I have a 8K monitor...here is what the original video looks like at native resolution. Wow! BTW, it only plays properly with GPU acceleration enabled in ffplay (with Nvidia GPU: ffplay -vcodec hevc_cuvid First-8K-Video-from-Space~orig.mp4). Otherwise, it's unwatchable. Here are some screenshots: http://www.andrewwatters.com/r... There are a lot of stuck pixels in the camera they are using.
I'm in my tenth year of practice in California handling general civil litigation. I can try to share a few key points that won't get me in trouble with my peers or area judges.
-- Every state should implement a PACER-like system where the public has remote access to all court records and can download all the PDFs they want for a small fee, 24/7. PACER/ECF is the Federal system for accessing and filing court documents, and it makes it really convenient when you can review an entire case file without physically going to the courthouse as you have to do in most state courts. The cost of implementing PACER with every state court system would be astronomical, but it would also provide astronomical benefits to the public. For one, the public (or more likely the legal section of the local news media) would be able to verify or refute bullshit public relations statements made by lawyers by reviewing the actual case filings.
-- Absent a full PACER/ECF implementation, every court system in a state should be linked to a centralized repository of searchable metadata instead of the current patchwork of incompatible systems for searching records. In California there are fifty-eight separate counties, each with its own Superior Court. This means each court has its own system for storing and accessing court records. Some aren't even searchable online; you have to go there in person. It makes it really difficult to conduct research on a particular case or client. Also, this is one reason why the private legal providers WestLaw and Lexis have services that I can't do without-- without a unified system, these private providers are the only way to sensibly aggregate and organize judicial opinions.
-- Lawyers should make better use of technology in their practices and lower their hourly rates as a result. I wrote my own calendaring software a few years ago that gave me a fully electronic calendar (until I started using Google calendar, which is a big improvement). I also run a paperless office with no permanent support staff and with a tiny physical office. This means I can make deals on my hourly rate with savvy clients so that we both win, and I can scale my practice appropriately so that I don't make big financial commitments and then not meet them. Some lawyers use electronic practice management software like Rocket Matter. Others find clients on Craigslist. Realistically, this type of technology interaction is one of the only ways to increase access to justice; currently, you have to make well over $100,000 per year to afford an actual lawyer, and even then it is a stretch for most people. Most hourly clients in civil litigation are actually businesses and companies, not individuals, because individuals don't have enough money to pay hourly. What I've observed though is that lawyers who have great technology keep their hourly rates the same and just pocket the extra money. And why shouldn't they?
-- Courts and older attorneys should get with the program in terms of new technology. Currently there is a lot of bureaucratic resistance as well as a generational gap in how lawyers and courts use technology. There are plenty of older attorneys out there who do not even have email, and there are many others who just don't care enough to learn MS Word. After all, if they can just hire support staff to do that, there is no incentive. As older lawyers retire or learn technology, this problem decreases for the profession, but courts are still way behind. There should be rules for judges requiring them to use technology.
-- State legislatures should spend more money on courts, but condition that funding on the use of industrial psychologists or other experts to help design better systems for information management. A local Superior Court that I practice in frequently and that I don't need to name still has physical documents hand-carried between its courthouses and administrative facilities. This is a huge waste of time, money, and effort when a few ScanSnap type machines and automated data p
The good thing about this technology is that it's also jamming-proof. If the U.S. and Russia ever get in a war, the first thing either side would do is knock out the other's GPS satellites with anti-satellite missiles, or conduct a cyber war. At that point, communications and positioning will be critical, making it important not to rely on a centralized network. Sure, GPS has multiple satellites, but if a cyber weapon knocks enough of them out, subs would have to go back to navigating by the stars and compass!
Lt. Jenna D'Sora: Kiss me. [Data obliges] Lt. Jenna D'Sora: What were you just thinking? Lt. Cmdr. Data: In that particular moment, I was reconfiguring the warp field parameters, analyzing the collected works of Charles Dickens, calculating the maximum pressure I could safely apply to your lips, considering a new food supplement for Spot... Lt. Jenna D'Sora: I'm glad I was in there somewhere.
Surely a computer would not get bored while waiting for human input. It could run Seti@home during its spare CPU cycles, if nothing else!
Is your book available in print form? I only see the kindle edition. Also, it would be great if you could put your email address on your profile so I don't have to reply to your comment in order to contact you:P
Skynet and The Terminator are definitely coming. But what about the economics of machine intelligence? This article makes an interesting case: http://hanson.gmu.edu/aigrow.p...
LaTeX to generate documents is pretty resourceful. How do you manage drafts that need to be exchanged with a client or opposing counsel when they ask for a "track changes" version? What font(s) do you use?
I hate Word and its auto formatting more than any other program, so I use InDesign. Templates, high precision, access to pro-level graphics placement and text wrapping, preflight, customizable PDF output, and more. I use Courier Final Draft (sinful, I know) because monospace makes it easy to do tables of contents and authorities. But I'm debating whether to use Century Schoolbook in the future.
