Can someone tell Newgayguy - HL2DMU Forum Archive

Va|iums

2011-06-29 07:57:46

The Argumentalizer wrote:How come it's always whites who are racist? I'm pretty sure there are Eskimo Supremacists and La Raza Pride.

There's a few fun things I've learned as a part native american is that there are racists on both sides. However being as I've been in/on about 5 different reservations I don't know of any Native supremacy groups of actively work to suppress the white/black/latino race.

The big difference is one group has the ability to use the racism to detrimental effects, the other does not. Secondly the white racists and native racists I've met tend to pretty dumb/poor. I guess I wasn't surprised when they came out with a study recently where they tested a group of people and found the poorer and dumber (tested by IQ) you were, the more racist and religious you tended to be.

Fear and religion = GG (for all races seems to be a deadly combo)

provost

2011-06-29 13:19:53

I won't start a debate around wich is worst but whites are clearly not alone. Ever went in a chinese family? or Haitian?

I'm not saying they're all racist, i'm sayign that, when they are, it's srsbsns.

The Argumentalizer

2011-06-29 15:14:11

"Secondly the white racists and native racists I've met tend to pretty dumb/poor."

Is this a statement on race? The whole continent of Africa is pretty poor.
South America? Lot's of poverty in Central and South....lots of dumb.
How about Asia? Thailand, Vietnam...
And India!? Lots of dumb and poor there.
It has been said nobody is more racist than Japanese and Chinese.
And the Oil Beaners in the ME. Jordan? Syria, Iraq...Poor and Dumb and racist as can be.

You always hear White because of superior cultural norms found in WASP attitudes.
Ideas that have more success and create more wealth than any other.

{EE}chEmicalbuRn

2011-06-29 17:13:58

mass market's view on race:

Va|iums

2011-06-29 19:11:42

The Argumentalizer wrote:"Secondly the white racists and native racists I've met tend to pretty dumb/poor."

Is this a statement on race? The whole continent of Africa is pretty poor.
South America? Lot's of poverty in Central and South....lots of dumb.
How about Asia? Thailand, Vietnam...
And India!? Lots of dumb and poor there.
It has been said nobody is more racist than Japanese and Chinese.
And the Oil Beaners in the ME. Jordan? Syria, Iraq...Poor and Dumb and racist as can be.

You always hear White because of superior cultural norms found in WASP attitudes.
Ideas that have more success and create more wealth than any other.

When did I say it's contingent on race, if you really want to get down to eugenics East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews consistently tested higher in IQ tests in the few studies that got done before shutting them down, even today average mean SAT, LSAT and MCAT scores still have these two particular races testing the highest. I guess they have the most superior cultural norms and success of any on earth, even more so then the WASP? Once again you just drag a bunch of completely unrelated ideas into the conversation.

I was talking broadly in a study that include many races at once http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/sayar/riqs.htm (I have the article on JSTOR but I don't think you guys can access it) religiosity and racism positively correlated with lower IQ's, that was my only point. Yes all races demonstrate racism, but as your intelligence goes up, the less religious, the less racist you are.

REJECTED

2011-06-29 19:19:18

WHa Wha wha wha wha.............. What? Exactly.

Edit: Vals is almost to 1337dom with his posts

[EYE] Valar

2011-06-29 19:45:38

Yeah!!!! And someone tell Newguy all this. NOW!

Sacrifist

2011-06-29 23:21:55

{EE}chEmicalbuRn wrote:mass market's view on race:

LOL

The Argumentalizer

2011-06-30 02:22:02

"East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews consistently tested higher in IQ tests"

This is false.

"Yes all races demonstrate racism, but as your intelligence goes up, the less religious, the less racist you are."

This is also pathetic lib false nonsense.

Va|iums

2011-06-30 02:26:44

The Argumentalizer wrote:"East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews consistently tested higher in IQ tests"

This is false.

"Yes all races demonstrate racism, but as your intelligence goes up, the less religious, the less racist you are."

This is also pathetic lib false nonsense.

Hey glad you could respond with some material to show how I was wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_intelligence

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2112761

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_American

Jews still rank first in average IQ tests today, rank number 1 in average household income, rank 1 in education levels and education scores. East asians second in almost all of those. Apparently if wealth and success are the measurement you go by, Jews have been conquering whites for some time now.

