Comment Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 1) 719
I would niavely assume at least a sizeable minority were active (~10%).
Welp. Guess you're wrong then.
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.
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!"
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.
Yeah, if only there were a well-funded organization sponsored by the UN that's spent three decades doing proper analysis of the problem. I guess we don't have that so we can't propose proper solutions. Oh well.
The IPCC is just a giant argument from authority fallacy. It doesn't attempt to provide an unbiased summary of climatology research or of the economic cost of various strategies that could be employed. Instead, there has been a consistent three decade old tendency to exaggerate the degree of global warming (particularly the predictions of catastrophic and near future effects) and the costs of unrestrained global warming while simultaneously downplaying the costs of addressing global warming in the near future.
In fact, the push is for a better quality of life with less pollution, better buildings, less of our income spent on energy and heating/cooling etc.
I too push for have cake and eat it too.
The key problem here is why should we expect that mitigating carbon dioxide emissions now will have a net positive impact over waiting until fossil fuels are naturally too expensive to compete with renewable energy alternatives at some future time?
System going down in 5 minutes.
