Logically, the encounter between us and a more advanced society would be less like "Indians and Columbus" and more like "single-celled bacteria and humans".
Assuming the universe is ~15bn years, and the earth's existence to-date (including the evolution of our stellar system, and the giant star from whose planetary nebula we formed) took about 6bn years to evolve from essentially nothing, that means that a more advanced civilization could be anywhere from 0 to 9bn years ahead of us. Let's assume conservatively they're "only" a billion or two years ahead.
On earth 2bn years ago we were in the age of multicellular microorganisms.
So my guess is that they won't even notice us, nor we really even comprehend them, much less "try to communicate".
It's entirely possible that things we've rationalized away, that we simply don't really understand, may be the result of their activity on an incomprehensible scale. When some bored pre-sociopathic kid steps on an anthill, do they have great elaborate ant-scientist rationales for "tectonic migration" to rationally explain why the catastrophe?
A more or less open, liberal internet. If China, or Russia, or whomever doesn't like it, they'll fork it? And how does handing control to an organization even more prone to bribery, compulsion, and control by inimical governments in any way ensure that the system remains open? If they "don't like it" that much, they'd fork it anyway. All your proposal does is allow them the opportunity to control the whole thing, not their fork. Simply, that's bullshit.
If someone doesn't like something, you don't GIVE THEM THE OPTION TO CONTROL IT in order to preserve it. That's colossally dumb.
Arbitrarily constraining things IS utterly anticapitalist. Setting a surcharge on things that more accurately reflects the tragedy of the commons (ie, if you ship electronics overseas, and we know that the prices charged for disposal there are not reflective of the long-term environmental damage) would be the capitalist response, not just a ban by fiat.
Then capitalists can choose their solution based on economic priorities, and meanwhile accurately price their goods to consumers to bear that additional fair disposal costs.
I love the fact that he's at least thinking big, about using his $billions for big, long term stuff that sure, might make him piles of cash but would also seriously advance humanity.
OTOH, I'm just sort of afraid he's either not totally serious or tons of people are going to die going along with his ideas....not because of THEM (if they volunteer, that's their choice) but because it would then set such projects back so far they'll never happen.
How hard did Elon fuck this guy's company that he comes out with this publicly?
My guess is this company said "you can't really do what you're trying to do with our stuff", Elon said 'make it work or else' and then implemented the 'or else' when they either failed or declined.
They're a sovereign country. They can do things like that. They can throw people in jail for not liking Putin. Hell, they can *kill* millions of their population, and still have dilettante western actors remonstrate angrily that there's nothing wrong with Socialism.
You seem to have forgotten that the internet we have is what it is because it's CURRENTLY being run by an enlightened Western society. Has the US/NSA/etc pulled some dirty sneaky shit while running it? Yep. Do you think they (or anyone else) is going to STOP trying to pull dirty, sneaky shit because it's run from ICANN? (Seriously, do you?) Finally, do you think the ability (for most) to pull dirty sneaky shit will be harder or easier run by ICANN than run by the US?
Handing it to an international "independent" organization doesn't guarantee anything except increased costs, cronyism, and non-enlightened dictatorships then get a say in how it's run. Saudi Arabia led the UN Human Rights Council because it was "their turn". What's in store for the internet when China puts its hand on the tiller of ICANN? Will the internet be better or worse?
" the technology companies said it was "imperative" that Congress does not delay the transition"
I can't think of a better reason to delay the transition, than giant multinational tech corps are insisting "it's the best possible thing".
Let's remember that as venal, stupid, and parochial as the US Congress is, they at least have a *purported* interest in the greatest good for the public. Twitter? Facebook? Google? None of them even have that, aside from the crocodile-tears of social responsibility their multi-jillionaire founders occasionally shed between their fleet of private jets and their nine-figure homes.
Please, let me know when you are aware of a "Capitalist" system? Because what we have ISN'T CAPITALISM.
Think about it: - the subprime crisis happened for a number of reasons, but one of the primary ones was that 3 rating agencies have had the blessing in federal law since what, the 1920s(?) to be the "official" rating companies. Without that benediction, investors would have to actually scour the marketplace for reliable sources of information which would THEMSELVES be proven by market-testing over time. - rather than have an FDA telling us all what to eat and what not to eat (which is apparently entirely bought and paid for by corporate interests) people would have to actually figure it.
The question is, which is better: a central "authority" that is corruptible and can be co-opted, or NO authority, forcing people to figure shit out for themselves?
I understand the current mantra is "hire more vaginas!", but women have a lower incidence of autism, so how ever will they choose which disability to cater to?
Slashdot Mirror
...than the ACTUAL sitting US president bargaining away missile defense?
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
...that there's ANOTHER reason the "internet of things" is a stupid idea.
Logically, the encounter between us and a more advanced society would be less like "Indians and Columbus" and more like "single-celled bacteria and humans".
Assuming the universe is ~15bn years, and the earth's existence to-date (including the evolution of our stellar system, and the giant star from whose planetary nebula we formed) took about 6bn years to evolve from essentially nothing, that means that a more advanced civilization could be anywhere from 0 to 9bn years ahead of us. Let's assume conservatively they're "only" a billion or two years ahead.
On earth 2bn years ago we were in the age of multicellular microorganisms.
So my guess is that they won't even notice us, nor we really even comprehend them, much less "try to communicate".
It's entirely possible that things we've rationalized away, that we simply don't really understand, may be the result of their activity on an incomprehensible scale. When some bored pre-sociopathic kid steps on an anthill, do they have great elaborate ant-scientist rationales for "tectonic migration" to rationally explain why the catastrophe?
