| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Ian Parker" |
| Date: |
30 Oct 2006 05:34:47 AM |
| Object: |
Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
Why do politicians and economists ignore technology as being key
factors. By 2050 we will be able to place mirrors at the Lagrange point
(L1) which will enable us to reduce the amount of solar energy falling
on Earth. This can be done either by a lightweight sunshield (55kg per
km^2) or by the use of a Von Neumann machine.
If we really want to do anything about global warming this is clearly
the route we should take. It is absolute nonsense to talk about 2050
without reference to the technologies which will be available then. So
1% of the world's economy will be devoted to reducing carbon emissions.
If one part in 10,000 of the world's economy were to be devoted to
research we could find a solution to both these problems.
I would be extremely surprised if by 2050 BOTH these technologies were
not available. Hence the folly of politicians and people like Stern.
This is even without an enhanced program of research. 44 years ago we
were just advancing into single discrete transistors. Is Stern
seriously telling us that there will be no Von Neumann machines, and
(presumably) no AI by 2050. He has taken complete leave of his senses.
We really ought to be thinking much more about how technology will look
in the future. Aircraft will be controlled completely by computers and
using liquid hydrogen. What we should be doing is developing innovative
technologies rather than telling people not to fly.
Carbon trading is nonsense and dangerous nonsense .If we accept that
poor governance is the main cause of poverty carbon trading is absolute
madness. North Korea produces very little CO2 and its nuclear weapons
program would get an enormous fillip from any carbon trading scheme.
Carbon trading will also encourage fundamentalism and have a
detrimental effect on the position of women in Moslem countries. You do
not need women if either :-
1) A sticky black substance comes out of the ground.
2) Mad economists like Stern donate you money.
If money were to be given to NGO such as Oxfam and Cafod this might be
different. Putting money in the hands of bad governments must be the
height of folly.
Stern is nonsense and is DANGEROUS nonsense to boot.
.
|
|
| User: "richard schumacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
31 Oct 2006 04:40:59 AM |
|
|
For discussion by scientists of the facts of global warming see
http://realclimate.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
31 Oct 2006 11:18:21 AM |
|
|
richard schumacher wrote:
For discussion by scientists of the facts of global warming see
http://realclimate.org
I don't think that there is much doubt that global warming is taking
place. My gripe with Stern is about the way he talks about the date
2050. The Gulf Stream will not turn itself off before at least 2030 -
True.
The "we must reduce CO2" brigade in fact never say that we can affect
the climate before 2050 by cutting down. In fact the climate in 2030
(barring a VEI 7 eruption which would cause global COOLING) is pretty
much determined now. The question is "What will technology be like in
2030-2050?". I believe that our technology then will make the question
of Global Warming somewhat irrelevant.
There are reasons to cut down NOT based on global warming. They are
based on energy security and global terrorism. There is no doubt in my
mind that Madrassa Jihad is financed from Saudi oil revenues and that
Wahabbism/Saladism is supported by wealthy Saudis.
However if you are NOT concerned with global warming, you cut down on
consumption at the same time developing Western based oil and energy.
Shale for example.
- Ian Parker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alex Terrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
31 Oct 2006 05:53:49 PM |
|
|
Ian Parker wrote:
richard schumacher wrote:
For discussion by scientists of the facts of global warming see
http://realclimate.org
I don't think that there is much doubt that global warming is taking
place. My gripe with Stern is about the way he talks about the date
2050. The Gulf Stream will not turn itself off before at least 2030 -
True.
The "we must reduce CO2" brigade in fact never say that we can affect
the climate before 2050 by cutting down. In fact the climate in 2030
(barring a VEI 7 eruption which would cause global COOLING) is pretty
much determined now. The question is "What will technology be like in
2030-2050?". I believe that our technology then will make the question
of Global Warming somewhat irrelevant.
That depends. See what's happening in Germany and California. These two
areas are driving the technology now because they want to cut emissions
in 10 years, not in 40 years.
There are reasons to cut down NOT based on global warming. They are
based on energy security and global terrorism. There is no doubt in my
mind that Madrassa Jihad is financed from Saudi oil revenues and that
Wahabbism/Saladism is supported by wealthy Saudis.
Well, if Global Warming won't convince Bush, perhaps energy security,
balance of payments, and funding of terrorism will convince him.
However if you are NOT concerned with global warming, you cut down on
consumption at the same time developing Western based oil and energy.
Shale for example.
Or wind and nuclear power.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Rudiak-Gould" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
01 Nov 2006 08:40:19 PM |
|
|
Ian Parker wrote:
I would be extremely surprised if by 2050 BOTH these technologies were
not available. [...] 44 years ago we
were just advancing into single discrete transistors. Is Stern
seriously telling us that there will be no Von Neumann machines, and
(presumably) no AI by 2050. He has taken complete leave of his senses.