The Reddit front page is hopeless. It's like the Firehose on this site. The Subreddits are where the action is really at, and most seem to have enough moderators who are interested in the specific subject matter to handle the large number of dupes, bin spam, etc. that get posted. Here are some examples of great parts of Reddit:
http://www.reddit.com/r/LetsNotMeet/ was created to let users share true stories of creepy things happening that are just too personal or random to share elsewhere.
And many, many other sections that I've never seen.
Anyone can create a Subreddit and assign moderators. It's a Darwinian system where the best content (theoretically) makes it to the top with minimal intervention by the moderators; it's based primarily on up voting and down voting by the entire user base.
The disadvantages of Reddit are many; for example, regardless of how cool you think your own story, picture, etc. is, it often gets only a couple of up votes and never appears anywhere significant. Depending on how you sort comments, you only see the ones that occur early on and never see interesting comments that might have been posted well after the story was submitted. Because anyone can submit a link, but links can usually only be submitted once, someone might post a link to a news story before you but the story gets no up votes and so effectively you can't post it. There seems to be a significant desensitization to gore and NSFW posts-- you never know what the link you click on will show when it's just a random URL on imgur.com and could be a horrific injury or death, child porn, disease, surgery, etc. There are sections of that site that you don't even want to know about. Imagine a section devoted exclusively to truly disgusting shock porn, like TubGirl x 1000. It's/r/spacedicks. Trust me, don't ever go there.
Overall, I find Reddit a better site. The news is fresher, the comments are just as good as here, and there are way more comments to be read on Reddit than on the typical stories here. They don't have the "first post" problem because those posts immediately get down voted into oblivion. Also, Reddit has separate sections for people of opposite views on many subjects, such as/r/atheism (constant Christian bashing) vs./r/Christianity (constant bible thumping). They also have less tech-savvy users, which provides a better cross section of internet users in general and allows better discussion of non-technical subjects. But there's also better information on technical subjects. For example, http://www.reddit.com/r/space/. Or, the time a Canadian astronaut randomly did an AMA (ask me anything) about his visit to the International Space Station, and the result was great discussion on space-related subjects not found anywhere else: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/gm8rh/iaman_astronaut_who_has_been_to_space_twice_and/
By the time the mission launches ten years from now, there may be more advanced broadcasting methods and codecs available. It doesn't need to be and probably can't be live with today's technology, whether due to the number of cameras or amount bandwidth/editing required, so maybe the astronauts would do some of the editing while there. Or, there could be automated camera switching/editing triggered by personal locators or simply sensors in the portions of the habitat where someone is actively working so bandwidth isn't wasted filming empty rooms or whatever. They also could hold regular meetings which would be a highlight of the TV coverage, or have a scheduling system. It doesn't need to be high definition, just something of YouTube quality.
> Is the following statement morally reprehensible to you? "I know you've had a long day but...."
No. Much is asked of those to whom much is given. I would gladly take this opportunity.
In other words it will be just like The Shining (1980) but in space! What could possibly go wrong?!
HEEEEEEERE'S JOHNNY!!!!!!!
On that note, the sexual dynamics among a group of two men and two women isolated from the outside world for at least two years could create quite a firestorm on reality TV, not to mention extensive fodder for gossip magazines.
Yep, no idea whether such beacons are even possible. I can't remember where I read about it, and I don't know how much fissile material it would take to alter the spectrum. Probably a huge amount. Well, if we achieve fusion power, I guess there will be a lot of leftover Uranium to use for this purpose. Shooting raw Uranium ore into the Sun might indicate to the observer that fusion power has been achieved as well.
I guess it does make more sense to permanently alter the spectrum, perhaps by throwing asteroids with high metal content into the Sun continuously, which surely a Kardashev-level II civilization could do, but then you'd have the problem of variations in the spectral emissions that might just look random to an observer, even assuming they were continuously monitoring the star. Also, the K-II civilization might not be blessed (cursed?) with the incredibly large number of asteroids that we have, or may wish to use them for mining.
> Any life out there capable of generating a signal that could be detected at interstellar distances is likely far more advanced than us, certainly those capable of modulating their sun are, and may quite possibly have discovered technologies much better suited to interstellar communication than radio or optics.
Indeed, solutions 9-30 in Webb's book deal with these possibilities.
Many of the issues in these threads are discussed in the excellent book Where is Everybody?, which provides fifty solutions to Fermi's Paradox of why the Universe is not teeming with intelligent life.
However, you make an excellent point regarding the recent Heliopause discoveries, which occurred well after Stephen Webb's book came out in 2002. You might want to get in touch with the author and share your insight. I couldn't find an email address for him.
There's only one solution I can think of to the issue of RF transmissions being masked by the Heliopause. And that would be altering the spectrum of the Sun in a recognizable pattern.
