Still laughing at Norman

     He is still saying that atheism is “on the decline;” and to “back his claim up” he links to conservapedia.  That’s right, he is using a site created by christians for the express purpose of ensuring that no outside facts infiltrate their echo chamber.  Look, we know in advance that conservapedia will never claim that atheism is rising.  It is against their interests.  They are a hate site based on christianity.  And they will only post things that do not hurt their agenda.

Advertisements

Norman is complaining about “libel and hate speech” on Facebook.

     First off, if he has an account, I am sure there is libel and hate speech on Facebook.  He exudes libel and hate speech.  He has his made-up term “atheopath” that has no purpose except to be hate speech.  Norman’s hypocrisy knows no bounds.  His only interest is controlling other people.

     He also goes on to brag that he got someone’s account at WordPress shut down.  I don’t know if his story has any truth to it.  I can imaging him filing a false take-down notice.  Indeed, GirlWritesWhat on YouTube was also the victim of a false take-down notice (since retracted.)  And TOS or not, any victim on WordPress who may have been subject to a fraudulent account closing probably has a very good case against them.  If his story is remotely true, Norman may get a lot of attention from WordPress that he didn’t want.

I only recently saw an article about this.

     It appears that they are developing technology that will be able to superimpose knowledge on a mind.  It’s like something out of a science-fiction story.  And I think we all know what story I am talking about — Profession by Isaac Asimov.  Oh, come on.  You weren’t thinking of some Hollywood film, were you?  They haven’t come up with anything original in the last forty years.

     At any rate, the main concern that the articles mention is that something like this might be used on someone without his knowledge or consent.  While that is certainly a valid concern, it is not my greatest worry.  Enough people will find the idea objectionable that regulations will very likely prevent such types of abuse (except possibly by the government.)  What I think is more worrying is that there may be an overdependence on such means.  Let’s face it.  Normal learning is both tedious and time-consuming.  Sometimes it can be enjoyable too.  But that only masks the tedium.  It doesn’t eliminate it.

People are likely to rely too much on “easy learning.”  But, clearly any such knowledge gained must have been developed beforehand.  We may well lose a lot of creativity and innovation.

One of the things that continue to amuse me about Norman

     He keeps saying that atheism is on the decline.  (It’s not true; but he keeps saying it.)  One has to wonder why that is so important to him.  If everyone in the country was an atheist, it wouldn’t necessarily make it true.  And if no one was an atheist, it wouldn’t necessarily make it false.  The fact that atheism is on the rise shouldn’t mean much to anyone.  But Norman has to lie and say the reverse.  It’s as though the truth scares him.

This one is just about a personal frustration

     I had forgotten the name of something called “GetModuleFileName.”  I could remember what it does; but I was trying to find the name.  Needless to say, this took me a long time.  For all practical purposes, without that name, you can’t find it.  I’m not going to go into detail on what it is and does because anyone who cares probably already knows.  Even I always remember what it does.  I just have trouble remembering what it’s called.

Some people may have heard about something called “quantum computing.”

     I don’t think it will ever be a practical reality.  The main difficulty, of course, is “decoherence.”  In essence any measurement tends to disturb a qubit’s superposition of states and normal particle interations in the universe act as measurements.  To a degree there is also the fact that qubits, like classical bits can develop errors.  Now with classical computing, dealing with errors is easy.  You set up a couple million bits to represent a single bit.  When you want the state of the true bit, you measure all the representatives, accept the majority, and force all the bits into agreement.

     With qubits, things are a little trickier.  If you make any direct measurement (before the end of the computation) you will get a value but lose the interconnection to all the other bits in the system.  So they are looking at ways to detect relative errors without actually detecting whether the bit is in the ‘zero’ or ‘one’ state.  But it is still a measurement.  It still interferes with the superposition of states of the system as a whole.  That is what I think will ultimately become an insurmountable problem.  As you error-correct bits independently, they will become more and more independent, and less and less useful to quantum computation.