's prolific writings that I was forced to sift through that set forth any form of ACTUATOR that can be self-replicated (nor anywhere else on planet earth) but I did read somewhere in the miles and miles of text of old computer technology that he said himself the research WAS NOT rigorous as this article seems to indicate. He made NOTHING that replicated and he described NOTHING that replicated and PATENTED NOTHING that replicated and the form of my system is very far removed in form and function to his so therefore was not cited in my patent as prior art and the patent still stands after years of attacks Freitas and Merkle (my direct patent holder competitors) notwithstanding.

I made the first replicator and nobody cared back then. Back then Richard Feynman was the scientist of the day in nonotechnology with his "bottom up" ideas not Von Neumann's top down like my innovations anyway and the conspirators have built him up for the purpose of busting my patent less all these elite "nanotechnologists" be put out of work. There is plenty of room at the bottom but the "bottom" is very active and can only be controlled by evolving it as nature does from the "top down" not bottom up that Frietas seems to assert can be done with all his pretty pictures in HIS lengthy patent of atoms and molecules and ornate, verbose writings that are calculated for maximum affectation. These guys are all bent out of shape because they were wrong all these years and have therefore failed at producing any viable bottom up technology and I scoffed at them back then and now they are playing catch up and thus they need a means of moving in on all my work I have been working on virtually alone for years and this is what you see going on.

Do I sound mad? Yes I am! Because stealing ideas is a lord high felony and it is being done right here with this scientific and editorial misconduct. The PTO was VERY CAREFUL not to give me this bodacious patent without verifications and you will notice there are TWO patents and the first was absent the claim of "independent operability" which I was forced under the direct instructions of the examiner to add software to and produce a working model before they carefully allowed such a claim a fact Frietas and Merkle left out of their ludicrous and self serving diatribe. For your information, the reason I have patented down the "entire workspace of kinematic replicators" (as Frietas and Merkle have so irreverently pointed out) is because back in the 90s when I had a working model up at great effort and expense I contacted all the principle players then (including K. Eric Drexler) and encountered INDIFFERENCE from all those bureaucratic elitist nightmares commonly known as "university professors".

Beam me up Scotty there's no... well, you get the picture.

Charles Michael Collins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.25.49 (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

When an author writes prose which is disorganised and rambling, it is not unreasonable for the reader to view the author with suspicion. This reader suspicion is doubled when the author demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of topic detail. For instance, his name is not Neumann; rather, it is von Neumann. The clincher is that the author claims a special place owing to association with others. I well know Dr. K. Eric Drexler, we having our acquaintance made at the first artificial life workshop back in 1987; I was an invited speaker, discussed Core War, and received a nice comment from Richard Dawkins during his talk the next day. None of this makes me special. Nor does the fact that I am the first person to construct a self-replicating cellular automaton for von Neumann 29-state cellular automata; (this I assert and challenge anybody to prove my design does not self-replicate). Further, I would not be so sure that von Neumann failed to give a manipulator. John von Neumann began with Tinker Toys, and I am sure he had a notion then of how to build a manipulator with Tinker Toys. He certainly did give such a mechanism for his cellular automata (tesselation) model. It is a shame that most of von Neumann's colleagues are now departed, for we might ask them; Arthur Burks is still with us, and I am told that his long term memory is excellent. Perhaps I'll write his wife, and ask.

You will likely not have much impact upon those of us who maintain this article, at least so long as you present yourself as a deranged malcontent. Indeed, while I reply, I suspect that most editors will simply ignore you. If you think that your work has been violated, take the matter to court; Misplaced Pages is not the place to carry on a protest.

Mind you, these comments come from one who has seen his share of governmental hooliganism. One need only look to my years of writing for the student newspaper (The Daily Titan) of the California State University, Fullerton to know that police officers have specifically threatened to shoot me (circa 1993), and this over things said in an opinion column published in the student newspaper (Hey, where is the commitment to the U.S. Constitution, Mr. Police Officer?). Don't believe me, ask the president of the university, Dr. Milton Andrew Gordon - he can be reached at 714-278-3456.

Nor do these comments come from one unfamiliar with the elitist antics of many a university professor. Some who edit Misplaced Pages articles are less than competent when evaluating the works of others. I can think of one in particular, who I ran off of the article *Von Neumann Universal Constructor*, this Ph.D. having not the slightest proof for his assertions.

