BernardR wrote:Finn- I am also curious about your reference to the upcoming singularity. Perhaps I have not kept up but my only reference on singularity is to the "singularity"which allegedly began the "Big Bang". Can you give us more information. It sounds quite interesting.
Bernard
The Singularity is an event of almost unimaginable change, and will be the product of a confluence of several key technological advances, driven by the Law of Accelerating Returns:
*Nanotechnology
*Computing power
*Genetic-engineering
*Artificial intelligence
There are both utopian (Ray Kurzweil) and dystopian (Vernor Vinge) views of the event.
Google "Singularity" and you will find numerous links to solid information.
Two books I can recommend
The Singularity is Near - Ray Kurzweil
Radical Evolution - Joel Garreau
As for nano technology:
The Engines of Creation - Eric Drexler
Nano - Ed Regis
Finn- Thank You- I will get Garreau's Radical Evolution--It sounds intriguing.
My question to you was based on my understanding of the word- Singularity. I had encountered it only once- in Bill Bryson's book where he defined singularity as ---"gathering up everything there is--every last mote and particle of matter between here and the edge of creation--and squeezing it into a spot so infinitesmally compact that it has no dimensions at all. It is known as a "Singularity"."
Apparently, the term has much wider meanings!!!!
Re: GO Global Warming
plainoldme wrote:okie wrote:supernerd1217 wrote:I dont understand everything you guys are talking about because im only 15 and im not an activist or anything but would you rather save our country from suffering, a few other countys from suffering or the WHOLE world from suffering. That is why we need to prevent global warming. Thinkj about what is happening to the world. The ice caps are melting and glacier national park is melting away, we are destroying animals habitat, poluting the air, and cutting off our main life source. (oxygen) Soon the polar ice caps will melt and great places like flordia california and hawaii and other cool places are going to fall into the ocean. Anyway you can still foight global warming and terrorism at the same time!
Just a tip, supernerd1217, don't believe what every teacher tells you, and don't believe every tv program or documentary. Approach science with a "healthy skepticism." Teachers, especially K-12, are babes in the woods when it comes to science. Some are downright ignorant and will try to fill your mind with absolute nonsense. There is such a thing called "junk science." For starters, you might wish to check out the following:
http://www.junkscience.com/
Don't believe everything you see there either. Think for yourself. Check out the details of issues and scientific theories. Don't believe much unless you see it yourself, and then think twice before believing it.
Supernerd -- I apologize to you on behalf of all real adults and all educated people. This man is encouraging ignorance, in the name of his beliefs. Let me repeat the last phrase, "in the name of his beliefs."
He has demonstrated on other threads that he lacks sophistication, knowledge and understanding.
Furthermore, his advice to you is subversive and anarchical. It is my belief that he never finished college and is no position to judge what is proper science or not.
As you are too young to work, I suggest that you spend the summer -- after you accomplish your summer reading for English -- reading real science.
I think of the teacher who does all the advanced courses at the high school where I have been working -- undergrad from Princeton, grad work at MIT. Or the chairman of the dept who has a doctorate from Cornell. I suppose Okie would have the cheek to say, "Don't listen to these people."
BTW, as a mother and a teacher, let me advise you to take the highest level courses you can. If you are in CP1, move to advanced. If you are in advanced, move to honors. You'll shed the students who act up and the content of the classes will be better and better presented.
"It is my belief that he never finished college..."
And thus he is unqualified to comment on any and all subjects?
Let's assume you are right and okie never finished college. Let's take it a step further and assume he never attended a single college class. What does that prove?
It is my belief that you did, in fact, finish college. What does that prove?
Out of curiosity, what job do you hold at the school where you have been working?
You know, don't you, that George Bush has an MBA from Harvard, that William Shockley had a doctorate from MIT and was awarded the Nobel prize for Physics, John Ashcroft graduated from Yale with honors and obtained his JD from the University of Chicago, Richard Nixon graduated from Duke Law School, and Bill Frist graduated from Princeton, and with honors from Harvard medical school. I'm sure you will encourage
supernerd to listen to them too.
BernardR wrote:Finn- Thank You- I will get Garreau's Radical Evolution--It sounds intriguing.
My question to you was based on my understanding of the word- Singularity. I had encountered it only once- in Bill Bryson's book where he defined singularity as ---"gathering up everything there is--every last mote and particle of matter between here and the edge of creation--and squeezing it into a spot so infinitesmally compact that it has no dimensions at all. It is known as a "Singularity"."
Apparently, the term has much wider meanings!!!!
Singularity
I believe John von Neumann was the first person to use the term to decribe a point of exponential technological advancement. As the link indicates Vinge and Kurzweil have employed its use to suggest an unknown outcome "on the other side of the event horizon."
supernerd1217- It is most important that you are aware of the fact that so called "teachers" who are unable to explain facts which are put before them or do not attempt to assure the learner that they will find the answer are phonies.
