This is all assuming they WANT to talk to us. Why would they want to talk to us? Study us maybe but if there are thousands of other worlds with life then we probably wouldn't be that interesting. They certainly aren't going to want our primitive technology.
If FTL travel is possible then FTL communication is possible and they would presumably be using some form of FTL communication channel which we have no knowledge of and therefore can't detect.
If FTL travel is not possible then we are stuck on this rock and they on theirs and it doesn't really matter much if we discover another civilization 1000 light years away as interaction will be minimal.
Anyone sufficiently advanced to communicate in any meaningful way we should be very very scared of because that means they are far far more advanced than we are. They either have FTL travel or some means of traveling great distances while we have neither.
But how could we rationalize about stuff if we weren't conscious?
Maybe a better way to look at it is that "conscious free will action is an illusion". Basically the brain decides what to do and does it. Your "conscious" observes what happens and justifies and explains why it happens. So basically what you think of "conscious action" is really just like the person who thinks screaming at the tv affects the outcome of a fieldgoal. Your subconscious brain made the decision without you and you are just watching the recording.
Even if it can't be turned off they will just cover it up or otherwise sabotage it.
I'm not sure this is as big of concern as people seem to think. In most cases if they are instructed to have it on at all times and "something bad happens" while their camera is off, etc.. then I think the jury, etc... is going to be very suspicious and will more than likely side with the victim.
I apologize for this. Women do abuse men especially psychologically as much if not more than men but that being said the average man is considerable stronger physically than the average women so if weapons are not involved the man does have an advantage. The man also probably isn't usually as "trapped" as the women and probably has an easier time leaving if he decides to.
I watched a documentary once where they had a woman in a public park beating a man with a newspaper then the actors switched places. Noone, not even the cops, intervened when the woman was hitting on the man but multiple people intervened when the man was hitting on the woman.
If a normal person puts their hands on a hot stove, it hurts and they remove it quickly.
To use your example, what if a normal person is in a room where the entire floor is heated and each week the temperature goes up by one degree. The change is so gradual that they probably don't notice it at first and while this change is happening the door to the outside world is getting harder and harder to open so by the time they realize what is going on they can't get out and the floor is too hot to touch but this is the norm now.
They do something similiar to elephants. It's called "learned helplessness". After a while they don't even try to resist.
Let's not sugar coat it by being politically correct. I think the correct word to use is insecure.
Yes, insecure probably applies in alot of the cases but that doesn't mean they started out insecure. Kindof like boiling a frog the abuser slowly makes them more and more insecure and erodes their sense of self worth while at the same time making them think that the abuser is the only person who cares. When/If they finally realize what is going on they have already been cut off from their other safety nets and have no where to flee to.
Stop trivializing the suffering of women that get beaten within a inch of their lives by brutal husbands.
Psychological abuse is the first step. Why do you think a woman continues to stay with a man who beats her? And who said that their only concern is psychological abuse? They also need to make sure there isn't a way that the abuser can't track and/or figure out where the victim is going to be in real life.
I agree that this is the most logical. Protect the passengers at all cost. Who would want to buy a car that doesn't try to protect the passengers first? But human drivers make these kind of decisions every day. They take the ditch to avoid hitting a child or sometimes even an animal. There are multiple documented cases a year and probably even more undocumented where someone dies because they sacrificed their life to save the lives in another vehicle. Should a car be programmed to do the same?
Yeah, I considered adding this to my post as the only practical application but my guess is that even if you wanted to simulate the entire universe that you would take shortcuts and never need that precision. On a somewhat related note if we are currently living in a simulation and the microscopic stuff is only fully simulated when examined closely that might explain certain quantum effects like wave particle duality.
It's considerably smaller than that. 63 decimal places can calculate the circumference of the observable universe to an accuracy of one planck length. I can't think of a single practical application that would have any need to calculate a distance that large to that level of precision.
I would be fine with this. I would even be fine as a consumer with paying different rates for different priorities of traffic as long as they aren't allowed to dictate the content of the traffic. Downloading a large file at 2am at a slow rate doesn't cost anyone anything. streaming realtime video at peak traffic is what is costly. If they charged accordingly you would see places like netflix compensate by allowing you to do things like download a movie the night before.
You could have replaced the ignition cylinder and then pretty much stopped there. You would have to have two keys then, one for the door and one for the ignition. Sure its an extra key but I bet you already have a number of them on your key ring.
