Quantum Computing about to take a Leap forward?

[Mike_Rupp]

LMAO, dude, what are you on about? This is such complete bullshit... This is not what progressives say, this is what fox news SAYS we say. The example of a winery that you gave is by definition a carbon-neutral business. Their credits will offset their tax. If not, then it's a problem that should be addressed within the proposed legislation, and I don't see any reasonable human failing to recognize and rectify that.

Their credits will offset their tax? Do you realize how easily you accept government intrusion and regulation of a business that by your own admission needs no regulation? Holy Fuck!

 

[Blue]

LMAO, dude, what are you on about? This is such complete bullshit... This is not what progressives say, this is what fox news SAYS we say. The example of a winery that you gave is by definition a carbon-neutral business. Their credits will offset their tax. If not, then it's a problem that should be addressed within the proposed legislation, and I don't see any reasonable human failing to recognize and rectify that.

Who are you, Wesley Mouch?

 

[Blue]

CO2 is plant food.

No, no, no....CO2 is a poisonous gas. You must be re-educated.

 

[Blue]

what im referring to is not thousands of years old. its since 1971 and is called Moore's law and the end product is a technological singularity.

I understood where you were going with that comment. I was just pointing out that people (obviously) live in their own time, whatever time that may have been or be. Don't you think that the first guys to watch a cart roll down a hill on wheels with rudimentary axles had thoughts to the effect of "holy shit, what a technological advance, this is too fast for man to keep up with?"

 

[Mike_Rupp]

Who are you, Wesley Mouch?

I can't imagine that Kris would read Ayn Rand. More like Marx, Mao, and Che.

 

[knewsom]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/W_veZ24nC3g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[brian4d]

Youtube education, as scholarly as it comes.

 

[knewsom]

Well, I've had my critical thinking skills attacked on here so many times that I figured it was time to point out some glaring fallacies and hypocrisy in a very simple way.

 

[hilltoppersx]

I understood where you were going with that comment. I was just pointing out that people (obviously) live in their own time, whatever time that may have been or be. Don't you think that the first guys to watch a cart roll down a hill on wheels with rudimentary axles had thoughts to the effect of "holy shit, what a technological advance, this is too fast for man to keep up with?"

well luckily in our time we will see a technological singularity about the same time we will see quantum computing. you thought an LR4 was complicated to work on...

 

[lockenDiff]

It's funny how people can easily believe in something (god) which has no facts behind to support the belief but can easily go off about something (climate change) that actually has facts to support that it's possible that humans may be hurting the planet. Please pack up your shit and fly with Newt to his moon colony and take all the dumb minded people with you.

 

[lockenDiff]

I understood where you were going with that comment. I was just pointing out that people (obviously) live in their own time, whatever time that may have been or be. Don't you think that the first guys to watch a cart roll down a hill on wheels with rudimentary axles had thoughts to the effect of "holy shit, what a technological advance, this is too fast for man to keep up with?"

No they said we need brakes or stay away of hills. It's evolution.

 

[brian4d]

It's funny how people can easily believe in something (god) which has no facts behind to support the belief but can easily go off about something (climate change) that actually has facts to support that it's possible that humans may be hurting the planet. Please pack up your shit and fly with Newt to his moon colony and take all the dumb minded people with you.

You're looking at it all wrong, at least, in my opinion. I simply believe that man cannot control mother nature one way OR the other. I look at it both ways, there's nothing we can do to hurt the earth much like there's nothing we can do to save it. Life in some form or fashion will live on forever, there's your science facts working for you. Don't think just about mankind, that's shortsighted. If someone ask me who will kill off mankind I'd most certainly say a natural disaster. Wait, haven't we heard this all before?

 

[hilltoppersx]

You're looking at it all wrong, at least, in my opinion. I simply believe that man cannot control mother nature one way OR the other. I look at it both ways, there's nothing we can do to hurt the earth much like there's nothing we can do to save it. Life in some form or fashion will live on forever, there's your science facts working for you. Don't think just about mankind, that's shortsighted. If someone ask me who will kill off mankind I'd most certainly say a natural disaster. Wait, haven't we heard this all before?

