... in the long term, the faster we get viable colonies off this rock, the less impact we'll have as a species on our home planet.
That's seriously long-term. The only ways I can see space exploration resulting in less use of earth-based resources is if:
A. We develop a way to ship off significant amounts of people to colonies. Considering how fast humans reproduce, this is not likely any time soon at all. Colonies will not be a solution to population growth.
OR
B. Space-based resources (minerals, energy would be the primary candidates, I guess) become cheaper than terrestrial ones. Again, I don't see this happening any time soon. Depends on how scarce resources become on Earth, of course. Even if space mining etc. were to become commercially viable, there's no guarantee the infrastructure required to launch and operate heavy machinery in space wouldn't come at a hefty environmental cost on Earth.
Sure it will. Just like the idea that humans weren't actually created from earth, but rather gradually evolved from other lifeforms totally changed the religious landscape.
To derail an off-topic conversation even further, for a cheap protein source look into making seitan. Basically, you make a dough out of wheat flour and wash out the starch, leaving gluten. It's not a complete protein, so supplementing with legumes is advisable.
As I said, I find feminism just another form of sexism, and I've taken up the gender-biased rhetoric with some self-described feminists. They claimed it's not meant to vilify men, but I don't see how it can lead to anything else.
And being good at that kind of analysis is somehow fundamentally different from having a good sense of space how? I just don't see what your point was.
OTOH, sooner or later not being able to defend themselves in court is going to bite a high-profile player like Craigslist in the ass, and then what happens to all the users?
I wouldn't get my panties in a bunch over anything the plaintiffs claimed in this case. They could have claimed the world will split in two if Craigslist didn't reveal the seller's name and still have won, since the defendant didn't show up in court. (Barring any contempt-of-court charges or similar resulting from ludicrous claims like that, of course.)
This is a cultural problem, not a capability issue.
"Capability" is affected by a wide range of factors in an individual, ranging from a genetic predisposition to imprint upon gender roles prevalent in society, to the interactions between an individual's innate tendencies and the opportunities afforded them by their environment. It's extremely difficult to separate nature from nurture in individuals as well as societies, since they both affect each other.
The reason this never gets debated is simple. It would blow apart the entire "sisterhood" myth of feminism. To admit that there are a number of women who use "girliness" as a cudgel to beat the tar out of intelligent women, while there are a number of men who actually want an intelligent, educated mate, would be to force them to admit that women, not "the patriarchy," are really what's keeping the culture stagnant.
Where do you find your feminists? All the ones I've met have been quite keen to point out that women can just as well be supportive of "patriarchy" as men. Personally I see feminism nowadays as just another form of sexism, but the adherents I've met have had no illusions of any mythical universal sisterhood.
If you know you just want to deliver a one-way message, why not just send an SMS? The user cases outlined in the article seem to be exactly what people use text messages for.
It's not just the fish, either - how would plankton react to the change? Seaweed? Would some species be more tolerant than others? Seems to me the results of any kind of wide-scale messing with ecosystems would be very hard to predict.
Seeing as this ruling apparently rules EULAs legally binding, I hope there are some rules on what kinds of restrictions EULAs can place on users. If anything goes, then a software company with a strong market position could just place a clause in their EULA that no user is likely to avoid breaching, and then sue at will if they should feel like it. If the product were big enough - say, Windows - people would just buy it anyway even if they DID read the EULA.
Always have my Antivirus running and Windows defender with a router with built-in firewall...
Good for you, that's not what the article is about, though. The point is, a system NOT protected by a firewall or antivirus will get owned in about 4 minutes.
Um... AFAIK, in sane systems, tax write-offs work so you write off the tax portion of the price of whatever you're purchasing, not the entire price. So the max might be at $100K, but to be able to write off that much, you'd have to spend much more than a hundred thousand dollars, the exact amount depending on the tax %. Maybe the US system really isn't sane, but I find it at least as likely that you're simply confusing issues here.
Good point. My father had a collection of art house and underground comics that I used to read a lot, even before I could actually understand the languages in them. (Freak Brothers, Manara's works, Moebius come to mind) Drug use, nudity, sexual content, it was all there. And you know what? It didn't shock me, or traumatize me - I didn't care. None of that stuff connected with me, I had no first-hand experience with anything related and so it meant nothing to me. Now that I think about it, I used to read the Freak Brothers just for the Fat Freddy's Cat mini-strips that were at the bottoms of the pages - the rest of it seemed way too boring to me.
Yeah, go waaaay beyond "papers please" and treat *all* of your citizens as criminals when they travel.
Why stop at travel? Why not just have everyone wear these all the time? You'd probably have to randomly test-shock people to deter tampering, but hey, such is the price you pay for Freedom. Er.. Liberty? No, what was it the US government always swore to defend, again?
That's why you need freedom of association as well as direct democracy. People need to be able to choose where and with whom they live. Can't be done in huge, centrally controlled countries like we have now. Someone always gets trampled on, no way around it.
Slashdot Mirror
... in the long term, the faster we get viable colonies off this rock, the less impact we'll have as a species on our home planet.
