Discovery of extra-solar life would be exciting and novel, but as far as the fate of Humanity is concerned it wouldn't be terribly useful
It would be far more useful than any religion or political ideology has ever been in demonstrating the futility of internecine war and in encouraging the development of high technology.
That... doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. How is searching for evidence of life or the artifacts of a technological civilization outside of the purview of SETI? What Davies is saying nothing new. The only thing that is new is that we now have the technology to image extra-solar planets.
As for probabilities, a low probability is as much the result of Drake equation wankery as a high probability. The payoff is incalculably huge, the cost is relatively minor, so even an infinitesimal probability is good odds.
even just being afraid and try to "defend" ourselves from them (sad, but you never know what spin governments would put on a finding like that)
Government spin? That's the primary purpose for which we should be looking.
Where does this idea of the peaceful alien come from? There has never been mutual cooperation between civilizations or species competing for the same resources. Among civilizations, it has always resulted in destruction or subjugation of the less technologically advanced civilization. We need to be keeping our ears open and our mouths shut.
If you define "malware" to include naughty pictures taken by previous owners of supposedly "new" phones, then the answer is "all the freakin' time".
I keed. We all know that the employees at mobile phone outlet stores are all bright citizens of upstanding character who would never do anything immoral or illegal. They are, after all, the strongest link in the chain from manufacturer to customer.
It's also conspicuous that is one phone from one employee of company that is hawking its own anti-malware software.
Did they not even think of buying more phones to confirm it? Shouldn't they, you know, be helping the cops deal with it before they warn whoever put it there?
When people are trying to slander it. They're blaming everyone under the sun, when the most likely vector is a store employee who simply plugged the device into a computer and copied the file to the flash drive.
I don't consider the concepts non-viable, I consider the implementation non-viable. HTML + Javascript is the shiniest turd ever polished. You think HTML 5 will save you, but it will be your undoing. You will use it to kill Flash and then try to turn every website into a retarded Flash applet. You'll keep tripping over yourselves with the increasing complexity, burning money like you have the last five years, while native platforms adopt the "cloud" and the "app store", giving them the qualities which were the only reason web applications were ever compelling in the first place.
Bingo. I predict that in ten years we're going to feel the same way about "Web 2.0" as we do about 1970's fashion. And Facebook will have gone the way of AOL.
I thought they were for keeping dumb and inept teachers from getting fired. They're really tricky, covering all angles, making sure it is always their fault!
economic circumstance pretty much dictate where a child is going to go to school
And holy sheeit, do you actually believe this won't be compounded in every alternative to public education? Or are you going to parrot the "voucher" red herring, as if that would lower prices?
And yet other countries with public schools don't have our problems. The difference? Education and the teaching profession is respected in those countries.
Of course, we do have a system exactly like what you want in our universities. And there people complain about poor teachers who are generally paid well, because their metric for success is not educating students, but giving the school prestige to attract students in the first place. There students succeed in spite of poor teaching because the filtering has already occurred - the best schools have students who are already highly competent, self-motivated learners.
Because the boss in this context is the average taxpayer. And it is an easy way to provoke people by tweaking their conception of status as a measure of merit. In many careers, the "boss" skillset is far less scarce than the "employee" skillset, but for some reason people persist in believing it is wrong to pay the employee more.
I actually think it's pretty stupid to _not_ think that more qualified people will enter the field if their paid better.
Look at this thread. And Slashdot considers itself "smart".
This underscores the actual problem - the status anxiety endemic in American culture that drives people to devalue intelligence and education. People do not want evidence that their children will not be as successful as the smarter children, and they do not want their kids being taught by people smarter and more successful than themselves. They like teaching being a low status career, because it makes it easier for them to argue with teachers and blame them for their own and their children's failures.
Yes, if we figure out the magic equation that produces competent teachers, and we'll be able to apply it all the dim drones willing to work for a teacher's wages.
Let's do the same for programmers! And doctors! And stock traders! Think of the money we'll save!
You know the best way to break a union? Pay the better employees more than the lesser employees.
As long as you're unwilling to admit that the better employees should earn as much as, if not more than, their boss, you will always be under the union's heel, and rightfully so.
Slashdot Mirror
Discovery of extra-solar life would be exciting and novel, but as far as the fate of Humanity is concerned it wouldn't be terribly useful
It would be far more useful than any religion or political ideology has ever been in demonstrating the futility of internecine war and in encouraging the development of high technology.
That... doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. How is searching for evidence of life or the artifacts of a technological civilization outside of the purview of SETI? What Davies is saying nothing new. The only thing that is new is that we now have the technology to image extra-solar planets.