I'd be extremely surprised if either self-replicating machines or human-like
AI existed by 2050. These are very hard problems, and I see no evidence that
we're making steady, predictable progress toward solving them.
-- Ben
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
02 Nov 2006 06:04:42 AM |
|
|
Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:
I would be extremely surprised if by 2050 BOTH these technologies were
not available. [...] 44 years ago we
were just advancing into single discrete transistors. Is Stern
seriously telling us that there will be no Von Neumann machines, and
(presumably) no AI by 2050. He has taken complete leave of his senses.
I'd be extremely surprised if either self-replicating machines or human-l=
ike
AI existed by 2050. These are very hard problems, and I see no evidence t=
hat
we're making steady, predictable progress toward solving them.
There is evidence of progress. On the VN front there are a number of
steps that have to be taken. Basically a VN machine can be constructed
if we have a robot that can understand CAD/CAM (the robot and all the
intermediate stages will be in CAD format). If a robot knowing the CAD
specification can assemble a major VN stage will have been passed.
Is progress being made? Well someone is working on just this.
http://mediablog.mail2web.com/gadgetmaniac/blog/categories/list.html?id=3D2=
43
Could his research be speeded up with more resources? I think it
perhaps could. It is nonsense to say that no progress is being made. As
I say FLATPACK AND WE ARE THERE. IKEA I think should be persuaded to
release CAD files to their customers.
Is ir a sin to fly to Malaga? Not if your double bed you share with
your girlfriend has been assembled by a robot!
The question of language is really off topic but I will deal with it.
Your query was about AI in general. Latent Semantic Analysis will
predict a word in context. If I say
"Al barco attravesta una cerradura" as Google translate does. I can use
LSA to assign the probability of =E9clusia as greater than that of
cerradura. LSA will also enable accurate VoIP as well, since phonemes
are now recognized by Neural Networks as well if not better than we do.
VoIP is thus similar to translation.
I said "El barco esta caliente" referring to the second law of
thermodynamics. Indeed speech involves a relaxation process similar to
annealing.
A chatterbox works in essence by filling in data as you talk and
reieving from a database. "Bueno espagnol" is clearly necessary as "El
barco etc." is a nonsense sentence. The quickest way to beat Turing is
a nonsense sentence which is grammatical. Is it sufficient? I am
confident that with a large data base and with existing chatterbox
software.
Also LSA gives the promise of more accurate retrieval. Think of what
this will mean in the intelligence community.
Do not run away with the thought that no progess is being made.
- Ian Parker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
04 Nov 2006 04:06:09 AM |
|
|
Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:
I would be extremely surprised if by 2050 BOTH these technologies were
not available. [...] 44 years ago we
were just advancing into single discrete transistors. Is Stern
seriously telling us that there will be no Von Neumann machines, and
(presumably) no AI by 2050. He has taken complete leave of his senses.
I'd be extremely surprised if either self-replicating machines or human-like
AI existed by 2050. These are very hard problems, and I see no evidence that
we're making steady, predictable progress toward solving them.
SNIP
Hell, two thingss have been "just around the corner" since I learned to
read back in the Fifties
1) Commercial Nuclear Fusion
2) AI capable of mimicing humans
As far as computers go, without major breakthroughs they are about to
beome a mature and relatively static technology
1) Moore's Law is running up against the basic frontiers of physics in
terms of shrinking more devices onto a chip
2) We're still programming the same we have always done and as programs
become veer more byzantine and baroque, who knws what errors they
contain. The dream of the self-programming computer, except at the most
basic level, remains unmet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
04 Nov 2006 07:56:13 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:
I would be extremely surprised if by 2050 BOTH these technologies were
not available. [...] 44 years ago we
were just advancing into single discrete transistors. Is Stern
seriously telling us that there will be no Von Neumann machines, and
(presumably) no AI by 2050. He has taken complete leave of his senses.
I'd be extremely surprised if either self-replicating machines or human-like
AI existed by 2050. These are very hard problems, and I see no evidence that
we're making steady, predictable progress toward solving them.
SNIP
Hell, two thingss have been "just around the corner" since I learned to
read back in the Fifties
1) Commercial Nuclear Fusion
2) AI capable of mimicing humans
As far as computers go, without major breakthroughs they are about to
beome a mature and relatively static technology
1) Moore's Law is running up against the basic frontiers of physics in
terms of shrinking more devices onto a chip
In part, but Moore's law includes networks as well as chips. You are
right if you say there is a physical limit to chips. The physical
network limit is further away. 1 micon is 300THz. Multiple tuned lasers
will be achieving something like 20THz on a single strand. Think of
what a few ropes under the Atlantic could do.. What can be done on
thousands of interconnected computers may in many ways be more
interesting than more powerful disembodied chips.
