Fermi assumes all would be as weak as we are and just drop dead
The Fermi paradox assumes no such thing. This guy's explanation of the Fermi paradox does -- and the fact is, that's a valid assumption *until* such life becomes sufficiently advanced. The idea is that maybe these things happen so frequently that no species can become sufficiently advanced between apocalyptic gamma ray bursts.
Two, Fermi and basically all other astrobiological research areas focus on the idea that life exists only on planets, generally single planets similar to our own existence in this star system.
No, it says that what we know of the probability of intelligent life seems to be so shockingly high that we should be able to find it without even bothering to look for exotic life, life that's not located on a planet, etc.. Everything you have said about alternative habitats only strengthens the Fermi Paradox.
We're busy looking for microbes on Mars
Nobody is trying to solve the Fermi paradox by looking for microbes on Mars, because we're pretty convinced there's no civilization there. At best, discovering a microbe there might modify one term of the Drake Equation in such a way as to make the Fermi Paradox *more* puzzling. Not finding any microbe is, frankly, the null hypothesis so it wouldn't move the needle.
100k doesn't sound right at all for somebody making 140k a year in non-stock (base+bonus). I would have guessed more around the 30k-40k mark. Quick searches for some well-known Silicon Valley companies corroborate that. Can you support the claim that anybody making 140k should expect 100k of stock?
You don't think that deliberately causing a panic with the intent to hurt people is an action? I think you're being deliberately obstinate on this point. That's like saying it's not your fault for pulling the trigger, it's the bullet's fault for jumping out of the gun so quickly.
"This man murdered my son!", regarding a person who you know full well did no such thing, is an example of speech that is expressly intended to cause harm and has no real value. This is why when you're giving testimony in a courtroom your right to free speech is deliberately abrogated and perjury is criminalized.
You do realize that same court case was used to suppress war protestors, correct?
Sometimes people can make good points in the process of making bad arguments. This historical context is interesting but ultimately irrelevant. Unless you intent to advance a slippery slope argument.
Speech does not possess people and force them to act, so you are mistaken.
Does a real fire in a packed theater force people to act? Suppose you set such a fire, but you cleverly arranged it so that people were in no real danger, but had every reason to believe that they were in real danger. You are the theater owner and harmed no-one else's property. People predictably panic. Have you committed no crime? You are completely innocent?
If not, what is the essential difference? In both cases, there was the impression of danger from fire without actual danger from fire.
If so, then if a man literally holds a gun to your head (and, for that matter, the heads of those close to you) and said he will kill you unless you aid him in stealing all the jewellery from the jewellery store, are you fully responsible for your actions? Even if it turns out the gun wasn't loaded?
What about the guy goes around yelling "fire", or "sniper", or whatever, whenever he sees a gathering by members of a political party he opposes? Is he not now an agent restricting free speech?
Yelling fire in a crowded theater is a threat. Credible threats were never considered to be protected free speech by basically any society.
You can *absolutely* be thrown out of a hotel for using running water, and I guarantee -- outright guarantee -- that some people will use this in hotels and not be kicked out. I'd say being obnoxious about running water is *way more likley* for you to get booted from a restaurant or hotel (and a hefty fine at that) than being an asshole with one of these.
a) would not have been able to get Windows into a state that requires a reinstall. For instance, you would not personally install or update anything. b)...also would not have been able to reinstall Windows in the first place.
Your experience with a personal computer is irrelevant. This isn't mean as an insult -- you're just discussing a completely different thing.
You can't seriously believe this is the same thing.
Something more similar to the wearing provocative clothing would be somebody who was wearing clothing so glaringly unstylish that it provoked murder (which, I will note, happens, for certain values of "stylish"). Something more similar to advocating and cheering murder would be advocating and cheering rape (which, I will note, people do in prison contexts).
The older people where I grew up, grew up in a time when high school was not compulsory and was attached with real costs, and most did not partake in it. There is a sharp educational distinction between them and the younger generations which had University at least, and usually University.
(I'm in Canada, so it's not exactly the US system.)
I can't believe nobody has mentioned this, but "daily commute", even when it's not all that long, is consistently among the most hated timesinks. I don't think results like this are terribly surprising: http://www.economist.com/blogs.... A technical and economic advantage is you can do something else while "driving" between home and work, without taking on the compromises of public transit (which may not be available at all, may take a long time or be beholden to a schedule that's incompatible with your lifestyle, or may otherwise be unpleasant).
I would expect that a concerted effort to resist change would both be a cause of reduced change, and reflective of a lesser cultural desire to introduce change. Therefore I would expect French to absorb other languages less.
I expect French still has a relatively high rate of absorption because to this day it still has a large number of second-language speakers and I suspect that's a big source of linguistic cross-contamination.
At least the pro-GG makes an effort to detect, condemn, and report this shitty behavior, no matter which side it comes from.
You're clearly not above twisting it to political ends.
If both sides are doxing, and both sides are complaining about doxing, then both sides are clearly not above hypocrisy. QED.
