Ever since my Chrome updated yesterday, a lot of mainstream sites such as news sites have been freezing on me. After a few minutes the mouse pages no longer respond to the mouse in any way (can't even select text) forcing me to reload them. I run on Ubuntu with more than enough memory (32GB) to not care and rarely see my CPU top 10%. Anyone else experiencing this?
I agree that the cities will be first. But, I disagree with high revenue-generating utilization being the sole reason for the low per-mile costs and thus believe that the much of the lower population areas will eventually follow.
People talking TaaS are currently writing optimistic predictions of $1 per mile cost. I believe they'll be able to hit $0.50 per mile for on-demand vehicles in the cities and still make a tidy profit. The reasons are in the reduction in costs that the providers will be able to achieve. They will create million mile vehicles that
have no transmissions,
motors that typically last that long with no maintenance,
batteries that last a million miles (Tesla's data is already showing 500K miles above 80%),
brakes that last that long because they hardly ever get used,
extraordinarily low accident rates, and
cost little more than a vehicle today to manufacture.
In addition, they will self-insure at a vastly lower cost than we do today, their maintenance costs will be vastly less, and their energy costs will be the costs of the solar cells to produce it amortized over the 20-year life of those cells (batteries at the depot are required whether or not they produce their own energy).
On the opposite side of the equation, they need to create depots. These will be industrial type facilities that don't have to have nice roadfronts, though large fields and roofs to cover in solar cells would be nice.
With actual procurement + operating costs of the vehicles likely being less than half of what we pay today (possibly much less), the costs of the facilities will be easily covered while still being able to eventually offer us sub $0.50 per mile rates with no monthly agreements.
The rural situation makes the investments take longer to pay off because cars will be parking themselves in staging locations more often and it increases the miles driven without fares a bit, but the costs of the land for the depots and solar farms also drop. In addition, they may enter the local power markets in rural areas. For all but the most extreme rural situations, it will still be a viable model, just longer in developing.
I don't think you understand. The general public will not need charging stations. People aren't going to be owning most of the cars. Most vehicles will be owned, maintained, powered, and operated by the manufacturers.
The manufacturers are going to be able to drop the per-mile cost of Transportation As A Service (TAAS) to less than the per mile cost of owning your own vehicle, probably significantly less. This will make owning your own vehicle an unnecessary luxury or pain in the @$$ depending on how you want to look at it. Once it gets started, Americans will see the advantage and flock to it. Rich people who choose to continue owning their own cars won't be admired as they pass by, they'll be laughed at. The new generations are not like the old.
Even if no people used the service, the vertically integrated fleets will quickly take over the delivery market eliminating a lot of the need for people to climb into their own vehicles. This market may be bigger than personal transportation in the long run.
And many others believing they will enter the EV market significantly in a couple of years are swallowing hard as they realize that this is a BYOB, as in Bring Your Own Battery, enterprise. It takes years to build the factories and the equipment that goes in them and few have started.
The next realization will be that this is a BYOE, as in Energy, enterprise too. They can't depend on utilities to be able to react fast enough to supply exploding fleets of EVs in the mid '20s. Auto companies that can't bring their own energy will be shut out of markets in cities whose utilities don't have the capacity to supply their depots. They all need to be vertically integrating a means of supplying their own energy.
I predict that the future will include more self-driving vehicles designed to carry delivery bots than those designed to carry people. The bots will be taken to the delivery location by a vehicle, roll or walk off on their own to take the product to the door or even to the person, and return to the vehicle. People will even be able to receive deliveries in parks. You could be sitting in a park and order a meal to be delivered to your picnic table.
The best realistic scenario for bitcoin holders right now is a correction back to the $8-10K range and a saner move forward. This is looking like a flameout if not a supernova at the moment. I'd bet the developers are on their knees praying for a correction while simultaneously trying to decide how to rush a solution to the energy problem.
I have wondered from the first time I read about these embassy attacks if someone was playing with a device that utilizes the "microwave auditory effect" that this wired article was discussing in 2008.
Perhaps they were attempting to project voices into their heads and had some sort of tuning issue that caused it to have a range of other effects.
I'm not going to propose that there is no mystery here, but when probing something this mysterious and examining people as intensely as they are likely examining these individuals, I'd want to go with a setup that tests both people who were there and people who weren't. I'd also want to hide the identities from those reading the scans.
No human would be without anomalies if tested intensively enough.
