×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

An Open Letter To Everyone Tricked Into Fearing AI

SillyHamster Re:"AI" vs Strong AI (227 comments)

We already have a working example: The human brain. So, of course it is possible, unless you believe that the human mind is based on some sort of magic.

So in your opinion, the human brain has made improvements to itself at an exponential rate?

Are you talking about individual human brains or humans as a whole? Because the former results in senile old people, while DNA doesn't work that way.

about two weeks ago
top

Study: Belief That Some Fields Require "Brilliance" May Keep Women Out

SillyHamster Easy solution (218 comments)

Advertise a field as So Dumb a Woman Could Do It.

about two weeks ago
top

Finding Genghis Khan's Tomb From Space

SillyHamster Re:History Channel (166 comments)

Yea... but it wasn't a secret conspiratorial rule of the world though. So it doesn't count. :-p

Ah, but FDR was just the front man for his Communist/Masonic superiors! :P

about three weeks ago
top

WSJ Refused To Publish Lawrence Krauss' Response To "Science Proves Religion"

SillyHamster Re:Specific claims can be disproven (556 comments)

Sure. Did a the flood that Noah allegedly built an ark for actually occur? A huge global flood would leave geologic evidence that would be observable even today.

It would. And there are people who interpret geological evidence such as fossils and rock layers supporting a global flood.

You should note, however, that these are interpretations, and whether FOR or AGAINST they are not science. There's no control group you can run an experiment at the scales involved. We don't have a spare earth we can terraform and observe for a million years to confirm/disprove competing hypotheses on what actually happened.

Not every historical claim can be tested by science but a great many can.

Actually, none can. You can't experiment on the past. You could fail to replicate a historical event - but that mainly says that *you* failed with your existing technology and chosen solution - it doesn't prove that the past did not happen.

Can you build a scientific experiment to prove George Washington was president? That Julius Caeser existed? That the US fought the Battle of Midway?

You can find artifacts and documents that support those historical facts, but that's not scientific evidence. You can perform scientific experiments on the artifacts/documents to estimate their age, to evaluate their credibility as historical evidence, but that is not using science to test historical claims.

You use historical evidence, not scientific evidence, to test historical claims. Some scientific evidence can serve as historical evidence, but science is an inappropriate tool to determine what happened in the past.

about three weeks ago
top

Seismological Society of America Claims Fracking Reactivated Ohio Fault

SillyHamster Re:But ... but ... but (168 comments)

There's a relationship, but like all commodities it's more complicated than that. But the futures markets and all sorts of stuff completely unrelated to supply and demand also are huge factors.

Isn't the futures market just a set of predictions on future supply/demand? So it's not completely unrelated, but perhaps prone to large errors. (since predicting the future is a risky business)

about three weeks ago
top

WSJ Refused To Publish Lawrence Krauss' Response To "Science Proves Religion"

SillyHamster Re:Specific claims can be disproven (556 comments)

Unsurprisingly most of these claims regarding god turn out to be made up nonsense when looked at objectively or have been so twisted from the actual facts as to be effectively unrecognizable from what actually occurred.

Could you give an example? When you talk about "actual facts" and "what actually occurred", you sound like you're talking about past events.

Are historical claims a domain of science?

about three weeks ago
top

WSJ Refused To Publish Lawrence Krauss' Response To "Science Proves Religion"

SillyHamster Re:Null hypothesis (556 comments)

That is indeed true. However atheism is essentially a null hypothesis. It makes FAR more sense, in the absence of credible evidence, to believe that there is no "god(s)" than to by default in a theist position.

The default answer is "I don't know", not "I believe not". Saying we must believe there is no god by default is begging the question.

However, we exist and observe ourselves and value reason and truth - which is evidence in favor of the existence of $DIETY. A further evaluation of various human religions could further narrow down the likely true options.

about three weeks ago
top

Science Cannot Prove the Existence of God

SillyHamster Re:Once again (755 comments)

This dude falls for the old trap that he doesn't understand something, therefore "God did it". Personal incredulity

Understanding what a low probability event is does not mean a lack of understanding.

Most people have no idea how cell phones work. Does that mean God made cell phones?

Wrong analogy. Can cell phones assemble themselves through random events, undirected by outside forces?

When you see a cell-phone, you don't think, "Neat accident!" You expect that some other human being designed and built it.

When it comes to a human being, we're order of magnitude more complex than the cell-phone, with correspondingly more capabilities. Yet somehow we're supposed to believe that the human being is a lucky accident, even as we acknowledge the cellphone to be an intelligently designed system.

about three weeks ago
top

The Coming Decline of 'Made In China'

SillyHamster Re:What Will They Do... (327 comments)

Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. There is a finite amounts of it. Every human takes away from that finite amount, the energy need to make that human survive comes from that amount, and any additional amount used to make their life better comes from that amount. The more people, the less extra that can be used purely for increased standard of living. At some point you just have a bunch of people and the resources to keep them alive. There is nothing left to make them happy.