Two last comments. First, it is very often the case that the United States Patent Office makes awards inappropriately. Just because a patent number was assigned does not mean that your work is the first. Second, the time frame for development in the field of self-replicating machines suggests that (i) the technology will take a sufficiently long time to materialise, and (ii) the mechanisms then employed will sufficiently diverge from those you describe, such that (iii) the obtaining of remuneration on basis of the patent you hold is highly unlikely. Patents are best employed when the technology described is immediately developed and marketed. William R. Buckley 01:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Bias Complaint continued, Reply to William R. Buckley

Well let's see... you're foisting yourself up as the "expert" on formal ornate textual prose right? Sitting in judgment of my "style" of communicating textually instead of making most of your comments on any substantive issues on the table here.

Being able to follow your text is, I suspect, not contrary to your goal. However, the quality of your text, particularly its coherence, is critical to your goal. In this regard, you provide excess option to fail. William R. Buckley 03:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Too bad. You just set yourself up for a big fall. Why? Because, like most merchants of chaos you presented yourself as wrong. I usually don't dignify such triviality but since you took a childish shot at me I'll shoot back because you are so easy to put down and this one's so easy. In fact, you shot down your own elitist literary cohorts as well, along with yourself even if you were right because one of you must be in error, a REAL sign of insanity which is the inability to determine differences (which is the primary problem with both of you). You concern yourself with my not continually embellishing "von Neumann" with "von" throughout my prose . Well the illustrious and magnificent purported writers of high replicator ornate prose Frietas and Merkle seem to have done the same thing writing: "The Collins patents on Reproductive Mechanics" (leaving part of my name, the first name off) and did it again later in the tirade which initiated the war in the replicatorsphere leading to such "deranged" speech in the first place.

The failure of others to name you in proper fashion in no way releases you to be abusive. My point is to address your tirade, not any failure of Frietas or Merkle. This is known as keeping on point. Further, your last name is Collins, and von Neumann's is von Neumann. It is one thing to leave unprinted your first name. It is quite another to butcher your last name. William R. Buckley 03:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Too bad for Frietas and Merkle. If their text had passed by my desk before being printed, I would have raised concern, just as I did with you.

The problem is you can't seem to identify the material importances here with your inability to perceive differences. What's going on here is Frietas and Merkle declared world war three with their idiotic rantings and my writing style is combative.

Writing style combative with them is fine. Writing style combative with article editors is not fine. William R. Buckley 06:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Labeling combative speech as "deranged" is absurd and trivial. We are already in the mud. Things have not been hurtled in

Mixed run-on sentences and purple prose combined with a combative attitude, and stories of police conspiracies tend to suggest a deranged view of events. I agree, it is no guarantee. It would however probably be better to concentrate on the invalidations of the article, not the troubles of your life. William R. Buckley 06:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

my direction that are very pretty so I'm on war footing with just cause. Remember the Berserkers? You use whatever you can in a mud slinging contest once some lunatic decides to sling first. War is hell and war is inherently deranged and you blame the initiator which in this case would be Frietas and Merkle. They are the correct target for pointing out the insanity point of origin. Their piece was clearly wantonly malicious. Leading to this pointless fusillade of time wasting.

Then take them to court. You claim maliciousness. Show harm, and reap wholeness. You can't carry on the war within the pages of the article. Of course, you could carry on the war within another article. That I would support. William R. Buckley 06:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

They are clearly fair game so go scrape your silly finger at them. I used von Neumann's full name the first time I used it

I will choose where I apply my time, thank you very much.

and later on, as is done with lengthy appellation usages in millions of written works around the world it was abridged to save ink. This is ridiculously trivial. YOU knew what I was talking about and so did every one else so the communication was sufficient. Are you on drugs or something? When my friend called Misplaced Pages a "dope deal" I guess he wasn't joking. Hey Mr. perfect YOU neglected to put a space after the semicolon at: "cellular automata; (this I assert..." so put that in your pipe and smoke it with your dope.

