Of course there will be more opportunities. There will be lines of work we wouldn't even be able to anticipate from here in 2016. I would also bet that most of the new work will be challenging and dignified positions.
What is your plan when a significant portion of the population is unable to work those new jobs because they lack the intelligence/creativity/funding to retrain/etc?
I posted mine earlier. Scream "TANSTAAFL!" and shoot them!
Oh don't worry. I'll always have a job as long as I want one.
What will you do with people who can't install solar panels or do IT?
My concern isn't that there won't be exciting things to do in the future. My concern is what happens when a majority of people no longer have the intellectual/artistic/etc capacity to do those exciting new jobs.
Personally, I like universal basic income. Another solution might be to just kill off people who can't do the new jobs. Re-training is also an issue. So, because universal basic income and universal access to higher learning is too much of a communist bogeyman that will leave all our Randian bootstrappers paying 102% tax rates starving in the street after the government robs them blind, I'd like to extend my 2nd idea.
When we start building fully automated warehouses, let's just shoot all the now unemployed human workers dead on their last day. I mean, I'm not going to pay for them to get an education so they can be robot technicians! That would be theft! TANSTAAFL!
This approach might work quite well for certain professions that will soon be obsolete, especially lawyers!
I think the row is about the Open Code of Conduct that GitHub claims to support, not its terms of service.
The Open Code of Conduct, for the most part, is a reasonable document. If I had a project I cared to implement it for, I would implement v1.0 sans this excerpt (not fixing the UTF for/.):
Our open source community prioritizes marginalized peopleâ(TM)s safety over privileged peopleâ(TM)s comfort. We will not act on complaints regarding:
- âReverseâ(TM) -isms, including âreverse racism,â(TM) âreverse sexism,â(TM) and âcisphobiaâ(TM) - Reasonable communication of boundaries, such as âoeleave me alone,â âoego away,â or âoeIâ(TM)m not discussing this with youâ - Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts - Communicating in a âtoneâ(TM) you donâ(TM)t find congenial - Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions
That part of the document makes no sense to me and seems to throw the rest of the document out the window. This is little different from the hostile environment I encountered at Grand Valley State University in Michigan, USA around the turn of the century.
The first point is the bombshell. Sexism and racism are not allowed except for the sexism and racism that are allowed. The second and fourth points are acceptable; not everybody is a good communicator (not saying I am). The fifth point I'm ambivalent about. The third point is the detonator cap because it shuts down dialog; combined with the first point, we have a real can of worms.
If I have a disagreement with a womyn-born-womyn who is sending me hateful messages, am I allowed to pull out my trans status so that I can make a complaint that will be heard? Who determines whether I'm eligible to be part of either/both the female demographic or the transgender demographic? What if I get shouted down for having male privilege? Will my trans status protect me from that or does it count as protected reverse sexism? Nobody knows.
This is the danger of statements like the quoted excerpt. Somebody wrote, "All people are equal." Then the social justice crowd came around and scribbled beneath, "Except some people are more equal than others."
I really think the social justice crowd does not know what it is actually like to face systematic, institutional discrimination. I do. It's not nice. I have no intention to ever again allow myself to be subjected to institutional discrimination again. I am an individual. I am not accountable for the actions of others. My individuality will either be recognized, or I will go elsewhere.
The social justice crowd seems hell bent on holding the wrong people accountable for the career choices of womyn-born-womyn and for the sexual harassment that gaslighting asshole managers pour on women. Yes, it bothers the hell out of me when womyn-born-womyn $x holds me accountable for womyn-born-womyn $y's decision that being a mother and a wife is more important to her than pursuing a career. It bothers the hell out of me when womyn-born-womyn $z uses sexist language (a plumber is always a he, a doctor is always a he, a nurse is always a she, etc) and it bothers the hell out of me even more when $x holds me accountable for $z's internalized misogyny.
In that scenario, all that $x has accomplished is convincing me that having a tech career is just too toxic. S/he hasn't created a single womyn-born-womyn programmer. Since I can never be certain who's a TERF and who isn't and when I'm more equal due to being trans or less equal due to assignment to the male gender at birth, I'll just leave tech. Nobody cares about the gender situation of somebody who's flipping burgers and whether or not they might secretly have male privilege.
There needs to be dialog about these things. Shutting down dialog is the first sign of a hostile environment.
