This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comments by AshFromHousewares

Go to: 5 faulty arguments religious people use against atheists (debunked)

AshFromHousewares's Avatar Jump to comment 17 by AshFromHousewares

On the issue that religion does harm I do not hear this angle:

When a person accepts premeses on faith instead of evidence they by definition have a poorer understanding of what is real. By not having an accurate portrayal of reality they make choices based on faulty logic. We do have some minor control over the world and events, but outcomes will be statistically worse the worse the internal mental model reflects reality. In short - if these people only knew how to think properly they would likely never make as many stupid decisions and the quality of thier lives would be higher. Thus, if people tend toward doing good religion distorts thier efforts and reduces the quality of the outcomes effectively doing harm.

Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:06:26 UTC | #852615

Go to: Doonesbury - Sunday 10 July

AshFromHousewares's Avatar Jump to comment 20 by AshFromHousewares

Funny, in this documentary they suggest that the unicorns were simply late... link text now I am confused.

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 04:44:44 UTC | #848463

Go to: The Axis of Aging

AshFromHousewares's Avatar Jump to comment 29 by AshFromHousewares

Mmurray you might be right on the mark. But that is exactly what the situation was 100 years ago. It is likely that all those extra people will have the brains to make it all work with less problems than we can clearly see now.

Wed, 15 Jun 2011 13:57:10 UTC | #638843

Go to: The Axis of Aging

AshFromHousewares's Avatar Jump to comment 27 by AshFromHousewares

For all those haters of progress because it just gives life to those burdened with disease - the best minds on the planet a hundred years ago were in concensus about the fact that there was no way to support several billion people. There was no way to greo the crops and cities were drowning in thier own filth.

Now that we have modern agriculture and sewer systems, among other advances, we can all live relatively happily without the need to indirectly kill people.

Now just extrapolate what cheap fusion power and self replicating robotics could do. What if every farm field was stacked vertically over 100 floors deep with artifical illumination and it was easy to grow meat in vats? We could well have the volume to support several thousand to millions of times the current population given sufficient technology.

Wed, 15 Jun 2011 12:59:58 UTC | #638824

Go to: The Case for Evolution

AshFromHousewares's Avatar Jump to comment 20 by AshFromHousewares

It's so simple people... Evolution was put here (just like those fake Dino bones) by Satan to decieve us from the true path of god.

Or not. Remember 'a starved troll makes for happy comments.

Sat, 14 May 2011 00:54:56 UTC | #626626

Go to: Atheist Billboard in Fresno Vandalized After Only Three Days

AshFromHousewares's Avatar Jump to comment 2 by AshFromHousewares

The strain of lying to ones self all the time must be huge. Suppressing all those thoughts is hard enough. Point out the obvious to one of these intellectually dishonest people and most pop under the strain.

Fri, 06 May 2011 19:23:13 UTC | #623911

Go to: The anti-nuclear lobby has misled us all

AshFromHousewares's Avatar Jump to comment 62 by AshFromHousewares

Sorry Alan4discussion, that's what I meant.

Wed, 06 Apr 2011 17:27:25 UTC | #612686

Go to: The anti-nuclear lobby has misled us all

AshFromHousewares's Avatar Jump to comment 60 by AshFromHousewares

@58 I founded an urban warfare robotics company so I know a few things about robots. They will definately be able to help in tasks too boring or dangerous, but currently they are not sophisticated enough to do emergency work in trashed reactors. There are more than just mobility issues, you would ideally have algorithms an behaviors that automate the bulk of the robot, as well as have many kinds for different tasks. With a swarm of UAVs and the right sensors you could do plume trackking for example.

Give it 20 years and robots will be able to replace all human activity in such a situation IMO. Not unsupervised as ai is a long way off, but advanced and ubiquitious enough for realistic teleoperation.

