I'll take option 4: suggest you try a little google expertise yourself and look up a word: hyperbole.

But hey, what does the FAA know about thin air and hypoxia.

It's typically in the 40's (Fahrenheit). It doesn't get above the 50s. Have you ever actually been to the top of Mauna Kea?

Liar. Had you ever placed your hands and bare feet into the soil at 13,000 feet atop Mauna Kea you'd know that the only things you feel are hypothermia and hypoxia. It's friggin' cold up there, and the air is barely breathable.

I made no contention that HPV wasn't contagious. Read the words I actually wrote. What I said was that in a society that respects individual liberty, merely meeting the medical definition of contagious is insufficient to compel a citizen's behavior. It must meet a higher standard which lacking a better phrase I described as "involuntarily contagious." That is, I'll catch it as a stranger just by being near you in ordinary situations.

HPV does not meet that standard. HEP A/B and HIV don't meet that standard. Measles does.

As for deadly, cancer is deadly. HPV leads to increase -risk- of cancer. Not a certainty. Maybe I'm picking nits and the comparison to tobacco is more apt. From my point of view, that doesn't matter: regardless of whether its deadly, HPV doesn't meet a sufficient standard of contagion to merit compulsory behavior.

Now, I had all my vaccination when I was a child and I'm glad of it. But respecting individual liberty means allowing people to do stupid things. Because they have the right.

Patterns (plural) is creativity. The more novel patterns you can envision without falling off the edge into schizophrenia, the more creative you are. Quantity and quality, not time.

Intelligence is about puzzles. The faster you can find the one correct solution to each progressively challenging puzzle, the smarter you are. Time, not quantity or quality.

This is where researchers often get in to trouble. The language is slippery - the concept of a "pattern" can have a lot of different meanings. You have to intuit the relationships between the elements of a puzzle to solve it, the pattern which connects the pieces, right?

But that's very different from intuiting the many useful ways pieces of something that isn't a puzzle could be put together. Seeing the many patterns which connect them and, even more importantly, intuiting the missing pieces which complete far more.

Which yields this interesting observation about AI's: the problem isn't making computers smart. They already are. The problem is getting them to evince the slightest bit of creativity.

The wisdom of taking the vaccine is not at issue here. That's obvious and well documented. Your right to compel my behavior is at issue. Unless it poses an imminent threat to your well being, you don't have one.

If we have to have sex to facilitate contagion, if that's the only way to get it, there can be no imminent threat.

Makes sense to me and I'd probably make the same case were I in your shoes.

However, I think it goes -way- beyond what the state should or has a right to mandate. Measles is involuntarily contagious and deadly. HPV is not.

Which vaccines must parents accept? Measles? Sure, that makes sense. Don't want to spread Measles. Flu? Flu vaccine is really hit or miss and the damage from not getting it is minimal. Requiring that would be less reasonable. HPV Vaccine? Just what is going on at these schools anyway...

Do you see the groupthink? Fine example this week: mobilegeddon.

When the search re-rankings were being discussed, where was the guy who stood up and said, "Wait a minute... slow down. Are the mobile web browsers we wrote always rendering flexible pages reasonably? What about 90's-style HTML 2.0 re-flowable web pages? Might there be others we mis-render as eye charts? Let's take some time and study this more carefully. Take action when we can be part of the solution instead of part of the problem."

That person wasn't a part of the group. He didn't "think on his feet" in the interview. You didn't hire him.

Actually, intelligence and creativity are both reasonably well defined.

Intelligence is how fast you can solve intuitive problems (e.g. "Cheryl's Birthday"). The faster you get it (and if you get it at all) marks your raw intelligence.

Creativity is how many solutions you can come up with to intuitive problems over time. A typical test is to give you a couple of squiggly lines and two days to come up with as many explanations for the lines as you can. A smart guy may only come up with a dozen that he can justify. A creative guy will come up with scores.

Stupid machine with too much autonomy. Every reason to fear it.

Conspiracy much? The biggest players are game developers. Seriously. Governments don't need computers to improvise; they have actual people for that.

See, that's just prejudiced. What'd an AI ever do to you to deserve such a call for discrimination aimed at their entire species?

Is it not the goal of good parents to have children which surpass them?

Does a child's success diminish the parent?