From: kgilman@huntington.edu

Date: 02/20/00

Subject: Bored, Projects, a Favor

Jaz,

 I am sending you this message encrypted with the PGP program, as you have not yet indicated that you have such a program for our use. You should have found the instructions for use of the key in the email I sent earlier.

 It has certainly been quiet around here after that whole Valentine's day thing. I'm pretty bored, actually, now that I've gotten my classes caught up after that "illness". Due to this catch-up, I have naturally not been keeping up with the recent doings of our Mr. N, nor his cohort ... your paramour, Mr. E. If you see them today, inform them that now that spring is upon us, the seeding that I have done at the Halfway House should begin to bear fruit (no pun intended).

 It seems that I am finally going to be in one place for awhile -- hopefully at least until the end of the school year. Possibly longer, if my speculation as to the purpose of my attendance (social contact with others like myself) is correct. This being the case, and as the recent nastiness has died down, I've been thinking up a list of projects that I've been meaning to initiate, and you may find them interesting. I would certainly find your expertise most invaluable in the latter project.

 1.

I am interested in performing an extended study of the female human, with an eye toward later experiments in protogenesis and hybridization. This would be both a psychological and physiological study, involving no foreseeable danger to yourself.

 You would make an excellent baseline for my investigations, as you are -- and I hope you will take no affront where none is intended -- currently in a prepubescent stage. Feel free to substitute "larval" or "pupal", if those descriptions carry less onerous connotations (though they are not strictly accurate).

 2.

The more long term of the two projects is something I have pondered many a time, and something which I think you will find personally interesting. In fact, I believe I may have hinted at it once or twice in our conversations. You and I both know that our respective factions have long been on the defensive. Your own organization is deeply tied to the dominant technology, which is both a blessing and a curse. However, what if we were to take matters into our own hands; what if we were to sieze the reins of technology and steer our own course?

 Many in both of our organizations (or clubs, if you prefer), have pursued the goal of intelligent computation devices. But, near as I have been able to determine, few of them (if any) have actually attempted to start from the most advanced baseline technology available to us. To whit, the human brain. As you are no doubt aware, you yourself are far smarter than any thousand computers, and you can likely duplicate any or all of their advantages.

 To bring these two paragraphs into collision, I will say that I am proposing nothing less than a revolution in the field of computational technology: organic computers. The time for this revolution is upon us; we both know the degree to which cloning has become an accepted part of mainstream science, and this is but a step or two removed from that technology.

  Naturally, knowing your lack of experience in biological matters, I should point out that I have more need of your expertise in programming languages, mathematical models, operating principles, security precautions, andsuchlike. This knowledge would be very valuable in starting the project off on the right foot.

 Imagine it. A world that suddenly rejects the hardware that our foes are all-too-familiar with, and brings both of our organizations into the (figurative) spotlight as the harbringers of true artificial intelligence.

  If nothing else, you would have a significant head start on the programming aspects ... well ahead of your competitors in *any* faction. I suppose that you could do some ground-breaking research with a system capable not only of speed and logic, but also abstract reasoning and intuition. I certainly intend to.

 Exciting, isn't it?

 Finally, I also have a personal favor to ask.

 As you may be aware, I have a twin sister, Tenna. (She, along with our parents, will be visiting Huntington Academy for the upcoming Family Weekend, at which point you will be able to meet her yourself.) You may also know that I am attending Huntington at the behest and expense of my late grandfather's will, pursuant to obtaining an inheritence. This is wonderful for me, but I cannot help but feel that my sister has been somewhat short-changed in this situation. My family lacks the resources to send her (or, for that matter, me) to such an upscale institution.

 Thus, I would be most appreciative if you would find it in your heart to make it possible for her to attend this educational establishment in the future. I feel that this would be a superb environment for her (excepting the peculiarities that persons such as you and I deal with as a matter of course). It would certainly be an improvement over the public school system, which we both know is mediocre at best, peculiarities or no.

 Obviously, I don't expect her to be able to immediately transfer from the public junior high school that she is currently attending, as it is rather late in the academic year, unless you feel that this would not be a problem?

