It's ironic in that no one knows what that word means, and the folks over at Kepler are driving themselves into a frenzy trying to find an earth analogue. They apparently missed one quite nearby.
I can't see why a modest improvement in our current technology, say the technology we'll have in 200 years would not allow this trip to be quite feasible at 0.10C, for a roundtrip of around half a millennia. And that's only about twice as long as our current government has lasted, and our culture has been around longer. Our descendants could look forward to the trip report. And assuming biology continues to advance, it might just be our great grandchildren welcoming those who return.
Well yes, it was pretty much built in to my claim that having humans in space for long enough for this to matter is at least 100 years away. I have my fingers crossed to be proved wrong on that, but I won't be holding my breath.
Actually, the far more likely solution is for us to adapt ourselves. Gene therapy to prevent bone loss or muscle atrophy is going to be utterly cheap compared to any solution that involves the design of the spaceship or spacesuit.
Constitution grants power to Congress grants power to FDA. Supreme Court affirms that this is the correct interpretation of the constitution, and they are the final arbiters. If you disagree, you're the one who is wrong, by definition.
You went awry with your analogy as soon as you considered how piracy diminished value to the owner. You need to rewrite your analogy in terms of how it affects the manufacturer. For example, instead of asking how the joyride scenario affects the owner, how does it affect Ford?
Not just operations, they only need to have sales in a country to care. (My current company has operations in 6 countries, but sales in something like 50... and we definitely have to care about the laws of all 50 if we want to continue to sell).
I completely disagree. While I do believe that every action is fundamentally self-interested (or, to be more precise, it is a combination of gene and meme interest), that's not the same as greedy, which was my point. Greedy is a highly specific strategy for achieving self-interest, but is by no means the optimal strategy.
Again, could you clarify what you're talking about? I don't recall making the claim of being a Google employee. I do make a humorous post once in a while, but it's not usually anything subtle that I'd expect someone to mistake in that way.
Self interest is the underlying motivation to participate in the economy. Greed is more of a strategy for doing so, and it's a pretty good one up to the point where thousands of little guys decide to do away with you.
Slashdot Mirror
If you really want to feel bad, go figure out how many days work it is for Warren Buffett to buy that unreachable estate.
It's ironic in that no one knows what that word means, and the folks over at Kepler are driving themselves into a frenzy trying to find an earth analogue. They apparently missed one quite nearby.
And so your claim is that you'd categorize them as life? Seems legit.
The good news is that if they are looking for oil, we've almost used all of it up, so conquering our planet won't do them much good. :-)
It better hope it doesn't eat you on the spot. The odds of our biologies not being cross-poisonous are low.
I can't see why a modest improvement in our current technology, say the technology we'll have in 200 years would not allow this trip to be quite feasible at 0.10C, for a roundtrip of around half a millennia. And that's only about twice as long as our current government has lasted, and our culture has been around longer. Our descendants could look forward to the trip report. And assuming biology continues to advance, it might just be our great grandchildren welcoming those who return.
Well yes, it was pretty much built in to my claim that having humans in space for long enough for this to matter is at least 100 years away. I have my fingers crossed to be proved wrong on that, but I won't be holding my breath.
It's hard to imagine how they could. Our current technology isn't close.
Actually, the far more likely solution is for us to adapt ourselves. Gene therapy to prevent bone loss or muscle atrophy is going to be utterly cheap compared to any solution that involves the design of the spaceship or spacesuit.
Troll? Go get 'em metamods.
Constitution grants power to Congress grants power to FDA. Supreme Court affirms that this is the correct interpretation of the constitution, and they are the final arbiters. If you disagree, you're the one who is wrong, by definition.
Sure, but it's all a matter of weighing which goal is more important.
Not quite clear on where the first amendment comes into it.
Oh, you'd obviously have to abolish corporate ownership of corporations while you were at it. Since corporations are people, that's slavery anyway.
In this particular case, that would seem to make the situation worse, right?
Forbidding corporations from growing larger than 50 people would clearly solve this problem.
I can't answer his argument, since I disagree with his premise.
Neither the fact that it is easy to pirate software, nor that we've caved on naming it piracy makes it wrong to pirate software and media.
You went awry with your analogy as soon as you considered how piracy diminished value to the owner. You need to rewrite your analogy in terms of how it affects the manufacturer. For example, instead of asking how the joyride scenario affects the owner, how does it affect Ford?
Not just operations, they only need to have sales in a country to care. ... and we definitely have to care about the laws of all 50 if we want to continue to sell).
(My current company has operations in 6 countries, but sales in something like 50
You're probably referring to this:
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2630894&cid=38762218
I didn't accept their offer.
I completely disagree. While I do believe that every action is fundamentally self-interested (or, to be more precise, it is a combination of gene and meme interest), that's not the same as greedy, which was my point. Greedy is a highly specific strategy for achieving self-interest, but is by no means the optimal strategy.
Again, could you clarify what you're talking about? I don't recall making the claim of being a Google employee. I do make a humorous post once in a while, but it's not usually anything subtle that I'd expect someone to mistake in that way.
Out of curiosity, what actions are you taking ... all the stuff you're worried about seems to have already happened.
Self interest is the underlying motivation to participate in the economy. Greed is more of a strategy for doing so, and it's a pretty good one up to the point where thousands of little guys decide to do away with you.