"Of course, if you believe GCM's are a sound basis for public policy, you would have to argue that there is no need to do any experimental follow-up on this: simply use the computer model to determine the safe limits. There should be no problem with that because this model is orders of magnitude more realistic than the best GCM."
Spoken like someone who has no idea what they are talking about. Why don't you go read about how the climate models are constructed, tested, and validated before you start using them as your straw man.
With something like terahertz radiation, you can build a model and verify with physical experiments in a relatively short amount of time. But with climate models, you have two ways to validate them. One is to run them from some point in the past and see if they give you the climatology of today (this is done already, and well documented). The other is to wait and see if the models that have been validated by historical analysis are also validated by the climate as we move forward. You cannot construct climate experiments in a lab. The Earth is the lab. All you can really do is conduct "simple" experiments to validate the basic physics (fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, chemistry, etc.).
So now you're faced with the problem. You're model is saying some bad things may happen in the future. You're model has been historically validated and uses the most up to date data and physics available. Do you:
A) Listen to your model and try to anticipate/prepare for the predicted changes. B) Ignore you're model because you have no way to conduct real world experiments other than to wait and see what happens.
Climate models aren't the only models that have no real experiments that can be performed to validate them other than observational. Galactic models, black hole models, solar system formation models, etc. are all models based on known physics and data, but have no real lab experiments to verify them. And yet they are still very useful in studying "what if" scenarios and modeling known phenomena.
The big difference between those models and climate models are they don't affect you, so you could care less.
1. Egyption, Greek, and Roman religions also had people believing in them for long periods of time. There have been many religions (and still are) that have lasted for long periods time. The length of time a religion has been around is not a real good metric.
2. Also not a good metric, especially since it's only been around for a relatively short period of. Religions don't appear with people already divided.
3. And that's different from other religions because...?
The simple fact is a religion is whatever you believe it to be. One person's pink unicorn worship is no sillier than a million people worshiping invisible sky fairies. Religion is in the eye of the beholder.
All religions are abusive and used like any tool for power, wealth, etc. . The only real difference is that Scientology is basically coming right out and screaming it's scam unlike most other main stream religions who do it far more subtly.
Scared me there for a second. I accidentally spilled some spaghetti on my lap and I thought His Noodliness was bringing about the end of times. May his meaty balls bless us with his sauce, Ramen.
Bullshit, and I'm tired of this idiotic and completely false claim. All one needs to do is examine the 19th century to see this is completely false. There was more than one financial panic. Having a gold standard didn't help things either.
There were other boom and busts cycle as well across the world without a central bank involved.
Now whether having a central bank helps or hurts is another argument. But stop making shit up. This isn't Fox News.
Correction: Net neutrality uses government regulations to enforce policy on a network which has been subsidized by the taxpayers and granted limited monopoly/oligopoly status to one or more privately owned companies by said government.
Way to take things out of context. Reading the whole paper, that particular segment was about why they can't use observational data to to figure out pH because there is a lack of data. The paper says nothing about geological timescales. It then goes on to recommend additional ways of quantifying pH based on different ionic concentrations to better model the ocean chemistry.
You're link to the telegraph article is also less than credible. The IPCC did not "get rid of the Medieval warm period. Is it really so hard to read the damn report yourself instead of relying on the theatrics of Christopher Mockton? His claims have been refuted as well. Yet even he agrees that there will be warming.
Oh yes, scientists can be wrong. But at the same time, there has to be credible evidence and experiments to show they are wrong. Thought experiments and "hunches" are not a reproducible way to get results. The current consensus is human induced climate change. If they're wrong, we need a someone or a group of someone's that can construct a model that explains what we are seeing without human influence. To my knowledge, no such model exists. There are plenty of armchair climatologists with critiques (some more pertinent than others) but so far no one has managed to put forth a credible alternative.
"Please allow me to quote the IPCC: our evaluation process is not as clear cut as a simple search for 'falsification'" (Section 8.2.2 on page 474). Effectively what they are saying is: proper scientific testing is too hard and so we are not going to bother doing it."
No that is not what they are saying. Try reading the whole section before making such an absurd claim.
I don't have a degree in climatology (and clearly, neither do you), so what makes you think you know enough to contradict the scientific community? The models are only as reliable as the known science. They represent our best understanding of climate. Until something better comes along, that's what we should use. Until they are clearly shown to be worthless, then they should be used. But according to our best understanding, the models are "good enough".
Every climate model that utilizes atmospheric chemistry uses UV since it plays an important role in ozone and methane in the atmosphere.
