.... But *WHY* is this stuff freely available? Shouldn't it be a controlled substance of some sort?
Eh, why not? It's not like you need polonium 210 to kill someone. A big stick can be used for the same purpose, and rat-poison can also be bought over the counter. And unlike e.g. guns, polonium 210 has other uses than to kill people. Most of those reasons advance science.
Apart from that, why should everything you don't have a need for, need to become "a controlled substance"? I don't know about you, but I have no wish to live in a society where everything is regulated, over-regulated, and then regulated again. I'm for gun control, because guns are a big problem in todays society. I'm not convinced that polonium 210 is a big problem in todays society.
It almost seems that there are drugs and booze that have tighter restrictions.
There's no way to prevent users doing stupid things.
Yes there is. We can educate the users. More importantly, we can make it more difficult to do stupid things, and we can make it simpler to avoid doing stupid things.
He/she surfs the web with admin rights and no matter what browser they are using they get infected.
Windows XP pretty much requires you to run as administrator. Lots of programs require administrator privileges. If you need to perform some action as administrator, such as installing a program, you must log out (closing all your open windows), wait, log in, wait, perform the action, log out, wait, log in again, wait, set up your work-environment as it was in the first place, and only then can you continue. In linux, I use sudo.
One simple solution is for microsoft to require that any product "designed for microsoft windows" should be able to run perfectly well without administrator privileges. Another would be for them to ship something like sudo (in a gui way, e.g. right-click, choose "Run As"), that is enabled by default.
"Do you really want to run this program, it could be a virus?" in finnish and still she clicked the Yes button.
Or you could do it the way it used to be done (and still is in linux). The web-browser notices that you are downloading a binary file, and asks you to save it. Then the user has to manually run the file him/herself, instead of just getting an annoying popup. (In linux you even have to manually make it executable by chmod'ing it). This means that clueless users will have to prove they have at least a minimal amount of clue, before they are able to do serious damage. And they should not run as administrators, which means the plugin will be installed in their private plug-in folders only.
"Hey! That's a nice plugin/add-on/whatever for MSN Messenger. I'll install and download that..."
I'm not sure why MSN messenger needs to allow plugins, and why plugins need to be able to do evil stuff. If MSN messenger need to allow plugins at all, they should be in a sandboxed environment, such as within a JVM, where only "approved" methods and classes would be available for plugin-writers. I have absolutely no clue about this at all, but my guess is that MSN plugins are mostly eye-candy, which means the API available to plugin writers should be limited to just that. A safer alternative would be to only allow "themes" or "skins" or whatever the kids use these days...
Such a card-only lifestyle would be unthinkable in europe. Not because of lack of vending-points(you can pay practically everywhere with your creditcard), but because of the lack of privacy: Your card-issuing organization has a profile of your buying-habbits.
Huh?
What the fuck do you mean? Where did you get the idea that every single european was a rabid privacy-nut trying to out-nut even EFF?
There are plenty of people I know that use this card-only lifestyle. It's convenient to not have to carry a wallet. On the other hand, you have to balance it against the convenience of using small coins for buying a coke at a vending machine. This has nothing to do with being european or not. The things most people care about when deciding whether to use cash, or credit/debit card is:
Does the bank/card-company take a processing fee, i.e. is cash cheaper?
Hmm, this is a large purchase. I prefer to use a card so I don't have to walk around with all this cash in my pocket.
Oh, I'm afraid of these card-terminals with all the scary buttons, what happens if I push the wrong one? And do I remember my pin-code?
Wow, I should really pay for everything with my card. This way I can see what I wasted money on at the end of the month, and maybe in time get my finances sorted out, somewhat...
I'm afraid to use a card. That way I don't get to "feel" how much money I spend. If I instead withdraw a fixed amount every week, I feel more in control of how much I spend.
And that's about it. Privacy doesn't enter most peoples minds. Except perhaps to avoid having "unnecesarry" purchases show up on the bank transcript so their significant other can see how they waste their money.
Look, nobody is asking you to "make huge changes to accomodate every handicap people have". What is suggested is something that will benefit everyone. If a blind man can't feel the difference between different coins and bills in his wallet, neither can you. And if a blind man can feel the difference, so can you. No longer will you have to fiddle in bad light, trying to determine which is which. All you have to do is put your hand in your wallet, and you will immediately feel which coins/bills you have there.