If you have read this thread, you have noted that I posted some facts. Plain Ol Me chooses to ignore the facts and merely uses name calling to try to stifle my information.
Again, Plain Ol Me. rebut the following or lead supernerd 1217 to information which can explain that my post is in error, or remove yourself from the podium.
supernerd1217--Read the following carefully. I do hope that Plain Ol Me will attempt to rebut it, but I do not think she is able, despite her preaching. to do so--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Warming: The Satellite Saga Continues
By Roy Spencer :
The results of two research studies announced this week address the infamous discrepancy between satellite and surface thermometer trends over the last 25 years. The original satellite dataset produced by the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) now has a warming trend of 0.08 deg. C/decade since 1979, while the surface thermometer trend is two to three times this value. Climate models, in contrast, claim that any surface warming as a result of global warming should be amplified with height, not reduced. This has led to varying levels of concern in the climate community that the theory contained in the climate models might be in error.
As background, a study published earlier this year by Fu et al. (1) attempted to estimate the amount of tropospheric warming by a simple linear combination of the stratospheric and tropospheric channels of the Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs) flying on NOAA polar-orbiting weather satellites. (The troposphere exists from the surface up to a height of around 8-12 miles, the stratosphere overlays it.) Since the tropospheric channel has about 15% influence from the stratosphere -- which has cooled strongly since 1979 -- the tropospheric temperature can only be estimated through removal of the stratospheric component. Fu et al. used radiosonde (weather balloon) data to arrive at an optimum combination of the two channels that, when applied to the satellite observed temperature trends, resulted in a tropospheric warming trend that was larger than that estimated by UAH with a different technique.
In the first article announced this week, Fu & Johansen (2) estimate the stratospheric contribution to the satellite instrument's tropospheric channel through a slightly different method than in their original article. They used previously published radiosonde estimates of temperature trends through the lower and middle stratosphere to estimate the error in their method, as well as the amount of stratospheric cooling contained in the tropospheric channel. While we would prefer to leave detailed comments for a journal article, a couple of general points can be made. For the period they examined (1979-2001), our (UAH) lower tropospheric temperature trend is +0.06 deg. C/decade, while their estimate of the (whole) tropospheric trend is +0.09 deg C/decade. You might notice that the difference between these two trends is small, considering the probable error bounds on these estimates and the fact that the two techniques measure somewhat different layers. Also, their method depends on belief in the radiosonde-measured trends in the lower stratosphere, even though we know there are larger errors at those altitudes than in the troposphere -- and most published radiosonde trends for the troposphere show little or no global warming (!) As is often the case, the press release that described the new study made claims that were, in my view, exaggerated. Nevertheless, given the importance of the global warming issue, this line of research is probably worthwhile as it provides an alternative way of interpreting the satellite data.
The other study (3), published by Simon Tett and Peter Thorne at the UK's Hadley Centre, takes issue with the original Fu et al. method. Tett and Thorne claim that when the technique is applied to variety of radiosonde, reanalysis, and global model simulation datasets in the tropics, it leads to results which are more variable than the UAH technique produces. It also mentions the dependence of the method on the characteristics of the radiosonde data that are assumed.
What all this means in terms of observed and predicted global temperature trends remains to be seen. As part of the requirements of the Bush administration's Climate Change Science Plan, a variety of scientists are now sifting through the satellite, thermometer, and radiosonde data, and will report in the coming year on their findings.
References
1. Fu, Q., C.M. Johanson, S.G. Warren, and D.J. Seidel, 2004: Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite inferred tropospheric temperature trends. Nature, Vol. 429, p. 55-58.
2. Fu, Q., and C.M. Johanson, 2004. Stratospheric influences on MSU-derived tropospheric temperature trends: A direct error analysis. Journal of Climate, to be published December 15, 2004
3. Tett, S., and P. Thorne, 2004: Tropospheric temperature series from satellites. December 2, 2004, at Nature online (subscription required.)
( I can see that the 0.09CDec. is not at all in line with the outrageous levels predicted by the sky is falling crowd---.22C per decade to.40C per decade)
Note the footnotes and explore if you wish!!
************************************************************
Re: GO Global Warming
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Let's assume you are right and okie never finished college. Let's take it a step further and assume he never attended a single college class. What does that prove?
It is my belief that you did, in fact, finish college. What does that prove?
Out of curiosity, what job do you hold at the school where you have been working?
You know, don't you, that George Bush has an MBA from Harvard, that William Shockley had a doctorate from MIT and was awarded the Nobel prize for Physics, John Ashcroft graduated from Yale with honors and obtained his JD from the University of Chicago, Richard Nixon graduated from Duke Law School, and Bill Frist graduated from Princeton, and with honors from Harvard medical school. I'm sure you will encourage supernerd to listen to them too.