I've already addressed the finite matter point - one trillion, one googol - those are both finite numbers; but are large enough to boggle human imagination.

It's plausible that there's some point where earth's resources are the bottleneck for a human standard of living, but you have not demonstrated that we are anywhere close to that point.

We are the most valuable resource of all.

Source?

It's self-evidently true. You're posting on Slashdot, which was built by people, through a computer, which was built by people, over the Internet, which was built by people, using electricity generated by a power plant, which was built by people.

Notice a pattern there? People create. People design. People build. People figure out how to collect raw materials and finish it into the wide variety of products that make modern life prosperous and comfortable.

If you can't figure out that people are immensely valuable - go out into the wilderness and live off your own efforts. Civilization exists because it has people who build it up and maintain it. Take away the people, you don't get to enjoy civilization anymore.

about three weeks ago
top

The Coming Decline of 'Made In China'

SillyHamster Re:What Will They Do... (327 comments)

I should have stated above the minimum threshold of a sustainable population in where there is no loss of important technical knowledge from generation to generation, the standard of living goes down for humanity as a whole for each person added. More to your liking?

Sure. Now what evidence do you have for that extrapolation as human population continues to increase?

Like I said, humans are resources who can create resources. We are the most valuable resource of all. Comparing population growth to human standard of living in general for the past 100 years demonstrates continued growth.

about a month ago
top

Pope Francis To Issue Encyclical On Global Warming

SillyHamster Re:How perfectly appropriate - (341 comments)

By your logic, nobody should ever trust any scientific finding without have done the work for herself. By your reasoning, peer review counts for nothing. Those views are not rational. They are, however, extremely common amongst climate change deniers and others who would prefer to believe in a more attractive version of "the truth", despite there being overwhelming evidence of something less agreeable.

Don't be ridiculous. I'm saying that belief and faith is a normal thing, and is necessary for humans to practice science.

So there's only a problem if you love science AND hate belief, because that requires suspending Reason. And how do you practice Science without Reason?

It's really sad how many people who supposedly are for science do not get these important details right.

about a month ago
top

The Coming Decline of 'Made In China'

SillyHamster Re:What Will They Do... (327 comments)

Can you read?

Apparently you don't even know what you just said.

There is substantial evidence supporting a minimum sustainable population.

So if it's substantial, surely is must be easy to cite and show it, right? Yet, your first reaction is to attack someone as illiterate ... because he asked you to show the evidence you said existed.

That's not how someone with a substantial amount of evidence behaves.

And that's before I even point out you contradicted your earlier point:

For every increase in human population on the Earth the standard of living goes down for humanity as a whole

Every increase includes the increase going from 1 to 2 to 10 to 1,000.

By the way, learn to read the name of the person you're replying to before saying, "your argument". People might think you can't read.

about a month ago
top

Pope Francis To Issue Encyclical On Global Warming

SillyHamster Re:How perfectly appropriate - (341 comments)

Belief implies taking something on faith, even in the absence of facts.

There is no way you can believe a claim to be factual without using belief and faith.

There is always a chain of trust - a belief that your senses are accurately showing you reality; that scientific observations were documented properly; or that scientific models built off of those observations reflect reality; or even a belief that there is an objective reality at all!

about a month ago
top

The Coming Decline of 'Made In China'

SillyHamster Re:What Will They Do... (327 comments)

What a warped view of reality. For every increase in human population on the Earth the standard of living goes down for humanity as a whole, because the finite resources of the Earth are then divvied up among more people.

Wrong. Count the population today vs. 100 years ago.

Now measure the standard of living. Do you seriously want to argue that it was better 100 years ago?

No matter how efficiently resources are used, there is a point were the standard of living afforded to everyone isn't enough to live on.

You don't understand that humans are resources - the most valuable one of all. Humans CREATE resources. More humans is more resources.

Don't believe it? Consider what happens if everyone else in the world drops dead right now. Are you better off, with all of the world's resources to yourself?

Are you going to pick up your own trash, cook your own food, build your own car, refine your own oil, create your own art?