For example, shooting a large (like, ridiculously large) amount of nuclear waste into the Sun might cause an alien spectral analysis to show an unexpected band of ionized depleted Uranium along with other elements in spent fuel. If that band appeared and disappeared yearly in a prime number or Fibonacci sequence, an alien astronomer with our level of technology or greater would be able to deduce:
1. The length of the Earth year and, I presume, the distance from the Sun to the Earth if they have their own Kepler mission.
2. The fact that Earth has achieved fission but not fusion nuclear power and related technologies.
3. That Earth has not yet annihilated itself through the discovery of nuclear technology.
4. That Earth is ready to receive a strong, directed communication that can penetrate the Heliopause.
5. What form of communication should be used to send the signal to Earth given the technology it possessed at the time the signal was initially transmitted. Perhaps that would involve altering their own star's spectrum if RF is impossible.
And many other facts.
However, there is a problem. No one seems to have done this yet. If it were possible, surely we would have seen such a beacon by now in all of our spectral analyses of all of the stars visible to us in the Universe.
Unfortunately, that would support solution number 50 in Webb's book: The Rare Earth. Sad, but apparently true at this time.
If we are going to propagate throughout the Galaxy, as we must do anyway to ensure survival within the next billion years before the Sun boils off the Earth's atmosphere, it looks like our civilization will be the one that solve's Fermi's paradox.
> I gained an amazing vocabulary of dirty words and depraved acts from printed material when I was a kid, but I didn't know how to properly apply them til my dad taught me.
Hmm....how closely did your dad supervise you in this training regimen you describe?;)
Europe will never get it; it's too ingrained in American culture that violence is OK but sex is not.
There is one benefit, however. Judging by the horribly embarrassing percentage of America that is obese or otherwise unsuitable for being seen naked, I am actually more comfortable with how we do things over here.
I especially don't like the "whores in windows" in Amsterdam, although prostitution is legal in a small part of the U.S. so I can't really complain about it being legal over there. Sex toys in windows, more of a gray area. I'd rather not see them but that's just my opinion.
> The reason for private citizens to own guns is so we can execute corrupt police, tyrannical senators and presidents, and (oh yeah, way way down on the list) muggers.
What are you, your own lynch mob? The constitution also provides that no person shall be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law. Granted, the 5th Amendment has been read to apply to the government and not to private actors. However, certainly an elected official would be entitled to due process of law from any transitional government purporting to replace his own, regardless of how severely the new government might disagree with his or her policies or acts while in office. Even Saddam received a trial. Even the Nuremburg defendants received a trial. Even Civil War prisoners in the U.S. were treated as prisoners of war with the rights that that entailed at the time, rather than being executed for treason as would have been expressly permitted by the constitution. Entire books have been written about victor's justice and whether it can ever be fair-- or perceived to be fair. What is certainly not fair is for a private citizen or group of private citizens to decide on his/her/their own that a government official deserves to be executed for official acts.
Yes, I would have a problem with someone unilaterally executing Hugo Chavez, even though his regime does not afford the very due process he would receive. I happen to believe it was a huge mistake to execute Bin Laden when he clearly could have been captured alive and interrogated concerning al Qaeda's strategic plans, and then tried and convicted under our very own system of laws, and then put to death for his terrible crimes.
Regardless of any disagreement we may have over Bin Laden, who in any event was not an elected official, it is inconsistent with the principles expressed in the U.S. constitution for lynch mobs to simply execute public officials whom they believe to be corrupt.
Muggers are fair game though. Do you see a difference between killing a mugger in self-defense and executing an elected official? I do, I really do, and I hope that other gun owners do as well.
> So then, what is the governments motive for pursuing this?
It's the same motive for the "security theater" conducted by the TSA on a daily basis affecting millions of legitimate travelers: show the good monkeys what happens to the bad monkeys. It's evident from the design of the system itself, especially the fact that they conduct enhanced pat downs in full view of other travelers with no privacy at all.
> If the government can make an example of this one case, they have just changed the mindset of millions of people.
Well, I'm not a huge fan of either party, but after carefully considering who I would prefer in the Oval Office, I've decided to vote for our current President. So, I raised $600 for the campaign through a "grassroots" fundraising page. Guess what? Now I get a spam email almost every single day with a 1-click instant donation link. I've already told them I'm tapped out and I won't be raising any further funds for them, but I offered to make calls or pay visits to people if they would simply give me a list of people to contact. They can't be bothered to even respond. I took the further step of opting out of all but the most "important" messages, but that hasn't stopped the flood of spam that I get.
The following email exchange is reflective of the Democrats' spam:
-- From: Bill Clinton Subject: Meeting you Date: May 24, 2012 8:49:09 AM PDT To: Andrew Watters Reply-To: Rufus Gifford
Andrew --
I've been in President Obama's shoes before -- less than six months to go before an election to let you finish what you started. It was tough enough back then, but this election is going to be tougher.