Let us look at Turing (mimiking humans) another way. I have argued in
Creating Artificial Intelligence that "Bueno espagnol", the ability to
translate Natural Language = Turing. Why? Fundamentally because
chatterboxes are based on databases. Bueno espagnol implies that we can
access a database of NL text and build a spider capable of creating a
database which will give relevant replies to any query. We can sex this
up - literally by using a girl with a leather suit and bulging breasts
(Microsoft), but the fundamental problem boils down to NL.
2) We're still programming the same we have always done and as programs
become veer more byzantine and baroque, who knws what errors they
contain. The dream of the self-programming computer, except at the most
basic level, remains unmet.
What would you mean by self programming? We have an enormous code
capital these days. By self programming do you mean stating a problem,
and getting fully coded Java or C++? or would you be happy if "bueno
espagnol" trawled the Web for suitable code, looking at the NL in
comment statements and other descriptions?
I would strongly dispute the fact that we code in the same way as we
have always done. Have you heard of the Carnegie Mellon classification
of software quality and reusability? In a sense although BE is totally
different in concept from Carnegie Mellon classifications, it will help
to achive the main CM objectives.
The descriptors of the software - Business need, software overview,
module description are themselves reusable. Get a good algorithm for
finding them and we are welll on the way to levels 4 and 5.
The fact that we now talk about software quality in this way gives the
lie to your assertion. If we were really abale to retrieve with
precision we could put NL into the arguments of subroutines. Indeed
general Software Quality considerations oblige us to make such a
specification.
- Ian Parker
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Keeney" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
05 Nov 2006 01:57:32 AM |
|
|
Ian Parker wrote:
renaborney@aol.com wrote:
Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
Let us look at Turing (mimiking humans) another way. I have argued in
Creating Artificial Intelligence that "Bueno espagnol", the ability to
translate Natural Language = Turing. Why? Fundamentally because
chatterboxes are based on databases. Bueno espagnol implies that we can
access a database of NL text and build a spider capable of creating a
database which will give relevant replies to any query. We can sex this
up - literally by using a girl with a leather suit and bulging breasts
(Microsoft), but the fundamental problem boils down to NL.
I might give you the "translate Natural Language = Turing" as a
starting point for a discussion but we'ld have to have a looong talk on
what you mean by "translate". To be useful for working a Turing capable
machine, the system would have to draw meaning from the translation.
Translation, say, from English to German, should be doable a large
percentage of the time with a rote/rule based system. With a big enough
rule system you'll do pretty good but natural language *will* make
additions & changes and the rules will break down.
2) We're still programming the same we have always done and as programs
become veer more byzantine and baroque, who knws what errors they
contain. The dream of the self-programming computer, except at the most
basic level, remains unmet.
What would you mean by self programming? We have an enormous code
capital these days. By self programming do you mean stating a problem,
and getting fully coded Java or C++? or would you be happy if "bueno
espagnol" trawled the Web for suitable code, looking at the NL in
comment statements and other descriptions?
Nope. Self programming means -at minimum- a natural language
command/request causes the machine to generate its own action plan
(program if you will) to arrive at the desired state. Sure, you can use
canned code, but taking untested claims of functionality at face value
isn't going to do the job. It might be a road worth heading down to see
what's off that way but I suspect a dead end.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
05 Nov 2006 10:02:43 AM |
|
|
John Keeney wrote:
I might give you the "translate Natural Language = Turing" as a
starting point for a discussion but we'ld have to have a looong talk on
what you mean by "translate". To be useful for working a Turing capable
machine, the system would have to draw meaning from the translation.
Translation, say, from English to German, should be doable a large
percentage of the time with a rote/rule based system. With a big enough
rule system you'll do pretty good but natural language *will* make
additions & changes and the rules will break down.
Not necessarily, all chatterboxes are based on databases. Hence Turing
represents only the ability to navigate a database from human
responses. If you have a large database you can have a long
conversation with an unconscious respondent
"El barco attravesta una cerradura" is an absolute killer as it is a
nonsense sentence. In pure Spanish. Only a knowledge of English enables
you to figure it out.
What would you mean by self programming? We have an enormous code
capital these days. By self programming do you mean stating a problem,
and getting fully coded Java or C++? or would you be happy if "bueno
espagnol" trawled the Web for suitable code, looking at the NL in
comment statements and other descriptions?