As for probabilities, a low probability is as much the result of Drake equation wankery as a high probability. The payoff is incalculably huge, the cost is relatively minor, so even an infinitesimal probability is good odds.
Can you justify that it isn't?
It's more fun than the lottery. Your turn.
even just being afraid and try to "defend" ourselves from them (sad, but you never know what spin governments would put on a finding like that)
Government spin? That's the primary purpose for which we should be looking.
Where does this idea of the peaceful alien come from? There has never been mutual cooperation between civilizations or species competing for the same resources. Among civilizations, it has always resulted in destruction or subjugation of the less technologically advanced civilization. We need to be keeping our ears open and our mouths shut.
Better not: they'd know that SETI is useless and a waste of money.
Can you justify that statement?
It works with Exchange. Microsoft is not going to run a BES. And Android is the one eating their lunch.
Only complaints I've heard are the crap that Sprint adds to their devices.
Android has a task manager? Where?
If you define "malware" to include naughty pictures taken by previous owners of supposedly "new" phones, then the answer is "all the freakin' time".
I keed. We all know that the employees at mobile phone outlet stores are all bright citizens of upstanding character who would never do anything immoral or illegal. They are, after all, the strongest link in the chain from manufacturer to customer.
It's also conspicuous that is one phone from one employee of company that is hawking its own anti-malware software.
Did they not even think of buying more phones to confirm it? Shouldn't they, you know, be helping the cops deal with it before they warn whoever put it there?
When people are trying to slander it. They're blaming everyone under the sun, when the most likely vector is a store employee who simply plugged the device into a computer and copied the file to the flash drive.
I don't consider the concepts non-viable, I consider the implementation non-viable. HTML + Javascript is the shiniest turd ever polished. You think HTML 5 will save you, but it will be your undoing. You will use it to kill Flash and then try to turn every website into a retarded Flash applet. You'll keep tripping over yourselves with the increasing complexity, burning money like you have the last five years, while native platforms adopt the "cloud" and the "app store", giving them the qualities which were the only reason web applications were ever compelling in the first place.
Bingo. I predict that in ten years we're going to feel the same way about "Web 2.0" as we do about 1970's fashion. And Facebook will have gone the way of AOL.
This one.
'cause they hate our freedoms!
The unions' standards are too high?
I thought they were for keeping dumb and inept teachers from getting fired. They're really tricky, covering all angles, making sure it is always their fault!
What percentage of subprime defaults were loans regulated by the CRA? What percentage did those defaults comprise of the total losses?
Go on, you're the anonymous expert, so I'm sure you have the answers, and I'm sure they will support your case.
economic circumstance pretty much dictate where a child is going to go to school
And holy sheeit, do you actually believe this won't be compounded in every alternative to public education? Or are you going to parrot the "voucher" red herring, as if that would lower prices?
And yet other countries with public schools don't have our problems. The difference? Education and the teaching profession is respected in those countries.
Of course, we do have a system exactly like what you want in our universities. And there people complain about poor teachers who are generally paid well, because their metric for success is not educating students, but giving the school prestige to attract students in the first place. There students succeed in spite of poor teaching because the filtering has already occurred - the best schools have students who are already highly competent, self-motivated learners.
Be careful what you wish for; "regulation" isn't the answer here, it's a big part of the problem.
Because nothing ever bad came from letting banks do whatever they want.
Because the boss in this context is the average taxpayer. And it is an easy way to provoke people by tweaking their conception of status as a measure of merit. In many careers, the "boss" skillset is far less scarce than the "employee" skillset, but for some reason people persist in believing it is wrong to pay the employee more.
I actually think it's pretty stupid to _not_ think that more qualified people will enter the field if their paid better.
Look at this thread. And Slashdot considers itself "smart".
This underscores the actual problem - the status anxiety endemic in American culture that drives people to devalue intelligence and education. People do not want evidence that their children will not be as successful as the smarter children, and they do not want their kids being taught by people smarter and more successful than themselves. They like teaching being a low status career, because it makes it easier for them to argue with teachers and blame them for their own and their children's failures.
Yes, if we figure out the magic equation that produces competent teachers, and we'll be able to apply it all the dim drones willing to work for a teacher's wages.
Let's do the same for programmers! And doctors! And stock traders! Think of the money we'll save!
You know the best way to break a union? Pay the better employees more than the lesser employees.
As long as you're unwilling to admit that the better employees should earn as much as, if not more than, their boss, you will always be under the union's heel, and rightfully so.
Idiot, that teacher was excelling at his job - bringing prestige to his employer in order to sucker in more customers.