Wed, 06 Apr 2011 16:51:06 UTC | #612675

Go to: The anti-nuclear lobby has misled us all

AshFromHousewares's Avatar Jump to comment 59 by AshFromHousewares

Comment 55 you are dead wrong. The kinetic energy of the earths rotation is about 2 Hundred trillion trillion trillion watt seconds. A large coal plant is under 1 gigawatt. This would mean the earth could supply our current energy needs for millions of years.

Wed, 06 Apr 2011 16:25:46 UTC | #612667

Go to: The anti-nuclear lobby has misled us all

AshFromHousewares's Avatar Jump to comment 52 by AshFromHousewares

What bothers me is people never seem to be able to think critically and logically. It's as if our rationallity is as poorly evolved as our lower spine

while I hear complaining from Japanese fishermen about dumping low level radioactive water (Wichita is pretty harmless as far as industrial waste goes) I hear nothing about mercury contamination which poisions nearly all predator fish in the world which is caused by coal.

The real damages to these peoples livelyhood is caused by coal. The imaginary (but with real world consequences) damages are caused by peoples fears of nuclear.

Wed, 06 Apr 2011 14:34:26 UTC | #612624

Go to: The anti-nuclear lobby has misled us all

AshFromHousewares's Avatar Jump to comment 49 by AshFromHousewares

Tapping tidal and wave forces does slow them down by removing kinetic and or potential energy from the system. But this is very small and it would just be lost to viscous heating or friction of sediment.

The moon pulls water to itself from the earth, altering it's center of gravity slightly. The earth then rotates fast enough to move this bulge ahead of where it would statically be. This causes the moon to speed up as it is pulled on. the rotational kinetic energy of the earth is being used to raise the moon in it's gravity well. Ever wonder why the moon always faces the earth? Similar tidal forces are responsible. A billion years ago or so we had 6 hour days.

So extracting energy from tidal forces will push the moon farther away and slow the earth. But the energy involved is truly insane. We couldn't hope to make a 0.0000001% difference

Wed, 06 Apr 2011 13:33:40 UTC | #612601

Go to: The anti-nuclear lobby has misled us all

AshFromHousewares's Avatar Jump to comment 25 by AshFromHousewares

Ever wonder why France uses nuclear for 80% of it's electrical needs and does not have a waste disposal problem as bad as the US?

reprocessing fuel gets you 25% more energy, but with 1/5 the waste. The final result isn't even that dangerous after a few hundred years.

If people could get over irrational fears and past the problem of a cover for bomb making, we could all enjoy far cheaper, efficient, and more enviornmentally responsible nuclear.

For those of you that think wind and solar is better how are you going to store it during night or calm times? Add natural gas and emit just as much co2 as coal? Some elaborate thermal or hydro based pump? As it turns out solar an wind are far less useful without predictability and storage.

Wed, 06 Apr 2011 02:31:15 UTC | #612434

Go to: BBC Wonders of the Universe Episode 1 : Destiny 2011 [HD]

AshFromHousewares's Avatar Jump to comment 55 by AshFromHousewares

Helena: too much eyecandy means that they show artistic things instead of actual science. It is replacing intellectual material with graphics that have no purpose but to keep the interest of people who can't sit through something informative. It is a lack of intelligence.

Get a grip yourself. If you understood cosmology (you would probably skip it if you did) you would put forth a scientific reason as to why it was good. I found the descriptions to be poor to fair on quality.

Not discussing inflation/expansion when talking abou the death of the universe is a HUGE omission. The video isn't crap but IMO it isn't good either.

Sat, 12 Mar 2011 00:09:18 UTC | #601743

Go to: BBC Wonders of the Universe Episode 1 : Destiny 2011 [HD]

AshFromHousewares's Avatar Jump to comment 50 by AshFromHousewares

I think there is too much eye candy for my tastes. Just a thought from watching it once but there is at least 20% of the show where nothing is said just pretty pictures.

