You don't need FTL for star travel, even travel on the scale of current human lifetimes. You just need to accept that you can't go home. Relativity is a blessing, not a curse. Do the math and you will see that with 1G of acceleration you can reach any part of the universe in a reasonable amount of your time.
The question is not about them detecting us. It's about us detecting them. There might be several species within 50 lightyears laughing their asses off at old sitcoms while not sending anything in our direction that we can detect.
> There was an experiment discussed on Science Friday where an experimenter said cosmic > radiation does a good number on genetic material based on tests with actual genetic > material. I think they showed that in about 80,000 years, genetic material is just > broken up into a bunch of tiny, useless snippets, especially if it's on a rock...
Not on a rock. In it. Bacteria have been found thousands of meters down in the Earth living on hydrogen produced by radioactivity.
>...passing between stars, there is much less protection against radiation than there is > within a star's heliopause.
> You might just end up with "yeah its possible and it happens a million times each year > in our galaxy alone", or it might just be one time in a millenia.
One time in a millenia means 1000 times per billenia. That means about 10,000 opportunities in this galaxy alone. There are billions of galaxies.
> The Debian package management system deletes many *files* and *applications* during its > normal operations.
The Debian package management system is a set of programs running on your computer under your control. It does what you tell it to when you tell it to.
> Debian may also be required legally to remove software (e.g., if it violates patents).
Debian cannot be required to do anything to your computer.
> And Debian can remove arbitrary files and applications if they want to.
Debian does not have access to your computer. All we can do is offer you programs which you may or may not choose to run. That is fundamentally different from having a kill switch which can be remotely triggered at any time without your knowledge or consent.
> The only difference between Debian and Google is that Google puts it in their contract > that they can, while Debian doesn't tell you about it.
Debian explicitly says that it will not do such things, nor does it have the "push" access that would be required. Debian also does not require you to agree to any contract.
> Well, geez, why don't you people find out for yourself before accusing companies of > misconduct?
Where did I accuse anyone of anything? I asked out of mild curiosity.
> The people who complain about this legal clause are a bunch of morons, you included.
My complaint is against your moronic attempt to equate the Debian package management system to Google's kill switch. I really don't give a damn what contracts you and Google want to enter into.
> There is a big deal of difference between using the G1 and using a Blackberry, > especially if you use Google for all your searches while on other computers.
How is Google going to know that all those searches are yours? Nothing requires you to use only one Google account for your searchs, or to login at all, or to even allow their cookies.
> Neither is instant messaging nor location information, photos, call log, contacts, etc, > accessible by Google.
Why do you have to use the same Google account for all of those things or even use Google for them at all just because you have one of their phones?
> I am not picking on Google, per se, ANY single company that has access to huge amounts > of information about you, is a dangerous situation. It is exactly why I don't use > Gmail. My Email is handled by one company, searches by another, IM by another, and > phone service by yet another.
And you would have to stop doing that and use Google services exclusively if you got one of their phones? Why?
> If Android has a "kill switch", then so does Debian: Debian can also remove arbitrary > code put on your machine through the package system, and it does so regularly.
Nonsense. Debian does not and cannot do anything to your computer. Nothing is installed or removed without explicit action on your part.
> That's what package managers do. Google is just covering their asses legally.
Nonsense. The Debian package management system does what you tell it to do. If you don't tell it to do anything it does nothing. To get packages removed without explicit action on your part would require that you deliberately configure the system in direct contravention to Debian's advice.
> The difference to the iPhone is simple: with Android, if you don't want to use Google's > services or package manager...
Can you use their package manager and be asked for confirmation before packages are removed? That is the default on Debian.
Could computing could be a good idea. Maybe someday we will actually have it. It won't be called that, though, because the markedroids have appropriated the term as a euphemism for timesharing.
With real "cloud computing", if it ever comes, you will send your job into the cloud and not care if it goes to Google, Sun, or Cloud Nine.
If they delete abandoned accounts their supposedly enormous user base will appear to shrink. Bad for business. Deleting profiles does not do that (but it does free up disk space).
> its about competition. Other free services would never do this. And though we don't pay > them, they get money from us.
If you don't pay them they don't get money from you. They may get money from people you buy stuff from, but that money stops being yours when you spend it. Try to understand that to these advertising agencies you are the product, not the customer. Nothing wrong with that as long as you remember that the services they give you are just promotional gimmicks. They have no obligation, legal or ethical, to deliver anything at all to you.
But you will note that they very carefully did not remove the tens of millions of accounts that no one has used in seven years. Wouldn't want the paying customers (that's not you, "user") to guess that their marketing statistics are inflated.
