Why build mega structures? What is a mega structure?
Megastructures are a natural thing to want to build if one wants to harvest a lot of energy available. And if we're correct about basic thermodynamics then pretty much everyone wants lots of energy. Many versions have been suggested for ways of actually doing it, such as Dyson spheres (unlikely), Dyson swarms and Dyson bubbles (much more plausible). Stellar engines are also an option https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_engine. But here's the really important part: regardless of how one does so, an attempt to use a large fraction of star's energy leads to noticeable changes in its light.
2) maybe no civilization has advanced far enough to detect it 3) maybe our telescopes aren't good enough to detect the mega structure, given that we can barely detect the presence of small planets.
But we can detect it if they are there. Did you read the links I gave earlier? We can estimate using basic thermo what these will do, and we can then look for them, and we don't see them. So that's not the issue. Planets are hard to detect for a variety of reasons, especially because they are often not blocking the light. That's not an issue here. It might help if you actually read the links people gave.
The rest of your counter argument, well we're just going to have agree to disagree because there are too many assumptions in what you're saying that you're taking for granted that I don't think are at all certain.
"Agreeing to disagree" is one of the worst thing that educated, intelligent people can do. It essentially amounts to saying that one or the other might be wrong, and that you might both have different data points, and rather than exchanging the data one just goes away. It is an unfortunate trait and seems most commonly done when people don't want to just admit that they are wrong. But here's the thing: if I'm wrong, I want to know that I'm wrong. And you do a disservice to me, and to anyone else reading this conversation if you think one of my premises is wrong but you won't tell me which or why.
And it isn't like this is "agreeing to disagree" over who should win the Oscars or whether some call in a sports game was right. The answer to these questions *matter*. They are some of the deepest questions out there about the universe and life itself. And they have practical implications, because if there's a Filter in our future our only hope is to figure that out and try to get around it. Agreeing to disagree is the worst thing to do.
This doesn't work well at all. Lack of signals are only of the three central problems, which are lack of signals, lack of visitors and most severely lack of megastructures. Your fourth point is the most ad hoc hypothesis imaginable given that we can see natural radio signals just fine. Your fifth point requires not just a "Federation" but a federation that also prevents people from building large-scale structures. Moreover, it requires a "Federation" in not just one galaxy but many galaxies, since we don't see any major signs of K3 civilizations in other galaxies.
If one thinks that civilizations tend to destroy themselves then that means we should be very worried. That's the Filter essentially. If that's the case, the question then becomes can we use that information to avoid doing that ourselves?
This does not work. We can see very far. That explanation would only work if the sole problem was a lack of visitors to our star system. But as I discussed in my comment, we don't see any radio waves nor do we see any signs of megastructures or other large-scale use of the large amount of available energy. The universe looks completely natural. Incidentally, it is also worth noting that the distance explanation doesn't seem to work very well either.
The galaxy for example is about 100,000 light years across. That means that if one is going only 1 percent of light speed (which does seem doable given what we know of the laws of physics) one gets from one end of a galaxy to another in about 10 million years, and can colonize most of a galaxy in about 200 million years, which is not incredibly long in comparison to the amount of time life on Earth has been around.
So the long-distance explanation doesn't seem to work very well for explaining a lack of visitors, and doesn't go anywhere to explaining the complete lack of other signs of civilizations which are the much more puzzling thing.
If this is accurate this is good news. One of the standard explanations for the Fermi Paradox is that Earth-like planets are very rare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis. You may ask why this is good news? The reason is that something is making civilizations rare. We don't see any signs of major civilizations, either in terms of visits, radio waves, or most importantly, megastructures and large-scale engineering projects. At this point, we've looked at 100,000 nearby galaxies and essentially none of them show signs of a highly advanced civilization in terms of energy use http://www.universetoday.com/119931/100000-galaxies-and-no-obvious-signs-of-life/.
The standard explanation for this is that there is some "Great Filter" which is making civlizations rare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter. If this is something in our past (e.g. habitable planets are rare, it is tough for life to evolve, it is hard to get those last few steps to necessary levels of intelligence, etc.) then we don't need to worry. But if it is something in our future, something that civilizations do to wipe themselves(e.g. nuclear war, bad nanotech) out then we're in trouble. We need to figure this out soon, since if there is a future Filter then it likely occurs very close to our current tech level.