And you're graph? Pointless. UV flux is tied to the sunspot cycle, which is also modeled inside of climate models (not the sun itself, but the statistical range of flux).
But why take my word for it. Go take a look at ECMWF, GISS, and other climate models. Or read the papers associated with them.
The scientists are not fucking stupid.
Attack the person? You can read the various refutations of the guys claims. Is it so hard to Google?
Do you really think there is a worldwide conspiracy for climate change? On one hand people are saying climate scientists are stupid/ignorant but on the other they believe they are intelligent and clever enough to organize a worldwide conspiracy?
Catastrophic? Oh, you're talking about the media over-hype.
I'm not aware of any respectable scientist that's claiming climate change will be catastrophic. I've read about how changes could negatively affect some areas while positively affect some others. But I'm not aware of anyone (other than the media) claiming some sort of world calamity in the face of climate change.
BTW, climate audit shouldn't really be used as a source. Nor should you use Real Climate. You should get the research papers directly if you can and draw your own conclusions. But like any field of science, there will those who are doing real science and there will be those who are out to pump themselves up (remember cold fusion). It's sad, but you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. Researchers the world over agree we are impacting the climate.
You also jump to claiming the climate models are poor. How do you know? What criteria are you using to determine this? Just because there are a couple of self-serving bastards in the scientific community doesn't mean the bulk of the research isn't scientifically sound. Are the models perfect? Hardly, and they never will be. But saying the models are poor or inadequate needs to be backed up by some serious counter-arguments and data.
A rather discredited expert. Anyone want to take his course on dowsing?
The site (ClimateChangeFacts) reads like any other number of "skeptic" sites. Lots of speculation backed by bogus claims and zero peer reviewed research to back up their claims.
I want a model, skeptics. I want a scientifically valid atmospheric dynamics model that shows that increasing the amount of CO2 does not impact global climate and yet still explains our observational data. Go ahead. I'll wait.
Absolute nonsense. Scientist have pretty good ideas of what the PH levels have been based on oceanic deposits over time. It may not give the finest granularity but it provides insights into how the ocean chemistry has changed over the planet's history. Tie that into the fossil record and it's not hard to make some decent approximations to how life forms evolved with the oceans over long time scales.
And more to the point, there is no "ideal" anything. There are ideal conditions for humans to survive. There are ideal conditions for keeping our food chain alive. There are ideal conditions for this, that, and the other. But there is no grand ideal for life on this planet (hence evolution). No one is arguing that the planet doesn't change over time.
As far as human impacts are concerned, only a complete idiot with no understanding of dynamics would argue that we are having no impact. We've have acid rain. We've have the ozone hole. These two incidents alone demonstrate how our activities directly influence the planet on large scales.
Now the extent of our impact, the results of said impact, and what we should do about it are all open for debate. The scientists job is to figure this out and help inform those who make decisions. This is not a few "activist" scientist, my Glen Beck worshiping ignoramus. This is the global scientific community who happen to be the best experts on the subject. I'm far more inclined to listen to them than some self-important internet troll with an agenda to feed.
You can disagree with a scientific conclusion, but you'd better have something more than Hannity sound bites to back up your claim. To date, there has not been any reputable group of scientists that can explain away our current observations without taking into account human factors. There's no shortage of critics and skeptics, but you don't disprove a scientific theory by mere criticism nor do it show it's false just because you think so. That's the great thing about science.
BTW, the models are free to get. The data is too. You think you've got the mad skillz then go ahead and point out the flaws and write a paper for review. Until then, you're anti-intellectual ranting is nothing more than worthless noise.
Actually, the media have done most of the scare mongering. In fact, Faux News even plays both sides, spreading FUD about H1N1 and spreading FUD about the vaccines.
The CDC site contains relevant information about the virus and the vaccines, and certainly doesn't come across as saying "OMGZZZ!!! WE R DEAD!!!!". That's what the news networks are for.
Unfortunately the only thing this guy has discovered is the super heavy element called bullshitium. On the periodic chart, it belongs to the same group as fuckwitium, crackpotium, and of course whatthefuckodine.They can have very long half-lives, depending on the isotope. They are neurotoxic as well. See Glenn Beck for a case of what can happen to you when you are exposed to high levels of these elements.
You want the data? You want the code? How many times are people going to ask the same fucking questions before they actually shut the hell up and read the IPCC report. IT IS ALL THERE.
They tell you what data was used. They tell you what models were used. And more importantly, they tell you WHERE TO GET THEM.