The stars are obvious artists renderings. We can't see stars besides our sun (and very faint resolution on some of our closest brightest neighbors) so it all needs to be infered from data other than a real multipixel image. Regular stars move very slowly to human perception (even our own solar flares). Not as bad as other documentaries but a strech when it is implied the account is factual.

the explination of entropy was ok, but for a series about cosmology to not address inflation in any way while talking about the death of the universe is just not a clear picture. He dosent even talk about the tempature dropping because the total energy is constant but the volume is increasing bringing less energy density.

also, statements such as we never see the arrow of time as nebulus or reverse is not true on the quantum scale. The documentary could be much more accurate by throwing in the caveats and take out the crap where the camera shows us pretty things and no one is talking.

Fri, 11 Mar 2011 22:03:24 UTC | #601684

Go to: The gap between what Muslims say, and Muslims do.

AshFromHousewares's Avatar Jump to comment 54 by AshFromHousewares

I would be interested in correlating beliefs to murder rates. this could be by region to rule out as many other variables as possible. For example, take all the murders in the US in a year and break them down by religion (or lack of one) and compare to the population. Correlation does not necessarily mean causation but that would be a factual account and proof of correlation which would be good evidence that holding certain beliefs will make you more likely to be a killer. It would have nothing to say about a specific individual would would prove a social correlation.

I mean look at the least religious countries. Hard to prove a cause but the correlation should be obvious to anyone who can think and is intellectally honest.

Fri, 11 Mar 2011 21:22:13 UTC | #601652

Go to: FOURTH UPDATE: RD on Revelation TV

AshFromHousewares's Avatar Jump to comment 173 by AshFromHousewares

The difference between you ceeb2 and athiests is the argument for athiesm and also evolution is based in measurable real world facts unlike your imiginary world view that is fable based

Want to know the truth of your existance in any reality or world you find yourself in no matter how alien?

Then gather the facts and evidence from your surroundings and use your critical reasoning skills

this will reveal the truths of the world, no dogma needed. Works for humans in any time or place on earth no matter how isolated and for exterterrestials too.

Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:47:00 UTC | #601502

Go to: FOURTH UPDATE: RD on Revelation TV

AshFromHousewares's Avatar Jump to comment 169 by AshFromHousewares

Missed the full interview but got the 12 min YouTube clip. I crapped my shorts when I heard the presenter say 'but Jesus and god could have talked before Jesus came to earth'

for anyone that hasn't seen it check out mr. Deity and the really big favor.

Also, I am not responsible for your pants.

Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:23:37 UTC | #601488

Go to: BBC Wonders of the Universe Episode 1 : Destiny 2011 [HD]

AshFromHousewares's Avatar Jump to comment 30 by AshFromHousewares

Guys I know the show is dumbed down ro the point of not accurately portraying the science but IMHO it isn't brian's fault. Audiences, esp in the US but everywhere it seems, have no ability to sit still through anything with science, history, or lots of 'dry' facts as the basis for the show. I honestly think Carl, where he to be a contemporary figure, would be forced to do the same stupid antics and watered down material by the producer and to keep the show popular enough with the 'idiotocracy' that is the audience.

If I had a penny for every science or history show that had been turned into some kind of empty calorie energy drink like experience - sheesh. I noticed the history channel doing alien abduction week in the late 90s and it only got worse. Now we have alien Nazi secret technology and how the US stole it from the Germans after the war shows. Science shows are just as bad.

Perhaps part of the problem is religion teaches it's OK to believe in made up things so why study boring reality when you can have an hour of eyecandy and fantasy.

Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:23:38 UTC | #601366

Go to: BBC Wonders of the Universe Episode 1 : Destiny 2011 [HD]

AshFromHousewares's Avatar Jump to comment 15 by AshFromHousewares

You guys should check out the cosmology course by Lenard susskind on YouTube. He uses only enough complex math to explain concisely and explains every thing in plain English witout unnecessary arcane language. He beat up a famous cripple by getting hawking to admit he was wrong about information loss in singularities. Susskind explains how to derive an inflationary universe from simple assumptions using only simple algebra. You barely need to understand basic physics for it to be a great learning experience.

