Except there's nothing to say that a CF process would necessarily yield ridiculous amounts of energy at affordable prices. In fact the first proof of concept, if it ever comes, is likely to be just a barely measurable hair's breadth above break even. And scaling the technology to generate megawatts might well prove to be prohibitively expensive. What if a MW plant required thousands of tons of nickel? There might not be enough nickel in the world to supply a significant fraction of the world's energy supply.

Then there's the flying car problem. There is no doubt that practical flying cars are physically possible. The reason we've never seen one is that it's a fool's investment in the short- to mid-term. Any flying car we can come up with over that time scale is going to be a lot worse than buying a dedicated plane and renting a car at your destination. If there were some immediate niche application for a near-term flying car where it beat a dedicated plane and car combo, we might *all* be driving flying cars in twenty years. But there's no such niche to pay back investors. Even if CF is physically possible, if it doesn't quickly reach a stage where it beats some conventional power source economically (e.g. replacing solar panels in remote applications), it might never become practical.

This is what happens when you don't use bull fertilizer.
Have you ever seen a more pathetic harvest?

-

Perhaps they exhausted the E supply.
The great E famine of 1939 decimated entire novels.

-

Warning: Other examples of "unstructured data" include 4chan and Conservapedia.

-

Yep. It's also possible that bullets are unrelated to shooting deaths. It could just be a statistical fluke that people shot with loaded guns are more likely to die than people shot with unloaded guns.

-

Lame article.

If you're already infected by malware, that malware can sit there and wait to do stuff any time it wants. Not exactly a big surprise.

-

You should have placed the emphasis where I explain the reason for the pole shift. Chuckle.

-

Your comparison to writing code doesn't apply, at all.

There are approaches to making this sort of brain. One option is scanning an existing brain and coping the data into the digital brain. That gives you a mental-clone of the brain-donor. The other way is to start with the equivalent of a blank-slate fetal brain and allow it to develop and self-wire. Then you raise and teach it exactly like an infant.

Both approaches completely avoid the issue that we have essentially zero understanding of intelligent consciousness, and that we don't have the faintest clue how to program for it.

-

If scientists persist in trying to play God with projects like this, they are going to unleash the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse:
War, Famine, Death, and Petulance.

-

You overlooked the other cause mentioned in my post.
Perhaps my post should be subject to a recall lol

-

I say that as someone who actually agrees with you that their use of "denialist" is ad hominem and thus an anti-scientific tactic.

My point was actually affirming the validity of ad hominem as a basis to decline to waste one's time fruitlessly engaging an argument as if it were reasonable and rational. If you go back and read my previous post more carefully you'll find it would be laughably foolish for anyone to argue I was wrong :)

-

I think perhaps you didn't fully read my post..... because you're rather earnestly arguing that Santa Claus isn't responsible for the polar shift. Chuckle.

-

The article states that this effect was detected specifically as a deviation from the expected motion due to continental drift.

Is it possible that your "doubt" has become self-reinforcing circle cutting you off from significant information? You to doubt it because you didn't read the article, and you didn't read the article because you doubted it. You assumed the scientists were stupid and incompetent, and as long as you assume they are stupid and incompetent you don't hear or accept any of the the facts and evidence they report.

-

Trying to prop up the warmist scientific hoax with the Darwinist scientific hoax? We skeptics ain't stupid enough to fall for that one.

Waring: The above post was manufactured in a facility that processes satire. May contain traces of satire.

-

So, you're saying it's kinda like the way my weight hasn't changed but my pants don't fit anymore?

-