Well, a movie about non-self-aware robots that just follow their programming would be kinda boring.

Beside, we need more movies about the singularity. It's going to happen and it's going to be the single greatest upheaval to human culture since agriculture.

@Trancecoach holding a doctorate doesn't make you capable of understanding the scientific literature. If you held a bachelor's degree in one of the three sciences you'd stand a lot better chance of being able to understand the literature than someone who had a doctorate in say Art History. I would actually refer back to the Dunning Kruger effect and suggest that holding an unrelated qualification might lead you to overestimate your abilities.

And for someone who says that they *are* capable of understanding the scientific literature (and therefore the scientific method and approach), you dismiss "scientific consensus" as not being "scientific evidence". I don't understand what you mean here, but i think that's because you don't understand what scientific proof is.

I think it's a fundamental mistake that you're making. Scientists propose theories. Those theories that most accurately describe the situation and are most rigourously investigated are the ones that are accepted as being the case, and when things are found that are not correct, adjustments are made to the theory or other theories are proposed. There is never ever, ever.... EVER.. absolute evidence of anything in the way in which you request it, and that's your fundamental error, and stems from you not understanding the scientific method.

We have a lot of scientific consensus about gravity, but we do not have "scientific evidence" in the way you describe it. The evidence is ALL of the science that is done, ALL of the experiments ALL of the conclusions, positive and negative, and the consensus of the scientific community is reached and refined based on that research and ongoing research. There is no one document anywhere that constitutes "proof" that gravity is how we think it is. Not even all of the documents do that. They merely indicate to us what is most likely to be happening according to all of the knowledge and ingenuity that we've built up over the years.

I don't appreciate the scatter gun method you've used by posting all those links. You said in your latest post here that people try to confuse the issue by redirecting your request for "evidence" - the type that doesn't exist - towards other issues that you deem contentious. Yet you have almost drowned me in what appears to be about 15 different links to pages that seem to show singular examples of individuals that deny climate change. (Again, there are so many, and so many quotes, and no actual specification of what you are disagreeing with me about, that i can't rightly assess any of them.)

My point here is twofold - 1) don't try to be confusing like you accuse your opponents of, i.e. throwing as many links as possible to extend the argument to other points and 2) if that isn't what you were doing, could you perhaps condense your 15 links and selected quotes into a smaller point; that point being what it is about my previous posts you disagreed with?

Here are my points for you, simplified:
1) Scientific consensus does not mean "THIS IS HOW THINGS ARE" - it means that, on balance, according to everything we know and the opinions of those that are in the know, this is how we think things are until we know better.
2) There is no such thing as "scientific evidence" in the way you use the term; the only absolute proof is the one Descartes spoke about; the only thing you can know for sure is that your consciousness exists.
3) It is very easy to be misled by articles such as the one you linked from "the libertarian republic" website. This is also true of the last link you recommended for my research; you used that book to support your opposition to my assertion that human-caused climate change is not a matter of debate in the scientific community. Yet the same author was involved in the Copenhagen Consensus which lists as 6th most worthy of investigation (for the benefit and future of mankind), i quote; "R&D to Increase Yield Enhancements, to decrease hunger, fight biodiversity destruction, and lessen the effects of climate change"

I think that out of courtesy you should select one link which backs up whatever it is that you wish to refute, because it's not a good use of my time to have to go through each individual link, find out what you disagree with me about, and then spend time looking into it.

So, we disagree on one of the following:
1) The scientific consensus is that human-caused climate change is real, and that consensus represents the best of our current understanding as a species.
2) "Proof" in the sense you use it doesn't exist, the correct term is scientific evidence. The more evidence and the more convincing it is, the more firm the belief in a theory.
3) The article you linked from the libertarian website was unfairly representing its argument in relation to the paper it was referring to.

Please let me know. Remember - nothing is "beyond scepticism" in your words. I am sceptical about everything, including gravity, which i have an incredible amount of evidence for. However i am still sceptical about our understanding of it - i am always looking for differences. That doesn't mean that our understanding isn't the best one we have, and we should use it for our own advantage and safety.

I also note that you seem loathe to have a proper discussion with me. Our discussion could have been either about the scientific method or about the article you linked, but to throw all these links at me makes me feel you're unwilling or incapable of challenging your own opinion based on evidence. You don't even refer to the assessments of the article that i offered; you immediately discarded the article from your argument and linked me to other people that may or may not be misrepresenting the argument.