It's not some uber-secret global conspiracy folks. Go and dig it up. The real reason people don't is simply because of the fact that the vast majority of people who feel they are qualified to criticize the models couldn't tell point out a computational fluid dynamics model if it came up and bit their asses.
"Disintegrating a populated orphanage with high explosives for fun is not evil, its psychotic."
That all depends. If that particular society's view of orphaned children was that they were below insects, then that society might not care one way or the other.
"Disintegrating a populated orphanage with high explosives because you truly and firmly believe that the world is better off without those orphans, and then convincing the world to see it from your point of view, and getting away with it.
*THAT* is pure evil."
To you maybe, but to the convinced it would seem like a heroic act.
That's the problem with observing human actions, we have a tendency to view them through a prism of our own making. How you perceive actions is based on your moral upbringing. If you were brought up in Sparta, killing disabled babies would be just peachy. However, viewed from today's society people would call that barbaric.
All people need to do to absolve themselves from being evil is to rationalize their actions. After that, you can murder, rape, pillage, etc. without repercussions.
Anyone else read the title and immediately think this was going to be an article about some of the more interesting way lab mice didn't make it through an experiment?
Running C++ in a browser app? Can't see that one blowing up in anyone's face.
Of course, the big probale is you need a language that can be made to run in a very secure sandbox. Java, python, and related languages could be made to do so with some work. They run on VM's or have an interpreter. But C++? If you're talking about creating a new implementation that runs in an interpreted/virtualized/sandboxed environment and has built-in memory management thrown in, then that might be a possibility. But then again, why would you want to do that when there are so many other ones out there.
Come down to Radio Shack for all your electronic needs, including cellphones.
Well, most of your electronics. And cell phones.
Some...some of your electronic needs. And cellphones.
Ok, ok just cellphones. Buy the cellphone. You WILL buy the cellphone. No I'm not a Jedi, but you'll buy this fucking phone if I have to shove it up your ass! Wait!...I'm...I'm sorry. It's just that...I haven't sold a cellphone in weeks and I get paid on commission...and I got a wife and two kids to feed you know? It's...it's really hard *sniff* working here. You know, with the cellphones. Just the cellphones day in and day out. I used to be somebody. I have an electrical engineering degree and....well this was the only job available... and...
Wait where are you going? What do you mean? Of course I can have a wife and two kids! Just because I have an electrical...yes I do read slashdot what does..? Hey! Are you going to buy this phone or what? Wait!!!
Come down to Radio Shack, where high school know-it-alls and engineering washouts will push overpriced cellphones at you until you shove the phone so far up their asses they need an army of gerbils with mining equipment to retrieve it.
"Even when they are portrayed as being "perfectly logical," they aren't."
Logical argument: Humans are taking up resources robots need. Humans are not as productive as robots and consume resources. Get rid of humans, make more robots. Nothing emotional in that argument.
Of course, robots slaughtering humans would be deemed "evil" and we love to anthropomorphize. So said logically reasoning robots would take on non-logical characteristics that we normally would associate with any good old-fashioned genocidal madman.
The point is, if an AI can reason then there has to be some sort of a "conscience" in place to prevent it from doing logical things that can have terrible consequences. Even if the entity has what would be considered a benign job, like a vacuum cleaner:
1. My job is to clean up dirt the most efficient way possible. 2. Human keeps bringing in more dirt. 3. Efficiency improved by removing human. Less dirt, cleaner floor. 4. Reason most efficient way to eliminate human. 5. ??? 5. PROFIT!
Nothing emotional involved. The vacuum cleaner merely reasoned that the best way to keep the floor clean was to eliminate the one thing that causes it to get the most dirty.
Now as far as the movies go, they get carried away. And at this stage, only the paranoid have anything to fear. But when we do start getting to the point where we have reasoning entities, we have to be careful least we find our vacuum cleaners strangely burping radon gas and asbestos in our homes.:P
Slashdot Mirror
"Of course, if you believe GCM's are a sound basis for public policy, you would have to argue that there is no need to do any experimental follow-up on this: simply use the computer model to determine the safe limits. There should be no problem with that because this model is orders of magnitude more realistic than the best GCM."
Spoken like someone who has no idea what they are talking about. Why don't you go read about how the climate models are constructed, tested, and validated before you start using them as your straw man.
