I don't care who considers me "worth informing", nobody controls my actual value now or in the future.
Nor yours, except you are apparently too weak psychologically to handle reality, and thus your main point here appears to be to say I'm "delusional" as a random target, then pointlessly going on about it with explicitly no suggested path to improvement to the circumstance you find yourself in.
I am not treating it as a game. You are. One you've decided there is no alternative but for you to lose, inevitably and permanently. There is you "we" you keep referring to regarding this, in any respect.
See Able Archer 83 for a clear historical example of how misinterpretation of intent can indeed risk such an outcome, even without any vague "at a time and a place of our choosing" specification of intended retaliatory measures.
Before we escalate to all-out cyber and/or nuclear war with Russia, will we be seeing any -actual evidence- of anything other than a very dumb phishing link clicking Podesta, or of "hacking" involving anything requiring more skill than a neighborhood high school computer club, much less a nation-state?
Although I'm sure the Democrats would much prefer the accused not be allowed to speak at all, Putin's question is still pertinent--is he responsible for Democrat losses at -every other governmental level-, as well? Were the Wikileaks e-mails manipulated or untrue, which has still not been asserted?
This red herring is becoming as dangerous as it is ludicrous.
The empirical evidence you have a 0% survival rate is overwhelming, as is every other quite-scientific claim I have made.
You're trying to shoehorn a failed stock argument into a statement that isn't there, that you choose to imagine is there wishing it fit. What is overwhelming proven by experience and all data is that you will die, and this and every position you have become completely irrelevant according to you yourself. I'll take it from there.
Hitchens was ironically and appropriately eaten by his own DNA. Parroting his "razor" won't alter your outcome in the least.
My point is not to "tackle" biological aging, but rather to set the context of rational versus irrational interpretations of a populist clickbait Slashdot title. Review the sequence of the posts if that's unclear.
If I save some people time realizing sooner rather than later that "reversing aging" and the open-ended implications that clearly tries to suggest, are plainly and irreversibly scientifically invalid, all the better.
How many humans have survived across all those existing across time, or will survive who are presently living, in 1000 years?
Zero. That means a 0% survival rate, at least in the context of medicine and science.
"Entropy" is a basic law of thermodynamics that says the usable energy of any system, including the physical universe, is continually decreasing. That means, disease, homicide, overpopulation, asteroids, global warming, nuclear war, absolutely everything else aside, there is no possible (literally Earthly) way for any humans to survive, within the materially-reductionistic context at hand.
Usually, people here proceed with reference to a peculiar mysticism that a set of memes, or a greedy molecule, or "species" survival, means there is other than a 0% survival rate, that is, that somehow every single individual of those of their worldview will be not be eliminated by evolution.
They will be. Unquestionably. That's clear science, particularly for those whose Venn Diagram of "reality" has just that one circle.
Perhaps so, but it hardly meets the sensationalism of the thread title.
And, given the survival rate for humans remains steady at 0%, and that will never rise, due to entropy if nothing else, I'd prefer something rather... more.
Genetic disorder mitigated by genetic manipulation. Yes?
Instead of progeria-afflicted mice, why not attempt the technique on otherwise healthy mice? If that can be made to result in a 30% lifespan extension, that would be notable.
The reality is just about everyone says some in appropriate, poorly considered, things in bad taste some times. The fact that its all searchable and forever in public now is what has changed.
Agreed.
I don't see the problem with law enforcement data mining peoples public statements for stuff related to current events/open investigations.
This is assuming that law enforcement is objectively and dispassionately prioritizing their enforcement activities. Do you trust the current U.S. Department of Justice to do so, say, relative to Hillary Clinton? I don't. We have arguably people who have done the exact same things now in prison. In her case the FBI Director went ahead and decided he's now in the judicial branch, rather than the law enforcement and investigation branch, and went ahead and declared on the judicial branch's behalf that "no reasonable prosecutor" would pursue the case. As it's been said, with the number of laws on the books, everyone is guilty of something every day--what has prosecutorial effect is what and whom the law is focused on as a target. Who do you trust to make those decisions, and will you trust the unknown people doing so in 5 years?
It's a question of scale and data-mining objective.
Give me everything you've ever posted, let's bet on whether I can come up with a one-paragraph "summary" that "represents you" that's disqualifying enough for your next job as read by HR, or a political run as read by the public.
The problem is that what to "solve for" is something the machine can't self-determine. It's not a function of the data or the computer, it will always be specified by humans.
The data itself can support "optimize for broadest human compassionate benefit" or "optimize for greatest profit"--which is better as an objective, is a value judgment. Guess which one developers are going to be told by corporate management to code for?
"Recognize what is in your sight, and that which is hidden from you will become plain to you. For there is nothing hidden which will not become manifest."
Slashdot Mirror
"There is no 'we'", rather.
I get it exactly.
I don't care who considers me "worth informing", nobody controls my actual value now or in the future.
Nor yours, except you are apparently too weak psychologically to handle reality, and thus your main point here appears to be to say I'm "delusional" as a random target, then pointlessly going on about it with explicitly no suggested path to improvement to the circumstance you find yourself in.
I am not treating it as a game. You are. One you've decided there is no alternative but for you to lose, inevitably and permanently. There is you "we" you keep referring to regarding this, in any respect.
Let's constrain ourselves to what you know then.
You have a view on whether government is to serve the citizens, or the citizens are to serve government--and you (presumably) have a vote.
Your move.
You're free to conjecture it's "optimism", along with many others having your basis for analysis.
However, ultimately, everything done by everyone is known.
