Male rabbits can't form a new rabbit without female rabbits.
So a female rabbit is part of the right conditions. Next.
The rock is just as self-describing; scan the rock see what its made of and that is the information required by a suitable 3rd party contraption to create a new rock.
No. The chemical compound is not the rock. You also have to scan in the processes by which the rock was formed. And rocks don't actually have a means to sustain their non-existent information patterns anyway.
I mention that there is no such thing as a model which supports anti-AGW
You mean the "there's no need to explain what doesn't exist" model? I think you are mistaken.
I used my highly advanced deductive reasoning to assume that you meant that the models not supporting the anti-AGW argument, which would of course be all of them.
Then let's speak of these models which actually accurately model current and future climate and stop wasting our time with those that don't.
What if the sun, or something extra-solar, is causing global warming? Doesn't matter. We should do what we must (within reason) to reverse it, even if we're wrong about the true cause.
Nonsense. You now have a system that at best is much harder to control with human action than expected. The solutions that work for a system strongly controlled by human action fail when those conditions no longer hold.
Nor is there such a compelling reason to do anything about the global warming. A good portion of the environmentalism argument is that global warming is human-induced and hence, should be reversed as an artificial imposition on the world. If it is not human-induced, then the moral compulsion is no longer there.
You might disagree that it's a good plan (and I do), but at least it's something.
Doing nothing (well, continuing climate research, but not acting on it) is also doing something. You have to show that your something is better than nothing.
Oh yea? How? If doctors aren't blinded when they diagnose measles or choose to call for the lab test, how do you distinguish their bias from vaccine effectiveness?
"IF". What's the point of your argument? If doctors' bias really is that relevant and I doubt it is, then use the allegedly less biased lab test for testing your hypothesis.
What is the information pattern of a rock? Nail that down first. Rabbits have internal information which under the right conditions can be used to form a new rabbit.
The phrase "life form" is not a synonym for "being alive".
And "non sequitur" is not a synonym for "relevant". As I already noted, the processes by which the rabbit stays alive also insure that the information which encoded the rabbit persists for some time in the environment. Just because the life form that is a rabbit doesn't endure as long in a population of purely male rabbits doesn't make it any less a life form.
From Merriam-Webster: life-form - the body form that characterizes a kind of organism (as a species) at maturity; also : a kind of organism.
That only makes sense, if you have clearly defined concepts of "species", "maturity", etc. We're outside of the narrow scope where that definition makes sense. Hence, the attempt to redefine terms like "life form" in ways that make sense, even when you aren't speaking of the narrow sense of Earth-like organisms with the sorts of characteristics of our more common life forms.
If you're colonizing the Universe in a way that the natives can detect, you're wasting resources. Grown-up minds know better.
The obvious rebuttal is that you can reshape the universe to be more conducive to your needs and goals. This would correspond, in the Shannon analogy to enlarging the channel so that it has a higher bandwidth.
Another obvious rebuttal is that the universe has a lot of structure and needs a lot of structure in order for an intelligence to operate.
I forget what the exact definition of "life form" is, but IIRC, one of the factors is reproduction.
I disagree. Sterilizing a rabbit doesn't mean it's dead. It just removes a means, normally the only mode available to that rabbit, for creating more rabbits based on that rabbit's genetic code.
but people are fixated on the idea of AI being a warlike species with infinite reach, immediately taking hostile control of all network systems, rewriting firmware to turn anything capable of generating or measuring electromagnetic noise into a transceiver, and turning every piece of electronic machinery into a drone node specializing in the killing of biologicals.
Why is that not a legitimate concern? It wouldn't exactly be a hard problem for an AI that is smart enough.
Which if you think about it, is the way to go especially coupled with the conversion of the Dalek armor to a jacuzzi. I'm surprised the Doctor never spotted this defect in the Dalek design. But I guess that would have made for a short Doctor Who season with everyone becoming a blissfully drunk and jacuzzied Dalek and living happily ever after.
"INEBRIATE! INEBRIATE! INEEEEBRIIIIIATE!"