 (I realize that my own arrival at the start of this semester was during a time when Huntington seemed rather devoid of students -- due, I am told, to some then-recent business involving some militant student group. I have not had opportunity to ascertain whether the student body has regained its normal capacity or not, but perhaps the late arrival of another studentwould not be looked upon strangely if this remained the case.)

 On the assumption that you would grant this request, if it is possible to arrange this prior to the upcoming Family Weekend, that would be top notch,as I would very much like to surprise her with the news in person.

 Naturally, it goes without saying that I would be able to do some favor for you using my own talents, in return.

 K.

 >Jaz,

>I am sending you this message encrypted with the PGP program, as you have not yet indicated that you have such a program for our use. You should have found the instructions for use of the key in the email I sent earlier.

 Got it. Excuse the low-tech Tooth Fairy methodology, but I'm leery of using the school network for, um, Business. And I'm even more leery, these days, of sending out anything that's too thoroughly encrypted. It's not anything I'd expect you to know, 'cause it was before you got here, and we've had plenty of up-to-date problems to deal with lately, but I ran afoul of the Proper Authorities awhile back, and I can't be sure my account's not still being monitored.

  Now that we're not in *immediate* danger of death, I'll start working on some kind of internal communications network for the team. Hmm, wish we had more than two telepaths. That'd be so much harder to crack.

  (By the way, this letter is sort of a test of one direction I might take with that system. I got the idea from Ivan's little language mishap last week. To anyone else but you, what you're reading won't make any sense at all. Basically I gave myself controlled aphasia when I wrote it, and inserted the corresponding "key" into your mind while you were asleep last night. If you had any weird dreams, that's why. I don't *think* it should have any other effects on you, but it is an experimental technique. So report any, er, bugs you encounter and I'll see what I can do to fix them.)

>... your paramour, Mr. E.

 Gracious, but inaccurate. Unless your definition of "paramour" is "an oversexed scary person for whom one feels inexplicably responsible."

>If you see them today, inform them that now that spring is upon us, the seeding that I have done at the Halfway House should begin to bear fruit (no pun intended).

 Will do.

 >1.

>I am interested in performing an extended study of the female human, with an eye toward later experiments in protogenesis and hybridization. This would be both a psychological and physiological study, involving no foreseeable danger to yourself.

 Ummm, okay.

>You would make an excellent baseline for my investigations, as you are -- and I hope you will take no affront where none is intended -- currently in a prepubescent stage. Feel free to substitute "larval" or "pupal", if those descriptions carry less onerous connotations (though they are not strictly accurate).

 Translation: I'm the only girl around whom you might be able to recruit for a "physiological study" without getting smacked.

 Sure, count me in.

 Say, once you have your baseline data, would you be able to . . . tweak things at all? All this hanging around with older kids, and now having *two* close female friends who look even older than they are, has made me sort of impatient for certain things to get started, if you know what I mean. I'm not looking for anything freakish or obvious here, but if you could manage to speed things up a little, I'd be grateful.

>2.

>The more long term of the two projects is something I have pondered many a time, and something which I think you will find personally interesting. In fact, I believe I may have hinted at it once or twice in our conversations. You and I both know that our respective factions have long been on the defensive. Your own organization is deeply tied to the dominant technology, which is both a blessing and a curse. However, what if we were to take matters into our own hands; what if we were to sieze the reins of technology and steer our own course?

 All right, you have my attention.

>Many in both of our organizations (or clubs, if you prefer), have pursued the goal of intelligent computation devices. But, near as I have been able to determine, few of them (if any) have actually attempted to start from the most advanced baseline technology available to us. To whit, the human brain. As you are no doubt aware, you yourself are far smarter than any thousand computers, and you can likely duplicate any or all of their advantages.

 True. . . .

 >To bring these two paragraphs into collision, I will say that I am proposing nothing less than a revolution in the field of computational technology: organic computers. The time for this revolution is upon us; we both know the degree to which cloning has become an accepted part of mainstream science, and this is but a step or two removed from that technology. Naturally, knowing your lack of experience in biological matters, I should point out that I have more need of your expertise in programming languages, mathematical models, operating principles, security precautions, and suchlike. This knowledge would be very valuable in starting the project off on the right foot.

Sure, just tell me what you have in mind.

>Exciting, isn't it?