We're facing a tidal wave of anonymous, unlimited spending. The other side has pledged to throw more than 1 billion dollars into tearing down our president.
It's unprecedented.
Fortunately, so is the grassroots organization you're building.
Pitch in what you can today to strengthen the campaign -- and you'll be automatically entered to join me and President Obama in New York City, with the campaign covering airfare and accommodations.
By clicking here, your saved credit card will be charged immediately:
QUICK DONATE: $56
QUICK DONATE: $35
QUICK DONATE: $50
QUICK DONATE: $100
QUICK DONATE: $250
Or donate another amount.
If our opponent succeeds, so much of what we've fought so hard for will be rolled back. Health care reform -- which many presidents, including me, tried to pass and couldn't -- will be gone. Same goes for the opportunity for millions more Americans to afford to go to college, and a growing economy that works for middle-class families.
Our opponent is actually advertising a more extreme version of the policies that got us in trouble in the first place: policies that will leave us with more debt, weaker regulations on risky investments, and fewer jobs.
All of that's at stake between now and November, but here's why I'm feeling good about our chances: I know people like you have the President's back.
And I can't wait to meet you. I hope you'll give it a shot:
-- From: Andrew Watters Subject: Re: Meeting you Date: May 24, 2012 12:44:19 PM PDT To: Rufus Gifford
Thanks Mr. President, I actually met you once in Hawaii, and several years back I worked for one of your big time fundraisers, ___________, of _________, CA.
I'm sorry to say that I can't afford to contribute any more money to President Obama's campaign. However, I remain available to assist in the President's fundraising efforts in some capacity, as indicated in my prior emails including the one attaching my resume. What would be great is simply a list of people in my area whom I could call or drop in on.
Thank you for your consideration sir.
Andrew Watters -
No response, despite name-dropping a well-known powerhouse fundraiser who has many pictures of himself with President Clinton from the 1992 campaign, held a fundraiser with candidate Edwards in 2004 at his home, was on the boat with candidate Kerry in the 2004 campaign, etc. In addition to noting that yes, I have actually met Bill Clinton. Despite this, I got another spam email a few days later, a
Email to most State politicians is pointless. Between Nigerian scammers, interest groups, astroturfing, spam, automated "news alerts" from whoever, links to blogs, etc., the signal gets lost in the noise. Send a fax or a letter instead, that way an actual person will read your correspondence and appropriately categorize it. Or try calling them.
Case example: in the early to mid 2000's, my State Senator turned Congressional representative, Jackie Speier (D--Hillsborough, CA), was very responsive to actual letters and either dictated or at least approved multiple responses. The level of detail was, I must admit, incredible. OCD? Probably, but I'd rather have an OCD politician who responds to inquiries or policy comments than not. My current Federal rep in a different district was fairly responsive to use of his online email form, in which he provides categories (help with an agency, policy comments, etc.). Calling him re SOPA also worked.
This story demonstrates the need for some type of public relations filter on Slashdot stories. Too often, a company's PR statements are taken as fact. Here, perhaps the people who run google may have been wanting to end yearly bonuses for a long time. Fearing employee backlash, they needed a plausible cover story. The economy is easy to blame. Look, I know that it's entirely possible their motivations are accurately stated in the press release. I contend, however, that it is equally likely that the economy gives Google the opportunity to change its bonus program without suspicion. Given past violations of the "don't be evil" rule, this wouldn't be surprising.
There are way too many public relations stories on slashdot. Basically you can disregard anything written in a press release or in a news story about what one company said to another. Every time, it is a carefully worded written statement made by the company's PR department or external public relations firm. They often make vague comments that work by implication and innuendo (leaving wiggle room and plausible deniability) rather than commitments to hard facts or positions. Every time someone takes a press release seriously, the company benefits. I for one don't believe slashdot should give top billing to stories like this.
Here, to have a CEO call the mobile field "deeply unsexy" in an attempt to make the public think Google doesn't fit into it implies that he and his company are deeply concerned about Google entering the mobile platform market and shaking it up! As for "You have [...] a lot of zeroes in your sales figures before a developer gets out of bed," he's implying that it will take a long time to be profitable. However, I think Google has "a lot [more] zeroes" in its market capitalization and R&D budget than Symbian and many other companies combined. Thus Symbian's fear that Google will get into mobile devices.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a 8K monitor...here is what the original video looks like at native resolution. Wow! BTW, it only plays properly with GPU acceleration enabled in ffplay (with Nvidia GPU: ffplay -vcodec hevc_cuvid First-8K-Video-from-Space~orig.mp4). Otherwise, it's unwatchable. Here are some screenshots: http://www.andrewwatters.com/r...
There are a lot of stuck pixels in the camera they are using.
I'm in my tenth year of practice in California handling general civil litigation. I can try to share a few key points that won't get me in trouble with my peers or area judges.