(PEOPLE: It's not always about sides! You can say doxxing is wrong and admit that you agree with others who also say doxxing is wrong, even if those others have the opposite position on an unrelated issue).
I don't know exactly how long it would take to terraform, and I can grant that it may be less than it took Earth to bootstrap an oxygen atmosphere, but I suspect it's much much much much longer than a couple decades.
To me, that qualifies as "from scratch", justified in the same manner that I justify people saying they made a pizza "from scratch" using store-bought tomatoes and mozzarella.
I don't quite know how to address this other than to say that I don't think anything you've said in this thread makes any sense. My best guess is maybe you didn't read his actual explanation and assumed it said something it does not?
Point by point:
- The (strange) strawman about a vegan who hates McRibs is an argument about why we shouldn't get mad at Tyson if he didn't make an explanation, but it does not argue against making an explanation in the first place. It's the one point where I agree with you, but it's completely irrelevant to the situation at hand. - Explaining something to the masses does not mean you lost anything. - Giving into criticism is not what he did (pulling his tweet or apologizing would be giving in). - In this case I feel he was right not to give into criticism, but in general, I don't think it's good to imply that giving into criticism is necessarily wrong. - I don't see any appeasement from Tyson. - Talking about a thing doesn't in any way imply that what you previously said about that thing may be wrong. - I had to look up "hamstering" on urban dictionary, and I have to disagree that he did that at all. - "It's not what men do"? That's a literary flourish without any meat behind it.
Of course that's not a good thing. By that reasoning the parents shouldn't have gotten them an xbox in the first place. It's not a public service to take away the toys that you, personally, disapprove of.
December 25 is not known for its good weather in much of the world where Xboxes are sold.
Snooker can deal with strategic thinking, and both are both driving you up to the upper edges of hand-eye coordination.
Really, any competition that is not totally random (like a coin-tossing competition) is about driving you to the upper edges of something. Poker would fit. It seems we lack a consistent definition of what the Olympics are about.
Slashdot Mirror
Fermi assumes all would be as weak as we are and just drop dead
The Fermi paradox assumes no such thing. This guy's explanation of the Fermi paradox does -- and the fact is, that's a valid assumption *until* such life becomes sufficiently advanced. The idea is that maybe these things happen so frequently that no species can become sufficiently advanced between apocalyptic gamma ray bursts.
Two, Fermi and basically all other astrobiological research areas focus on the idea that life exists only on planets, generally single planets similar to our own existence in this star system.
No, it says that what we know of the probability of intelligent life seems to be so shockingly high that we should be able to find it without even bothering to look for exotic life, life that's not located on a planet, etc.. Everything you have said about alternative habitats only strengthens the Fermi Paradox.
We're busy looking for microbes on Mars
Nobody is trying to solve the Fermi paradox by looking for microbes on Mars, because we're pretty convinced there's no civilization there. At best, discovering a microbe there might modify one term of the Drake Equation in such a way as to make the Fermi Paradox *more* puzzling. Not finding any microbe is, frankly, the null hypothesis so it wouldn't move the needle.
What does the medium of the threat have to do with its credibility?
100k doesn't sound right at all for somebody making 140k a year in non-stock (base+bonus). I would have guessed more around the 30k-40k mark. Quick searches for some well-known Silicon Valley companies corroborate that. Can you support the claim that anybody making 140k should expect 100k of stock?
You don't think that deliberately causing a panic with the intent to hurt people is an action? I think you're being deliberately obstinate on this point. That's like saying it's not your fault for pulling the trigger, it's the bullet's fault for jumping out of the gun so quickly.
"This man murdered my son!", regarding a person who you know full well did no such thing, is an example of speech that is expressly intended to cause harm and has no real value. This is why when you're giving testimony in a courtroom your right to free speech is deliberately abrogated and perjury is criminalized.
You do realize that same court case was used to suppress war protestors, correct?
Sometimes people can make good points in the process of making bad arguments. This historical context is interesting but ultimately irrelevant. Unless you intent to advance a slippery slope argument.
Speech does not possess people and force them to act, so you are mistaken.
Does a real fire in a packed theater force people to act? Suppose you set such a fire, but you cleverly arranged it so that people were in no real danger, but had every reason to believe that they were in real danger. You are the theater owner and harmed no-one else's property. People predictably panic. Have you committed no crime? You are completely innocent?
If not, what is the essential difference? In both cases, there was the impression of danger from fire without actual danger from fire.
If so, then if a man literally holds a gun to your head (and, for that matter, the heads of those close to you) and said he will kill you unless you aid him in stealing all the jewellery from the jewellery store, are you fully responsible for your actions? Even if it turns out the gun wasn't loaded?
What about the guy goes around yelling "fire", or "sniper", or whatever, whenever he sees a gathering by members of a political party he opposes? Is he not now an agent restricting free speech?
Yelling fire in a crowded theater is a threat. Credible threats were never considered to be protected free speech by basically any society.
No, quantum mechanics is a thing humans invented. Newtonian mechanics is a thing humans invented.
