RE: Will technology "save" or destroy us?

RE: Will technology "save" or destroy us? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

philosophy -> RE: Will technology "save" or destroy us? (7/11/2007 10:48:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: As history shows, computer models are far from perfect...or perhaps even far from perfectable. Consider weather forecasting.....how uniformly accurate is it? philo, Do I have permission to quote you when computer models are used to "prove" the effects and reality of 'global warming'? Computer models may be perfect to predict the future possibility of having a 'global music festival'. ....'course you can Merc [:)] However, to be fair to all those computer modellers out there (both of them) you probably also ought to quote something about probability curves. Models, while having a built in inability to be wholly accurate, are quite good at predicting the range of probabilities present. For instance, let's take our model of pahunkboy, which i shall call pahunkboy(1). If we rely on it to tell us everything about pahunkboy we will probably be disappointed and have to go back to the original. However, if we want to know what the likelihood is of pahunkboy going to the shops, then pahunkboy(1) will give us a range of possible answers. Some with a high probability, some with a low one. It wont tell us definitively, but will allow us some idea of how to plan the surprise street party for him...(damn, gave it away). Now let's look at climate models. They wont tell us specific things about the climate, but they do let us see what the probabilities are. As i understand things, the majority of such models suggest that the manmade component of global warming is a) a problem and b) something we can do something about. This is not absolutely certain though. Let's assume it isn't a climate change model, but a whether-my-house-will-catastrophically-catch-fire model. One can feel free to ignore it's suggestion because it isn't an exact thing. However if one is subsequently burned one has only oneself to blame. If said house catching fire also sets fire to everyone elses houses then one is arguably being irresponsible in ignoring the model. Quote away [:D]

pahunkboy -> RE: Will technology "save" or destroy us? (7/11/2007 11:00:02 AM)
- a street party for me? awesome!!! :-D speaking of statists; how do you do your homeowner insurance? i was thinking a partial loss is more likely then a total loss. once i fix up my place- im going to upgrade my insurance. home ins isnt like car insurance.... i know they say get a high deductable but that - heck- $3 a month!! for me the $3 is alot of bang for peice of mind. [$100 deductable as apposed to $500]

Mercnbeth -> RE: Will technology "save" or destroy us? (7/11/2007 11:20:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy speaking of statists; how do you do your homeowner insurance? i was thinking a partial loss is more likely then a total loss. once i fix up my place- im going to upgrade my insurance. home ins isnt like car insurance.... i know they say get a high deductable but that - heck- $3 a month!! for me the $3 is alot of bang for peice of mind. [$100 deductable as apposed to $500] The deductible choice is a coin toss. You are most likely to have a event to claim with $100 deductible, but weigh that against the likelihood of cancellation if your $100 claims become "excessive". "Excess" may be 1 as a new policyholder. The only suggestion I will offer is to not insure for the total value of the property. Remember, the total property value includes the land. Land does not burn, and unless, as could occur in the part of CA I live - it falls into the ocean, it will be there when it is time to rebuild. If an empty lot of similar size, assuming there is one, in your neighborhood would sell for $20,000, and the price of a similar home is $100k you need $80k of home owners insurance. Ideally request "replacement value insurance". Not all companies offer this type policy, but its worth pricing. That way you can eliminate the concern about having enough or too much. Of course, it's liable to be more expensive than a fixed amount. The most important coverage to get is liability. You are more likely to be sued by a 'friend' than you are to experience a fire. Good luck!

luckydog1 -> RE: Will technology "save" or destroy us? (7/11/2007 11:27:14 AM)
I think it is more likely that Genetic engineering will destroy us that super intelligent computers who want innefficient organic slaves (wasn't that the plot of the Terminator movies?). I also think in General that for every problem "solved" by Technology/science at least a few larger problems are created. This is because as Philosophy points out, you can't use a model smaller or less complete than the original and get 100% results. This results in in unanticipated effects. Some of the unanticipated effects are beneficial, but most are not. this is because it is much easier to break something than create something. Imaigne you have a system with 3 parts, that is usefull when assembled correctly, but there are many ways to connect the 3 parts, that are completely unfunctional. Now apply that to our gene code... Now I could be wrong and no Mutated Modified Retrovirus (designed to rewire the nervous system---cure Parkinsons Disease) will infect the population rewiring healthy brains to ill effect. In fact I hope so. As curious Lord points out, technology could save us from an asteroid strike. Also at some point this planet will become unhabitable, and technology wil be required for us to get off of it, and find a new home. This is an interesting thread. It takes technology to build a cabin or grow vegtables. It takes technology to build a fire, which is probably the greatest technological advance in all of mans existance.

