I just wish that "robot wars" show would realize that.
The other problem with Asimov's rules for robots is the first serious production of thinking machines will be for millitary purposes. Kind of hard to hard wire "will never harm humans" when thats the whole point of building them in the first place.
Re:Days of denial are over.
on
Baked Alaska
·
· Score: 1
Actually I'm not. I have yet to take a stand on the issue. I'm trying to force the "rightwing" hand. To see if there is anything valid. So far, the arguments, and I use that term loosely, have been unable to pass any sort of test of general logic. Why worry about the details when you can't even get that far. The three things I listed have been published and contributed to the pool of knowledge that backs up the argument of global warming. I only listed them to debunk the concept you put forth that there is no evidence for humans having an effect on global warming.
The burden of proof IS on you. The original article is pro global warming. The post to which you replied is pro global warming. Both use VALID arguments. Your post tries to debunk that. I'm just pointing out your doing so in a manner that is self-negating. That the self-negating argument is extremely common with the anti-global warming view. I'm willing to come over to that side of the argument BUT it must be proved and proved in a scientific manner. Something I have yet to see.
Re:Days of denial are over.
on
Baked Alaska
·
· Score: 1
Exactly. The operative word here is DEBATED. You say there is NO evidence linking human activity to global warming. That is a strong statement and basically false. There is quite a bit of evidence that humans are at least accelerating global warming.
Some examples:
Ethiopia (once a garden now a pit)
Predictable local weather changes happening in cycles directly related to our 5 day work week.
Asphalt roads increasing local temperatures.
It is possible that these activities are negligible to total global temperature but to take you seriously, you have to state WHY. The evidence can be wrong or wrongly contributed to a greater effect, but to say there is none is just complete ignorance (the parent article a case in point).
Good science is not a leftwing plot.
Re:Days of denial are over.
on
Baked Alaska
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Why is it when ever one of these "there is no evidence for global warming" posts pop up there is NEVER any proper debunking? There have been many studies on global warming, pick one and (this is the hard part) using logic, debunk it.
Why is it wrong?
Is there flaws in the data gathering?
Do the theories not match the data?
If so, what is a better theory?
There are two major parts to science. Observation/experiment and theory as to why. The research is usually done right. Why? Because science strives to ensure all experiments/observations are Reproducible and most are reproduced. Researchers caught fudging data fall from grace and have a very hard time being taken seriously again. The theory on the other hand is rarely right, at least 100% right. But it is usually close.
To illustrate: the theory of relativity has never been "proven" 100%. It has seen lots of minor changes and some major competing ideas. But the science behind it have made some pretty impressive bombs, yes? Should we ever have some form of unified theory, I would guess major parts of the theory of relativity will be part of it, some will be fine tuned, some will be found completely wrong.
The usual "global warming is wrong because I say so" is NOT an argument. "global warming is just a left wing plot" is NOT an argument.
If you don't think global warming is real, great, PROVE IT!
Your assertion that there is no evidence of global warming is total BS. There are many, many studies full of evidence that something is happening and well thought out reasons for linking them to the idea of global warming. They could be wrong. That is possible, but to say so without a good argument or referring to a good argument is nothing more than ideological posturing and should not be taken seriously.
Another thought about harddrives. The top of the line fastest drives (10,000 rpm SCSI and up) are typically made with the best platters and hardware in the best manufactoring plants of the company producing them. Whereas your typical lower speed ata is manufactored much cheaper. If it's designed for constant server use then it's typically much beefer than the consumer model.
The previous poster is right, you must not have much experence with really good drives. They won't help speed up everything, but it's amazing just how much they do help.
So...are you liberal or conservative? You are not quoting anyone...odd.
My guess, those horrible liberals succeeded in their plot to deprive you of a proper (up to hate radio standards) liberal rant to reply to so you made up your own. One would think that someone from one of the "greatest colleges in the world" would write a little better.