Every piece of evidence for early filters should make us breathe more easily since it makes late filters less necessary. Unfortunately in the last few years, almost all new evidence has been in the other direction: we've found lots of planets and it looks like even small, rocky planets are common. So this is a refreshing piece of news. However, I'm very skeptical of it. First, it seems to go against other similar studies suggesting that as many as 1/3rd of stars may have an Earth-like planet (see e.g. here http://www.universetoday.com/119931/100000-galaxies-and-no-obvious-signs-of-life/) and they appear in order to be getting this result in part to be using an extremely narrow notion of what a habitable planet would look like.
Bullshit. There are serious problems with the situation, and the fact that Hamas controls Gaza and continues to make regular attacks deliberately targeting civilian populations is a real problem. But no one deserves to be thought of or treated as subhuman. And that especially applies in a situation like this where it is far from clear that most of the Gazans even support Hamas. There are good arguments for not allowing these drones in, and they don't require dehumanizing people.
I'm not even sure what you mean, maybe you need to work on your reading comprehension? My point was that there are many differences between cars and drones, so the analogy doesn't hold.
Bad comparison since a) drones aren't nearly as commercially helpful as cars and b) don't have the same ability to be easily sent at targets without a person inside them and c) are much more expensive. (Of course, I suspect that this comment like my last one will get modded as "Flamebait" which apparently stands for "-1, disagree.")
Drones can be easily used as weapons against civilian targets. It isn't much more complicated than strapping explosives to them. It would be one thing if these drones were going to the West Bank which is relatively peaceful, but these were going to Gaza which is controlled by Hamas.
This is a very good solution. Rather than just try to slap VW with a fine that they'd shrug off, this would use the resources to help push the entire car market into a better environmental situation and one that is less dependent on fossil fuels as a whole. Electric cars are a technology which works better when there are more electric cars and more charging stations. This is essentially a networking effect. So the resulting push by having another major manufacturer make more electric cars will be substantially more positive than simply fining them.
The second does not follow. We don't like to admit it but we do really make tradeoffs involving human lives all the time because some of them would just cost too much or infringe too much on basic rights. For example, fewer children would die if we outlawed backyard pools http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html but we haven't done so. Similarly, we'd very likely have fewer drunk driving deaths if every car had a built in breathalyzer, but we don't do that either.
Fingerprinting is a minor, one-time upfront cost, so it isn't an unreasonable regulation. This isn't like say forcing Uber and Lyft to obey specific payment rules, or requiring medallions that are restricted to a certain number. I'm not sure in general that such fingerprinting is a useful, cost-effective requirement for any taxi type, whether traditional or not, but it doesn't appear to be a rule that only makes sense if one is trying to harm Uber.
Scalia was very controversial and much of the left will be likely happy about this. But he was a human being, and by most accounts he was a decent one and a smart one. His best friend on the Court was Ruth Bader Ginsburg who is one of the most liberal justices. We should all take a lesson from them on being civil and friendly even with those we disagree with.
The person who tried to do that was Suey Park who wasn't one of the people listed above. It might help to realize that not everyone you disagree with or dislike is part of some indistinguishable amalgamated blob.
The vast majority of humans don't desire to "leech momentum and resources from organizations" and I would suggest that this may require an update on you mental model of how people work. The examples you actually gave are interesting in that while you've decided that they are all "attention whores" as far as I can tell they are a very mixed bunch of examples with varying degrees of validity or evidence of validity to their claims.
Organizers should not be held accountable for behavior between other adult attendees. The key is not always to strike a 'reasonable balance' (whatever that means), but to arrive at the truth.
No one is arguing that truth isn't what matters, but how much effort do you put in to dealing with these issues, how do you respond and what is your burden of evidence are all legitimate issues for discussion. But it is worth noting that your concern doesn't really seem to be about the truth of the accusations, since you've stated that organizers shouldn't be held accountable at all. That seems to essentially mean that even when the organizers have clear evidence of serious harassment, since it is behavior between adults, they shouldn't have any obligation to deal with it. Do you see why someone would disagree with you on that?
Why lie? That phrasing in absolutely no way "makes clear that isn't likely to get much attention"
So, this is a common problem to start off: you read something substantially differently than someone else does and you presume that it must come down to them lying. This is not in general a productive approach. And yes, the comment does make it clear, since they note that complains may require followup. What do you think that means?
It is also not "pretty clear" that "a lot of people" are sexually harassed at conferences.
Talk to women who regularly go to comic conventions for example.
It's mindboggling that there can even exist a person to make claims like these. You're a great argument for buying guns - when there exists a cult living in the parallell reality you voice here, then it's very unlikely peaceful conversation can ever produce a sensible result.