If a drug is found during testing to have success in treating only a small fraction of patients because the patients cannot stick to the treatment protocol for any reason including things like taste or any other difficulty that the treatment might present, it is usually soundly rejected and not allowed to go to market. Many otherwise effective drugs are not on the market today or are limited to hospital use because of this.
So, we don't allow doctors to prescribe drugs that are ineffective because patients can't stick to the treatment protocol, but we do allow them to continue to prescribe diets and blame it on the patients when they can't adhere to the protocol? Where is the logic in that?
Perhaps most could stick to the established guidelines if the chemical dependency they've developed for their specific food mixture is successfully treated first. But just saying be well and you'll get well doesn't usually work.
And, frankly, I believe the established guidelines do not take into account the natural systems of the body that message hunger or satisfaction to the brain. In the long term, hunger trumps will most of the time. If followed, the guidelines place many on a perilous peak where missteps cause falls into bad valleys instead of placing them in a safe valley where minor falls go nowhere.
A figurehead is usually the visible tip of a large iceberg. The true story is a quieter one that shapes the ground on which the debate occurs from behind the scenes.
You speak of pharma company profits (and you're right today), but our sugar consumption problem was started by the sugar industry in the 60s using methods straight out of the books of the tobacco industry - buried studies that were linking sugar to cholesterol problems and lobbying for the war against fat.
I have been on a low carb diet much of the time for several years now with positive results regardless of what my weight is. My serum cholesterol levels dropped by over 50% long before the weight came off.
I've known several people to get rid of a Type 2 diabetes or prediabetes diagnosis by going low carb. And as to those who say it is difficult to stay on it, it is no more so than any other lifestyle change. I've known many to try becoming vegetarians and fall off.
Yes, it is easy to fall off of a keto diet that is for weight loss because you're reducing your calories. The key I've found is to just increase your calories for a while without going back to carbs. Also, artificial sweeteners keep the craving for sweets in place. Lose them. You should always plan on just doing keto forever just as a vegetarian plans to eat nothing but vegetables forever. Eventually, the thought of sugar or potatoes will just turn your stomach.
I had that same experience but after a few seconds I also started noting that the white noise sounds coming from outside my home were going silent at each impact. I'd guess that is a result of the brain attempting to focus towards hearing the sound of impact. The white noise is coming through the open door behind me and the video is 180 degrees away from that.
Though not a net neutrality battle, this is similar and, sadly, allowed by regulations to proceed.
Amazon is the overwhelming leader in the online retail market. They have chosen to become a provider of devices that they sell, thus competing with the retailers who use them to reach a large portion of the market. Google is the closest competitor to some of their devices, so they took advantage of their position and locked them out.
How is this different in nature from what can happen when ISPs that are regional monopolies merge with content providers and there is no net neutrality regulation in place? Do we really think the ISPs' content providers won't be given a leg up on other content providers? How long before the first competitor is blocked by an ISP?
At least when Amazon flexes muscle, we can go to Walmart or some other online retailer. In my area, we only have alleged competition to Spectrum.
I couldn't find video views per month, but vid.me is apparently getting about 20 million "visits" a month. Youtube gets near 150 billion "video views" per month (nearly 5 billion / day from the billion+ unique users). 150 billion / 20 million = 7500. So, if every single visit to vid.me is resulting in a video view, they are still 1 / 7500th of Youtube's traffic. They are ranked somewhere between 2000th and 7000th in the world depending on which traffic ranking site you look at. Vid.me is nobody.
So, yeh, why was this posted?
And why shouldn't it be hard? I seriously doubt that there is a single Youtube video channel that could make more money if they were to abandon Youtube and set up their own site where they pay for the video storage and streaming bandwidth. The majority of sites on the internet that have any videos serve them from Youtube instead of their own site. You don't hear many complaints that they are getting ripped off.
Suspect you're talking about this Florida prison escape by two inmates. The crazy thing about that story is how they were caught. All felons in Florida are required to register their locations after release. These two guys actually registered their location. They were working under the delusion that nobody would ever figure it out and doing everything possible to follow the law.
I'm pretty sure that they paid a lot for the forgery though. So it wasn't easy or cheap.
The concept of escaping from a prison and staying out for any length of time was common in older days but is pretty much dead in America today. The vast majority are caught almost immediately. All escapees do is add to their sentences.
Jail is a somewhat different story. Authorities may simply not care enough to launch a massive manhunt with a jailbreak by a misdemeanor offender. At the same time, the gain is less so why do it. These guys will have a vast loss for next to no gain.