The funny thing about these rants is "liberal" seems to be used in place of a logical argument. I hate to break it to you, but to a liberal, "liberal" is far from an insult and so over used as to be totally meaningless.
From someone who is typically (but not always) a little left of liberal, I find this plane cool. We need new weapons, otherwise video games might stagnate:)
Of course I'm probably just responding to troll bait. D'OH.
Do you take your multi-thousand dollar laptop into public places? Many people do. And at much more risk than a ipod. Hit the gym. If you are calling yourself MisterPo from the blind kung-fu master in the great (and hard to find these days) Kung-fu show of the seventies you should not fear the public or change your nickname:)
Don't talk to me about "a high degree of lethality" or "concern for the true physical safety of your children" until the threat comes close to the yearly death rate of automobile accidents. 9/11 is down to what? 2850 or so for the twin towers and 800+ for the Pentagon. That pales compaired to the 40 to 50 thousand that die by auto every year in this country. If you really care about your kids, you should fear the car far more than al Qaueda.
Your chances of dying along with 150 others, by wrecking into terrain from an
altitude of 20,000 feet, and spending your last moments being consumed by jet fuel
are a whole lot higher in an airplane than in a car, though.
Considering that there are few cars running on jet fuel and even fewer that hold 150 people, your statements are true. But, it's the DEATH part that I would like to avoid (or at least put off for as long as possible). Plus if I have to go I would prefer to do it in a spectacular fashion rather than a run-of-the-mill car crash. Couple of seconds of jet fueled inferno is much preferred to hours of twisted metal and trauma units IMHO.
Considering most drivers out there, that doesn't make me feel any better. Trained operator or the usual car driving flunky...hmmm...let me think about this...I think I'll take the odds and fly on this one.
The other joke here is you still have a few orders of magnitude better chance of death by car crash on the way to the airport than death by airplane crash. Do you not drive as well?
Re:I'm glad to see the back of them
on
IBM Spins Down
·
· Score: 1
The thing to remember about IBM drives is there are different manufacturing plants for the platters that are put in to different drives. Generally the SCSI and laptop platters are good, the ATA platters less so. IBM (at least used to) supply platters to a lot of companies who would supply the rest of the drive themselves.
The interesting thing about this deal is the land of the storage division in San Jose is the largest campus in the Silicon Valley. It's HUGE. one would think a quarter of the purchase cost is for the San Jose land alone.
It's sad that the inventor of the hard drive is calling it quits. Oh well.
At least were not anonymously trolling forum subjects that hold no interest to us. Please explain how that is a noble pursuit in any way better than video games?
This is the basic problem I have with consoles. All the missing pieces. No mouse and keyboard? What's the point of playing a first person shooter with out one. No net access, ditto. Can't make skins for your dude? Again ditto. By the time you buy all the missing pieces your close to what a PC costs. And the PC does so much more.
But the big question is: When do we get VR with these games? The pieces are now solidly there, who's going to put them together?
Slashdot Mirror
I bet you'll need to burn a first class upgrade sticker to get one. No windows for steerage.
On the plus side, after those two hours, you will have seen every trailer for the foreseeable future.
The other problem with Asimov's rules for robots is the first serious production of thinking machines will be for millitary purposes. Kind of hard to hard wire "will never harm humans" when thats the whole point of building them in the first place.
The burden of proof IS on you. The original article is pro global warming. The post to which you replied is pro global warming. Both use VALID arguments. Your post tries to debunk that. I'm just pointing out your doing so in a manner that is self-negating. That the self-negating argument is extremely common with the anti-global warming view. I'm willing to come over to that side of the argument BUT it must be proved and proved in a scientific manner. Something I have yet to see.
Some examples:
Ethiopia (once a garden now a pit)
Predictable local weather changes happening in cycles directly related to our 5 day work week.
Asphalt roads increasing local temperatures.
It is possible that these activities are negligible to total global temperature but to take you seriously, you have to state WHY. The evidence can be wrong or wrongly contributed to a greater effect, but to say there is none is just complete ignorance (the parent article a case in point).