That's seriously long-term. The only ways I can see space exploration resulting in less use of earth-based resources is if:
A. We develop a way to ship off significant amounts of people to colonies. Considering how fast humans reproduce, this is not likely any time soon at all. Colonies will not be a solution to population growth.
OR
B. Space-based resources (minerals, energy would be the primary candidates, I guess) become cheaper than terrestrial ones. Again, I don't see this happening any time soon. Depends on how scarce resources become on Earth, of course. Even if space mining etc. were to become commercially viable, there's no guarantee the infrastructure required to launch and operate heavy machinery in space wouldn't come at a hefty environmental cost on Earth.
Sure it will. Just like the idea that humans weren't actually created from earth, but rather gradually evolved from other lifeforms totally changed the religious landscape.
To derail an off-topic conversation even further, for a cheap protein source look into making seitan. Basically, you make a dough out of wheat flour and wash out the starch, leaving gluten. It's not a complete protein, so supplementing with legumes is advisable.
There's only going to be a space race if there's a political reason to have one.
Same thing.
Presumably it's a case of "because-we-can".
As I said, I find feminism just another form of sexism, and I've taken up the gender-biased rhetoric with some self-described feminists. They claimed it's not meant to vilify men, but I don't see how it can lead to anything else.
And being good at that kind of analysis is somehow fundamentally different from having a good sense of space how? I just don't see what your point was.
It's the width of a frame in pixels.
OTOH, sooner or later not being able to defend themselves in court is going to bite a high-profile player like Craigslist in the ass, and then what happens to all the users?
I wouldn't get my panties in a bunch over anything the plaintiffs claimed in this case. They could have claimed the world will split in two if Craigslist didn't reveal the seller's name and still have won, since the defendant didn't show up in court. (Barring any contempt-of-court charges or similar resulting from ludicrous claims like that, of course.)
This is a cultural problem, not a capability issue.
"Capability" is affected by a wide range of factors in an individual, ranging from a genetic predisposition to imprint upon gender roles prevalent in society, to the interactions between an individual's innate tendencies and the opportunities afforded them by their environment. It's extremely difficult to separate nature from nurture in individuals as well as societies, since they both affect each other.
The reason this never gets debated is simple. It would blow apart the entire "sisterhood" myth of feminism. To admit that there are a number of women who use "girliness" as a cudgel to beat the tar out of intelligent women, while there are a number of men who actually want an intelligent, educated mate, would be to force them to admit that women, not "the patriarchy," are really what's keeping the culture stagnant.
Where do you find your feminists? All the ones I've met have been quite keen to point out that women can just as well be supportive of "patriarchy" as men. Personally I see feminism nowadays as just another form of sexism, but the adherents I've met have had no illusions of any mythical universal sisterhood.
Gaps in interest do tend to result in gaps in measurable ability.
Care to define 'pure intellect'?
If you know you just want to deliver a one-way message, why not just send an SMS? The user cases outlined in the article seem to be exactly what people use text messages for.
It's not just the fish, either - how would plankton react to the change? Seaweed? Would some species be more tolerant than others? Seems to me the results of any kind of wide-scale messing with ecosystems would be very hard to predict.
Seeing as this ruling apparently rules EULAs legally binding, I hope there are some rules on what kinds of restrictions EULAs can place on users. If anything goes, then a software company with a strong market position could just place a clause in their EULA that no user is likely to avoid breaching, and then sue at will if they should feel like it. If the product were big enough - say, Windows - people would just buy it anyway even if they DID read the EULA.
This makes one wonder just what kind of restrictions, if any, there are on the kinds of clauses you can put in an EULA...
Always have my Antivirus running and Windows defender with a router with built-in firewall...
Good for you, that's not what the article is about, though. The point is, a system NOT protected by a firewall or antivirus will get owned in about 4 minutes.
Um... AFAIK, in sane systems, tax write-offs work so you write off the tax portion of the price of whatever you're purchasing, not the entire price. So the max might be at $100K, but to be able to write off that much, you'd have to spend much more than a hundred thousand dollars, the exact amount depending on the tax %. Maybe the US system really isn't sane, but I find it at least as likely that you're simply confusing issues here.
Good point. My father had a collection of art house and underground comics that I used to read a lot, even before I could actually understand the languages in them. (Freak Brothers, Manara's works, Moebius come to mind) Drug use, nudity, sexual content, it was all there. And you know what? It didn't shock me, or traumatize me - I didn't care. None of that stuff connected with me, I had no first-hand experience with anything related and so it meant nothing to me. Now that I think about it, I used to read the Freak Brothers just for the Fat Freddy's Cat mini-strips that were at the bottoms of the pages - the rest of it seemed way too boring to me.
When did the quote tags stop working?
Yeah, go waaaay beyond "papers please" and treat *all* of your citizens as criminals when they travel.
Why stop at travel? Why not just have everyone wear these all the time? You'd probably have to randomly test-shock people to deter tampering, but hey, such is the price you pay for Freedom. Er.. Liberty? No, what was it the US government always swore to defend, again?
That's why you need freedom of association as well as direct democracy. People need to be able to choose where and with whom they live. Can't be done in huge, centrally controlled countries like we have now. Someone always gets trampled on, no way around it.