SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TimF who wrote (604001)3/16/2011 11:47:45 PM
From: i-node  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574679
 
The guy essentially admitted the fallacy in the argument -- i.e., that it was grossly oversimplified. Which is what happens when you try to apply a simple truth table to a highly probabilistic set of outcomes.

And in fact, that's what's wrong with the entire argument. Even if you COULD boil it down to four potential outcomes -- which you cannot -- would those four be the outcomes? No.

A totally specious argument.



To: TimF who wrote (604001)3/17/2011 12:45:56 AM
From: koan  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 1574679
 
<<To justify "spending" (meaning both spending and never generating in the first place combined) such huge fortunes on an effort to stop a disaster you don't just need an idea about how bad the disaster will be, but how likely it is, and how likely spending the money would be to stop it.

Look, the thesis is this. The human species, you and I , are both nuts and stupid. We don't think we are, but we are, and so is everyone on earth.

And besides that, the real problems are the Black Swans we cannot even see or imagine. When one is screwing around with nuclear power that can destroy the world, as not only a possibility but a probability, you do not put such dangers in peoples hands at all.

And as far a GW goes, if 99% of the top scientist say it could possibly destroy the world, and it is only a 10% chance you take it real fucking seirously.

Get it!