If you think that disagreeing with how common sexual harassment is at conventions and conferences means that someone is worth buying guns so you can defend against them, I think to put it politely that you are so mindkilled http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/ that a productive conversation is unlikely to occur whether or not it is "peaceful." Unfortunately, it is people who have attitudes like yours, regardless of what their political allegiances are (whether "MRAs" or "SJWs" or some other group) who make actually having serious discussions about these issues so difficult.
One can make substantial criticisms of the way Brown and some other universities are approaching these issues, but the summary seems a bit off. Yes, it is possible to file a complaint about harassment anonymously but the form makes clear that isn't likely to get much attention by itself. The form says "This form is anonymous, unless you choose to provide a contact method in the case of something that requires follow up."
As for codes of conduct in general, there's a certain fraction of people who aren't apparently happy with them. However, it is pretty clear that a lot of people at conferences and conventions are sexually harassed sometimes severely. Unfortunately, there are circumstances where organizers have erred heavily on the side of not doing anything, and other situations where they've erred too far in the other direction. As always, the key is to strike a reasonable balance, and some issues will always go too far one way or another, and those instances will be used as political ammunition for whichever side the anecdote supports.
This makes complete sense. The point of copyright is to make artists confident that they or their immediate heirs will be able to benefit from their works for a limited time. I'm sure that if Anne Frank knew that almost a century after her diary was written it would be available on a global network of electronic devices that hadn't been invented in her lifetime she would not have wrote the diary at all. I'm also sure that if her father had known that he would have definitely refused to publish it.
That's a good question! I think the answer is no- one won't get an area of functionally negative gravity, but I'm not completely sure why. That stretches my knowledge of GR.
Censorship is about removing information upon order of a government. This does not happen here at all. "Right to be forgotten" only obliges databases indexers to remove things, not the original websites. And it's not the government who asks for it, it's the very person mentioned in the case.
The government is forcing this removal. The fact that it is forcing it at the request of a mentioned person doesn't make it less censorship. And the fact that it is being removed from an index rather than completely removed is utterly irrelevant: the point is that Google is not being allowed to display public information. This is trampling on free speech and any attempts to parse a ridiculously legalistic notion of what counts as "censorship" doesn't change that.
Slashdot Mirror
Why build mega structures? What is a mega structure?
Megastructures are a natural thing to want to build if one wants to harvest a lot of energy available. And if we're correct about basic thermodynamics then pretty much everyone wants lots of energy. Many versions have been suggested for ways of actually doing it, such as Dyson spheres (unlikely), Dyson swarms and Dyson bubbles (much more plausible). Stellar engines are also an option https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_engine. But here's the really important part: regardless of how one does so, an attempt to use a large fraction of star's energy leads to noticeable changes in its light.
2) maybe no civilization has advanced far enough to detect it 3) maybe our telescopes aren't good enough to detect the mega structure, given that we can barely detect the presence of small planets.
But we can detect it if they are there. Did you read the links I gave earlier? We can estimate using basic thermo what these will do, and we can then look for them, and we don't see them. So that's not the issue. Planets are hard to detect for a variety of reasons, especially because they are often not blocking the light. That's not an issue here. It might help if you actually read the links people gave.
The rest of your counter argument, well we're just going to have agree to disagree because there are too many assumptions in what you're saying that you're taking for granted that I don't think are at all certain.
"Agreeing to disagree" is one of the worst thing that educated, intelligent people can do. It essentially amounts to saying that one or the other might be wrong, and that you might both have different data points, and rather than exchanging the data one just goes away. It is an unfortunate trait and seems most commonly done when people don't want to just admit that they are wrong. But here's the thing: if I'm wrong, I want to know that I'm wrong. And you do a disservice to me, and to anyone else reading this conversation if you think one of my premises is wrong but you won't tell me which or why.
And it isn't like this is "agreeing to disagree" over who should win the Oscars or whether some call in a sports game was right. The answer to these questions *matter*. They are some of the deepest questions out there about the universe and life itself. And they have practical implications, because if there's a Filter in our future our only hope is to figure that out and try to get around it. Agreeing to disagree is the worst thing to do.
This doesn't work well at all. Lack of signals are only of the three central problems, which are lack of signals, lack of visitors and most severely lack of megastructures. Your fourth point is the most ad hoc hypothesis imaginable given that we can see natural radio signals just fine. Your fifth point requires not just a "Federation" but a federation that also prevents people from building large-scale structures. Moreover, it requires a "Federation" in not just one galaxy but many galaxies, since we don't see any major signs of K3 civilizations in other galaxies.
