The form factor is perfect for: - Reading books/blocks of text/PDFs - Watching media - Calendar/Scheduling - Mail Reading (and light replying) - Light web browsing - Puzzle/Word games
All of the above can be done on phones or laptops, but the 7-10" screen is pretty much the sweet spot for reading and watching media alone (or for two). It will hold it's place, but I think the market for higher priced versions will decline. I had no problem dropping $200 on a Nexus 7, but when I see $500-700 for an iPad I start to think twice.
“As Attorney General, my job is to defend consumers, ensure truth in advertising, and make sure all businesses are playing by the rules,” Ferguson said in a statement. “My office identified that T-Mobile was failing to disclose a critical component of their new plan to consumers, and we acted quickly to stop this practice and protect consumers across the country from harm.”
Of all the things to harp on... makes you wonder what impact Verizon and AT&T lobbyists might have had on this...
The distinction is fairly clear... the "No Contract" refers to the cell phone service. Of course if you buy the hardware on credit then you are expected to fulfill your agreed payments--all of which is part of a credit contract.
I wonder if all they'll need to do is start saying "No Contract for Service" or something idiotic like that.
Given all the BS we've seen come from VZ and AT&T when it comes to claims of fastest network, most reliable, 4G vs. not, "unlimited", etc... you'd think the AG would have better things to do.
Back in 2005 Roku designed their streaming media box specifically to stream Netflix content... for at least a couple of years Netflix was the only content available on it.
I was part of one of the original focus groups while it was in development and it was plainly clear from the questions and marketing materials that this device was for Netflix only to start... it's only the last several years they've added Amazon Instant Video and other "channels".
As most recent parent you mentioned, it was brilliance on the part of Netflix to avoid having their own branded hardware. This paved the way for many device manufacturers to include support w/o facing competition from Netflix itself. When you buy a TV or Bluray player today and it includes Netflix support you are far more likely to subscribe vs. if you had to buy your own hardware from Netflix.
Amazon is creating a hassle for themselves... just like they have done by not producing an Android app for their streaming video (because it would compete with their Kindle). I don't want Amazon content on my Nexus 7 specifically because of this, and you'd better believe that it does influence my decision to buy Amazon content.
How about we let artificial people decide?...seriously though, we need a "Sarcastic" mod because there is no way that letting people decide who works and who does what they want will ever be a success long term, it will become corrupted, and even if not it will be filled with jealousy.
Wow, seems like a nice guy. Seems like those asshole bosses that never understand what you do and make you work in McGuyver condition (not enough server, no license to the tool you need, no test, develop on prod,...) but blame you you when you fail and even blame you if by luck you succeed.
Haven't you heard? --
- Success is due to leadership (i.e. executives)
- Failure is due to execution (i.e. engineers and to a lesser degree middle managers / marketing / sometimes sales).
Let's say you got drunk at a bar and were arrested for disorderly conduct. This could have happened years ago, maybe in college and now you're a totally responsible person in your 30s. Would it be right for someone to follow you for your entire life around and every time someone started to say your name this other person would pop out and shout out "...GOT DRUNK AT A BAR AND ARRESTED FOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT!!"... No it sucks. But that's the technological equivalent of what Google is (probably inadvertently) doing.
Just because it's true doesn't mean Google, or anyone else, has a right to go around repeatedly telling people about it in perpetuity.
Let's say you got drunk at a bar and were arrested for disorderly conduct. This could have happened years ago, maybe in college and now you're a totally responsible person in your 30s. Would it be right for someone to follow you for your entire life around and every time someone started to say your name this other person would pop out and shout out "...GOT DRUNK AT A BAR AND ARRESTED FOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT!!"... No it sucks. But that's the technological equivalent of what Google is (probably inadvertently) doing.
Maybe he'd be better off paying for some news-worthy publicity for his surgery to alter his results, or contact the papers and have them revise their wording?
...yeah that won't eventually evolve into a tidy form of blackmail will it?
All your negative bullshit ends up in the search engines so that you'll be willing to pay for something positive to try to offset it all...
After all, if some kid spray-painted "ANONYMOUS COWARD SUCKS!!" on your house, you'd sue the building contractor who constructed the wall that got tagged with the kid's message, right?