Wow, you certainly don't write like it.
Because you seem to have trouble understanding him, I'll explain.
The anecdote is the singular story of an illegally armed man that actually didn't stop another man with a gun being used as 'proof' that more guns make us more safe.
The data of gun violence per capita vs percentage of gun ownership says the opposite.

And to your point about the 'gun free zones', they were created because mass murders had repeatedly already happened in these places, not before. EDIT: You seem to imply that they CAUSE mass murders...that's simply not true, they are BECAUSE of mass murders. If they enforced them, they would likely work, but you need a lot of metal detectors. I don't have the data of attacks in these places in a 'before the law vs after the law' form to verify 'gun free zones' work, but I would note any statistics about it MUST include the overall rate of increase in gun violence to have any meaning, as in 'a percentage of all shootings that happened in 'gun free zones' vs all those that happened everywhere', otherwise it's statistically completely meaningless.

From reading some of the comments, it would appear that many people still do not understand basic math.

Over population is a problem. It is real and it will self correct one way or another. Science can't save us (short of moving us all to a digital existence), and we will hit critical population density long before we achieve the kind of technological sophistication to allow us to colonise other planets (singularity notwithstanding).

Basically, there are three possible outcomes:
1. We voluntarily stop having so many kids and we certainly stop celebrating ridiculously huge families like those fucking morons on "18 and counting" or whatever the fuck it's called. This is the best case scenario, and IMHO, the most unlikely

2. Wide scale population control. One child policies, etc. unpleasant but still less unpleasant than...

3. We do nothing and the problem corrects itself. And when I say corrects itself, I mean global hunger on a scale not seen since the last ice age; massive pandemics or just plain ol' killing the fuck out of each other.

This is isn't some airy fairy, mother Gaia, hippy nonsense, it's simple math.

On the plus side, we'll almost certainly have made the planet nigh uninhabitable for ourselves by then anyway.

I disagree about the salvage-time. Generationally-speaking, I'm thinking more like three or four when you're considering the systems that created them have been entrenched planet-wide for over what, 1500 years?

Socialism, Communism, Fascism, various religious constructs, all come from a singular source. Tyrannical unilateral control over minds. Left, right, center...all constructs created as a distraction from the real evil there Neo.

This is only assuming that the universe will forever expand and therefore resulting in "heat death". There are theories that it could also collapse back in on itself eventually creating a new "singularity" and therefore a "new big bang".

I tend to like that theory more than the heat death theory.

People are starving in Greece, fascists are marching in the streets of Athens.

And given that SNAP participation went from ~26 million in January of '07 to ~39 million in January of '10 to ~47 million in January of '13, I'd say the US is getting there as well. The planned cuts to SNAP will only accelerate it further.

But everything's good in the UK though. People are not likely to starve, now that food banks are popping up everywhere and the Red Cross is distributing care packages for the first time since the end of WW2.

Besides, those likely to starve will freeze first anyway. They had ~31k of excess winter deaths last year, while this year's prognosis was going for ~35k, last I heard. Food or fuel, can't have both.

Those riots in London two years ago, they were a singular occurence. All the underlying issues have been addressed. Youth unemployment is #1 on David Cameron's list, I'm sure of it. Well, maybe #2. Privatisation of the NHS has priority after all.

I apologize for my sarcasm and my cynicism, but mass violence is not unimaginable anymore in the Old World and it's pissing me off. We are in the process of flushing an entire generation of people down the toilet. These current rates of youth unemployment are unsustainable in a democratic society. The banlieus of Paris, the boroughs of London... shit will hit the fan eventually, unless there's a radical change of policy from within the system.

The elections to the European Parliament in May next year will be an indicator. As of now, it looks as if a whole lot of (far) right wing parties will enter the stage.

Also, keep an eye on the island of bliss(ful ignorance) within Europe: Germany. We're heading straight for a grand coalition that would control ~80% of parliament, rendering all instruments at the opposition's disposal inert. Did I mention they also have the neccessary 2/3 majority to institute changes to our constitution? Fucking awesome!

Again, sorry for being a grumpy fuck, but everytime I open the paper, it's a bloody nightmare -- and that's before you take away the sugar coating.

If you can simplify the actors in the deal down to just singular American and Iranian entities that have been immutable and unchanged over the decades then I'd be inclined to agree.

The thing is, the popular Iranian revolution against the Shah(and America by proxy) was essentially hijacked by the Ayatollah and his crew to form the state that they wanted. Within Iran public opinions are diverse, not much unlike in America. Things have changed over the years and American and Iranian policies can't be judged solely and only on what happened 30+ years ago, the current realities need to be recognized too.