Basically, this is a common sense thing, that everybody else in the world does already. But I guess, America, Gods chosen country, the land of the free, etcetera, etcetera, really want to discriminate against as many disabled groups as possible, and in the process make life more cumbersome for all.
The neat thing about aluminium is that this Al2O3 becomes a "coating" that protects the rest of the aluminium from corroding. Unlike rust, it doesn't just fall of, leaving the metal behind it unprotected against further corrosion. So, practically speaking, no, aluminium doesn't corrode.
Plastic doesn't corrode, does it? It's watertight too. So a watertight plastic case, combined with a valve of gore-tex or some similar material to take care of pressure-differences would have solved the problem. There are plenty of other materials to choose from that doesn't corrode. Aluminium is one common choice.
Which means that I have to choose between getting a $4000 ruggedized product, or a $1500 laptop which needs service or replacement if I happen to sneeze directed at the keyboard. Why isn't there a range of products going from milspec to flimsy teenager? As of now, only the outer extremes seems to exist. And I wasn't even aware of the $4000 one, because it's at a price point so far out that few if any consumers would be willing to consider it. I could just as well have paid some handyman $2500 to customize a case for me. And it might have ended up cheaper and more rugged.
Have you ever heard of these things called "boats"? Some people like to spend their leisure time on them. Boats usually float on something called "water". The largest collection of water in the world, exist in something called the "ocean". Ocean water is salt.
When the weather is not totally boring, the ocean will build up larger "waves". These waves, when they hit the boat will result in something called "spray". This spray might hit the interior of the boat, soaking everything with something called "salt water". Anything that is packed close to the the bottom of the boat, such as "luggage", might become immersed in "salt water".
Am I asking for trouble if I bring a laptop on a sailing trip? Possibly, but that is what I want to do. If I wanted to keep my computer at home, in a dry controlled environment, I wouldn't need a laptop.
Oh, and sure. I could pack my laptop in a watertight container when I'm not using it. The laptop doesn't actually have to survive all kind of shit. But bulding something that is guaranteed to survive some spray, and something that can survive full immersion, is not really that different. And not having to worry about the watertight container (which also costs money), is probably worth paying for.
Not being rude, but most of you that whine about it refuse to pay for the durable goods.
Correct! We are not willing to pay more than three times the money to get a product that is not crap. We are willing to pay more, but don't tell me that some rubber, a watertight plastic seal, and a thicker metal case is worth $2500. It isn't.
If they can sell me this highly advanced modern technological marvel for $1500, I'm sure they can sell me a reasonable-quality case for less than $1500. I would expect to pay far less than $500 for that! And that includes profits for producers, brand-name owners, adverticing agencies, importers, and retailers.
And no, I don't own a laptop. A flimsy $1500 would do me no good. And I don't have $4000 to spend on a product I don't absolutely need.
As much as I love a good conspiracy products like the RAZR are flimsy because that's what the market demands. People want something that looks cool and is light and... uhm... looks cool. Surprise! You don't get heavy-duty parts with that.
Well, it's true that a large part of the market, really wants flimsy products that they can upgrade each time someone produces a new flimsy product with other useless features. However, that isn't the entire market. A large number of us just wants something that works. The problem is that there aren't enough of us to make it profitable to cater for this group. Or at least that's how the producers perceive us.
Two person lift towers are out, Mac minis are in. The market wants pretty...
If the market wants pretty, Mac wouldn't have such a lowly marketshare compared to Dell. The market wants lots of different things. Some want something pretty. A lot of people want something cheap. Some wants it to be sturdy. Some wants it to be portable. Some wants it to be sturdy and portable. Some wants it to be sturdy and portable and pretty. (And we all want it to be sturdy and portable and pretty and cheap, but realize we don't get that).
The thing is, the market doesn't seem to respond to peoples wishes. For a long time, you could only buy beige pc-cases. Even though people were willing to pay extra for pretty. Now you can't buy sturdy phones, even though some of us are willing to pay extra for sturdy.
Offer the author a 5lb $800 cellphone that can be dropped from the top of the Empire State Building and he'll pass, just like the rest of the market.
5 pounds isn't excessive for some people. If it was a satellite phone so you could use it across the globe, I can guarantee you would sell more than a few, especially if it also was watertight, bearproof, etc... For urban environments, where replacements are easily available, I doubt it would sell much.