-- Every state should implement a PACER-like system where the public has remote access to all court records and can download all the PDFs they want for a small fee, 24/7. PACER/ECF is the Federal system for accessing and filing court documents, and it makes it really convenient when you can review an entire case file without physically going to the courthouse as you have to do in most state courts. The cost of implementing PACER with every state court system would be astronomical, but it would also provide astronomical benefits to the public. For one, the public (or more likely the legal section of the local news media) would be able to verify or refute bullshit public relations statements made by lawyers by reviewing the actual case filings.
-- Absent a full PACER/ECF implementation, every court system in a state should be linked to a centralized repository of searchable metadata instead of the current patchwork of incompatible systems for searching records. In California there are fifty-eight separate counties, each with its own Superior Court. This means each court has its own system for storing and accessing court records. Some aren't even searchable online; you have to go there in person. It makes it really difficult to conduct research on a particular case or client. Also, this is one reason why the private legal providers WestLaw and Lexis have services that I can't do without-- without a unified system, these private providers are the only way to sensibly aggregate and organize judicial opinions.
-- Lawyers should make better use of technology in their practices and lower their hourly rates as a result. I wrote my own calendaring software a few years ago that gave me a fully electronic calendar (until I started using Google calendar, which is a big improvement). I also run a paperless office with no permanent support staff and with a tiny physical office. This means I can make deals on my hourly rate with savvy clients so that we both win, and I can scale my practice appropriately so that I don't make big financial commitments and then not meet them. Some lawyers use electronic practice management software like Rocket Matter. Others find clients on Craigslist. Realistically, this type of technology interaction is one of the only ways to increase access to justice; currently, you have to make well over $100,000 per year to afford an actual lawyer, and even then it is a stretch for most people. Most hourly clients in civil litigation are actually businesses and companies, not individuals, because individuals don't have enough money to pay hourly. What I've observed though is that lawyers who have great technology keep their hourly rates the same and just pocket the extra money. And why shouldn't they?
-- Courts and older attorneys should get with the program in terms of new technology. Currently there is a lot of bureaucratic resistance as well as a generational gap in how lawyers and courts use technology. There are plenty of older attorneys out there who do not even have email, and there are many others who just don't care enough to learn MS Word. After all, if they can just hire support staff to do that, there is no incentive. As older lawyers retire or learn technology, this problem decreases for the profession, but courts are still way behind. There should be rules for judges requiring them to use technology.
-- State legislatures should spend more money on courts, but condition that funding on the use of industrial psychologists or other experts to help design better systems for information management. A local Superior Court that I practice in frequently and that I don't need to name still has physical documents hand-carried between its courthouses and administrative facilities. This is a huge waste of time, money, and effort when a few ScanSnap type machines and automated data p
The good thing about this technology is that it's also jamming-proof. If the U.S. and Russia ever get in a war, the first thing either side would do is knock out the other's GPS satellites with anti-satellite missiles, or conduct a cyber war. At that point, communications and positioning will be critical, making it important not to rely on a centralized network. Sure, GPS has multiple satellites, but if a cyber weapon knocks enough of them out, subs would have to go back to navigating by the stars and compass!
Lt. Jenna D'Sora: Kiss me.
[Data obliges]
Lt. Jenna D'Sora: What were you just thinking?
Lt. Cmdr. Data: In that particular moment, I was reconfiguring the warp field parameters, analyzing the collected works of Charles Dickens, calculating the maximum pressure I could safely apply to your lips, considering a new food supplement for Spot...
Lt. Jenna D'Sora: I'm glad I was in there somewhere.
Surely a computer would not get bored while waiting for human input. It could run Seti@home during its spare CPU cycles, if nothing else!
Is your book available in print form? I only see the kindle edition. Also, it would be great if you could put your email address on your profile so I don't have to reply to your comment in order to contact you :P
Skynet and The Terminator are definitely coming. But what about the economics of machine intelligence? This article makes an interesting case: http://hanson.gmu.edu/aigrow.p...
LaTeX to generate documents is pretty resourceful. How do you manage drafts that need to be exchanged with a client or opposing counsel when they ask for a "track changes" version? What font(s) do you use?
I hate Word and its auto formatting more than any other program, so I use InDesign. Templates, high precision, access to pro-level graphics placement and text wrapping, preflight, customizable PDF output, and more. I use Courier Final Draft (sinful, I know) because monospace makes it easy to do tables of contents and authorities. But I'm debating whether to use Century Schoolbook in the future.
The Reddit front page is hopeless. It's like the Firehose on this site. The Subreddits are where the action is really at, and most seem to have enough moderators who are interested in the specific subject matter to handle the large number of dupes, bin spam, etc. that get posted. Here are some examples of great parts of Reddit:
http://www.reddit.com/r/fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu/ popularized Rage Comics. Anyone can make a comic and the moderation system works pretty well for those.
http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/ provides interesting trivia facts
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/ has far more relevant and interesting content than the Science section here. Same with the http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/ section.
http://www.reddit.com/r/LetsNotMeet/ was created to let users share true stories of creepy things happening that are just too personal or random to share elsewhere.
http://www.reddit.com/r/JusticePorn/ provides users with interesting legal developments.
http://www.reddit.com/r/AbandonedPorn/ provides a community of explorers a place to share cool photos.