Edit; note I refer to American/Ashkenazi Jews. Interestingly enough Israeli Jews score well below their Ashkenazi counterparts in all of those areas globally, IQ wise by 10 points.

the_big_cheese

2011-06-30 03:21:50

Va|iums wrote: I was talking broadly in a study that include many races at once http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/sayar/riqs.htm (I have the article on JSTOR but I don't think you guys can access it) religiosity and racism positively correlated with lower IQ's, that was my only point. Yes all races demonstrate racism, but as your intelligence goes up, the less religious, the less racist you are.

I didn't read your study, but if it's scientific then I guarantee it didn't say anything as ignorant as that last sentence you wrote.

>Implying that IQ tests measure intelligence
>Implying that an objective way to quantify intelligence even exists (it doesn't)

mfw

The Argumentalizer

2011-06-30 03:29:08

Wikipedia is a public sourced encyclopedia. You can find all kinds of nonsense in that shit. I edit all sorts of specious hyper political crap out all the time.

The abstract was about academic excellence, meaning HARD WORK, not IQ.

Furthermore, there are different forms of IQ.
Abstract 3D testing falls far short.

Bach was the greatest musician who ever lived and was as devote a Christian as they come.

The notion religious equals DUMB is complete bullshit. Rather than me proving a negative against your absurd claims, maybe you could publish some real science that shows a correlation between Atheism and brilliance or vice versa.

You make the claims, you back them up. Philosophically and logically, that is how it works.

Va|iums

2011-06-30 03:36:24

the_big_cheese wrote:
>Implying that IQ tests measure intelligence
>Implying that an objective way to quantify intelligence even exists (it doesn't)

Sound logic, so I guess all those tests on chimps that the same humans were subjected to that shows chimps not even having half the memory power, reasoning power and logic power is bullshit right? Those tests show nothing and chimps could very well be as smart or smarter then us I guess. I guess quantifying amount of brain matter, brain development and number of neurons that directly correlates and even predicts intelligence is also bullshit and not objective too right?

The Argumentalizer wrote:The notion religious equals DUMB is complete bullshit. Rather than me proving a negative against your absurd claims, maybe you could publish some real science that shows a correlation between Atheism and brilliance or vice versa.

You make the claims, you back them up. Philosophically and logically, that is how it works.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9608001013

http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... n-God.html

[EYE] Valar

2011-06-30 04:17:43

Lol on Ashkenazi jews being less racist.
Tell you what..try having an Ashkenazi girl bring home an arab or basucally any colored person and see what happens. That is..on both American and Israeli Ashkenazis.
I know from my own life that the IQ/status claim is false.
I also agree true intelligence cannot and never has been measured by IQ tests. If anything it's Cultural level and not IQ which determines if a person is racist or not. Ive met so many not-too-bright and not-so-well-off people in my life that were racist at all.
BTW, Can Someone Tell TheNewGuy? WTF!!! Hahah
So funny when political/phylosophical/intellectual threads always end up as spam/troll fests and this thread did the exact opposite lmfao

the_big_cheese

2011-06-30 04:48:46

Va|iums wrote: Sound logic, so I guess all those tests on chimps that the same humans were subjected to that shows chimps not even having half the memory power, reasoning power and logic power is bullshit right?

Memory. reasoning, and logic are all complex, multidimensional traits. You can't score them from 1 to 100 or use words like 'half'. Half of what exactly?

Those tests show nothing and chimps could very well be as smart or smarter then us I guess.

They DO peel their bananas from the bottom up.

I guess quantifying amount of brain matter, brain development and number of neurons that directly correlates and even predicts intelligence is also bullshit and not objective too right?

Predict IQ, not intelligence.
Intelligence is not quantitative. Abstract reasoning, mathematical skills, verbal expression, problem solving, and creativity are not quantitative.
Suck my wiener.

MrScootz

2011-06-30 04:53:16

A study of studies has shown that studies are often misleading.

"Educated" people are more often atheists because they are smart enough to understand that if they were to believe in a God who created them, then they would be obligated to do what he says. So instead they decide not to believe in God, base their "belief" on some bullshit science of "God doesn't exist," and go on with their merry lives, doing whatever they wish.

The dyslexic agnostic insomniac lays awake late at night wondering if there really is a dog.

Va|iums

2011-06-30 05:00:34

the_big_cheese wrote: Intelligence is not quantitative. Abstract reasoning, mathematical skills, verbal expression, problem solving, and creativity are not quantitative.
Suck my wiener.

Actually when the first computer that surpasses human intelligence lands you're going to be wrong.

As AI continues to advance and be able to efficiently account for, simulate and then project all possibilities in this world, even creativity will be surpassed by AI eventually, although much further down the road. Intelligence is already being qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed as we speak.