No competent (read, serious) writer would use the last seven letters of the name John von Neumann to refer to him. H. H. Goldstine did not, nor does Arthur W. Burks, nor even those who regard von Neumann with disdain. Well, save you. William R. Buckley 03:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

As for errors that occur singularly, versus those repeated in multiple, part of the process of editing is correcting the text. So, that single missing space is a minor correction, one you would have been proper to make. Well, that is, if you had any good intention toward Misplaced Pages. You might want to consider that courts rely upon the written record, one that you are helping to construct. It is a very bad idea to demonstrate bad faith. William R. Buckley 03:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, if you think that Frietas and Merkle have harmed you with their text, then take the matter to court. If for no other reason than doing so, and winning, would give credence to your claims. Also, you might want to avoid slanderous statements, like saying that the editors of Misplaced Pages are drug users. William R. Buckley 03:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Further, I most certainly claim no "special place" knowing K. Eric Drexler. I was just pointing out that I notified him of my works in a friendly way and he showed indifference and has a site up that is infringing so links in the article to that

No man owes you a celebration. Just because you take Dr. Drexler to be indifferent does not mean that Dr. Drexler was, in fact, indifferent; to argue otherwise is illogical. Moreover, even if Dr. Drexler is indifferent, this is no slight on you. Many people show absolute indifference to things that I say, and this brings no recrimination upon them by me. William R. Buckley 03:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You would accomplish more by not filling the point with irrelevant detail. It is enough to say you brought the design to Dr. Drexler's attention. I would then get the point.

If one accepts your assertions, your case is more compelling, because you think you should get recognition for some design you produced. I would be willing to give this, if you could simply put one on the market. Any failure in this regard is on you. I often don't get the things that I want but, there is one thing that I often get, and this by my own style, by the way that I approach people. When I really want something, I can be a very charming person. This is not by my own assessment, but by the assessment of others. Your approach is less than charming. You might want also to look into the Misplaced Pages behavior rules respecting notions of Assuming Good Faith. William R. Buckley 03:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

site should be removed. Pure functionality nothing more nothing less. Further, the descriptions of my patents are copyrighted as allowed under law (37cfr 1.71 d) and going far beyond "fair use" when more than 500 words were used in Frietas and Merkle's book taken verbatim from the description constituting the heart of the work then sold for profit making it a clear copyright infringement under law. Misplaced Pages's policy is to not purvey copyright infringing works so please remove the links to it. Your comments on your own "self-replicator" are so unclear that it is difficult to determine

They are not unclear at all. The statement is for a working self-replicator, one built of the components described for the von Neumann 29-state rule set. If you have a hard time understanding from this description that the configuration is in the abstract, then you know very little of von Neumann cellular automata. William R. Buckley 03:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

if you said you had a real world replicator or a software replicator, if you do then why does this page discuss "prospects for implementation" instead of disclosing the features for a real replicator for all to see? I Thirst deeply for such knowledge, not Adrian Bowyer's annoying RepRap and weird GNUish politics

That is the purpose of journal publications, and this takes time to appear. Keep yourself in abeyance, and you shall see this replicator. As for software replicators, I built my first in 1981. It is called the Apple Worm, and is published in Scientific American (the first program to be published in its entirety by that magazine, in fact) 1985 IIRC. I do not build hardware self-replicators.

If a real replicator pops up on Misplaced Pages I do not want to sift through all this dunnage to find a possible self-replicator, it IS a real problem with that and I am not just blowing smoke. You may make money with all this pretty writing but us that have to make a living in the real world off campus need a reference that gets to the point and does not waste all our time. Further, the tendency to avoid terms like "independent operability" and focusing on the degree of

I looked for this article and could not locate it within Misplaced Pages. Might you provide a link? William R. Buckley 06:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

independency bestows an apparent interest in obscuring the subject or at least it seems that way. It is not sufficient to describe a true self-replicator if it is not sufficiently independent in some cases of closure as set forth by Frietas and Merkle. Please remove all references of unindependent replicators because such are NOT self-replicators. For example, rapid

I see no reason to exclude partial solutions to a problem from an article addressing that problem, particularly when no one can find a physical solution to the problem. Might you please therefore demonstrate your model to others than the patent examiner? William R. Buckley 06:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

prototypers are NOT self-replicating unless one can actually make another exact copy of itself in form and function which has never occurred with such a fabricating method alone particularly the RepRap device as it admittedly does not reproduce key parts like stepper motor bearings and coils. I have careful perused the whole body of this site and cannot find a description anywhere of a real world SELF-replicator among the numerous devices set forth. Replicator yes, self-replicator NO. You might call them "limited self-replicators" which can be very useful but they do not fit the description of the page title and the RepRap is not even close to a limited self-replicator. Make another page for "replicators" and put real and hypothetical self-replicators on this page alone or their possible uses, please.