Yeah. You really think we could pull this off? I'm in. I'd have to be crazy to say no.

 >Finally, I also have a personal favor to ask.

 Someone's asking me for a favor I don't already owe them? O frabjous day!

 >Thus, I would be most appreciative if you would find it in your heart to make it possible for her to attend this educational establishment in the future.

 Sure, I'd be happy to help . . . but I'm not sure I'm the person to talk to if the problem is money. I'm not exactly swimming in it myself. The aforementioned Messrs. N and E are the ones who usually solve problems through the deployment of large sums of cash.

 Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're asking for. Sure, I could insert anyone I wanted into the system as a student, mark' em paid in full (or give 'em a scholarship, whichever seems safer), and no one would be the wiser. But that seems a little drastic. I assume your sister is perfectly qualified. Why don't you just encourage her to apply for a scholarship here?

 That's probably not the answer you expected, and I do want to help you . . . but despite the reputation of my, erm, organization, I don't particularly like doing that sort of thing. The newspapers may think "hacker" and "computer criminal" are synonymous, but I'd prefer not to contribute to that misconception. Plus, as I said before, I might still be under surveillance, and we wouldn't want Them catching on. Not only might they decide to collar *me*, but they might also take a long, hard look at your sister. Wouldn't be good.

 Now, that doesn't mean I can't help you out. I may not like "making" money in the literal sense with my talents, but I'm not averse to earning it. I'll see what I can do.

>Naturally, it goes without saying that I would be able to do some favor for you using my own talents, in return.

 Well, I've already loaded an experimental program into your brain. I think you'd be perfectly within your rights to ask for compensation. ;)

 And really -- if I may demolish another component of my Tradition's rep -- I don't like the whole favor-trading thing. Not with friends, anyway. I mean, if you don't want to consider me your friend, that's fine. We can still do business, and you can even refer to me by the first letter of my last name like I was a character in a Victorian novel or something. But I kind of like having friends, myself. You?

 J.

 I see. Perhaps you should send me a reply that indicates that you think the encryption is too much trouble to bother with, and then we'll send some mundane tedium back and forth for awhile.

 > If you had any weird dreams, that's why. I don't *think* it should have any other effects on you, but it is an experimental technique. So report any, er, bugs you encounter and I'll see what I can do to fix them.)

 I had no dreams that seemed overly weird to me, but I am not sure what to be looking for. As far as the physical system itself, the only drawbacks that I can see are that communication is somewhat less rapid than I am used to, and that all such communication must, by necessity, travel at your convenience. Which could both be a problem in an emergency. I tend to favor a decentralized system, such as even the telepathic system lacks. Something that, if Mr. E (or any one of us) were to become compromised, it would not make all communications immediately suspect.

Perhaps your mistrust of overt encryption could be rectified by something less obvious. I lack the expertise to implement a system, but it seems to me that you could combine a lexical processor with a public-key encryptor such as this PGP thing, and essentially encode the real message into a false message about the current mundane events in our lives that otherwise looks real (and utterly uninteresting). Analysis of each of our common email subjects and writing styles should provide you with enough data on our habits that you could construct plausible fake messages from scratch under program control.

 Naturally, we would need some sort of signal that the message is false and should be decoded, or else we will be decoding literally everything that comes through, which could get tedious. Lack of such a signal would also make it hard to distinguish a real mundane message from a false one. References to some uncommon but not suspicious-looking subject would probably suffice.

> >... your paramour, Mr. E.

> Gracious, but inaccurate. Unless your definition of "paramour" is "an oversexed scary person for whom one feels inexplicably responsible."

 I see. Well, being romantically attached might have presented an obstacle to the detail necessary for my studies, so it is good to hear that this will not be a problem. I offer my condolences on your loss, however.

> Translation: I'm the only girl around whom you might be able to recruit for a "physiological study" without getting smacked.

 Hmm. Do you feel that this is a likely occurrence? I hadn't considered the possibility, actually. I assumed that most subjects would participate for the excitement of being part of such a fascinating study. No, in actuality, you were simply the first person I asked. Knowing your own interest in matters of Scientific import, I judged it likely that you would be interested, and it seems that it would be easier to convince people to take part in studies that other people are already taking part in.