Nutri-Grain

2011-06-30 07:56:10

Va|iums wrote:
the_big_cheese wrote: Intelligence is not quantitative. Abstract reasoning, mathematical skills, verbal expression, problem solving, and creativity are not quantitative.
Suck my wiener.
Actually when the first computer that surpasses human intelligence lands you're going to be wrong.

As AI continues to advance and be able to efficiently account for, simulate and then project all possibilities in this world, even creativity will be surpassed by AI eventually, although much further down the road. Intelligence is already being qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed as we speak.

Yes, but true inspiration can not be programmed into a machine. This impending AI will be able to create much more effectively and efficiently, but that does not and will not make it creative.

srslyNOTnewguy

2011-06-30 08:36:23

SNOWBEANERS!!!!!!!

Va|iums

2011-06-30 09:06:25

Nutri-Grain wrote:
Va|iums wrote:
the_big_cheese wrote: Intelligence is not quantitative. Abstract reasoning, mathematical skills, verbal expression, problem solving, and creativity are not quantitative.
Suck my wiener.
Actually when the first computer that surpasses human intelligence lands you're going to be wrong.

As AI continues to advance and be able to efficiently account for, simulate and then project all possibilities in this world, even creativity will be surpassed by AI eventually, although much further down the road. Intelligence is already being qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed as we speak.
Yes, but true inspiration can not be programmed into a machine. This impending AI will be able to create much more effectively and efficiently, but that does not and will not make it creative.

It can, Deep Blue when it beat Kasparov was programmed to make it's own "creative" choices if it did not find a suitably strong move when confronted with a line of moves it did not have programmed for a response. Deep Blue proved to be stronger both creatively and efficiency wise, but it had massive amounts of data and machinery programmed just for one single game.

The point is over time people are projecting a Deep Blue for the entire world is not that far off, a computer that can both simulate and create all possible circumstances based on our laws of physics and nature. This AI will even have the ability to make it's own decisions, and if it "likes' a decision it makes the computer will compound the new decisions with another new decision on top of the one it just made.

{EE}chEmicalbuRn

2011-06-30 09:29:37

ya'll should read this book. its really good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singularity_Is_Near

advances in technology move in an exponential pattern. AI WILL surpass human intelligence. depending on your view of intelligence, it may or may not have already done so. we will be able to "keep up" for a while, because AI will need corrections but once AI can correct itself, and write its own instructional code, its all over. you will have machines writing code and correction code, billions of times faster than we could ever do. and with each correction will come more advanced AI. that will in turn will create machines capable of write code even faster than before, which will create machines capable of correcting themselves faster, and in turn....etc, etc, etc(exponential AI growth) once this happens, AI will be infinetly far beyond any counter measure we can think of in terms of stopping it.

two snails

2011-06-30 10:45:38

{EE}chEmicalbuRn wrote:ya'll should read this book. its really good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singularity_Is_Near

advances in technology move in an exponential pattern. AI WILL surpass human intelligence. depending on your view of intelligence, it may or may not have already done so. we will be able to "keep up" for a while, because AI will need corrections but once AI can correct itself, and write its own instructional code, its all over. you will have machines writing code and correction code, billions of times faster than we could ever do. and with each correction will come more advanced AI. that will in turn will create machines capable of write code even faster than before, which will create machines capable of correcting themselves faster, and in turn....etc, etc, etc(exponential AI growth) once this happens, AI will be infinetly far beyond any counter measure we can think of in terms of stopping it.

somebody call will smith. shit just got real.

Va|iums

2011-06-30 10:48:16

two snails wrote:
{EE}chEmicalbuRn wrote:ya'll should read this book. its really good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singularity_Is_Near

advances in technology move in an exponential pattern. AI WILL surpass human intelligence. depending on your view of intelligence, it may or may not have already done so. we will be able to "keep up" for a while, because AI will need corrections but once AI can correct itself, and write its own instructional code, its all over. you will have machines writing code and correction code, billions of times faster than we could ever do. and with each correction will come more advanced AI. that will in turn will create machines capable of write code even faster than before, which will create machines capable of correcting themselves faster, and in turn....etc, etc, etc(exponential AI growth) once this happens, AI will be infinetly far beyond any counter measure we can think of in terms of stopping it.
somebody call will smith. shit just got real.

Shit just got more then real, I'm gonna call John Conner.

