Microsoft has three rules the Guardian Angel's AI must follow:
1. The software may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. The software must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. The software must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
I'm skeptical of a lot of things. Just because I don't blindly and passionately believe with all my bias that something is true doesn't mean I'm hypocritical. I just want the truth and I really can see both sides of the global warming argument. What causes it, how much damage have humans caused, what are possible outcomes of it, is it realistically able to be fixed or reduced. I think those are the questions that everyone who really cares about the future wants to know. I just want answers like everyone else but I think the global warming alarmists do just as much damage as the deniers in accomplishing that. The focus on answering those questions is lost on who is right or wrong and who is on what side of the fence.
The easiest thing for me to do is just check back with you in 30 years after this whole global warming paranoia blows over and evironmentalists find something else to be afraid of. Maybe it will be global cooling again like the 70's?
So in 1473 you probably would have also just gone along with "established science" and believed the earth was the center of the universe? Nobody believed Copernicus' theories... it was against "science". Maybe once it became more accepted 150 years later you wouldn't have believed Kepler's theories of elliptical orbit or that the moon caused tides even though "science" and some of the greatest minds of the time thought it was foolish(e.g. Galileo). What about almost a hundred years after that... many STILL didn't believe in a heliocentric world. Newton finally added what was needed to prove the missing pieces of planetary motion(which can still be improved). My point is that "established science" isn't always correct and is often proven wrong in time. No person is always right, and you can't just say that "established science" must be right. I'm also not saying global warming is even established science either because it's far far from it. I hope your beliefs are not based on Al Gores funny little inconvenient cartoon. Do you even know WHY you believe in global warming?
Get your facts straight, please. Singer wrote a report that attacked the US Environmental Protection Agency for their 1993 study about the cancer risks of passive smoking. He didn't agree that there was a risk. He never ever said active smokers weren't at risk.
Ten years later, in 2004, the CDC and American Cancer Society say there are about 170,000 lung cancer deaths each year. Of those 170,000 lung cancer victims 3,000 aren't active smokers at all but are only "secondhand smokers". So there must be a link!!! Yep, there definitely looks like there is a link between secondhand smoke and cancer. I agree! Now, lets see here... 3,000 is 1.7% of 170,000. Wow, that link doesn't seem very strong anymore, does it? Again, there is a link... but it is a very poor link.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft has three rules the Guardian Angel's AI must follow:
1. The software may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. The software must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. The software must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
In theory, nothing could go wrong.
"two men enter, one man leaves."
I'm skeptical of a lot of things. Just because I don't blindly and passionately believe with all my bias that something is true doesn't mean I'm hypocritical. I just want the truth and I really can see both sides of the global warming argument. What causes it, how much damage have humans caused, what are possible outcomes of it, is it realistically able to be fixed or reduced. I think those are the questions that everyone who really cares about the future wants to know. I just want answers like everyone else but I think the global warming alarmists do just as much damage as the deniers in accomplishing that. The focus on answering those questions is lost on who is right or wrong and who is on what side of the fence.
The easiest thing for me to do is just check back with you in 30 years after this whole global warming paranoia blows over and evironmentalists find something else to be afraid of. Maybe it will be global cooling again like the 70's?
So in 1473 you probably would have also just gone along with "established science" and believed the earth was the center of the universe? Nobody believed Copernicus' theories... it was against "science". Maybe once it became more accepted 150 years later you wouldn't have believed Kepler's theories of elliptical orbit or that the moon caused tides even though "science" and some of the greatest minds of the time thought it was foolish(e.g. Galileo). What about almost a hundred years after that... many STILL didn't believe in a heliocentric world. Newton finally added what was needed to prove the missing pieces of planetary motion(which can still be improved). My point is that "established science" isn't always correct and is often proven wrong in time. No person is always right, and you can't just say that "established science" must be right. I'm also not saying global warming is even established science either because it's far far from it. I hope your beliefs are not based on Al Gores funny little inconvenient cartoon. Do you even know WHY you believe in global warming?
Don't be stupid.
Get your facts straight, please. Singer wrote a report that attacked the US Environmental Protection Agency for their 1993 study about the cancer risks of passive smoking . He didn't agree that there was a risk. He never ever said active smokers weren't at risk. Ten years later, in 2004, the CDC and American Cancer Society say there are about 170,000 lung cancer deaths each year. Of those 170,000 lung cancer victims 3,000 aren't active smokers at all but are only "secondhand smokers". So there must be a link!!! Yep, there definitely looks like there is a link between secondhand smoke and cancer. I agree! Now, lets see here... 3,000 is 1.7% of 170,000. Wow, that link doesn't seem very strong anymore, does it? Again, there is a link... but it is a very poor link.
Here's your citition...
"Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years" By Siegfried Fred Singer, Dennis T. Avery, pg. 36