 > Sure, count me in.

 Excellent.

 > Say, once you have your baseline data, would you be able to . . . tweak things at all? All this hanging around with older kids, and now having *two* close female friends who look even older than they are, has made me sort of impatient for certain things to get started, if you know what I mean. I'm not looking for anything freakish or obvious here, but if you could manage to speed things up a little, I'd be grateful.

 Hmm. An interesting notion. I will start brainstorming, but I foresee no particular problems with the intial concept. I assume you are comfortable with my methods? As you know, they are slightly outside the norm, though I doubt there would be any particular risk.

> Sure, just tell me what you have in mind.

 Right now I haven't gotten much further than initial concept and some anatomical structure details that I'm sure you would find not at all interesting. As I said, I consider this to be a long-term project, and I am only now initiating it. Consider the concept of being able to program a mind, however. What language might one use? Knowing of your own studies into psychological matters, I'm sure that you would have some insights into this aspect.

> >Exciting, isn't it?

> Yeah. You really think we could pull this off?

 Certainly. All it takes is enthusiasm and intelligence. And Science!

 > I'm in. I'd have to be crazy to say no.

 Outstanding.

 > >Finally, I also have a personal favor to ask.

> Someone's asking me for a favor I don't already owe them? O frabjous day!

 I do not follow your terminology, but I sense that this pleases you, so that is all to the better.

 > Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're asking for. Sure, I could insert anyone I wanted into the system as a student, mark' em paid in full (or give 'em a scholarship, whichever seems safer), and no one would be the wiser. But that seems a little drastic. I assume your sister is perfectly qualified. Why don't you just encourage her to apply for a scholarship here?

 Of course! That's so obvious that I hadn't considered that angle at all. Certainly I feel that she is more than qualified. I must ponder the implications of my oversight. Perhaps this represents some blind spot I hadn't previously been aware of.

> That's probably not the answer you expected, and I do want to help you . .. but despite the reputation of my, erm, organization, I don't particularly like doing that sort of thing. The newspapers may think "hacker" and "computer criminal" are synonymous, but I'd prefer not to contribute to that misconception.

 I see. I wasn't actually aware of the distinction, though in retrospect it seems clear enough. My apologies.

 > Plus, as I said before, I might still be under surveillance, and we wouldn't want Them catching on. Not only might they decide to collar *me*, but they might also take a long, hard look at your sister. Wouldn't be good.

Oh. Yes, this is most distressing. I formally withdraw my request, as I had not previously been aware of your "Proper Authorities" situation, though I have some disagrement with the notion of Proper Authorities, at least in this situation.

> And really -- if I may demolish another component of my Tradition's rep -- I don't like the whole favor-trading thing. Not with friends, anyway. I mean, if you don't want to consider me your friend, that's fine.

 You seem to be hurt by the implication, so perhaps I mistook an earlier sarcasm for pleasure. In any event, please allow me to hasten to reassure you that I meant nothing by that. I was not even aware of this component of your Tradition's "rep". I simply consider it polite to do return a kindness with a kindness.

 > We can still do business, and you can even refer to me by the first letter of my last name like I was a character in a Victorian novel or something. But I kind of like having friends, myself. You?

I am not sure that I follow you. I refer to Mr. N and Mr. E in such a manner so as to avoid indentifying them too readily. This is not meant to imply that I do not consider them friends. However, as I was addressing you in my missive, I should not refer to you in the same manner. That would be impolite, or as Mr. N is wont to say, "Rude".

K.

 Excellent idea. Consider it done.

 >Perhaps your mistrust of overt encryption could be rectified by something less obvious. I lack the expertise to implement a system, but it seems to me that you could combine a lexical processor with a public-key encryptor such as this PGP thing, and essentially encode the real message into a false message about the current mundane events in our lives that otherwise looks real (and utterly uninteresting).

 Yes, that was the other alternative I was considering, and likely the one I'll implement.

 Hmm, now for that code topic, what's something that we might perfectly reasonably talk about in mundane life, but actually *wouldn't* talk about much (since it obviously shouldn't be mentioned in truly mundane messages)?

 Schoolwork, maybe. I can't remember the last time any of us *actually* talked about that. . . .

