Holee crap. Does this guy even believe the shit he types?
I’m glad I’m not your cat.
Basically, you upgrade your phone. Say the old one is an iPhone still going for $150 on eBay. So you sell it. The new one breaks a year later and money is tight. So you buy back the same model on eBay, in similar condition, for $100.
Depending on the depreciation curve and the transaction cost and the rate you break phones determines how much you save doing this. But it’s a generally optimal strategy.
Same argument for extra cars with more than scrap market value and other extra things.
Yep, these cats are really suffering. I’m such an asshole, mistreating the animals.
Oh, quick parting shot. “world renowned experts” are the ones who concluded, from the data, that nuclear fission was possible and achievable. And, through a long series of development steps, made it work, and then later made it work even better.
Whole armadas of these fellas are at Los Alamos and other laboratories and while they haven’t been able to make much further progress, they are still employed by the government.
Anyways, individuals with similar pedigrees and demonstrated track records are the ones who say that AI is possible and nanotechnology is possible and so on. They occupy equivalent academic positions, if not higher, than nuclear physicists do, and while many of the engineering problems in the way have yet to be solved, they are generally thought to be solvable.
That’s what I meant. So you aren’t arguing with me, you’re arguing with the position of the national nanotechnology initiative, the entire staff at Google Brain, the MIT media lab - those random riffraff and ragheads. What do they know? You’re a bomb technician*! You can read circuit diagrams! You can maybe even build your own bomb, if it’s not too complicated. What do those people know that you don’t? They are just academics…
*and maybe a former military officer though I don’t know if your technical knowledge goes to the ability to actually design anything.
Does, “Shut the fuck up, you tedious pedantic bastard!”, come up often in your daily interactions with people?
Not generally, but I don’t spend most days talking to morons. Just on the weekends, apparently, when I am bored.
Talking to yourself is a sign of mental illness.
Especially if you disagree.
Pretty sure everybody you know is thinking it, even during weekdays.
So, on the phone thing, in a shocking development, he may actually be right. Of course he put it inelegantly, making it look like his usual “we as the human race could do this” obtuse belligerence.
To wit: when keeping an older phone as insurance for a newer phone breaking, it may well be advantageous to sell it and buying it (or similar) back only when needed.
This based on the concept that the value of older phones tends to continue to decline, meaning that when buying it back, if not too soon after selling it, the price may well be low enough to make up for transaction costs. Plus, of course, if the new phone never breaks, the sales price of the old phone is pure profit vs holding on to it. This of course pre-supposing the old phone brings enough to make the exercise worth it: this notion quite obviously doesn’t work with your old Startac.
Yeah, but you’re not one of them. You’re on the opposite end of the spectrum, a kind of Dunning-Kruger specimen – an arrogant immature blowhard with limited knowledge about technology, biology, or anything else in the world, who is in serious need of a major dose of humility. You might want to revisit the first page of this thread to remind yourself of that fact, posts #33 and #37 being perhaps especially pertinent, or this one from the Omnibus thread in which we find that you’re also a racist douchebag with redneck views on social issues – although I’m willing to be kind and just chalk that up to immaturity.
But on technology issues, you are misunderstanding the point again, as usual. No one has argued that these advanced technologies aren’t possible. It’s your tediously predictable, pretentious, and naive take on them that is so consistently entertaining. Your solution to climate change by geoengineering changes to the atmosphere is a great example of this because it rather beautifully exemplifies three recurring stupidities in your various pontifications: (1) the misapplication of technology (2) in a way that won’t work and (3) would have worse side effects than the problem it’s trying to solve. Your bloviations don’t always combine all three elements, but you really hit the trifecta with this one!
