More likely, they won't even notice. (I hope, personally, for the same reasons you posted).
I'd made a longer blog post about this, but basically, if we say the universe is 15b years old, and our solar system took about 5b years to get here where we are, and lets even assume that the first 5b years of the universe it was a unique period with nothing productive happening.
This would mean that it's possible there were civilizations where we are today, about 5b years ago.
Assuming it's going to be a relatively trivial 1000 years or so before we're all up in the stars, doing stuff, that means that such a civilization on the same timescale would have a 5b year head start.
Assuming they were only 1b years more advanced, that's the evolutionary distance between humans and the first multicellular life. Is there ANY signal an amoeba could send that would attract human attention? And what would our response be if we suddenly found some bacteria were trying to talk to us?
No, I can't imagine it would end well for the bacteria.
(This is also why I think the sci-fi canon of alien space empires slugging it out in space battleships is nonsensical; the odds that 2 such civilizations happened to evolve within a 'sporting' tech difference of say only a few hundred years is ludicrously small. The only way this happens is if a single race goes to space, and then fractures against itself.)
"For many years there was a feeling that the wonderful things on the web were going to dominate and we'd have a world with less conflict, more understanding, more and better science, and good democracy,"
Maybe that was just a dumb idea that came from a place of utter ignorance, like when you're a little kid and believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny?
Simply having that idea doesn't mean it was ever likely to happen.
I did smirk a little bit at an article about this where the (white, affluent, DISTANT) manager said that she had to be careful not too pay them too much to wreck the local economy.
I mean, I get it, on a superficial level she's right, but they're paying them $5 a day. I'm going to guess her bonus on not-paying-them-much has little to do with preserving the local economics.
....because Nairobi street kids are famously obese?
"...The scientists took a series of other factors into account, including gender, ethnicity and parental education, and think it is unlikely that variations in diet could explain the strong link found...."
I'd suspect confounding factors like poverty, urbanization, and THOSE impacts on peoples' diets in the early years of life (or the diets of their nursing mothers) before I'd point a finger at the trucks driving by.
Don't get me wrong, I think early childhood development is probably stunted by particulates, NOx, etc *particularly* from diesel vehicles, but I think this study is merely finding correlation.
I think the op conflates "should" with "can". Can it be your child's "friend"? Of course, for broad enough definitions of "friend" in the same way a teddy bear, an imagined companion, or a cloud CAN be a friend.
"Should" is a different question entirely. None of the above, save perhaps Teddy Ruxpin, is specifically designed to sell shit.
"the key weakness of competitive markets and capitalism - it breaks down when something we need is not economically viable to those able to provide it - without an economic incentive, why would they bother?"
Some people would consider that a key STRENGTH of capitalism: if a product/project is not self-sustaining economically, it's automatically de-prioritized by the actors in the market. It's a fundamental economic principle that "wants" are infinite; resources are not. Any investment in bringing high-speed internet to some western NoDak county with 14 people in it is going to mean some OTHER program has less resources - which today means more borrowing, with interest, from China/our future citizens, which is a bullshit that needs to end.
I live in a semi-rural area - a small town in Carver County, MN. The *best* high speed broadband we can get here is 80meg (and that's essentially just 2x 40meg lines) and pretty expensive. I make the conscious choice to live here knowing that yes, if I wanted to move even 20 minutes further into the MSP metro I could get gigabit service: it's not worth it.
I don't need/want the rest of the US taxpayers subsidizing Carver County to plunk down gigabit lines so I can watch more The Good Place faster, in 4k. If when population here grows to a point where it's economically viable, the carriers will come. (And I'll probably move further out.)
Note: this isn't meant to support/endorse the cable monopolies and the crony-capitalism with with the whole ISP industry is rife; that shit needs to be opened to actual competition.
Except that Milankovich *mostly* explains current warming, leaving hysterical ecomarxists only a slight residual amplification (the ACTUAL anthropogenic warming, presumably).
Since "the sky is falling and it's our fault" makes so much better headlines than "this particular sky was going to fall pretty much this way anyway, and what we as humans are doing *might* (we think) be making it slightly worse" I'll leave it to you which message is shouted the loudest in our culture.
...this smells to me a lot like the hypocritical fucks of the 1960s.
"We had free drugs, free sex, and demanded the world be nothing but peace love and happiness...but then once we started to grow up we realized 'oh shit there might be consequences to those shitty life choices' so we'll forbid them to our kids..."
...people do understand that a military IS a necessary thing for a country to have, right?
And that an unprepared, technologically outclassed military invites trouble?