>> >... your paramour, Mr. E.

>>

>> Gracious, but inaccurate. Unless your definition of "paramour" is "an oversexed scary person for whom one feels inexplicably responsible."

>

>I see. Well, being romantically attached might have presented an obstacle to the detail necessary for my studies, so it is good to hear that this will not be a problem.

 Umm . . . *what* detail?

 And, generally speaking, "larval" girls don't *get* "romantically attached." When they do, there's usually a felony involved. You do know this, right? Or do you know plenty of girls my age with "attachments"?

(And if you do, for God's sake what am I doing wrong?)

> I offer my condolences on your loss, however.

Uhhh, thanks. Hmm, obviously you've been briefed more thoroughly on all of

us than I'd thought. Been talking to Ivan?

>> Translation: I'm the only girl around whom you might be able to recruit

>for

>> a "physiological study" without getting smacked.

>

>Hmm. Do you feel that this is a likely occurrence? I hadn't considered

the

>possibility, actually. I assumed that most subjects would participate for

>the excitement of being part of such a fascinating study.

Hey, I know where you're coming from. I thought the same thing about my

Valentine's Day study. But not everybody's as dedicated to Science as we

are.

Still, I'd be careful recruiting for this. I mean, granted, you're the

only teenage boy I know who's *not* a total horndog, but you're still a

teenage boy, and that comes with a certain reputation. I'll give you good

odds that at least 75% of the girls around here would take an offer to

"study their physiology" as some kind of nerd pick-up line.

> I assume you are comfortable

>with my methods? As you know, they are slightly outside the norm, though I

>doubt there would be any particular risk.

Y'know, I don't know that I've actually seen your methods, only your

results.

But you do get results, which is what I'm looking for.

And your methods are likely to be less unusual than Vincent's, assuming I

could even get him to agree to interfere with "the natural order" or

whatever. Though he does have the "gets naked" factor in his favor. (Umm,

purely scientific curiosity, of course.)

>> Sure, just tell me what you have in mind.

>

>Right now I haven't gotten much further than initial concept and some

>anatomical structure details that I'm sure you would find not at all

>interesting.

Actually, I *was* wondering what you were planning to make it look like.

>Consider the concept of being able to program a mind, however. What

>language might one use? Knowing of your own studies into psychological

>matters, I'm sure that you would have some insights into this aspect.

Hmm, yes. This goes right along with some of my interests.

I'll start doing some research, and we can compare notes sometime.

>Certainly. All it takes is enthusiasm and intelligence. And Science!

Presuming the (self-proclaimed) Proper Authorities don't get involved, of

course.

>> >Finally, I also have a personal favor to ask.

>> Someone's asking me for a favor I don't already owe them? O frabjous

day!

>

>I do not follow your terminology, but I sense that this pleases you, so

that

>is all to the better.

Sorry. My bunch trades favors all the time, and I always seem to be the

one asking for favors (and thus having unspecified debts hanging over my

head). It was nice to get asked a favor for once.

And "O frabjous day" is from "Jabberwocky." Lewis Carroll, you know?

Alice in Wonderland guy? (Also a mathematician, by the way.)

>Of course! That's so obvious that I hadn't considered that angle at all.

>Certainly I feel that she is more than qualified. I must ponder the

>implications of my oversight. Perhaps this represents some blind spot I

>hadn't previously been aware of.

'Course, that does remove the "surprise gift" aspect, which is probably

what you were hung up on.

If you still want to do that, I can probably help you get the money she'll

need. Actually, I can even make it perfectly legit. I assume you get some

sort of living allowance from your inheritance. How much could you stand

to part with -- invest, actually -- for a week or two?

[OOC note: Remember Ivan's wealth-via-foreknowledge scheme that Jasmine's

in on. . . .]

>Oh. Yes, this is most distressing. I formally withdraw my request, as I

>had not previously been aware of your "Proper Authorities" situation,

though

>I have some disagrement with the notion of Proper Authorities, at least in

>this situation.

Oh, me too. Trust me, the nickname was facetious.

>You seem to be hurt by the implication, so perhaps I mistook an earlier

>sarcasm for pleasure.