No... but let's say a newspaper took a picture of that wall.
Now every time someone types "Anonymous" into the newpaper's news story search engine they automatically bring up "ANONYMOUS COWARD SUCKS!!" and maybe even show me a preview thumbnail of that picture. You can argue they are simply re-printing the news story, but if they are doing each time someone starts a search they are directing people to that information. These future searchers may not otherwise care to search for that story or those terms, but it's now been put in their face and they are likely to "dig deeper" which in this case is conveniently shallow thanks to newspaper's auto complete algorithm..
This is the crux of the argument--is it right for Google to ASSUME you will want to know about this man's bankruptcy when you start to type his name?...and what sort of a liability should Google have, if any, for their technology repeatedly associating this man with bankruptcy to people who begin to search for him?
Let's say you got drunk at a bar and were arrested for disorderly conduct. This could have happened years ago, maybe in college and now you're a totally responsible person in your 30s. Would it be right for someone to follow you for your entire life around and every time someone started to say your name this other person would pop out and shout out "...GOT DRUNK AT A BAR AND ARRESTED FOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT!!"... No it sucks. But that's the technological equivalent of what Google is (probably inadvertently) doing.
I don't see how it's either, since auto-complete is based on what people are entering as search terms. It's the result of an algorithm, not a human. Algorithms have no sense of morality, they just do what they're told.
So... "Guy Hingston bankrupt" searches are manually entered a few times.
Now the the next few people who start to type in "Guy Hingston..." will see Google's algorithm auto-complete that with "...bankrupt"; it's likely that out of curiosity they will now search for those terms together. At this point from the algorithms point of view a "human" is searching for that complete set of terms, so the algorithm is reinforced to auto-complete "Guy Hingston..." with "...bankrupt" to more people...
It should be obvious how Google's algorithm for auto-complete can direct humans to search for "specific terms" that they might otherwise not think to search for simply because Google is suggesting them.
This is a very handy feature, but it can also be powerfully useful for both good purpose and negative purposes, whether intentionally done or not.
Google in effect, through their algorithm, can make certain searches appear in either favorable or detrimental lights. In this case a surgeon is being associated with bankruptcy--both his own and his former company.
I don't know if this is worthy of being called liable and slander, but it's at least lousy. I don't doubt that this is not intentional on Google's part, but their algorithm may be unintentionally damaging this man's reputation, and in that case I think they do hold some fault.
I also understand that MRSA (a very serious, and potentially lethal bacteria, if untreated) has been brought on by over sanitization. That's what makes MRSA so serious. It resists almost all antibiotic treatments. Studies have been coming out showing where hospitals that are not as clean have lower rates of MRSA infection.
Let's not mix vaccination with overuse of antibiotics... these are two completely different concepts and mechanisms.
With vaccination you are exposed to weakened, or dead, version of the current virus strain... your body attacks it and produces a level of immunity to it so that when you encounter live, stronger, versions of it in your daily life, your body already has a head start in winning the fight. Vaccination doesn't compromise your bodies ability to fight off infection, nor does it necessarily promote mutation and growth of strong viruses...
With antibiotics you are taking about killing off bacteria... if you do a half-assed job of it, you end up killing the weaker bacteria leaving the field open for the stronger ones... some of the surviving bacteria may have survived simply because they are immune to whatever agent you used to kill the others--now that bacteria will be reproducing in greater numbers than it would have otherwise done because it has less competition... this especially true inside the body where not completing the full course of antibiotics may leave antibiotic resistant bacteria alive (and reproducing) inside of you...
the vast, vast, vast majority simply get vaccinated when required. when it's optional, like the flu shot typically is, people make a judgement based on whether they think they'll need it ("I'm young and healthy, I'll take my chances"), or are afraid of needles ("I'd rather be sick for a week then get a shot"), or just don't have the time ("I'll do it next week"... "Sorry sir, it's too late in the season for flu shot", or maybe they just get sick first...)
I would say that everyone has an opinion, but not that it's common for people (in the USA) to be against the vaccines, they just see them as unnecessary, or at least optional... then again that's just my opinion:)
A worker who is not sick will not be generating more of the virus to spread... they will not be blowing their nose, sneezing, coughing--spreading the virus around, which is reproducing and thriving at this point in them...