And many, many other sections that I've never seen.
Anyone can create a Subreddit and assign moderators. It's a Darwinian system where the best content (theoretically) makes it to the top with minimal intervention by the moderators; it's based primarily on up voting and down voting by the entire user base.
The disadvantages of Reddit are many; for example, regardless of how cool you think your own story, picture, etc. is, it often gets only a couple of up votes and never appears anywhere significant. Depending on how you sort comments, you only see the ones that occur early on and never see interesting comments that might have been posted well after the story was submitted. Because anyone can submit a link, but links can usually only be submitted once, someone might post a link to a news story before you but the story gets no up votes and so effectively you can't post it. There seems to be a significant desensitization to gore and NSFW posts-- you never know what the link you click on will show when it's just a random URL on imgur.com and could be a horrific injury or death, child porn, disease, surgery, etc. There are sections of that site that you don't even want to know about. Imagine a section devoted exclusively to truly disgusting shock porn, like TubGirl x 1000. It's /r/spacedicks. Trust me, don't ever go there.
Overall, I find Reddit a better site. The news is fresher, the comments are just as good as here, and there are way more comments to be read on Reddit than on the typical stories here. They don't have the "first post" problem because those posts immediately get down voted into oblivion. Also, Reddit has separate sections for people of opposite views on many subjects, such as /r/atheism (constant Christian bashing) vs. /r/Christianity (constant bible thumping). They also have less tech-savvy users, which provides a better cross section of internet users in general and allows better discussion of non-technical subjects. But there's also better information on technical subjects. For example, http://www.reddit.com/r/space/. Or, the time a Canadian astronaut randomly did an AMA (ask me anything) about his visit to the International Space Station, and the result was great discussion on space-related subjects not found anywhere else: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/gm8rh/iaman_astronaut_who_has_been_to_space_twice_and/
> the nerd in me would pay 0.99 on iTunes to fund their Super Collider music...
Are you aware of Les Horribles Cernettes and their song, Mr. Higgs (2007)?
It's so bad that it's good! Incidentally, they were the first band on the world wide web.
By the time the mission launches ten years from now, there may be more advanced broadcasting methods and codecs available. It doesn't need to be and probably can't be live with today's technology, whether due to the number of cameras or amount bandwidth/editing required, so maybe the astronauts would do some of the editing while there. Or, there could be automated camera switching/editing triggered by personal locators or simply sensors in the portions of the habitat where someone is actively working so bandwidth isn't wasted filming empty rooms or whatever. They also could hold regular meetings which would be a highlight of the TV coverage, or have a scheduling system. It doesn't need to be high definition, just something of YouTube quality.
> Is the following statement morally reprehensible to you? "I know you've had a long day but...."
No. Much is asked of those to whom much is given. I would gladly take this opportunity.
In other words it will be just like The Shining (1980) but in space! What could possibly go wrong?!
HEEEEEEERE'S JOHNNY!!!!!!!
On that note, the sexual dynamics among a group of two men and two women isolated from the outside world for at least two years could create quite a firestorm on reality TV, not to mention extensive fodder for gossip magazines.
I think you're right. Back to the drawing board.
Yep, no idea whether such beacons are even possible. I can't remember where I read about it, and I don't know how much fissile material it would take to alter the spectrum. Probably a huge amount. Well, if we achieve fusion power, I guess there will be a lot of leftover Uranium to use for this purpose. Shooting raw Uranium ore into the Sun might indicate to the observer that fusion power has been achieved as well.
I guess it does make more sense to permanently alter the spectrum, perhaps by throwing asteroids with high metal content into the Sun continuously, which surely a Kardashev-level II civilization could do, but then you'd have the problem of variations in the spectral emissions that might just look random to an observer, even assuming they were continuously monitoring the star. Also, the K-II civilization might not be blessed (cursed?) with the incredibly large number of asteroids that we have, or may wish to use them for mining.
> Any life out there capable of generating a signal that could be detected at interstellar distances is likely far more advanced than us, certainly those capable of modulating their sun are, and may quite possibly have discovered technologies much better suited to interstellar communication than radio or optics.
Indeed, solutions 9-30 in Webb's book deal with these possibilities.
You make some good points. Thanks for the reply.
Many of the issues in these threads are discussed in the excellent book Where is Everybody?, which provides fifty solutions to Fermi's Paradox of why the Universe is not teeming with intelligent life.
However, you make an excellent point regarding the recent Heliopause discoveries, which occurred well after Stephen Webb's book came out in 2002. You might want to get in touch with the author and share your insight. I couldn't find an email address for him.