[EYE] Valar

2011-06-30 10:58:55

A Computer beating Man at Chess was given the rules and the logic foundation of the game quantified into zero ones. Fact it beat the Human does not mean it is Cteative nor Smarter. It means its calculation process is faster and that it is lacking Human traits such as Ego and Emotions which can slow it down.
Not Smarter. Not Creative.
Whether you believe in God or worship Cats; Man's true Intelligence is Inspiration and Creativity.
Inspiratio AND Creativity are both the ability of Drawing something out of Nothing - Not using a given pool of data Very Very fast!

Va|iums

2011-06-30 11:03:47

[EYE] Valar wrote:A Computer beating Man at Chess was given the rules and the logic foundation of the game quantified into zero ones.!

Ask yourself what happens when the computer is given the entire set of rules of physics and nature that humans understand today (much of which due to mathematical and dimensional limits is still not understood) and the computer compounds its abilities to understand much more then we can?

EDIT; it was a rhetorical snipe, much of science today is done through supercomputers, calculating the moment of singlularity occurence, calculating the mass it takes for a star to collapse into a black hole ect. The bigger question is the inevitable, what happens when the computer is given the complete set of rules and independence, something a cyber terrorist will eventually do?

Pernicious

2011-06-30 11:06:50

ok, so like, i didnt read any of this thread except for the last post.

Not wat i was expecting.

[EYE] Valar

2011-06-30 11:22:12

Va|iums wrote:
[EYE] Valar wrote:A Computer beating Man at Chess was given the rules and the logic foundation of the game quantified into zero ones.!
Ask yourself what happens when the computer is given the entire set of rules of physics and nature that humans understand today (much of which due to mathematical and dimensional limits is still not understood) and the computer compounds its abilities to understand much more then we can?

The information is incomplete. Computers are based in Information. With the existing set of tools they WILL arrive at dead ends eventually as do we.
The Human fear of this super computer taking over the planet is the same primal fear we have of Witches and Poisoned Apples:

"the computer compounds its abilities to understand much more then we can" - you're basically saying: :...uh...and then it makes up the rest...uh...somehow...(i guess)"
There is no "rest" or "somehow" for computers because rest and somehow cannot be written in code.

Computer Rule of thumb: 01
Man rule of thumb: ... .. . .. .. . .. . .

Vals, you cannot quantify Human intelligence when you've only discovered less than 15% of Human DNA and understand less than 2% of Human brain functions AND, as you mention: have only understood less than 1% of Nature on its rules, be it Physics, Chemistry, Biology and so on.
Hence, the computers you can build off of that partial information will never be "super" other than Super Fast and Super Efficient WITHIN the incomplete frame of information you gave them.
Let's come back and discuss what do to when Super Computers take over the planet when a 12 DNA coils fully lit and mapped Human with full 100% mapped brain builds them.

Va|iums

2011-06-30 11:50:48

[EYE] Valar wrote:
Va|iums wrote:
[EYE] Valar wrote:A Computer beating Man at Chess was given the rules and the logic foundation of the game quantified into zero ones.!
Ask yourself what happens when the computer is given the entire set of rules of physics and nature that humans understand today (much of which due to mathematical and dimensional limits is still not understood) and the computer compounds its abilities to understand much more then we can?
The information is incomplete. Computers are based in Information. With the existing set of tools they WILL arrive at dead ends eventually as do we.

That's the difference.

Computers don't have the structural limit like the human brain does (they can always be updated or have more processing structure integrated on the chip), chips will soon vastly outpace the processing power of the brain, and even the creativity of the human brain.

Automation has replaced roughly 60% of American manual labor jobs (and will continue to replace more), something Fox News won't tell you because they blame all job loss on illegal immigrants, outsourcing and debt. There is no stopping the strength of AI unless we stop it ourselves. Never was there a more appropriate time to post a picture of John Conner then now.

[EYE] Valar

2011-06-30 12:25:56

Va|iums wrote:chips will soon vastly outpace the processing power of the brain, and even the creativity of the human brain.

Say you're drilling an area and one day the drill stops and you realize you've found an underground chamber. maybe an oil or gas dump..
Then, without further investigation and regardless of not knowing what it is and how much you have there you go ahead and start putting options for Gas and Oil stocks.

srsly no offense but i don't think you fully understand what Creativity truly is and the stage of Human scientific knowledge of the universe.
Within the current frame of knowledge we do have of it...yes, computers can surpass our processing abilities. I think it's obvious they already have. But you seem to be missing the point. If you go to a new country and learn to say Hi and Thank You, you can't go ahead and write essays on their language IN their language: you just know how to say Hi and Thank You: not only are you missing the vocabulary you also have no grasp of context and cultural root of this new found language.

the_big_cheese

2011-06-30 16:18:09

I think what people need to understand is that at a fundamental level, the brain is not like a computer. A processor is not physically capable of doing what the brain does.

