So you're betting money that the Apocalypse will happen and society collapse, a lá I Am Legend ? Heh! I'll take that bet. You lose, you pay. I lose, neither of us will be around to collect and money will be worthless anyway.:D
Normally I would but as it was the director-general of the WHO that suggested the whole of humanity is at risk because of Swine flu I'd argue it's actually the WHO that's doing the hyping this time round
Maybe you're misreading or whatever second-hand source you had was misreading it. Maybe by "whole of humanity is at risk" he means as opposed to "just Mexicans" etc. I.e. all countries could suffer from this because it's a pandemic. I don't know that this is what he meant, but it's a valid reading whereas "we are risking all of humanity" as the alternative sounds less likely coming from the WHO.
Besides we could probably use a good culling or two.
Leaving aside how you're likely to feel if someone you care about were killed by a pandemic, it probably wouldn't have the long term effect you anticipate. The usual response of human cultures to a wide-scale loss of life is breeding on a massive scale. The most effective means of reducing the population long-term appears to be a stable and prosperous society with effective education and opportunities for women. You can see the results in much of Western Europe. You get an ageing-population bubble, but that pops eventually. In comparison, wiping out 30% of the human race would have the same effect as a crash diet on an individual. A brief reduction followed by massive over-compensation. Look at the recovery from the two World Wars and the last pandemic if you want to see it in action.
I fear it is a cycle that occurs with successful projects (and sit comes). Once you've had a success, you have to either say "we did a good job" and move on (other than a bit of maintenance and bug fixing), or keep piling on more until the original success is mitigated by later dross.
Not that I think Firefox has become that bad. But I can well see where you're coming from. I like Konqueror myself. I've just got IE8, so I'll be giving that a try also.
I also agree (is this really Slashdot, or has my DNS been spoofed), but lets just clear up that the EU don't want MS to ship without a browser, but with multiple browsers. However, Microsoft have it right. I don't want a new computer cluttered up with multiple browsers. There are some browsers I may not want installed (do I really trust Google's browser?). Some browsers may come with terms and conditions I don't like and quite frankly it's just clutter to me and confusion to others. If I install Ubuntu or Kubuntu, okay, I can get other browsers easily, but they do come with a default one installed. Finally, if you do install multiple browsers, who gets approved and who does not? And by who? If we get IE, Firefox and Chrome does Opera sue? If we add Opera then what about Links? And why stop with browsers? If WordPad is on there, then shouldn't TextPad be there too? And if Outlook's installed, then you've got to have Thunderbird. And Opera (again). And Mulberry.
It would be nice if there were some way of preventing Microsoft from leveraging IE on the back of Windows that wasn't worse than the problem itself. But not including a browser is worse and the EU proposal for multiple browsers is worse than that still, imo.
There have even been attempts to integrate the browser even more fully into the OS. Microsoft was exploring this (albeit initial efforts were ugly), but I guess the EU action put a crimper on it and the possibility we might see something more radical and better developed.
e) Through the growing of poppies, it helps to fund terrorism worldwide.
There wasn't a drug export problem under the Taliban who were very anti-drugs. The poppy growing has become an issue post US invasion as destitute farmers have had to turn to it and a smashed Taliban has changed its policy.
Ostensibly, the USA demanded the handing over of Osama Bin Laden (possibly other members of Al Quaeda) who they accused of perpetrating the 9/11 attacks. It should be noted that the ruling Taliban actually agreed to this provided the US give them some evidence of guilt. We went through a few iterations of that with the US rebuffing the Taliban's offers of negotiation, until an invasion was actually begun. It should also be noted that the war was the best thing that happened to president Bush whose popularity was low and the validity of his election was still being called into question. Also look into the Afghanistan oil pipeline, something that had been wanted by some powerful US oil interests for some time. This could and did then progress once the USA occupied Afghanistan. It also gave the US a strategic base in the area, something that they wanted (Saudi Arabia was difficult and not ideal).