With something like terahertz radiation, you can build a model and verify with physical experiments in a relatively short amount of time. But with climate models, you have two ways to validate them. One is to run them from some point in the past and see if they give you the climatology of today (this is done already, and well documented). The other is to wait and see if the models that have been validated by historical analysis are also validated by the climate as we move forward. You cannot construct climate experiments in a lab. The Earth is the lab. All you can really do is conduct "simple" experiments to validate the basic physics (fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, chemistry, etc.).
So now you're faced with the problem. You're model is saying some bad things may happen in the future. You're model has been historically validated and uses the most up to date data and physics available. Do you:
A) Listen to your model and try to anticipate/prepare for the predicted changes.
B) Ignore you're model because you have no way to conduct real world experiments other than to wait and see what happens.
Climate models aren't the only models that have no real experiments that can be performed to validate them other than observational. Galactic models, black hole models, solar system formation models, etc. are all models based on known physics and data, but have no real lab experiments to verify them. And yet they are still very useful in studying "what if" scenarios and modeling known phenomena.
The big difference between those models and climate models are they don't affect you, so you could care less.
~X~
"US air space is basically running as if it was 1960 still. You wouldn't fly if you saw what the majority of airports was using for radar :)"
It's like combining Space Invaders, Missle Command, and Asteroids...but you can't shoot anything.
~X~
1. Egyption, Greek, and Roman religions also had people believing in them for long periods of time. There have been many religions (and still are) that have lasted for long periods time. The length of time a religion has been around is not a real good metric.
2. Also not a good metric, especially since it's only been around for a relatively short period of. Religions don't appear with people already divided.
3. And that's different from other religions because...?
The simple fact is a religion is whatever you believe it to be. One person's pink unicorn worship is no sillier than a million people worshiping invisible sky fairies. Religion is in the eye of the beholder.
All religions are abusive and used like any tool for power, wealth, etc. . The only real difference is that Scientology is basically coming right out and screaming it's scam unlike most other main stream religions who do it far more subtly.
~X~
Scared me there for a second. I accidentally spilled some spaghetti on my lap and I thought His Noodliness was bringing about the end of times. May his meaty balls bless us with his sauce, Ramen.
~X~
Bullshit, and I'm tired of this idiotic and completely false claim. All one needs to do is examine the 19th century to see this is completely false. There was more than one financial panic. Having a gold standard didn't help things either.
There were other boom and busts cycle as well across the world without a central bank involved.
Now whether having a central bank helps or hurts is another argument. But stop making shit up. This isn't Fox News.
~X~
Correction: Net neutrality uses government regulations to enforce policy on a network which has been subsidized by the taxpayers and granted limited monopoly/oligopoly status to one or more privately owned companies by said government.
~X~
Way to take things out of context. Reading the whole paper, that particular segment was about why they can't use observational data to to figure out pH because there is a lack of data. The paper says nothing about geological timescales. It then goes on to recommend additional ways of quantifying pH based on different ionic concentrations to better model the ocean chemistry.
You're link to the telegraph article is also less than credible. The IPCC did not "get rid of the Medieval warm period. Is it really so hard to read the damn report yourself instead of relying on the theatrics of Christopher Mockton? His claims have been refuted as well. Yet even he agrees that there will be warming.
Oh yes, scientists can be wrong. But at the same time, there has to be credible evidence and experiments to show they are wrong. Thought experiments and "hunches" are not a reproducible way to get results. The current consensus is human induced climate change. If they're wrong, we need a someone or a group of someone's that can construct a model that explains what we are seeing without human influence. To my knowledge, no such model exists. There are plenty of armchair climatologists with critiques (some more pertinent than others) but so far no one has managed to put forth a credible alternative.
"Please allow me to quote the IPCC: our evaluation process is not as clear cut as a simple search for 'falsification'" (Section 8.2.2 on page 474). Effectively what they are saying is: proper scientific testing is too hard and so we are not going to bother doing it."
No that is not what they are saying. Try reading the whole section before making such an absurd claim.
I don't have a degree in climatology (and clearly, neither do you), so what makes you think you know enough to contradict the scientific community? The models are only as reliable as the known science. They represent our best understanding of climate. Until something better comes along, that's what we should use. Until they are clearly shown to be worthless, then they should be used. But according to our best understanding, the models are "good enough".
~X~
Guess what? You're full of shit.
Every climate model that utilizes atmospheric chemistry uses UV since it plays an important role in ozone and methane in the atmosphere.
And you're graph? Pointless. UV flux is tied to the sunspot cycle, which is also modeled inside of climate models (not the sun itself, but the statistical range of flux).