Convincing evidence of what? Even if you bother to continue with the claim that it wasn't actually measles in the past which was diagnosed as measles, whatever that was has vanished and the decline correlates with the administering of the measles vaccine. Further, we actually do know that measles is highly infectious among susceptible populations and current measles-vaccinated populations aren't for some reason susceptible populations.
Who said anything about equally infectious? HIV is nearly impossible to transmit, it is very strange for a virus.
Let us review what actually written:
Why does HIV mutate so often as to result in a wide diversity of variants within any one individual but then when a new person is infected they start with a single (or at least very few) variants?
The inferred claim is that we should see a wide diversity of HIV variants in a new infection. That implicitly assumes that a lot of variants are near equally infectious to the variants that actually cause new infections in order that they appear at all in the new infection.
I have a very hard time accepting your characterization of every single model ever created as "bad", with no counter-examples of a "good" model.
I don't have a similar problem accepting your mischaracterization of my argument because I don't accept it at all. If I were speaking of every single model ever created, then I would have said so.
Climate change models are pretty damned good. If anything, they've been underestimating sea level and temperature rise.
Except that is wrong.
It was just with a 70% certainty instead of 97%.
It's more like 85-90% using the same numbers and weak degree of belief that the original 97% research used, but in a way that wasn't heavily biased.
There's no hiatus, unless you mean that every year doesn't set a new record.
Keep in mind that the overestimate of global warming comes from extrapolating a period where the rate of global warming rose faster than the average over this century.
Slashdot Mirror
What's the motivation for the AI to do that?
It's a cheap way to remove humanity as a risk factor.
Because an AI that does what you need an AI to do is not actually an intelligent, free-willed machine.
That depends on a) what I "need" it to do which may be contrary to your assertion, and b) what the AI actually does.
So we have a situation where measles is uncommon due to vaccination - as expected.
Well, duh. You play with things Man Wasn't Meant to Know, and it's not just you that pays for it.
Male rabbits can't form a new rabbit without female rabbits.
So a female rabbit is part of the right conditions. Next.
The rock is just as self-describing; scan the rock see what its made of and that is the information required by a suitable 3rd party contraption to create a new rock.
No. The chemical compound is not the rock. You also have to scan in the processes by which the rock was formed. And rocks don't actually have a means to sustain their non-existent information patterns anyway.
The perception of insufficient rigor is not the same as being wrong.
"IF". I see nothing once again to indicate that I have a problem of insufficient understanding or that you noticed anything mysterious.
I mention that there is no such thing as a model which supports anti-AGW
You mean the "there's no need to explain what doesn't exist" model? I think you are mistaken.
I used my highly advanced deductive reasoning to assume that you meant that the models not supporting the anti-AGW argument, which would of course be all of them.
Then let's speak of these models which actually accurately model current and future climate and stop wasting our time with those that don't.
What if the sun, or something extra-solar, is causing global warming? Doesn't matter. We should do what we must (within reason) to reverse it, even if we're wrong about the true cause.
Nonsense. You now have a system that at best is much harder to control with human action than expected. The solutions that work for a system strongly controlled by human action fail when those conditions no longer hold.
Nor is there such a compelling reason to do anything about the global warming. A good portion of the environmentalism argument is that global warming is human-induced and hence, should be reversed as an artificial imposition on the world. If it is not human-induced, then the moral compulsion is no longer there.
You might disagree that it's a good plan (and I do), but at least it's something.
Doing nothing (well, continuing climate research, but not acting on it) is also doing something. You have to show that your something is better than nothing.
Oh yea? How? If doctors aren't blinded when they diagnose measles or choose to call for the lab test, how do you distinguish their bias from vaccine effectiveness?
"IF". What's the point of your argument? If doctors' bias really is that relevant and I doubt it is, then use the allegedly less biased lab test for testing your hypothesis.
You said you had a misconception about how the virus worked. That doesn't strike me as very mysterious.
What is the information pattern of a rock? Nail that down first. Rabbits have internal information which under the right conditions can be used to form a new rabbit.
