It wouldn't change the paradox at all. It would just strengthen the idea of the "great filter" or whatever, that basically states the *reason* for the paradox isn't because we are unique. Instead, the reason is because something filters out practically every species before they are able to colonize past their planet. So if Kepler-186f were to be "teeming with intelligent life" then we'd most likely be observing them before they have been filtered out (killed off) by something.
The link to the great filter is actually a really good read.
Concentration of power is actually the only thing that would get us off this rock. We'd need a large and influential world government who has decided that we need to start investing in technology for colonization. The problem is that the people in power (and the people that put them there) couldn't care less about anything past their own generation.
This is exactly what I did months ago, when Netflix streaming quality suddenly went to shit after the last net neutrality ruling was made. Funny how that works.
I think the article brings to light something I had never even thought about. Lots of people here seem to be against it, but I can definitely how it would be an interesting and important choice to have to make.
Ban any account that does it on the first action. It's not like they don't have server and chat logs to look into this kind of thing, so verification would be pretty trivial. And for those who falsely accuse people of trolling and griefing, well that would get tracked as well. Banned.
It wouldn't take long for people to either change their behavior or move to another game. But that second option is exactly the reason why companies don't really want to fix the problem.
Can it be efficiently powered, though? It always seemed like the power draw was the main issue with these kinds of guns, effectively limiting them to a few shots.
Not every company -- not even every tech company -- has an internal culture that's so tightly influenced by the idea of "openness" or whatever. He'll certainly have trouble finding work with many tech companies, but his stance could very well open doors to other companies that agree with his views.
Having said that, actions have consequences. And the actions of those with his kind of influence often have even greater consequences than the rest of us. It's the whole "with great power comes great responsibility" thing.
Why isn't this just Win 8.2? Has there been any official explanation for the weird version system they are using now? I though they were specifically moving away from the "service pack" model, but what did we really get it replaced with?
They didn't get rid of him over it. He left because the drama was a huge distraction for the company. At some point, everyone realized that it's best to part ways rather than try and stick with an obviously toxic relationship. The situation being unfair or unjustified is irrelevant at that point.
Many, many resignations are just thinly-disguised firings. That's nothing new. They couldn't fire him over it, but he also knows that he'd burn way too many corporate bridges by fighting it. By resigning, they get to move on from the drama, he gets a chunk or all of whatever golden parachute they work out, and he doesn't get hit with a corporate reputation for dragging companies through the mud; something that's way more harmful to his resume than any political or moral affiliation.
It's the same thing when some top-level government official resigns. They were basically fired, but everyone understands that it's important to keep the impression that things are running smoothly and everyone is copasetic.
And without any additional context, you could argue that child porn or horse porn is also perfectly legal, due to free speech. Fortunately, free speech only goes so far in terms of justifying certain actions.
Next time, they'll just snoop through the email and, when they have all the evidence they need, they'll forward it to the law enforcement with details on "possible suspects" that can be used to request search warrants for...
The Malaysian government has mishandled communication from the start. I think they just want this whole thing over and done with. The ones in power over there aren't exactly used to being criticized like this.
What I do is first ask my daughter if this is something the teacher covered in class. It usually is, and this will often get her explaining it enough to where she basically answers the problem on her own, much to her delight. At the same time, there's been a real shift in how math is being taught, and sometimes she'll have homework on stuff that hasn't been covered in class. The teacher (who seems to hate the system), says it's supposed to be an attempt at getting them to think about problems before formally being introduced to them, which I guess I can understand. But it still makes for very weird homework because she's always doubting herself over if it's something she should know or if it's just another mind game. Since I know pretty much anything her school can throw at me, especially with math, I can actually help her with it. But what about parents who wouldn't know? Or who read articles like this and are told to stay back?
Helping your children with homework doesn't have to mean solving the problems for them. It means communicating with them about what the problems mean, and get them thinking about it. Let them solve it, with your subtle encouragement. This article is giving some really shaky advice.
My experience must be unique then. I started losing my hair in my early twenties, so I've always looked about 10 years older than I am. Dying it was obviously not a solution. Still, I did OK with job interviews and never really had an issue getting jobs. Now that I have my own business, I still do OK getting new clients.
Age discrimination definitely exists, but I don't think it's across the board. As an employer, I'm far more put off by other things, like bad breath, horribly fucked up teeth, wrinkled clothing, stale cigarette smoke (or heavy menthol smell), or way too much cologne/perfume. For women, excessively revealing clothing is also annoying to see at an interview, because it comes off as tacky, and cheapens her value to me.
Yeah, but switching jobs "every year or so" is a bit extreme.
What I'm curious about is *why* he switched that frequently. It's easy to think or claim that it's for "competitive wages" or whatever, but I know a few people in the industry who are just difficult to deal with. They give decent first impressions, but start to wear out their welcome after 6 month, at which point the employment relationship becomes toxic. Then they start looking for another job, and the cycle starts over. These people always have reasons for why it didn't work out, or why it was a shitty company, but it becomes obvious for everyone around them that there is a definite pattern going on.
Maybe the OP is one of these types. Maybe his ability to give a great first impression is starting to wear out.
Slashdot Mirror
It wouldn't change the paradox at all. It would just strengthen the idea of the "great filter" or whatever, that basically states the *reason* for the paradox isn't because we are unique. Instead, the reason is because something filters out practically every species before they are able to colonize past their planet. So if Kepler-186f were to be "teeming with intelligent life" then we'd most likely be observing them before they have been filtered out (killed off) by something.
