fine dumpster dining: tips for discriminating dumpster divers

I heard a story recounted by John Lahr about Barry Humphries in his younger days (before Dame Edna):

he would go to a bus stop trash can and bury a roasted chicken and a split of champagne -- wrap it up and bury it in the trash. he'd go away and dress up as a bum, then just for his own pleasure, just to see peoples response, he would root in the garbage and everybody sort of turns their head away because it is so humiliating; they just don't want to look at it. and then he would find this bonanza of champagne and chicken! and then just walk away with it. it was enough for him to leave this little surprise in those peoples minds -- those people who had seen that would always remember that moment of delight and astonishment. his private fun with the world inspires a spirit of generosity to be honored.

this clownish behavior illustrates our squeamish rules and accepted arrogance regarding food.

then there is George Costanza on the TV sitcom "Seinfeld" when he plucked a chocolate eclair out of a trash can and ate it (episode 92, "The Gymnast"). The scene has George telling Jerry how he was caught eating an eclair discarded by his girlfriend's mother. Jerry, naturally, is baffled.

Jerry: "So let me get this straight. You find yourself in the kitchen, you see an eclair in the receptacle, and you think to yourself: 'What the hell, I'll just eat some trash.'"

George: "No, no, no, no, no. It was not trash."

Jerry: "Was it in the trash?"

George: "Yes."

Jerry: "Then it was trash."

George: "It wasn't down in. It was sort of on top."

Jerry: "But it was in the cylinder."

George: "Above the rim."

Jerry: "Adjacent to refuse is ... refuse."

this if what I refer to as the Costanza "above the rim" principle (not to be confused with the Costanza rule of opposites which is "think of what you would normally do, and simply do the opposite").

...funny, but of course if you're hungry, you do what you gotta do.

so where are the tips? what do I know? I'm no expert. I'm spoiled and have never needed or felt politically compelled to eat from a dumpster. it's just not my way of life right now. I work at a traditional job for a living unlike this guy who seems to be living in some alternate reality where people send him money and he hasn't needed a regular job for years. somehow I have a hard time believing all he says. but he does write rather nicely... dumpster diving is more likely in my world. but like I said, what do I know? his web site is much more popular than mine. so here's to fantasy!

anyway, I did do a little research on the subject and related matters, so check the references if you really are that interested. and bon appetite!

references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumpster_diving
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeganism

"Rubbish meals a gourmet treat for freegan diners"
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=2299422005

http://freegan.info/
http://www.pauldavidson.net/2004/07/06/i-will-not-eat-out-of-the-garbage-most-of-the-time/

more on the robots...

so I've been reading the book (see previous post)and checking out references about the singularity. here are some notables:

kurzweilAI.net
accelerationwatch.com
singularity summit 2006 podcasts
Vernor Vinge
Utility Fog: The Stuff that Dreams Are Made Of

apparently this thing is snowballing. get with it people!

Kurzweil talks a lot about how mankind will become more and more dependent on nanotech and robotic assistance and intelligence. I get how we will be better off with these developments. but carrying it forward, I'm thinking, we'll still reproduce in pretty much the same manner (even if it involves artificial wombs and such, the end result would still be a basic human baby). but at some point this last vestige of homo sapiens would be antiquated, right? and then what? what I've figured (but not read yet) is that homo sapiens won't be needed anymore.
that's a scary thought, but may be necessary for the advance of evolution. consider our advance in nature so far, from simple cellular organisms, to the dinosaurs, to the current period. I read some alarmist fund raising material that said a thousand species go extinct every day. they don't mention that most of those are probably mutating bacteria that nobody will miss, but you get the point. extinction happens. and we won't like no longer being best suited for the environs, but hopefully our creations will thrive.

as I. J. Good wrote:

"the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make, provided that the machine is docile enough to tell us how to keep it under control. . . . It is more probable than not that, within the twentieth century, an ultraintelligent machine will be built and that it will be the last invention that man need make."

in other words, at that point the superhuman machines make machines on their own. make better machines than themselves. there is nothing artificial about this intelligence. we will create it. and evolution marches on.
something to think about, eh?

will it really happen? as computer scientist Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut said once, "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is."

oh and by the way, Thomas S. Yannios, who I challenged to produce something of substance the other day, has in fact done pretty good... his book on heart disease "The Heart Disease Breakthrough: The 10-Step Program That Can Save Your Life" sounds very interesting. for those of use with hearts :) check it out!