pahunkboy -> RE: Will technology "save" or destroy us? (7/11/2007 11:28:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy speaking of statists; how do you do your homeowner insurance? i was thinking a partial loss is more likely then a total loss. once i fix up my place- im going to upgrade my insurance. home ins isnt like car insurance.... i know they say get a high deductable but that - heck- $3 a month!! for me the $3 is alot of bang for peice of mind. [$100 deductable as apposed to $500] The deductible choice is a coin toss. You are most likely to have a event to claim with $100 deductible, but weigh that against the likelihood of cancellation if your $100 claims become "excessive". "Excess" may be 1 as a new policyholder. The only suggestion I will offer is to not insure for the total value of the property. Remember, the total property value includes the land. Land does not burn, and unless, as could occur in the part of CA I live - it falls into the ocean, it will be there when it is time to rebuild. If an empty lot of similar size, assuming there is one, in your neighborhood would sell for $20,000, and the price of a similar home is $100k you need $80k of home owners insurance. Ideally request "replacement value insurance". Not all companies offer this type policy, but its worth pricing. That way you can eliminate the concern about having enough or too much. Of course, it's liable to be more expensive than a fixed amount. The most important coverage to get is liability. You are more likely to be sued by a 'friend' than you are to experience a fire. Good luck! i chose 55k- the apraisal was 54,800.00. the lot has significant value. [[river front views] realistically in the real world i wont get 55k today- 2007. we have no job base. my policy is $407 a year. cheap- as compared to Florida- and many other places. i dont like allstate or state farm. ild rather have a no name company. also being that i have a German Sheppard- many ins comps wont talk to me...... the agent had 70k as one option. yet- how can i tell the tax assessor the place is a dump, and the insurance folk that it is a palace? lol

pahunkboy -> RE: Will technology "save" or destroy us? (7/11/2007 11:31:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 I think it is more likely that Genetic engineering will destroy us that super intelligent computers who want innefficient organic slaves (wasn't that the plot of the Terminator movies?). I also think in General that for every problem "solved" by Technology/science at least a few larger problems are created. This is because as Philosophy points out, you can't use a model smaller or less complete than the original and get 100% results. This results in in unanticipated effects. Some of the unanticipated effects are beneficial, but most are not. this is because it is much easier to break something than create something. Imaigne you have a system with 3 parts, that is usefull when assembled correctly, but there are many ways to connect the 3 parts, that are completely unfunctional. Now apply that to our gene code... Now I could be wrong and no Mutated Modified Retrovirus (designed to rewire the nervous system---cure Parkinsons Disease) will infect the population rewiring healthy brains to ill effect. In fact I hope so. As curious Lord points out, technology could save us from an asteroid strike. Also at some point this planet will become unhabitable, and technology wil be required for us to get off of it, and find a new home. This is an interesting thread. It takes technology to build a cabin or grow vegtables. It takes technology to build a fire, which is probably the greatest technological advance in all of mans existance. great post! unintended consequences is right on. consider thalitimide- asbestas, red die number 3, malithion. from a human aspect- person A called and made person B to loose her job. well- person A giddy with joy. meanwhile person B, scores a better job!!!!

Sinergy -> RE: Will technology "save" or destroy us? (7/11/2007 2:53:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy CL; the US govt did in fact use a computer to determine the outcome of Iraq 1. It compulated all the possible outcomes and statical likelyhoods of such. That would be under Clinton. AnencephalyBoy knew better than to trust some stupid computer modeling experiment. Sinergy

seeksfemslave -> RE: Will technology "save" or destroy us? (7/11/2007 3:10:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy In your estimation; do you think- as children of the teck revolution; that it will bite us in the azz? A hammer can both build and destroy a house. Nice one Pahunk but at least a hammer requires direct human intervention. The real danger IMO is so called smart computer programmes controlling safety critical procedures. That little bug lurks there for zillions of programme cycles then one day... bingo ...the bug is activated and the system fails catastrophically. Might just switch all traffic lights to Red. Might cause a nuclear reactor to malfunction.

pahunkboy -> RE: Will technology "save" or destroy us? (7/11/2007 3:43:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy In your estimation; do you think- as children of the teck revolution; that it will bite us in the azz? A hammer can both build and destroy a house. Nice one Pahunk but at least a hammer requires direct human intervention. The real danger IMO is so called smart computer programmes controlling safety critical procedures. That little bug lurks there for zillions of programme cycles then one day... bingo ...the bug is activated and the system fails catastrophically. Might just switch all traffic lights to Red. Might cause a nuclear reactor to malfunction. i know governments have cyber 'wars" to see what they can crack....

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125