There will be something we can do. nanotech will allow us to fight pollution, recreate extinct animals from dna and cure diseases from within our cells. I don't think a natural disaster will take us before we take ourselves.

 

[brian4d]

There will be something we can do. nanotech will allow us to fight pollution, recreate extinct animals from dna and cure diseases from within our cells. I don't think a natural disaster will take us before we take ourselves.

You must have read Prey. If you haven't, read it. We might become extinct becuase of Nanotech but, even nanotech needs and energy source that looks to mother nature.

 

[knewsom]

You're looking at it all wrong, at least, in my opinion. I simply believe that man cannot control mother nature one way OR the other. I look at it both ways, there's nothing we can do to hurt the earth much like there's nothing we can do to save it. Life in some form or fashion will live on forever, there's your science facts working for you. Don't think just about mankind, that's shortsighted. If someone ask me who will kill off mankind I'd most certainly say a natural disaster. Wait, haven't we heard this all before?

I'm afraid the facts do not support your beliefs. Humans have a MASSIVE impact on the environment. Assuming that we cannot possibly upset the balance of a delicate system to which we belong is EXCEPTIONALLY short sighted.

 

[hilltoppersx]

You must have read Prey. If you haven't, read it. We might become extinct becuase of Nanotech but, even nanotech needs and energy source that looks to mother nature.

never read it, will check it out. thanks.

 

[SGaynor]

It's funny how people can easily believe in something (god) which has no facts behind to support the belief but can easily go off about something (climate change) that actually has facts to support that it's possible that humans may be hurting the planet. Please pack up your shit and fly with Newt to his moon colony and take all the dumb minded people with you.

As a scientist, who thinks "climate change" is overblown at best, or would be an inconvience, at worst, and who believes in God, I answer your statement this way:

One is metaphysical (God) which puts forth on WHY we are here, and the other (science) which describes HOW Nature works. One is faith, the other is testable.

And, I think Newt is a twit.

I'm afraid the facts do not support your beliefs. Humans have a MASSIVE impact on the environment. Assuming that we cannot possibly upset the balance of a delicate system to which we belong is EXCEPTIONALLY short sighted.

I'd say the earth is not a delicate system. It's quite robust actually. Can we (mankind) have a "MASSIVE impact on the environment" and cause pollution, deforestation, over farming/grazing, etc.? Absolutely. However, those things will just cause mankind to have shorter (on average) lifespans, and possibly drastically reduce our numbers (due to flood, famine, etc).

However, history has shown that Nature will bounce right back (see: the many rivers, etc. that have improved since the advent of better pollution controls. That's the sign of a strong system, not a delicate one.

 

[brian4d]

I'm afraid the facts do not support your beliefs. Humans have a MASSIVE impact on the environment. Assuming that we cannot possibly upset the balance of a delicate system to which we belong is EXCEPTIONALLY short sighted.

Facts! LOL!

 

[brian4d]

As a scientist, who thinks "climate change" is overblown at best, or would be an inconvience, at worst, and who believes in God, I answer your statement this way:

One is metaphysical (God) which puts forth on WHY we are here, and the other (science) which describes HOW Nature works. One is faith, the other is testable.

And, I think Newt is a twit.



I'd say the earth is not a delicate system. It's quite robust actually. Can we (mankind) have a "MASSIVE impact on the environment" and cause pollution, deforestation, over farming/grazing, etc.? Absolutely. However, those things will just cause mankind to have shorter (on average) lifespans, and possibly drastically reduce our numbers (due to flood, famine, etc).

However, history has shown that Nature will bounce right back (see: the many rivers, etc. that have improved since the advent of better pollution controls. That's the sign of a strong system, not a delicate one.

Don't forget human over population, that will be the quick killer.

 

[Durt D1ver]

If i remember history, there was once a big meteor that hit earth. It caused quite a bit of pollution, including a nuclear winter. Yet, although there are no more dinosaurs, the planet recovered, and mammals took over.

(i'm aware of the over simplification)

And since it seems i'm not the only one here quoting Michael Crichton:

"Let's be clear. The planet is not in jeopardy. We are in jeopardy. We haven't got the power to destroy the planet - or to save it. But we might have the power to save ourselves." - Ian Malcolm