The study showed that vegetables grown in higher CO2 concentrations grew FASTER. A large carrot is less nutrient-dense than a small carrot which was grown more slowly, the same as fast-growing trees (like pine) produce weaker wood than slow-growing ones (like oak).
The idea that more abundant food will result in fewer nutrients per cubic inch, and that's a bad thing, is absurd.
The quote means "getting rid of having to worry about manually collecting garbage" (destructors, etc). Presumably the infinitely fast computers would handle all of these details in the background and the human interaction would be abstracted away from the computer towards more naturally-human ways of thinking.
Actually the number of possible positions on a 19x19 grid is 3^361 = 1.74*10^172 which is very close to the number given in the summary. A given square can be white, black or blank.
See subject. There is probably no better way to damage the climate change debate than to make absolutely absurd predictions. Just shut up. Keep the hyperbolic fear-mongering out of the discussion.
http://www.climatedepot.com/20...
You need to account for the number of tires per vehicle if you're going to do this analysis. If you want to get technical it's actually the surface area of contact between all of the tires and the ground which are bearing the respective vehicle weight (since a trailer has much larger tires than a motorcycle).
-R
Why do you say that? The excel file pulled from your link shows a rate of 282 reported crimes against life and health per 100,000 residents in 1975, and a rate of 923 per 100,000 residents in 2014. That's a 327% increase over that time period.
Mr. Kurzweil,
Rather than starting with "knowledge" or "input sensors" about the real world, has anyone in the field ever considered an AI built upon a directive of motivation (such as survival)? That's really where all of our behavior stems from, and a machine with billions of factoids but no directive of motivation is just a library.
-R
"Racial bias has to be operating, inequities are rampant..."
To assume that gifted people should be scattered equally among all socio-economic demographics is absurd. To the extent that gifted children have gifted parents (which is reasonable), and to the extent that being gifted allows you to avoid poverty in adulthood (which is also reasonable), we should not be surprised at these results.
I guess a point could be made that gifted black parents who had gifted children were not historically given the chance to pull themselves or their children out of poverty, but inequities alone do not indicate any bias.
"Most" are from the 2000s only because those are the easiest to find and falsify (i.e. in the internet age)! You specifically asked for a failed prediction from Al Gore, of which there are many, and easy to find! Makes me believe that perhaps you are choosing not to see a certain perspective.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
By "over there" do you mean in America or people with my views on the subject? Because it seems presumptuous to think I deny climate change just because I recognize there have been so many awful, failed predictions. I don't reject the science of climate change but I definitely reject the politics of it, and all of the doomsday scenarios come with a political agenda attached to them!
BTW, I checked in to exactly ONE WUWT claim, arbitrarily picking the last one. Feel free to Google the quote below. Seems pretty unlikely that they would poison such a grand list with a couple of easily falsifiable claims, doesn't it? That's exactly what an Environmentalist would latch on to in order to discredit the rest of them.
"Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." Associated Press, May 15, 1989.
See this is part of the movement. When it comes to nuanced hard data, Environmentalists cite Science...but when it comes to INTERPRETATION of that data they have no problem using every hyperbolic, apocalyptic prediction in every news article they can get their hands on. If these "predictions" don't come to pass it isn't a problem because they can just ask for "peer-reviewed papers" making these predictions. I don't suppose you're old enough to remember the Global Freezing predictions of the 70's? Anyway, failed climate predictions from prominent news and political sources abound if you care to look.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
That's a fair response, and I agree. I just think that, specifically in Paul Ehrlich's case, he has a clear political agenda that he's pursuing using fear tactics. He didn't make a prediction, he made MANY of them, all Doomsday Catastrophic predictions about then End of Humanity...50 years ago! The guy is a joke. Sometime's it actually is appropriate to question the source.
Let me ask you a sincere question, Beeftopia: does it even matter if Ehrlich's predictions have merit? Because they don't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I'd say the rule is: the more subjective the field, the more the field will cling to arbitrary paradigms waiting for the next generation to replace the current. Pure mathematics suffers from this the least (logic with little room for speculation, interpretation, etc), but all of Science suffers from paradigm inertia even in the face of contradictory evidence because it is practiced by humans with egos and careers and belief systems.
Yes, it's a complex world and we must work with limited information. You seem quite smug about the banning of CFCs; do you feel the same way about the banning of DDT? This has killed an estimated 100MM people via malaria. The point is that Chicken Littles may occasionally be right but that doesn't mean that we should overreact out of panic and fear. This study also suggests that we should consider the political motivations of those presenting the evidence (and I'm pointing out that this is a two-way street)...
If you're a Socialist, you find data on problems which apparently require Socialist solutions to be very convincing and meaningful. If you're a Free Marketer, you find data on problems which apparently require Free Market solutions to be very convincing and meaningful. Don't confuse yourself into thinking that the Socialists are "more scientifically minded" than the Free Marketers: oil shortages, food shortages, mass starvation, global cooling, the hole in the ozone, The Population Bomb, The Silent Spring. Those were all phony manufactured crises from the 60's, 70's and 80's that were exposed before they could "make much social progress" with them.
The issue of Climate Change is WAY BIGGER than supposed rising tides and erratic weather, people. It's a fundamental battle between global political agendas. (All that being said, I'm a Free Marketer who is not a Climate Change denialist; I will fight against Socialist solutions to the problem though)
Slashdot Mirror
The study showed that vegetables grown in higher CO2 concentrations grew FASTER. A large carrot is less nutrient-dense than a small carrot which was grown more slowly, the same as fast-growing trees (like pine) produce weaker wood than slow-growing ones (like oak). The idea that more abundant food will result in fewer nutrients per cubic inch, and that's a bad thing, is absurd.