It's only recently that cars only came with a single key. Most cars of my childhood had a roundhead key for the doors and a squarehead key for the ignition and I'm only 35. I agree that replacing door and trunk keys when just the ignition died is a bit overkill. Actually most of the older cars I've been in where the ignition key died, they just wire in a pushbutton as it's usually old enough that someone isn't going to steal it and even if they wanted to steal it they would still need to unlock the door first.
Honestly I think phones would be too except that due to the way they're carried they suffer a lot more wear and tear and simply break more frequently.
Phones are pretty much there too. I've broken my phone twice in the last couple years (bad luck) and instead of "upgrading", I decided it was simpler and cheaper to just buy the identical phone on ebay as I'm happy with my current model. I'm also going on 5 years with my laptop. My upgrade cycle has steadily increasing over the past 15 years. Back 15 years ago a $1000 computer would be unable to run the current apps after a couple years. Today, a $1000 computer is probably good for at least 5 if not 10 years before it is surpassed by the low-end computers.
Arbitrary enforcement of a law is NOT a good thing.
it is. IFF the enforcement only punishes the extreme cases, but not the harmless ones.
Then it's not really arbitrary is it? If you always pull someone over for 20 miles over the speed limit but never pull someone over for 5 miles over the speed limit then the law probably needs to be changed to reflect reality but the enforcement is not arbitrary.
Semi trucks actually have this codified. The weight limit is 40k. If you are over less than 5K then you get a warning but no ticket. If you are over more than 5K then the fine you $1 per pound STARTING at 40k not at 45k.
(note: numbers are somewhat arbitrary, not exactly sure what current limits and fines are but it gives the general idea)
Tmobile's deal is a much better deal once the phone is paid off but if you upgrade every year or so anyways then it is only marginally better. If you're a typical american who never pays off their car but just rolls the payments into the next one and always has a car payment then you probably don't see much value in tmobile. Tmobile is very appealing to the type of person who pays off their car and then drives payment free for several years which unfortunately is probably a very small percentage of the population.
People are stupid, and seeing a $1 phone throws them into a frenzy even if you show them the math that shows that they're paying so much more for service that the phone will cost them $200-300 more over 2 years than a cheaper no-subsidy plan and buying a device outright.
I think this is exactly right. People know they have to pay a monthly bill for a phone so it's a sunk cost. They see "free phone" and think it's awesome. Their bill jumps from $50 to $70 a month but that doesn't seem so bad. I get a "free phone" and all it costs me is $20 bucks. Also, most major providers don't give you a monthly discount for not getting a "free phone" so why not take the free option. And because of this practice people don't budget for a phone. If someone wants a computer or laptop they budget for it and it's considered a major purchase. Phones are considered disposable. Noone wants to spend $400 on something that is perceived as disposable.
When they issue a photo I.D. for someone the state also keeps a record. The same goes for Passports(federal), they want your picture in a database.
Loosing credentials happens to travelers in foreign countries all the time. You go the embassy and request new credentials.
Not only that but an expired passport is probably the best form of secondary identification you can have. With just an expired passport you can easily get a replacement drivers license, social security card, etc... Bury it in your backyard, give it to a friend, etc... and it can be used to replace all the other ids and get into your safety deposit box with all the rest of your valuables.
They also offer a cheap passport card with purchase of a passport that also works great as a secondary id.
You also have a crap credit score, if that's true. I'm generally not "in debt" by most people's standards - even pay cash on a new roof, but every few years I'll buy something financed or run a balance or something that keeps my score up.
Why is this modded "insightful"? It's flat out wrong. You're wasting your time and money. You don't need to pay interest to get good credit. My credit score is almost perfect (above 800 out of 850) and I've never carried a balance. I pay the balance in full every month. This is still recorded on your credit report as carrying a balance even though you never actually pay interest on the balance. I've actually had this come up on a few occassions when my credit report is pulled and I'm asked about some balance I supposably have when it's just the amount I spent last month.
Except more and more phones are higher resolution then most HDTVs already. A lot of people will have a 55 inch TV at 1080p but a smartphone with 1440p at least in just a few years. So paying per pixel or per size is pointless as neither tells you anything...