> The Australian government's assertion that the list of airports, runways and tower > frequencies was subject to international copyright was used as a flimsy excuse for the > US NGA to block all public access to the DAFIF, a database of information about airports > worldwide that had been publicly available since the mid 1970s.
Extremely flimsy, since such a list is very clearly not protected by copyright in the US, which is all that NGA need concern itself about.
> I suppose old geezers who grew up in the days of radio (you know, the same people who > still talk about "listening" to the television because "listen" is the verb they grew up > with for tuning into broadcasts)
No, I don't know. I'm over 60 and I've never heard anyone talk about "listening" to the television: not even my father, who's nearly 100.
> So, do people in the UK dream in PAL and people in the USA dream in NTSC? I'm glad I > grew up in the UK, dream in NTSC just seems like the stuff nightmares are made of!
It could be worse. You could be French and dream in SECAM.
> I'm not claiming that I didn't grow up watching TV, or even that there are very many > people out there like that, but what about people who didn't watch a lot of TV growing > up?
We are a lucky few.
> Is it related to the environment in which we spend the most time?
Are your dreams mostly inane sitcoms and animated advertisements for crappy toys?
> What I'm wondering is whether or not reading a lot of books would cause black and white > dreams simply because the black text on a white background is similar to black and > white television.
Didn't happen to me, but I spent a lot of time outside as well as reading many books. But then, I read in color and 3D.
My family didn't have a TV until I was 13. I dream in color (or at least that's how I remember it in the morning). BTW you may dream a normal amount but not remember it.
> In the larger view, did we ever? Two things have spurred most advances in human > history... War and sex.
War is about sex (as are all power games) and has had a net retarding effect on technological progress. While it has had an accellerating effect in some areas it has always more than made up for it by retarding progress in others. Every innovation credtited to war would eventually have occured anyway and for every such innovation there are many others that war delayed.
As for sex spurring advances, well, it is often said that porn drives the Internet.
Slashdot Mirror
> But we have not found a von newman machine or an old mine to make a new machine or
> remains of the machine left behind, to monitor the system.
That just means that they are very discreet and always clean up after themselves.
You don't need FTL for star travel, even travel on the scale of current human lifetimes. You just need to accept that you can't go home. Relativity is a blessing, not a curse. Do the math and you will see that with 1G of acceleration you can reach any part of the universe in a reasonable amount of your time.
The question is not about them detecting us. It's about us detecting them. There might be several species within 50 lightyears laughing their asses off at old sitcoms while not sending anything in our direction that we can detect.
> There was an experiment discussed on Science Friday where an experimenter said cosmic
> radiation does a good number on genetic material based on tests with actual genetic
> material. I think they showed that in about 80,000 years, genetic material is just
> broken up into a bunch of tiny, useless snippets, especially if it's on a rock...
Not on a rock. In it. Bacteria have been found thousands of meters down in the Earth living on hydrogen produced by radioactivity.
> ...passing between stars, there is much less protection against radiation than there is
> within a star's heliopause.
There is also much less radiation out there.
> You might just end up with "yeah its possible and it happens a million times each year
> in our galaxy alone", or it might just be one time in a millenia.
One time in a millenia means 1000 times per billenia. That means about 10,000 opportunities in this galaxy alone. There are billions of galaxies.
> BULLSHIT. What an outrightedly sexist and utterly wrong thing to say. I dare you to even
> attempt to prove it.
He can't, because he's wrong.
It's an inverse relationship.
> The Debian package management system deletes many *files* and *applications* during its
> normal operations.
The Debian package management system is a set of programs running on your computer under your control. It does what you tell it to when you tell it to.
> Debian may also be required legally to remove software (e.g., if it violates patents).
Debian cannot be required to do anything to your computer.
> And Debian can remove arbitrary files and applications if they want to.
Debian does not have access to your computer. All we can do is offer you programs which you may or may not choose to run. That is fundamentally different from having a kill switch which can be remotely triggered at any time without your knowledge or consent.
> The only difference between Debian and Google is that Google puts it in their contract
> that they can, while Debian doesn't tell you about it.
Debian explicitly says that it will not do such things, nor does it have the "push" access that would be required. Debian also does not require you to agree to any contract.
> Well, geez, why don't you people find out for yourself before accusing companies of
> misconduct?
Where did I accuse anyone of anything? I asked out of mild curiosity.
> The people who complain about this legal clause are a bunch of morons, you included.
My complaint is against your moronic attempt to equate the Debian package management system to Google's kill switch. I really don't give a damn what contracts you and Google want to enter into.
> There is a big deal of difference between using the G1 and using a Blackberry,
> especially if you use Google for all your searches while on other computers.