Nope. Self programming means -at minimum- a natural language
command/request causes the machine to generate its own action plan
(program if you will) to arrive at the desired state. Sure, you can use
canned code, but taking untested claims of functionality at face value
isn't going to do the job. It might be a road worth heading down to see
what's off that way but I suspect a dead end.
OK that's your definition. Most software engineers would however say
that the greatest challenge was REUSABLE code, and how we tap into out
capital.
- Ian Parker
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Keeney" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
05 Nov 2006 10:46:51 PM |
|
|
Ian Parker wrote:
John Keeney wrote:
I might give you the "translate Natural Language = Turing" as a
starting point for a discussion but we'ld have to have a looong talk on
what you mean by "translate". To be useful for working a Turing capable
machine, the system would have to draw meaning from the translation.
Translation, say, from English to German, should be doable a large
percentage of the time with a rote/rule based system. With a big enough
rule system you'll do pretty good but natural language *will* make
additions & changes and the rules will break down.
Not necessarily, all chatterboxes are based on databases.
And they all fail the Turing test, badly.
Hence Turing represents only the ability to navigate a database from human
responses.
That fails to follow: see above.
If you have a large database you can have a long
conversation with an unconscious respondent
I've never had one that went more than three lines before it was blown.
What would you mean by self programming? We have an enormous code
capital these days. By self programming do you mean stating a problem,
and getting fully coded Java or C++? or would you be happy if "bueno
espagnol" trawled the Web for suitable code, looking at the NL in
comment statements and other descriptions?
Nope. Self programming means -at minimum- a natural language
command/request causes the machine to generate its own action plan
(program if you will) to arrive at the desired state. Sure, you can use
canned code, but taking untested claims of functionality at face value
isn't going to do the job. It might be a road worth heading down to see
what's off that way but I suspect a dead end.
OK that's your definition. Most software engineers would however say
that the greatest challenge was REUSABLE code, and how we tap into out
capital.
Then they are answering a question not having to do with a Turing test.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
06 Nov 2006 06:23:23 AM |
|
|
John Keeney wrote:
Not necessarily, all chatterboxes are based on databases.
And they all fail the Turing test, badly.
Hence Turing represents only the ability to navigate a database from hu=
man
responses.
That fails to follow: see above.
If you have a large database you can have a long
conversation with an unconscious respondent
I've never had one that went more than three lines before it was blown.
They do indeed fail the Turing Test. We have to ask the question - why?
We know that the way to beat Turing (sure fire) is to have a sentence
which is grammatically correct but nonsense. they can be said to fail
because the internal representation of the database is cocked eyed. As
I said our "cerradura" is an excellent example of a nonsense sentence.
In fact thinking in your second language and constructing sentences
based on it will also beat Turing (again sure fire).
If we put LSA on out Turing machine - this has NOT beeen done to date,
would itt pass Turing. We can, as I have indicated, say that anything
not using LSA will always fail the TT. Bueno espagnol is clearly
necessary, is it sufficient? You say "no", I say that "bueno espagnol"
implies a response at some level of appropriateness. The precise level
would depend on the size of the database and also on what you expected
subjectively. A chatterbox will systematically build up a database on
what you have said and will respond from the database it has built up
on you. If you told the chatterbox that a station was to be put on the
rack it would include these words without comment.
"La estacion de ressorte" implies that stations are elastic. This comes
from Google too. There is also subjectivity. Marcus Hutter has proposed
a new test, that of compression of a 100MB piece of Wiki. Certainly if
we use LSA, or any other algorithm to predict what the next word will
be. "=E9clusia" coming before "cerradura" and "primavera" before either
"ressorte" or "mamanthal" - all words for "spring". The ultimate
compressed for of a seris of integers is of course given by the
factorial formula which compresses more as we predict better. Also for
sci.physics the Fermi Dirac entropy.
Hutter has a number of drawbacks one of them being that you can only
use the past. Consider.
..=2E.... cogemos naranjas
Nor the first word is "Primavera". This is interesting for another
reson. You may ask whether you have to know that oranges (and other
citrus fruit) ripen in the winter. Answer you don't specifically. All
you need is LSA.
To run LSA all you need to do is diagonalize a matrix and generally
"crank the handle". This is an example of where we have apparent
reasoning ability If it came back -
"You pick oranges in the spring" one would be deducing a reasing
ability which in fact did not exist.
The obvious answer is of course to to try and see. I believe that
reasonably good concept rendering, which is what this would imply must
imply an answer with the level of appropriateness we would expect. We
can after all associate new concepts with our database. This in fact is
all that it is possible to do -- ever.