Resources may be finite, but that in of itself doesn't mean much. A trillion seconds is a finite number - and it's still an order of magnitude longer than human history.

about a month ago
top

Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

SillyHamster Re:This is not the problem (688 comments)

I brought up China due to a previous argument with somebody over whether China's traditional diet was "very healthy" due to not containing much meat (98% grains and vegetables, bits of meat for flavoring). China had a major revolution, alright: in the late 1970s, they drastically increased their meat consumption. This has been cited in studies on diet because the drastic boost in China's lifespan occurred during a period where the only thing that changed was diet: China's cultural revolution occurred a decade away from their major health gains, which coincided with their dietary changes.

Let's not forget that meat is expensive.

Let's recap: there was the Sino-Japanese War/WWII (1930s-1940s), the Chinese Civil War (1940s-1950s), communist mismanagement of the economy (1950s-1960s) causing famines, Cultural Revolution (1960s-1970s)...

40 years of war and famine and millions of deaths, and you find that the most important factor in the change of life expectancy is that they "changed their diet"?

I think you have the cause and effect confused. Meat is expensive, as you say - and the reason that people could afford meat in their diet is because China entered a relative era of peace several years earlier, and the government reforms allowed more people to shift from survival to development. It's not the food, it's the politics. Communism is bad for life.

about 1 month ago
top

Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

SillyHamster Re:This is not the problem (688 comments)

The fact remains you want to imagine that people who are not eating as much food as they need each day are not starving, are not experiencing negative effects from chronic hunger, and thus are not facing degrading health and eventual early death from not eating. This includes people who are so far from having enough food as to experience physical pain from hunger multiple times each week.

At no point have you actually offered any evidence that this is the case. You are using your imagination to extrapolate "food insecurity" into hunger and then extrapolating hunger to starvation, and then guessing at a potential death rate of "thousands" from that extrapolated "starvation".

I recall instead the more well-grounded example of China, with its single change of diet in the late 1970s suddenly moving the median age of death from 39 years to 80 years-

I'm sure this thing called a Cultural Revolution at that exact same time had absolutely nothing to do with it. Or a communist government that mistakenly eradicated beneficial sparrows as a pest a decade prior (Google Four Pest Campaign).

Imagine that - poorly thought out solutions hurting the very people it was supposed to be helping.

about 1 month ago
top

How Amazon's Ebook Subscriptions Are Changing the Writing Industry

SillyHamster What difference? (250 comments)

In the traditional publishing model, it's in my interest to encourage readers to read other authors, because people who read more buy more books â" the proverbial tide lifts all boats. In the Kindle Unlimited model, the more authors you and everyone else reads, the less I can potentially earn

Under the traditional model, how are those readers reading other books? Library? Purchase?

If it's the library - the reader isn't paying for the other book, but probably not the author's book either. These readers don't matter.

If it's purchased ... well, that's $5~10 that's not spent on the author's own books.

Even without KU, there's less "potential earnings" when recommending other authors. So KU does not make the book market more or less zero-sum.

about a month ago
top

Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

SillyHamster Re:This is not the problem (688 comments)

Again: you are quantifying death such that that lead poisoning is not fatal, cigarettes do not kill people, diabeetus doesn't kill people, lack of access to food doesn't kill people, etc.

I have not. You are imagining what I would say about other situations, and using your imagination as evidence against me. Unfortunately, it looks like your imagination is not very good at reading my mind.

I am pointing out that "starving to death" without any deaths is not "starving to death". It is just plain "starving". (Note: Estimated deaths are guesses)

But even claiming "Americans are starving" is wrong, because it takes much more than feeling insecure about food to actually be starving.

Some of us are just far more intelligent than you, and able to see the whole picture.

If "more intelligent" means twisting words to lie about reality - I'm afraid I don't see why I should care how intelligent you think your group is. If they don't value honesty, they're useless to me and to society. Society is built on trust - not lies.

about a month ago
top

Human Eye's Oscillation Rate Determines Smooth Frame Rate

SillyHamster Re:The human eye is proof God exists (187 comments)

If religious people had any proof, it would no longer be religion. Of course they don't, because the supernatural is imaginary.

I assume you have proof of this? Care to share?

about a month ago
top

Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

SillyHamster Re:This is not the problem (688 comments)

It's hard to quantify death.

Quoted for unintentional hilarity. Death is so hard to quantify that the US collects giant tables of statistics on it. From those numbers, we can claim what the leading cause of death is, say heart disease. Strangely, with 45 million people starving TO DEATH, starvation/malnutrition isn't even in the numbers.

You offer an estimated death rate of 3,000. Out of 45 million "starving" people, that'd be 3,000 starved to death and 44.9 million (99.99%) starving people not starved to death.

99.99% of "starving" people not dying is what you will call "starving to death". Right. Here's what starved to death looks like. Look at the numbers - millions, not thousands.

I suggest you stop digging.

about a month ago

Submissions

SillyHamster hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

SillyHamster has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?