How is Google going to know that all those searches are yours? Nothing requires you to use only one Google account for your searchs, or to login at all, or to even allow their cookies.
> Neither is instant messaging nor location information, photos, call log, contacts, etc,
> accessible by Google.
Why do you have to use the same Google account for all of those things or even use Google for them at all just because you have one of their phones?
> I am not picking on Google, per se, ANY single company that has access to huge amounts
> of information about you, is a dangerous situation. It is exactly why I don't use
> Gmail. My Email is handled by one company, searches by another, IM by another, and
> phone service by yet another.
And you would have to stop doing that and use Google services exclusively if you got one of their phones? Why?
> If Android has a "kill switch", then so does Debian: Debian can also remove arbitrary
> code put on your machine through the package system, and it does so regularly.
Nonsense. Debian does not and cannot do anything to your computer. Nothing is installed or removed without explicit action on your part.
> That's what package managers do. Google is just covering their asses legally.
Nonsense. The Debian package management system does what you tell it to do. If you don't tell it to do anything it does nothing. To get packages removed without explicit action on your part would require that you deliberately configure the system in direct contravention to Debian's advice.
> The difference to the iPhone is simple: with Android, if you don't want to use Google's
> services or package manager...
Can you use their package manager and be asked for confirmation before packages are removed? That is the default on Debian.
Apparently the Yahoo profile is terribly, terribly important.
> Cloud computing is just a recycled bad idea.
Could computing could be a good idea. Maybe someday we will actually have it. It won't be called that, though, because the markedroids have appropriated the term as a euphemism for timesharing.
With real "cloud computing", if it ever comes, you will send your job into the cloud and not care if it goes to Google, Sun, or Cloud Nine.
If they delete abandoned accounts their supposedly enormous user base will appear to shrink. Bad for business. Deleting profiles does not do that (but it does free up disk space).
> its about competition. Other free services would never do this. And though we don't pay
> them, they get money from us.
If you don't pay them they don't get money from you. They may get money from people you buy stuff from, but that money stops being yours when you spend it. Try to understand that to these advertising agencies you are the product, not the customer. Nothing wrong with that as long as you remember that the services they give you are just promotional gimmicks. They have no obligation, legal or ethical, to deliver anything at all to you.
But you will note that they very carefully did not remove the tens of millions of accounts that no one has used in seven years. Wouldn't want the paying customers (that's not you, "user") to guess that their marketing statistics are inflated.
> The Australian government's assertion that the list of airports, runways and tower
> frequencies was subject to international copyright was used as a flimsy excuse for the
> US NGA to block all public access to the DAFIF, a database of information about airports
> worldwide that had been publicly available since the mid 1970s.
Extremely flimsy, since such a list is very clearly not protected by copyright in the US, which is all that NGA need concern itself about.
Looks that way, doesn't it?
> I suppose old geezers who grew up in the days of radio (you know, the same people who
> still talk about "listening" to the television because "listen" is the verb they grew up
> with for tuning into broadcasts)
No, I don't know. I'm over 60 and I've never heard anyone talk about "listening" to the television: not even my father, who's nearly 100.
> So, do people in the UK dream in PAL and people in the USA dream in NTSC? I'm glad I
> grew up in the UK, dream in NTSC just seems like the stuff nightmares are made of!
It could be worse. You could be French and dream in SECAM.
...? ...? ...? ...is this study utter crap that proves nothing?
> I'm not claiming that I didn't grow up watching TV, or even that there are very many
> people out there like that, but what about people who didn't watch a lot of TV growing
> up?
We are a lucky few.
> Is it related to the environment in which we spend the most time?
Are your dreams mostly inane sitcoms and animated advertisements for crappy toys?
> What I'm wondering is whether or not reading a lot of books would cause black and white
> dreams simply because the black text on a white background is similar to black and
> white television.
Didn't happen to me, but I spent a lot of time outside as well as reading many books. But then, I read in color and 3D.
We're everywhere.
My family didn't have a TV until I was 13. I dream in color (or at least that's how I remember it in the morning). BTW you may dream a normal amount but not remember it.
...not watching TV at all? I read books as a child but I don't dream in black text on white paper.
His cow is part sow (BTW they are teats).
> In the larger view, did we ever? Two things have spurred most advances in human
> history... War and sex.
War is about sex (as are all power games) and has had a net retarding effect on technological progress. While it has had an accellerating effect in some areas it has always more than made up for it by retarding progress in others. Every innovation credtited to war would eventually have occured anyway and for every such innovation there are many others that war delayed.
As for sex spurring advances, well, it is often said that porn drives the Internet.