(That's a 50 DKP minus if you respond to me again as though I'm a man who regularly sexually abuses women.)
I'm not so sure about that! I just did 2+2 and got 11!
Then again the last time I went to measure the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, I got exactly 1! But then most of the other quantities I'd been familiar with turned irrational....
I'd better not tell about the time I divided by zero and obtained a meaningful result. Things really got strange! (Not to be confused with surreal numbers!)
Is there a Powerpoint (*shudders*) or other materials you could link to? (Or search terms I might try? Name of insurance company if you recall and would care to share?)
I'm not doubting one bit, but it would be an interesting perusal nonetheless.
That impressive. String theory and evolution in a climate change discussion.
Would you care to share your alternate hypotheses?
Not that I really care fuck all for ocean levels. I'm over 700 ft above sea level from where I'm posting this comment, and my goal is the mile high city as soon as financially feasible.
If you are a person who is mentally ill or just plain hates the world, you will not want to be in a profession where they scrutinize who you are, and keep a whole bunch of information on you.
This may or may not be true, but it sounds plausible.
[A person who is mentally ill is] likely to be more of a loner, and not want to participate in a community of people.
Again, this is very plausible depending on the mental illness.
A person like that isn't even going to get to a security check because they will likely be turned off of any position once they find out they have to do one and how much the company will know about them.
An interesting theory, however Uber requires background checks so I'm not sure how this applies. What are you suggesting Uber do?
Most people who start the process of a security check already know that there is nothing to find and that the information on them that is retained will never work against them in any way.
This may or may not be true.
That's the real benefit of a security check. Doing the actual check is just a formality.
Ok, I'll take most of the statements above as the points supporting this argument. I'm not really contesting that this dynamic may exist.
What does all this have to do with an insurance adjuster who flips out one day?
You seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that the suspect is an insurance adjuster. I have no reason at this point to believe he hadn't left his day job Friday afternoon. I admit that it may be possible he was recently fired or somesuch.
An uber style job will be more attractive to mentally ill people because they prefer to hide in the shadows.
Uhh... maybe? You're mixing up all kinds of different mental illnesses in this strawman you're trying to argue we need to be protected from. Personally I don't think I could driver for Uber. It sounds too social. Two hours per day is about my upper limit.
How on earth does this statement apply to a man who has been married for 21 years and has two kids?
All they have to do with Uber is drive well, basically.
This is the only statement in your post I'm absolutely certain is true.
If you're a taxi driver, the system gets your fingerprints and deep down you know if you commit a crime those can be used against you. If you're an Uber driver you don't have to care about that.
Huh? Well, in a strict sense, I suppose that no, I haven't been able to confirm what others have said about Uber collecting prints. How exactly does Uber's service work if the cars aren't constantly being tracked? Wouldn't that be worth more than mere fingerprints? Surely, Uber at least logs pick up and drop off points? I mean, if the cops have the wrong guy here, I don't see how fingerprints will help. I do however see Uber being able to provide corroborating or exonerating evidence. I suspect they have evidence that the cops have the right guy.
I'm certain at this point you're just trolling, and I probably shouldn't respond further. But hey, slow news day and I'm just glad the people I know over there were too busy with Monster Hunter on Saturday to have been at risk.
The big question for me is what exactly pushes a middle aged insurance adjuster with a wife and children (and a hobby as a car enthusiast) to fall down in real life?
I think that's the number one answer we're all looking for at this point. You seem to be barking up the completely wrong tree. Perhaps you're the mentally ill one lurking in the shadows here! When was the last time you left your mother's basement?!
He very easily could have gone on the killing spree without Uber being involved at all. The only thing I can speculate from Uber's involvement is that perhaps he had financial problems.
You'll see more of this kind of thing the more the middle class gets squeezed. I can't see many other ways that a family man who's been married for 21 years decides one day to go kill a bunch of random people. It's not just jihadists (both Christian and Muslim brands) and mentally unstable butthurt guys who can't get laid any more.
Also, he wasn't really a good shot. I forget if the article I linked (there's plenty of them on mLive covering different aspects) mentioned it, but the guy fired 30 bullets all in all. This really looks to be a completely spur of the moment desperate lashing out until more details arrive.
I'd also speculate that he wanted to be convicted. Doesn't Uber track the location of their cars?