The phrase "life form" is not a synonym for "being alive".
And "non sequitur" is not a synonym for "relevant". As I already noted, the processes by which the rabbit stays alive also insure that the information which encoded the rabbit persists for some time in the environment. Just because the life form that is a rabbit doesn't endure as long in a population of purely male rabbits doesn't make it any less a life form.
From Merriam-Webster: life-form - the body form that characterizes a kind of organism (as a species) at maturity; also : a kind of organism.
That only makes sense, if you have clearly defined concepts of "species", "maturity", etc. We're outside of the narrow scope where that definition makes sense. Hence, the attempt to redefine terms like "life form" in ways that make sense, even when you aren't speaking of the narrow sense of Earth-like organisms with the sorts of characteristics of our more common life forms.
I would niavely assume at least a sizeable minority were active (~10%).
Welp. Guess you're wrong then.
If you're colonizing the Universe in a way that the natives can detect, you're wasting resources. Grown-up minds know better.
The obvious rebuttal is that you can reshape the universe to be more conducive to your needs and goals. This would correspond, in the Shannon analogy to enlarging the channel so that it has a higher bandwidth.
Another obvious rebuttal is that the universe has a lot of structure and needs a lot of structure in order for an intelligence to operate.
I forget what the exact definition of "life form" is, but IIRC, one of the factors is reproduction.
I disagree. Sterilizing a rabbit doesn't mean it's dead. It just removes a means, normally the only mode available to that rabbit, for creating more rabbits based on that rabbit's genetic code.
As long as the male rabbits are still kicking and breathing, they are sustaining their information patterns that they embody. Then they die.
but people are fixated on the idea of AI being a warlike species with infinite reach, immediately taking hostile control of all network systems, rewriting firmware to turn anything capable of generating or measuring electromagnetic noise into a transceiver, and turning every piece of electronic machinery into a drone node specializing in the killing of biologicals.
Why is that not a legitimate concern? It wouldn't exactly be a hard problem for an AI that is smart enough.
So Daleks with a built in beer cooler.
Which if you think about it, is the way to go especially coupled with the conversion of the Dalek armor to a jacuzzi. I'm surprised the Doctor never spotted this defect in the Dalek design. But I guess that would have made for a short Doctor Who season with everyone becoming a blissfully drunk and jacuzzied Dalek and living happily ever after. "INEBRIATE! INEBRIATE! INEEEEBRIIIIIATE!"
Convincing evidence of what? Even if you bother to continue with the claim that it wasn't actually measles in the past which was diagnosed as measles, whatever that was has vanished and the decline correlates with the administering of the measles vaccine. Further, we actually do know that measles is highly infectious among susceptible populations and current measles-vaccinated populations aren't for some reason susceptible populations.
Who said anything about equally infectious? HIV is nearly impossible to transmit, it is very strange for a virus.
Let us review what actually written:
Why does HIV mutate so often as to result in a wide diversity of variants within any one individual but then when a new person is infected they start with a single (or at least very few) variants?
The inferred claim is that we should see a wide diversity of HIV variants in a new infection. That implicitly assumes that a lot of variants are near equally infectious to the variants that actually cause new infections in order that they appear at all in the new infection.
I have a very hard time accepting your characterization of every single model ever created as "bad", with no counter-examples of a "good" model.
I don't have a similar problem accepting your mischaracterization of my argument because I don't accept it at all. If I were speaking of every single model ever created, then I would have said so.
Yeah! who cares what experts say, with their data, and measurements, and observations of the real world!
Maybe you should care. Especially when what the experts say is at odds with their data, measurements, and observations.
Climate change models are pretty damned good. If anything, they've been underestimating sea level and temperature rise.
Except that is wrong.
It was just with a 70% certainty instead of 97%.
It's more like 85-90% using the same numbers and weak degree of belief that the original 97% research used, but in a way that wasn't heavily biased.
There's no hiatus, unless you mean that every year doesn't set a new record.
Keep in mind that the overestimate of global warming comes from extrapolating a period where the rate of global warming rose faster than the average over this century.