There's only one solution I can think of to the issue of RF transmissions being masked by the Heliopause. And that would be altering the spectrum of the Sun in a recognizable pattern.
For example, shooting a large (like, ridiculously large) amount of nuclear waste into the Sun might cause an alien spectral analysis to show an unexpected band of ionized depleted Uranium along with other elements in spent fuel. If that band appeared and disappeared yearly in a prime number or Fibonacci sequence, an alien astronomer with our level of technology or greater would be able to deduce:
1. The length of the Earth year and, I presume, the distance from the Sun to the Earth if they have their own Kepler mission.
2. The fact that Earth has achieved fission but not fusion nuclear power and related technologies.
3. That Earth has not yet annihilated itself through the discovery of nuclear technology.
4. That Earth is ready to receive a strong, directed communication that can penetrate the Heliopause.
5. What form of communication should be used to send the signal to Earth given the technology it possessed at the time the signal was initially transmitted. Perhaps that would involve altering their own star's spectrum if RF is impossible.
And many other facts.
However, there is a problem. No one seems to have done this yet. If it were possible, surely we would have seen such a beacon by now in all of our spectral analyses of all of the stars visible to us in the Universe.
Unfortunately, that would support solution number 50 in Webb's book: The Rare Earth. Sad, but apparently true at this time.
If we are going to propagate throughout the Galaxy, as we must do anyway to ensure survival within the next billion years before the Sun boils off the Earth's atmosphere, it looks like our civilization will be the one that solve's Fermi's paradox.
> What would happen if you paid for 80 litres of fuel but you only needed 70 to brim the tank?
You go back to the attendant and he or she gives you change. It's pretty easy.
> I gained an amazing vocabulary of dirty words and depraved acts from printed material when I was a kid, but I didn't know how to properly apply them til my dad taught me.
Hmm....how closely did your dad supervise you in this training regimen you describe? ;)
It's called the Puritan Heritage. Sad but true: check this brief summary out.
Europe will never get it; it's too ingrained in American culture that violence is OK but sex is not.
There is one benefit, however. Judging by the horribly embarrassing percentage of America that is obese or otherwise unsuitable for being seen naked, I am actually more comfortable with how we do things over here.
I especially don't like the "whores in windows" in Amsterdam, although prostitution is legal in a small part of the U.S. so I can't really complain about it being legal over there. Sex toys in windows, more of a gray area. I'd rather not see them but that's just my opinion.
> The reason for private citizens to own guns is so we can execute corrupt police, tyrannical senators and presidents, and (oh yeah, way way down on the list) muggers.
What are you, your own lynch mob? The constitution also provides that no person shall be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law. Granted, the 5th Amendment has been read to apply to the government and not to private actors. However, certainly an elected official would be entitled to due process of law from any transitional government purporting to replace his own, regardless of how severely the new government might disagree with his or her policies or acts while in office. Even Saddam received a trial. Even the Nuremburg defendants received a trial. Even Civil War prisoners in the U.S. were treated as prisoners of war with the rights that that entailed at the time, rather than being executed for treason as would have been expressly permitted by the constitution. Entire books have been written about victor's justice and whether it can ever be fair-- or perceived to be fair. What is certainly not fair is for a private citizen or group of private citizens to decide on his/her/their own that a government official deserves to be executed for official acts.
Yes, I would have a problem with someone unilaterally executing Hugo Chavez, even though his regime does not afford the very due process he would receive. I happen to believe it was a huge mistake to execute Bin Laden when he clearly could have been captured alive and interrogated concerning al Qaeda's strategic plans, and then tried and convicted under our very own system of laws, and then put to death for his terrible crimes.
Regardless of any disagreement we may have over Bin Laden, who in any event was not an elected official, it is inconsistent with the principles expressed in the U.S. constitution for lynch mobs to simply execute public officials whom they believe to be corrupt.
Muggers are fair game though. Do you see a difference between killing a mugger in self-defense and executing an elected official? I do, I really do, and I hope that other gun owners do as well.
> So then, what is the governments motive for pursuing this?
It's the same motive for the "security theater" conducted by the TSA on a daily basis affecting millions of legitimate travelers: show the good monkeys what happens to the bad monkeys. It's evident from the design of the system itself, especially the fact that they conduct enhanced pat downs in full view of other travelers with no privacy at all.
> If the government can make an example of this one case, they have just changed the mindset of millions of people.
You're right. Psychology, man.
Well, I'm not a huge fan of either party, but after carefully considering who I would prefer in the Oval Office, I've decided to vote for our current President. So, I raised $600 for the campaign through a "grassroots" fundraising page. Guess what? Now I get a spam email almost every single day with a 1-click instant donation link. I've already told them I'm tapped out and I won't be raising any further funds for them, but I offered to make calls or pay visits to people if they would simply give me a list of people to contact. They can't be bothered to even respond. I took the further step of opting out of all but the most "important" messages, but that hasn't stopped the flood of spam that I get.