But then again, one of the things I love about flyover country is the background radiation of batshit crazy we have around here! I must have jinxed it when I openly wondered the other day why there hasn't been more violence in Michigan.
So these in depth checks aren't needed for insurance adjusters? What exactly would such in depth checks have possibly found on a family man married for 21 years? I'm not following you.
- The father of two children, Dalton has been married since 1995. - Neighbors said Dalton was an insurance adjuster. - There is no known criminal history or mental illness, authorities said. - Dalton was an Uber driver, apparently taking fares between shootings. - He was a "car-guy" who liked to tinker with old vehicles.
(Emphasis mine.)
Insurance adjuster, family man married for 21 years, no background to check, etc.
I was going to go for a car analogy, but the shooter's already provided me one! You might as well label car enthusiasts who like old vehicles as freaks!
I mean, I'm sure I could construct an equally tortured line of reasoning that no normal person would enjoy working on cars without computer controlled fuel injection, TCS, ABS, a CAN bus, emissions monitoring, or even an OBD system, etc--only freaks.
Personally, my favorite part about reading the comments on this story is how many people are leaping to the conclusion that Uber was this guy's day job.
The guy was an insurance adjuster. If I were to speculate, I'd guess that he hadn't been turned away from any cab companies, since I doubt he was looking for full time work as a taxi driver.
This benefits Apple because they get to say, "Look at us! We have magick uber encryption powered by the Flame of Udun!"
This benefits the FBI because they get to say, "There's no Power Word that can overcome the Flame of Udun! Give us backdoors!"
And the public believes this shit.
Given everything I've gathered and as others have posted, Apple could unlock the damned phone before breakfast if they wanted. There has to be a reason Apple is resisting, and I don't buy altruism. McAfee and anybody else could succeed if they can get root on the device without unlocking it. That's not even considering somebody who might know how to separate the crypto chip and get it to reveal its secrets. If I were in the government's position, I'd send Apple a subpoena for the technical specifications of that chip or the private key needed to sign an OTA update. Actually getting information about the shooters is tangential to the FBI's goal here.
I think you're a bit premature here. Please double check item 23b section iii on the Agenda. We haven't succeeded until heterosexual marriage is illegal!
Wait. The King James Bible is alive and well, isn't it? I can go to any parking lot in town and find a preponderance of passages from that version on bumper stickers. Some people have moved on to NIV, granted, but folks love to thump that KJV hard.
But yeah, not sure what the point is in keeping the other documents. Nobody knows what they say and nobody cares.
I have a Twitter and a Facebook account. I follow NASA, CERN, LHC, JPL, ESA, etc. Occasionally my tablet reminds me I have tweets to read. Even more rarely, I click the notification. Then I wait for the Twitter app to load (no idea why it takes so long but tablet is old) just to realize I've wasted 30 seconds of my life, even with those "channels."
My Facebook account only exists because occasionally people will link me things on IRC I need it to see.
I wouldn't say I hate either. I'm largely indifferent. I only get irritated when some social justice drama queen throws a temper tantrum on Twitter that makes the news. Honestly, both services could shutter tomorrow and the only way it would affect me would be various friends and acquaintances complaining about Facebook being no more. I don't know anybody who regularly uses Twitter so I'd have to wait until/. or the red site ran something to find out that one shut down.
WTF. You just read the word photon and something about time not passing at c, and you posted a completely idiotic response. Where the fuck did AC mention converting anything into photons? AC made a straightforward observation about relativistic time dilation and you went off into Star Trek lala land.
The only omission AC made was not mentioning that c is an asymptote for objects with mass. It's entirely possible to get to near stars within months of ship-time. Yes, no time passes in a photon's frame of reference from the time it's emitted to the time it's absorbed from some other frame of reference (the one where we measure distances in terms of light minutes/hours/days/years).
Slashdot Mirror
Of course there will be more opportunities. There will be lines of work we wouldn't even be able to anticipate from here in 2016. I would also bet that most of the new work will be challenging and dignified positions.
What is your plan when a significant portion of the population is unable to work those new jobs because they lack the intelligence/creativity/funding to retrain/etc?
I posted mine earlier. Scream "TANSTAAFL!" and shoot them!
This is the true brilliance of my modest proposal here and a perfect application! Shoot them! What could possibly go wrong?
Oh don't worry. I'll always have a job as long as I want one.
