Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:45, 4 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). Finally, 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. 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 the 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)

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