If one thinks that civilizations tend to destroy themselves then that means we should be very worried. That's the Filter essentially. If that's the case, the question then becomes can we use that information to avoid doing that ourselves?
This does not work. We can see very far. That explanation would only work if the sole problem was a lack of visitors to our star system. But as I discussed in my comment, we don't see any radio waves nor do we see any signs of megastructures or other large-scale use of the large amount of available energy. The universe looks completely natural. Incidentally, it is also worth noting that the distance explanation doesn't seem to work very well either.
The galaxy for example is about 100,000 light years across. That means that if one is going only 1 percent of light speed (which does seem doable given what we know of the laws of physics) one gets from one end of a galaxy to another in about 10 million years, and can colonize most of a galaxy in about 200 million years, which is not incredibly long in comparison to the amount of time life on Earth has been around.
So the long-distance explanation doesn't seem to work very well for explaining a lack of visitors, and doesn't go anywhere to explaining the complete lack of other signs of civilizations which are the much more puzzling thing.
If this is accurate this is good news. One of the standard explanations for the Fermi Paradox is that Earth-like planets are very rare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis. You may ask why this is good news? The reason is that something is making civilizations rare. We don't see any signs of major civilizations, either in terms of visits, radio waves, or most importantly, megastructures and large-scale engineering projects. At this point, we've looked at 100,000 nearby galaxies and essentially none of them show signs of a highly advanced civilization in terms of energy use http://www.universetoday.com/119931/100000-galaxies-and-no-obvious-signs-of-life/.
The standard explanation for this is that there is some "Great Filter" which is making civlizations rare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter. If this is something in our past (e.g. habitable planets are rare, it is tough for life to evolve, it is hard to get those last few steps to necessary levels of intelligence, etc.) then we don't need to worry. But if it is something in our future, something that civilizations do to wipe themselves(e.g. nuclear war, bad nanotech) out then we're in trouble. We need to figure this out soon, since if there is a future Filter then it likely occurs very close to our current tech level.
Every piece of evidence for early filters should make us breathe more easily since it makes late filters less necessary. Unfortunately in the last few years, almost all new evidence has been in the other direction: we've found lots of planets and it looks like even small, rocky planets are common. So this is a refreshing piece of news. However, I'm very skeptical of it. First, it seems to go against other similar studies suggesting that as many as 1/3rd of stars may have an Earth-like planet (see e.g. here http://www.universetoday.com/119931/100000-galaxies-and-no-obvious-signs-of-life/) and they appear in order to be getting this result in part to be using an extremely narrow notion of what a habitable planet would look like.
11 years ago. There have been essentially no elections since then. What do you think that says?
Bullshit. There are serious problems with the situation, and the fact that Hamas controls Gaza and continues to make regular attacks deliberately targeting civilian populations is a real problem. But no one deserves to be thought of or treated as subhuman. And that especially applies in a situation like this where it is far from clear that most of the Gazans even support Hamas. There are good arguments for not allowing these drones in, and they don't require dehumanizing people.
I'm not even sure what you mean, maybe you need to work on your reading comprehension? My point was that there are many differences between cars and drones, so the analogy doesn't hold.
Bad comparison since a) drones aren't nearly as commercially helpful as cars and b) don't have the same ability to be easily sent at targets without a person inside them and c) are much more expensive. (Of course, I suspect that this comment like my last one will get modded as "Flamebait" which apparently stands for "-1, disagree.")
Drones can be easily used as weapons against civilian targets. It isn't much more complicated than strapping explosives to them. It would be one thing if these drones were going to the West Bank which is relatively peaceful, but these were going to Gaza which is controlled by Hamas.
This is a very good solution. Rather than just try to slap VW with a fine that they'd shrug off, this would use the resources to help push the entire car market into a better environmental situation and one that is less dependent on fossil fuels as a whole. Electric cars are a technology which works better when there are more electric cars and more charging stations. This is essentially a networking effect. So the resulting push by having another major manufacturer make more electric cars will be substantially more positive than simply fining them.
The second does not follow. We don't like to admit it but we do really make tradeoffs involving human lives all the time because some of them would just cost too much or infringe too much on basic rights. For example, fewer children would die if we outlawed backyard pools http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html but we haven't done so. Similarly, we'd very likely have fewer drunk driving deaths if every car had a built in breathalyzer, but we don't do that either.