You mean the "frabjous day" comment? I was thinking more abstractly up

there. In general, the chance to be owed a favor rather than owing one is

a good thing, but I also don't want to get into that habit with my friends.

I didn't mean to sound hurt or resentful, by the way. Given your

formality, I started to wonder if maybe you were the kind of person who is

slow to make friends, and saves the term for the truly deserving. I didn't

want to *presume* that we are automatically friends, though I'd like us to

be.

>I simply consider it polite to do return a kindness with a kindness.

Oh, sure. But we can help each other out without keeping score, right?

> I refer to Mr. N and Mr. E in such a

>manner so as to avoid indentifying them too readily. This is not meant to

>imply that I do not consider them friends.

Ah. Again, I wasn't used to your style, and assumed formality = distance.

You're still "the new guy," and I know The Boys can be hard to take at

first, what with "Mr. N" always trying to show you how Wicked he is and

"Mr. E" . . . well, the way he's been lately.

Anyway, we should talk more about your projects in person. These are some

brilliant ideas. I suspect you may be almost as smart as I am. ;)

J.

> reasonably talk about in mundane life, but actually *wouldn't* talk about

> much (since it obviously shouldn't be mentioned in truly mundane

messages)?

>

> Schoolwork, maybe. I can't remember the last time any of us *actually*

> talked about that. . . .

Yes. Or perhaps our parents. Or perhaps our parents worrying about our

schoolwork.

> >I see. Well, being romantically attached might have presented an

obstacle

> >to the detail necessary for my studies, so it is good to hear that this

will

> >not be a problem.

>

> Umm . . . *what* detail?

Level of detail is perhaps what I should have said.

> And, generally speaking, "larval" girls don't *get* "romantically

> attached." When they do, there's usually a felony involved. You do know

> this, right? Or do you know plenty of girls my age with "attachments"?

> (And if you do, for God's sake what am I doing wrong?)

Actually, I wasn't aware that there were legal implications involved in

romance per se. Fascinating.

Could you direct me at the appropriate legislation? I am curious as to

whether it provides further insight into the proper means of obtaining

Romance. For example, candlelight dinners are said to be romantic. Is

there a certain amount of illumination which is above or below the legal

limit? Is there a Recommended Dinner Angstrom? Or, perhaps a particular

amount of nutritional intake is required at such dinners, to offset the

caloric loss from the (presumed) later coital activity? Perhaps I had best

ask Ivan and/or Corinna these questions.

To be honest Jasmine, I have no idea how many girls your age have such

attachments. I had hoped that my study would help shed some light on such

matters by the contrast between you and some of these "older girls". And I

am confident that the results of the study will help you discover what (if

anything) you are doing wrong and enable you to rectify it.

> > I offer my condolences on your loss, however.

>

> Uhhh, thanks. Hmm, obviously you've been briefed more thoroughly on all

of

> us than I'd thought. Been talking to Ivan?

No, I've just had many opportunities to see you together and hear you refer

to Mr. E in a manner that indicated you were attached in some fashion that

wasn't immediately apparent from your mutual activities (or lack thereof).

> >Hmm. Do you feel that this is a likely occurrence? I hadn't considered

the

> >possibility, actually. I assumed that most subjects would participate

for

> >the excitement of being part of such a fascinating study.

>

> Hey, I know where you're coming from. I thought the same thing about my

> Valentine's Day study. But not everybody's as dedicated to Science as we

> are.

"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a

miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle."

-- Albert Einstein.

I applaud your attempts at studying one of the most complex aspects of

humanity, which is something I aspire to myself, but in all honesty I must

(reluctantly) count myself among the opposition to such a study. Perhaps I

have misunderstood your objective? As I explain my position below, feel

free to correct any misinterpretations you may find.

I think that your Valentine's day study did not go over well because people

tend to instantly mistrust attempts to codify such things. In other words,

if you reduce a noble emotion such as love into a base equation, you are

seen as diluting its purity. Especially if this process gives you some

measure of control over it (in this case, you gain an advantage over it

that nobody else has, so you get an extra fear factor from that).

This is one essential point that our scientific-minded foes have utterly

failed to grasp: People don't *want* everything reduced to a predictable

equation, and they will often directly oppose or ignore attempts to do so.