The best part? The whole series is free. You can also watch his other courses on quantum mechanics which is really good too.

Hard on easy to absorb facts but no fancy graphics and cut scenes which is why Charlie bit my finger has 5 orders of magnitude more hits.

Fri, 11 Mar 2011 03:05:37 UTC | #601189

Go to: Response to Critics

AshFromHousewares's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by AshFromHousewares

I am so disappointed in you Sam. Aluminum IS my favorite flavor of ice cream. With the economy so screwed up why do you want to hurt the aluminum flavored ice cream industry? How are you even able to grasp a measure of well being when you think it's ok that kids everywhere can't get thier favorite lactose confection?

Seriously though, I was rather impressed with the whole concept put forth and I think most of the squirming is due to the simplicity of the concept and the fear it may cause people to think differently about the origins of morality.

Fri, 25 Feb 2011 09:46:18 UTC | #595901

Go to: God's killings in the Bible

AshFromHousewares's Avatar Jump to comment 32 by AshFromHousewares

Not a biblical scholar myself, but nowhere does it call any of the accounts allegorical.

Some people, when pestered with thier own inner feelings will just say that the parts of the bible contrary to those feelings are just allegory. Sometimes even those pesky facts (which just get in the way of what's true and real anyhow) force people to believe it's allegory but IMO with much less frequency as the former.

What gets me is that because people 'feel' it's right then the all powerful superfriend must be that way too. Then when they change thier mind the god must follow suit. Somehow it is possible to dress up unbelievable arrogance as piety.

Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:42:34 UTC | #593688

Go to: Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

AshFromHousewares's Avatar Jump to comment 25 by AshFromHousewares

Hmmmm, let me see here...

Ignorant of supposed 'facts' they are spewing check

inflammatory comments that get peoples panties in a bunch check

congratulations on a successful troll Bentusi!

Thu, 03 Feb 2011 14:17:16 UTC | #587349

Go to: Science Under Attack

AshFromHousewares's Avatar Jump to comment 38 by AshFromHousewares

How is AGW not a doomsday prediction when 2-3C is a minimum and we can all see the direction things are heading? There is some evidence it will cause mass economic hardships and also cause many direct deaths if weather becomes more unstable (such as increased flooding, tornado, cyclone/hurricane activity).

There is evidence the ocean currents may shift with the temperature changes and melting ice. This could be very significant but is tricky to predict.

But I'm sure nobody needs to really know when and how high to build the dikes or when whole low lying regions like flordia will dissapear. It's not like it's worth increasing our predictive power to plan in the most effective way.

Thu, 27 Jan 2011 03:58:58 UTC | #584633

Go to: Science Under Attack

AshFromHousewares's Avatar Jump to comment 33 by AshFromHousewares

I like your metaphor and if I understand your gist then I pretty much agree with your statements.

I get my panties in a bunch because I see too few resources (IMO) being used to increase our rate of understanding. With better modeling we can plan more effectively. Much like extraodinary claims require extraodinary evidence, I think a doomsday prediction like AGW should require extraodinary rigor and certainity and I am disheartened when even those accepting AGW at face value aren't clammoring for more as if we almost don't need more research.

Thu, 27 Jan 2011 02:27:49 UTC | #584628

Go to: Science Under Attack

AshFromHousewares's Avatar Jump to comment 27 by AshFromHousewares

With regard to comment 26:

Science generally does have a concensus with a given data set and at at a particular state of understanding. For example there was a time when the concensus was settled on Newtonian physics - obviously the rational choice at the time but wrong nonetheless.

With big changes being made to the models (if you can even get people to actually fully disclose their code) there is no tight concensus on our certanity - or do you think that's it for climate science and millions of years of research will offer no dramatic improvements? NASA had thier climate science probe blow up a few years back robbing us of valuable data. Why are we satisified when we have so much room to improve our models and the outcome us so dire?