If you have a bigger screen you are probably going to want a higher pixel count. A 128k stream might look ok on a 4 inch screen but would look terrible on a 6ft display. Likewise you probably can't tell the difference between 1080p and 720p on a cellphone screen so would be unlikely to pay the price difference. The only problem I see is that if you are 6 feet away from a 6 foot screen you probably want the same resolution as someone 25 feet away from a 25 foot screen as distance also plays a part as a 25ft screen would look grainy if you were up next to it but not if you step back a bit.
Walmart started doing this about a month ago in my area. Unfortunately for me the chip doesn't work on my card so every time I go to walmart they have to manually key in my credit card number.
I have about 5 things every year that isn't available to me any other way -- and they're all tax BS (1099, 1098, and property tax bills)
Where do you live and bank that you don't have online access to 1099s, 1098s, and property tax? My banks have had online banking for 10 years which includes online copies of 1099s and 1098s. Same with my city. I usually just toss the 1099s and property tax bills/receipts in the trash because it's quicker and easier to get them online if I need a copy.
I don't understand. Why couldn't they have just partnered with "mailboxes etc" or started their own postal box system. They could have even bought a cheap apartment complex for cheaper than driving from door to door. With their own postal box system then some mail could be digitized and other mail could be forwarded, picked up, etc.. without permission or knowledge of the USPS.
then discovering that mosquito eating bats are in trouble and then damaging the balance of ecology with whatever eats those or something.
Yes, there is definitely the butterfly effect that we kindof have to worry about but we've unintentionally (or intentionally) wrecked alot more havoc on the environment with invasive species, etc... This at least has the potential to save a lot of lives. Personally I wouldn't really mind if the mosquito went the way of the dodo. I'll take my chances. We obviously know how to breed them in captivity so if something really bad did happen and we caught it in time then it's possible we could reintroduce them if necessary but other than just saying "something really bad might happen" I have never heard even a halfway plausible story of how this can actually happen. There are a few invasive species that have had unintended consequences but they are all pretty managable.
This seems bizarre to me. White and are asians are also more likely than blacks to hold a college degree - does this mean that it should also be illegal to require a degree for a job?
I believe you have to show that a degree or test is necessary for the job. So it would be illegal to require a history degree for a gardening position unless you can show it is needed for the job. Likewise, it would presumably be illegal to require a college degree for a janitor position but I'm pretty sure that this rule is violated alot. I've seen plenty of open positions that require a degree that wouldn't necessarily need it.
Slashdot Mirror
This is all assuming they WANT to talk to us.
Why would they want to talk to us? Study us maybe but if there are
thousands of other worlds with life then we probably wouldn't be that
interesting. They certainly aren't going to want our primitive technology.
If FTL travel is possible then FTL communication is possible and they would presumably be using some
form of FTL communication channel which we have no knowledge of and therefore can't detect.
If FTL travel is not possible then we are stuck on this rock and they on theirs and it doesn't really matter
much if we discover another civilization 1000 light years away as interaction will be minimal.
Anyone sufficiently advanced to communicate in any meaningful way we should be very very scared of
because that means they are far far more advanced than we are. They either have FTL travel or some
means of traveling great distances while we have neither.
But how could we rationalize about stuff if we weren't conscious?
Maybe a better way to look at it is that "conscious free will action is an illusion".
Basically the brain decides what to do and does it. Your "conscious" observes what happens and
justifies and explains why it happens. So basically what you think of "conscious action" is
really just like the person who thinks screaming at the tv affects the outcome of a fieldgoal.
Your subconscious brain made the decision without you and you are just watching the recording.
Even if it can't be turned off they will just cover it up or otherwise sabotage it.
I'm not sure this is as big of concern as people seem to think. In most cases if they are instructed to have it on at all times
and "something bad happens" while their camera is off, etc.. then I think the jury, etc... is going to be very suspicious and
will more than likely side with the victim.
I apologize for this. Women do abuse men especially psychologically as much if not more than
men but that being said the average man is considerable stronger physically than the average
women so if weapons are not involved the man does have an advantage. The man also probably
isn't usually as "trapped" as the women and probably has an easier time leaving if he decides to.
I watched a documentary once where they had a woman in a public park beating a man with a
newspaper then the actors switched places. Noone, not even the cops, intervened when the
woman was hitting on the man but multiple people intervened when the man was hitting on the
woman.
Let's not sugar coat it by being politically correct. I think the correct word to use is insecure.
Yes, insecure probably applies in alot of the cases but that doesn't mean they started out insecure.