The following email exchange is reflective of the Democrats' spam:
--
From: Bill Clinton
Subject: Meeting you
Date: May 24, 2012 8:49:09 AM PDT
To: Andrew Watters
Reply-To: Rufus Gifford
Andrew --
I've been in President Obama's shoes before -- less than six months to go before an election to let you finish what you started. It was tough enough back then, but this election is going to be tougher.
We're facing a tidal wave of anonymous, unlimited spending. The other side has pledged to throw more than 1 billion dollars into tearing down our president.
It's unprecedented.
Fortunately, so is the grassroots organization you're building.
Pitch in what you can today to strengthen the campaign -- and you'll be automatically entered to join me and President Obama in New York City, with the campaign covering airfare and accommodations.
By clicking here, your saved credit card will be charged immediately:
QUICK DONATE: $56
QUICK DONATE: $35
QUICK DONATE: $50
QUICK DONATE: $100
QUICK DONATE: $250
Or donate another amount.
If our opponent succeeds, so much of what we've fought so hard for will be rolled back. Health care reform -- which many presidents, including me, tried to pass and couldn't -- will be gone. Same goes for the opportunity for millions more Americans to afford to go to college, and a growing economy that works for middle-class families.
Our opponent is actually advertising a more extreme version of the policies that got us in trouble in the first place: policies that will leave us with more debt, weaker regulations on risky investments, and fewer jobs.
All of that's at stake between now and November, but here's why I'm feeling good about our chances: I know people like you have the President's back.
And I can't wait to meet you. I hope you'll give it a shot:
https://donate.barackobama.com/Presidents
Thanks, and good luck,
Bill Clinton
--
From: Andrew Watters
Subject: Re: Meeting you
Date: May 24, 2012 12:44:19 PM PDT
To: Rufus Gifford
Thanks Mr. President, I actually met you once in Hawaii, and several years back I worked for one of your big time fundraisers, ___________,
of _________, CA.
I'm sorry to say that I can't afford to contribute any more money to President Obama's campaign. However, I remain available to assist in the
President's fundraising efforts in some capacity, as indicated in my prior emails including the one attaching my resume. What would be great is
simply a list of people in my area whom I could call or drop in on.
Thank you for your consideration sir.
Andrew Watters
-
No response, despite name-dropping a well-known powerhouse fundraiser who has many pictures of himself with President Clinton from the 1992 campaign, held a fundraiser with candidate Edwards in 2004 at his home, was on the boat with candidate Kerry in the 2004 campaign, etc. In addition to noting that yes, I have actually met Bill Clinton. Despite this, I got another spam email a few days later, a
Email to most State politicians is pointless. Between Nigerian scammers, interest groups, astroturfing, spam, automated "news alerts" from whoever, links to blogs, etc., the signal gets lost in the noise. Send a fax or a letter instead, that way an actual person will read your correspondence and appropriately categorize it. Or try calling them.
Case example: in the early to mid 2000's, my State Senator turned Congressional representative, Jackie Speier (D--Hillsborough, CA), was very responsive to actual letters and either dictated or at least approved multiple responses. The level of detail was, I must admit, incredible. OCD? Probably, but I'd rather have an OCD politician who responds to inquiries or policy comments than not. My current Federal rep in a different district was fairly responsive to use of his online email form, in which he provides categories (help with an agency, policy comments, etc.). Calling him re SOPA also worked.
This story demonstrates the need for some type of public relations filter on Slashdot stories. Too often, a company's PR statements are taken as fact. Here, perhaps the people who run google may have been wanting to end yearly bonuses for a long time. Fearing employee backlash, they needed a plausible cover story. The economy is easy to blame. Look, I know that it's entirely possible their motivations are accurately stated in the press release. I contend, however, that it is equally likely that the economy gives Google the opportunity to change its bonus program without suspicion. Given past violations of the "don't be evil" rule, this wouldn't be surprising.
We synthesize what we must because we can.
In a black hole (and in Soviet Russia), the aperture synthesizes you! No joke.
There are way too many public relations stories on slashdot. Basically you can disregard anything written in a press release or in a news story about what one company said to another. Every time, it is a carefully worded written statement made by the company's PR department or external public relations firm. They often make vague comments that work by implication and innuendo (leaving wiggle room and plausible deniability) rather than commitments to hard facts or positions. Every time someone takes a press release seriously, the company benefits. I for one don't believe slashdot should give top billing to stories like this.
Here, to have a CEO call the mobile field "deeply unsexy" in an attempt to make the public think Google doesn't fit into it implies that he and his company are deeply concerned about Google entering the mobile platform market and shaking it up! As for "You have [...] a lot of zeroes in your sales figures before a developer gets out of bed," he's implying that it will take a long time to be profitable. However, I think Google has "a lot [more] zeroes" in its market capitalization and R&D budget than Symbian and many other companies combined. Thus Symbian's fear that Google will get into mobile devices.