Re:people don't wan't to hold on to a phone 5+ yea
on
Why Do Gadgets Break?
·
· Score: 1
I want to keep my cell phone for more than 1 or 2 years. My phone is used mostly as a, duh, phone! I don't want or need better cameras, more storage, nicer design (although smaller is cool), or any of the other stupid features they try to sell us.
If my phone fails, I will loose my contact list. I will loose various notes to myself, and SMS-messages I have stored on it. I probably will have to live for a few days without a phone (or at least one day, as the battery needs charging). I will have to spend money on a new phone, most likely at a time where I don't need extra expenses. And so on...
Even if somebody gives me a new phone with new features, I don't want to switch. I know my old phone. I don't have to learn something new. I don't want to spend time transferring contact lists. And I don't need the new features. If I can make and receive calls and SMS, as well as keep my contact list, I'm happy.
If the manufacturers at least gave me an easy option to buy the same model, easily transfer data without fiddling, and a guarantee against failure and loss of data for e.g. a year, I might consider regularly replacing my cell-phone. But I see no reason why I have to upgrade.
I'm not shure what's most scary. The fact that a properly taken care of powerbook will only last 4 years, or the fact that you are happy with this. I have a pair of boots thats lasted me 4 years, used regularly for long hiking trips in rough terrain, wet terrain, rough and wet terrain, and so on... How many times can you jump on your powerbook? (Of course, the (modern) gore-tex liner lasted only a few months...)
My mothers old washing machine lasted 26 years before giving up. When I went and bought a new washing machine for myself 5 years ago, I was expecting it to last for at least 10 years. It lasted 3! And I'm single, have no kids, etc...
I've almost given up on cell-phones. Even if I buy one specifically marketed as sturdy (e.g. Nokia 514), it is almost guaranteed to fail within two years (usually within a year). I would be willing to pay a lot more to get a phone where I don't have to worry about random breakage any time I fall on it.
The thing with gadgets is, I'm not interested in "being careful" with them. I'm interested in getting something that works. If I buy a mobile phone, it's because I want to bring it with me to become mobile, not to keep it inside original packaging with temperatures between 15-25 celcius and low air humidity. If I buy a washing machine, I want it to wash my clothes, not randomly fail. If I buy a car, I want it to keep driving, not require expensive maintenance, and having expensive parts fail all the time. And if I buy a laptop, it should survive a little rain, being dropped on concrete, being dropped in salt water, having someone fall on it, etc, all common things happening to transportable items.
Within just the next thirty years we're going to have the technology to do a completely non-invasive high-resolution full-body scan and sequence/simulation of DNA for any creature on earth, making the 'chop up the critters' approach unnecessary.
So how are you going to find out the migratory patterns of deep-sea squids unless you probe them? You certainly can't find out by doing a full-body scan. And I have great trouble to imagine what other ways can exist to do it in the future. Most likely, we will improve our wild-animal-probing technology to the point where we can monitor even more (heart-rate, body-chemistry, thoughts, etc...), rather than make probes old-fashioned.
Even if you argue that technology is still a hundred years off, we're still much further from interplanetary travel than organism analysis. To assume that the 'visitors' will have a comparable level of technology to us is erroneous.
We have already travelled to the moon. Travelling to mars is a political/economical problem, not a technological problem. Interplanetary travel is expensive, but not impossible. Interstellar travel is a bit harder, since we do not have the technology to build generational ships yet, but the voyager probe keeps on floating out there...
Organism analysis is a far way off. Look at modern psychology/psychiatry. Look at anything they teaches at the university if you study social science. Just like we can't predict the failure of communism from looking at DNA of humans, there's plenty of reason to assume the aliens want to give us anal probes.
If we got to a point where we couldn't detect our own radio transmitions, then what would be the point of broadcasting them?
Well, what I meant was that it's likely that our present technology wouldn't able to detect a transmission sent with technology from a few thousand years in the future.
Of course, the interpretation you gave isn't impossible either. You have to know what to listen for, because the search space is too vast to simply find it by searching, signals too similar to random noise to find it by statistical techniques, and signal strength too low to find it that way...
Also, humans didn't invent radio, we simply discovered it.
Radio transmitters and receivers is certainly something we invented, not something we "discovered". We didn't go around in the forest and suddenly found a two-way CB-radio. Radio waves is a different matter, but I was talking about radio as used in human communication here, not the phenomenon of low-frequency electromagnetic waves. You should work on you ability to interpret things in context.