So yeah... a not-sick worker is less likely to transmit the disease, right? And it's not possible to guarantee that sick workers will not come to work because some of them may be getting sick and not realize it, some of them may come to work regardless of being sick because they do not want to use sick time, etc...
Vaccination is proven to result in fewer sick workers.
Therefore it is a true statement that vaccinated workers will be less likely to transmit the virus.
I am required to get vaccinated to travel... it's a requirement of my government and my employer. I go along with it because why not--I trust that what they're injecting me with is a vaccine... I trust that it's been tested... I trust that those tests results are completely revealed and that it is safe.
Today these nurses are being required to get these injections... Many of the initial arguments here are attacking them based on it being a religious decision, and citing statistics that say the vaccine is effective is safe... OK, that's fine... and I agree, it probably is safe and effective.
What happens if tomorrow employers start requiring an injection of an amphetamine-like substance at the start of each shift? It will be chemical altered and the dosages strictly controlled--deemed safe by the medical community and hundreds of thousands of other users. Is it OK for them to require this? You'll be more productive during those hours you're at work, you won't suffer any long term ill effects... so why shouldn't they require this? If you don't like it, you can feel free to find another job (except maybe there aren't any...)
My point being that it can be a slippery slope when we start to allow government and employers to control our bodies under the guise of what is good for us, our jobs, or whatever other reason they want to bring up....and the fact that a huge portion of the general population is using a certain substance, or that it's endorsed by the medical community, does not give me a huge amount of faith in it's safety--smoking is a huge example of how that can be wrong.
As far I'm concerned the verdict is still out on cell phones and other microwave-level close range transceivers... I use them constantly, I'm not afraid of them... but I also will not be surprised if during my lifetime strong evidence appears that prolonged and long-term use of these devices correlates to vastly higher instances of cancers.
Even if the planets are inside the habitable zone, they would need to be the correct consistencies... Venus and Mars are in the zone here, but neither has life or is natively habitable. Yes, we're attempting to discover if Mars may have HAD life, but as far as we can obviously tell, it has none now...
So it's fun and interesting to search these types of star systems and planets--and I think it's absolutely worthwhile to focus a SETI program on them to try to determine if there are any stray signals we can pick up--but otherwise this really is not much more than dreaming and guessing.
Assuming SETI finds no signals, but we do believe there a couple of planets into the habitable zone, then I think it would make some sense to attempt a probe mission there... but it could be a while before we're at the technology level we'd need...
I think our current speed record in space is about 150,000mph... which is ~1/5000th the speed of light. So while 12 years seems do-able from a speed of light point of view, there is no (present) method to send a probe there in a reasonable amount of time... I'd say reasonable would be a ~36 years to get there, plus another 12 years for the return signal... so roughly 50 years from launch to first data... meaning it would likely be a two, maybe three, generation program from a NASA engineer point of view.
We'd need something capable of: a) Traveling at least 1/3rd the speed of light (roughly a quarter billion miles per hour) b) A power source capable of lasting at least ~40 years or more with enough juice available near end of life to complete its mission c) Capable of complete autonomy in 100% unknown situation d) Possibly requiring the ability to actively correct its course en route, and maybe even detect and avoid collisions
The US government is only able to justify war if it can prove it has been attacked first.
That was supposed to be modded as funny right?
The US involves itself in military action wherever / whenever to protect its interests and the estimated costs of those military actions are believed to be less than the potential costs (or losses) which would result out of inaction.
Once involved, the decisions skew toward protecting their military personnel and world politics.
Justifying you were attacked first is not that difficult when you place military assets into foreign (often disputed) locations and are able to perform covert actions against your future enemies... it's a matter of setting up the game board.
China would never intervene if NK decided to send a nuclear missile against US. It will just watch how the situation develops while eating some popcorn.
Why would China do anything besides that? At most they may give some statement... but they would be crazy to do anything else besides assist the US (which is unlikely unless they themselves feel threatened).
There is absolutely no need for anyone in the rest of the world to intervene in the event of an official NK attack on US, particularly nuclear... it would be a de facto declaration of war and NK would be completely obliterated within days... any areas left habitable would be occupied by US forces within weeks.