What will you do with people who can't install solar panels or do IT?
My concern isn't that there won't be exciting things to do in the future. My concern is what happens when a majority of people no longer have the intellectual/artistic/etc capacity to do those exciting new jobs.
Personally, I like universal basic income. Another solution might be to just kill off people who can't do the new jobs. Re-training is also an issue. So, because universal basic income and universal access to higher learning is too much of a communist bogeyman that will leave all our Randian bootstrappers paying 102% tax rates starving in the street after the government robs them blind, I'd like to extend my 2nd idea.
When we start building fully automated warehouses, let's just shoot all the now unemployed human workers dead on their last day. I mean, I'm not going to pay for them to get an education so they can be robot technicians! That would be theft! TANSTAAFL!
This approach might work quite well for certain professions that will soon be obsolete, especially lawyers!
I think the row is about the Open Code of Conduct that GitHub claims to support, not its terms of service.
The Open Code of Conduct, for the most part, is a reasonable document. If I had a project I cared to implement it for, I would implement v1.0 sans this excerpt (not fixing the UTF for /.):
Our open source community prioritizes marginalized peopleâ(TM)s safety over privileged peopleâ(TM)s comfort. We will not act on complaints regarding:
- âReverseâ(TM) -isms, including âreverse racism,â(TM) âreverse sexism,â(TM) and âcisphobiaâ(TM)
- Reasonable communication of boundaries, such as âoeleave me alone,â âoego away,â or âoeIâ(TM)m not discussing this with youâ
- Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts
- Communicating in a âtoneâ(TM) you donâ(TM)t find congenial
- Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions
That part of the document makes no sense to me and seems to throw the rest of the document out the window. This is little different from the hostile environment I encountered at Grand Valley State University in Michigan, USA around the turn of the century.
The first point is the bombshell. Sexism and racism are not allowed except for the sexism and racism that are allowed. The second and fourth points are acceptable; not everybody is a good communicator (not saying I am). The fifth point I'm ambivalent about. The third point is the detonator cap because it shuts down dialog; combined with the first point, we have a real can of worms.
If I have a disagreement with a womyn-born-womyn who is sending me hateful messages, am I allowed to pull out my trans status so that I can make a complaint that will be heard? Who determines whether I'm eligible to be part of either/both the female demographic or the transgender demographic? What if I get shouted down for having male privilege? Will my trans status protect me from that or does it count as protected reverse sexism? Nobody knows.
This is the danger of statements like the quoted excerpt. Somebody wrote, "All people are equal." Then the social justice crowd came around and scribbled beneath, "Except some people are more equal than others."
I really think the social justice crowd does not know what it is actually like to face systematic, institutional discrimination. I do. It's not nice. I have no intention to ever again allow myself to be subjected to institutional discrimination again. I am an individual. I am not accountable for the actions of others. My individuality will either be recognized, or I will go elsewhere.
The social justice crowd seems hell bent on holding the wrong people accountable for the career choices of womyn-born-womyn and for the sexual harassment that gaslighting asshole managers pour on women. Yes, it bothers the hell out of me when womyn-born-womyn $x holds me accountable for womyn-born-womyn $y's decision that being a mother and a wife is more important to her than pursuing a career. It bothers the hell out of me when womyn-born-womyn $z uses sexist language (a plumber is always a he, a doctor is always a he, a nurse is always a she, etc) and it bothers the hell out of me even more when $x holds me accountable for $z's internalized misogyny.
In that scenario, all that $x has accomplished is convincing me that having a tech career is just too toxic. S/he hasn't created a single womyn-born-womyn programmer. Since I can never be certain who's a TERF and who isn't and when I'm more equal due to being trans or less equal due to assignment to the male gender at birth, I'll just leave tech. Nobody cares about the gender situation of somebody who's flipping burgers and whether or not they might secretly have male privilege.
There needs to be dialog about these things. Shutting down dialog is the first sign of a hostile environment.
(That's a 50 DKP minus if you respond to me again as though I'm a man who regularly sexually abuses women.)
2+2=4
I'm not so sure about that! I just did 2+2 and got 11!
Then again the last time I went to measure the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, I got exactly 1! But then most of the other quantities I'd been familiar with turned irrational....
I'd better not tell about the time I divided by zero and obtained a meaningful result. Things really got strange! (Not to be confused with surreal numbers!)