You throw around terms like "deranged" (and without any proper identification of such behavior that is creditable) but you are not differentiating between the terms yourself. If you have a real self-replicator yourself Mr. William R. Buckley please please describe it in detail and post a picture so that I can see it and give you a strong positive wonderful complement (or fly out and see it) because I am tired, believe it or not of having to be so negative and if von Neumann has specific text that really enables a replicator give me the page number to find not general references to long annals of old technology that don't or only replicating software (no offense intended to Neumann whatsoever). This is getting like little squirrels running around on wheels in little cages. All this self serving nonsense amongst your clique is quite unproductive. Further, I do not value much style over function and my communication skills are quite sufficient to make myself and my associates more than happy and if it bothers you I could really care less, in fact are happy as unfairly as I have been treated by "professors" and the like. I have never thought obscure speech is artistic, getting to the point, conversely is beautiful, timely and economical. An art that you appear not to appreciate. I spend my time honing my innovative skills which are of primary importance to the nth degree over pretty communication as I thought that was your job as an editor (I am just trying to fix a train wreck).

That would be easy to accomodate. Fly yourself to Southern California, travel to the community of Phelan, and visit my humble abode. I would be happy to provide you with some very relevant information. Of course, you could have simply visited with me at the ALife X conference. Much of the work was demonstrated there, to the satisfaction of all who attended the workshop Machine Self-Replication 2006. Send your enquiry to wrbuckley@gmail.com William R. Buckley 03:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, actually, you do care what I think. Moreover, stating otherwise implies your bad faith toward me, and all other Misplaced Pages editors. You care, because you seek to influence, that I might alter article content.William R. Buckley 03:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

However, you can't seem to take constructive criticism and misplace my anger at Frietas and Merkle with anger at you which did not exist initially. Get the facts straight and I'll give you a complement because as they are set forth now they are not. As for your attitude about patents it is not the innovator's fault the patent office is a disaster. However, when a working device is presented to the examiner, which was the case with my independent self-replicator and such is in the file wrapper, the only deficiency around here is your inability to recognize this as encyclopedic. But we both know Misplaced Pages GNUians won't bother. They want to "open source" patents. In a word "bust" them. Right? You could at least place the names near the numbers to give credit for the hard work. So, your not pulling any wool over anyone's eyes over here in this camp.

Your first response to me, and in it you predict my behavior, to an act not yet occurring (my reading your words, and taking offense, so as to refuse constructive criticism). Your prognostication is irrational. William R. Buckley 05:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Not anger. Astonishment, actually, that you would go to such a degree to be non-communicative. Here again, you should look to the Misplaced Pages standards for Assuming Good Faith. Venting your spleen is fine for lowering blood pressure, and perhaps even for soothing other wounds. It is not however good for the debate that is part and parcel to the construction of works that are written well, and accurately reflect the fact of their topic. William R. Buckley 03:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You should appreciate that you too can alter article content. To the degree that acrimony is avoided, other editors will not trifle; Misplaced Pages is a collective effort, not a fiefdom. Just be aware that others value the quality of their work, and to the extent of their source materials, will protect what they have written. Editing wars result in disputation mechanisms coming into force, and this could lead to restrictions on article alteration. Such events are probably not what you want. Show good faith, and edit in that faith. Leave the article intelligible; bad quality results are very likely to be reverted; also not what you want. Participation, not dictation. William R. Buckley 05:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Charles Michael Collins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.23.93 (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, my purpose is to get you to participate, instead of simply squawking. I prefer that you do so with a positive attitude in mind but, any such mood is completely your choice. I do know that participatory behavior works much better in communicating with other editors, than do other approaches. You can look for dialogs I've shared with other editors. In some cases, things began with acrimony. In all cases, they end with comity. And, concomitant with all our actions, the quality of Misplaced Pages improves. William R. Buckley 06:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, you write with the expectation that someone read. Otherwise, you are admittedly wasting your time. Clearly, you expect someone to read what you write. It is therefore to your advantage to write clearly. Run-on sentences have the effect of blurring meaning, and making the reader work harder. This is counter to your goal. I am not the best writer but, I write well enough to know a good writer from a poor writer. The difference between effective communication and *wheel spinning* is clear enough to me. Effectivity within your inner-circle is sufficient, if that is your only goal. William R. Buckley 06:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