The jokes of China owning the US aside, the fact is that the US has a large and powerful military force. It has been, and continues to be, willing and able to use it around the world to protect its interests (whatever they may be). Any take over, attacks, etc must be indirect and SUBTLE. Overt actions and the whole "we hold your treasury notes" stuff is absolutely out the window. China would be idiotic to attempt to physically intervene against retaliation for any direct attack on the US, NK or otherwise.
Unfortunately that just isn't practically feasible. You need between 4 and 9 people working and paying between 10% and 20% of their production in taxes or something similar so as to enough goods and services for the retired.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like you assume no one saves for their own retirement during their working career?
I'm mid-career and on target (assuming no major financial or government upsets) to retire and require zero assistance or payback from the government.
If there were a relatively simple electronic device that could interfere with a planes operation, it would have been found and exploited by now.
Short of intentionally jamming radio frequencies or sending out radar-confusing pulses, etc, there isn't all that much that can go wrong in that regard... and the stuff that can go wrong is generally just nuisance-level, not crash-level... I don't think there is any straight forward way to disable an engine or a computer through interference (at least, not on the level you'd get from something allowed as a carry on, or possibly even checked luggage).
As a regular flyer I honestly cannot believe how many people will either intentionally disobey, or are completely oblivious, when they're asked to turn off devices and bring their seats up, etc... It's really NOT hard... but some of these people simply do not want to comply until they are literally given a "talking to" by the flight attendant.
I've always thought that the modern ban on electronics when taxiing or below 10,000' was more about you, as a passenger, paying attention to the situation and any instructions of the crew.
Admittedly there isn't much you can do if something goes wrong, but it's such a short period of time for you to simply pay attention, and if it helps keep reaction times good, and keeps the cabin clear, why not?
Slashdot Mirror
The form factor is perfect for:
- Reading books/blocks of text/PDFs
- Watching media
- Calendar/Scheduling
- Mail Reading (and light replying)
- Light web browsing
- Puzzle/Word games
All of the above can be done on phones or laptops, but the 7-10" screen is pretty much the sweet spot for reading and watching media alone (or for two). It will hold it's place, but I think the market for higher priced versions will decline. I had no problem dropping $200 on a Nexus 7, but when I see $500-700 for an iPad I start to think twice.
“As Attorney General, my job is to defend consumers, ensure truth in advertising, and make sure all businesses are playing by the rules,” Ferguson said in a statement. “My office identified that T-Mobile was failing to disclose a critical component of their new plan to consumers, and we acted quickly to stop this practice and protect consumers across the country from harm.”
Of all the things to harp on... makes you wonder what impact Verizon and AT&T lobbyists might have had on this...
The distinction is fairly clear... the "No Contract" refers to the cell phone service. Of course if you buy the hardware on credit then you are expected to fulfill your agreed payments--all of which is part of a credit contract.
I wonder if all they'll need to do is start saying "No Contract for Service" or something idiotic like that.
Given all the BS we've seen come from VZ and AT&T when it comes to claims of fastest network, most reliable, 4G vs. not, "unlimited", etc... you'd think the AG would have better things to do.
I'd be more impressed if Netflix were doing it.
Some of you people have short memories...
Back in 2005 Roku designed their streaming media box specifically to stream Netflix content... for at least a couple of years Netflix was the only content available on it.
I was part of one of the original focus groups while it was in development and it was plainly clear from the questions and marketing materials that this device was for Netflix only to start... it's only the last several years they've added Amazon Instant Video and other "channels".
As most recent parent you mentioned, it was brilliance on the part of Netflix to avoid having their own branded hardware. This paved the way for many device manufacturers to include support w/o facing competition from Netflix itself. When you buy a TV or Bluray player today and it includes Netflix support you are far more likely to subscribe vs. if you had to buy your own hardware from Netflix.
Amazon is creating a hassle for themselves... just like they have done by not producing an Android app for their streaming video (because it would compete with their Kindle). I don't want Amazon content on my Nexus 7 specifically because of this, and you'd better believe that it does influence my decision to buy Amazon content.