Is there a Powerpoint (*shudders*) or other materials you could link to? (Or search terms I might try? Name of insurance company if you recall and would care to share?)
I'm not doubting one bit, but it would be an interesting perusal nonetheless.
That impressive. String theory and evolution in a climate change discussion.
Would you care to share your alternate hypotheses?
Not that I really care fuck all for ocean levels. I'm over 700 ft above sea level from where I'm posting this comment, and my goal is the mile high city as soon as financially feasible.
Ah, ok. Makes sense. Thanks!
Bwahahaha! You're being funny today!
I... still don't follow you. Help me out here.
If you are a person who is mentally ill or just plain hates the world, you will not want to be in a profession where they scrutinize who you are, and keep a whole bunch of information on you.
This may or may not be true, but it sounds plausible.
[A person who is mentally ill is] likely to be more of a loner, and not want to participate in a community of people.
Again, this is very plausible depending on the mental illness.
A person like that isn't even going to get to a security check because they will likely be turned off of any position once they find out they have to do one and how much the company will know about them.
An interesting theory, however Uber requires background checks so I'm not sure how this applies. What are you suggesting Uber do?
Most people who start the process of a security check already know that there is nothing to find and that the information on them that is retained will never work against them in any way.
This may or may not be true.
That's the real benefit of a security check. Doing the actual check is just a formality.
Ok, I'll take most of the statements above as the points supporting this argument. I'm not really contesting that this dynamic may exist.
What does all this have to do with an insurance adjuster who flips out one day?
You seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that the suspect is an insurance adjuster. I have no reason at this point to believe he hadn't left his day job Friday afternoon. I admit that it may be possible he was recently fired or somesuch.
An uber style job will be more attractive to mentally ill people because they prefer to hide in the shadows.
Uhh... maybe? You're mixing up all kinds of different mental illnesses in this strawman you're trying to argue we need to be protected from. Personally I don't think I could driver for Uber. It sounds too social. Two hours per day is about my upper limit.
How on earth does this statement apply to a man who has been married for 21 years and has two kids?
All they have to do with Uber is drive well, basically.
This is the only statement in your post I'm absolutely certain is true.
If you're a taxi driver, the system gets your fingerprints and deep down you know if you commit a crime those can be used against you. If you're an Uber driver you don't have to care about that.
Huh? Well, in a strict sense, I suppose that no, I haven't been able to confirm what others have said about Uber collecting prints. How exactly does Uber's service work if the cars aren't constantly being tracked? Wouldn't that be worth more than mere fingerprints? Surely, Uber at least logs pick up and drop off points? I mean, if the cops have the wrong guy here, I don't see how fingerprints will help. I do however see Uber being able to provide corroborating or exonerating evidence. I suspect they have evidence that the cops have the right guy.
I'm certain at this point you're just trolling, and I probably shouldn't respond further. But hey, slow news day and I'm just glad the people I know over there were too busy with Monster Hunter on Saturday to have been at risk.
The big question for me is what exactly pushes a middle aged insurance adjuster with a wife and children (and a hobby as a car enthusiast) to fall down in real life?
I think that's the number one answer we're all looking for at this point. You seem to be barking up the completely wrong tree. Perhaps you're the mentally ill one lurking in the shadows here! When was the last time you left your mother's basement?!
The shooter appears to have been an insurance adjuster.
He very easily could have gone on the killing spree without Uber being involved at all. The only thing I can speculate from Uber's involvement is that perhaps he had financial problems.
You'll see more of this kind of thing the more the middle class gets squeezed. I can't see many other ways that a family man who's been married for 21 years decides one day to go kill a bunch of random people. It's not just jihadists (both Christian and Muslim brands) and mentally unstable butthurt guys who can't get laid any more.
Also, he wasn't really a good shot. I forget if the article I linked (there's plenty of them on mLive covering different aspects) mentioned it, but the guy fired 30 bullets all in all. This really looks to be a completely spur of the moment desperate lashing out until more details arrive.
I'd also speculate that he wanted to be convicted. Doesn't Uber track the location of their cars?
But then again, one of the things I love about flyover country is the background radiation of batshit crazy we have around here! I must have jinxed it when I openly wondered the other day why there hasn't been more violence in Michigan.
So these in depth checks aren't needed for insurance adjusters? What exactly would such in depth checks have possibly found on a family man married for 21 years? I'm not following you.