The world has little enough wonder as it is; to attempt to remove a major

portion of what's left is begging for disaster in more ways than one.

If your intent was solely to acquire understanding, then that is a different

story, naturally.

In any event, I could hardly have participated in your study, as I have a

decided lack of such data to supply you with.

> Still, I'd be careful recruiting for this. I mean, granted, you're the

> only teenage boy I know who's *not* a total horndog, but you're still a

> teenage boy, and that comes with a certain reputation.

Conversing with you is always so interesting, Jasmine. You always use

extremely fascinating (and colourful) metaphors. Horndog? Although the

image of a horned canine (perhaps the "total" implies something more akin to

a porcupine?) is certainly amusing, I fear that I do not catch the

allusion.

> I'll give you good odds that at least 75% of the girls around here would

> take an offer to "study their physiology" as some kind of nerd pick-up

line.

Hmm. Interesting. Well, I have no intention of asking random strangers at

this early point, but I shall certainly be sure to let you know the actual

distribution of people who think that I am some species of horned canine and

those who do not. My study has taken on an entirely unplanned dimension. I

thank you.

My initial intent was to ask for the cooperation of those with whom I am

most familiar: Yourself, Corinna, Melanie. I suppose I could include Kelli

or the Rodochenko twins, but I fear that I would not get any useable data

from either source, and I am not that familiar with them besides.

[OOC: I am, BTW, confusing the Rodochenko twins with the Cabrell twins,

which was not realized until Jasmine''s response. Ah well.]

> Y'know, I don't know that I've actually seen your methods, only your

results.

>

> But you do get results, which is what I'm looking for.

My methods, at least in this case, are merely a matter of encouraging the

body to do what it would have done naturally, slightly in advance of

schedule.

> And your methods are likely to be less unusual than Vincent's, assuming I

> could even get him to agree to interfere with "the natural order" or

> whatever.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with

sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

-- Gallileo

I find that Vincent and I seem to be colleagues, after a fashion ... yet

also opponents, after a fashion. I do not understand his objection to

"interfering with the natural order", since human curiousity and ability and

even interference are also parts of said "natural order". But to each his

own, I suppose.

>Though he does have the "gets naked" factor in his favor. (Umm, purely

scientific curiosity, of course.)

"Man is the only animal that blushes -- or needs to."

--Mark Twain

I am certainly pleased that you take that commendable attitude towards such

an inconvenient societal taboo; as it will make our study proceed that much

smoother. I do not, unfortunately (since you seem to find the notion

intruiging), find that this is a necessery element of my Modus Operandi.

However, I am certain that -- in the interests of politeness -- I could be

convinced to arrange equal opportunity to satisfy your scientific curiosity,

if that is your desire. After all, life is all about learning, and

curiosity is a thing to be encouraged.

> >[ On the subject of Organic Computation ]

> >> Sure, just tell me what you have in mind.

> >

> >Right now I haven't gotten much further than initial concept and some

> >anatomical structure details that I'm sure you would find not at all

> >interesting.

>

> Actually, I *was* wondering what you were planning to make it look like.

I see no reason to make it resemble anything other than what such things

look like now (i.e., the brain), at least for the time being. Phrenological

principles might actually constrain such a device into that shape anyway.

Naturally, there would also need to be some sort of housing/support unit,

for which I have no particular design in mind at the moment. Possibly a

dome or sphere or some such shape.

Oh yes, and of course the size would need to be increased several-fold for

the initial prototypes. Neural anatomy is on such a fine scale that I

cannot perform any direct manipulation of it with my current resources, and

I do not think that indirect manipulation would be effective in this case.

In the future the size could be brought back down to more manageable levels

(and obviously this would be necessary for wide-scale acceptance).

> >Consider the concept of being able to program a mind, however. What

> >language might one use? Knowing of your own studies into psychological

> >matters, I'm sure that you would have some insights into this aspect.

>

> Hmm, yes. This goes right along with some of my interests.

> I'll start doing some research, and we can compare notes sometime.

Very good.

> >Certainly. All it takes is enthusiasm and intelligence. And Science!