OK that's your definition. Most software engineers would however say
that the greatest challenge was REUSABLE code, and how we tap into out
capital.
Then they are answering a question not having to do with a Turing test.
It isn't to do with the TT. It has everthing to do with correct concept
renfdering.
- Ian Parker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Keeney" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
05 Nov 2006 01:37:34 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:
I would be extremely surprised if by 2050 BOTH these technologies were
not available. [...] 44 years ago we
were just advancing into single discrete transistors. Is Stern
seriously telling us that there will be no Von Neumann machines, and
(presumably) no AI by 2050. He has taken complete leave of his senses.
I'd be extremely surprised if either self-replicating machines or human-like
AI existed by 2050. These are very hard problems, and I see no evidence that
we're making steady, predictable progress toward solving them.
SNIP
Hell, two thingss have been "just around the corner" since I learned to
read back in the Fifties
1) Commercial Nuclear Fusion
2) AI capable of mimicing humans
Though I personally didn't start reading until the 60's, can I add to
your list
3) Run out of oil.
As far as computers go, without major breakthroughs they are about to
beome a mature and relatively static technology
No, no, no. Computer science is far from static, hell, drop out of the
loop for a couple of years and you just about have to start over from
scratch. Granted, the 8086's decendents have just about taken over but
even they are starting to diverge from each other.
1) Moore's Law is running up against the basic frontiers of physics in
terms of shrinking more devices onto a chip
That's been a constant state of afairs for decades. While the limits of
how small a line can drawn have been approached in lab work that's not
the case for production work. Production will get there but the
enginners have only scratched working in three dimensions.
2) We're still programming the same we have always done and as programs
become veer more byzantine and baroque, who knws what errors they
contain. The dream of the self-programming computer, except at the most
basic level, remains unmet.
Yea, bloat ware is getting obscene.
But OOP is hardly the same as the Pascal follies, COBOL or assembler.
Not to mention the hugh black-box libraries and the madding Windows
based drive to turn programmers in to cartoonist.
Programming just ain't the same.
But I agree with you, there's no reason to suspect any of this is
bringing AI closer: it's just divorcing the programmer from knowing,
needing and making use of a basic level of understanding of what he's
instructing the machine to do.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David M. Palmer" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
04 Nov 2006 10:48:45 AM |
|
|
In article <1162634768.985780.223020@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<"renaborney@aol.com"> wrote:
1) Moore's Law is running up against the basic frontiers of physics in
terms of shrinking more devices onto a chip
The death of Moore's law has also been around the corner for quite a
while.
--
David M. Palmer (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alex Terrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
11 Nov 2006 03:56:28 PM |
|
|
Ian Parker wrote:
Why do politicians and economists ignore technology as being key
factors. By 2050 we will be able to place mirrors at the Lagrange point
(L1) which will enable us to reduce the amount of solar energy falling
on Earth. This can be done either by a lightweight sunshield (55kg per
km^2) or by the use of a Von Neumann machine.
Stern estimates the cost of stabilising greenhouse gas emissions at 1%
of output.
The only reason this is so low is because there is an expectation that
technology can help. As such, he certainly hasn't ignored technology.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
12 Nov 2006 10:27:27 AM |
|
|
Alex Terrell wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:
Why do politicians and economists ignore technology as being key
factors. By 2050 we will be able to place mirrors at the Lagrange point
(L1) which will enable us to reduce the amount of solar energy falling
on Earth. This can be done either by a lightweight sunshield (55kg per
km^2) or by the use of a Von Neumann machine.
Stern estimates the cost of stabilising greenhouse gas emissions at 1%
of output.
The only reason this is so low is because there is an expectation that
technology can help. As such, he certainly hasn't ignored technology.
Imagination is required as well as sheer resources. He may have
factored some things in but he has not told us about them. He has
simply assumed that technogy would be focussed on cutting output not in
terms of climate modification.
He has not explicity argued in favor of cutting solar input. To me it
is dubious whether cutting CO2 now will do the trick or can. Methane is
being released from permafrost. Indeed methane has a lot to doo with
climate swings in the recent (in geological terms) past. Methane is
part of the reason why it is DANGEROUS nonsense.
- Ian Parker
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
12 Nov 2006 03:01:54 PM |
|
|
Ian Parker wrote:
Alex Terrell wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:
Why do politicians and economists ignore technology as being key
factors. By 2050 we will be able to place mirrors at the Lagrange point
(L1) which will enable us to reduce the amount of solar energy falling
on Earth. This can be done either by a lightweight sunshield (55kg per
km^2) or by the use of a Von Neumann machine.
Stern estimates the cost of stabilising greenhouse gas emissions at 1%
of output.