America isn't the only aggressor today. Iranian leadership isn't merely loudly threatening to wipe out the west and even more vehemently Israel. Iran is actively training, equipping and funding military forces like Hezbollah that ARE launching direct attacks at Israel itself.

The issue is not as simple as America/Iran did this nasty thing and so they are wrong and the other is right. Both sides have legitimate grievances and cause for concern/mistrust. Bridging that is tough. IMHO, the fact that the Iranian government seems to trust it's own people less than America does is a big reason I mistrust their leadership more, but that's me.

I never understood this scene to be honest. If I was Ethan Hawke and someone told me I had to let the guy I've been hunting all this time, I'd just kill him. They're not putting one of their own away for killing an arms dealer. The point is Ethan played this role like he had a singular purpose, like he wasn't wise to the game when the guys in his position always are or they're marginalized way ahead of time.

So if you happen to have spent your life hunting someone who is just the personification of evil and your told to let them go. Just blow their brains out please, take the moral hit for the rest of us.

Basically @RFlagg I see it happening in one of two ways. If Republicans continue to lose elections, especially the white house, if the political fallout from the shutdown is large enough, the Republicans will lose congress as well. Republicans will either: 1) fade into history. or 2) Republicans will whip their low information voters into a frenzy, playing the tyranny card and eventually there *will* be an attempt at an armed revolt, but since it won't have any real popular support, it will fail relatively quickly but it will have the additional effect that Republicans will be blamed for any deaths caused by this revolt and there will be a huge exodus from the GOP and they will be ostracized from American society. They'll still exist of course, but they'll have the same relevance as the KKK, or the people who still think the world is flat and it's just a huge conspiracy.

2016 is going to be an important election, If Dems can still retain the white house for another 8 years, it's going to be another huge blow to the Republicans, especially when their last stated singular goal was to make Obama a 1 term president and failed.

and quite honestly, I'm not sure it will happen like I was sure Obama would get re-elected. Hilary just...shouldn't run IMO, her time is past. Elizabeth Warren would have a good shot at it. But I also think Dems need to find a new voice. Someone who, like Obama, who actually did embrace the internet and social media and used it very much to his advantage.

If you win the internet, you win the vote. They've got to keep the pressure up. Quite honestly, the 2008 and 2012 elections were easy, It was easy to get the left riled up when clueless Sarah Palin or Robot Romney were running. But I suspect the right will eventually learn from their mistake and run someone who actually is semi-relatable

I just think it's very likely Dems will get cocky and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again. So.....don't get cocky kid.

Uhhhh, I'd go even further and go on and call the child a prophet.
Next level for the genre as in, approaching an event horizon or singularity perhaps....

Black RoboCop is black like his soul! (like the Black Peter Parker Spidey was)

Oh, and form the bulk of the comments here and we would also share the same sentiments, RoboCop was a singular event not unlike a comet strike or summer with a virgin, and this replication attempt should never have been allowed to manifest.

Two thumbs down, I think so!
Now......time to watch the piece of sheeeeitt!

My quick summary:
Religion will always tell you that "God" is responsible for anything that science can't currently explain, and then will furiously and shamelessly backpedal when science advances far enough to invalidate something.

Science, on the other hand, will basically spill the beans when it has no answers to some question. But it might obfuscate that truth with some scary big words -- "big bang singularity", for example.

Pick your poison.


As a final note, record my vote for an alternate name as the "Horrendous Space Kablooie".

/thanks Calvin

so... Space is a four dimensional fabric... that is expanding in 3 directions and also in the direction of time.

and any stationary density of matter OR matter moving at speed has the ability to slow or reverse the expansion relative only to itself?

And space went from a singularity and inflated suddenly and continues to expand as though it had limited boundaries in yet still seems to be infinite?

... I think it's the mind boggling mystery of space that interests me to much

HAH! The Deano Seal Of Disproportionate Approval!!

Which begs the question (grovels for approval)....What constitutes skillful? Already answered according to deano's criteria, that being and in fact, a singular discretion and a bar higher than the bravest pioneer Cameron, ever deemed possibly raised!!

[turns around] "Deano doesn't do what Deano does for Deano." [turns around and walks a few feet, then turns around again] "Deano does what Deano does because Deano is... Deano." [the crew applauds him as he enters the bridge]

I love critiques of my art and I love you too, Deano! Seriously, I could have sucked way-better!