Slashdot Mirror

Perhaps because that is not practical.

Or perhaps because only something as demented as feminism could come up with such a lunatic idea in the first place.

The human species cannot continue to exist without women. Men, on the other hand, could be replaced with a sperm bank. Long before the sperm bank is depleted, female scientists should be able to perfect human ova-fusion, which is already working in mice.

I am not saying men should be exterminated. I am just saying that there are no significant technical barriers.

Completely unneccessary. Assuming a world where feminists (not women mind you, women tend to like men quite a lot) reign supreme, why not just keep a minimum breeding stock of boys and off them after they hit age 20? After all that's what leading feminists Mary Daly and Sally Miller Gearhart wanted, reduce the population of men to 10% or so, frothing nazis that they were.

Happily however the general population is starting to go very sour indeed on feminism, and I would hope to see the final end of the religion within my lifetime.

In the days before feminism, I'm not sure men ever suggested that women be exterminated as a gender.

Perhaps because that is not practical. The human species cannot continue to exist without women. Men, on the other hand, could be replaced with a sperm bank. Long before the sperm bank is depleted, female scientists should be able to perfect human ova-fusion, which is already working in mice.

I am not saying men should be exterminated. I am just saying that there are no significant technical barriers.

Sorry. Nobody wants to die in misery. May be you do. In constant pain, disease, disability, mental decline. I think you are confusing wisdom with age. You can gain experience without aging in the current sense of the word. http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/konovalenko20130227

As I recall the Republican negotiations included a number of deranged demands that no standing president with an IQ higher that about 5 could agree to. That didn't make Obama inflexible, just sane. One of the greatest conservative (and libertarian) minds of the 20th century had these things to to say about the Republican party of the 21rst century;

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them. ..... The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom.... I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are?... I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."

"You are extremists, and you have hurt the Republican Party much more than the Democrats have.”

-- Barry Goldwater

The Republican party is no longer capable of compromise in any meaningful way. The "No Tax" pledge when the nation is literally crashing around us and the wealthy pay nearly nothing. The BLIND adherence of Supply Side Economics which has consistently FAILED to accomplish even one of its promises in 30 years. It tells me the Republicans are religious not only in the spiritual matters but their political as well. They are undeterred by facts, evidence, accounting or even the burning forest and disintegrating economy surrounding them preferring to blame it all on the liberal monster.

Here's a little information, did you know the Karl Marx invented Supply Side Economics? He described it as the means by which the wealthy would bleed the middle class dry instigating a class war. How prophetic. Tell y'all what, go here, read a little, maybe you'll have an original thought that didn't fall out of the mouth of a FOX News commentator.

Oh, and if you think I'm some kind of knee jerk Democrat... wrong again. I'm no happier with Obama and his utter disregard for the Constitution than his predecessor. The fact that he has a minion in his Office representing people who would destroy free information I find reprehensible. I'm just saying that as vile as the Dems are, the Reps make we want to flush D.C. like the toilets its become.

http://www.ieet.org/images/uploads/317rn2.jpg
http://unbridledspeculation.com/2011/03/17/the-exponential-gains-in-solar-power-per-dollar/
http://venturebeat.com/2010/01/14/germany-may-slash-solar-subsidies-by-17-stock-prices-drop-around-the-world/
subsidies per Kwh are already dropping. they will go to zero in a few decades. Have you seen the same happening for oil, coal ?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/carter-crisis/
"We are at a turning point in our history. There are two paths to choose. One is a path I've warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others. That path would be one of constant conflict between narrow interests ending in chaos and immobility. It is a certain route to failure. All the traditions of our past, all the lessons of our heritage, all the promises of our future point to another path, the path of common purpose and the restoration of American values. That path leads to true freedom for our nation and ourselves. We can take the first steps down that path as we begin to solve our energy problem."