When we contact wild animals, we usually end up doing one of the following
Exterminating them
Hunting them
Domesticating them
Marking them with metal rings and/or small radio transmitters
Just watching/photographing them
If anything, we should expect our encounter with a more advanced alien species to be taking one of the above-mentioned forms. Most likely they have encountered thousands of other civilizations, whereas it's our first. Our enthusiasm/fear/whatever is not going to be matched by theirs, who will view us as just another threat/resource/study-object to be oblitered/taken-advantage-of/studied.
Unless they are "virgins" themselves, having met few or no other alien civilization(s), I expect there to be little chance they are interested in just talking with us, respecting us, exchanging technology, etc. Certainly we don't do that ourselves when we encounter new species on earth.
10,000 lightyears? Assuming each civilization spreads out in every direction, then they only need, say 50,000 years to meet at the middle, if they spread out at 10% of the speed of light. I think it's safe to say they will meet.
You don't need to start worrying about being able to "detect signals" when they land in your front yard, or you in theirs!
the complete lack of evidence that other races exist means that no other intelligent races arose significantly before us (in cosmic time), or else any that did wiped themselves out as far as we can tell, either through no longer using electromagnetic waves of any kind (making their stray radiation invisible to us), killing themselves off, or something else.
I wouldn't call stop using electromagnetic waves as killing yourself off. Besides, even on earth, our radio transmissions becomes more and more difficult to detect. Our transmissions look more and more like noise, heavily compressed digital data. Instead of AM and FM, we increasingly use more obscure technologies, even multiband. And we use lower power in our transmissions. Add a few thousand years to that, and I doubt we would be able to detect ourselves.
Also, radio is a pretty recent invention. It's not something humanity has depended upon for millenia. If we are still using radio in 5000 years, you might have a point. As of now, I don't think it's completely unthinkable that we will invent something better. Perhaps as a result of finally finding a grand unified theory in physics, or something else way longer down the road. Remember, the perspectives we are talking about in cosmic scale is billions of years. Here we keep complaining that progress in AI, fusion, string theory, etc is slow because nothing has happened in 50 years.
So, either we are in roughly the same boat as any other sentient species out there, or else post- or pre-date them.
And what if the chance is 1? So far, we have only briefly landed a few probes on the moon and mars. Certainly not enough to conclusively say that there is not life there.
Basically, we lack statisical data. When both "we are the only place in the universe with life", and "life is everywhere in the universe" is a reasonable position to have in a debate about the issue, the whole issue stops being science untill we gather more data. Three is more or less accepted as the minimum statistical significant number. Untill we have done real surveys at at least two other solar systems "similar" to our own, we have no reason beyond faith or wishful thinking to believe on thing or another.
This assumes that any sanctions against China will be more damaging to China, than to everyone else. Look at the fifteen items closest to you. How many of them are produced in China?
I keep a phone in my pocket, not a cellphone, or personal communicator or mobile phone, or whatever. It's phone, period! The thing I call with at the office is also a "phone", but unlike most phones, it's a stationary phone.
Likewise, when I drive, I use a car. Not a motorized car. Not a passenger car, and certainly not an automobile. Or any other silly moniker for that matter. I'm aware "car" had other meanings 200 years ago. I don't care today.
Slashdot Mirror
So tell me, which lifestyle, gender, social class, job location, and residential neighborhood is it that you live in/have, that makes you need a gun.
Is it coke dealer, female, criminal, a snake pit, Somalia?
Ermm... Yes!
Eh, why not? It's not like you need polonium 210 to kill someone. A big stick can be used for the same purpose, and rat-poison can also be bought over the counter. And unlike e.g. guns, polonium 210 has other uses than to kill people. Most of those reasons advance science.
Apart from that, why should everything you don't have a need for, need to become "a controlled substance"? I don't know about you, but I have no wish to live in a society where everything is regulated, over-regulated, and then regulated again. I'm for gun control, because guns are a big problem in todays society. I'm not convinced that polonium 210 is a big problem in todays society.
Those things are addictive. Polonium 210 isn't.
Yes there is. We can educate the users. More importantly, we can make it more difficult to do stupid things, and we can make it simpler to avoid doing stupid things.