Kindof like boiling a frog the abuser slowly makes them more and more insecure and erodes their sense
of self worth while at the same time making them think that the abuser is the only person who cares.
When/If they finally realize what is going on they have already been cut off from their other safety nets
and have no where to flee to.
Sending a nasty email is not domestic abuse.
Stop trivializing the suffering of women that get beaten within a inch of their lives by brutal husbands.
Psychological abuse is the first step. Why do you think a woman continues to stay with a man who beats her?
And who said that their only concern is psychological abuse? They also need to make sure there isn't a way that
the abuser can't track and/or figure out where the victim is going to be in real life.
I agree that this is the most logical. Protect the passengers at all cost. Who would want to buy a car
that doesn't try to protect the passengers first? But human drivers make these kind of decisions every
day. They take the ditch to avoid hitting a child or sometimes even an animal. There are multiple
documented cases a year and probably even more undocumented where someone dies because they
sacrificed their life to save the lives in another vehicle. Should a car be programmed to do the same?
Yeah, I considered adding this to my post as the only practical application but my guess is that even if you wanted
to simulate the entire universe that you would take shortcuts and never need that precision.
On a somewhat related note if we are currently living in a simulation and the microscopic stuff is only fully
simulated when examined closely that might explain certain quantum effects like wave particle duality.
It's considerably smaller than that.
63 decimal places can calculate the circumference of the observable universe to an accuracy of one planck length.
I can't think of a single practical application that would have any need to calculate a distance that large to that level of precision.
I would be fine with this. I would even be fine as a consumer with paying different rates for different priorities of traffic
as long as they aren't allowed to dictate the content of the traffic. Downloading a large file at 2am at a slow rate
doesn't cost anyone anything. streaming realtime video at peak traffic is what is costly. If they charged accordingly
you would see places like netflix compensate by allowing you to do things like download a movie the night before.
You could have replaced the ignition cylinder and then pretty much stopped there. You would have to have two keys then, one for the door and one for the ignition. Sure its an extra key but I bet you already have a number of them on your key ring.
It's only recently that cars only came with a single key. Most cars of my childhood had a
roundhead key for the doors and a squarehead key for the ignition and I'm only 35.
I agree that replacing door and trunk keys when just the ignition died is a bit overkill.
Actually most of the older cars I've been in where the ignition key died, they just wire in
a pushbutton as it's usually old enough that someone isn't going to steal it and even if
they wanted to steal it they would still need to unlock the door first.
Honestly I think phones would be too except that due to the way they're carried they suffer a lot more wear and tear and simply break more frequently.
Phones are pretty much there too. I've broken my phone twice in the last couple years (bad luck) and instead
of "upgrading", I decided it was simpler and cheaper to just buy the identical phone on ebay as I'm happy with my current model.
I'm also going on 5 years with my laptop. My upgrade cycle has steadily increasing over the past 15 years. Back 15 years ago
a $1000 computer would be unable to run the current apps after a couple years. Today, a $1000 computer is probably good for
at least 5 if not 10 years before it is surpassed by the low-end computers.
Arbitrary enforcement of a law is NOT a good thing.
it is. IFF the enforcement only punishes the extreme cases, but not the harmless ones.
Then it's not really arbitrary is it? If you always pull someone over for 20 miles over the speed limit but
never pull someone over for 5 miles over the speed limit then the law probably needs to be changed to
reflect reality but the enforcement is not arbitrary.
Semi trucks actually have this codified. The weight limit is 40k. If you are over less than 5K then
you get a warning but no ticket. If you are over more than 5K then the fine you $1 per pound
STARTING at 40k not at 45k.
(note: numbers are somewhat arbitrary, not exactly sure what current limits and fines are but it gives the general idea)
T-Mobile's deal isn't significantly better
Tmobile's deal is a much better deal once the phone is paid off but if you upgrade every year or so anyways then it is only marginally better.
If you're a typical american who never pays off their car but just rolls the payments into the next one and always has a car payment then
you probably don't see much value in tmobile.
Tmobile is very appealing to the type of person who pays off their car and then drives payment free for several years which unfortunately
is probably a very small percentage of the population.
People are stupid, and seeing a $1 phone throws them into a frenzy even if you show them the math that shows that they're paying so much more for service that the phone will cost them $200-300 more over 2 years than a cheaper no-subsidy plan and buying a device outright.
I think this is exactly right. People know they have to pay a monthly bill for a phone so it's a sunk cost.