Too bad we have spend the last thirty years going down that wrong path, and in more ways than energy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/opinion/sunday/jobs-will-follow-a-strengthening-of-the-middle-class.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

But it is not too late to go back... And it is even easier now:
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/05/29/ge-solar-power-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-in-5-years/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/4818

• This Week in Science
• The Future and You
• Changesurfer Radio

TED has already been mentioned. There are some others out there, I'm sure.

• This Week in Science
• The Future and You
• Changesurfer Radio

TED has already been mentioned. There are some others out there, I'm sure.

Communist? Marx was actually a supply sider.

an individual's predisposition toward religion is likely to be influenced by genetics

AKA i'm going to deliberately ignore a "nature vs nurture" debate that has raged on for centuries, and go with "nature" in an offhand comment that states a specific behaviour determined by nature is.. likely.

Oh and this is the lynchpin of my entire preposition. I'm a professor.

The previous post wrote "influcenced by genetics" which you transformed to "determined by nature" in an attempt to discredit. It seems to me like the previous poster was open to both genetic and environmental explanations ("influenced by"), but that you are uncomfortable with anything less than 100% nurture. And indeed, if religiosity even *in part* (say 10%) is driven by genetics then that could still drive evolutionary patterns as suggested by the original article.

Fortunately the answers to the "nature vs nurture debate" have to a large extent been answered by expensive and extensive twin studies in the last decades. The answers are in. Genetics play a huge role in a number of traits, including religiosity:

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002666.html
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/1532/

Maybe if the climate "researchers" would open up their methodologies, source code and data, I might be able to understand it.

Possibly, but I doubt it. There's a wealth of information available to you now (the above article alone cites 5 different studies), yet you continue to focus on "motive" as a reason to disbelieve the science. As was evidenced by the ClimateGate scandal, when the general public is given free access to data, they misinterpret it. In all of the information that was released to the public, not once is there a single e-mail or reference that says "our AWG conspiracy is on track...muwahahah!" Instead, you have statisticians talking about "tricks" as "proof" of AGW fraud. My wife showed me a "trick" this weekend for making better pancakes, the result was still pancakes.

I think that what "Climategate" shows us is that if you have a position on either side of this issue that holds there's no possibility that the other side MIGHT be right and thus completely unacceptable to investigate the possibilities, you're an idiot. Do the "deniers" monkey with their data? I have no doubt. Do the "warmers" monkey with their data? We have "peer reviewed" evidence of that.

We're not discussing science. We're discussing politics. This is a holy war. I'm just a conscientious objector.

that would seek to replicate and evaluate your results, you're not practicing science.

But, as stated, that's not what happens. What happens is you get deniers nitpicking over irrelevant details (the Himalayan glaciers thing of the last few weeks springs immediately to mind). They don't attempt to replicate the experiments or studies, they simply denigrate them without any empirical evidence to back it up. It turns into...well, the situation we have today...

Do you think hiding data and methodologies so that people can't look at it has less of a negative impact to your cause than being transparent and dealing with legitimate criticisms in the open?

If there's anything we should learn from human history, it's to not trust people when they are hiding things from us... and certainly not when they're doing it in "our best interest." Keeping it hidden makes people inherently suspicious. It's much better to give them something they can't understand than to give them the boogeyman their imagination will create to fight against.

When I hear someone talking out of both sides of their mouth explaining exception after exception to their mythical model that has all the answers, I assume I am dealing with a charlatan.

Who is explaining exceptions? What I see is false claims being raised and then disproven with actual evidence.

Who's evidence? There's so much made up shit all over the Internet, I wonder if anyone here really knows. Everyone has their position and the data to back it up. I hear about it every time this subject comes up. There's dogma all over the place on this issue.

Science is ENTIRELY about being a skeptic. The AGW crowd demean skeptics. Thus, the AGW crowd must not be scientists.

Not true, we demean deniers, completely different. Simply playing John Cleese' role in the Argument Sketch does not make one a skeptic. Simply denying everything as true does not make one a skeptic.