Good science is not a leftwing plot.
Why is it wrong?
Is there flaws in the data gathering?
Do the theories not match the data?
If so, what is a better theory?
There are two major parts to science. Observation/experiment and theory as to why. The research is usually done right. Why? Because science strives to ensure all experiments/observations are Reproducible and most are reproduced. Researchers caught fudging data fall from grace and have a very hard time being taken seriously again. The theory on the other hand is rarely right, at least 100% right. But it is usually close.
To illustrate: the theory of relativity has never been "proven" 100%. It has seen lots of minor changes and some major competing ideas. But the science behind it have made some pretty impressive bombs, yes? Should we ever have some form of unified theory, I would guess major parts of the theory of relativity will be part of it, some will be fine tuned, some will be found completely wrong.
The usual "global warming is wrong because I say so" is NOT an argument. "global warming is just a left wing plot" is NOT an argument.
If you don't think global warming is real, great, PROVE IT!
Your assertion that there is no evidence of global warming is total BS. There are many, many studies full of evidence that something is happening and well thought out reasons for linking them to the idea of global warming. They could be wrong. That is possible, but to say so without a good argument or referring to a good argument is nothing more than ideological posturing and should not be taken seriously.
The previous poster is right, you must not have much experence with really good drives. They won't help speed up everything, but it's amazing just how much they do help.
My guess, those horrible liberals succeeded in their plot to deprive you of a proper (up to hate radio standards) liberal rant to reply to so you made up your own. One would think that someone from one of the "greatest colleges in the world" would write a little better.
The funny thing about these rants is "liberal" seems to be used in place of a logical argument. I hate to break it to you, but to a liberal, "liberal" is far from an insult and so over used as to be totally meaningless.
From someone who is typically (but not always) a little left of liberal, I find this plane cool. We need new weapons, otherwise video games might stagnate :)
Of course I'm probably just responding to troll bait. D'OH.
Do you take your multi-thousand dollar laptop into public places? Many people do. And at much more risk than a ipod. Hit the gym. If you are calling yourself MisterPo from the blind kung-fu master in the great (and hard to find these days) Kung-fu show of the seventies you should not fear the public or change your nickname :)
And what about binary.
Don't talk to me about "a high degree of lethality" or "concern for the true physical safety of your children" until the threat comes close to the yearly death rate of automobile accidents. 9/11 is down to what? 2850 or so for the twin towers and 800+ for the Pentagon. That pales compaired to the 40 to 50 thousand that die by auto every year in this country. If you really care about your kids, you should fear the car far more than al Qaueda.
Valid question. Like I'm going to get carpel tunnel from data entry....
Considering that there are few cars running on jet fuel and even fewer that hold 150 people, your statements are true. But, it's the DEATH part that I would like to avoid (or at least put off for as long as possible). Plus if I have to go I would prefer to do it in a spectacular fashion rather than a run-of-the-mill car crash. Couple of seconds of jet fueled inferno is much preferred to hours of twisted metal and trauma units IMHO.
Considering most drivers out there, that doesn't make me feel any better. Trained operator or the usual car driving flunky...hmmm...let me think about this...I think I'll take the odds and fly on this one.
The other joke here is you still have a few orders of magnitude better chance of death by car crash on the way to the airport than death by airplane crash. Do you not drive as well?
The interesting thing about this deal is the land of the storage division in San Jose is the largest campus in the Silicon Valley. It's HUGE. one would think a quarter of the purchase cost is for the San Jose land alone.
It's sad that the inventor of the hard drive is calling it quits. Oh well.
Uh oh, I think of A Clockwork Orange....I wonder where that puts me?
At least were not anonymously trolling forum subjects that hold no interest to us. Please explain how that is a noble pursuit in any way better than video games?
But the big question is: When do we get VR with these games? The pieces are now solidly there, who's going to put them together?