How about we let artificial people decide? ...seriously though, we need a "Sarcastic" mod because there is no way that letting people decide who works and who does what they want will ever be a success long term, it will become corrupted, and even if not it will be filled with jealousy.
oh man, you just reminded of that, one my favorites... he even sang the first few bars of his little song I think?
Wow, seems like a nice guy. Seems like those asshole bosses that never understand what you do and make you work in McGuyver condition (not enough server, no license to the tool you need, no test, develop on prod, ...) but blame you you when you fail and even blame you if by luck you succeed.
Haven't you heard? --
- Success is due to leadership (i.e. executives)
- Failure is due to execution (i.e. engineers and to a lesser degree middle managers / marketing / sometimes sales).
Oh! That's it! That's IT! I've had it with this dump! We got no food! We got no jobs! Our pets heads are falling off!
What the hell are we doing here Harry? We gotta get out of this town!
The third group who benefits... anyone who benefits from tax revenue collected by the state of California.
Let's say you got drunk at a bar and were arrested for disorderly conduct. This could have happened years ago, maybe in college and now you're a totally responsible person in your 30s. Would it be right for someone to follow you for your entire life around and every time someone started to say your name this other person would pop out and shout out "...GOT DRUNK AT A BAR AND ARRESTED FOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT!!" ... No it sucks. But that's the technological equivalent of what Google is (probably inadvertently) doing.
Just because it's true doesn't mean Google, or anyone else, has a right to go around repeatedly telling people about it in perpetuity.
Let's say you got drunk at a bar and were arrested for disorderly conduct. This could have happened years ago, maybe in college and now you're a totally responsible person in your 30s. Would it be right for someone to follow you for your entire life around and every time someone started to say your name this other person would pop out and shout out "...GOT DRUNK AT A BAR AND ARRESTED FOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT!!" ... No it sucks. But that's the technological equivalent of what Google is (probably inadvertently) doing.
Maybe he'd be better off paying for some news-worthy publicity for his surgery to alter his results, or contact the papers and have them revise their wording?
...yeah that won't eventually evolve into a tidy form of blackmail will it?
All your negative bullshit ends up in the search engines so that you'll be willing to pay for something positive to try to offset it all...
After all, if some kid spray-painted "ANONYMOUS COWARD SUCKS!!" on your house, you'd sue the building contractor who constructed the wall that got tagged with the kid's message, right?
No... but let's say a newspaper took a picture of that wall.
Now every time someone types "Anonymous" into the newpaper's news story search engine they automatically bring up "ANONYMOUS COWARD SUCKS!!" and maybe even show me a preview thumbnail of that picture. You can argue they are simply re-printing the news story, but if they are doing each time someone starts a search they are directing people to that information. These future searchers may not otherwise care to search for that story or those terms, but it's now been put in their face and they are likely to "dig deeper" which in this case is conveniently shallow thanks to newspaper's auto complete algorithm..
This is the crux of the argument--is it right for Google to ASSUME you will want to know about this man's bankruptcy when you start to type his name? ...and what sort of a liability should Google have, if any, for their technology repeatedly associating this man with bankruptcy to people who begin to search for him?
Let's say you got drunk at a bar and were arrested for disorderly conduct. This could have happened years ago, maybe in college and now you're a totally responsible person in your 30s. Would it be right for someone to follow you for your entire life around and every time someone started to say your name this other person would pop out and shout out "...GOT DRUNK AT A BAR AND ARRESTED FOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT!!" ... No it sucks. But that's the technological equivalent of what Google is (probably inadvertently) doing.
I don't see how it's either, since auto-complete is based on what people are entering as search terms. It's the result of an algorithm, not a human. Algorithms have no sense of morality, they just do what they're told.
So... "Guy Hingston bankrupt" searches are manually entered a few times.
Now the the next few people who start to type in "Guy Hingston..." will see Google's algorithm auto-complete that with "...bankrupt"; it's likely that out of curiosity they will now search for those terms together. At this point from the algorithms point of view a "human" is searching for that complete set of terms, so the algorithm is reinforced to auto-complete "Guy Hingston..." with "...bankrupt" to more people...
It should be obvious how Google's algorithm for auto-complete can direct humans to search for "specific terms" that they might otherwise not think to search for simply because Google is suggesting them.
This is a very handy feature, but it can also be powerfully useful for both good purpose and negative purposes, whether intentionally done or not.