The only thing I'm denying is myself the duty of joining either cult. I want to be right. But, I don't have to be the source of that answer.

How you choose to view my comment will determine in which camp you reside. If you choose, for example, to peruse the site I've linked to a couple of times and review the cited studies to construct one view of the argument and then find contradictory studies to construct the oth

The coldest period in the last half billion years had atmospheric CO2 levels 10 times what we have today. Why wasn't the CO2 driving the change then? It certainly wasn't the temperature.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

Maybe if the climate "researchers" would open up their methodologies, source code and data, I might be able to understand it.

Possibly, but I doubt it. There's a wealth of information available to you now (the above article alone cites 5 different studies), yet you continue to focus on "motive" as a reason to disbelieve the science. As was evidenced by the ClimateGate scandal, when the general public is given free access to data, they misinterpret it. In all of the information that was released to the public, not once is there a single e-mail or reference that says "our AWG conspiracy is on track...muwahahah!" Instead, you have statisticians talking about "tricks" as "proof" of AGW fraud. My wife showed me a "trick" this weekend for making better pancakes, the result was still pancakes.

that would seek to replicate and evaluate your results, you're not practicing science.

But, as stated, that's not what happens. What happens is you get deniers nitpicking over irrelevant details (the Himalayan glaciers thing of the last few weeks springs immediately to mind). They don't attempt to replicate the experiments or studies, they simply denigrate them without any empirical evidence to back it up. It turns into...well, the situation we have today...

When I hear someone talking out of both sides of their mouth explaining exception after exception to their mythical model that has all the answers, I assume I am dealing with a charlatan.

Who is explaining exceptions? What I see is false claims being raised and then disproven with actual evidence.

Science is ENTIRELY about being a skeptic. The AGW crowd demean skeptics. Thus, the AGW crowd must not be scientists.

Not true, we demean deniers, completely different. Simply playing John Cleese' role in the Argument Sketch does not make one a skeptic. Simply denying everything as true does not make one a skeptic.

How you choose to view my comment will determine in which camp you reside. If you choose, for example, to peruse the site I've linked to a couple of times and review the cited studies to construct one view of the argument and then find contradictory studies to construct the other side and then build a reasonable stance from that...you're a skeptic. If, however, you choose to continue to worry about things like "hiding methodologies" and "who called whom what"...you're a denier. It really is that simple. The only evidence that counts to a skeptic is evidence. Ad hominems tu quoque (Ad hominem tu quoques? Hmmm...) are not.

The area of the board is very large (more than five times the size of a chess board). Throughout most of the game, the number of legal moves stays at around 150-250 per turn, and rarely goes below 50 (compare chess, where the average number of moves is 37). Because an exhaustive computer program for Go must calculate and compare every possible legal move in each ply (player turn), its ability to work out favorable lines of play is sharply reduced when there are a large number of possible moves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(board_game)#Nature_of_the_game

The number of legal positions in chess is thought to be between 10^(43) and 10^(50). It has an estimated game-tree complexity of 10^(123). On a 19×19 board, there are about 3^361×0.012 = 2.1×10^170 possible positions, most of which are the end result of about (120!)^2 = 4.5×10^397 different (no-capture) games, for a total of about 9.3×10^567 games. Allowing captures gives as many as 10^(7.49×10^48) possible games, most of which last for over 1.6×10^49 moves.

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/dvorsky20061208/

http://www.opencog.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.agiri.org/OpenCog_AGI-08.pdf
http://justingibbs.com/how-to-make-singularity-bearable-in-its-infancy
http://www.innergybv.biz/blog/?p=175
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/goertzel20080620/#When:22:49:00Z
http://xlaurent.blogspot.com/2008/06/opensim-for-opencog.html

There's a number of GSoC projects for OpenCog currently underway also:

http://code.google.com/soc/2008/siai/about.html

So the first release should be very interesting.