And computer viruses.
Computer viruses would qualify under this description.
It's much more dishonest to speak about honesty and transparency when they aren't actually embraced to achieve your mission.
A corporation without a union is still an aggregation of labor; a union without a corporation is neither an aggregation of labor nor capital.
It's not like the boot camp instructors are CompSci masters who went to MIT or Stanford. It's the same content.
Even if Boot Camps are a little better, they aren't $2900 better
How much is a math course on Udemy?
The quote means "getting rid of having to worry about manually collecting garbage" (destructors, etc). Presumably the infinitely fast computers would handle all of these details in the background and the human interaction would be abstracted away from the computer towards more naturally-human ways of thinking.
I thought about that for a bit but I'm not sure there are any illegal positions.
Actually the number of possible positions on a 19x19 grid is 3^361 = 1.74*10^172 which is very close to the number given in the summary. A given square can be white, black or blank.
See subject. There is probably no better way to damage the climate change debate than to make absolutely absurd predictions. Just shut up. Keep the hyperbolic fear-mongering out of the discussion. http://www.climatedepot.com/20...
You need to account for the number of tires per vehicle if you're going to do this analysis. If you want to get technical it's actually the surface area of contact between all of the tires and the ground which are bearing the respective vehicle weight (since a trailer has much larger tires than a motorcycle). -R
Why do you say that? The excel file pulled from your link shows a rate of 282 reported crimes against life and health per 100,000 residents in 1975, and a rate of 923 per 100,000 residents in 2014. That's a 327% increase over that time period.
Mr. Kurzweil, Rather than starting with "knowledge" or "input sensors" about the real world, has anyone in the field ever considered an AI built upon a directive of motivation (such as survival)? That's really where all of our behavior stems from, and a machine with billions of factoids but no directive of motivation is just a library. -R
"Racial bias has to be operating, inequities are rampant..."
To assume that gifted people should be scattered equally among all socio-economic demographics is absurd. To the extent that gifted children have gifted parents (which is reasonable), and to the extent that being gifted allows you to avoid poverty in adulthood (which is also reasonable), we should not be surprised at these results.
I guess a point could be made that gifted black parents who had gifted children were not historically given the chance to pull themselves or their children out of poverty, but inequities alone do not indicate any bias.
Apparently there's a lot of cock-suckin goin on around here...
"Most" are from the 2000s only because those are the easiest to find and falsify (i.e. in the internet age)! You specifically asked for a failed prediction from Al Gore, of which there are many, and easy to find! Makes me believe that perhaps you are choosing not to see a certain perspective. http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
By "over there" do you mean in America or people with my views on the subject? Because it seems presumptuous to think I deny climate change just because I recognize there have been so many awful, failed predictions. I don't reject the science of climate change but I definitely reject the politics of it, and all of the doomsday scenarios come with a political agenda attached to them!
BTW, I checked in to exactly ONE WUWT claim, arbitrarily picking the last one. Feel free to Google the quote below. Seems pretty unlikely that they would poison such a grand list with a couple of easily falsifiable claims, doesn't it? That's exactly what an Environmentalist would latch on to in order to discredit the rest of them.
"Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." Associated Press, May 15, 1989.
See this is part of the movement. When it comes to nuanced hard data, Environmentalists cite Science...but when it comes to INTERPRETATION of that data they have no problem using every hyperbolic, apocalyptic prediction in every news article they can get their hands on. If these "predictions" don't come to pass it isn't a problem because they can just ask for "peer-reviewed papers" making these predictions. I don't suppose you're old enough to remember the Global Freezing predictions of the 70's? Anyway, failed climate predictions from prominent news and political sources abound if you care to look. http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
That's a fair response, and I agree. I just think that, specifically in Paul Ehrlich's case, he has a clear political agenda that he's pursuing using fear tactics. He didn't make a prediction, he made MANY of them, all Doomsday Catastrophic predictions about then End of Humanity...50 years ago! The guy is a joke. Sometime's it actually is appropriate to question the source.
Let me ask you a sincere question, Beeftopia: does it even matter if Ehrlich's predictions have merit? Because they don't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What car doesn't have one?
I'd say the rule is: the more subjective the field, the more the field will cling to arbitrary paradigms waiting for the next generation to replace the current. Pure mathematics suffers from this the least (logic with little room for speculation, interpretation, etc), but all of Science suffers from paradigm inertia even in the face of contradictory evidence because it is practiced by humans with egos and careers and belief systems.
Yes, I would support a carbon tax if it was applied to the ENTIRE market (and not just the "responsible" ones)
Yes, it's a complex world and we must work with limited information. You seem quite smug about the banning of CFCs; do you feel the same way about the banning of DDT? This has killed an estimated 100MM people via malaria. The point is that Chicken Littles may occasionally be right but that doesn't mean that we should overreact out of panic and fear. This study also suggests that we should consider the political motivations of those presenting the evidence (and I'm pointing out that this is a two-way street)...
If you're a Socialist, you find data on problems which apparently require Socialist solutions to be very convincing and meaningful. If you're a Free Marketer, you find data on problems which apparently require Free Market solutions to be very convincing and meaningful. Don't confuse yourself into thinking that the Socialists are "more scientifically minded" than the Free Marketers: oil shortages, food shortages, mass starvation, global cooling, the hole in the ozone, The Population Bomb, The Silent Spring. Those were all phony manufactured crises from the 60's, 70's and 80's that were exposed before they could "make much social progress" with them.
The issue of Climate Change is WAY BIGGER than supposed rising tides and erratic weather, people. It's a fundamental battle between global political agendas. (All that being said, I'm a Free Marketer who is not a Climate Change denialist; I will fight against Socialist solutions to the problem though)