Sure in some cases it might be able to achieve the same results. But the process is completly different. And the process is what makes all the difference when it comes to evolution.

Nature always wins

[EYE] Valar

2011-06-30 16:23:24

the_big_cheese wrote:I think what people need to understand is that at a fundamental level, the brain is not like a computer. A processor is not physically capable of doing what the brain does.

Sure in some cases it might be able to achieve the same results. But the process is completly different. And the process is what makes all the difference when it comes to evolution.

Nature always wins

Cave Johnson: "Come on people, we're not banging rocks togeher here; we know how to put a man together. Now let's throw some Science on the wall and see if it sticks".

provost

2011-06-30 17:24:28

Va|iums wrote:
That's the difference.

Computers don't have the structural limit like the human brain does (they can always be updated or have more processing structure integrated on the chip)

Computers don't upgrade themselves. We have to upgrade them.
From the moment you were born to your death - you brain is not replaced. It grows, learn, remembers, adapts.

We realised that we could build something that could process data faster than us - so we created such a tool.

If you fear that something evovles to the point of owning us all - feel free to fear animals, insects, bacterias or other humans.

REJECTED

2011-06-30 17:24:58

The brain and a CPU are similar in some regards. But the brain is biological, it's not digital and its memory areas are also used for processing and creative thinking, all in one. CPU's, in order to have memory, need some RAM, in order to do something creative, need intelligence. CPU's are simply thousands of circuits called logic gates, that is all.

Check this out: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/gero_miesenboeck.html
It's highly interesting, but if you want, skip to 16:30. He basically talks about how they have nailed down where the 'Critic' in the brain lies to 12 cells. But they still don't understand through physical interactions, how intelligence springs to life; how the critic does its job.

The idea of software programming itself to improve itself is also an interesting idea, but a fairy tale to me. This is learning. Learning does not happen without a critic or some intelligence. Learning may be hard-coded into a program. But that program only learns to the extent for which it is programmed. i.e. AI in games. I can program a piece of logic to reprogram itself, but it will only be able to learn/reprogram itself to the extent I hard-coded in.

Also, there are very many smart people that believe in a god, there are also numerous smart people that do not believe in a god. The majority of scientists are either agnostic or atheist, but there are still some that are religious. My speculation is, the more you break down what's going on in our physical world, and the more you understand how things work, the veil and the mystique that religion offers starts to disappear like a thick fog in the morning sun.

[EYE] Valar

2011-06-30 17:55:15

provost wrote:
Va|iums wrote:
That's the difference.

Computers don't have the structural limit like the human brain does (they can always be updated or have more processing structure integrated on the chip)
Computers don't upgrade themselves. We have to upgrade them.
From the moment you were born to your death - you brain is not replaced. It grows, learn, remembers, adapts.

We realised that we could build something that could process data faster than us - so we created such a tool.

Here, here!

If you fear that something evovles to the point of owning us all - feel free to fear animals, insects, bacterias or other humans.

{EE}chEmicalbuRn

2011-06-30 20:36:31

the other misconseption, mostly due to fictional movies and books, is that computers/machines will enevitable try to distroy us/ "turn evil." although i cant say its impossible, its very unlikely. one would certainly agree that machines dont/cant show emotion. emotion is an element that really cant be coded. mostly because what we feel and perceive as emotion is nothing more then chemicals being produced in the body due to a mental reaction to stimuli. these chemicals will never be present in a machine, even if they could some how do that, there would be no reason to. certainly you can program a machine to output a response of "SAD" if a certain situation is concidered true by the CPU, that's simple, and ultimately useless. never the less, this isnt what im talking about. my previous post was refering to the fact that machines will grow to a point where they no longer need us to help them. they arent going to turn and harm us, or start some lazer weilding cyber war....they would have no reason to, BUT, it certainly will come to a point where the CPU will reconize human intervention is slow and tedious and will most likely program itself to ignore it. this is where the real danger occurs, not because the machines will "turn" on us, but because the brain is more or less a muscle, that will atrophy. in other words, we will get dumber. and we all know what path that leads down....

provost

2011-06-30 21:12:45

{EE}chEmicalbuRn wrote: the brain is more or less a muscle, that will atrophy. in other words, we will get dumber. and we all know what path that leads down....

It will lead to an economy stimulated mostly by monster trucks and WWF events?