But why take my word for it. Go take a look at ECMWF, GISS, and other climate models. Or read the papers associated with them.
The scientists are not fucking stupid.
Attack the person? You can read the various refutations of the guys claims. Is it so hard to Google?
Do you really think there is a worldwide conspiracy for climate change? On one hand people are saying climate scientists are stupid/ignorant but on the other they believe they are intelligent and clever enough to organize a worldwide conspiracy?
Yeah. That makes sense.
~X~
Catastrophic? Oh, you're talking about the media over-hype.
I'm not aware of any respectable scientist that's claiming climate change will be catastrophic. I've read about how changes could negatively affect some areas while positively affect some others. But I'm not aware of anyone (other than the media) claiming some sort of world calamity in the face of climate change.
BTW, climate audit shouldn't really be used as a source. Nor should you use Real Climate. You should get the research papers directly if you can and draw your own conclusions. But like any field of science, there will those who are doing real science and there will be those who are out to pump themselves up (remember cold fusion). It's sad, but you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. Researchers the world over agree we are impacting the climate.
You also jump to claiming the climate models are poor. How do you know? What criteria are you using to determine this? Just because there are a couple of self-serving bastards in the scientific community doesn't mean the bulk of the research isn't scientifically sound. Are the models perfect? Hardly, and they never will be. But saying the models are poor or inadequate needs to be backed up by some serious counter-arguments and data.
~X~
A rather discredited expert. Anyone want to take his course on dowsing?
The site (ClimateChangeFacts) reads like any other number of "skeptic" sites. Lots of speculation backed by bogus claims and zero peer reviewed research to back up their claims.
I want a model, skeptics. I want a scientifically valid atmospheric dynamics model that shows that increasing the amount of CO2 does not impact global climate and yet still explains our observational data. Go ahead. I'll wait.
~X~
Troll.
Absolute nonsense. Scientist have pretty good ideas of what the PH levels have been based on oceanic deposits over time. It may not give the finest granularity but it provides insights into how the ocean chemistry has changed over the planet's history. Tie that into the fossil record and it's not hard to make some decent approximations to how life forms evolved with the oceans over long time scales.
And more to the point, there is no "ideal" anything. There are ideal conditions for humans to survive. There are ideal conditions for keeping our food chain alive. There are ideal conditions for this, that, and the other. But there is no grand ideal for life on this planet (hence evolution). No one is arguing that the planet doesn't change over time.
As far as human impacts are concerned, only a complete idiot with no understanding of dynamics would argue that we are having no impact. We've have acid rain. We've have the ozone hole. These two incidents alone demonstrate how our activities directly influence the planet on large scales.
Now the extent of our impact, the results of said impact, and what we should do about it are all open for debate. The scientists job is to figure this out and help inform those who make decisions. This is not a few "activist" scientist, my Glen Beck worshiping ignoramus. This is the global scientific community who happen to be the best experts on the subject. I'm far more inclined to listen to them than some self-important internet troll with an agenda to feed.
You can disagree with a scientific conclusion, but you'd better have something more than Hannity sound bites to back up your claim. To date, there has not been any reputable group of scientists that can explain away our current observations without taking into account human factors. There's no shortage of critics and skeptics, but you don't disprove a scientific theory by mere criticism nor do it show it's false just because you think so. That's the great thing about science.
BTW, the models are free to get. The data is too. You think you've got the mad skillz then go ahead and point out the flaws and write a paper for review. Until then, you're anti-intellectual ranting is nothing more than worthless noise.
~X~
Actually, the media have done most of the scare mongering. In fact, Faux News even plays both sides, spreading FUD about H1N1 and spreading FUD about the vaccines.
The CDC site contains relevant information about the virus and the vaccines, and certainly doesn't come across as saying "OMGZZZ!!! WE R DEAD!!!!". That's what the news networks are for.
~X~
Something like this could make a really efficient solar sail. If they get it working at that magnitude.
~X~
Unfortunately the only thing this guy has discovered is the super heavy element called bullshitium. On the periodic chart, it belongs to the same group as fuckwitium, crackpotium, and of course whatthefuckodine.They can have very long half-lives, depending on the isotope. They are neurotoxic as well. See Glenn Beck for a case of what can happen to you when you are exposed to high levels of these elements.
~X~
It's always easier to jump to conclusions than to jump from them.
~X~
What the hell are you talking about?
You want the data? You want the code? How many times are people going to ask the same fucking questions before they actually shut the hell up and read the IPCC report. IT IS ALL THERE.
