Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Standard objections (Score 4, Insightful) 183

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.

Comment Re:Why? (Score 2, Insightful) 80

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.


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?

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1, Informative) 80

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.

Comment Re: Bring On The AI (Score 1) 64

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".

Comment Re:Bring On The AI (Score 2) 64

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?

Comment Re:Call me strange but... (Score 1) 203

Full unpaywalled text

"Our results show that medical factors cannot account for occurrence of NDE"

So, we have 4 PhD's and MD's, peer-reviewed, and published in likely the most authoritative medical journal in the world, showing "hallucinations" that just happen to correspond specifically to the predictions of the theological model, along with perceptions of events expected to be unperceivable by the unconscious person, from a fully-experienced sense of complete personhood from a vantage point outside of their physical body.

Versus... MightyMartian and his wholly unbacked and unqualified mere characterizations.

Comment Re:Call me strange but... (Score 2) 203

Ah, no, you are muddling the issues here.

First of all, there is no hypothesis is science that has a "provable result". There is current correspondence between empirical information and a given scientific model, which is -permanently- provisional and open to new data.

Luminiferous Ether was, per all testing of the model at the time, "proven". The Steady State model of the universe was, by per all testing of the model of the time, "proven".

And both were false.

As for what a hypothesis "can lead to", if presently it is not testable, that it will or won't be is an exercise of you injecting your psychic powers regarding the future into science. Better to adjust your stance to what science actually is--that a strong inference from tested knowns is science, even in the absence of a known or proposable test, e.g., the QM Interpretations.

You don't really understand the words you are using here trying to address what philosophy actually is, since "metaphysics" is a core branch of of philosophy, along with epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and politics. It does not mean "stuff they show on Ghost Hunter". Metaphysics is the domain that studies "what fundamentally exists", and even if your stance is "only material scientifically-detectable things exist", you still have a metaphysics, and that is your stance on it. That aside, philosophy is -extremely- rigorous. Logic, for one, defines rules for evaluation of premises that are far more rigorous that statements we can make in science, due to the fact theories are provisional. A fallacious argument is fallacious, period, fully demonstrated right then and there and refuted forever. Science does not have, and never can have, that level of definitive certainty.

Most important application of this rigor is exactly what has, again, been specifically what happened historically--defining at the core what science is, and is not. Fortunately, that rigor has held and so we have means of properly defining and scoping science, which, again, you don't, and haven't, as demonstrated precisely what you're claiming. You have nothing more than a circular definition of "science"--your (inaccurate) notion of science is backed by... you repeating your demonstrated-false definition of science.

Science can thank philosophy for keeping science-damaging people like you from repeatedly harming people's understanding of it. Yes, I know, your whole reason for excluding untestable QM science as "science" is because Dawkins convinced you that science is whatever you need to say it is, to politically exclude anything relating to religion.

Fix your understanding anyway.

Comment Re: Call me strange but... (Score 1) 203

So, editing the irrelevancies, your point to all this is to say that this particular medical/scientific process does not lead, in your mind, to the definitional questions of "what does 'human' mean exactly" posed by genetic manipulation in general (as also widely noted and discussed by others), that my actual post was addressing.


Comment Re: Call me strange but... (Score 1) 203

Okay, let's be clear. -You- replied to -my- broad high-level statement of logical implications of manipulating genetic processes in a general sense, for which my post was expanding on an even more broadly-stated parent post.

I do not know why you didn't post your as a reply to the originating article summary--that makes a lot more sense than to my particular post, for which it is an irrelevant focusing on a particular technique, and skipping my comment entirely, apparently with an air of "I know a lot about a subset of the science, so I'll go ahead and talk about that and not address your post as a supposed way of addressing it".

Whatever you think we are arguing about and you are contributing to specifically, we aren't.

Comment Re:Call me strange but... (Score 2) 203

Can you define what "consciousness" is?

Not with any more precision than I can "soul", but neither of us doubts it exists.

Notably, that it doesn't exist is one of the required "stances" , which end up being rather overtly indefensible, as an alternative way to rationalize the dilemma posed by the Mind-Body Problem.

If you want to delve into the question deeper here, googling "Mind-Body Problem" or "Cartesian Dualism" will provide you with all the background information on historical vetting of this issue you could want.

For a summary, I'd recommend:

Written by, incidentally, if you suspect me of bias, a current professor of philosophy and stated atheist (see top level URL).

Slashdot Top Deals

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.