>

> Presuming the (self-proclaimed) Proper Authorities don't get involved, of

> course.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and

making them see the light; but rather because its opponents eventually die

and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

-- Max Planck

Hmm. Well, proper security is, of course, something that will be necessary.

I'm sure that we could also consult the families of both Mr. E and Mr. N on

the methods necessary to achieve such a goal while not becoming visible

targets ourselves.

> Sorry. My bunch trades favors all the time, and I always seem to be the

> one asking for favors (and thus having unspecified debts hanging over my

> head). It was nice to get asked a favor for once.

Ah, I see. Then my first instinct was, after all, correct.

> And "O frabjous day" is from "Jabberwocky." Lewis Carroll, you know?

> Alice in Wonderland guy? (Also a mathematician, by the way.)

Hmm. It has been some time since I have had the occasion, and I do not

believe that I have ever read the original Carroll, merely various

lesser-quality retellings.

> >Of course! That's so obvious that I hadn't considered that angle at all.

> >Certainly I feel that she is more than qualified. I must ponder the

> >implications of my oversight. Perhaps this represents some blind spot I

> >hadn't previously been aware of.

>

> 'Course, that does remove the "surprise gift" aspect, which is probably

> what you were hung up on.

This is true.

> If you still want to do that, I can probably help you get the money she'll

> need. Actually, I can even make it perfectly legit. I assume you get

some

> sort of living allowance from your inheritance. How much could you stand

> to part with -- invest, actually -- for a week or two?

I do receive a stipend from my grandfather's will, yes, supplemented by an

allowance from home. As my actual needs are rather less than this total, I

have mainly been saving the balance since I arrived here. I'd say I have

probably accumulated $1600 or so.

> >You seem to be hurt by the implication, so perhaps I mistook an earlier

> >sarcasm for pleasure.

>

> You mean the "frabjous day" comment? I was thinking more abstractly up

> there. In general, the chance to be owed a favor rather than owing one is

> a good thing, but I also don't want to get into that habit with my

> friends.

Ah, I see.

> I didn't mean to sound hurt or resentful, by the way. Given your

> formality, I started to wonder if maybe you were the kind of person who is

> slow to make friends, and saves the term for the truly deserving. I

didn't

> want to *presume* that we are automatically friends, though I'd like us to

> be.

Formality is something I simply feel that we have too little of in today's

world. In some respects that is a good thing, but in others it is not. I

suspect it is at the root of the "dysfunctional family" syndrome, for one

thing. Impoliteness and crudity run rampant in our society, and I find it

rather distasteful myself.

As far as friendship is concerned, I *am* somewhat slow to make such bonds.

Mainly this comes from the fact that I move around a lot, usually at

unpredictable intervals and with very little warning. There are also other

factors. However, I do consider you and the other members of our little

group to be friends; I just haven't had much experience with that situation,

and find it difficult to relate.

> >I simply consider it polite to do return a kindness with a kindness.

>

> Oh, sure. But we can help each other out without keeping score, right?

Certainly, if that's your wish. I find it difficult to not "keep score"

mentally even if I don't verbally (so as to ensure that I do not

inadvertantly cause slight), but I shall endeavor to do so if that is what

you prefer..

> Ah. Again, I wasn't used to your style, and assumed formality = distance.

> You're still "the new guy," and I know The Boys can be hard to take at

> first, what with "Mr. N" always trying to show you how Wicked he is and

> "Mr. E" . . . well, the way he's been lately.

Actually, the one I find it the hardest to relate to is this Russell fellow.

Fortunately, he hasn't been around of late, so it hasn't been an issue.

So you are saying that Mr. E has actually been different than he has been

lately (aside from the obvious)? Hrm. Interesting.

> Anyway, we should talk more about your projects in person. These are some

> brilliant ideas. I suspect you may be almost as smart as I am. ;)

Indeed? A high compliment. I am most honored.

As for discussing them in person, I am at your convenience. Although, given

the nature of my psychological and physiological study, that might perhaps

be best performed at the Halfway House.

Oh yes. I am thinking that we perhaps might wish to arrange some of what I

believe are referred to as "fun group activities" for the upcoming Family

Weekend. I'm sure that we cannot escape interacting with our respective

parents entirely, nor would we wish to, but occasional pre-planned breaks

from such might be called for.

K.