The link to the great filter is actually a really good read.
Concentration of power is actually the only thing that would get us off this rock. We'd need a large and influential world government who has decided that we need to start investing in technology for colonization. The problem is that the people in power (and the people that put them there) couldn't care less about anything past their own generation.
And this is one of the many reasons why the US really isn't a democracy.
Unfortunately, this kind of sums up every part of the US government.
This is exactly what I did months ago, when Netflix streaming quality suddenly went to shit after the last net neutrality ruling was made. Funny how that works.
You just saved me a ton of heartache, buddy. Thanks!
I've never heard of that either. I have heard of Survivorship Bias, however.
I can park just fine without an app. Not sure why this is even on here. Go blog that shit.
You underestimate the money people put into this "Free to Play" game. Not to mention the tracking of stats and achievements and other stuff.
I think the article brings to light something I had never even thought about. Lots of people here seem to be against it, but I can definitely how it would be an interesting and important choice to have to make.
Ban any account that does it on the first action. It's not like they don't have server and chat logs to look into this kind of thing, so verification would be pretty trivial. And for those who falsely accuse people of trolling and griefing, well that would get tracked as well. Banned.
It wouldn't take long for people to either change their behavior or move to another game. But that second option is exactly the reason why companies don't really want to fix the problem.
Can it be efficiently powered, though? It always seemed like the power draw was the main issue with these kinds of guns, effectively limiting them to a few shots.
Not every company -- not even every tech company -- has an internal culture that's so tightly influenced by the idea of "openness" or whatever. He'll certainly have trouble finding work with many tech companies, but his stance could very well open doors to other companies that agree with his views.
Having said that, actions have consequences. And the actions of those with his kind of influence often have even greater consequences than the rest of us. It's the whole "with great power comes great responsibility" thing.
Why isn't this just Win 8.2? Has there been any official explanation for the weird version system they are using now? I though they were specifically moving away from the "service pack" model, but what did we really get it replaced with?
They didn't get rid of him over it. He left because the drama was a huge distraction for the company. At some point, everyone realized that it's best to part ways rather than try and stick with an obviously toxic relationship. The situation being unfair or unjustified is irrelevant at that point.
Many, many resignations are just thinly-disguised firings. That's nothing new. They couldn't fire him over it, but he also knows that he'd burn way too many corporate bridges by fighting it. By resigning, they get to move on from the drama, he gets a chunk or all of whatever golden parachute they work out, and he doesn't get hit with a corporate reputation for dragging companies through the mud; something that's way more harmful to his resume than any political or moral affiliation.
It's the same thing when some top-level government official resigns. They were basically fired, but everyone understands that it's important to keep the impression that things are running smoothly and everyone is copasetic.
And without any additional context, you could argue that child porn or horse porn is also perfectly legal, due to free speech. Fortunately, free speech only goes so far in terms of justifying certain actions.
Which is exactly the point he was making...
Next time, they'll just snoop through the email and, when they have all the evidence they need, they'll forward it to the law enforcement with details on "possible suspects" that can be used to request search warrants for...
Fare more useful than nukes is Russia's veto capabilities, which prevents any meaningful punishment on a large scale.
What exactly does my cable bill give me then, if not access to services on the web?
The Malaysian government has mishandled communication from the start. I think they just want this whole thing over and done with. The ones in power over there aren't exactly used to being criticized like this.
What I do is first ask my daughter if this is something the teacher covered in class. It usually is, and this will often get her explaining it enough to where she basically answers the problem on her own, much to her delight. At the same time, there's been a real shift in how math is being taught, and sometimes she'll have homework on stuff that hasn't been covered in class. The teacher (who seems to hate the system), says it's supposed to be an attempt at getting them to think about problems before formally being introduced to them, which I guess I can understand. But it still makes for very weird homework because she's always doubting herself over if it's something she should know or if it's just another mind game. Since I know pretty much anything her school can throw at me, especially with math, I can actually help her with it. But what about parents who wouldn't know? Or who read articles like this and are told to stay back?
Helping your children with homework doesn't have to mean solving the problems for them. It means communicating with them about what the problems mean, and get them thinking about it. Let them solve it, with your subtle encouragement. This article is giving some really shaky advice.
My experience must be unique then. I started losing my hair in my early twenties, so I've always looked about 10 years older than I am. Dying it was obviously not a solution. Still, I did OK with job interviews and never really had an issue getting jobs. Now that I have my own business, I still do OK getting new clients.
Age discrimination definitely exists, but I don't think it's across the board. As an employer, I'm far more put off by other things, like bad breath, horribly fucked up teeth, wrinkled clothing, stale cigarette smoke (or heavy menthol smell), or way too much cologne/perfume. For women, excessively revealing clothing is also annoying to see at an interview, because it comes off as tacky, and cheapens her value to me.
Yeah, but switching jobs "every year or so" is a bit extreme.
What I'm curious about is *why* he switched that frequently. It's easy to think or claim that it's for "competitive wages" or whatever, but I know a few people in the industry who are just difficult to deal with. They give decent first impressions, but start to wear out their welcome after 6 month, at which point the employment relationship becomes toxic. Then they start looking for another job, and the cycle starts over. These people always have reasons for why it didn't work out, or why it was a shitty company, but it becomes obvious for everyone around them that there is a definite pattern going on.
Maybe the OP is one of these types. Maybe his ability to give a great first impression is starting to wear out.
Some people have the same problem with dating.