How the hell did this get to +5 insightful? Why is the AC who provided the link to mLive still at 0?
From mLive:
Here's what we know about [the shooter]:
- The father of two children, Dalton has been married since 1995.
- Neighbors said Dalton was an insurance adjuster.
- There is no known criminal history or mental illness, authorities said.
- Dalton was an Uber driver, apparently taking fares between shootings.
- He was a "car-guy" who liked to tinker with old vehicles.
(Emphasis mine.)
Insurance adjuster, family man married for 21 years, no background to check, etc.
I was going to go for a car analogy, but the shooter's already provided me one! You might as well label car enthusiasts who like old vehicles as freaks!
I mean, I'm sure I could construct an equally tortured line of reasoning that no normal person would enjoy working on cars without computer controlled fuel injection, TCS, ABS, a CAN bus, emissions monitoring, or even an OBD system, etc--only freaks.
But no, it's all totally Uber's fault.
What's a googleclipper? GP's figures sound about right. Looking on Google Maps, the guy lived out in BFE.
Personally, my favorite part about reading the comments on this story is how many people are leaping to the conclusion that Uber was this guy's day job.
The guy was an insurance adjuster. If I were to speculate, I'd guess that he hadn't been turned away from any cab companies, since I doubt he was looking for full time work as a taxi driver.
Tell him about the twinkie...
*slow clap*
Maybe doctors shouldn't be working 80 hours per week.
This is pretty much what I've been saying.
This benefits Apple because they get to say, "Look at us! We have magick uber encryption powered by the Flame of Udun!"
This benefits the FBI because they get to say, "There's no Power Word that can overcome the Flame of Udun! Give us backdoors!"
And the public believes this shit.
Given everything I've gathered and as others have posted, Apple could unlock the damned phone before breakfast if they wanted. There has to be a reason Apple is resisting, and I don't buy altruism. McAfee and anybody else could succeed if they can get root on the device without unlocking it. That's not even considering somebody who might know how to separate the crypto chip and get it to reveal its secrets. If I were in the government's position, I'd send Apple a subpoena for the technical specifications of that chip or the private key needed to sign an OTA update. Actually getting information about the shooters is tangential to the FBI's goal here.
Ach, don't compare Abrams to Riefenstahl!
All though an Abrams production of a Trump rally would be hilarious. I can see the lens flares now. Snap zoom to Trump's hair!
First amendment? Gay marriage. Suspended. Check.
I think you're a bit premature here. Please double check item 23b section iii on the Agenda. We haven't succeeded until heterosexual marriage is illegal!
Wait. The King James Bible is alive and well, isn't it? I can go to any parking lot in town and find a preponderance of passages from that version on bumper stickers. Some people have moved on to NIV, granted, but folks love to thump that KJV hard.
But yeah, not sure what the point is in keeping the other documents. Nobody knows what they say and nobody cares.
I have a Twitter and a Facebook account. I follow NASA, CERN, LHC, JPL, ESA, etc. Occasionally my tablet reminds me I have tweets to read. Even more rarely, I click the notification. Then I wait for the Twitter app to load (no idea why it takes so long but tablet is old) just to realize I've wasted 30 seconds of my life, even with those "channels."
My Facebook account only exists because occasionally people will link me things on IRC I need it to see.
I wouldn't say I hate either. I'm largely indifferent. I only get irritated when some social justice drama queen throws a temper tantrum on Twitter that makes the news. Honestly, both services could shutter tomorrow and the only way it would affect me would be various friends and acquaintances complaining about Facebook being no more. I don't know anybody who regularly uses Twitter so I'd have to wait until /. or the red site ran something to find out that one shut down.
WTF. You just read the word photon and something about time not passing at c, and you posted a completely idiotic response. Where the fuck did AC mention converting anything into photons? AC made a straightforward observation about relativistic time dilation and you went off into Star Trek lala land.
The only omission AC made was not mentioning that c is an asymptote for objects with mass. It's entirely possible to get to near stars within months of ship-time. Yes, no time passes in a photon's frame of reference from the time it's emitted to the time it's absorbed from some other frame of reference (the one where we measure distances in terms of light minutes/hours/days/years).
What a stupid comment.
Hypatia at Alexander
Argh! Alexandria! Shaka, when the walls fell; Hypatia, when the library burned.