Windows XP pretty much requires you to run as administrator. Lots of programs require administrator privileges. If you need to perform some action as administrator, such as installing a program, you must log out (closing all your open windows), wait, log in, wait, perform the action, log out, wait, log in again, wait, set up your work-environment as it was in the first place, and only then can you continue. In linux, I use sudo.
One simple solution is for microsoft to require that any product "designed for microsoft windows" should be able to run perfectly well without administrator privileges. Another would be for them to ship something like sudo (in a gui way, e.g. right-click, choose "Run As"), that is enabled by default.
Or you could do it the way it used to be done (and still is in linux). The web-browser notices that you are downloading a binary file, and asks you to save it. Then the user has to manually run the file him/herself, instead of just getting an annoying popup. (In linux you even have to manually make it executable by chmod'ing it). This means that clueless users will have to prove they have at least a minimal amount of clue, before they are able to do serious damage. And they should not run as administrators, which means the plugin will be installed in their private plug-in folders only.
I'm not sure why MSN messenger needs to allow plugins, and why plugins need to be able to do evil stuff. If MSN messenger need to allow plugins at all, they should be in a sandboxed environment, such as within a JVM, where only "approved" methods and classes would be available for plugin-writers. I have absolutely no clue about this at all, but my guess is that MSN plugins are mostly eye-candy, which means the API available to plugin writers should be limited to just that. A safer alternative would be to only allow "themes" or "skins" or whatever the kids use these days...
How about we ban non-english speaking from the Internet too?
Huh?
What the fuck do you mean? Where did you get the idea that every single european was a rabid privacy-nut trying to out-nut even EFF?
There are plenty of people I know that use this card-only lifestyle. It's convenient to not have to carry a wallet. On the other hand, you have to balance it against the convenience of using small coins for buying a coke at a vending machine. This has nothing to do with being european or not. The things most people care about when deciding whether to use cash, or credit/debit card is:
And that's about it. Privacy doesn't enter most peoples minds. Except perhaps to avoid having "unnecesarry" purchases show up on the bank transcript so their significant other can see how they waste their money.
Ok, I admit that the cooling issue makes this a tad more difficult.
Look, nobody is asking you to "make huge changes to accomodate every handicap people have". What is suggested is something that will benefit everyone. If a blind man can't feel the difference between different coins and bills in his wallet, neither can you. And if a blind man can feel the difference, so can you. No longer will you have to fiddle in bad light, trying to determine which is which. All you have to do is put your hand in your wallet, and you will immediately feel which coins/bills you have there.
Basically, this is a common sense thing, that everybody else in the world does already. But I guess, America, Gods chosen country, the land of the free, etcetera, etcetera, really want to discriminate against as many disabled groups as possible, and in the process make life more cumbersome for all.
The neat thing about aluminium is that this Al2O3 becomes a "coating" that protects the rest of the aluminium from corroding. Unlike rust, it doesn't just fall of, leaving the metal behind it unprotected against further corrosion. So, practically speaking, no, aluminium doesn't corrode.
I stand corrected. Thank you for pointing it out.
Plastic doesn't corrode, does it? It's watertight too. So a watertight plastic case, combined with a valve of gore-tex or some similar material to take care of pressure-differences would have solved the problem. There are plenty of other materials to choose from that doesn't corrode. Aluminium is one common choice.
Which means that I have to choose between getting a $4000 ruggedized product, or a $1500 laptop which needs service or replacement if I happen to sneeze directed at the keyboard. Why isn't there a range of products going from milspec to flimsy teenager? As of now, only the outer extremes seems to exist. And I wasn't even aware of the $4000 one, because it's at a price point so far out that few if any consumers would be willing to consider it. I could just as well have paid some handyman $2500 to customize a case for me. And it might have ended up cheaper and more rugged.
Have you ever heard of these things called "boats"? Some people like to spend their leisure time on them. Boats usually float on something called "water". The largest collection of water in the world, exist in something called the "ocean". Ocean water is salt.
When the weather is not totally boring, the ocean will build up larger "waves". These waves, when they hit the boat will result in something called "spray". This spray might hit the interior of the boat, soaking everything with something called "salt water". Anything that is packed close to the the bottom of the boat, such as "luggage", might become immersed in "salt water".
Am I asking for trouble if I bring a laptop on a sailing trip? Possibly, but that is what I want to do. If I wanted to keep my computer at home, in a dry controlled environment, I wouldn't need a laptop.
