From: J Corbally (icorb@indigo.ie)
Date: Wed Jun 12 2002 - 16:16:22 MDT
>Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 22:03:39 -0400
>From: "Technotranscendence" <neptune@mars.superlink.net>
>Subject: Re: New Scientist Note: Singularity by 2010?
>On Tuesday, June 11, 2002 6:56 PM Eugen Leitl eugen@leitl.org wrote:
> >> How reliable is Ian Pearson as a predictor??
> >
> > About as reliable as an Irish Retreiver, I gather.
>I think even less so. It's very easy to make predictions that are a
>ways off from being proved. I mean, who's -- even here -- going to even
>remember he made a prediction for 2010 in 2011?
>Dan
>http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html
>Here's a photo of me from behind:
>http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/pic004.jpg
I'm confused. Are we saying that the Irish Retreiver is an unreliable
retreiver of recently lead-poisoned waterfowl, or an unreliable predictor
of future technological advances?
Or both?
James...
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and
crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures
to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid."
-Q, Star Trek:TNG episode 'Q Who'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:45 MST