When a disaster happens, and the whole population of the earth is wiped out, it's unlikley to give either myself or my offspring much solace to know that some splinter of humanity still exists elsewhere.
Funny. I would take comfort in knowing that some people have escaped the disaster.
Boring to some (or most, you're right), but if you want a good treatment of something like this, try 'The Kraken Wakes', by John Wyndham. The aliens head straight for our deep oceans (they like the pressure down there), but its a tense and sometimes realistically depressing book. It's more about human nature than alien technology, so it's aged quite well (it's an old book from the man who wrote Day of the Triffids).
The implied logic of the GP is that if you annihilate another civilisation, you have indicated to other civilisations that you are a threat to them or their allies. You'd therefore better be certain that you can therefore get everyone in one go, because otherwise, out of sheer logical necessity, they're like to turn on you. The GP has missed another possibility which is that the annihilating civilisation is beyond being threatened themselves and doesn't need to fear reprisals. But this latter is unlikely for two reasons: Firstly, if you've reached a particular technological level it doesn't seem there's any reason why another couldn't do so. Secondly, if you're beyond being threatened, why go out of your way to wipe out others. The former is a more concrete argument than the former because we don't know our hypothetical alien's psychology, but both arguments carry weight.
It sounds interesting. You should contact the author (alien or human) and ask if they'd like it to be translated if it were a free release. If you need a proof-reader, let me know.
Nah, if the aliens want to learn English, they just need to post on Slashdot. Someone will be correcting their mistakes before you can say Alpha Centauri.
People don't call in the exterminator for butterflies, but stinging wasps and hornets get cleared away. Assuming we are on the level of pests to them, would you rather be liked or disliked?;)
I can't answer your last question for sure (of course), but I have long thought it likely that any extraterrestial intelligence we encounter / have encountered will not attempt to communicate with anyone per se, but with our culture or our species. The sheep dog doesn't care for the thought processes of a single sheep, it cares about the behaviour of the whole. Why lower yourself to talking to some "president" when you can talk to a culture through the introduction of new memes?
So it might have some nasty weapons but probably nothing we should really fear or that we could not destroy.
A little scientific knowledge doesn't occupy a lot of mass. For all we know, it might need nothing more than a captured human to extrapolate from, and then seed the planet from orbit with germ weapons.
But it might not need to resort to direct weapons. It would, in a knowledge-based economy, be staggeringly wealthy. And humans have demonstrated themselves woefully subject to greed and credulity. It could side with one faction on Earth and have willing allies. Or it could behave as in the film "The Man Who Fell to Earth" where the alien in disguise establishes some basic patents and proceeds to build a massive business empire from there simply through its superior intellect (I really like the scene where he is watching six televisions at once). If you want non-knowledge based wealth, it presumably has mobility within our solar system and some decent analysis tools if it got here and found us. There are whole asteroids up there which are practically great lumps of valuable minerals. It could work with us to provide that wealth and the next thing you know, hyper-rich alien again and we're right back to playing the human race against itself. But the knowlede is the thing. If the alien is smarter and more knowledgable than us, that's a powerful weapon in itself if it chooses. As the main character in Use of Weapons by Iain M. Banks remarks: "everything is a weapon."
You're exactly right, your privacy is none of my business. So don't expect me to take care of your privacy!
The site is the one that is breaking people's privacy, therefore your reasoning is flawed: "don't expect me to take care of your privacy" implies that it is mere inaction on the site's part and that they thus aren't obliged to help. But it is actually active behaviour on their part - the referring of information on you - that violates privacy.
As to whether code is running on the client PC, just how active is the average person expected to be to protect their privacy. Someone walks down the street naked and ends up on YouTube, most would say they have some responsibility for that. Someone leaves a laptop with their browsing history on the train, well they were careless but it's not their fault as much if someone picks it up and reveals to the world their favorite porn sites. If someone fails to install a plugin that monitors for spy-sites and keep it updated with a list of such sites and then scripts something to remove calls to such sites when it finds them embedded in a visited page? Well at that point we have crossed the line where you can say it's the user's fault for not protecting their privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're betting money that the Apocalypse will happen and society collapse, a lá I Am Legend ? Heh! I'll take that bet. You lose, you pay. I lose, neither of us will be around to collect and money will be worthless anyway.