And I have to say I always enjoy the threads where you declare “I know what I’m talking about” (an actual quote) when you clearly don’t, and engage in arguments with professionals in their fields who clearly do. It’s the same phenomenon as what might be called “laughably simplistic extrapolation” that pervades most of your bloviations: you have a vague understanding of how a neuron works, therefore, everything about how the mind works is just a matter of extrapolating some further details (entire fields of study like neuroscience and cognitive science can be dismissed as useless and unnecessary – in fact I think you once explained to us that cognitive science was really just philosophy!); likewise, general artificial intelligence of any level is just a SMOP – a Small Matter Of Programming! How simple the world is when one is a raving genius with a gigantic throbbing brain!
Which one were you planning on abandoning?
You sure wasted a lot of mental energy coming up with these insults.
I know I’m pretty smart, but I also know there’s a lot I don’t know. The conclusions I reach are just building on what I do know well. Sometimes I do know a layer of things well enough that further reaching conclusions are reachable.
Like, climate for example. If I take it as *given *that a thin layer of cheap gas injected with low energy (in the scheme of things - it would still be a massive chemical plant and apparatus costing billions) blocks insolation, I don’t need to know all the details of 8 million separate climate processes to say that this would probably be an improvement over doomsday.
See what I mean? I don’t know a tremendous amount of details but if the top level abstraction is correct, they don’t matter to reach the conclusion that *something *would be an improvement.
And, frankly, I’m not even invested in this as a solution - all I asked about the climate was : if we take it as a given that a cheap gas exists that can be injected at high altitude that acts the opposite of a heating gas, and we conduct experiments, both numerical and real, to conclude it works as expected, this would be a valid approach to the problem. *Maybe *the widespread international rejection of considering the idea is incorrect, it’s not historically unprecedented for huge numbers of people to be wrong.
Some problems cannot be isolated in such a manner and sure, only world class experts can weigh in on them. Or, in some cases, no one alive is really qualified to do so.
Take complex problems like human aging or Alzheimer’s. No one alive knows what biological process to tamper with to block either, and it very well might require hundreds* of very exact changes to stop, not just a few simple drugs.
Shrug. You can comfort yourself with your incorrect conclusions about me at night, I guess, but they are wrong. Whatever you say or whatever anyone here says, if the conclusion doesn’t fit the evidence, it’s wrong.
*or thousands or some really huge number, it doesn’t matter. You’ll use even this as a “proof” that I must be dumb.
For that matter, wolfpup, what do you get out of all of this? Why do you waste so much text trying to put me down? What is your purpose in posting such insults?
While I’ve said “I’m smart” above, really, the conclusions I reach that anger you so much are simple logical and obvious conclusions any *rational *agent would reach, given a finite input set of data. Whether they are human or some computer algorithm.
So, sure, percentile wise my brain tissue may be more functional than most people, but really, the evidence speaks for itself. If someone knows that a human brain is a system made of smaller parts, and that when we die it all dissolves into goo, and they know that religion is a bunch of obvious lies, then there is only one valid conclusion any rational agent would reach.
I’m not smart or clever for reaching the same answer hundreds of thousands of other people with the same knowledge have reached.
Same with climate engineering or nanotechnology or self replicating factories or anything else. All very obvious ideas that very obviously will be seen eventually, they are all as certain to happen as nuclear fission was once it was demonstrated to work.
Your personal opinions, and my personal opinions, mean absolutely nothing.
So for those of us in this thread who aren’t reaching the right answer, well, what can I say? There’s been a process failure. Each of you fails to compute the correct answer for the evidence you’ve been given, and then has to come on the internet and argue about it.
Why do you do this? I have not the slightest idea. Why do I do this? Because I’m frustrated when I see the mass of humanity around me making frankly stupid decisions and I just want to know why.
“We spend a great deal of time studying history," Hawking told the lecture, “which, let’s face it, is mostly the history of stupidity.”
I guess it doesn’t matter why. I think I’m done with this thread. It doesn’t matter if the answers I’ve generated are correct or not. They are the obvious answers anyone would generate, given the same facts. The fact that most of you can’t see them isn’t a failing I can rectify.
If they’re only obvious to you, maybe it isn’t our fault.