So, you admit that you only have a software self-replicator and not a hardware self-replicator yourself personally? Anyone can do that even in Word Perfect macros in 5.1 for DOS. What makes you so qualified to stand in judgment of me? Don't take it personally, I'm just asking as I don't know you well. You probably don't know that the RepRap project reeks with so much

This is a welcome change in the tone you project. Thanks. As for the configurations I have produced, any person familiar with von Neumann cellular automata would have understood this point, that the configurations are not physical. Sorry for not pointing out to you something that the vast majority of readers would not need pointed out. Building a self-replicator for vNCA is a bit different than is building a self-replicator for an x86. If it were as trivial as you make the task out to be, others would have completed the task long ago. William R. Buckley 08:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

circuit anomalies that my assistants refused to try and duplicate the project and the videos are laughable, and just low order rapid prototype technology. You guys like it because he spouts off strongly in favor of your GNU policies, remove it!

Article content is not dictated, by you or me. If you want something removed, then remove it yourself. No one here is a slave to you; the 14th amendment frees me of any and all obligations, short of being paid. Just remember, if others feel strongly enough, your voice will get overruled. That is how Misplaced Pages works. Also, you associate me improperly, and this borders on slander. William R. Buckley 08:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Further, I attempted several corrections of errors similar to this in the article and other small errors and the edits were INSTANTLY removed without comment. What kind of malfeasance is that? The problem is the page is flooded with non

It is not malfeasance at all. It is the process by which Misplaced Pages works. The solution is to be resolute, and to give sound justification that is consumable by the editors. The removal of your edits does not mean that you are wrong in making those edits. It simply means that another editor found reason to alter the article; deletions of your edits may even be inadvertent. You assume evil intent; this leads me to take you as paranoid. William R. Buckley 08:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

self-replicators and devoid of my own work on real self-replicator devices (not software) which was idiotically removed

A von Neumann self-replicating cellular automaton is not software. It is an abstraction, modeled in software, and the two are something quite different from the other. One may use the physical implementation of von Neumann cells given by Haenni and Beuchat in large quantity and observe the execution of my configuration. William R. Buckley 08:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

over a year ago by patent haters typical of the GNU crowd which is their next target after gutting the software world.

Further, you seem to indicate YOUR mistakes are OK and MY preferred artistic nuances are, somehow not and equal in

There is a difference between a simple mistake (like missing a space character) and wantonly abusing the name of another person. So, Collins, would not be the name that I would give to you, except for the properly respectful usage common to academic writing. I call him Sayama when I refer to his work, though I might consider him closer in other circumstances, and use more personal address. If we were facing each other, I would likely call you Chuck, or Charles (if you don't like Chuck), or whatever you prefer. What I would not due is use the phrase *artistic nuance* to describe wanton abuse of the name of another person. Frankly, I'd own up to it, and admit the intention. William R. Buckley 08:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

magnitude? What a hypocrite! Put my edits back and credit the inventors for group debate! I am an artist, I play lead

You make a big assumption, that I altered any of your edits. Actually, I have made very few changes to this article. You could learn this by reviewing the history for the article. Of course, that would entail you taking upon yourself some effort. I suspect you have not yet taken up the task. William R. Buckley 08:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am not your slave. What rate of remuneration do you offer? William R. Buckley 08:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

guitar and get standing ovations every time I play out and don't need an over embellisher like you to tell me how to go

Maybe that is your calling. Maybe that is where you should turn for the riches you seek. William R. Buckley 08:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

about proper artistic composition of my communication methods just because I don't speak with my little finger stuck up in the air with an hors d'oeuvre stuck on it like a girly man. Not that I am some kind of far right extremist (I'm a healthy

This is a personal attack. Further, would you want to call a longshoreman a *girly man* to his face? I'd love to see you try it, down in front of the union hiring hall. That is where you'll find me, as I pick-up my day job. William R. Buckley 08:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

centrist) but I could only assume, lacking other indications had that you advocate drug use, in fact most supporters may as

You have repeatedly demonstrated bad faith. William R. Buckley 08:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Richard Stallman is the largest loudest mouthpiece for your GNU movement himself advocating drug legalization several

This is a slanderous statement. GNU is not *my* movement. William R. Buckley 08:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

places on his site and wears all the cloths, like tie-dye and long hair (counterculture garb), what else would one deduce?