Gravity (aka gravitational behaviours) and quantum behaviours existed previous to any human.
As for Einstein? Einstein "invented" quantum mechanics in about the same sense that Shakespeare "invented" English.
Because Star Trek was known for how tight its plotlines were?
You can *absolutely* be thrown out of a hotel for using running water, and I guarantee -- outright guarantee -- that some people will use this in hotels and not be kicked out. I'd say being obnoxious about running water is *way more likley* for you to get booted from a restaurant or hotel (and a hefty fine at that) than being an asshole with one of these.
You don't need a tablet, but people buy tablets.
No he didn't. He claimed that his statements were examples of existing institutional sexism.
The best part is:
by Anonymous Coward
[...] Or hide in your anonymity and know you are a coward [...]
Nice try:
http://www.snopes.com/racial/l...
http://www.babynamewizard.com/...
IQ tests may or may not be good but none of the things he said tell us that.
Your statement is actually reinforcing his point.
You are *not* a business user. If you were, you:
a) would not have been able to get Windows into a state that requires a reinstall. For instance, you would not personally install or update anything. ...also would not have been able to reinstall Windows in the first place.
b)
Your experience with a personal computer is irrelevant. This isn't mean as an insult -- you're just discussing a completely different thing.
You can't seriously believe this is the same thing.
Something more similar to the wearing provocative clothing would be somebody who was wearing clothing so glaringly unstylish that it provoked murder (which, I will note, happens, for certain values of "stylish"). Something more similar to advocating and cheering murder would be advocating and cheering rape (which, I will note, people do in prison contexts).
Yes, absolutely.
The older people where I grew up, grew up in a time when high school was not compulsory and was attached with real costs, and most did not partake in it. There is a sharp educational distinction between them and the younger generations which had University at least, and usually University.
(I'm in Canada, so it's not exactly the US system.)
Limit hold'em is real poker, and people actually do play it, at real casinos and everything.
I can't believe nobody has mentioned this, but "daily commute", even when it's not all that long, is consistently among the most hated timesinks. I don't think results like this are terribly surprising: http://www.economist.com/blogs.... A technical and economic advantage is you can do something else while "driving" between home and work, without taking on the compromises of public transit (which may not be available at all, may take a long time or be beholden to a schedule that's incompatible with your lifestyle, or may otherwise be unpleasant).
I can't *wait* to have a self-driving car.
I would expect that a concerted effort to resist change would both be a cause of reduced change, and reflective of a lesser cultural desire to introduce change. Therefore I would expect French to absorb other languages less.
I expect French still has a relatively high rate of absorption because to this day it still has a large number of second-language speakers and I suspect that's a big source of linguistic cross-contamination.
Nobody understands Lady Gaga.
At least the pro-GG makes an effort to detect, condemn, and report this shitty behavior, no matter which side it comes from.
You're clearly not above twisting it to political ends.
If both sides are doxing, and both sides are complaining about doxing, then both sides are clearly not above hypocrisy. QED.
(PEOPLE: It's not always about sides! You can say doxxing is wrong and admit that you agree with others who also say doxxing is wrong, even if those others have the opposite position on an unrelated issue).
I don't know exactly how long it would take to terraform, and I can grant that it may be less than it took Earth to bootstrap an oxygen atmosphere, but I suspect it's much much much much longer than a couple decades.
Depends what you mean by "from scratch".
http://singularityhub.com/2010...
To me, that qualifies as "from scratch", justified in the same manner that I justify people saying they made a pizza "from scratch" using store-bought tomatoes and mozzarella.
I don't quite know how to address this other than to say that I don't think anything you've said in this thread makes any sense. My best guess is maybe you didn't read his actual explanation and assumed it said something it does not?
Point by point:
- The (strange) strawman about a vegan who hates McRibs is an argument about why we shouldn't get mad at Tyson if he didn't make an explanation, but it does not argue against making an explanation in the first place. It's the one point where I agree with you, but it's completely irrelevant to the situation at hand.
- Explaining something to the masses does not mean you lost anything.
- Giving into criticism is not what he did (pulling his tweet or apologizing would be giving in).
- In this case I feel he was right not to give into criticism, but in general, I don't think it's good to imply that giving into criticism is necessarily wrong.
- I don't see any appeasement from Tyson.
- Talking about a thing doesn't in any way imply that what you previously said about that thing may be wrong.
- I had to look up "hamstering" on urban dictionary, and I have to disagree that he did that at all.
- "It's not what men do"? That's a literary flourish without any meat behind it.
Tyson's job is to explain things to the masses.
It's his job.
Of course that's not a good thing. By that reasoning the parents shouldn't have gotten them an xbox in the first place. It's not a public service to take away the toys that you, personally, disapprove of.
December 25 is not known for its good weather in much of the world where Xboxes are sold.
Snooker can deal with strategic thinking, and both are both driving you up to the upper edges of hand-eye coordination.
Really, any competition that is not totally random (like a coin-tossing competition) is about driving you to the upper edges of something. Poker would fit. It seems we lack a consistent definition of what the Olympics are about.