Bullshit.
A more or less open, liberal internet. If China, or Russia, or whomever doesn't like it, they'll fork it? And how does handing control to an organization even more prone to bribery, compulsion, and control by inimical governments in any way ensure that the system remains open? If they "don't like it" that much, they'd fork it anyway. All your proposal does is allow them the opportunity to control the whole thing, not their fork.
Simply, that's bullshit.
If someone doesn't like something, you don't GIVE THEM THE OPTION TO CONTROL IT in order to preserve it. That's colossally dumb.
...they save the money shot until the end:
"there is no timeframe as to when the technology will be deployed in real networks"
Arbitrarily constraining things IS utterly anticapitalist.
Setting a surcharge on things that more accurately reflects the tragedy of the commons (ie, if you ship electronics overseas, and we know that the prices charged for disposal there are not reflective of the long-term environmental damage) would be the capitalist response, not just a ban by fiat.
Then capitalists can choose their solution based on economic priorities, and meanwhile accurately price their goods to consumers to bear that additional fair disposal costs.
You need to read a little Bastiat.
Except...it IS worth mockery.
http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?D...
They're trying to patent a paper bag with handles.
Please, if I'm missing some stunning new Apple magic here, let me know.
Curious that you wave a capitalist flag but then insist as a precondition on a strongly-anti-capitalist ban on exports.
I love the fact that he's at least thinking big, about using his $billions for big, long term stuff that sure, might make him piles of cash but would also seriously advance humanity.
OTOH, I'm just sort of afraid he's either not totally serious or tons of people are going to die going along with his ideas....not because of THEM (if they volunteer, that's their choice) but because it would then set such projects back so far they'll never happen.
How hard did Elon fuck this guy's company that he comes out with this publicly?
My guess is this company said "you can't really do what you're trying to do with our stuff", Elon said 'make it work or else' and then implemented the 'or else' when they either failed or declined.
We don't need Guccifer for that, because (for both Dems and Republicans) the answer is "nearly all of them".
They're a sovereign country. They can do things like that. They can throw people in jail for not liking Putin. Hell, they can *kill* millions of their population, and still have dilettante western actors remonstrate angrily that there's nothing wrong with Socialism.
You seem to have forgotten that the internet we have is what it is because it's CURRENTLY being run by an enlightened Western society. Has the US/NSA/etc pulled some dirty sneaky shit while running it? Yep. Do you think they (or anyone else) is going to STOP trying to pull dirty, sneaky shit because it's run from ICANN? (Seriously, do you?)
Finally, do you think the ability (for most) to pull dirty sneaky shit will be harder or easier run by ICANN than run by the US?
Handing it to an international "independent" organization doesn't guarantee anything except increased costs, cronyism, and non-enlightened dictatorships then get a say in how it's run.
Saudi Arabia led the UN Human Rights Council because it was "their turn".
What's in store for the internet when China puts its hand on the tiller of ICANN? Will the internet be better or worse?
Brilliant plan!
Then I hope you don't bitch when those agencies are co-opted and give you bogus information.
I agree, in theory, should be objective repositories of information but a single point source of information is a single point of failure, too.
" the technology companies said it was "imperative" that Congress does not delay the transition"
I can't think of a better reason to delay the transition, than giant multinational tech corps are insisting "it's the best possible thing".
Let's remember that as venal, stupid, and parochial as the US Congress is, they at least have a *purported* interest in the greatest good for the public. Twitter? Facebook? Google? None of them even have that, aside from the crocodile-tears of social responsibility their multi-jillionaire founders occasionally shed between their fleet of private jets and their nine-figure homes.
I don't think you really understand how corporations work.
Please, let me know when you are aware of a "Capitalist" system?
Because what we have ISN'T CAPITALISM.
Think about it:
- the subprime crisis happened for a number of reasons, but one of the primary ones was that 3 rating agencies have had the blessing in federal law since what, the 1920s(?) to be the "official" rating companies. Without that benediction, investors would have to actually scour the marketplace for reliable sources of information which would THEMSELVES be proven by market-testing over time.
- rather than have an FDA telling us all what to eat and what not to eat (which is apparently entirely bought and paid for by corporate interests) people would have to actually figure it.
The question is, which is better: a central "authority" that is corruptible and can be co-opted, or NO authority, forcing people to figure shit out for themselves?
...like Niggardly? ...or Pussy (as in pusillanimous)?
Because nobody's ever figured out how to get around filters before.
That looks like a deadly place for a fragile little rover.
The slate (?) shelves look like they're collapsing constantly.
I understand the current mantra is "hire more vaginas!", but women have a lower incidence of autism, so how ever will they choose which disability to cater to?
Well, I'd point out that until 2008, it was ENTIRELY a Democratic plank to reduce the amount of money in politics.
I wonder what changed in 2008?
You can't seriously believe that, can you?
You're asserting that some middling engineer-manager came up with this strategy entirely on his own? Failed to share it with his management?
Yeah.
...I'll believe someone's getting punished when SENIOR MANAGEMENT is seeing jail time or fines in excess of several years' pay.
Hauling one nearly-retired engineer up in the dock doesn't mean shit.
...this should certainly reduce the amount of money in politics.
...isn't this obvious?
I thought it was clear that the further you look, you're ultimately looking back in time.
Look far enough, and you could see the beginning point of the universe, no matter which direction you look.
Carl Sagan seemed pretty clear about that in the science shows of the 1970s.
25000 miles sounds like a lot, but all the geo-stationary satellites (50+) are just about that high at about 22000 mi.