Yeh, good luck on that. You'd have to find a moment where there are sell orders for nearly six million shares without buy orders to match. You might find such a moment during a price plunge, but that wouldn't be a smart time to take advantage of it. Looking at the recent charts, I do see some end of day moments when 6 million shares traded, but those moments had buyers in the market for those shares. If you dumped your six million at that moment, you'd have 12 million shares for sale and be short on buyers. Simply put, you can't trade a fifth of Apple's daily volume all at once unless perhaps you found someone who would just purchase your stock direct.
There are many small-cap stocks out there whose price will be impacted if you sell $100K all at once. If you sold $1 billion in Apple stock in a single day, a large portion of its current average daily volume, you'd impact the price pretty dramatically. As with any asset that is only worth as much as the next buyer will pay, a mega-investor would have to sell Bitcoin at a pace compatible with the daily trade volume.
Given that the daily volume of bitcoin trade is topping $1 billion right now, you could probably sell the entire stake in a couple of weeks without severely impacting the price.
Even if they decided to be stupid and cause a crash, they'd walk away with vastly more than the $11 million they invested. I'd love that because it would create an awesome buying opportunity.
Exactly! Is there firmware update open source so users can verify it?
On top of that, just how valuable might the list of those who have paid to have it disabled be to government agencies? They could be making money from the buyer, the agency paying them for the new backdoor, and the agency paying for the list of those that paid to have the ME remove and thus have a higher probability of having something to hide. As a company, how could Dell pass this up!
I agree that this codifies what appear to be protections. But it then turns around and puts a maximum penalty in place that is too low. This gives it the appearance of codifying the protections just for the sake of overriding the states' existing codes with a maximum that is less than what states might want to impose in order to protect the companies from consumer rights oriented states.
We'd be far better off to just copy the GDPR. This would also keep things consistent. Many of the possible bad actors here are international.
Totally agree. The GDPR appears to be much more consumer oriented. This one has all the right words as to what to penalize, but that is just because it needs to make sure that it is overriding all of the right state's laws. The purpose of this bill appears to be to override the state's rights to determine their own penalties and replace that with a maximum that is lower than some of them might impose.
Ironically considering that it came from Democrats, I have similar issues with the way this affects the states to the way the repeal of net neutrality affects them.
Why else would the feds pass a law that puts a maximum on the penalty on civil suits by the attorneys general of the states if not to protect a corporate bad actor from the just decisions of a jury? And why make that maximum a fixed dollar amount instead of a percentage of earnings if not to protect mega corporations more than the little guy? These penalties could put a startup out of business quick while being nothing but a bump in the road on the big guys.
Many laws and regulations sold as protecting us from corporations are actually written for the exact opposite purpose - to put ceilings on civil awards.
I'm no attorney and could be misreading the proposed law (yes, I violated slashdot rules by reading both the article and the text of the proposed law), but this one seems to reign in the states by forcing unbelievably low maximum total civil penalties of only $5 million. Many recent breaches deserve far more than that even if reported immediately. You'd have to hit a company like Apple with $1 billion to even get noticed.
In order for penalties to be effective, a major breach should have a significant hit on a corporation's profit for at least a quarter. This does not allow that in the case of larger corporations. The prison term is likely there just to use after a breach to get lower level people to talk. It is unlikely to ever be imposed.
Yes, though their problem is worse than most as they have been too good at controlling their population.
But their argument is usually phrased in terms of there not being enough people to provide the care. If real people continue to provide all of the care, then there won't be enough people to do all of the other things necessary to support their society and economy. So, they hope to utilize robots to do things like turn people over in their beds, bathe them, change bedpans, bring them food, help them to the bathroom, etc.
The ISS orbit is so low it is within the upper reaches of our atmosphere. That is why it has to be given regular boosts to keep it in orbit. Though super thin, it does encounter enough atmosphere to induce drag.
Just as we have found unusual organisms in the deepest oceans and even miles down in rock, we should expect to find bacteria at the limits of our atmosphere and even beyond. It should also be expected that they have evolved dramatically, as organisms living off of heat and sulfur deep in our oceans have done.
There are some out of this world organisms right here at home. I'm not even sure how you could prove extraterrestrial origin. Almost anything you find could just be evidence of a previously undiscovered unique ecosystem 100+ miles up.
It's sort of neat to imagine the possibility of some life form surfing around on the auroras in the thermosphere.