The only reason this is so low is because there is an expectation that
technology can help. As such, he certainly hasn't ignored technology.
Imagination is required as well as sheer resources. He may have
factored some things in but he has not told us about them. He has
simply assumed that technogy would be focussed on cutting output not in
terms of climate modification.
He has not explicity argued in favor of cutting solar input. To me it
is dubious whether cutting CO2 now will do the trick or can. Methane is
being released from permafrost. Indeed methane has a lot to doo with
climate swings in the recent (in geological terms) past. Methane is
part of the reason why it is DANGEROUS nonsense.
Put like that, your argument seems a lot more reasonable. There have
been numerous suggestions about either active CO2 reduction (iron
filings in the ocean) or sun reflection (whether at L1, orbit,
atmosphere). Whilst many schemes should be looked at, the Science and
costs of these is less well known than than the negative costs of
impacts of energy efficiency, or the costs of alternative power
generation.
If Stern had gone on about solar reflectors he might have been
criticised for proposing an uncertain technology with all the risks
attached.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
12 Nov 2006 03:34:40 PM |
|
|
wrote:
If Stern had gone on about solar reflectors he might have been
criticised for proposing an uncertain technology with all the risks
attached.
Yes but I am looking at dates as well. If you are looking at the next
10 years then the proposing of an uncertain technology is definitely
unreasonable. If you are looking ahead further there are certain to be
dramatic advances. my argument is that it is uncertain to plan - not
unless you are an expert at technological forcasting. My forecasing is
based on the following.
You cannot assume present day technology more than 15 years into the
future.
http://robotgossip.blogspot.com/2006/11/getting-grasp-on-world.html
10 years for IKEA. Von Neumann will be no more than 10 years after
IKEA. + history. In a comperable period we had boards with single
transistors. No one would have predicted integration on the scale we
have it now. To me it is certain that politicians can't plan
effectively.
Another instance - Identity cards. My arguments are NOT civil liberty
arguments. They are based on the fact that broadband will make them
totally redundant. Can anyone - not a politician explain to be why we
need a motheaten card when all the information is available on line
anyway. IBM are developing finger print access to replace passwords. It
seems that political forecasting is highly suspect.
How can governments talk about identity cards in the middle of the S
curve? This is NOT SF, we have passed the middle of the curve. When
Idenity cards come in we will be at the end of the S.
- Ian Parker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul F. Dietz" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
12 Nov 2006 07:45:06 PM |
|
|
Ian Parker wrote:
No one would have predicted integration on the scale we
have it now.
I remember reading an article on MOS ICs in a 1970s
Scientific American that predicted just about exactly
that.
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alex Terrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
12 Nov 2006 05:02:16 PM |
|
|
Ian Parker wrote:
alexterrell@yahoo.com wrote:
If Stern had gone on about solar reflectors he might have been
criticised for proposing an uncertain technology with all the risks
attached.
Yes but I am looking at dates as well. If you are looking at the next
10 years then the proposing of an uncertain technology is definitely
unreasonable. If you are looking ahead further there are certain to be
dramatic advances. my argument is that it is uncertain to plan - not
unless you are an expert at technological forcasting. My forecasing is
based on the following.
You cannot assume present day technology more than 15 years into the
future.
But its also dangerous to rely on technologies coming through. In 1972,
most Scientists expected we would have permanent colonies on the moon
by now.
Another instance - Identity cards. My arguments are NOT civil liberty
arguments. They are based on the fact that broadband will make them
totally redundant. Can anyone - not a politician explain to be why we
need a motheaten card when all the information is available on line
anyway. IBM are developing finger print access to replace passwords. It
seems that political forecasting is highly suspect.
Agree there. The UK Government is planning to massively overspend on ID
cards because it's seduced by pointless biometric smart cards. All
that's needed is a card that is unique and can't be copied. Biometric
and other data are stored on the network.
How can governments talk about identity cards in the middle of the S
curve? This is NOT SF, we have passed the middle of the curve. When
Idenity cards come in we will be at the end of the S.
On the other hand a lot of the cost is going to be in the data
cleansing, which is needed whether the data is on the card or on line.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
13 Nov 2006 05:09:45 AM |
|
|
Alex Terrell wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:
You cannot assume present day technology more than 15 years into the
future.
But its also dangerous to rely on technologies coming through. In 1972,
most Scientists expected we would have permanent colonies on the moon
by now.
Apollo was very much a political decision. The necessary and sufficient
condition for ECONOMIC residence on the Moon is the use of lunar
resources in (more or less) a closed loop. Only people and the
occaisional unique item like an extremely complex chip can be carried
to the Moon. For everything else lunar resources have to suffice. In
1972 the concentration was on getting to the Moon, staying a few hours
and then returning to Earth. little thought was given to the closed
loop.