Oh, and sure. I could pack my laptop in a watertight container when I'm not using it. The laptop doesn't actually have to survive all kind of shit. But bulding something that is guaranteed to survive some spray, and something that can survive full immersion, is not really that different. And not having to worry about the watertight container (which also costs money), is probably worth paying for.
Correct! We are not willing to pay more than three times the money to get a product that is not crap. We are willing to pay more, but don't tell me that some rubber, a watertight plastic seal, and a thicker metal case is worth $2500. It isn't.
If they can sell me this highly advanced modern technological marvel for $1500, I'm sure they can sell me a reasonable-quality case for less than $1500. I would expect to pay far less than $500 for that! And that includes profits for producers, brand-name owners, adverticing agencies, importers, and retailers.
And no, I don't own a laptop. A flimsy $1500 would do me no good. And I don't have $4000 to spend on a product I don't absolutely need.
Well, it's true that a large part of the market, really wants flimsy products that they can upgrade each time someone produces a new flimsy product with other useless features. However, that isn't the entire market. A large number of us just wants something that works. The problem is that there aren't enough of us to make it profitable to cater for this group. Or at least that's how the producers perceive us.
If the market wants pretty, Mac wouldn't have such a lowly marketshare compared to Dell. The market wants lots of different things. Some want something pretty. A lot of people want something cheap. Some wants it to be sturdy. Some wants it to be portable. Some wants it to be sturdy and portable. Some wants it to be sturdy and portable and pretty. (And we all want it to be sturdy and portable and pretty and cheap, but realize we don't get that).
The thing is, the market doesn't seem to respond to peoples wishes. For a long time, you could only buy beige pc-cases. Even though people were willing to pay extra for pretty. Now you can't buy sturdy phones, even though some of us are willing to pay extra for sturdy.
5 pounds isn't excessive for some people. If it was a satellite phone so you could use it across the globe, I can guarantee you would sell more than a few, especially if it also was watertight, bearproof, etc... For urban environments, where replacements are easily available, I doubt it would sell much.
I want to keep my cell phone for more than 1 or 2 years. My phone is used mostly as a, duh, phone! I don't want or need better cameras, more storage, nicer design (although smaller is cool), or any of the other stupid features they try to sell us.
If my phone fails, I will loose my contact list. I will loose various notes to myself, and SMS-messages I have stored on it. I probably will have to live for a few days without a phone (or at least one day, as the battery needs charging). I will have to spend money on a new phone, most likely at a time where I don't need extra expenses. And so on...
Even if somebody gives me a new phone with new features, I don't want to switch. I know my old phone. I don't have to learn something new. I don't want to spend time transferring contact lists. And I don't need the new features. If I can make and receive calls and SMS, as well as keep my contact list, I'm happy.
If the manufacturers at least gave me an easy option to buy the same model, easily transfer data without fiddling, and a guarantee against failure and loss of data for e.g. a year, I might consider regularly replacing my cell-phone. But I see no reason why I have to upgrade.
I'm not shure what's most scary. The fact that a properly taken care of powerbook will only last 4 years, or the fact that you are happy with this. I have a pair of boots thats lasted me 4 years, used regularly for long hiking trips in rough terrain, wet terrain, rough and wet terrain, and so on... How many times can you jump on your powerbook? (Of course, the (modern) gore-tex liner lasted only a few months...)
My mothers old washing machine lasted 26 years before giving up. When I went and bought a new washing machine for myself 5 years ago, I was expecting it to last for at least 10 years. It lasted 3! And I'm single, have no kids, etc...
I've almost given up on cell-phones. Even if I buy one specifically marketed as sturdy (e.g. Nokia 514), it is almost guaranteed to fail within two years (usually within a year). I would be willing to pay a lot more to get a phone where I don't have to worry about random breakage any time I fall on it.
The thing with gadgets is, I'm not interested in "being careful" with them. I'm interested in getting something that works. If I buy a mobile phone, it's because I want to bring it with me to become mobile, not to keep it inside original packaging with temperatures between 15-25 celcius and low air humidity. If I buy a washing machine, I want it to wash my clothes, not randomly fail. If I buy a car, I want it to keep driving, not require expensive maintenance, and having expensive parts fail all the time. And if I buy a laptop, it should survive a little rain, being dropped on concrete, being dropped in salt water, having someone fall on it, etc, all common things happening to transportable items.