Are you willing to 'trust' the science when the field is still in it's infancy and the ratio of legitimate potential damages to costs spent understanding the situation make the entire world seem insane?

Thu, 27 Jan 2011 00:39:05 UTC | #584614

Go to: Science Under Attack

AshFromHousewares's Avatar Jump to comment 22 by AshFromHousewares

I agree that religon did not come up in the video and could be construed to be irrelevant.

I however surmise the religion teaches people it's ok to ignore facts and base your thinking, reality itself (as an observer) if you will, on wish thinking and if it has truthiness (as in the colbert sense). Add this to religions general view that gods make world changes not mortals (oh the hubris) and perhaps it becames reasonable to act in such an outwardly obtuse way.

Wed, 26 Jan 2011 23:18:47 UTC | #584579

Go to: Science Under Attack

AshFromHousewares's Avatar Jump to comment 19 by AshFromHousewares

I don't consider myself an enviornmental nutcase but I do have some major beefs with this video.

First off there is a legitimate concern that we don't know all the feed back paths very well in the models and therefore won't have as much certainity as we should have. It's obvious we are adding co2 but what if we knew the sun was going into a period of low activity (it has been acting strangely the last two years or so) or what if we knew there would be increased volcanic activity? Both of these could mitigate the co2 over the next decades to centuries. What if the methane hydrates sublime due to changing ocean currents? That could make warming far worse than predicted. In 2008 a massive error in nitrogen sequestering by deserts had to be added to the models for climate prediction (30-40%) and the models we do have leave lots of room for improvement.

The costs if global warming is real are into the quadrillions of euros/dollars because it means evacuating hundreds of millions from cities like new York, London, etc. and abandoning all that infistructure. It means los ing millions of square miles/kilometers of land to the ocean and upheval of nearly all types of agriculture now practiced locally. But we spend more money in one year of the global womens shoe market (50B$) than all climate research ever done over all time (about 12$B).

The problem is this video is short on science. An example is the section where you watch weather data and have the scientist say "look the simulation mirrors the real data well so believe it people" buy we are talking about climate change. I facepalmed so hard I need to get my nose checked. The problem is this is misleading (testing climate change models will take centuries as depicted). I could point this out alone and it would convince people the whole video was fradulent.

Besides being more concise these kinds of videos need to stress that we can and should do a better job of understanding climate change. At least the notion of uncertanity and knowledge gaps came up.

Wed, 26 Jan 2011 22:08:53 UTC | #584562

Go to: Rising Seas Look Inevitable

AshFromHousewares's Avatar Jump to comment 77 by AshFromHousewares

Something bothers me a bit about this reasoning.

Let's assume the models are in the ballpark and it's more of a when then if. Looking at the data it seems as if the worlds major cities will be abandoned, fertile crop regions will be redristributed, entire markets and economies in flux. But it probably won't end or stabilize any time soon either. Realistically this could top over a quadrillion US dollars over the next century. So why do we spend more in one year of the global womens shoe market (about 50B) than all climate research ever undertaken period? In case you dislike womens shoes insert your favorite sports franchise.

The models could be more accurate if we took the problem seriously and we should with billions at stake in just the near term.

Mon, 17 Jan 2011 05:21:33 UTC | #579643

Go to: Rising Seas Look Inevitable

AshFromHousewares's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by AshFromHousewares

You fools! Do you Even know what this means?

We can all invest in upland real estate and be billionares.

Of course I am dead wrong. Since the new floating and super pier megatropoluses of the 22nd century (about time you lazy scientists) will be so spectacularistic ittl finally kill all interest in owning anything resembling natural terrain.

Sun, 16 Jan 2011 05:30:05 UTC | #579174

Go to: American Islamophobia

AshFromHousewares's Avatar Jump to comment 58 by AshFromHousewares

It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

I also suffer from cathlophobia. (not the fear of cathodes in case you were wondering)

Tue, 11 Jan 2011 20:51:38 UTC | #576822