For what its worth, I did finish college with a degree, but so what. I know people with no college education that are smarter than some posters here. I know people without a high school diploma that are smarter. I know PhDs that are dumber than posts when it comes to common sense. Not all, but some. I have worked with them every day during certain periods of my career.
I would advise you that debating with plainoldme is a deadend. If you don't believe me, go read "Democracies and Mutual Respect." I finally wrote it off. She is probably a very nice person, but I have no idea where the reasoning comes from, or if there is any.
Okie- She may be of the mindset that the late great film reviewer--Pauline Kael, who knew about movies and nothing about politics. Kael remarked, after the election of Richard Nixon--"How did he win? I don't know anybody who voted for him"
Plain Ol Me is probably encased in an atmosphere of strident left wing liberalism which still does not undertstand that the Left Wing was severly defeated in 1984 when the Democrats lost the House and Senate Majorities and has not gotten them back.
The effete East is losing people and House Seats. Americans are moving in large numbers to the West and South--two sections of the country, with some exceptions in the far West, which are resolutely Republican.
Okie- The Socialist Left Wing has lost the trust of the American People---that has been the lesson of the Bush victories since 2000.
BernardR wrote:Okie- She may be of the mindset that the late great film reviewer--Pauline Kael, who knew about movies and nothing about politics. Kael remarked, after the election of Richard Nixon--"How did he win? I don't know anybody who voted for him"
Plain Ol Me is probably encased in an atmosphere of strident left wing liberalism which still does not undertstand that the Left Wing was severly defeated in 1984 when the Democrats lost the House and Senate Majorities and has not gotten them back.
The effete East is losing people and House Seats. Americans are moving in large numbers to the West and South--two sections of the country, with some exceptions in the far West, which are resolutely Republican.
Okie- The Socialist Left Wing has lost the trust of the American People---that has been the lesson of the Bush victories since 2000.
As an example of your comments, if there ever was a bubble of encased atmosphere, its Hollywood. Their profession consists of imaginations and imaginary grandeur and fame. No wonder their view of the world and politics are disconnected from reality as well.
Anyway, I wish I was as confident as you about the Socialist Left Wing losing trust. If you promise enough people enough stuff, you will win votes, and remember the vote is pretty much 50 / 50.
You have a good point, Okie. One of the reasons why the left wing has gained so much power is thata great many people have no self-reliance or shame anymore/ We must never forget that when you begin to rob "Peter to pay Paul"--you will create a very large number of Pauls.
Gosh! I looooovvvvvveeeee assumptions!
BernardR wrote:You have a good point, Okie. One of the reasons why the left wing has gained so much power is thata great many people have no self-reliance or shame anymore/ We must never forget that when you begin to rob "Peter to pay Paul"--you will create a very large number of Pauls.
Bernard,
You seem confused of who is in power and who is doing all the borrowing.
The borrowing? What borrowing? Do you mean the monies that are going to fund the war in Iraq? Do you know who votes on that, Mr. Parados? The House votes on that, Mr. Parados. Look up the vote for the Iraq War allocation, Mr. Parados. You do know, of course, that the bill could have been defeated if the House Members thought that their constituents were not in favor of the war being funded.
No- Mr.Parados--You missed the import of the phrase.
When any government begins to give largess to its citizens even when they do not really need it--When huge government programs are established( HUD-DEPT OF EDUCATION-) to give money to people with the intent that the politicians can put the votes in their pockets because of the largesse- you are robbing Peter to pay Paul.
And, if, as is happening in our country, there are more and more Pauls--uneducated, indigent, shiftless, would be victims of society--than there are Peters, there will be a redistribution of assets. Some people who work hard for their money don't like to give quite so much away to the shiftless in our society!
plainoldme wrote:Gosh! I looooovvvvvveeeee assumptions!
Has there been a more pathetic retort?
Get ye to a nunnery b*tch or advance your feeble arguments.
Finn- I think you are being too hard on Plain Ol Me. Have some compassion. If you study her avatar you can see what the problem is. Her avatar is a COW! How can a COW say more than what she said?
You are being too hard on her, Finn!!!
Well, I looked at your avatar, BernardR. What can one see?
And that tells us, according to your own logic?
I am sorry you have not kept up with literature, Mr. Hinteler. If you had, you would have become familiar with the "Invisible Man" --a novel written by the British Author--H. G. Wells.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Well, I looked at your avatar, BernardR. What can one see?
And that tells us, according to your own logic?
Walter
If you are going to be a champion of the bovine Plain Old and a nemesis of Bernard, you need to pack your musket with more powerful charges.
Sorry, but Euro-Akers don't get to pop off with emotion and expect their utterances to be Euro-Correct.