Slashdot Mirror
Ever since my Chrome updated yesterday, a lot of mainstream sites such as news sites have been freezing on me. After a few minutes the mouse pages no longer respond to the mouse in any way (can't even select text) forcing me to reload them. I run on Ubuntu with more than enough memory (32GB) to not care and rarely see my CPU top 10%. Anyone else experiencing this?
I agree that the cities will be first. But, I disagree with high revenue-generating utilization being the sole reason for the low per-mile costs and thus believe that the much of the lower population areas will eventually follow.
People talking TaaS are currently writing optimistic predictions of $1 per mile cost. I believe they'll be able to hit $0.50 per mile for on-demand vehicles in the cities and still make a tidy profit. The reasons are in the reduction in costs that the providers will be able to achieve. They will create million mile vehicles that
In addition, they will self-insure at a vastly lower cost than we do today, their maintenance costs will be vastly less, and their energy costs will be the costs of the solar cells to produce it amortized over the 20-year life of those cells (batteries at the depot are required whether or not they produce their own energy).
On the opposite side of the equation, they need to create depots. These will be industrial type facilities that don't have to have nice roadfronts, though large fields and roofs to cover in solar cells would be nice.
With actual procurement + operating costs of the vehicles likely being less than half of what we pay today (possibly much less), the costs of the facilities will be easily covered while still being able to eventually offer us sub $0.50 per mile rates with no monthly agreements.
The rural situation makes the investments take longer to pay off because cars will be parking themselves in staging locations more often and it increases the miles driven without fares a bit, but the costs of the land for the depots and solar farms also drop. In addition, they may enter the local power markets in rural areas. For all but the most extreme rural situations, it will still be a viable model, just longer in developing.
I don't think you understand. The general public will not need charging stations. People aren't going to be owning most of the cars. Most vehicles will be owned, maintained, powered, and operated by the manufacturers.
The manufacturers are going to be able to drop the per-mile cost of Transportation As A Service (TAAS) to less than the per mile cost of owning your own vehicle, probably significantly less. This will make owning your own vehicle an unnecessary luxury or pain in the @$$ depending on how you want to look at it. Once it gets started, Americans will see the advantage and flock to it. Rich people who choose to continue owning their own cars won't be admired as they pass by, they'll be laughed at. The new generations are not like the old.
Even if no people used the service, the vertically integrated fleets will quickly take over the delivery market eliminating a lot of the need for people to climb into their own vehicles. This market may be bigger than personal transportation in the long run.
And many others believing they will enter the EV market significantly in a couple of years are swallowing hard as they realize that this is a BYOB, as in Bring Your Own Battery, enterprise. It takes years to build the factories and the equipment that goes in them and few have started.
The next realization will be that this is a BYOE, as in Energy, enterprise too. They can't depend on utilities to be able to react fast enough to supply exploding fleets of EVs in the mid '20s. Auto companies that can't bring their own energy will be shut out of markets in cities whose utilities don't have the capacity to supply their depots. They all need to be vertically integrating a means of supplying their own energy.
I predict that the future will include more self-driving vehicles designed to carry delivery bots than those designed to carry people. The bots will be taken to the delivery location by a vehicle, roll or walk off on their own to take the product to the door or even to the person, and return to the vehicle. People will even be able to receive deliveries in parks. You could be sitting in a park and order a meal to be delivered to your picnic table.
The best realistic scenario for bitcoin holders right now is a correction back to the $8-10K range and a saner move forward. This is looking like a flameout if not a supernova at the moment. I'd bet the developers are on their knees praying for a correction while simultaneously trying to decide how to rush a solution to the energy problem.
I have wondered from the first time I read about these embassy attacks if someone was playing with a device that utilizes the "microwave auditory effect" that this wired article was discussing in 2008.
Perhaps they were attempting to project voices into their heads and had some sort of tuning issue that caused it to have a range of other effects.
I'm not going to propose that there is no mystery here, but when probing something this mysterious and examining people as intensely as they are likely examining these individuals, I'd want to go with a setup that tests both people who were there and people who weren't. I'd also want to hide the identities from those reading the scans.
No human would be without anomalies if tested intensively enough.
If a drug is found during testing to have success in treating only a small fraction of patients because the patients cannot stick to the treatment protocol for any reason including things like taste or any other difficulty that the treatment might present, it is usually soundly rejected and not allowed to go to market. Many otherwise effective drugs are not on the market today or are limited to hospital use because of this.