Google in effect, through their algorithm, can make certain searches appear in either favorable or detrimental lights. In this case a surgeon is being associated with bankruptcy--both his own and his former company.
I don't know if this is worthy of being called liable and slander, but it's at least lousy. I don't doubt that this is not intentional on Google's part, but their algorithm may be unintentionally damaging this man's reputation, and in that case I think they do hold some fault.
I also understand that MRSA (a very serious, and potentially lethal bacteria, if untreated) has been brought on by over sanitization. That's what makes MRSA so serious. It resists almost all antibiotic treatments. Studies have been coming out showing where hospitals that are not as clean have lower rates of MRSA infection.
Let's not mix vaccination with overuse of antibiotics... these are two completely different concepts and mechanisms.
With vaccination you are exposed to weakened, or dead, version of the current virus strain... your body attacks it and produces a level of immunity to it so that when you encounter live, stronger, versions of it in your daily life, your body already has a head start in winning the fight. Vaccination doesn't compromise your bodies ability to fight off infection, nor does it necessarily promote mutation and growth of strong viruses...
With antibiotics you are taking about killing off bacteria ... if you do a half-assed job of it, you end up killing the weaker bacteria leaving the field open for the stronger ones... some of the surviving bacteria may have survived simply because they are immune to whatever agent you used to kill the others--now that bacteria will be reproducing in greater numbers than it would have otherwise done because it has less competition... this especially true inside the body where not completing the full course of antibiotics may leave antibiotic resistant bacteria alive (and reproducing) inside of you...
the vast, vast, vast majority simply get vaccinated when required. when it's optional, like the flu shot typically is, people make a judgement based on whether they think they'll need it ("I'm young and healthy, I'll take my chances"), or are afraid of needles ("I'd rather be sick for a week then get a shot"), or just don't have the time ("I'll do it next week" ... "Sorry sir, it's too late in the season for flu shot", or maybe they just get sick first...)
I would say that everyone has an opinion, but not that it's common for people (in the USA) to be against the vaccines, they just see them as unnecessary, or at least optional... then again that's just my opinion :)
Use common sense...
A worker who is not sick will not be generating more of the virus to spread... they will not be blowing their nose, sneezing, coughing--spreading the virus around, which is reproducing and thriving at this point in them...
So yeah... a not-sick worker is less likely to transmit the disease, right? And it's not possible to guarantee that sick workers will not come to work because some of them may be getting sick and not realize it, some of them may come to work regardless of being sick because they do not want to use sick time, etc...
Vaccination is proven to result in fewer sick workers.
Therefore it is a true statement that vaccinated workers will be less likely to transmit the virus.
I am required to get vaccinated to travel... it's a requirement of my government and my employer. I go along with it because why not--I trust that what they're injecting me with is a vaccine... I trust that it's been tested... I trust that those tests results are completely revealed and that it is safe.
Today these nurses are being required to get these injections... Many of the initial arguments here are attacking them based on it being a religious decision, and citing statistics that say the vaccine is effective is safe... OK, that's fine... and I agree, it probably is safe and effective.
What happens if tomorrow employers start requiring an injection of an amphetamine-like substance at the start of each shift? It will be chemical altered and the dosages strictly controlled--deemed safe by the medical community and hundreds of thousands of other users. Is it OK for them to require this? You'll be more productive during those hours you're at work, you won't suffer any long term ill effects... so why shouldn't they require this? If you don't like it, you can feel free to find another job (except maybe there aren't any...)
My point being that it can be a slippery slope when we start to allow government and employers to control our bodies under the guise of what is good for us, our jobs, or whatever other reason they want to bring up. ...and the fact that a huge portion of the general population is using a certain substance, or that it's endorsed by the medical community, does not give me a huge amount of faith in it's safety--smoking is a huge example of how that can be wrong.
As far I'm concerned the verdict is still out on cell phones and other microwave-level close range transceivers... I use them constantly, I'm not afraid of them... but I also will not be surprised if during my lifetime strong evidence appears that prolonged and long-term use of these devices correlates to vastly higher instances of cancers.