Fingerprinting is a minor, one-time upfront cost, so it isn't an unreasonable regulation. This isn't like say forcing Uber and Lyft to obey specific payment rules, or requiring medallions that are restricted to a certain number. I'm not sure in general that such fingerprinting is a useful, cost-effective requirement for any taxi type, whether traditional or not, but it doesn't appear to be a rule that only makes sense if one is trying to harm Uber.
If the best argument you've got is no one is forcing you to attend that's essentially agreeing that harassment does happen.
How do you reconcile your claim that he hated those who disagreed with him with his deep friendship with Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
Scalia was very controversial and much of the left will be likely happy about this. But he was a human being, and by most accounts he was a decent one and a smart one. His best friend on the Court was Ruth Bader Ginsburg who is one of the most liberal justices. We should all take a lesson from them on being civil and friendly even with those we disagree with.
The person who tried to do that was Suey Park who wasn't one of the people listed above. It might help to realize that not everyone you disagree with or dislike is part of some indistinguishable amalgamated blob.
Organizers should not be held accountable for behavior between other adult attendees. The key is not always to strike a 'reasonable balance' (whatever that means), but to arrive at the truth.
No one is arguing that truth isn't what matters, but how much effort do you put in to dealing with these issues, how do you respond and what is your burden of evidence are all legitimate issues for discussion. But it is worth noting that your concern doesn't really seem to be about the truth of the accusations, since you've stated that organizers shouldn't be held accountable at all. That seems to essentially mean that even when the organizers have clear evidence of serious harassment, since it is behavior between adults, they shouldn't have any obligation to deal with it. Do you see why someone would disagree with you on that?
Why lie? That phrasing in absolutely no way "makes clear that isn't likely to get much attention"
So, this is a common problem to start off: you read something substantially differently than someone else does and you presume that it must come down to them lying. This is not in general a productive approach. And yes, the comment does make it clear, since they note that complains may require followup. What do you think that means?
It is also not "pretty clear" that "a lot of people" are sexually harassed at conferences.
Talk to women who regularly go to comic conventions for example.
It's mindboggling that there can even exist a person to make claims like these. You're a great argument for buying guns - when there exists a cult living in the parallell reality you voice here, then it's very unlikely peaceful conversation can ever produce a sensible result.
If you think that disagreeing with how common sexual harassment is at conventions and conferences means that someone is worth buying guns so you can defend against them, I think to put it politely that you are so mindkilled http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/ that a productive conversation is unlikely to occur whether or not it is "peaceful." Unfortunately, it is people who have attitudes like yours, regardless of what their political allegiances are (whether "MRAs" or "SJWs" or some other group) who make actually having serious discussions about these issues so difficult.
One can make substantial criticisms of the way Brown and some other universities are approaching these issues, but the summary seems a bit off. Yes, it is possible to file a complaint about harassment anonymously but the form makes clear that isn't likely to get much attention by itself. The form says "This form is anonymous, unless you choose to provide a contact method in the case of something that requires follow up."
As for codes of conduct in general, there's a certain fraction of people who aren't apparently happy with them. However, it is pretty clear that a lot of people at conferences and conventions are sexually harassed sometimes severely. Unfortunately, there are circumstances where organizers have erred heavily on the side of not doing anything, and other situations where they've erred too far in the other direction. As always, the key is to strike a reasonable balance, and some issues will always go too far one way or another, and those instances will be used as political ammunition for whichever side the anecdote supports.
I think you may need to recalibrate your sarcasm detector.
Court already ruled essentially in Eldred https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft that copyright can make public domain works return to being copyrighted.
This makes complete sense. The point of copyright is to make artists confident that they or their immediate heirs will be able to benefit from their works for a limited time. I'm sure that if Anne Frank knew that almost a century after her diary was written it would be available on a global network of electronic devices that hadn't been invented in her lifetime she would not have wrote the diary at all. I'm also sure that if her father had known that he would have definitely refused to publish it.
That's a good question! I think the answer is no- one won't get an area of functionally negative gravity, but I'm not completely sure why. That stretches my knowledge of GR.
Censorship is about removing information upon order of a government. This does not happen here at all. "Right to be forgotten" only obliges databases indexers to remove things, not the original websites. And it's not the government who asks for it, it's the very person mentioned in the case.
The government is forcing this removal. The fact that it is forcing it at the request of a mentioned person doesn't make it less censorship. And the fact that it is being removed from an index rather than completely removed is utterly irrelevant: the point is that Google is not being allowed to display public information. This is trampling on free speech and any attempts to parse a ridiculously legalistic notion of what counts as "censorship" doesn't change that.