I know this because we know when in the galactic history our solar system and planet formed, and we know that happened for a lot of planets like the earth upwards of a billion years earlier. Those are just facts. If you want earth to be first with life, you have to explain why NONE of the hundreds of millions or billions of earth like planets that beat us in the formation race developed life. So far this is unexplained, other than as an extremely implausible statistical fluke.
Well, that assumes that the 99.999% are incapable of figuring out how to use technology to stop the 0.001% from killing too many. The evidence so far on that is quite bad: we've actually been very effective at stopping the loonies from killing any significant fraction of the population.
Yep, that's the unknown filter theory of the paradox. Something drives advanced, technologically capable civilizations extinct, and we have no idea what that is. Which is scary, because it implies it might be something that could happen to us at any moment.
Or that the probe has come and gone. Or that we're unable to identify it. Or that their technology has a limited lifetime like ours, and it broke down after operating for 100,000 years in our system, and they didn't care to replace it.
Re:How is the "Drake Equation" filling in so far?
on
Is the Earth Special?
·
· Score: 1
We actually don't know much about the frequency of non-gas-giant planets yet. Our methods for discovering them are pretty limited, so they may well exist in many more places than we have been able to detect them yet. I'd wait another 20 years before trying to characterize the percentage of stars with potentially habitable worlds.
I'm also not clear on why anyone would assume that a technological civilization cannot arise on a gas giant.
Was it a scientific fact, or a commonly held misconception? I mean, did people actually go out and measure the curvature over a long distance and get zero?
Re:so if we annihilate ourselves in nuclear holoca
on
Is the Earth Special?
·
· Score: 1
Technically, you need abstinence after marriage to avoid STDs as well.
Us being the first is extremely improbable, unless there are factors operating that we don't understand. That's really the core of the paradox, everything we understand about the rules so far suggests there should have been many thousands of technologically advanced civilizations by now, for none of them to have come to existence implies either an unbelievable extreme of luck on our part, or a filter factor operating that we don't understand.
Your mistake is in assuming that the starter gun fired at the same time for everyone. That isn't true, we're late to the game. Other planets finished forming and starting up their life engines more than a billion years before ours did. The question is, where are those folks? They should have had plenty of time to fill the galaxy by now.
The moon argument is probably the weakest. There's no obvious reason that would really be a significant impediment to life, life would just evolve more hardy to the climate fluctuation. More polar bears, less hairless apes.
Yeah, firefox needs to have a wider window between versions for plugins to catch up. To explain, the problem you are having is that some of your plugins (e.g. adobe pdf plugin) are not keeping up compatibility with the latest version of firefox, and are often lagging the release by 3-4 months, by which time people on auto-upgrade may have moved to yet the next version! This has put large numbers of people on semi-functional software, and is driving lots of people to chrome. You might almost believe that Google plants in the firefox development planning team were responsible, but that's impossible because it would be evil, and Google doesn't do any evil.
Small studies typically aim to have about 20 samples. Below 20 it gets much less likely that you'll have a significant finding. Going higher requires more work, which means more funding. Who is going to sink big money into research on vocal patterns? If this is something you are interested in, you have to squeeze it into a pretty tight budget.
I'd say we should skim (tax) to provide training. There are very few people who are biologically incapable of doing some kind of knowledge work, and even for that slim percentage, there are still plenty of jobs (plumbing/construction/etc) that we aren't even close to automating yet (and for which the path to automation is not even clear, so I'd expect those jobs to exist for decades to come at least).
Because stick thin models don't cause the clothes to wrinkle in odd ways that make them appear less attractive. They could obviously try to do the same with virtual fatter models, but I suspect the shadows and such would make it look even more wrong.
One could argue that porn stars are the women who aren't good looking enough to get a job modeling, and therefore have to have sex on camera for money.
Could it be perhaps that the store simply wanted a virtual human that they could pay for once, never have to pay residuals, and could be used eternally as their "face" without ever aging, getting pregnant, or changing ever?
Really, we live in pretty good times that this is the worst thing people have to complain about.
FWIW about a 0.12 second Google search finds hundreds if not thousands of girls who would look indistinguishably as perfect as the models shown. It clearly has nothing to do with "there's no human that looks that perfect".
I'd be curious what google search that would be. Because I can't think of a search that would tune out the 90+% of all images of women on the internet that are photoshopped to some degree.
Slashdot Mirror
Most gas giants are presumed to have a solid core. If for no other reason than condensing stuff that falls into their atmosphere.
I know this because we know when in the galactic history our solar system and planet formed, and we know that happened for a lot of planets like the earth upwards of a billion years earlier. Those are just facts. If you want earth to be first with life, you have to explain why NONE of the hundreds of millions or billions of earth like planets that beat us in the formation race developed life. So far this is unexplained, other than as an extremely implausible statistical fluke.