Even if the planets are inside the habitable zone, they would need to be the correct consistencies... Venus and Mars are in the zone here, but neither has life or is natively habitable. Yes, we're attempting to discover if Mars may have HAD life, but as far as we can obviously tell, it has none now...
So it's fun and interesting to search these types of star systems and planets--and I think it's absolutely worthwhile to focus a SETI program on them to try to determine if there are any stray signals we can pick up--but otherwise this really is not much more than dreaming and guessing.
Assuming SETI finds no signals, but we do believe there a couple of planets into the habitable zone, then I think it would make some sense to attempt a probe mission there... but it could be a while before we're at the technology level we'd need...
I think our current speed record in space is about 150,000mph ... which is ~1/5000th the speed of light. So while 12 years seems do-able from a speed of light point of view, there is no (present) method to send a probe there in a reasonable amount of time... I'd say reasonable would be a ~36 years to get there, plus another 12 years for the return signal... so roughly 50 years from launch to first data... meaning it would likely be a two, maybe three, generation program from a NASA engineer point of view.
We'd need something capable of:
a) Traveling at least 1/3rd the speed of light (roughly a quarter billion miles per hour)
b) A power source capable of lasting at least ~40 years or more with enough juice available near end of life to complete its mission
c) Capable of complete autonomy in 100% unknown situation
d) Possibly requiring the ability to actively correct its course en route, and maybe even detect and avoid collisions
This is truly an excellent post.
The US has active invasion plans for just about every square meter of the planet.
Most countries with a real military have active plans for many different things...
It's how you keep from getting caught with your pants down.
The US government is only able to justify war if it can prove it has been attacked first.
That was supposed to be modded as funny right?
The US involves itself in military action wherever / whenever to protect its interests and the estimated costs of those military actions are believed to be less than the potential costs (or losses) which would result out of inaction.
Once involved, the decisions skew toward protecting their military personnel and world politics.
Justifying you were attacked first is not that difficult when you place military assets into foreign (often disputed) locations and are able to perform covert actions against your future enemies... it's a matter of setting up the game board.
China would never intervene if NK decided to send a nuclear missile against US. It will just watch how the situation develops while eating some popcorn.
Why would China do anything besides that? At most they may give some statement... but they would be crazy to do anything else besides assist the US (which is unlikely unless they themselves feel threatened).
There is absolutely no need for anyone in the rest of the world to intervene in the event of an official NK attack on US, particularly nuclear... it would be a de facto declaration of war and NK would be completely obliterated within days... any areas left habitable would be occupied by US forces within weeks.
The jokes of China owning the US aside, the fact is that the US has a large and powerful military force. It has been, and continues to be, willing and able to use it around the world to protect its interests (whatever they may be). Any take over, attacks, etc must be indirect and SUBTLE. Overt actions and the whole "we hold your treasury notes" stuff is absolutely out the window. China would be idiotic to attempt to physically intervene against retaliation for any direct attack on the US, NK or otherwise.
Unfortunately that just isn't practically feasible. You need between 4 and 9 people working and paying between 10% and 20% of their production in taxes or something similar so as to enough goods and services for the retired.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like you assume no one saves for their own retirement during their working career?
I'm mid-career and on target (assuming no major financial or government upsets) to retire and require zero assistance or payback from the government.
If there were a relatively simple electronic device that could interfere with a planes operation, it would have been found and exploited by now.
Short of intentionally jamming radio frequencies or sending out radar-confusing pulses, etc, there isn't all that much that can go wrong in that regard... and the stuff that can go wrong is generally just nuisance-level, not crash-level... I don't think there is any straight forward way to disable an engine or a computer through interference (at least, not on the level you'd get from something allowed as a carry on, or possibly even checked luggage).
As a regular flyer I honestly cannot believe how many people will either intentionally disobey, or are completely oblivious, when they're asked to turn off devices and bring their seats up, etc... It's really NOT hard... but some of these people simply do not want to comply until they are literally given a "talking to" by the flight attendant.
I've always thought that the modern ban on electronics when taxiing or below 10,000' was more about you, as a passenger, paying attention to the situation and any instructions of the crew.
Admittedly there isn't much you can do if something goes wrong, but it's such a short period of time for you to simply pay attention, and if it helps keep reaction times good, and keeps the cabin clear, why not?