{EE}chEmicalbuRn

2011-06-30 21:28:29

provost wrote:
{EE}chEmicalbuRn wrote: the brain is more or less a muscle, that will atrophy. in other words, we will get dumber. and we all know what path that leads down....
It will lead to an economy stimulated mostly by monster trucks and WWF events?

lol, and forums full of ppl arguing over what race is more racist...

but in the long run i think im speaking more about ppl accepting its ok to throw innocent ppl in gas chambers and stoves, keeping ppl as slaves, testing nuclear weapons, flying planes into buildings, listing to some guy who is consistantly wrong, talk about the exact date the world is going to end, and so on and so on. if the machines were able to reconize us in any way, im sure they would leaves alone and let us kill each other off.

Va|iums

2011-06-30 22:34:56

provost wrote:
Va|iums wrote:
That's the difference.

Computers don't have the structural limit like the human brain does (they can always be updated or have more processing structure integrated on the chip)
Computers don't upgrade themselves. We have to upgrade them.
From the moment you were born to your death - you brain is not replaced. It grows, learn, remembers, adapts.

There will reach a point when program becomes so beyond our reach, and the machine so efficient and perfect the code will be consistently rewritten by it's own AI. I have to say though I like this thread alot, we've covered Eugenics, the most superior race, indians, technological singularity, John Conner and human/robot hybrids in a few pages. GG

[EYE] Valar

2011-06-30 23:24:47

Did we cover Paranoia¿

REJECTED

2011-07-01 01:46:07

Va|iums wrote: It's already happening http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/ ... des_itself

Did you even read the article? I mean, you took the title of the article - "Carberp banking malware upgrades itself" and just ran with it. The article does nothing to help reinforce your argument, in fact, it just makes me sorry for clicking on your links.

Heart1ess

2011-07-01 01:47:04

Fuck me, Valiums....Politics and Science aint your thang! Surprized your not posting Zeitgiest shit. The venus project (marxism w/ robots) would be right up your ally. Hey if science is your god....By all means. But count me out....

Va|iums

2011-07-01 02:03:38

Heart1ess wrote:Fuck me, Valiums....Politics and Science aint your thang! Surprized your not posting Zeitgiest shit. The venus project (marxism w/ robots) would be right up your ally. Hey if science is your god....By all means. But count me out....

Zeitgeist was cool maybe 5 years ago, but hey feel free to let us know all about it again.

[EYE] Valar

2011-07-01 02:07:49

inb4 ko-tao's Lizard thread closure

Va|iums

2011-07-01 02:08:50

REJECTED wrote:
Va|iums wrote: It's already happening http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/ ... des_itself
Did you even read the article? I mean, you took the title of the article - "Carberp banking malware upgrades itself" and just ran with it. The article does nothing to help reinforce your argument, in fact, it just makes me sorry for clicking on your links.

Yes I took a look into it and the software wasn't what I initially thought it was. It's typical however that once someone makes one mistake the rest of their arguments are dismissed, like little flies looking for any hole to crack, because the rest of my links were so bad right? It's great all the people dismissing my other links as nonsense have yet to produce any real counter argument worth any value.

*Produces evidence religiosity and IQ negatively correlate*

"Bullshit"

Heart1ess

2011-07-01 02:16:23

Well id say its even more popular now then it was 5 years ago. They just released a new one which will probably hit 10 million views... ACE101.

[EYE] Valar

2011-07-01 02:31:09

Fuck that. i'm seeing giant Golem robots striding the streets of major cities

Attachments

: golem.jpg (134.78 KiB) Viewed 366 times

Uncle Rico

2011-07-01 03:13:41

Humans end like this:

Link

Deal with it.

Va|iums

2011-07-01 03:18:57

lol later robot faggots, I aint even worried bout' computers

Heart1ess

2011-07-01 03:26:47

Hes got a gay obsession for john connor. Valiums your a little indian with small biceps. how you gonna even hold up a gun?

Pernicious

2011-07-01 03:47:49

I gotta go back and find out how this thread went so far off track, bravo ppl, bravo, i take my hat off to yas, so.....sooo random.

Pernicious

2011-07-01 03:54:24

oooooh, o, ooooh i see wat happened there, lol...

The Argumentalizer

2011-07-01 04:42:32

I wonder. how a computer can be more intelligent than the beings that created and developed it!?

It's like saying you are smarter than god.

Of course, that is exactly what Valiums thinks.

He took some classes from some degenerate liberal nobodies teaching and poisoning young minds, and that makes him superior and brilliant.

Oh, and being an Atheist is Proof!

(I am part Armenian which makes me a better Backgammon and Chess player than Valiums, French, which makes me a self loathing snob, German, which makes me superior in everyway, and Irish, which makes me totally useless.