Yes, I see what you mean. Climate engineering is a “very obvious” idea that is “certain to happen”, and anyone who doesn’t see it that way is an idiot. This is obvious from the most rudimentary facts, which you have fortunately mastered. That the rest of us don’t see it your way means we’re idiots. Got it!
You will note that among these “idiots” you must include the panel of leading international experts on the IPCC Working Group 3 who produced the latest IPCC AR5 report. Working Group 3 specifically addresses the challenges of mitigating climate change. The report runs to nearly 1500 pages and draws from the latest research on every aspect of climate change mitigation from technology, economic, and policy perspectives. Your brilliant “very obvious” idea that is “certain to happen” was not considered even worth a serious discussion. It occupies little more than one paragraph among the 1500 pages, the purpose of which is basically to dismiss the idea.
But of course we must remember the thread you started wherein the point was that scientists don’t know how to do science properly, but you do! So I can see how you’re comfortable with the idea that you’re correct and every scientist in the world is wrong, on this issue or any other. Do you understand now why, as Colibri quite correctly put it, “the combination of ignorance and arrogance is truly breathtaking”?
I cite this as only one representative example, but it applies to most of your pontifications, the general commonality being that the reason things that are “obvious” to you are not obvious to knowledgeable experts is that most of the time you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.
My reasons should be obvious, Sammy. Low information combined with boundless arrogance leads to very stupid conclusions, and arrogant stupidity is intensely annoying, although I grant that sometimes it also has comedic entertainment value. Arrogant blowhards like yourself are easy and deserving targets.
Come on. 'Fess up. You’re just a variant of those “sovereign citizen” types, aren’t you? Look, I’ve watched this thread and its clone from afar, but with bemusement and now bafflement at how anyone can be so blindingly and proudly ignorant of not only technology but of actual definitions of words. Just because you want ethe words to mean something else does not mean that happens. Seriously, if stupidity had a Richter scale, yours would rate at least 7.5 on that scale.
First, climate engineering isn’t listed in the paragraph of “certain to happen”. So you’re misstating my position.
Second, if the math checks out an idea (or are you going to jump in and claim the laws of physics mean we can’t change the climate in a positive way?), and the idea gets just 1 paragraph, that would be a sign that it was not given the consideration the idea deserves.
“oh, those semiconductors Bell labs found? Got 1 paragraph at the vacuum tube conference”.
Finally: given that CO2 reductions are not happening per any of the IPCC suggested schedules, essentially the policy of the working group is to do nothing at all? That is, they wrote a 1500 page report and asked for something that won’t be done?
I can’t deny their knowledge in the subject nor do I claim to know better than these people, I’m just pointing out that most people would wonder if “do nothing” is the optimum plan.
“well, we don’t really know what to do, so let’s just do nothing and let the climate die”.
To be fair, that is what the modern “treatment” for aging and Alzheimer’s is. Absolutely nothing.
You’re a moron. I just looked at the actual fucking IPCC documents, and there are exhaustive discussions of climate mitigation methods. All over the fucking place. And there are specific policy statements that methods that might be a “fix” for the problem are being deliberately left out as to avoid misleading policymakers that climate change has a “quick fix”. This matter has been discussed since the 1960s, and the math does appear to check out on it, the IPCC just isn’t willing to stake it’s reputation on any particular method that might not work. Since the only method that is 100% going to work is reducing CO2. But since that isn’t happening, there’s other options.
I’m done. If you’re just going to fucking lie in order to deliver more insults, why the fuck should I discuss anything with you? Go to hell, idiot.
You OK?
We can now observe that Sammy is not just an arrogant blowhard, but a shameless liar. Let us count the ways …
Am I? Let me highlight in bold the relevant bits so that your defective fevered brain can actually see them, and the rest of us can observe your lie:
Same with climate engineering or nanotechnology or self replicating factories or anything else. All very obvious ideas that very obviously will be seen eventually, they are all as certain to happen as nuclear fission was once it was demonstrated to work.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21689279&postcount=953
Yes, this is back to the “scientists don’t know how to do science, but I, SamuelA, will show them the way! Fools, all of them!” 