The fact of the matter was that in 1972 the only technology considered
was that of large rockets. The technologies (quite close to the VN
concept) required to stay on the Moon were simply noot considered.
Another instance - Identity cards. My arguments are NOT civil liberty
arguments. They are based on the fact that broadband will make them
totally redundant. Can anyone - not a politician explain to be why we
need a motheaten card when all the information is available on line
anyway. IBM are developing finger print access to replace passwords. It
seems that political forecasting is highly suspect.
Agree there. The UK Government is planning to massively overspend on ID
cards because it's seduced by pointless biometric smart cards. All
that's needed is a card that is unique and can't be copied. Biometric
and other data are stored on the network.
How can governments talk about identity cards in the middle of the S
curve? This is NOT SF, we have passed the middle of the curve. When
Idenity cards come in we will be at the end of the S.
On the other hand a lot of the cost is going to be in the data
cleansing, which is needed whether the data is on the card or on line.
True! Although "data cleansing" is basically little different from the
work done by such people like MI5 in investigating individuals. There
is a point here about who pays, we do not finance MI5 through a poll
tax. We really ought to be separating the cost of maintaining accurate
information on networks from the actual administration of cards. The
latter I claim is unnecessary.
- Ian Parker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul F. Dietz" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
12 Nov 2006 07:46:02 PM |
|
|
Alex Terrell wrote:
In 1972,
most Scientists expected we would have permanent colonies on the moon
by now.
I challenge you to provide evidence supporting this assertion.
Paul
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charlie Springer" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
13 Nov 2006 10:54:45 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:46:02 -0800, Paul F. Dietz wrote
(in article <lq-dnczyHIDHU8rYnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@dls.net>):
Alex Terrell wrote:
In 1972,
most Scientists expected we would have permanent colonies on the moon
by now.
I challenge you to provide evidence supporting this assertion.
Paul
I don't recall particular scientists since most had enough sense to stay out
of such things, but I do recall in the 50's and 60's plenty of books and
educational movies and material from NACA/NASA depicting huge multi-stage
rockets and space stations and moon bases.
This was all supposed to rev up enthusiasm for space with the side effect of
directing young people into engineering and the sciences. The implied promise
was work on space stations, moon bases, "rocket pilots", etc. in a thriving
space based economy (somehow).
Later in the 70's, there was a period of enthusiasm for space colonies (only
lightly supported by NASA), promising several orders of magnitude increase in
opportunities and making Moon based manufacturing and extraction essential.
A cool headed observer could see the contradictions as NASA gave up it's
biggest boosters for a goofy space shuttle where you bring back most of the
mass that you send up. In fat, they even made sure that the external tank is
not carried to orbit so it won't give anybody ideas about using them for
habitat. The destruction of SkyLab, with its huge open spaces (compared to
ISS components) was a pretty obvious clue. NASA has a history of paying for
replacements for things it already has.
"Cheaper, faster, worser" or whatever it was is another. Perhaps the most
telling about the nature of the space exploration gravy train is the remake
of Viking in the form of short lived probes instead of 20 or 30 year lifetime
monitoring stations. It was like a Hollywood remake of a film because the
special effects are a little better. In this case though, given the cost and
return, why now? Why not wait till the effects are even better? I would guess
it wouldn't fit career and retirement timetables to have downtime.
As for the challenge, I suspect a survey of "space scientists" in 1968 would
have predicted permanent Moon bases/colonies by 2005 and plenty of other
"scientists" as well. But, I don't recall there being such a rush to answer
questions by opinion polls among scientists in the 60's. Now, if you want 200
MPH freeway lanes and flying cars for everyone to make it easy to get to the
local spaceport, try cover stories from Popular Science.
-- Charlie Springer
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rand Simberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
12 Nov 2006 08:00:11 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:46:02 -0600, in a place far, far away, "Paul F.
Dietz" <dietz@dls.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
Alex Terrell wrote:
In 1972,
most Scientists expected we would have permanent colonies on the moon
by now.
I challenge you to provide evidence supporting this assertion.
Furthermore, why should we pay attention to what *any*, let alone most
scientists think about the future of technology?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
15 Nov 2006 03:38:48 PM |
|
|
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
Alex Terrell wrote:
In 1972,
most Scientists expected we would have permanent colonies on the moon
by now.
I challenge you to provide evidence supporting this assertion.
I hate it when you do that. I'm not sure if opinion polls for
Scientists existed then, let alone now. Would you accept "many
scientists"....?