See Able Archer 83 for a clear historical example of how misinterpretation of intent can indeed risk such an outcome, even without any vague "at a time and a place of our choosing" specification of intended retaliatory measures.
Because, speaking long-term, they'll simply be forced to, or admit they never had any.
See sig.
Before we escalate to all-out cyber and/or nuclear war with Russia, will we be seeing any -actual evidence- of anything other than a very dumb phishing link clicking Podesta, or of "hacking" involving anything requiring more skill than a neighborhood high school computer club, much less a nation-state?
Although I'm sure the Democrats would much prefer the accused not be allowed to speak at all, Putin's question is still pertinent--is he responsible for Democrat losses at -every other governmental level-, as well? Were the Wikileaks e-mails manipulated or untrue, which has still not been asserted?
This red herring is becoming as dangerous as it is ludicrous.
Public roads: Now in Alpha
Technology preview available now, possibly lethal, and mandatory.
The empirical evidence you have a 0% survival rate is overwhelming, as is every other quite-scientific claim I have made.
You're trying to shoehorn a failed stock argument into a statement that isn't there, that you choose to imagine is there wishing it fit. What is overwhelming proven by experience and all data is that you will die, and this and every position you have become completely irrelevant according to you yourself. I'll take it from there.
Hitchens was ironically and appropriately eaten by his own DNA. Parroting his "razor" won't alter your outcome in the least.
Not my problem I'm right for both contexts.
My point is not to "tackle" biological aging, but rather to set the context of rational versus irrational interpretations of a populist clickbait Slashdot title. Review the sequence of the posts if that's unclear.
If I save some people time realizing sooner rather than later that "reversing aging" and the open-ended implications that clearly tries to suggest, are plainly and irreversibly scientifically invalid, all the better.
It does, by exactly the chain of reasoning I gave.
You don't get to scope inference.
I'm sorry, I thought the topic was science.
How many humans have survived across all those existing across time, or will survive who are presently living, in 1000 years?
Zero. That means a 0% survival rate, at least in the context of medicine and science.
"Entropy" is a basic law of thermodynamics that says the usable energy of any system, including the physical universe, is continually decreasing. That means, disease, homicide, overpopulation, asteroids, global warming, nuclear war, absolutely everything else aside, there is no possible (literally Earthly) way for any humans to survive, within the materially-reductionistic context at hand.
Usually, people here proceed with reference to a peculiar mysticism that a set of memes, or a greedy molecule, or "species" survival, means there is other than a 0% survival rate, that is, that somehow every single individual of those of their worldview will be not be eliminated by evolution.
They will be. Unquestionably. That's clear science, particularly for those whose Venn Diagram of "reality" has just that one circle.
Perhaps so, but it hardly meets the sensationalism of the thread title.
And, given the survival rate for humans remains steady at 0%, and that will never rise, due to entropy if nothing else, I'd prefer something rather... more.
Population growth has been over a billion people in the last 20 years.
That means your "dealt with" plan involves moving 50 million people off the planet in rockets per year.
Do you have a way to make achieving your stated goal remotely realistic, or is that not actually your goal?
Genetic disorder mitigated by genetic manipulation. Yes?
Instead of progeria-afflicted mice, why not attempt the technique on otherwise healthy mice? If that can be made to result in a 30% lifespan extension, that would be notable.
Wretched is the body that is dependent upon a body, and wretched is the soul that is dependent on these two.
--Thomas
IMHO, improbable anachronisms don't get enough C-Level executive credence.
Totalitarianism unsurprisingly remains pro-cog.
Objective rules means no opportunity of injection of subjectivity by the regulatory bodies.
No subjectivity means no opportunity for "rent seeking".
No rent seeking means no additional power or profit for politicians.
Therefore, simply "treat all traffic equally" is a definition of Net Neutrality that won't be tolerated.
I prefer what I see looking up.
The reality is just about everyone says some in appropriate, poorly considered, things in bad taste some times. The fact that its all searchable and forever in public now is what has changed.
Agreed.
I don't see the problem with law enforcement data mining peoples public statements for stuff related to current events/open investigations.
This is assuming that law enforcement is objectively and dispassionately prioritizing their enforcement activities. Do you trust the current U.S. Department of Justice to do so, say, relative to Hillary Clinton? I don't. We have arguably people who have done the exact same things now in prison. In her case the FBI Director went ahead and decided he's now in the judicial branch, rather than the law enforcement and investigation branch, and went ahead and declared on the judicial branch's behalf that "no reasonable prosecutor" would pursue the case. As it's been said, with the number of laws on the books, everyone is guilty of something every day--what has prosecutorial effect is what and whom the law is focused on as a target. Who do you trust to make those decisions, and will you trust the unknown people doing so in 5 years?
It's a question of scale and data-mining objective.
Give me everything you've ever posted, let's bet on whether I can come up with a one-paragraph "summary" that "represents you" that's disqualifying enough for your next job as read by HR, or a political run as read by the public.
Two to one.
Yes, as you suggest, here it will make little difference, because the government will outsource it.
Elsewhere, they probably will as well, but if they don't, the government and those humans optimizing for the government's benefit will do no better.
Neither profit not politics will provide the "objective right thing according to the data".
The problem is that what to "solve for" is something the machine can't self-determine. It's not a function of the data or the computer, it will always be specified by humans.
The data itself can support "optimize for broadest human compassionate benefit" or "optimize for greatest profit"--which is better as an objective, is a value judgment. Guess which one developers are going to be told by corporate management to code for?
...has at least 3 levels of meta here.
"Recognize what is in your sight, and that which is hidden from you will become plain to you. For there is nothing hidden which will not become manifest."