So, we don't allow doctors to prescribe drugs that are ineffective because patients can't stick to the treatment protocol, but we do allow them to continue to prescribe diets and blame it on the patients when they can't adhere to the protocol? Where is the logic in that?
Perhaps most could stick to the established guidelines if the chemical dependency they've developed for their specific food mixture is successfully treated first. But just saying be well and you'll get well doesn't usually work.
And, frankly, I believe the established guidelines do not take into account the natural systems of the body that message hunger or satisfaction to the brain. In the long term, hunger trumps will most of the time. If followed, the guidelines place many on a perilous peak where missteps cause falls into bad valleys instead of placing them in a safe valley where minor falls go nowhere.
A figurehead is usually the visible tip of a large iceberg. The true story is a quieter one that shapes the ground on which the debate occurs from behind the scenes.
50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists To Point Blame At Fat
You speak of pharma company profits (and you're right today), but our sugar consumption problem was started by the sugar industry in the 60s using methods straight out of the books of the tobacco industry - buried studies that were linking sugar to cholesterol problems and lobbying for the war against fat.
I have been on a low carb diet much of the time for several years now with positive results regardless of what my weight is. My serum cholesterol levels dropped by over 50% long before the weight came off.
I've known several people to get rid of a Type 2 diabetes or prediabetes diagnosis by going low carb. And as to those who say it is difficult to stay on it, it is no more so than any other lifestyle change. I've known many to try becoming vegetarians and fall off.
Yes, it is easy to fall off of a keto diet that is for weight loss because you're reducing your calories. The key I've found is to just increase your calories for a while without going back to carbs. Also, artificial sweeteners keep the craving for sweets in place. Lose them. You should always plan on just doing keto forever just as a vegetarian plans to eat nothing but vegetables forever. Eventually, the thought of sugar or potatoes will just turn your stomach.
I had that same experience but after a few seconds I also started noting that the white noise sounds coming from outside my home were going silent at each impact. I'd guess that is a result of the brain attempting to focus towards hearing the sound of impact. The white noise is coming through the open door behind me and the video is 180 degrees away from that.
Though not a net neutrality battle, this is similar and, sadly, allowed by regulations to proceed.
Amazon is the overwhelming leader in the online retail market. They have chosen to become a provider of devices that they sell, thus competing with the retailers who use them to reach a large portion of the market. Google is the closest competitor to some of their devices, so they took advantage of their position and locked them out.
How is this different in nature from what can happen when ISPs that are regional monopolies merge with content providers and there is no net neutrality regulation in place? Do we really think the ISPs' content providers won't be given a leg up on other content providers? How long before the first competitor is blocked by an ISP?
At least when Amazon flexes muscle, we can go to Walmart or some other online retailer. In my area, we only have alleged competition to Spectrum.
I couldn't find video views per month, but vid.me is apparently getting about 20 million "visits" a month. Youtube gets near 150 billion "video views" per month (nearly 5 billion / day from the billion+ unique users). 150 billion / 20 million = 7500. So, if every single visit to vid.me is resulting in a video view, they are still 1 / 7500th of Youtube's traffic. They are ranked somewhere between 2000th and 7000th in the world depending on which traffic ranking site you look at. Vid.me is nobody.
So, yeh, why was this posted?
And why shouldn't it be hard? I seriously doubt that there is a single Youtube video channel that could make more money if they were to abandon Youtube and set up their own site where they pay for the video storage and streaming bandwidth. The majority of sites on the internet that have any videos serve them from Youtube instead of their own site. You don't hear many complaints that they are getting ripped off.
Suspect you're talking about this Florida prison escape by two inmates. The crazy thing about that story is how they were caught. All felons in Florida are required to register their locations after release. These two guys actually registered their location. They were working under the delusion that nobody would ever figure it out and doing everything possible to follow the law.
I'm pretty sure that they paid a lot for the forgery though. So it wasn't easy or cheap.
The concept of escaping from a prison and staying out for any length of time was common in older days but is pretty much dead in America today. The vast majority are caught almost immediately. All escapees do is add to their sentences.
Jail is a somewhat different story. Authorities may simply not care enough to launch a massive manhunt with a jailbreak by a misdemeanor offender. At the same time, the gain is less so why do it. These guys will have a vast loss for next to no gain.