Va|iums

2011-07-01 04:52:04

Heart1ess wrote:Hes got a gay obsession for john connor. Valiums your a little indian with small biceps. how you gonna even hold up a gun?

Speaking of gay obsessions, looks like someone's been stalking my profile.

The Argumentalizer wrote:I wonder. how a computer can be more intelligent than the beings that created and developed it!?

It's like saying you are smarter than god.

Of course, that is exactly what Valiums thinks.

He took some classes from some degenerate liberal nobodies teaching and poisoning young minds, and that makes him superior and brilliant.

Oh, and being an Atheist is Proof!

I admit my mind is poisoned with knowing why we really went into Vietnam,why capitalism intentionally killed mercantilism, why neo-liberal economies were proposed as the new dominant economic system, how investment speculation can aggregrate class power and why we were in Libya.

I admit I'd rather not have taken the red pill and be blissfully ignorant like you Impala. Sometimes how I wish....

Va|iums

2011-07-01 04:58:50

The Argumentalizer wrote:I am part Armenian which makes me a better Backgammon and Chess player than Valiums, French, which makes me a self loathing snob, German, which makes me superior in everyway, and Irish, which makes me totally useless.

lol wtf was this edit for? I guess it's list your race time for no reason? I'm 50% north german, 25% Austrian and 25% native american and I'll be glad to take you up in chess anytime, PM me.

Heart1ess

2011-07-01 05:10:43

"He took some classes from some degenerate liberal nobodies teaching and poisoning young minds, and that makes him superior and brilliant."

Thats you in a nutshell old man. stop calling the kettle black.

And Vals you took the tainted red pill.

{EE}chEmicalbuRn

2011-07-01 05:20:10

The Argumentalizer wrote:I wonder. how a computer can be more intelligent than the beings that created and developed it!?

It's like saying you are smarter than god.

again, it depends on your view of "intelligence." the person(s) that worked on creating the very first CPU couldnt do the mathmatical calculations it could do, or certainly not as fast. so....in a sence it was more intelligent than its creators if you think that is what makes something intelligent. there are many more examples of varying direction, but you get my point.

as for "It's like saying you are smarter than god." thats a path we probably shouldnt even start on.

Heart1ess

2011-07-01 05:27:33

Just ignore impala and his god comments. He hasent even figured out that if Jesus Christ came back to this planet he wouldnt even join his own religion. All religions are for the weak. Athiests are generally smarter, But the smartest people out there understand that there is something more.

srslyNOTnewguy

2011-07-01 07:19:03

@ EVERYONE'S POSTS:

too short; didn't read.

Pernicious

2011-07-01 08:02:15

The Argumentalizer wrote:I wonder. how a computer can be more intelligent than the beings that created and developed it!?

It's like saying you are smarter than god.

And being religious is like saying u know the secrets of the universe.

zeiken

2011-07-01 09:27:44

Yo valiums, lets start from here, what is your problem? 20 bucks you're not even gonna answer the question.

Va|iums

2011-07-01 09:34:53

zeiken wrote:Yo valiums, lets start from here, what is your problem? 20 bucks you're not even gonna answer the question.

Hey sorry, I don't take questions from the shady french peanut gallery.

Don't you have hacking forums to be going to and making efforts to be a script kiddy?

The Argumentalizer

2011-07-01 18:48:46

Heart1ess wrote:Just ignore impala and his god comments. He hasent even figured out that if Jesus Christ came back to this planet he wouldnt even join his own religion. All religions are for the weak. Athiests are generally smarter, But the smartest people out there understand that there is something more.

Like what!? You make a good case that Atheists are illiterate.
----------------------------------------------------------
"All religions are for the weak."
Really? The Western world was built on Christianity and you are saying religion is for weak people.

{EE}chEmicalbuRn

2011-07-01 18:58:54

Va|iums wrote:
zeiken wrote:Yo valiums, lets start from here, what is your problem? 20 bucks you're not even gonna answer the question.
Hey sorry, I don't take questions from the shady french peanut gallery.

Don't you have hacking forums to be going to and making efforts to be a script kiddy?

zeiken

2011-07-01 22:13:31

Va|iums wrote:
zeiken wrote:Yo valiums, lets start from here, what is your problem? 20 bucks you're not even gonna answer the question.
Hey sorry, I don't take questions from the shady french peanut gallery.

Don't you have hacking forums to be going to and making efforts to be a script kiddy?

That's all you got? Pathetic.