Maybe you're misreading or whatever second-hand source you had was misreading it. Maybe by "whole of humanity is at risk" he means as opposed to "just Mexicans" etc. I.e. all countries could suffer from this because it's a pandemic. I don't know that this is what he meant, but it's a valid reading whereas "we are risking all of humanity" as the alternative sounds less likely coming from the WHO.
Leaving aside how you're likely to feel if someone you care about were killed by a pandemic, it probably wouldn't have the long term effect you anticipate. The usual response of human cultures to a wide-scale loss of life is breeding on a massive scale. The most effective means of reducing the population long-term appears to be a stable and prosperous society with effective education and opportunities for women. You can see the results in much of Western Europe. You get an ageing-population bubble, but that pops eventually. In comparison, wiping out 30% of the human race would have the same effect as a crash diet on an individual. A brief reduction followed by massive over-compensation. Look at the recovery from the two World Wars and the last pandemic if you want to see it in action.
I fear it is a cycle that occurs with successful projects (and sit comes). Once you've had a success, you have to either say "we did a good job" and move on (other than a bit of maintenance and bug fixing), or keep piling on more until the original success is mitigated by later dross.
Not that I think Firefox has become that bad. But I can well see where you're coming from. I like Konqueror myself. I've just got IE8, so I'll be giving that a try also.
I also agree (is this really Slashdot, or has my DNS been spoofed), but lets just clear up that the EU don't want MS to ship without a browser, but with multiple browsers. However, Microsoft have it right. I don't want a new computer cluttered up with multiple browsers. There are some browsers I may not want installed (do I really trust Google's browser?). Some browsers may come with terms and conditions I don't like and quite frankly it's just clutter to me and confusion to others. If I install Ubuntu or Kubuntu, okay, I can get other browsers easily, but they do come with a default one installed. Finally, if you do install multiple browsers, who gets approved and who does not? And by who? If we get IE, Firefox and Chrome does Opera sue? If we add Opera then what about Links? And why stop with browsers? If WordPad is on there, then shouldn't TextPad be there too? And if Outlook's installed, then you've got to have Thunderbird. And Opera (again). And Mulberry.
It would be nice if there were some way of preventing Microsoft from leveraging IE on the back of Windows that wasn't worse than the problem itself. But not including a browser is worse and the EU proposal for multiple browsers is worse than that still, imo.
There have even been attempts to integrate the browser even more fully into the OS. Microsoft was exploring this (albeit initial efforts were ugly), but I guess the EU action put a crimper on it and the possibility we might see something more radical and better developed.
There wasn't a drug export problem under the Taliban who were very anti-drugs. The poppy growing has become an issue post US invasion as destitute farmers have had to turn to it and a smashed Taliban has changed its policy.
Ostensibly, the USA demanded the handing over of Osama Bin Laden (possibly other members of Al Quaeda) who they accused of perpetrating the 9/11 attacks. It should be noted that the ruling Taliban actually agreed to this provided the US give them some evidence of guilt. We went through a few iterations of that with the US rebuffing the Taliban's offers of negotiation, until an invasion was actually begun. It should also be noted that the war was the best thing that happened to president Bush whose popularity was low and the validity of his election was still being called into question. Also look into the Afghanistan oil pipeline, something that had been wanted by some powerful US oil interests for some time. This could and did then progress once the USA occupied Afghanistan. It also gave the US a strategic base in the area, something that they wanted (Saudi Arabia was difficult and not ideal).
Funny. I would take comfort in knowing that some people have escaped the disaster.
I think you have probably just raised the most valid (and terrifying) concern about alien contact. What if they are "benevolent" against our will?