Well, that assumes that the 99.999% are incapable of figuring out how to use technology to stop the 0.001% from killing too many. The evidence so far on that is quite bad: we've actually been very effective at stopping the loonies from killing any significant fraction of the population.
FTL is in no way necessary for a technological civlization to fill the galaxy. Getting to 10% of C is plenty.
That's not particularly likely. Even among dna-earth life, the percentage of things we can eat is quite low. To imagine we could safely eat any alien?
Yep, that's the unknown filter theory of the paradox. Something drives advanced, technologically capable civilizations extinct, and we have no idea what that is. Which is scary, because it implies it might be something that could happen to us at any moment.
Or that the probe has come and gone. Or that we're unable to identify it. Or that their technology has a limited lifetime like ours, and it broke down after operating for 100,000 years in our system, and they didn't care to replace it.
We actually don't know much about the frequency of non-gas-giant planets yet. Our methods for discovering them are pretty limited, so they may well exist in many more places than we have been able to detect them yet. I'd wait another 20 years before trying to characterize the percentage of stars with potentially habitable worlds.
I'm also not clear on why anyone would assume that a technological civilization cannot arise on a gas giant.
Was it a scientific fact, or a commonly held misconception? I mean, did people actually go out and measure the curvature over a long distance and get zero?
Technically, you need abstinence after marriage to avoid STDs as well.
Us being the first is extremely improbable, unless there are factors operating that we don't understand. That's really the core of the paradox, everything we understand about the rules so far suggests there should have been many thousands of technologically advanced civilizations by now, for none of them to have come to existence implies either an unbelievable extreme of luck on our part, or a filter factor operating that we don't understand.
Your mistake is in assuming that the starter gun fired at the same time for everyone. That isn't true, we're late to the game. Other planets finished forming and starting up their life engines more than a billion years before ours did. The question is, where are those folks? They should have had plenty of time to fill the galaxy by now.
The moon argument is probably the weakest. There's no obvious reason that would really be a significant impediment to life, life would just evolve more hardy to the climate fluctuation. More polar bears, less hairless apes.
Almost certainly not. This kind of thing is almost universally funded privately by rich people who have eccentric interests.
Yeah, firefox needs to have a wider window between versions for plugins to catch up. To explain, the problem you are having is that some of your plugins (e.g. adobe pdf plugin) are not keeping up compatibility with the latest version of firefox, and are often lagging the release by 3-4 months, by which time people on auto-upgrade may have moved to yet the next version! This has put large numbers of people on semi-functional software, and is driving lots of people to chrome. You might almost believe that Google plants in the firefox development planning team were responsible, but that's impossible because it would be evil, and Google doesn't do any evil.
Her voice has a lot to do with her throat. How do you imagine she developed this skill? How do you want to imagine she developed this skill?
Interstate Highway 10 has 5 syllables. The 10 has two. Guess which is going to win?
Dropping 'the' to get down to just '10' is hard because there are typically both mileage and time uses of numbers in such conversations.
Small studies typically aim to have about 20 samples. Below 20 it gets much less likely that you'll have a significant finding. Going higher requires more work, which means more funding. Who is going to sink big money into research on vocal patterns? If this is something you are interested in, you have to squeeze it into a pretty tight budget.
That is entirely possible. Someone should recommend some good places to get started on rectifying that situation.
Sorry, I assumed you meant prostitution.
I'd say we should skim (tax) to provide training. There are very few people who are biologically incapable of doing some kind of knowledge work, and even for that slim percentage, there are still plenty of jobs (plumbing/construction/etc) that we aren't even close to automating yet (and for which the path to automation is not even clear, so I'd expect those jobs to exist for decades to come at least).
Yes, but if they were unaltered pictures of real people, some people could achieve it, rather than no people.
Because stick thin models don't cause the clothes to wrinkle in odd ways that make them appear less attractive. They could obviously try to do the same with virtual fatter models, but I suspect the shadows and such would make it look even more wrong.
One could argue that porn stars are the women who aren't good looking enough to get a job modeling, and therefore have to have sex on camera for money.
Could it be perhaps that the store simply wanted a virtual human that they could pay for once, never have to pay residuals, and could be used eternally as their "face" without ever aging, getting pregnant, or changing ever?
Really, we live in pretty good times that this is the worst thing people have to complain about.
FWIW about a 0.12 second Google search finds hundreds if not thousands of girls who would look indistinguishably as perfect as the models shown. It clearly has nothing to do with "there's no human that looks that perfect".
I'd be curious what google search that would be. Because I can't think of a search that would tune out the 90+% of all images of women on the internet that are photoshopped to some degree.