They see "free phone" and think it's awesome. Their bill jumps from $50 to $70 a month but that doesn't
seem so bad. I get a "free phone" and all it costs me is $20 bucks. Also, most major providers
don't give you a monthly discount for not getting a "free phone" so why not take the free option. And
because of this practice people don't budget for a phone. If someone wants a computer or laptop they
budget for it and it's considered a major purchase. Phones are considered disposable. Noone wants to
spend $400 on something that is perceived as disposable.
When they issue a photo I.D. for someone the state also keeps a record. The same goes for Passports(federal), they want your picture in a database.
Loosing credentials happens to travelers in foreign countries all the time. You go the embassy and request new credentials.
Not only that but an expired passport is probably the best form of secondary identification you can have.
With just an expired passport you can easily get a replacement drivers license, social security card, etc...
Bury it in your backyard, give it to a friend, etc... and it can be used to replace all the other ids and get
into your safety deposit box with all the rest of your valuables.
They also offer a cheap passport card with purchase of a passport that also works great as a secondary id.
You also have a crap credit score, if that's true.
I'm generally not "in debt" by most people's standards - even pay cash on a new roof, but every few years I'll buy something financed or run a balance or something that keeps my score up.
Why is this modded "insightful"? It's flat out wrong.
You're wasting your time and money. You don't need to pay interest to get good credit. My credit score is
almost perfect (above 800 out of 850) and I've never carried a balance. I pay the balance in full every month.
This is still recorded on your credit report as carrying a balance even though you never actually pay interest
on the balance. I've actually had this come up on a few occassions when my credit report is pulled and
I'm asked about some balance I supposably have when it's just the amount I spent last month.
Except more and more phones are higher resolution then most HDTVs already. A lot of people will have a 55 inch TV at 1080p but a smartphone with 1440p at least in just a few years. So paying per pixel or per size is pointless as neither tells you anything...
If you have a bigger screen you are probably going to want a higher pixel count.
A 128k stream might look ok on a 4 inch screen but would look terrible on a 6ft display.
Likewise you probably can't tell the difference between 1080p and 720p on a cellphone screen
so would be unlikely to pay the price difference. The only problem I see is that if you are
6 feet away from a 6 foot screen you probably want the same resolution as someone
25 feet away from a 25 foot screen as distance also plays a part as a 25ft screen would look
grainy if you were up next to it but not if you step back a bit.
Walmart started doing this about a month ago in my area. Unfortunately for me the chip doesn't
work on my card so every time I go to walmart they have to manually key in my credit card number.
I have about 5 things every year that isn't available to me any other way -- and they're all tax BS (1099, 1098, and property tax bills)
Where do you live and bank that you don't have online access to 1099s, 1098s, and property tax?
My banks have had online banking for 10 years which includes online copies of 1099s and 1098s.
Same with my city. I usually just toss the 1099s and property tax bills/receipts in the trash because it's
quicker and easier to get them online if I need a copy.
I don't understand. Why couldn't they have just partnered with "mailboxes etc" or started their own postal box system.
They could have even bought a cheap apartment complex for cheaper than driving from door to door.
With their own postal box system then some mail could be digitized and other mail could be forwarded, picked up, etc..
without permission or knowledge of the USPS.
then discovering that mosquito eating bats are in trouble and then damaging the balance of ecology with whatever eats those or something.
Yes, there is definitely the butterfly effect that we kindof have to worry about but we've unintentionally (or intentionally) wrecked alot more
havoc on the environment with invasive species, etc... This at least has the potential to save a lot of lives. Personally I wouldn't
really mind if the mosquito went the way of the dodo. I'll take my chances. We obviously know how to breed them in captivity so
if something really bad did happen and we caught it in time then it's possible we could reintroduce them if necessary but other than
just saying "something really bad might happen" I have never heard even a halfway plausible story of how this can actually happen.
There are a few invasive species that have had unintended consequences but they are all pretty managable.
This seems bizarre to me. White and are asians are also more likely than blacks to hold a college degree - does this mean that it should also be illegal to require a degree for a job?
I believe you have to show that a degree or test is necessary for the job.
So it would be illegal to require a history degree for a gardening position unless you can show it is needed for the job.
Likewise, it would presumably be illegal to require a college degree for a janitor position but I'm pretty sure that
this rule is violated alot. I've seen plenty of open positions that require a degree that wouldn't necessarily need it.