Boring to some (or most, you're right), but if you want a good treatment of something like this, try 'The Kraken Wakes', by John Wyndham. The aliens head straight for our deep oceans (they like the pressure down there), but its a tense and sometimes realistically depressing book. It's more about human nature than alien technology, so it's aged quite well (it's an old book from the man who wrote Day of the Triffids).
Unless of course they're being chased by the Cylons.
The implied logic of the GP is that if you annihilate another civilisation, you have indicated to other civilisations that you are a threat to them or their allies. You'd therefore better be certain that you can therefore get everyone in one go, because otherwise, out of sheer logical necessity, they're like to turn on you. The GP has missed another possibility which is that the annihilating civilisation is beyond being threatened themselves and doesn't need to fear reprisals. But this latter is unlikely for two reasons: Firstly, if you've reached a particular technological level it doesn't seem there's any reason why another couldn't do so. Secondly, if you're beyond being threatened, why go out of your way to wipe out others. The former is a more concrete argument than the former because we don't know our hypothetical alien's psychology, but both arguments carry weight.
It sounds interesting. You should contact the author (alien or human) and ask if they'd like it to be translated if it were a free release. If you need a proof-reader, let me know.
Nah, if the aliens want to learn English, they just need to post on Slashdot. Someone will be correcting their mistakes before you can say Alpha Centauri.
People don't call in the exterminator for butterflies, but stinging wasps and hornets get cleared away. Assuming we are on the level of pests to them, would you rather be liked or disliked? ;)
I can't answer your last question for sure (of course), but I have long thought it likely that any extraterrestial intelligence we encounter / have encountered will not attempt to communicate with anyone per se, but with our culture or our species. The sheep dog doesn't care for the thought processes of a single sheep, it cares about the behaviour of the whole. Why lower yourself to talking to some "president" when you can talk to a culture through the introduction of new memes?
A little scientific knowledge doesn't occupy a lot of mass. For all we know, it might need nothing more than a captured human to extrapolate from, and then seed the planet from orbit with germ weapons.
But it might not need to resort to direct weapons. It would, in a knowledge-based economy, be staggeringly wealthy. And humans have demonstrated themselves woefully subject to greed and credulity. It could side with one faction on Earth and have willing allies. Or it could behave as in the film "The Man Who Fell to Earth" where the alien in disguise establishes some basic patents and proceeds to build a massive business empire from there simply through its superior intellect (I really like the scene where he is watching six televisions at once). If you want non-knowledge based wealth, it presumably has mobility within our solar system and some decent analysis tools if it got here and found us. There are whole asteroids up there which are practically great lumps of valuable minerals. It could work with us to provide that wealth and the next thing you know, hyper-rich alien again and we're right back to playing the human race against itself. But the knowlede is the thing. If the alien is smarter and more knowledgable than us, that's a powerful weapon in itself if it chooses. As the main character in Use of Weapons by Iain M. Banks remarks: "everything is a weapon."
I'm presuming this would be Tentacle Porn, then?
Webtrends for anyone who can't be bothered to check.
Yep. That's how my parents kept me quiet as a baby, too. ;)
We get it - we're a bunch of Cassandras.
Cassandra was also right.
The site is the one that is breaking people's privacy, therefore your reasoning is flawed: "don't expect me to take care of your privacy" implies that it is mere inaction on the site's part and that they thus aren't obliged to help. But it is actually active behaviour on their part - the referring of information on you - that violates privacy.
As to whether code is running on the client PC, just how active is the average person expected to be to protect their privacy. Someone walks down the street naked and ends up on YouTube, most would say they have some responsibility for that. Someone leaves a laptop with their browsing history on the train, well they were careless but it's not their fault as much if someone picks it up and reveals to the world their favorite porn sites. If someone fails to install a plugin that monitors for spy-sites and keep it updated with a list of such sites and then scripts something to remove calls to such sites when it finds them embedded in a visited page? Well at that point we have crossed the line where you can say it's the user's fault for not protecting their privacy.
You fool - such relief would be continual.
It was only a flesh wound.
Given that his bro-in-law posts his responses on Slashdot, that's probably pretty wise.