Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 1) 526

by khallow (#48637825) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'

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.

Comment: Re:Life form? (Score 1) 283

by khallow (#48637747) Attached to: The Dominant Life Form In the Cosmos Is Probably Superintelligent Robots

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.

Comment: Re:And how would you detect them? (Score 1) 283

by khallow (#48636749) Attached to: The Dominant Life Form In the Cosmos Is Probably Superintelligent Robots

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.

Comment: Re:Life form? (Score 1) 283

by khallow (#48636705) Attached to: The Dominant Life Form In the Cosmos Is Probably Superintelligent Robots

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.

Comment: Re:This is worse than mythology. (Score 2) 283

by khallow (#48636627) Attached to: The Dominant Life Form In the Cosmos Is Probably Superintelligent Robots

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.

Comment: Re:Well, duh (Score 4, Funny) 283

by khallow (#48636543) Attached to: The Dominant Life Form In the Cosmos Is Probably Superintelligent Robots

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!"

Comment: Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 1) 526

by khallow (#48636465) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'
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.

Comment: Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 1) 526

by khallow (#48636413) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'

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.

Comment: Re:Sure (Score 1) 526

by khallow (#48636375) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'

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.

Comment: Re: Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 1) 526

by khallow (#48635733) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'

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.

6 Curses = 1 Hexahex

Working...