On this one, there’s so much confused misinformation that it’s hard to even know where to start, and I can’t possibly cover it all briefly. But to the main points of wrongness:
-
The IPCC doesn’t have “suggested schedules”. This is the exact opposite of what they do. This is another major demonstration of abject ignorance on your part. The IPCC is very specifically non-prescriptive with respect to policy. They used to discuss impacts in terms of emissions scenarios, but now they’re cast in terms of end-point CO2 levels called Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs). The basic idea is, pick your end-point target, and these will be the consequences.
-
CO2 reductions absolutely are happening, just not as fast as we would like. Every country on earth signed on to the COP21 Paris accord, until Trump pulled the US out. Everyone else is in.
-
The WG3 report does not resign itself to “do nothing”. It provides a very exhaustive list of mitigation options. That’s the fucking reason the IPCC gathered together the top experts in the world, and the fucking reason the report was written.
Wow, you mean the report whose basic fucking purpose was to discuss climate mitigation methods, exactly as I said, actually discussed climate mitigation methods, exactly as I said? Well, color me embarrassed!
You’re really not very bright, are you?
This is total bullshit. The IPCC has always been about completeness and transparency. The reason it says essentially nothing about climate engineering besides CDR (CO2 removal, which is entirely different from the bullshit you’re suggesting) is that there’s nothing to say about it except that it’s probably infeasible and highly risky at best. But yeah, keep telling us how “the math works” (whatever the fuck that means – have you done whatever “math” is supposedly involved here?) and that this is a “very obvious idea” that is “certain to happen”.
You’re not just an uninformed moron, you’re a shameless liar, and I’m happy to call you out on your lack of ethical decency. This is what the AR5 WG3 actually says about what they call “solar radiation management” (SRM):
Technical Summary, page 61
Knowledge about the possible beneficial or harmful effects of SRM is highly preliminary. SRM would have varying impacts on regional climate variables such as temperature and precipitation, and might result in substantial changes in the global hydrological cycle with uncertain regional effects, for example on monsoon precipitation. Non-climate effects could include possible depletion of stratospheric ozone by stratospheric aerosol injections. A few studies have begun to examine climate and non-climate impacts of SRM, but there is very little agreement in the scientific community on the results or on whether the lack of knowledge requires additional research or eventually field testing of SRM-related technologies. [1.4, 3.3.7, 6.9, 13.4.4]
3.3.7 Geoengineering, ethics, and justice
Geoengineering technologies face several distinct sets of objections. Some authors have stressed the substantial uncertainties of largescale deployment (for overviews of geoengineering risks see also Schneider (2008) and Sardemann and Grunwald (2010)), while others have argued that some intended and unintended effects of both CDR and SRM could be irreversible (Jamieson, 1996) and that some current uncertainties are unresolvable (Bunzl, 2009). Furthermore, it has been pointed out that geoengineering could make the situation worse rather than better (Hegerl and Solomon, 2009; Fleming, 2010; Hamilton, 2013) and that several technologies lack a viable exit option: SRM in particular would have to be maintained as long as GHG concentrations remain elevated (The Royal Society, 2009).
And that’s why they don’t talk about it beyond basically just dismissing it. It’s basically a pipe dream, unless there’s some unknown miracle breakthrough, one with no pollution consequences whatsoever, and even then, we’d still be faced with ocean acidification and a vast array of unprecedented unknowns. And worst of all, if any of this hypothetically successful SRM ceased for any reason, the earth’s temperature would bounce back with such forceful rapidity that it would be utterly catastrophic.
But yeah, Sammy, keep telling us how this is a “certainty”. Maybe it can all be done with self-replicating nanobots. Because you’ve done the math!
I rest my case with this fucking idiot.