So how are you going to find out the migratory patterns of deep-sea squids unless you probe them? You certainly can't find out by doing a full-body scan. And I have great trouble to imagine what other ways can exist to do it in the future. Most likely, we will improve our wild-animal-probing technology to the point where we can monitor even more (heart-rate, body-chemistry, thoughts, etc...), rather than make probes old-fashioned.
We have already travelled to the moon. Travelling to mars is a political/economical problem, not a technological problem. Interplanetary travel is expensive, but not impossible. Interstellar travel is a bit harder, since we do not have the technology to build generational ships yet, but the voyager probe keeps on floating out there...
Organism analysis is a far way off. Look at modern psychology/psychiatry. Look at anything they teaches at the university if you study social science. Just like we can't predict the failure of communism from looking at DNA of humans, there's plenty of reason to assume the aliens want to give us anal probes.
Well, what I meant was that it's likely that our present technology wouldn't able to detect a transmission sent with technology from a few thousand years in the future.
Of course, the interpretation you gave isn't impossible either. You have to know what to listen for, because the search space is too vast to simply find it by searching, signals too similar to random noise to find it by statistical techniques, and signal strength too low to find it that way...
Radio transmitters and receivers is certainly something we invented, not something we "discovered". We didn't go around in the forest and suddenly found a two-way CB-radio. Radio waves is a different matter, but I was talking about radio as used in human communication here, not the phenomenon of low-frequency electromagnetic waves. You should work on you ability to interpret things in context.
Why wouldn't they give us anal probes?
When we contact wild animals, we usually end up doing one of the following
If anything, we should expect our encounter with a more advanced alien species to be taking one of the above-mentioned forms. Most likely they have encountered thousands of other civilizations, whereas it's our first. Our enthusiasm/fear/whatever is not going to be matched by theirs, who will view us as just another threat/resource/study-object to be oblitered/taken-advantage-of/studied.
Unless they are "virgins" themselves, having met few or no other alien civilization(s), I expect there to be little chance they are interested in just talking with us, respecting us, exchanging technology, etc. Certainly we don't do that ourselves when we encounter new species on earth.
10,000 lightyears? Assuming each civilization spreads out in every direction, then they only need, say 50,000 years to meet at the middle, if they spread out at 10% of the speed of light. I think it's safe to say they will meet.
You don't need to start worrying about being able to "detect signals" when they land in your front yard, or you in theirs!
I wouldn't call stop using electromagnetic waves as killing yourself off. Besides, even on earth, our radio transmissions becomes more and more difficult to detect. Our transmissions look more and more like noise, heavily compressed digital data. Instead of AM and FM, we increasingly use more obscure technologies, even multiband. And we use lower power in our transmissions. Add a few thousand years to that, and I doubt we would be able to detect ourselves.
Also, radio is a pretty recent invention. It's not something humanity has depended upon for millenia. If we are still using radio in 5000 years, you might have a point. As of now, I don't think it's completely unthinkable that we will invent something better. Perhaps as a result of finally finding a grand unified theory in physics, or something else way longer down the road. Remember, the perspectives we are talking about in cosmic scale is billions of years. Here we keep complaining that progress in AI, fusion, string theory, etc is slow because nothing has happened in 50 years.
That, at least, is for sure!
And what if the chance is 1? So far, we have only briefly landed a few probes on the moon and mars. Certainly not enough to conclusively say that there is not life there.
Basically, we lack statisical data. When both "we are the only place in the universe with life", and "life is everywhere in the universe" is a reasonable position to have in a debate about the issue, the whole issue stops being science untill we gather more data. Three is more or less accepted as the minimum statistical significant number. Untill we have done real surveys at at least two other solar systems "similar" to our own, we have no reason beyond faith or wishful thinking to believe on thing or another.
This assumes that any sanctions against China will be more damaging to China, than to everyone else. Look at the fifteen items closest to you. How many of them are produced in China?
Because if they did that all the time, everyone would make the same mistake you just did. Now, it's just you!
I keep a phone in my pocket, not a cellphone, or personal communicator or mobile phone, or whatever. It's phone, period! The thing I call with at the office is also a "phone", but unlike most phones, it's a stationary phone.
Likewise, when I drive, I use a car. Not a motorized car. Not a passenger car, and certainly not an automobile. Or any other silly moniker for that matter. I'm aware "car" had other meanings 200 years ago. I don't care today.