Well, that ain't correct. All y'all Euros (Walter, Thomas, Nimh) enjoy an elevated status because American Liberals love all things that are Euro.
Kudos to you and Thomas and Nimh for your ability to express your opinions in English. I would love to be able to reject your crap in German, French or Dutch, but I cannot. I also cannot debate in Mandarin. Swahili, or Arab.
BernardR wrote:Okie- She may be of the mindset that the late great film reviewer--Pauline Kael, who knew about movies and nothing about politics. Kael remarked, after the election of Richard Nixon--"How did he win? I don't know anybody who voted for him"
Plain Ol Me is probably encased in an atmosphere of strident left wing liberalism which still does not undertstand that the Left Wing was severly defeated in 1984 when the Democrats lost the House and Senate Majorities and has not gotten them back.
The effete East is losing people and House Seats. Americans are moving in large numbers to the West and South--two sections of the country, with some exceptions in the far West, which are resolutely Republican.
Okie- The Socialist Left Wing has lost the trust of the American People---that has been the lesson of the Bush victories since 2000.
Ignorance about politics, eh? Well, it takes one to know one.
Besides, I have one word to say: Ohio.
No, forgot! I have two and the second is: Florida.
I think several contributors will find what BernardR typed on another thread just as hilarious as his contributions here:
Plain Ol Me says:
Wow! Look at the pot calling the kettle! THe original name caller, the man who was banned from abuzz multiple times for name calling and who, as result, used a host of fake names.
**********************************************************
That just shows how ignorant and clueless you are. I have never been on Abuzz.
But I do think your cow avatar is priceless--It fits you!!!
On the terrorism side of this topic -- as loose as it is!
'Dark Side' sheds light on Cheney
By Sam Allis, Globe Staff | June 20, 2006
"Frontline" delivers a devastating look tonight at the efforts of Vice President Dick Cheney to gain control of the war on terror after 9/11. In doing so, the show purports, he compromised the integrity of America's intelligence system.
"The Dark Side" is riveting television, heavily reported, that exemplifies what "Frontline" does best: go inside a major story and give us context. The title is a ripe double-entendre that applies both to Cheney and the turf on which the war against terrorists is fought. "We have to work the dark side, if you will," we hear Cheney say. "Spend time in the shadows of the intelligence world."
To many, Cheney is the dark side of the Bush administration, and this program will only cement that judgment. ``Frontline" chronicles the brutal campaign by two consummate political in-fighters -- Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld -- to decimate the CIA, politically emasculate Secretary of State Colin Powell, and construct a near-limitless concept of executive power during war. While many of these strands are familiar, they have not been assembled as effectively before on television to present a coherent picture of what happened after 9/11.
Cheney didn't trust the CIA after it missed the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Iranian revolution, and Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, so he created through Rumsfeld's Pentagon his own intelligence network to suit his agenda. Powell and former CIA director George Tenet were no match for this pair, who have known each other for three decades. By the time that Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis ``Scooter" Libby, was indicted last fall, Powell and Tenet were long gone and the CIA was in shambles.
Tenet leaves as a thoroughly compromised man who first opposes some of Cheney's intelligence conclusions and then caves. He receives from Bush the Medal of Freedom -- the highest honor the president can bestow -- as he is pushed out. ``You've seen this episode of `I, Claudius,' you know?" says Steve Coll of the New Yorker. ``You put the knife in one side and the medal on the other side and that's politics."
``The Dark Side" is, in a sense, CIA payback for its treatment. The program is dominated by legions of former CIA officers, some of whom left over the agency's treatment by the White House, and they detail what they view as Cheney's efforts to find the intelligence to fit the war he wanted against Saddam. Virtually no one, in contrast, appears from the Cheney-Rumsfeld camp to defend the two men's actions.
The talking heads are excellent. Most of the ex-spooks are strong, as is David Kay, leader of the failed attempt to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So are intelligence experts Ron Suskind and James Bamford and the inevitable Bob Woodward.
``Frontline" walks us through the bad intelligence that Cheney spouted in public, even after the CIA had challenged it, like an Al Qaeda -Saddam connection and Saddam's supposed purchase of enriched uranium from Niger. We hear that the president's first reaction to the WMD evidence was, ``Is that all we got?"
We hear that Powell was not told the truth about the provenance of facts on which he based his disastrous speech at the United Nations, and that Cheney and Libby made 10 trips to the CIA -- unheard of by the White House -- to push analysts on data.
Paul Pillar, a respected former CIA officer, was a principal author of a signal report on WMDs in Iraq that proved so wrong. ``The purpose was to strengthen the case for going to war with the American public," he says. ``Is it proper for the intelligence community to publish papers for that purpose? I don't think so, and I regret having had a role in it."
© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.