Certainly in the literature of the late 70s there was a widespread
assumption that the Space Shuttle would revolutionise the cost of
getting to orbit and make space bases a reality.
Likewise, during Apollo, lunar bases were generally seen as the next
step. When the budget was cut, Skylab was strung together to make use
of the hardware.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul F. Dietz" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
15 Nov 2006 09:48:09 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I hate it when you do that. I'm not sure if opinion polls for
Scientists existed then, let alone now. Would you accept "many
scientists"....?
No. I would accept 'some' scientists, but I don't even find
convincing the proposition that the position you proposed
was widespread among scientists.
Certainly in the literature of the late 70s there was a widespread
assumption that the Space Shuttle would revolutionise the cost of
getting to orbit and make space bases a reality.
This was literature from the aerospace industry and hangers on,
those expecting to feed at that trough. Most scientists never
wrote anything on the subject.
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rand Simberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
15 Nov 2006 03:41:57 PM |
|
|
On 15 Nov 2006 13:38:48 -0800, in a place far, far away,
alexterrell@yahoo.com made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
Alex Terrell wrote:
In 1972,
most Scientists expected we would have permanent colonies on the moon
by now.
I challenge you to provide evidence supporting this assertion.
I hate it when you do that. I'm not sure if opinion polls for
Scientists existed then, let alone now. Would you accept "many
scientists"....?
What would scientists know about it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
15 Nov 2006 06:20:54 PM |
|
|
Rand Simberg wrote:
On 15 Nov 2006 13:38:48 -0800, in a place far, far away,
alexterrell@yahoo.com made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
Alex Terrell wrote:
In 1972,
most Scientists expected we would have permanent colonies on the moon
by now.
I challenge you to provide evidence supporting this assertion.
I hate it when you do that. I'm not sure if opinion polls for
Scientists existed then, let alone now. Would you accept "many
scientists"....?
What would scientists know about it?
Perhaps not less than the average person. Who might know more?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rand Simberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
15 Nov 2006 06:28:25 PM |
|
|
On 15 Nov 2006 16:20:54 -0800, in a place far, far away,
alexterrell@yahoo.com made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
In 1972,
most Scientists expected we would have permanent colonies on the moon
by now.
I challenge you to provide evidence supporting this assertion.
I hate it when you do that. I'm not sure if opinion polls for
Scientists existed then, let alone now. Would you accept "many
scientists"....?
What would scientists know about it?
Perhaps not less than the average person. Who might know more?
Engineers. And policy analysts...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
30 Oct 2006 03:17:15 PM |
|
|
Ian Parker wrote:
Why do politicians and economists ignore technology as being key
factors. By 2050 we will be able to place mirrors at the Lagrange point
(L1) which will enable us to reduce the amount of solar energy falling
on Earth. This can be done either by a lightweight sunshield (55kg per
km^2) or by the use of a Von Neumann machine.
[snip rest of this duck]
Ok, whatever might be done about putting reflectors in orbit to
decrease the sun hitting the Earth, we won't be putting any
at L1 to do that. L1 is the equilib. point between the Earth
and the moon, and it's about 6/7 ths of the way to the moon.
So, what does that mean? It means that if you put something
there it will be providing very slightly more shade than the same
area of the moon. And the moon's shadow will be competing
with it. In other words, it will be useless for the purposes.
There's also the question of how stable things are if put there.
Off hand, I'd expect them to be not very stable, especialy if
they presented a huge surface area to solar wind.
If you want to play games with mirrors to affect climate on the
Earth, you want them in LEO or GEO.
Socks
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rand Simberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
30 Oct 2006 02:23:11 PM |
|
|
On 30 Oct 2006 13:17:15 -0800, in a place far, far away,
puppet_sock@hotmail.com made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
Ian Parker wrote:
Why do politicians and economists ignore technology as being key
factors. By 2050 we will be able to place mirrors at the Lagrange point
(L1) which will enable us to reduce the amount of solar energy falling
on Earth. This can be done either by a lightweight sunshield (55kg per
km^2) or by the use of a Von Neumann machine.
[snip rest of this duck]
Ok, whatever might be done about putting reflectors in orbit to
decrease the sun hitting the Earth, we won't be putting any
at L1 to do that. L1 is the equilib. point between the Earth
and the moon, and it's about 6/7 ths of the way to the moon.
So, what does that mean? It means that if you put something
there it will be providing very slightly more shade than the same
area of the moon. And the moon's shadow will be competing
with it. In other words, it will be useless for the purposes.
They're referring to the earth-sun L1 point, not the earth-moon L1
point.
Now say "never mind..."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
