Comments on: Ridiculously accurate futurist shares his bold prediction on the Glenn Beck program

By: Cybernettr

Cybernettr — Sat, 24 Nov 2012 02:19:00 +0000

Is “The Blaze” a religious site? Because half the posts in the comments section were from bible thumpers.

I thought the Beck interview was quite good, however.

By: klaatu

klaatu — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 23:45:21 +0000

Ray? May ah call you Ray?
Gawd bless Glenn Beck is all ah can say.

Lettuce all build a here-after that is closer to ah collective
vision of the Mormon here-2-fore & blah blah blah.

By: klaatu

klaatu — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 23:37:50 +0000

Glenn Beck, that giant of right wing backwoods (Ben Stein’s word 4 SP)
foresight who is now our beacon into our collective future.
GLENN BECK, THE BACKWARD (the word Ben Stein would have used if a
beefy security guy wasn’t glaring at him in TV monitor) MONEY GUY
WHO REPRESENTS ANTI-SCI, ANTI-INTELLECT BUT WHO MIGHT BE
fronting for THE RAPTURE OF THE NERDS.

By: Editor

Editor — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 02:07:42 +0000

Ray is reachable at askray@kurzweilai.net. He is not involved in writing KurzweilAI news, but does set overall editorial policies for KurzweilAI.

By: Bob Vasquez

Bob Vasquez — Thu, 22 Nov 2012 22:36:17 +0000

Ray, may I call you Ray? I read your newsletter so much that I think that I should be able to call you by your first name.

Anyway, Ray, you really need to “read the full article” here and, especially, you must read every “post” made by the readers of “The Blaze”. Allow plenty of time because there are a lot of posts.

By: Bob Vasquez

Bob Vasquez — Thu, 22 Nov 2012 19:01:32 +0000

Ray Kurzweil sat down with Glenn Beck? You mean that intellectual giant of the scientific/technological community Glenn Beck? Wow. I read the Blaze; once. I look forward to Glenn Beck’s interpretation of what he heard at that sit down.

By: Editor

Editor — Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:37:07 +0000

Sam, I’m not sure which prediction you’re referring to. Are you referring to the “computronium” idea? Where did you read/hear about this?

By: Sam

Sam — Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:22:33 +0000

Here’s one thing about a prediction of Ray’s I don’t understand…

One of the predictions he makes is that post 2045, we will have reached the bottom limit of how small computer transistors can be is, at which point we will need to start making larger computers if we want them to be more powerful, which will mean eventually planet-sized computers will be made.

However, if we do actually manage to make decent quantum computers, which I’m in no doubt that we will, then surely computers won’t need to be made bigger? As we can compute a near infinite amount of information simultaneously rather than in a linear progression?

If someone can shed light on why Ray thinks computers will need to be made the size of planets, I’d be glad to hear it.