What one deduces is that you are a bigot. William R. Buckley 08:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

As for suits the patent still stands regardless of the political attacks and legal challenges on it. I made my case on the patent office's legal challenge TWICE and those who know do not DARE risk a challenge in court. Such, is why Frietas and

Have you been to United States District Court, before a seated federal judge, wherein a challenge to the validity of your patent was, in an order issued and signed by that seated federal judge, determined to be valid? If so, please state the details, so that the decision can be retrieved. Unless and until such an event, you don't have an enforcible patent. Indeed, the successful court test is the quintessential definition of a valid patent. All the rest is smoke and mirrors. William R. Buckley 08:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what you have is assumed standing. The patent office certifies your standing to appear in court and argue for the enforcement of your claim. In practical terms, until a court says otherwise, that is all you have. You don't need a law school education to understand this; common sense is sufficient. William R. Buckley 08:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Merkle mouthed off in their absurd book review after I put them out of business and all they could do is accuse "greed!" which is simply stupid. Such is particularly so coming from two elitist and well known intramural demagogues. There is no

Well, it may be stupid for Merkle and Frietas to accuse you of greed, even if it is the truth, which may or may not be the case. But, saying so does not make you the better person, and the words you use might be libelous. Of course, I do recognise that you claim to be already in the mud. Yet I should think it always possible to sling mud, without becoming muddy. William R. Buckley 08:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

dishonor in aspiring to greatness which I will continue to do on this project. Further, the only trouble is infringement with researchers and scientific misconduct and peer review has been biased by GNU attitudes.

Fair use lets any researcher build any variant of work, with or without attribution. The law does not require attribution; no researcher need disclose her source of inspiration. What is not allowed is the sale of that fair use construct. Are you confusing these two different behaviors respecting this infringement complaint? William R. Buckley 08:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Both of these areas of which you most likely are familiar with but have chosen to ignore and you know result in little economic payouts after difficult suits against professors practically immune to such suits anyway. Any large industrial operation attempting to infringe that results in the monetary rewards worth a suit will be hit fast and hard, all rights reserved. As for your ridiculous accusations of "ramblings" every sentence has a point or several minor necessarily related

The problem is, these points are difficult if not impossible to tease from your writing. William R. Buckley 08:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

technical points nested and this is highly technical prose. If you really are so upset at it why do you keep firing off complex legal critique requiring such long complex retorts? So, if you do not like technical prose you can leave any time

To demonstrate that such can be constructed without resort to rambling. William R. Buckley 08:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

you like as you have made yourself nothing but an unuseful gadfly akin to a shock jock. Get technically real. I don't feel like writing like Carol anyway here because the software text editors here at Misplaced Pages chop up the work from time to time meaning my work may be trashed at any time so I focus only on substance here feeling lucky if I ever even get that across

My work on the article Von Neumann Universal Constructor stands largely as I wrote it, a year or two ago. Occasionally some of the subtleties of meaning are lost by other editors but, that is really easy to fix. Further, the passage of time has brought some of us reason to correspond, a benefit to article quality. William R. Buckley 08:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

which is one reason I sound cross. This is what happens when software programmers don't get paid just like Stallman himself who never seems to finish his promised operating system. "Von" may be a "particle" anyway similar to "Mr." or "Mrs." in scope, it's the writer's preference here whether to leave it off (I pondered that at the time I left it off). Crowing about

No. *von* is a part of his last name, and not at all akin to Mr. or Mrs. It is not crowing, either, and I would complain just as vociferously if others were to abuse your name. William R. Buckley 08:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

that is tantamount to "rambling" on your part leading to necessary "rambling" in retort. Quit blowing smoke and wasting everyone's time here. The attainment of independent operability benefits all, including YOU.

As I mentioned before, I looked for and could not find this article. If you put it into Misplaced Pages, I will read it. If you send it to me, I will read it. William R. Buckley 08:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I have little interest in the kind of self-replication you would peddle. Interesting it would not doubt be, and the economic benefits (and chaos) are sure to provide prime entertainment opportunities. Yet, my interest lays with far more complex phenomena, like development. William R. Buckley 08:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Charles Michael Collins 10:15, October 5, 2007 (EST)

1. http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=6f0nui%248ih%241%40news.nanospace.com