Va|iums

2011-07-01 22:30:42

zeiken wrote:
Va|iums wrote:
zeiken wrote:Yo valiums, lets start from here, what is your problem? 20 bucks you're not even gonna answer the question.
Hey sorry, I don't take questions from the shady french peanut gallery.

Don't you have hacking forums to be going to and making efforts to be a script kiddy?
That's all you got? Pathetic.

I guess I could give it another shot!

Honestly I don't know why you're here, you're a failed player, a failed hacker, a mediocre photoshop artist and I can tell your IQ is pretty low by your post content alone.

Hope I did better this time around, but this will probably be the last time I acknowledge your existence in these forums.

zeiken

2011-07-01 22:35:17

That is your opinion Val, im sorry

. Btw, Photoshop? I don't even have that program installed and i don't really know how to use it. All i use is Vegas, Boujou4, AE and C4D. But yeah, i don't know what is your problem.

Heart1ess

2011-07-01 22:43:38

Impala fuck you and bullshit religion. If you wanna be a follower, be a follower. I am not going to write an essay for you stating why i think the west is more corrupt then the east. Religion has always and will always be used to control.

[EYE] Valar

2011-07-01 22:50:32

zeiken wrote:That is your opinion Val

Ok I'm Val. He's Vals.

Va|iums

2011-07-01 22:58:03

[EYE] Valar wrote:
zeiken wrote:That is your opinion Val
Ok I'm Val. He's Vals.

I remember when I first met you on a server and said "Hey val" and realized I just said hi to two people at once.

the_big_cheese

2011-07-01 23:33:28

Va|iums wrote:
REJECTED wrote:
Va|iums wrote: It's already happening http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/ ... des_itself
Did you even read the article? I mean, you took the title of the article - "Carberp banking malware upgrades itself" and just ran with it. The article does nothing to help reinforce your argument, in fact, it just makes me sorry for clicking on your links.
Yes I took a look into it and the software wasn't what I initially thought it was. It's typical however that once someone makes one mistake the rest of their arguments are dismissed, like little flies looking for any hole to crack, because the rest of my links were so bad right? It's great all the people dismissing my other links as nonsense have yet to produce any real counter argument worth any value.

*Produces evidence religiosity and IQ negatively correlate*

"Bullshit"

You're looking for a counter argument to eugenics? Lol you don't have to look very far.

The results of heritability studies have been used to support the argument that intelligence is mainly innate and inherited, citing heritability values of 0.8 for intelligence. In most cases, however, the reasoning used to support this argument misuses the concept of heritability. Recall that a measured heritability of 0.8 (for example) means that 80% of the phenotypic variation observed is due to genetic differences within that population. Heritability differences between two populations cannot be compared, because heritability measures only variation within a population at the time of measurement. By definition, it cannot be used to estimate genetic variation between populations. In other words, we cannot use heritability differences between groups to conclude that there are genetic differences between those groups. As we will see in Chapter 19, genetic variation within any single population is much greater than the amount of genetic variation between any two populations. In fact, the amount of genetic variation within a population is so great that it swamps the genetic differences between populations, invalidating the idea that human populations can be sorted into racial groups.

Va|iums

2011-07-02 00:34:57

the_big_cheese wrote:
You're looking for a counter argument to eugenics?

No? I never argued that I believe in eugenics, nor that it's a legitimate concept.

If you read my posts carefully you'd know I was taking a potshot at Impala's implied assertion of WASP (AKA white) superiority by the criterion of "success" and "wealth".

I was making fun of him by simply stating the fact American Jews score the highest in IQ tests of any American racial group average, have the highest median household income and highest levels of education and education scores (SAT, MCAT, LSAT ect).

I myself don't believe in eugenics, I do believe culture and cultural xenophobia creates pockets of pseudo races that in reality don't differ much genetically then the rest of the human population, if at all.

Ghost Dog_TSGK

2011-07-02 02:08:21

Thread is broring.

Brohicans need to pop a couple of ibubrophens and bro home.

ninojman

2011-07-02 03:25:05

srslyNOTnewguy

2011-07-02 07:06:51

Well said nino; I'll throw in some...

Link

ninojman

2011-07-02 08:36:10

Go figure. This thread was so retarded it took New Guy to make it less gay.

srslyNOTnewguy

2011-07-02 09:46:41

ninojman wrote:Go figure. This thread was so retarded it took New Guy to make it less gay.

Iknorite.
All-creation should be imploding right about now, but God has it running windows; all the stars are dimmed just a bit and waiting for the big-guy to click the button that allows this thread to make changes to his universe.

Fucking Windows 7 Universe.

Fuck.