I understand better than most how ridiculous our military-industrial complex is, chasing multi-bajillion dollar white elephants and $1200 coffee cups. But this (nor most of the righteous "how DARE they work for the military!?!?" indignance) doesn't seem to be a protest against wasteful or pork-barrel defense spending, it seems to be directed against ANY defense spending....making it particularly ironic when a bunch of zealots at Google threaten to quit over Google working for the Defense Dept of the US, yet seemingly soldier-on building China-compliant reporting, tracking, and filtering engines.
Or, we let whatever mechanism* act normally that has repeatedly reduced CO2 after the routinely-high peaks every 120k years for the last 3 million or so.
*my bet's on albedo - warming causes more evaporation causing more clouds raising the planet's albedo causing temps to fall.
I don't really think so. I think it's far more likely that this "brand Ambassador" was a brainless douche who IS too stupid to understand that no, you can't just do whatever you want once you sign a contract.
...it's going to be 2.1 gig d/l, require a credit card to sign in (we will never charge you, ever!), and gather every single personal data point resident on your system.
And still won't perform the basic function of playing mp3s as well as 2013 version.
As far as I'm aware, no; the tests are gross crash-related and damage-inflicted.
Then again, considering that some statistics show texting & driving now the cause of up to 25% of crashes (not sure I buy that, did car accidents increase +25% per driver mile since, say, 1995 before texting was a thing?) I don't think there's any shortage of 'potential driver distractions' in ANY driver environment.
While I'm not a Tesla zealot, I have to admit that 'safest car ever' is a pretty nice feather in their cap.
Slashdot Mirror
More likely, they won't even notice. (I hope, personally, for the same reasons you posted).
I'd made a longer blog post about this, but basically, if we say the universe is 15b years old, and our solar system took about 5b years to get here where we are, and lets even assume that the first 5b years of the universe it was a unique period with nothing productive happening.
This would mean that it's possible there were civilizations where we are today, about 5b years ago.
Assuming it's going to be a relatively trivial 1000 years or so before we're all up in the stars, doing stuff, that means that such a civilization on the same timescale would have a 5b year head start.
Assuming they were only 1b years more advanced, that's the evolutionary distance between humans and the first multicellular life. Is there ANY signal an amoeba could send that would attract human attention? And what would our response be if we suddenly found some bacteria were trying to talk to us?
No, I can't imagine it would end well for the bacteria.
(This is also why I think the sci-fi canon of alien space empires slugging it out in space battleships is nonsensical; the odds that 2 such civilizations happened to evolve within a 'sporting' tech difference of say only a few hundred years is ludicrously small. The only way this happens is if a single race goes to space, and then fractures against itself.)
"For many years there was a feeling that the wonderful things on the web were going to dominate and we'd have a world with less conflict, more understanding, more and better science, and good democracy,"
Maybe that was just a dumb idea that came from a place of utter ignorance, like when you're a little kid and believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny?
Simply having that idea doesn't mean it was ever likely to happen.
I did smirk a little bit at an article about this where the (white, affluent, DISTANT) manager said that she had to be careful not too pay them too much to wreck the local economy.
I mean, I get it, on a superficial level she's right, but they're paying them $5 a day. I'm going to guess her bonus on not-paying-them-much has little to do with preserving the local economics.
....because Nairobi street kids are famously obese?
"...The scientists took a series of other factors into account, including gender, ethnicity and parental education, and think it is unlikely that variations in diet could explain the strong link found...."
I'd suspect confounding factors like poverty, urbanization, and THOSE impacts on peoples' diets in the early years of life (or the diets of their nursing mothers) before I'd point a finger at the trucks driving by.
Don't get me wrong, I think early childhood development is probably stunted by particulates, NOx, etc *particularly* from diesel vehicles, but I think this study is merely finding correlation.
I think the op conflates "should" with "can".
Can it be your child's "friend"? Of course, for broad enough definitions of "friend" in the same way a teddy bear, an imagined companion, or a cloud CAN be a friend.
"Should" is a different question entirely.
None of the above, save perhaps Teddy Ruxpin, is specifically designed to sell shit.
It's always curious when someone gets raging butthurt over something and turns it into repeated ad hominems.
I always wonder "WTF is wrong with that guy?"
You're "that guy".
"the key weakness of competitive markets and capitalism - it breaks down when something we need is not economically viable to those able to provide it - without an economic incentive, why would they bother?"
Some people would consider that a key STRENGTH of capitalism: if a product/project is not self-sustaining economically, it's automatically de-prioritized by the actors in the market. It's a fundamental economic principle that "wants" are infinite; resources are not. Any investment in bringing high-speed internet to some western NoDak county with 14 people in it is going to mean some OTHER program has less resources - which today means more borrowing, with interest, from China/our future citizens, which is a bullshit that needs to end.