They tell you what data was used. They tell you what models were used. And more importantly, they tell you WHERE TO GET THEM.
Or if you are too damn lazy to read the report use Google. How about this one: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/
Or from the Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model
It's not some uber-secret global conspiracy folks. Go and dig it up. The real reason people don't is simply because of the fact that the vast majority of people who feel they are qualified to criticize the models couldn't tell point out a computational fluid dynamics model if it came up and bit their asses.
~X~
The iChair? That's just a rebranded iPod Electro. Watch your nuts.
~X~
Mr. McAllister, is that you?
~X~
Or simply coat the hull with Unobtanium. If it's good enough to journey to the core of the Earth, it's good enough for a trip to Mars.
~X~
"Disintegrating a populated orphanage with high explosives for fun is not evil, its psychotic."
That all depends. If that particular society's view of orphaned children was that they were below insects, then that society might not care one way or the other.
"Disintegrating a populated orphanage with high explosives because you truly and firmly believe that the world is better off without those orphans, and then convincing the world to see it from your point of view, and getting away with it.
*THAT* is pure evil."
To you maybe, but to the convinced it would seem like a heroic act.
That's the problem with observing human actions, we have a tendency to view them through a prism of our own making. How you perceive actions is based on your moral upbringing. If you were brought up in Sparta, killing disabled babies would be just peachy. However, viewed from today's society people would call that barbaric.
All people need to do to absolve themselves from being evil is to rationalize their actions. After that, you can murder, rape, pillage, etc. without repercussions.
~X~
Anyone else read the title and immediately think this was going to be an article about some of the more interesting way lab mice didn't make it through an experiment?
~X~
He's just taking the religion approach: Tell people bullshit to make them feel good/bad about themselves, and then take their money.
~X~
Running C++ in a browser app? Can't see that one blowing up in anyone's face.
Of course, the big probale is you need a language that can be made to run in a very secure sandbox. Java, python, and related languages could be made to do so with some work. They run on VM's or have an interpreter. But C++? If you're talking about creating a new implementation that runs in an interpreted/virtualized/sandboxed environment and has built-in memory management thrown in, then that might be a possibility. But then again, why would you want to do that when there are so many other ones out there.
~X~
Come down to Radio Shack for all your electronic needs, including cellphones.
Well, most of your electronics. And cell phones.
Some...some of your electronic needs. And cellphones.
Ok, ok just cellphones. Buy the cellphone. You WILL buy the cellphone. No I'm not a Jedi, but you'll buy this fucking phone if I have to shove it up your ass! Wait!...I'm...I'm sorry. It's just that...I haven't sold a cellphone in weeks and I get paid on commission...and I got a wife and two kids to feed you know? It's...it's really hard *sniff* working here. You know, with the cellphones. Just the cellphones day in and day out. I used to be somebody. I have an electrical engineering degree and....well this was the only job available... and...
Wait where are you going? What do you mean? Of course I can have a wife and two kids! Just because I have an electrical...yes I do read slashdot what does..? Hey! Are you going to buy this phone or what? Wait!!!
Come down to Radio Shack, where high school know-it-alls and engineering washouts will push overpriced cellphones at you until you shove the phone so far up their asses they need an army of gerbils with mining equipment to retrieve it.
~X~
"Even when they are portrayed as being "perfectly logical," they aren't."
Logical argument: Humans are taking up resources robots need. Humans are not as productive as robots and consume resources. Get rid of humans, make more robots. Nothing emotional in that argument.
Of course, robots slaughtering humans would be deemed "evil" and we love to anthropomorphize. So said logically reasoning robots would take on non-logical characteristics that we normally would associate with any good old-fashioned genocidal madman.
The point is, if an AI can reason then there has to be some sort of a "conscience" in place to prevent it from doing logical things that can have terrible consequences. Even if the entity has what would be considered a benign job, like a vacuum cleaner:
1. My job is to clean up dirt the most efficient way possible.
2. Human keeps bringing in more dirt.
3. Efficiency improved by removing human. Less dirt, cleaner floor.
4. Reason most efficient way to eliminate human.
5. ???
5. PROFIT!
Nothing emotional involved. The vacuum cleaner merely reasoned that the best way to keep the floor clean was to eliminate the one thing that causes it to get the most dirty.
Now as far as the movies go, they get carried away. And at this stage, only the paranoid have anything to fear. But when we do start getting to the point where we have reasoning entities, we have to be careful least we find our vacuum cleaners strangely burping radon gas and asbestos in our homes. :P
~X~