You argue that using the argument, 'we are better than them', led to the mindset that allowed for Nazi Germany.
Ok fine. But let's apply your argument to itself.
You just implied that we don't want to become as bad as Nazi Germany...that is to say, right now we are better than Nazi Germany, so don't fuck it up. Wait, you are saying we are better than Nazi Germany. Oh shit now were Nazi's too.
See where your argument falls?
In the real world you have to make real judgments.
You are so smart. I think we should do better though. Let's give every man and woman their own nuke. That way it is more fair for everyone. But who would use it? Every single person is sane, right?
Pretty, but dumb. N. Korea shouldn't have nukes because it is safer for everyone if fewer nations have them. Which is safer? 10 babies with their finger on the bomb trigger, or 1000 babies? Fewer is better. Hell, it is almost like you are advocating giving every person a nuke is the right thing to do.
Good point. I was sing it as an excuse to bring up a larger point. Under a condition of super cheap energy, say satellite sun light collectors or fusion energy generators, would the diffusion of heat from devices, homes, etc., lead to a problem of heat pollution. Your point though is important, because dissipating energy collected from wind does not add anything to the earth's energy system, and just changes the distribution of heat energy.
Thanks for the thoughtful answer. I wouldn't expect a huge problem either, except that extra cheap energy could lead to massive heat pollution from inefficient electronics, toasters, and manufacturing plants.
well lets compare mass. Let's say we made earth into an ice cube, and hurled into the sun. Is the suns climate going to change. Well sure, something will happen. How much. Well if I lived on the sun, I wouldn't expect snow any time soon.
I would also like to point out that the authors have done some really interesting work, and the reception this headline is receiving here at/. is unfortunate and undeserving.
Don't judge someone's research by a Slashdot summary, or by a news article. Sheesh. I've read a number of papers by these authors, and their work is both informative, and worthwhile.
If I were to interpret Revelations with the assumption of true prophesy, then I would say that 'beware of the number 666', 6 being the number of man and earth, refers to the ascendancy of AI. Just saying.:)
There comes a point where they can be so smart that they trick some Republican into giving them control over that off switch to prevent terror. That is when we will be in trouble.
Perhaps. But then again, I bet you didn't read their research. Usually, thorough checks of demographic data, SES, etc is used while comparing groups to help control the issues you bring up. Your points are valid, but I bet they were addressed. Standard procedure, after all.
Two things. First, typos occur. Give it up already.
Second, I never said the ink was still wet on the presses. However, these findings are beginning to be confirmed at the neural level (McNabetal 2009).
Moreover, your 'clarification' between working memory and short term memory is pretty much hooey. Different fields different names, same thing. What is your point? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_memory
My larger point was that many cognitive processes can be trained with specific tasks, and that these task related improvements are related to neural changes in regions thought to be responsible for those processes. My work in particular, is using training procedures inspired by modern dual-process recognition memory theory (Recollection and Familiarity). We aim to specifically train the recollective component of recognition memory with these tasks.
Hey folks guess what. We are discovering brain exercise procedures that will improve a lot of these mental functions and slow their decline. No I'm not selling anything, but I am a research that is conducting this kind of work.
For retaining and improving working memory, try a regimen of the n-back test. BTW, working memory is a large component of IQ.
Slashdot Mirror
Dumb ass. He's saying it because soft thinking can get people killed.
Fuck N. Korea. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78777.htm
The general question is simple. Should one allow a regime as unethical as Nazi Germany to possess nukes? If not, then we must evaluate N. Korea. http://www.amnestyusa.org/all-countries/north-korea/more-information-on-north-korea/page.do?id=1011313 http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78777.htm
Ok fine. But let's apply your argument to itself.
You just implied that we don't want to become as bad as Nazi Germany...that is to say, right now we are better than Nazi Germany, so don't fuck it up. Wait, you are saying we are better than Nazi Germany. Oh shit now were Nazi's too.
See where your argument falls?
In the real world you have to make real judgments.
You are so smart. I think we should do better though. Let's give every man and woman their own nuke. That way it is more fair for everyone. But who would use it? Every single person is sane, right?
Pretty, but dumb. N. Korea shouldn't have nukes because it is safer for everyone if fewer nations have them. Which is safer? 10 babies with their finger on the bomb trigger, or 1000 babies? Fewer is better. Hell, it is almost like you are advocating giving every person a nuke is the right thing to do.
We are all safer if fewer nations have nuclear arms. I don't want them to have nuclear arms. Fuck them.
Good point. I was sing it as an excuse to bring up a larger point. Under a condition of super cheap energy, say satellite sun light collectors or fusion energy generators, would the diffusion of heat from devices, homes, etc., lead to a problem of heat pollution. Your point though is important, because dissipating energy collected from wind does not add anything to the earth's energy system, and just changes the distribution of heat energy.
Good point. Truthfully, I was using it as an excuse to raise up the question of heat pollution under the condition of cheap energy.
The moreore nuke fuel produced, the more that will get "lost" and turned into bombs.
Thank you everyone for the great responses. Am I really on Slashot? ;)
Thanks for the thoughtful answer. I wouldn't expect a huge problem either, except that extra cheap energy could lead to massive heat pollution from inefficient electronics, toasters, and manufacturing plants.
well lets compare mass. Let's say we made earth into an ice cube, and hurled into the sun. Is the suns climate going to change. Well sure, something will happen. How much. Well if I lived on the sun, I wouldn't expect snow any time soon.
Well, one thing, I don't think that the amount we would draw would be that large a proportion of the amount of wind energy flowing around.
No flames or trolls please, just a straight forward question.
I'm embarrassed my your post.
I would also like to point out that the authors have done some really interesting work, and the reception this headline is receiving here at /. is unfortunate and undeserving.
Don't judge someone's research by a Slashdot summary, or by a news article. Sheesh. I've read a number of papers by these authors, and their work is both informative, and worthwhile.
Fuck off Nazi.
If I were to interpret Revelations with the assumption of true prophesy, then I would say that 'beware of the number 666', 6 being the number of man and earth, refers to the ascendancy of AI. Just saying. :)
There comes a point where they can be so smart that they trick some Republican into giving them control over that off switch to prevent terror. That is when we will be in trouble.
Really..Think about your argument again.
Perhaps. But then again, I bet you didn't read their research. Usually, thorough checks of demographic data, SES, etc is used while comparing groups to help control the issues you bring up. Your points are valid, but I bet they were addressed. Standard procedure, after all.
Second, I never said the ink was still wet on the presses. However, these findings are beginning to be confirmed at the neural level (McNabetal 2009).
Moreover, your 'clarification' between working memory and short term memory is pretty much hooey. Different fields different names, same thing. What is your point? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_memory My larger point was that many cognitive processes can be trained with specific tasks, and that these task related improvements are related to neural changes in regions thought to be responsible for those processes. My work in particular, is using training procedures inspired by modern dual-process recognition memory theory (Recollection and Familiarity). We aim to specifically train the recollective component of recognition memory with these tasks.
Hey folks guess what. We are discovering brain exercise procedures that will improve a lot of these mental functions and slow their decline. No I'm not selling anything, but I am a research that is conducting this kind of work.
For retaining and improving working memory, try a regimen of the n-back test. BTW, working memory is a large component of IQ.