I live in a semi-rural area - a small town in Carver County, MN. The *best* high speed broadband we can get here is 80meg (and that's essentially just 2x 40meg lines) and pretty expensive. I make the conscious choice to live here knowing that yes, if I wanted to move even 20 minutes further into the MSP metro I could get gigabit service: it's not worth it.
I don't need/want the rest of the US taxpayers subsidizing Carver County to plunk down gigabit lines so I can watch more The Good Place faster, in 4k. If when population here grows to a point where it's economically viable, the carriers will come. (And I'll probably move further out.)
Note: this isn't meant to support/endorse the cable monopolies and the crony-capitalism with with the whole ISP industry is rife; that shit needs to be opened to actual competition.
Except that Milankovich *mostly* explains current warming, leaving hysterical ecomarxists only a slight residual amplification (the ACTUAL anthropogenic warming, presumably).
Since "the sky is falling and it's our fault" makes so much better headlines than "this particular sky was going to fall pretty much this way anyway, and what we as humans are doing *might* (we think) be making it slightly worse" I'll leave it to you which message is shouted the loudest in our culture.
...this smells to me a lot like the hypocritical fucks of the 1960s.
"We had free drugs, free sex, and demanded the world be nothing but peace love and happiness...but then once we started to grow up we realized 'oh shit there might be consequences to those shitty life choices' so we'll forbid them to our kids..."
...people do understand that a military IS a necessary thing for a country to have, right?
And that an unprepared, technologically outclassed military invites trouble?
I understand better than most how ridiculous our military-industrial complex is, chasing multi-bajillion dollar white elephants and $1200 coffee cups. But this (nor most of the righteous "how DARE they work for the military!?!?" indignance) doesn't seem to be a protest against wasteful or pork-barrel defense spending, it seems to be directed against ANY defense spending. ...making it particularly ironic when a bunch of zealots at Google threaten to quit over Google working for the Defense Dept of the US, yet seemingly soldier-on building China-compliant reporting, tracking, and filtering engines.
Or, we let whatever mechanism* act normally that has repeatedly reduced CO2 after the routinely-high peaks every 120k years for the last 3 million or so.
*my bet's on albedo - warming causes more evaporation causing more clouds raising the planet's albedo causing temps to fall.
I don't really think so.
I think it's far more likely that this "brand Ambassador" was a brainless douche who IS too stupid to understand that no, you can't just do whatever you want once you sign a contract.
I mean, duh.
Who said that I exonerated anyone?
OP claimed the GOP were a death cult, I pointed out that the Dems have their own windows.
That doesn't excuse ANYONE.
L2READ. Dipshit.
Democrats are pushing 700,000 abortions a year. I'd be careful where you're swinging that "death cult" moniker.
...and let me know why I'd possibly replace the nice little old winamp that I STILL USE?
You know there's a difference between a TRADE deficit, and the budget deficit, right?
...this assumes there IS a meaningful difference.
...it's going to be 2.1 gig d/l, require a credit card to sign in (we will never charge you, ever!), and gather every single personal data point resident on your system.
And still won't perform the basic function of playing mp3s as well as 2013 version.
Just sayin'. Not accusing anyone of anything legally.
Maybe they could co-brand with Kleenex?
"I see your depression score is above 21, click here to order a box of tissue."
This guy's up there with EGG and Arneson as one of the luminaries of the RPG world.
I made his acquaintance a few times, and we exchanged emails on a few subjects as I did some artwork for one of his products.
One of the most open, generous, kind men I've ever met.
RIP Greg.
While I really admire their parking ticket and flight refund finder....I'm not so high on this one.
Yes, because the ability to sue people at the press of an app button is what our legal system needed.
As far as I'm aware, no; the tests are gross crash-related and damage-inflicted.
Then again, considering that some statistics show texting & driving now the cause of up to 25% of crashes (not sure I buy that, did car accidents increase +25% per driver mile since, say, 1995 before texting was a thing?) I don't think there's any shortage of 'potential driver distractions' in ANY driver environment.
While I'm not a Tesla zealot, I have to admit that 'safest car ever' is a pretty nice feather in their cap.
Good thing they finally turned up the hysterics, because that's certainly more convincing.
...that an exec could just say "You don't like it? Fuck off and do your jobs, or quit."
Or, is turnabout ok? Can execs start firing staff that express politics they don't personally agree with? Would everyone be ok with that?