Yeh, good luck on that. You'd have to find a moment where there are sell orders for nearly six million shares without buy orders to match. You might find such a moment during a price plunge, but that wouldn't be a smart time to take advantage of it. Looking at the recent charts, I do see some end of day moments when 6 million shares traded, but those moments had buyers in the market for those shares. If you dumped your six million at that moment, you'd have 12 million shares for sale and be short on buyers. Simply put, you can't trade a fifth of Apple's daily volume all at once unless perhaps you found someone who would just purchase your stock direct.
There are many small-cap stocks out there whose price will be impacted if you sell $100K all at once. If you sold $1 billion in Apple stock in a single day, a large portion of its current average daily volume, you'd impact the price pretty dramatically. As with any asset that is only worth as much as the next buyer will pay, a mega-investor would have to sell Bitcoin at a pace compatible with the daily trade volume.
Given that the daily volume of bitcoin trade is topping $1 billion right now, you could probably sell the entire stake in a couple of weeks without severely impacting the price.
Even if they decided to be stupid and cause a crash, they'd walk away with vastly more than the $11 million they invested. I'd love that because it would create an awesome buying opportunity.
Exactly! Is there firmware update open source so users can verify it?
On top of that, just how valuable might the list of those who have paid to have it disabled be to government agencies? They could be making money from the buyer, the agency paying them for the new backdoor, and the agency paying for the list of those that paid to have the ME remove and thus have a higher probability of having something to hide. As a company, how could Dell pass this up!
I agree that this codifies what appear to be protections. But it then turns around and puts a maximum penalty in place that is too low. This gives it the appearance of codifying the protections just for the sake of overriding the states' existing codes with a maximum that is less than what states might want to impose in order to protect the companies from consumer rights oriented states.
We'd be far better off to just copy the GDPR. This would also keep things consistent. Many of the possible bad actors here are international.
Totally agree. The GDPR appears to be much more consumer oriented. This one has all the right words as to what to penalize, but that is just because it needs to make sure that it is overriding all of the right state's laws. The purpose of this bill appears to be to override the state's rights to determine their own penalties and replace that with a maximum that is lower than some of them might impose.
Ironically considering that it came from Democrats, I have similar issues with the way this affects the states to the way the repeal of net neutrality affects them.
Why else would the feds pass a law that puts a maximum on the penalty on civil suits by the attorneys general of the states if not to protect a corporate bad actor from the just decisions of a jury? And why make that maximum a fixed dollar amount instead of a percentage of earnings if not to protect mega corporations more than the little guy? These penalties could put a startup out of business quick while being nothing but a bump in the road on the big guys.
Many laws and regulations sold as protecting us from corporations are actually written for the exact opposite purpose - to put ceilings on civil awards.
I'm no attorney and could be misreading the proposed law (yes, I violated slashdot rules by reading both the article and the text of the proposed law), but this one seems to reign in the states by forcing unbelievably low maximum total civil penalties of only $5 million. Many recent breaches deserve far more than that even if reported immediately. You'd have to hit a company like Apple with $1 billion to even get noticed.
In order for penalties to be effective, a major breach should have a significant hit on a corporation's profit for at least a quarter. This does not allow that in the case of larger corporations. The prison term is likely there just to use after a breach to get lower level people to talk. It is unlikely to ever be imposed.
Yes, though their problem is worse than most as they have been too good at controlling their population.
But their argument is usually phrased in terms of there not being enough people to provide the care. If real people continue to provide all of the care, then there won't be enough people to do all of the other things necessary to support their society and economy. So, they hope to utilize robots to do things like turn people over in their beds, bathe them, change bedpans, bring them food, help them to the bathroom, etc.
The ISS orbit is so low it is within the upper reaches of our atmosphere. That is why it has to be given regular boosts to keep it in orbit. Though super thin, it does encounter enough atmosphere to induce drag.
Just as we have found unusual organisms in the deepest oceans and even miles down in rock, we should expect to find bacteria at the limits of our atmosphere and even beyond. It should also be expected that they have evolved dramatically, as organisms living off of heat and sulfur deep in our oceans have done.
There are some out of this world organisms right here at home. I'm not even sure how you could prove extraterrestrial origin. Almost anything you find could just be evidence of a previously undiscovered unique ecosystem 100+ miles up.
It's sort of neat to imagine the possibility of some life form surfing around on the auroras in the thermosphere.
Moral of the story: Find something better to do.
Go fishing.
That difficulty is hovering around 10 billion GH/s right now, not 1TH which would be 1,000 GH/s. So, yeah, you're off by some orders of magnitude.